Going after Fed next?

[anthonycacace]

It seems the contract with the FED expired in 2013. I didn't see a renewal, did anyone else.

Yes, the McFadden Act of 1927 rechartered the bank, "After the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law." (Public Law 69-639, Sec. 18.) And here is the text in bold that was amended in the Federal Reserve Act, " Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller o f the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall becom e a b ody corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power—
First. adopt and use a corporate seal.
Second. T o have succession for a period of tw enty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an A ct of Congress, or umess its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law. (Public Law 63-43, Section 4.)

So, there is no contract or other agreement to 'expire.'

On to the original topic - what a great idea for the US to bow out of worldwide discussions on financial regulatory issues. Yep, makes great sense to stop discussions with others who MAY, but also may NOT, agree with our position and lose the ability to provide leadership on such issues. Not to mention, many financial institutions are worldwide and, as such, any US based bank, operating throughout the world, would be required to follow the same directives as their foreign competitors, when operating outside the US. But why have a US rep at the table to understand the nuances, eh?

For repeal of the fiduciary rule; why is this even an issue? Shouldn't one expect when they hire a professional to advise them on an issue that said professional would act in the best interest of their client opposed to their own selfish interest? Also, how does Dodd-Frank place a limit on consumer choice such as the article is suggesting? (PS - I have access to WSJ and could not see a good explanation in the sub linked article within the Breitbart one, so I truly am curious how one can hold this opinion.)

[TS FAN]

First look closer at the Dodd Frank. It was a weak bill to start and can not be eliminated with an executive order. The order will say something like examine the bill. Congress has to change it, if they see fit. If they do, it would be a good time to put a zipper in you mattress.

A little background on this. The biggest and most important part is to keep Comercial banks from gambling your money, like investment banks. Something like this, The Glass Stegal bill served us well for over a half century after the great depression. When it went away here come s big recession with the housing crisis. You expect gambling with investments but not a thing they should do with your savings and excess checking account. This is how banks fail.

Dodd/ Frank also caused small banks to go out of business and start up small business struggle to get loans. This needs to change. The reasons for the failed Global economy in 2008 were not corrected with Dodd Frank. Banks gambling with our savings etc absolutely had to be stopped, though.BTW Both of those two clowns were partly responsible for the big banks failing in the first place. Because they are Dems. the media mostly covered up their ignoring of the jobs they were supposed to be doing. Barney famously told the People. "Fanny and Freddy are in good shape, no need to worry"