Hillary Clinton Quotes

The Obama administration's plan is to have the Federal Reserve regulate banks that might pose a 'systemic risk' if they were to fail.

There's a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. Let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces.

I want to say this to Citi Bank. I agree with you that the Dodd Frank regulatory bill is not perfect. If it were, you would be broken up into little pieces.

We need to repeal Dodd-Frank act. It is eviscerating small businesses and small banks.

The only way to make sure no bank is too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big.

The Federal Reserve has a responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions and to contain systemic risks in financial markets.

Regulation is necessary, particularly in a sector, like the banking sector, which exposes countries and people to a risk.

We need financial regulation that allows businesses and the banks they use to have access to the tools that help keep prices of consumer goods - like groceries and home heating oil - steady, while ensuring that the taxpayers are never again on the hook for the types of wild bets that helped crash the economy in 2008.

Limits should be placed on how big big banks can become.

Over the objections, where they sound like squealing pigs, over the objections of Romney and all his allies, we passed some of the toughest Wall Street regulations in history, turning Wall Street back into the allocator of capital it always has been and no longer a casino. And they want to repeal it.

We don't have a good legal justification for breaking up the banking system. But if I could wave a magic wand, I'd break up the banking system.

It is probably the case that some regulation of financing will make crises less likely, and I would say higher capital requirements are an almost fail-safe way to make banks safer. But there are a lot of other things that may not be doing that, and so we need to be careful about sort of, like, rushing to one conclusion or another.

I mean, everyone agrees with stress tests for banks. I mean that's clear. But banks should do that on their own. And they should worry about their own capital functioning. That's what they should do. It shouldn't be a government function.

Dodd-Frank has disproportionately burdened community banks, despite their having no role in the financial crisis.

There are elements of Dodd-Frank that clearly need to be curtailed.

To enable large U.S. banks to support their clients better, the Volcker rule should be clarified.

We don't have a good legal justification for breaking up the banking system.

The investment banks should either choose to be regulated as banks or should arrange to conduct their affairs to not require the stop-gap support of the Federal Reserve.

My fantasy is to break up the big banks. I wish we would end 'too big to fail' in our banking system.

I would drastically revise much of the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation, which I call the 'Bureaucrat Full Employment Act.'

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

Make the financial industry pay for its mistakes. That's the idea behind the best of the Obama administration's reform proposals: If banks issue securities backed by mortgages, say, then require them to hold some of that paper so that they will bear some of the losses.

Limiting the destructive risk-taking by large financial firms and banks which are 'too big to fail' is needed.

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.

Some of my colleagues are unwilling to vote for any Dodd-Frank reforms, partly out of the political fear that any reforms will be seen as reducing regulations on the financial sector.