As we begin this latest banking crisis, it's important to see who stands where. It's easy to argue that Obama has been too gentle with Wall Street and that he fell for their threats. No question about it. That said, at least he was calling for the banks to accept reform. Compare that to Mitt Romney, who called for a repeal of the already watered down Dodd-Frank reform.
Think about this because it's important. If Romney is against Dodd-Frank, which is nowhere near the level of Depression Era banking legislation, where would we end up with a Romney administration? Many believe JPMorgan's losses will be much more than the reported $2 billion so yes, there is a chance of a lot more pain on Wall Street in the coming years. The last thing we need is Romney out there backing up his own type on Wall Street.
Flashback to August 2011 when the Harvard educated Romney repeats the silly argument that Dodd-Frank was 2,000 pages, whatever that's supposed to mean, then calls for a repeal. Boston Globe:
In the past, Romney has criticized the bill for creating uncertainty in the financial industry and causing bankers and the financial service employees to pull back .So how "burdensome" is regulation now, Mitt?
Today, he went further and said he would repeal Dodd-Frank, if he were elected president. “The extent of regulation in the banking industry has become extraordinarily burdensome following Dodd-Frank,” Romney told a roundtable of 18 businessmen at The Common Man Restaurant.
“I’d like to repeal Dodd Frank, recognizing that some revisions make sense,” Romney said.