Hello:

When an institution is TOO big to fail, it means that IF they DO fail, We go down the crapper WITH them. We KNOW about that because it ALREADY happened to us. Having had that experience, I've posted several times about our need to BREAK up those institutions, only to be rebuffed by right wingers...

Now, a LOT of things surprise me about their logic, but HERE we have the Sword of Damocles hanging over our economy, and for, apparently, ideological reasons, it MUST REMAIN..

Not surprisingly, we've run into a criminal bank, HSBC (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/opinion/hsbc-too-big-to-indict.html?nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20121212&adxnnlx=1355321699-c2CqwYyquGrT55JF69eOjw), that SHOULD be torn apart and their managers THROWN into the clink... But, they're TOO BIG. If we did that, guess what? You got it. We'll go down with them...

Why would WE put ourselves in that position? More importantly, why do the right wingers INSIST that we STAY in that position?

excon

BS a whole bunch of them should be frog marched wearing orange jump suits . By the way ;I am in favor of breaking up the banks .What I am not in favor of is bailouts. By the way . Where is Jon Corzine these days ?

I'm not sure where you get this idea that we've rebuffed the idea of breaking up the banks. I don't like big banks, I especially despise Bank of America. My money is in a local family-owned bank... they're good people.

Last I heard Corzine was raising money for Obama's campaign and pondering starting a hedge fund (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/jon-corzine-hedge-fund_n_1791198.html). No, seriously. He wants you to trust him with your money.

Hello again,

You said, (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/too-big-fail-still-us-610438.html)
Let them fail then .

Steve said, (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/too-big-fail-still-us-610438.html)
let them fail Ex, let them fail.

I said (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/too-big-fail-still-us-610438.html),
Given that they're TOO BIG to fail, we're going to go down with them... Wouldn't it have been better to break them up in to smaller banks, like I suggested?? Then they could fail and we could thumb our noses at them...

Now, you SAY,
BS a whole bunch of them should be frog marched wearing orange jump suits

Well, of course THEY SHOULD, but I have to remind you, that they WON'T because, they're still TOO BIG TO FAIL. If we do bust 'em, we GO DOWN TOO! I didn't then, and STILL don't think you grasp that. That's exactly what TOO BIG TO FAIL means..

THIS is a PERFECT example of how it works out. The banksters are THUMBING their noses at US, and they're DOING it WITH your blessings.

If ONLY you had listened to me and the OWS when we were TELLING you that..

Excon

Steve said, (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/too-big-fail-still-us-610438.html)


Um, that was paraclete (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2941782-post6.html). I'm Steve, not tom, not clete.

Hello again, Fred:

You guys look too much alike.

excon

I'm the Blue Heeler puppy, tom's the Yankees logo and clete is some figure eight thingy - no resemblance at all. You need new glasses, or maybe it's trouble seeing through the smoke.

And I said :
creative distruction is necessary in a capitalist system. It is through government intervention that companies become too big to fail. The idea that a company can be bailed out creates a situation that encourages reckless and irresponsible risk taking . By guaranteeing the survival it encourages the ignoring the moral hazards inherent in excess risk taking .

Hello again, tom:

So, you think breaking them up IS bailing them out? Okee doakee.

excon

Nope I think bailiing them out extends their flawed existence . The only reason a breakup would be needed is because government intervention allowed them to prosper outside of normal market competition. In the case of HSBC the government should arrest anyone responsible for drug and terror money laundering . Nothing difficult about that . You think if HSBC went belly up there wouldn't be other banks ready to pick up the pieces ?

Hello again, tom:


You think if HSBC went belly up there wouldn't be other banks ready to pick up the pieces ?Nahhhh, it's not me. It's the Justice Department..

Ok, I admit it WAS the governments' fault that they got TOO BIG TO FAIL... It probably had something to do with that scoundrel Barney Frank. Or, maybe it was the repeal of Sarbaines Oxley?

In any case, WHO CARES who's fault it is? What I care about is that there are LOTS and LOTS of banks out there that are TOO BIG TO FAIL, just WAITING to bring us DOWN. And we'll SEE this happen AGAIN, and then AGAIN.

You DIDN'T support breaking them up, no matter WHAT you say now... Do you NOW support government action to BREAK 'em up?? Am I all wet with my Sword of Damocles comparison??

Excon

PS> (edited) It's becoming clear to me that you don't BELIEVE that banks ARE, or EVER will be TOO BIG TO FAIL. I suspect you think the phrase is a liberal trick, or something.. I really don't know.

