Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Co-authored by Elizabeth Warren and David Vitter.

A step in the right direction?

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/too-big ... ange-that/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a better idea. Repeal Dodd-Frank in it's entirety, and then consider this piece of legislation.

Not to one up the leopard, it's good to see that a Fauxcahontas can change her headdress.

Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

I do think that if there comes another time when a big bank has to be bailed out, the government should clean house, sort of like the State of South Carolina is doing with SCSU. No more golden parachutes for messing up the global economy.

"OMG now conks want government to fire employees at private companies?"

Yeah yeah I know, but like George Will said these banks aren't a creation of the free market and also when you know you are too big to fail you aren't going to behave like a normal enterprise in a free market, right?

Personally, I would prefer to just breaking up these banks and fixing our rotten Federal Reserve System.

Pwns wrote:Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

I do think that if there comes another time when a big bank has to be bailed out, the government should clean house, sort of like the State of South Carolina is doing with SCSU. No more golden parachutes for messing up the global economy.

"OMG now conks want government to fire employees at private companies?"

Yeah yeah I know, but like George Will said these banks aren't a creation of the free market and also when you know you are too big to fail you aren't going to behave like a normal enterprise in a free market, right?

Personally, I would prefer to just breaking up these banks and fixing our rotten Federal Reserve System.

So no change ^ is what all that says in short...
I want a unicorn - but instead of that lets just leave things the same



Please Note:
Nobody can touch the federal reserve (Period) its here forever now - we have to work around it...

Not necessarily a fan of this. I'd rather have the "too-bigs" broken up, keep them smaller. And while I would make it difficult to bail businesses out, I'm also of the belief that making something absolute (i.e. no bail outs whatsoever) is bound not to be helpful in the future. I didn't like the GM bailout, but I saw the necessity of it relative to the timing and the economy as a whole when it happened. So let's focus on fixing what was really wrong with Dodd-Frank - that bill enshrined too big to fail by keeping too-big in the game. Let's get rid of too big first.

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

I do think that if there comes another time when a big bank has to be bailed out, the government should clean house, sort of like the State of South Carolina is doing with SCSU. No more golden parachutes for messing up the global economy.

"OMG now conks want government to fire employees at private companies?"

Yeah yeah I know, but like George Will said these banks aren't a creation of the free market and also when you know you are too big to fail you aren't going to behave like a normal enterprise in a free market, right?

Personally, I would prefer to just breaking up these banks and fixing our rotten Federal Reserve System.

So no change ^ is what all that says in short...
I want a unicorn - but instead of that lets just leave things the same



Please Note:
Nobody can touch the federal reserve (Period) its here forever now - we have to work around it...

So, you're surrendering to an oligarchy?

Curious...do you believe a true, purely capitalist system could succeed?

travelinman67 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

So no change ^ is what all that says in short...
I want a unicorn - but instead of that lets just leave things the same



Please Note:
Nobody can touch the federal reserve (Period) its here forever now - we have to work around it...

So, you're surrendering to an oligarchy?

Curious...do you believe a true, purely capitalist system could succeed?

Shy of a complete and devastating revolution
The Federal Reserve System will NEVER give back our financial system to America
It was stolen from us behind closed doors 100 years ago and blood will have to spill for us to get it back

Pwns wrote:Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

Should have let them fail. We'd be a lot further along in this "recovery" than we are now.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

Should have let them fail. We'd be a lot further along in this "recovery" than we are now.

Word.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

Should have let them fail. We'd be a lot further along in this "recovery" than we are now.

Agreed,
The natural vacuum created by such a massive implosion would be naturally filled
these things are inevitable

But by propping them back up artificially we have simply a damaged and crippled Nanny organism
And that is NOT what America needs

[quote="AZGrizFan]
Should have let them fail. We'd be a lot further along in this "recovery" than we are now.[/quote]

Agree 100%. It's ironic that some people talk out both sides of their mouth, wanting less government overall and less intervention & regulation, until they need the government to bail them out.

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:Doesn't seem like a smart idea to not have the option to keep megabanks from failing to me. If we had let the banks fail in 2008 it would've been jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

I do think that if there comes another time when a big bank has to be bailed out, the government should clean house, sort of like the State of South Carolina is doing with SCSU. No more golden parachutes for messing up the global economy.

"OMG now conks want government to fire employees at private companies?"

Yeah yeah I know, but like George Will said these banks aren't a creation of the free market and also when you know you are too big to fail you aren't going to behave like a normal enterprise in a free market, right?

Personally, I would prefer to just breaking up these banks and fixing our rotten Federal Reserve System.

So no change ^ is what all that says in short...
I want a unicorn - but instead of that lets just leave things the same



Please Note:
Nobody can touch the federal reserve (Period) its here forever now - we have to work around it...

I tried replying to the original post a few hours ago but... Nigerian network

I dont know if this is a step in the right direction or not- but Im inclined to support legislation that limits the Fed fiddling with free markets ( where banks can fail)

That said, there are sure to be unintended consequences- for example- if the law does what Warren wants it to- which is to cause banks to take less risks with everybodys personal wealth... think the good ol days when banks were careful with loaning money to high risk borrowers.

