GOP Will Meet Dems 'Half Way' On Financial Bill: (Senator) Shelby

[sabra]

Source: CNBC

Hours before Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd is to release draft legislation for sweeping financial reform, the panel's ranking Republican member said his party would meet Democrats "at least half way."

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama told CNBC that though he hadn't seen Dodd's bill—scheduled to be released at 2 p.m. ET Monday—he and his GOP colleagues agreed with "85 to 90 percent of it."

Sources familiar with the Dodd's draft say it would consolidate banking regulators and create a systemic risk council. It would also create a new consumer watchdog agency within the Federal Reserve.

The provisions are very similar to much of what was reported to be agreed to by Dodd and the GOP's chief negotiator Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee during a month of discussions aimed at creating a bipartisan blueprint. Shelby was peripherally involved in those talks, having stepped back from the lead role in early February.

As the Dodd draft now stands, sources said it calls for a new systemic-risk council with a presidentially-appointed chairperson and seven other members. They include the Treasury Secretary as well as the chairs of the Fed, FDIC, SEC and CFTC and a new banking regulator. This council would have the authority to handle the resolution of too-big-to fail firms, according to the source.

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/id/35873175

[msongs]

1. time to regulate all those derivatives and anything else traded in secret plus tax them nt

[Downwinder]

2. Tax like other gambling.

No deduction for expenses and tax the winnings.

[jmowreader]

20. There is a deduction for some gambling losses

According to Internal Revenue Code Section 165(d), "Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of gains from such transactions." The IRS defines a "wagering gain" as "the full amount of the winnings, less the cost of placing the winning bet or wager." If you win $10,000 playing poker in Las Vegas but have to bet $6000 to do it, your gain is $4000, and you can offset $4000 of your losses on your tax form--which means as far as the IRS is concerned you didn't win anything.

Another catch with gambling loss: unlike other investment losses, you can't offset non-gambling gains with gambling losses. Let's say you have three sources of income. You own a used car lot, you trade municipal bonds, and you play poker on Saturday nights. This tax year you had $1 million in income and $1,000,600 in expenses in your used car lot, $1 million in income and $45,000 in expenses in your municipal bond business, and you bet $550,000 to win $1 million in your poker business. You can offset the $600 loss in your used car lot with your muni income, but you just have to eat the $100,000 in gambling loss.

You can also declare yourself a professional gambler, and this has certain tax advantages: a professional gambler can use Schedule C to report gambling income and loss, but a "casual" gambler must use Schedule A--so a "casual" gambler has to have something else to push his total deductions over the standard deduction to make his gambling deductible. Homeownership is probably the main one, and even then it's not certain; right now the standard deduction is high enough many homeowners don't have the interest expenses needed to justify itemizing. (Right now the standard deduction for Married Filing Jointly is $11,400; you'd need to be paying AT LEAST $1000 per month in interest and property taxes to push you over that.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109218803770238434

But gambling losses are deductible. If you're a professional poker player you could probably also deduct things like lodging and meals needed to play in poker tournaments, transportation to poker tournaments and so forth.

[No Elephants]

24. This needs more than fiddling with the tax code. It needs MEANINGFUL regulation.

Not just another arm of the fed.

We need to keep bad securities off the market, not for the sake of those who make money on them anyway, but for the sake of those who lose their pension funds on them.

FDR and his Congress got it right. Obama and his Congress are getting it wrong.

[optimator]

3. bend over, America

bipartisanship is never good for the People.

[No Elephants]

23. This is not bi-partisanship. It's a one party system. Please see Reply 22.

[Phlem]

4. Riiiiiiiiiiiight

Yep they're all about bipartisanship.

Feh

-p

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Meet "half way" on an already stripped, neutered, and watered down bill?

:eyes:

[O is 44]

6. This is very bad news, don't buy it Dodd.

[doc03]

7. I heard one of the a--holes on CNBC just an hour ago say we

all knew the whole system was going to fail 1 1/2 years before the collapse. What a bunch of bullshit the so called experts on CNBC such as Larry Kudlow and Cramer were pushing the Wall Street scam up until the day of the collapse.