Speech you are right what I say is let them fail, and speech and I are nothing alike in our views, and I say all those who break the law go to jail and particularly bankers who fail in their duty of trust. There is a whole class of people who have grown to believe they are above the law, that the end justifies the means, that corporate profit and bonuses as are more important than fairness and openness. Where did they get this, they signed on to the stupid capitalist ethic and began to worship money

Hello again,

Am I the only one in the whole wide world who KNOWS what TOO BIG TO FAIL means?? I'm beginning to think so.

Of course, if a bank ISN'T too big to fail, then I agree with ALL of you. Let 'em FAIL.. But, if it's TOO BIG TO FAIL, it's not a good idea to let them fail, because they're TOO BIG TO FAIL.

excon

Ex, I say hard luck, no matter how big it is and who it will bring down with it. The reality is if it gets to the point of failing it was done something wrong because being a bank is a licence to print money. You cannot have the situation where the government is the banker of the last resort. This is why you need enforced prudential regulation and you need large conglometates broken up. There used to legislation against cartels and monopolies, when you say too big to fail, you are saying it is in a monopolistic situation, it has too much of the market. It doesn't matter that it has competitors, its market power is too great, so it fails and parts of its business are taken over by smaller banks. The banks should be forced to insure their deposits so if they fail depositors are not affected, just a cost of doing business

Hello again, clete:

You don't understand "too big to fail". I don't know WHAT you think it means, but being too powerful, or having investors that will lose too much money, AIN'T it...

What do YOU think it means? Apparently, you think it's a POLITICAL phrase, geared to DO something, or SCARE somebody for political gain.

Now, it COULD be ME who doesn't understand it.. But, nahhh... It ain't me. I KNOW what it is.

excon

Ex I understand it has economic implications and there will be short term chaos in certain markets and some rich dudes will lose some money and some ordinary people will lose some money too. Ex I have been through 9/11, I have been through the GFC, I have lost more money than I care to, but I doubt it would have been any worse if AIG or Goldman or GM or whoever had been allowed to fail. Saving them was just political, an attempt to lessen impacts and of course panic, but you will pay for it for generations

Hello again, clete:

Apparently, you don't believe the phrase, TOO BIG TO FAIL. I do. I'm not going to try to convince you either. But, this isn't about a few bucks. It's about our survival...

This is like YOU saying we could survive a nuclear war, and me saying we can't. That argument wouldn't get solved either.

excon

The only thing I know of that is too big to fail is the US because it carries too much debt, but individual institutions, saying too big to fail is like saying we will have a war on banking failure, it is just convenient rhetoric for saying we don't like the consequences. Look ex if your government wants to become lender of the last resort, nationalise your banks, then they really will be too big to fail, as for HSBC, the bank of choice for money laundering, it trained its top executive well, he now is a minister in the UK government. Read whatever inferences you like into that

You DIDN'T support breaking them up, no matter WHAT you say now... Do you NOW support government action to BREAK 'em up?? Am I all wet with my Sword of Damocles comparison??


All you have to do is show me where I said they shouldn't be broken up.. Then show me where I supported TARP to bail them out. Yes you will find where I wrote many times that I don't believe any business is too big to fail .Someone who believes in capitalism would never say that . The real problem in this country is we have let the government grow 'too big to fail' .

The government was always too big to fail Tom, I mean if it did goodbye constitution, you would have to start over

Nope had we followed constitutional principles ,the government would not have grown to a point where we now have hidden fees revealed in legislation 2 years after it was passed... that no one knew about... because the idiot Dem majority leader never read the legislation she shoved up our keister... telling us we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

Hello again, tom:


I wrote many times that I don't believe any business is too big to fail .Someone who believes in capitalism would never say that .Nahhh.. I'm a capitalist. I've also played monopoly.

Excon

Good then you are perfect for the next Sec Treasury . He has lots of monopoly money to play with.

Nope had we followed constitutional principles ,the government would not have grown to a point where we now have hidden fees revealed in legislation 2 years after it was passed... that no one knew about... because the idiot Dem majority leader never read the legislation she shoved up our keister... telling us we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

And we're still learning (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/obamacare-fee-of-63-per-person-to-begin-in-2014/#ixzz2EkkJlVa4). Remember when Obama said Obamacare would lower premiums by $2500 a year? Not only are premiums still rising, there's a $63-per-head fee to cover those with pre-existing conditions that employers are most likely to pass on to employees.

Also on Jan 1 we get a new "unearned income Medicare contribution tax" thanks to Obamacare.


In the debate over the looming fiscal cliff, U.S. President Barack Obama often plays down any adverse economic impact from letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire for high-income Americans, claiming that the top tax rates would merely return to where they were during the Clinton years.

