even before the bills were written. first the republican claim that the senate bill includes future bailouts for the banks, encouraging them to take more risks. in fact, the bill forces the banks to create a fund that would be used for liquidating banks. what s not legitimate is to suggest that somehow the legislation being proposed is going to encourage future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. that makes for a good sound bite, but it s not factually accurate. it is not true. in fact, the system as it stands [ applause ] the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive costly taxpayer bailouts, and it s only with reform that we can avoid a similar outcome in the future. in other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. that s the truth.
banks are not only give more compensation in bonuses than the non-bailed out banks, they re also the banks handing out the fewest loans to americans who need them right now. so our tax dollars have helped them, they have not turned around and helped the american people who need that money for a home, to start a business, to sustain a business, all these things that, unless president obama really takes this thing like president roosevelt did, we re going to see another crash and they re going to get away with another crime. michael, you didn t take your high school economics course but you ve done an awful lot of homework on this subject in the last few years. looking at the history of our economies in the united states and internationally, what has happened to capitalism? did regulation in europe and the united states stifle the growth of wealth in the capitalist system? no, actually when there was regulation and when there were
madison square garden in 1936 where he basically, he put it on the line to wall street. he said, government by organized money is just as evil as government by organized mob. and he told the bankers and the wall street people that he wanted historians to record his term as president as the president who became the master on behalf of the american people, the master of wall street and these banks, not the other way around where we all work for them and in many cases lose our jobs, our homes and any number of things because of this incredible crime that s been committed. i just i can t believe that nobody s been arrested yet. and i m glad that the s.e.c. filed those civil charges. but hopefully the criminal charges are coming somewhere down the pike. what do you make of the transparency issue? there s a lot of talk about let s make all this transparent. but with some of these things,
but as i say, that would be my question in a normal universe. my question now is, whatever government does, whatever it does on wall street, can it possibly mismanage wall street worse than wall street has already done itself? yeah, that s an excellent point. i think what can prevent that from happening, that mismanagement again, this isn t really in the bill right now there s no agency that s going to be the watchdog over wall street and these banks to make sure that they do oboy the law. they ve got it set up that way, and that s why, you know, the stock market went up after obama s speech today. they weren t too worried about what was going to happen. and in fact, i think they were kind of happy that there wasn t going to be any real enforcement, any real teeth in this. and they re just going to go about their merry way like they are right now. the story in usa today that pointed out how the bailed out banks are not only give more
and i think that unless the sherrod brown amendment, and the senator from delaware, they re offering an amendment. and i hope that that is brought to the floor because it will at least put a cap on the size of these banks so they won t be allowed to be too big to fail from that point on. but the current bill doesn t say that. it s still going to allow them to be too big to fail, and frankly i agree with the economist simon johnson who says these banks should be broken up. into about 28 different banks. that would protect us. michael, i always find in a normal universe, i find it to be a legitimate question about whether government can get something more right than, say, the private sector. let s just for the moment think about, well, okay, the size of banks. what are the odds of government being able to measure that and get that more right than the private sector would do.