Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, it's Very Bad.

    Dodd-Frank should not be needed. Companies, whether they are large or small, should know how to be responsible. Needing a bailout is not being responsible. They should know how to manage their money and work on a budget. If they cannot do this then they should fall, just as any small business would. Just because a company is larger, does not give it more rights than a small business. The government should not bail out these companies, putting the United States in further deficit.

  • Yes and no, but more yes.

    Dodd-Frank attempts to reign in big business and prevent things like the bail-outs from happening again, which is all well and good. But the thing is the bail-outs should never have happened in the first place. This is capitalism. The banks and companies that were bailed out should have been allowed to die, as upstarts who were making good decisions were allowed to prosper as their rivals fell. Dodd-Frank is unnecessary.

  • Yes it could be very bad for the economy!

    I believe that big businesses would abuse this privilege. Like AIG, they would over budget and expect the government to bail them out! Banks and the stock exchange would need a bail out on only certain circumstances because they do control a large part of our economy! If big business cannot control their spending then they should not be a business!

  • Dodd Frank regulates Abusive Banks

    -Why did we have to bailout AIG and Lehman? Why did the government package a 700 billion bailout? Because the Banks failed due to their unregulated practices and their engagement in risky speculation.
    Dodd Frank addresses this with high regulation and in areas such as the derivative market (which was never regulated before and costed government 100 billion). Dodd Frank also created the whistle blower act which would prevent companies from "seeking revenge" on employees who informed the regulator of their unfair/illegal practices. Dodd Frank created a consumer protection act and many other beneficial acts.
    Opponents argue that the bailout should never have happened. However, without the bailouts, the banks would fail. If they failed, who would be loaning to small businesses? These Banks had a monopoly and owned massive percentages of mortgages, loans, and other services. If they failed, the whole market would have collapsed. However, in a healthy economy, we would not have to bail them out because our economy could take the load.

    In conclusion, Dodd Frank was a massive improvement and something the government should have implemented before the bailout of 2008.

  • No. I think Dodd-Frank was very much needed and it doesn't go far enough.

    I believe that we have to reign in businesses, especially those deemed "too big to fail." AIG has floated the idea of suing the government, and that is just one of the many absurdities that these companies think they can get away with. We need government oversight and regulation to ensure that the system is fair. Without Dodd-Frank, the banking industry would get to run wild again.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.