Unfortunately, the president’s claim is incorrect because he ignores the impending arrival of the unearned income Medicare contribution tax, which will further raise tax rates on income from saving.
Sponsored Links

Scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, the tax, which was adopted as part of the 2010 health-care law, is a 3.8 percent levy on interest, dividends, capital gains and passive business income received by taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples).

Because the new tax was added to the health-care law late in the process without congressional hearings, it received little attention at the time. With only a few weeks left before it takes effect, it remains largely unknown.

Its obscurity has allowed bizarre myths to circulate on the Internet -- despite what you may have read online, the tax is not a 3.8 percent levy on home sales.

One problem with the unearned income Medicare contribution tax is the name Congress chose for it, which is a triple misnomer. The income that will be subject to the tax isn’t unearned -- it is earned by savers who receive market rewards for delaying consumption and providing funds to finance business investment.

Also, because the proceeds will be paid into the general treasury, the tax will have no financial link to Medicare. And, of course, the tax will be a compulsory payment, not a voluntary contribution.

But he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 right? I really don't get the logic of punishing success.

But he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 right? I really don't get the logic of punishing success.

No you don't get the concept, the inferstructure that enables you to earn that money doesn't come free and since you are benefiting more than most you get to pay. The idea that you can just make money because you are so brilliant it just falls out of the sky on you and you own nothing to anyone is fantasy. Without everything around you you couldn't make a dime, and since you have more you need more protection, more aircraft carriers, more survelliance, just more. You don't want more, tell your congressman to take a hike the next time he staples a boondoggle to a bill.

I've been trying to get my congressperson to take a hike for years. Now ,for the 2nd time in a decade my district has been carved apart and gerrymandered . I went from a conservative rep in the 1990s to Eliot Engel ,a flaming lib who at least understood foreign policy ;to Nita Lowey , a flaming true lib believer .

Ah demographics, you just need to keep moving, Tom, isn't that what your people did? Moved west to escape? Hey, speaking of moving west, have you seen the pictures of your country at night, a clear dividing line down what I can only assume is the Mississippi. Gerrymanders and Boondoggles, you have interesting political customs

No you don't get the concept, the inferstructure that enables you to earn that money doesn't come free and since you are benefiting more than most you get to pay. The idea that you can just make money because you are so brilliant it just falls out of the sky on you and you own nothing to anyone is fantasy. Without everything around you you couldn't make a dime, and since you have more you need more protection, more aircraft carriers, more survelliance, just more. You don't want more, tell your congressman to take a hike the next time he staples a boondoggle to a bill.

Does condescension come naturally to you?

No I learned it at my mother's knee

no I learned it at my mother's knee

Well momma should've taught you some manners.

Hello again,

Eric Holder admits (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704836204578340381145471280.html?m od=BOL_hpp_mag#articleTabs_article%3D1) to concern about impact on markets of prosecuting bankers and banks suspected of violating the law.

To ME, that means the banks run the United States of America. We don't run it. I think that's a DANGEROUS situation. We don't run the banks. I think we should.

Elizabeth Warren thinks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/elizabeth-warren-senator_n_2836005.html)banks who launder money for the drug cartels, should be prosecuted. . You wingers don't?? I don't know what's unreasonable about that. I know you hate her, but for the life of me, I don't know why.

I also believe that you DON'T believe in the concept of "too big to fail". Why not?

excon

I think Corzine should be prosecuted, don't you?

Hello again, Steve,


I think Corzine should be prosecuted, don't you?
Unlike you, I think ALL the banksters who broke the law should be tried - NOT just the right wingers. Even your beloved Ronny Raygun put banksters in JAIL!

Excon

I think Warren has a valid point about HSBC. As far as 'too big to fail ' .Nope ;don't believe in it . You always have anti-trust laws if you think American banks have grown too big. I still contend that it is regulations that have the perverse effect of driving smaller competition to larger corporations out of the game. Do you think it is a coincidence that as Dodd Frank goes on line ;more and more consolidation is happening ?

What's interesting is what he's not worried about:

... And not citing regulatory risk was interesting. He even pointed out that while margins may come down, market share may increase due to a “bigger moat” - We were surprised that regulatory risk was not mentioned as one of the key risks. In Dimon's eyes, higher capital rules, Volcker, and OTC derivative reforms longer-term make it more expensive and tend to make it tougher for smaller players to enter the market, effectively widening JPM's “moat.” While there will be some drags on profitability – as prices and margins narrow, efficient scale players like JPM should eventually be able to gain market share.
The Four Things That Worry Jamie Dimon - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-four-things-that-worry-jamie-dimon-2013-2#ixzz2JwAGvxIo)

“Do I think it will be more difficult?” Barnes asks. “Yes. There is a certain size and scale that [banks] simply will have to get to in order to handle the new changes, and a little community bank that has one branch in one location in a small town will likely struggle to survive on its own.”
Will Dodd-Frank Kill Small Banks? | Columbia Business Times (http://columbiabusinesstimes.com/16814/2013/01/01/will-dodd-frank-kill-small-banks/)

Yep, Libs solution is to feed the beast.

