The sound of the nation’s integrity hitting rock bottom.

….. linky here:  http://www.reuters.com/article…

Stick it in diary ?, he’s given several when da google is used to search “obama speech financial reform”

 excerpt Obama speech 4/22/10

“A comprehensive plan to achieve these reforms has passed the House of Representatives. A Senate version is currently being debated, drawing on the ideas of Democrats and Republicans. Both bills represent significant improvement on the flawed rules we have in place today, despite the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape them to their special interests. I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector. And I am here to explain what reform will look like, and why it matters.

“First, the bill being considered in the Senate would create what we did not have before: a way to protect the financial system, the broader economy, and American taxpayers in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail. If an ordinary local bank approaches insolvency, we have a process through the FDIC that insures depositors and maintains confidence in the banking system. And it works. Customers and taxpayers are protected and the owners and management lose their equity. But we don’t have any kind of process designed to contain the failure of a Lehman Brothers or any of the largest and most interconnected financial firms in our country.

“That’s why, when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen to some of the world’s biggest companies — companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding hundreds of billions of dollars in assets — had to take place in hurried discussions in the middle of the night. That’s why, to save the entire economy from an even worse catastrophe, we had to deploy taxpayer dollars. And although much of that money has now been paid back – and my administration has proposed a fee to be paid by large financial firms to recover the rest — the American people should never have been put in that position in the first place.

“It is for this reason that we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and businesses. And from the start, I’ve insisted that the financial industry — and not taxpayers — shoulder the costs in the event that a large financial company should falter. The goal is to make certain that taxpayers are never again on the hook because a firm is deemed “too big to fail.

“Now, there is a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. But what is not legitimate is to suggest that we’re enabling or encouraging future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. That may make for a good sound bite, but it’s not factually accurate. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. Only with reform can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. A vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That’s the truth.

“And these changes have the added benefit of creating incentives within the industry to ensure that no one company can ever threaten to bring down the whole economy. To that end, the bill would also enact what’s known as the Volcker Rule: which places some limits on the size of banks and the kinds of risks that banking institutions can take. This will not only safeguard our system against crises; this will also make our system stronger and more competitive by instilling confidence here at home and across the globe.

/snip

“Second, reform would bring new transparency to many financial markets. As you know, part of what led to this crisis was firms like AIG and others making huge and risky bets — using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments — in ways that defied accountability, or even common sense. In fact, many practices were so opaque and complex that few within these companies — let alone those charged with oversight — were fully aware of the massive wagers being made. That’s what led Warren Buffett to describe derivatives that were bought and sold with little oversight as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” And that’s why reform will rein in excess and help ensure that these kinds of transactions take place in the light of day.

Okay, going thru the speech all I see in concrete is he wants to do this Volcker rule  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V… ** and have more “transparency” and isn’t really saying how he’d shut down the bad actors nor get the too big to fail banks to spread the wealth out to many smaller ones.  Did I miss anything ?

** restricts banks from certain speculative investments

WAPO, January, http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Volcker had been arguing that banks, which are sheltered by the government because lending is important to the economy, should be prevented from taking advantage of that safety net to make speculative investments.

To make his case, he met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and gave numerous speeches on the subject, traveling to at least nine cities on several continents to warn that banks had developed “unmanageable conflicts of interest” as they made investments for clients and themselves simultaneously.

“We ought to have some very large institutions whose primary purpose is a kind of fiduciary responsibility to service consumers, individuals, businesses and governments by providing outlets for their money and by providing credit,” he said during one speech in Toronto. “They ought to be the core of the credit and financial system. Those institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity.”

Sounds sort of subversive, the customer being able to get their money if they need it.

As this term progresses, I can see why Timmeh and Petahhr are getting nervous.