Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What Obama's FCC is about to do to the Internet is similar to what Clinton did to broadcasting in 96 [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)98. If you're interested
in acknowledging instead of denying the facts, here:
Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the Council) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (Bank of America or the bank) poses a grave threat to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, shall mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institutions mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, shall mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institutions mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
Orderly Liquidation Fund
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" which is defined as "[ ] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" which is defined as "[ ] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
Occupy the SEC Submits Letters to FDIC Regarding its Proposed Implementation of Too Big to Fail Regulations Under Title II of the Dodd Frank Act
New York, NY March 26, 2014
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has submitted a letter to the FDIC regarding that agencys proposed regulations implementing Title II of the Dodd Frank Act (DFA). Title II of the DFA contains vital provisions that, if properly implemented, would help address the troublesome risks presented by Too Big to Fail (TBTF) financial institutions.
- more-
http://www.occupythesec.org/files/SIFI_Press_Release.pdf
New York, NY March 26, 2014
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has submitted a letter to the FDIC regarding that agencys proposed regulations implementing Title II of the Dodd Frank Act (DFA). Title II of the DFA contains vital provisions that, if properly implemented, would help address the troublesome risks presented by Too Big to Fail (TBTF) financial institutions.
- more-
http://www.occupythesec.org/files/SIFI_Press_Release.pdf
Occupy the SEC Submits Comment Letter to Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Risky & Anticompetitive Physical Commodities Transactions
New York, NY - March 29, 2014
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has submitted a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Board) in response to that agencys advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the range of activities that banks are permitted to engage in in the commodities arena. The ANPR is extremely timely because of recent abuses by banks in the commodities markets, especially because such abuses have been both egregious and unpunished.
The Board now has the opportunity to reinstate the historical separation in American law between financial and commercial activities, which previously kept banks from becoming Too Big to Fail and overwhelming the economy. The Board can pass regulations that prohibit institutions receiving federal depository insurance and implicit federal guarantees from acting in ways that threaten environmental pollution and risk systematic financial contagion. The agency has the power to limit or mitigate the speculation in physical commodities and derivatives markets that has created artificial scarcity in products such as wheat and oil on which billions of peopleand governmentsare reliant.
- more -
http://www.occupythesec.org/files/OSEC_Commodities_Press_Release.pdf
New York, NY - March 29, 2014
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has submitted a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Board) in response to that agencys advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the range of activities that banks are permitted to engage in in the commodities arena. The ANPR is extremely timely because of recent abuses by banks in the commodities markets, especially because such abuses have been both egregious and unpunished.
The Board now has the opportunity to reinstate the historical separation in American law between financial and commercial activities, which previously kept banks from becoming Too Big to Fail and overwhelming the economy. The Board can pass regulations that prohibit institutions receiving federal depository insurance and implicit federal guarantees from acting in ways that threaten environmental pollution and risk systematic financial contagion. The agency has the power to limit or mitigate the speculation in physical commodities and derivatives markets that has created artificial scarcity in products such as wheat and oil on which billions of peopleand governmentsare reliant.
- more -
http://www.occupythesec.org/files/OSEC_Commodities_Press_Release.pdf
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
121 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What Obama's FCC is about to do to the Internet is similar to what Clinton did to broadcasting in 96 [View all]
Armstead
Apr 2014
OP
Telecommunications Reform Act signed on February 8, 1996. Faux News begins October 7, 1996. Hmm..nt
Mnemosyne
Apr 2014
#1
The first 'episode' I watched chilled me to the bone and have rarely watched it since 1996.
Mnemosyne
Apr 2014
#8
The end result is that speech is silenced not directly by the government (too obvious a violation
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#6
It's interesting that John McCain joined Russ Feingold in voting against this crappy bill
cascadiance
Apr 2014
#61
The "Primary Purpose of Environmental Regulations is the Regulating Environmentalist"
2banon
Apr 2014
#111
And who would have imagined a Democratic president would go along with this. And Obama
quinnox
Apr 2014
#10
He talks a great game...but he sure doesn't walk his talk when it comes to taming Corporate America
Armstead
Apr 2014
#25
Yep. Clinton did some real boneheaded things, of which this (the communications act) was one.
silvershadow
Apr 2014
#18
Electing Hillary would effectively give the Clintons a THIRD presidential term.
Divernan
Apr 2014
#48
Me too -- I wish this damn country would recognize the common sense rule that...
Armstead
Apr 2014
#24
The "adults' are the people in power (or their apologists) who keep screwing us over but who....
Armstead
Apr 2014
#57
What, they pass a law, it allows banks to continue to stay too big and get bigger....
Armstead
Apr 2014
#73
"the opposition party tears into their opponent: everything he does is thus marvelous
MisterP
Apr 2014
#38
Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and "proudly" signed DADT and DOMA into law. n/t
ProSense
Apr 2014
#62
Instead of simply attacking everyone who comes here to express displeasure over
NorthCarolina
Apr 2014
#77
Because the WH and Congress could reclassify and/or find ways to regulate it in the public interest
Armstead
Apr 2014
#49
Actually, Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on February 8, 1996.
Efilroft Sul
Apr 2014
#79
Yes I forsee a lucrative career as a corporate "advisor" and speaker ahead for President Obama
Armstead
Apr 2014
#85
I read this and never understand what the personal implications will be. Someone pretend you are
jwirr
Apr 2014
#103
Thank you. That makes it a personal issue. I think my congress reps are against this: Franken, Amy K
jwirr
Apr 2014
#116
And don't forget: In the first place, the airwaves on which the radio and TV stations
JDPriestly
Apr 2014
#107