Yep, Libs solution is to feed the beast.


Both sides feed the beast. That the whole idea of having a ruling class.


Tut

Both sides feed the beast. That the whole idea of having a ruling class.


Tut

Ok, whatever. Only one side is pretending to be beast slayers while in bed with them, and that would be to my left. Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in liberal rhetoric on the subject.

Ok, whatever. Only one side is pretending to be beast slayers while in bed with them, and that would be to my left. Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in liberal rhetoric on the subject.


"Ok, whatever"

This is a bit terse don't you think?

So ruling elites are fine, so long as it can be demonstrated that Democrats are hypocrites?

So yes, I can see the hypocrisy in exactly the same way as I can see what is regarded as priorities.


Tut

It's easy, if they don't comply with the law, if they get involved in money laundering and other undesirable financial transactions, cancel their banking licence. HSBC operates in many countries so cancellation in one country is not so much a disaster as an embarrassment and I sat the same for that other criminal bank UBC

"Ok, whatever"

This is a bit terse don't you think?

Just conceding a point to move along.


So ruling elites are fine, so long as it can be demonstrated that Democrats are hypocrites?

That's hardly an assumption I would have made. They're all hypocrites, I was merely pointing out their populist pretense. It's preached here at AMHD every day.

Just conceding a point to move along.



That's hardly an assumption I would have made. They're all hypocrites, I was merely pointing out their populist pretense. It's preached here at AMHD every day.

Fair enough, but don't you think that the 'ruling elites' are worth going after? I certainly didn't expect anyone to believe me when I raised the issue a number of times in the past.

'Ruling elites' could easily be considered a throwaway term, but when a 'right wing' academic makes similar claims... Well, don't you think they are of worthwhile significance?


Tut

Codevilla is clear that he pins the intellectual origins of the 'ruling elite 'on the progressive movement dating back to Wilsonian times. So if it is a matter of both sides feeding the beast ;he would more than likely pin the blame on progressive liberal Democrats ,and non-conservative Repubis... RINOs who would like to continue the current Leviathan ,thus protecting their own status . I've read subsequent interviews of Codevilla ,and he definitely has some Tea Party sympathies .

Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. That's why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.

I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, We were ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!

Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. Thats why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.

I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, WE WAS ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!!!!

Clearly you are wrong. Tut will tell you that the ruling elites are not engaged in capitalism and the free market at all. More to the truth ;the relationship between the ruling elites and the economy is state managed rent seeking cronyism .I argue it more resembles national socialism ;but whatever it's called ,it isn't free market.

Whatever name you call it, the main point is who controls it.

Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. Thats why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.

I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, WE WAS ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!!!!

That was the point of my comment, you rail against it but support the progressives and their populist pretense who engage in it.

I support allowing the demand to be put back into the economic equation through circulation while you think the nanny state makes people dependent. Taxing the one that stole is something I support, and ending corporate welfare. Unlike you who think that balancing a budget on the backs of woman, children, and old people, and the poor is okay.

The broken business model creates poor people who need assistance. Wall Street and the banks have long since weened themselves from the American economy for cheap third world nations and governments, after they sucked us dry.

Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.

I support allowing the demand to be put back into the economic equation thru circulation while you think the nanny state makes people dependent. Taxing the one that stole is something I support, and ending corporate welfare. Unlike you who think that balancing a budget on the backs of woman, children, and old people, and the poor is okay.

The broken business model creates poor people who need assistance. Wall Street and the banks have long since weened themselves from the American economy for cheap third world nations and governments, after they sucked us dry.

Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.

Right on cue.

Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.

I hear there are some very progressive people among the Republicans Tal, at the moment they appear to be advancing to the rear but that maybe a tactic to fool us all, no doubt a very progressive fillabuster will be unveiled and another year of unprogress will ensue

Oh they are there . Just look at the over the top reaction by McCain and Lindsey Graham to the Rand Paul filibuster .

clearly you are wrong. tut will tell you that the ruling elites are not engaged in capitalism and the free market at all. More to the truth ;the relationship between the ruling elites and the economy is state managed rent seeking cronyism .I argue it more resembles national socialism ;but whatever it's called ,it aint free market.


