February 9, 2012
I’m writing in support of a strong Volcker Rule. My family and I were affected by the economic collapse of 2008, and we don’t want it to happen again.
I worked at Goldman Sachs for 12 years. I worked for three billionaire private investors handling their private monies and running rounds of financing for their private equity consortiums. I know how this game is played. Big banks have no business gambling amounts of money that can destroy our economy. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE LAWS THAT PREVENT THEIR DESTROYING OUR ECONOMY. We write the rules, they have to obey them. See how simple that is?
We would never take the risks they've taken, yet we end up paying for it when they screw up. WHY????? This makes no sense. So the only way to protect us from them is to write laws like the Volcker Rule, and it should remain without any loopholes whatsoever. Zero tolerance. It's the only way our economy can remain a first world economy. Do you really want the moral responsibility ON YOUR SHOULDERS, to be known for the rest of time as the ones who allowed such a thing to happen to the United States? For I personally will see to it that your grandchildren and their children know exactly your role in this underhanded scheme to turn our economy into a piggy bank for a few greedy and venal few.
They should all be in jail already. THAT would prevent a repeat. Instead, we bail them out! What sense is there in that? They'll only do it again, and next time it'll be even worse because we've proven to them that we won't let them fail, no matter what they do!
As you prepare the final rule, bear in mind the fundamental goal of the rule – to ban big banks from exposing consumers and taxpayers to risky proprietary trades.
Banks that break the rule should face swift, automatic penalties for violations. Violations of the Volcker Rule endanger the stability of our financial system. They should not be treated lightly.
Exemptions should only be allowed if they do not undermine this goal. If an exemption would result in exposing consumers and taxpayers to bank risk, it should be rejected.
Thank you for considering my comment,
Karen Bauer
New York, NY