Quote

I mean, Dodd-Frank is strangling small community banks. It doesn't make any difference what the interest rate is. They're not - they're not going to loan the money because they can't make any money for one thing plus the cost of compliance.

The banks are not lending, at least from what I see. They were so wild and reckless back in the good times that they got burned terribly.

I think Dodd-Frank has contributed to a concentration of banking assets in the hands of a small number of banks.

Governments need to be authorized to provide 'open bank assistance.' The convolutions of Dodd-Frank aimed at 'avoiding' this tactic are ludicrous and will prove to be extremely costly to the system.

The Dodd Bill does very little to reduce financial risks. What it will do is make Wall Street even more the servant of bureaucrats in Washington and the political party in power. That is not in the best interests of the American people.

Banks are slowly but surely lending again, and never again will taxpayers foot the bill for Wall Street's excesses. In case we forgot, that was the change we believed in. That was the change we fought for. That was the change President Obama delivered.

Certainly, some of the anti-bank rhetoric has shifted a little bit, but on either side of the aisle, there seems to be different tacts. On one side of the aisle, you see a proposed scaling back of Dodd-Frank. On the other, a proposed reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

I'll be very clear about this: I'm not a fan of getting rid of Dodd-Frank.

Let's be honest: It wasn't just the banks who messed up. There were a lot of people who tried to buy assets they couldn't afford. That's a reality.

It would not be a bad idea if bankers were to go and sit occasionally with politicians in their political surgeries, where they might get a sense of the injustice that some of the community feel about the banks.