This is pretty much my view, but I would actually go a bit further.

Corporatism is another name for modern capitalism. Corporatism is nothing like free market capitalism. Capitalism and free markets are terms that have probably become redundant in this day and age.

Yes it is cronyism. Both parties have their corporate cronies to pander to. You can call it national socialism if you like but I think corporatist politics is more like a feudal system.

Political corporatism is far more insidious and far more invasive than free market capitalism. If Tal replaced "free market capitalism" with "political corporatism" then he makes some very good points.

I have elaborated on a definition of political corporatism in the past. I won't go into that again unless requested.

Tut

Some more on the unintended consequences of the horrible Dodd-Frank Law...

The Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to end "too big to fail" banking. But the costly red tape it's dumping on the industry is only causing more consolidation and concentration.

A new report by the FDIC shows community banks, already struggling from the weak economy, are having a hard time wading through the tsunami of new financial rules.

In fact, the regulatory burden has halted the growth of these smaller banks in their tracks. No new community bank charters have been granted since 2011 due in large part to Dodd-Frank.

And the FDIC says the "full impact" from the law won't be known for several years. That's because the worst is yet to come.

FDIC Report: Dodd-Frank's Costly Rules Are Killing Community Banks - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032113-648962-fdic-says-dodd-frank-hurting-small-banks.htm)


The law has spawned a cottage industry — dubbed Dodd-Frank Inc. — just to cope with all the new rules.

The regulatory onslaught is a boon only for lawyers and government workers.

Implementing Dodd-Frank required 2,850 additional federal employees just in its first two years — at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion.

To sum it up... our attempts to impose further regulation on the financial sector are leading to even more consolidation and concentration in banking ,leading to larger financial institutions that will be deemed "too big to fail" . Bigger banks are in a better position to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance compared to their smaller competitors, which is why they don't object to their imposition and sometimes even embrace or even advocate them .

That's exactly right.

Hello again, tom:


To sum it up... our attempts to impose further regulation on the financial sector are leading to even more consolidation and concentration in banking ,leading to larger financial institutions that will be deemed "too big to fail" I don't know. If the banks KNEW that they'd be broken up IF they consolidated, they WOULDN'T consolidate.

We need to start running THEM, instead of them running US.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

I dunno. If the banks KNEW that they'd be broken up IF they consolidated, they WOULDN'T consolidate.

We need to start running THEM, instead of them running US.

excon

That's fine with me . That would be structural reform( like returning Glass- Steagall)... not regulate the small ones out of business.

that's fine with me . That would be structural reform( like returning Glass- Steagall) ... not regulate the small ones out of business.

I fully agree with Glass-Steagall, but regulating small banks out of business I would have to investigate further because I think the big banks are the enemy of the small banks more than any regulation, correct me if I am wrong.

The big banks would not be buying up the small ones if the owners of the small ones weren't putting the banks up for sale. The FDIC report suggests that owners of small banks are increasingly burdened by regulation and cannot afford compliance. The report said that the big banks can hire the extra regulatory staff ;and even outside consultants to interpret all the new laws. The small one's can't .

Not that I disagree but a link to that report would be helpful to me, but I have these reports I have been studying.

U.S. GAO - Financial Institutions: Causes and Consequences of Recent Failures of Community Banks (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-476T)

http://www.heterodoxnews.com/htnf/htn71/10466211.pdf

They both deal with the real processes of bank management up to and through out the financial down turn.

Sure... here is the key paragraph from Apendix B of the report (to save you a lot of reading )
Interview participants were asked several questions to determine what drives regulatory compliance costs at their institution and, specifically, which rules, regulations, and supervisory practices had the greatest effect on their operations. Most interview participants stated that no one regulation or practice had a significant effect on their institution. Instead, most stated that the strain on their organization came from the cumulative effects of all the regulatory requirements that have built up over time. To support this statement, many of the interview participants indicated that they have increased staff over the past ten years to support the enhanced responsibility associated with regulatory compliance. In addition, at least one-half of the interview participants noted that because of the cumulative effects of regulations on their institution, the amount of time each employee, not just those focused solely on compliance, spent completing duties associated with regulatory compliance had increased over the past 5 years
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/cbi/report/cbi-full.pdf

Well what do you want to know? Regulation is a growth industry. You can't have laws without growth in compliance costs

Did anyone notice this or am I just behind?


Attorney General Eric Holder suggested Wednesday that some financial institutions have become too large and are escaping full-fledged prosecution as a result.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder told lawmakers that he is concerned that some institutions have become so massive and influential that bringing criminal charges against them could imperil the financial system and the broader economy. His remarks come as a growing number of lawmakers have suggested that big banks are, effectively, "too big to jail."