[AlbertCat]

8. Like they were "half way" elected! Who cares if the where they "meet" us....if ever?

[No Elephants]

27. Meh. Soon, they'll have to step to the right to meet us.

[groundloop]

9. Their definition of half a mile is what, about 10 yards?

[gratuitous]

28. "Half way" defined

Imagine two men standing on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon. One guy hollers that he'll meet the other guy "half way" across, but the other guy has to take the first step as a sign of good faith. Then the first guy can whine about what an intransigent meanie the second guy is for not even taking the first step toward compromise. The media, of course, listen only to the first guy.

[mbperrin]

10. he and his GOP colleagues agreed with "85 to 90 percent of it."

90% is the new halfway! No WONDER I've been so mixed up! If Dems get 10% of what we want, that's HALF!

D'oh! What a fool I've been! NOW I see the bipartisanship!

Buy part is a shit!

[No Elephants]

25. Which 10% of Dodd's bill is for Democrats?

[pdefalla]

11. NOT IN THE FED!

That's where the so-called consumer protection is now! This needs to be an independent department free from the Federal Reserve and free from the Treasury Department. We cannot subsume consumer protection within the very same groups that are enabling consumer exploitation!

[w4rma]

14. Yup. The Fed needs no more power. (nt)

[onethatcares]

16. m first thoughts also.

why would we let the wolves guard the henhouse? This is exactly what happens everytime to the citizens. What we need is three actual citizens, no, make that four, one from each quarter of the country to be on the board. We need to slash whatever compensation the board members get to $100.00 a week and they have to stay at the Motel 6 whenever they meet.

Jeez, to do otherwise, we may as well just give the fuckers our checkbooks with all the checks signed.

[tclambert]

12. I think the Republicans are terrified of the budget reconciliation process.

If Democrats finally give up on bipartisanship and use the reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster threats of Republicans, the Republicans become irrelevant. That's what they really fear. They can complain that Democrats are somehow "cheating" by insisting on majority rule, but if they lose the power to say "No" to everything, who cares what they think? And what big donors will contribute to a completely ineffectual party?

[No Elephants]

26. Republicans have nothing to fear. Democrats are passing GOP bills.

If they pass them, the GOP wins. If they don't pass them, the GOP also wins.

If Dems pass GOP bills, they get the big bucks donations, but the Republicans also get them. If they don't pass the GOP bills, they gin up the Democratic base against the bad guy Republicans.

The only ones who are losing are Americans (other than corporations).

[Blue Owl]

13. Yuck

Next time you're getting robbed, compromise with the thieves and only give them half of what they want.

Yeah that sounds real good.

[AlbertCat]

15. Next time you're getting robbed,

I know.... they can fix it later!:hide:

[MidwestTransplant]

17. Dodds bill already met them MORE than half way.

[unkachuck]

18. '...agreed with "85 to 90 percent of it."'

....I really don't need to know any provisions of this bill....if shellbee is for it, I'm against it....

[PinkFloyd]

19. Agreed!

From what little I've seen it's very watered down and the fact that the GOP likes it tells me it doesn't regulate much, if any at all.

[jmowreader]

21. I'd like to know the 10-15 percent they don't like

Why the Republicans are on board with this one: The electorate is fucking PISSED right now. The Republicans know it.

I think the "legitimate" part of the banking world--yes, there are some bankers who give a shit; maybe not many but there are some--and the Republicans really want this bill because right now, the bad actors are driving the whole financial industry. Remember the old Smith Barney ads where John Houseman would stand in a very classic old stockbroker's office and say, with grandness and authority, "we make money the old fashioned way--we EARN it"? That shit won't play these days; if Smith Barney has a strategy of buy and hold that will make you six percent forever, but John Jones and Company has one that will double your money in 90 days but God help you if you stay in for 90 days and 10 seconds because it revolves around buying D-rated bonds and pink sheets stock on margin, Smith Barney's brokers are going to do a lot of web surfing waiting for customers while John Jones is making money hand over fist. The bankers know it has to end, and so do the Republicans. By letting the Democrats write the bill, they're safe: if it works they can claim bipartisanship and take all the credit for it, but it if fails they have someone to point fingers at.

[No Elephants]

22. Dodd drafted a GOP bill before negotiation even started. Stick a fork in the Democratic Party.