Bank bill in peril, WH urges part be dropped

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – In the face of stiff GOP opposition, Obama administration officials want Senate Democrats to purge a $50 billion fund for dismantling "too big to fail" banks from legislation that aims to protect against a new financial crisis. Republicans contend the provision would simply continue government bailouts of Wall Street.

The sweeping bill aims to prevent a recurrence of the crisis that nearly caused a Wall Street meltdown in 2008. Beside creating a mechanism for liquidating large firms, House and Senate bills would govern previously unregulated derivatives, create a council to detect systemwide financial threats and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending, credit cards and other bank-customer transactions.

Now, I'm sure what most of ATS is going to say about that fund, but how about a little objective discussion on it?

Does anybody think that the fund is needed to help prevent against the too big to fail banks? Or like some people, that the fund may not even be used for that, but as just an extension to bail-outs already made?

Personally, I feel that it isn't really needed, & if that's the case why do it since we're already wasting money left and right.

You make a very good case, it does seem we hardly need it, seeing as how our current administration seems to think that it can "bail out" all the too big to fail companys, I'm sure I don't need to name them all.

Whatever happened to free enterprise? I run a small business, and every time I declare my income/expenses to the IRS, they have a question........ Is all your investment at risk? I have often wondered how these "too big to fail companies" would answer that and how that would affect their tax status. Maybe someone with IRS law knowledge can give me an explanation.

I for one think, we DEFINATELY don't need this fund, it would just give more influence to this companies, setting aside 2 or 3 million $'s, for a lack of a better knowledge of what the government is thinking about, to a company like BoA, who by the way posted a 3.2 billion $ profit for the first quarter, the 2 or 3 million or even if it's 200 - 300 million, would be a drop in the bucket.

How bout making an honest effort in making every citizen "too small to fail"????

Originally posted by lonexxwolf
You make a very good case, it does seem we hardly need it, seeing as how our current administration seems to think that it can "bail out" all the too big to fail companys, I'm sure I don't need to name them all.

Whatever happened to free enterprise? I run a small business, and every time I declare my income/expenses to the IRS, they have a question........ Is all your investment at risk? I have often wondered how these "too big to fail companies" would answer that and how that would affect their tax status. Maybe someone with IRS law knowledge can give me an explanation.

I for one think, we DEFINATELY don't need this fund, it would just give more influence to this companies, setting aside 2 or 3 million $'s, for a lack of a better knowledge of what the government is thinking about, to a company like BoA, who by the way posted a 3.2 billion $ profit for the first quarter, the 2 or 3 million or even if it's 200 - 300 million, would be a drop in the bucket.

How bout making an honest effort in making every citizen "too small to fail"????

So what happens to all of us next time a Trillion of our dollars disappear due to
free enterprise.

This was part of the legislation that would mandate the TBTF banks to insure their assets via a third party...

If we are being candid, politically speaking, imagine if Obama attempted to dismantle
the TBTF, the spin involved, etc... Not gonna happen - Socialist takeover, civil war, etc...

I hope they regulate the mega sector into a small box, NOT VIA THE FED -

The FED needs to shoot itself in the face!

Tha is exactly why we don't need the bail outs. If you, or me, or any small company can't pay out bills, there is a way for us to make arrangements, to try and make those payments without having to go back on our word that we would pay them. Bankruptcy laws exist for a reason, all I'm saying is make them "too big to fail" companies, play by the same rules me and you, and yes most "mom and pop" businesses have to play by.

Free enterprise does have it's flaws I'm not going to deny that, but to make "ANYONE" ' TO BIG TO FAIL ' just makes everyone one of us trying to make a living, feel like we never should have gone into business at all.

Guess what, if you are going through financial difficulties, it does not mean it's all gloom and doom, it just means you have to settle down, cut costs, make arrangements to pay, and deliver on those arrangements, but that is just not enough when it comes to companies much bigger than what the ordinary citizen is?

The Us administration should copy exactly what the Australian government did when this banking crisis first began.

The Aussie government said it would guarantee all bank deposits by ordinary people (and business), but the banks themselves will receive zero government assistance.

This policy was bi partisan, and fully endorsed by both major political parties here.

If banks go belly up, too bad for them and their shareholders.
Bankers should take a great deal more care of risk management, and if the bank management is fundamentally unsound it DESERVES to fail.
The slack will be taken up by other private banks that have been more prudent in their financial management.

So hooray for the Aussie tax payer and bank depositor.
The bastard banks if they screw up can go to hell.

reply to post by Silver Shadow


agree with you on that.

i think the 50BN should be leGislated for bailOuts for the personal bank accouNt hOlders.
In the event of any future bank failUreS, the peoplE are covereD, anD with with bailouTs going to the lOwest bank accounT balance hOlders, aNd workS upwardS from the PooreSt. after all they are More lIkely tO need it most.

It's a bit socialist, but hey, why would you want 53million americans to die, just because they were poor. The US sends aid to other countries, why not your own people.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by CitizenNum287119327]

[edit on 17-4-2010 by CitizenNum287119327]

reply to post by CitizenNum287119327


BNGONOIUSEDDTOTONSSPSMIOIUS ?

reply to post by ItsTheQuestion


I think he was doing that stupid caps thing kids do.



I don't know why 50 billion would be needed, can't financial institutions that are collapsing just go through bankruptcy like everyone else?