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," he said. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Read more: Holder: Big banks' size complicates prosecution efforts - The Hill's On The Money (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/286583-holder-big-banks-size-complicates-prosecution-efforts#ixzz2OkQLXQ7r)

Yep, that Dodd-Frank certainly solved the problem.

Having a process to unravel the big banks and be able to check and see if they are obeying the rules is the problem? Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough, nor is it enforced vigoriously enough.

Holder's term as AG will be defined by who he did not prosecute... what laws he won't defend. .

Guess the man knows a bad law when he sees one

Hello Mr. Magnanimous right winger:

Holder's term as AG will be defined by who he did not prosecute... what laws he won't defend. . Let's pretend, for a moment, that the situation was reversed. Bill Clinton got gay marriage through, but it got challenged. Now, George W. Bush is put in the position of DEFENDING gay marriage, and you're telling me, that he WOULD??

Who, in the real, world BELIEVES that?

Excon

Show me the example when a case went to SCOTUS and a representative of the government didn't defend a constitutional challenge to a law. Maybe there are some I'm not aware of ;but I think this is an administration of firsts .All these standing questions the last 2 days are the result of someone other than the governments involved being the proponent of the law.

So whether it's a good law, or a bad law, the government should defend it? What's wrong with changing a bad law?

Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed. Renewing regulations for big banks and stripping away layers of accountability and culpability is a HUGE challenge with HUGE opposition and TREMENDOUS risks. Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.

You may not like all the "hope and change" but the debates are getting much hotter, and that in itself will bring changes.

What's wrong with changing a bad law?
Indeed ;a bad law should be changed ;by the legislative branch. What you want is for SCOTUS to act like the legislative branch.

Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed.
Interracial marriage was real discrimination. Changing the definition of marriage to satisy another special interest is a completely different issue.

Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.
and thus the questions of standing by the justices

Quote:
What's wrong with changing a bad law?


indeed ;a bad law should be changed ;by the legislative branch. What you want is for SCOTUS to act like the legislative branch.

Naw, they don't make law, they can only rule its constitutionality of the law.

Quote:
Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed.


interracial marriage was real discrimination. Changing the definition of marriage to satisy another special interest is a completely different issue.

No again, it was the legislature that tried to narrow the definition of marriage to EXCLUDE a segment of citizens (gays), as pushed by a special interest group, the church.

Quote:
Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.


and thus the questions of standing by the justices

Can't wait for the final ruling in June/July. A narrow ruling on Prop 8, and DOMA struck down, is my take. They could also punt on Prop 8, and let the ruling in a lower court stand.

I don't know that sodomy laws are so bad, if we're going to regulate things like sodas, cigarettes and the like because of the health consequences and the COST to the rest of us why not sex? You know how much HIV drugs cost? Epzicom is like $25 a pill... and you're paying for it.

Steve ,you don't get it .Gays are a privilaged group and their behavior is subsidized . Other behaviors, like individuals who over eat, are making life style choices that will get penalized . Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.

Hello again, tom:


Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.You'd have a little credibility IF you can tell me that you chose heterosexuality. Of course, you can't, but that won't make a difference.. You won't let REAL LIFE experience interfere with what your church is telling you...

I am SOOO glad that I can think for myself..

Excon

I got science on my side. Obamacare and nanny bloomy discriminate against people who can't help it.. They were born this way .
The obese can (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20110920/The-obese-cane28099t-help-but-eat-Study.aspx)

I don't know that sodomy laws are so bad, if we're going to regulate things like sodas, cigarettes and the like because of the health consequences and the COST to the rest of us why not sex? You know how much HIV drugs cost? Epzicom is like $25 a pill...and you're paying for it.

HIV is not just a result of sodomy, sharing needles, and consorting with prostitutes, or being transfused with contaminated blood were higher risk factors. And somebody is paying for your viagra and penis pump too!


Steve ,you don't get it .Gays are a privilaged group and their behavior is subsidized . Other behaviors, like individuals who over eat, are making life style choices that will get penalized . Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.

How are gays privileged? How are they subidized? Why should obese people be penalized, and who will penalize them?


Hello again, tom:

You'd have a little credibility IF you can tell me that you chose heterosexuality. Of course, you can't, but that won't make a difference.. You won't let REAL LIFE experience interfere with what your church is telling you...

I am SOOO glad that I can think for myself..

excon

That's the problem ex, they are shrinking, and independent thinking is growing. We should have made them inhale sothey could expand their thinking if even for an hour.

EUREKA! I have found a cure for right wing uptightness... Two hits and call me in an hour!!

HIV is not just a result of sodomy, sharing needles, and consorting with prostitutes, or being transfused with contaminated blood were higher risk factors. And somebody is paying for your viagra and penis pump too!

Well then, all risky behaviors that need to be banned. Seriously, how do you decide which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't? You can't just ban MY favorite.

How are gays privileged? How are they subidized? Why should obese people be penalized, and who will penalize them?

Will they be penalized for their risky lifestyle ? The Obese will. Doctors are required to take weight ,BMI ,blood sugar tests ;and based on those results ,the government will make treatment decisions for them (or deny treatment ) . Will gays be denied care ? No ,they will get free condoms .We will pay for their risky behavior ,and they will not be told to pay a premium for their insurance like the obese or smokers will.

Well then, all risky behaviors that need to be banned. Seriously, how do you decide which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't? You can't just ban MY favorite.

SO, you assume ALL gays indulge in risky behavior? I respectfully disagree and submit that heteterosexuals engage in risky behavior just as much. Maybe on average MORE.


Will they be penalized for their risky lifestyle ? The Obese will. Doctors are required to take weight ,BMI ,blood sugar tests ;and based on those results ,the government will make treatment decisions for them (or deny treatment ) . Will gays be denied care ? No ,they will get free condoms .We will pay for their risky behavior ,and they will not be told to pay a premium for their insurance like the obese or smokers will.

Or drinkers? But insurance companies have always discriminated on the basis of what you call risky behavior in the first place. What you think being gay will let them off the hook off paying more money for premiums? Your premiums will go up regardless of your behavior. More if they can put a label on it.

If insurance companies can charge you more for NO reason, then surely they will find a reason to charge you more for anything they can come up with, including risky behavior, gay, straight, or just plain YOUNG, or old.

Your premiums will go up regardless of your behavior
Of that I'm certain ;but that was the design of Obamacare in the first place... destroy the private insurance system ,and replace it with a European takeover of all health services by the state . The left is counting on this to collapse the whole thing .

SO, you assume ALL gays indulge in risky behavior? I respectfully disagree and submit that heteterosexuals engage in risky behavior just as much. Maybe on average MORE.

I'd like to respectfully point out I didn't associate any behavior to gays, period. I only spoke of risky behaviors. Stick to the point, which other risky behaviors are you going to ban and crack down on due to their risk factors and associated cost to health care? Skiing? Skydiving? Unprotected sex? Recreational drug use? Driving? What and why, why should smokers be punished for their risk factors and not the congressman buying prostitutes?

I totally reject the whole concept of risky behavior by any group. I think premiums should be capped and only congress can approve of them being raised. And they better have the financial reports to backup any claims for higher premiums.

It the insurance companies exploiting individuals, and groups that started this crap in the first place.

Was that clear enough?

You know Ta risk IS insurance company's business. Trust me, I'm no fan of insurance companies - they are a necessary evil - but my point is not about insurance companies, it's about nannies that want to regulate whatever behavior they deem unacceptable, allegedly in large part because of the cost to the system. Where do you draw the line? How do you determine which behaviors are acceptable to ban or punish and why not others?

You know Ta risk IS insurance company's business. Trust me, I'm no fan of insurance companies - they are a necessary evil - but my point is not about insurance companies, it's about nannies that want to regulate whatever behavior they deem unacceptable, allegedly in large part because of the cost to the system. Where do you draw the line? How do you determine which behaviors are acceptable to ban or punish and why not others?

I use to be a capitalist until prices went up more, and faster than my paycheck. I have seen enough crap to recognize bullsh1t from business and government, and see them both as dysfunctional and ineffective. Maybe they are necessary evils. But I draw the line at taking any crap laying down.

So in other words you really don't want to answer the question?

And to my point...

CDC: 110,197,000 Venereal Infections in U.S.; Nation Creating New STIs Faster Than New Jobs or College Grads (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-110197000-venereal-infections-us-nation-creating-new-stis-faster-new-jobs-or)

That's 110 MILLION, time to start regulating sexual activity.

I use to be a capitalist until prices went up more, and faster than my paycheck
good thing you don't live in a command and control economy like oh let's say Argentina .Now there's inflation for you . And speaking of inflation ;how can you complain about it when it's government action like the Fed manipulating the dollar value that is chiefly responsible for the US inflation... well that and run away government debt

...how can you complain about it when it's government action like the Fed manipulating the dollar value that is chiefly responsible for the US inflation....well that and run away government debt

Well now, those details don't fit the agenda. Kind of like how this hits the poor the hardest is one of those details they don't want to discuss. Just give 'em more food stamps!

So some of us have been pointing out to no avail how Democrats had a huge hand in the meltdown by not only incentivizing risky loans but pressuring banks to make those loans. Well, Obama is at it again.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html?hpid=z1)

The banks cheated. And got away with it.

Hello again, Steve:


but pressuring banks to make those loans.Yeah, that mean old Barney Frank MADE those banks LOSE all their money. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Let me bring you back to reality.. If I ran a bank, and the government TOLD me that I had to lend money to people that I KNEW would never pay it back, I'd CLOSE my doors and SAVE the assets of the bank...

But, you're saying, that even though the bankers KNEW they'd go broke, Barney Frank would be mad if they DIDN'T THROW AWAY All THEIR MONEY, so they did...

Makes NO sense to me - no sense at all.

Excon

You're right ex, you make no sense. What part of don't do the same stupid sh!t that got us there do you not understand?

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, that mean old Barney Frank MADE those banks LOSE all their money. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Lemme bring you back to reality.. If I ran a bank, and the government TOLD me that I had to lend money to people that I KNEW would never pay it back, I'd CLOSE my doors and SAVE the assets of the bank...

But, you're saying, that even though the bankers KNEW they'd go broke, Barney Frank would be mad if they DIDN'T THROW AWAY All THEIR MONEY, so they did...

Makes NO sense to me - no sense at all.

excon
Here is some good reading if you want to know what really happened :

Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative About the Financial Crisis Led to Dodd-Frank
By Peter J. Wallison
Amazon.com: Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative About the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act (9780844772387): Peter J. Wallison: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Bad-History-Worse-Policy-Dodd-Frank/dp/0844772380)

And if you don't want to read that one ;here is one from the NY Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Financial/dp/1250008794

Let me read your copy, I ain't got 90 bucks to throw away for right wing commentary I can hear on FoxNews.

That's why I posted the alt book assignment . I have read some of the essays that are in the Wallison book ;but Morgenson has been a financial reporter for the Times for years. .

I like the wind down process of Dodd/Frank, but I liked Gless Steagall too. Absence of either would be a mistake. Clinton dropped the ball on Gless/Steagall.

The government dropped the ball when they didn't investigate and gather solid evidence and prosecute. Settlements and no blame was NOT the way to go since the states took the money that taxpayers deserved.

Clinton dropped the ball on Gless/Steagall.

And I would have no issue with it being reinstated .

So you have no issue with banking regulation?

Please stop it . I have never said there was anything wrong with regulations .There is a lot wrong with excessive burdensome over -regulation. How many times do I have to deal with the nonsense that implies that if I am against over regulation or just plain bad regulation that must mean I'm against any regulation?
Look ,we have had monopoly laws for over a century that should deal with the merger of investment institutions and banks .

Look ,we have had monopoly laws for over a century that should deal with the merger of investment institutions and banks .

Seems having laws and having them enforced is something different. It is no use having laws that aren't enforced, isn't that why they dropped Gless/Steagall.

Gless/Steagall no the Glass-Steagall Act... yeah the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that repealed Glass-Steagall was a bipartisan bill supported overwhelmingly by both parties ,and the Clintoon Adm. (Passed by a vote of 90 to 8 in the Senate )
At the time ,everyone believed it was an antiquated bill.

Here is what some of our leaders said at the time :
"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,"..."This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy." Clintoon Treasury Sec Lawrence Summers.
"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," Sen. Christopher Dodd
"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," .... "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."Sen. Schmuck Schumer

Seems having laws and having them enforced is something different. It is no use having laws that arn't enforced, isn't that why they dropped Gless/Steagall. ?

They honestly thought they had gotten past stupid, and were unleashing the economic might of America, but they were wrong, and unleashed greedy b@stards to rape, rob, pillage and plunder the whole freakin' world. Now we can't make 'em stop.

At the time ,everyone believed it was an antiquated bill.

And now you say you favour returning to that era... I'm sitting here scratching my head and wondering what is it you want

I think he mean't bring back the G/S act, and I agree.

Yes he did say that in the same breath as saying it was antiquated. I'm used to antiquated thinking from Tom but I thought you more progressive

And so now we know exactly who is too big to jail... Jon Corzine.
Corzine off the crook in MF Global probe - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/corzine_off_the_crook_t3VpDFmfEsx9Qd7VdtCLvM?utm_m edium=rss&utm_content=Business)

Guess that $882 thousand bundling job he did for the emperor in 2012 paid off.

Hello tom:

OCCUPY a bank..

excon