I wonder if we'll have a Barney Frank moment with Warren- vilifying banks for using low risk lending and leveraging practices that she actually ushered back in

The irony will (as it always is with economic populists) be delicious

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

So no change ^ is what all that says in short...
I want a unicorn - but instead of that lets just leave things the same



Please Note:
Nobody can touch the federal reserve (Period) its here forever now - we have to work around it...

I tried replying to the original post a few hours ago but... Nigerian network

I dont know if this is a step in the right direction or not- but Im inclined to support legislation that limits the Fed fiddling with free markets ( where banks can fail)

That said, there are sure to be unintended consequences- for example- if the law does what Warren wants it to- which is to cause banks to take less risks with everybodys personal wealth... think the good ol days when banks were careful with loaning money to high risk borrowers.

I wonder if we'll have a Barney Frank moment with Warren- vilifying banks for using low risk lending and leveraging practices that she actually ushered back in

The irony will (as it always is with economic populists) be delicious

To some extent we're already there - there have been complaints since 2008 that banks aren't giving out money to the poor as much as they are giving out to the rich. When banks do follow a low risk model people start complaining. No one cares about a high risk model until right about at the moment when it fails.

GannonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I tried replying to the original post a few hours ago but... Nigerian network

I dont know if this is a step in the right direction or not- but Im inclined to support legislation that limits the Fed fiddling with free markets ( where banks can fail)

That said, there are sure to be unintended consequences- for example- if the law does what Warren wants it to- which is to cause banks to take less risks with everybodys personal wealth... think the good ol days when banks were careful with loaning money to high risk borrowers.

I wonder if we'll have a Barney Frank moment with Warren- vilifying banks for using low risk lending and leveraging practices that she actually ushered back in

The irony will (as it always is with economic populists) be delicious

To some extent we're already there - there have been complaints since 2008 that banks aren't giving out money to the poor as much as they are giving out to the rich. When banks do follow a low risk model people start complaining. No one cares about a high risk model until right about at the moment when it fails.

Housing prices have been going up and up here in CA (and probably elsewhere) as this next housing bubble begins to take legs and start to grow again...it couldn't have gotten here if only the rich are the ones buying houses.

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

SDHornet wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
To some extent we're already there - there have been complaints since 2008 that banks aren't giving out money to the poor as much as they are giving out to the rich. When banks do follow a low risk model people start complaining. No one cares about a high risk model until right about at the moment when it fails.

Housing prices have been going up and up here in CA (and probably elsewhere) as this next housing bubble begins to take legs and start to grow again...it couldn't have gotten here if only the rich are the ones buying houses.

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Seattle houses are going up so fast me and the girlfriend won't buy one...
They're artificially astronomical - and a bad idea

We just purchased a house in Palm Springs however... A lovely place
Its a nice little cottage in Cathedral City

Chizzang wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Housing prices have been going up and up here in CA (and probably elsewhere) as this next housing bubble begins to take legs and start to grow again...it couldn't have gotten here if only the rich are the ones buying houses.

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Seattle houses are going up so fast me and the girlfriend won't buy one...
They're artificially astronomical - and a bad idea

We just purchased a house in Palm Springs however... A lovely place
Its a nice little cottage in Cathedral City

Nevada is my end game. No property taxes.

Chizzang wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Housing prices have been going up and up here in CA (and probably elsewhere) as this next housing bubble begins to take legs and start to grow again...it couldn't have gotten here if only the rich are the ones buying houses.

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Seattle houses are going up so fast me and the girlfriend won't buy one...
They're artificially astronomical - and a bad idea

We just purchased a house in Palm Springs however... A lovely place
Its a nice little cottage in Cathedral City

Nice! The Mrs. and I have really enjoyed Palm Springs the times we have been there.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

So no change ^ is what all that says in short...
I want a unicorn - but instead of that lets just leave things the same



Please Note:
Nobody can touch the federal reserve (Period) its here forever now - we have to work around it...

I tried replying to the original post a few hours ago but... Nigerian network

I dont know if this is a step in the right direction or not- but Im inclined to support legislation that limits the Fed fiddling with free markets ( where banks can fail)

That said, there are sure to be unintended consequences- for example- if the law does what Warren wants it to- which is to cause banks to take less risks with everybodys personal wealth... think the good ol days when banks were careful with loaning money to high risk borrowers.

I wonder if we'll have a Barney Frank moment with Warren- vilifying banks for using low risk lending and leveraging practices that she actually ushered back in

The irony will (as it always is with economic populists) be delicious

Always?

Poor Vitter.

Forget Palm Springs.

I'd rather be in 29 or Barstow....

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Should have let them fail. We'd be a lot further along in this "recovery" than we are now.

Word.

Chizzang wrote: Agreed,
The natural vacuum created by such a massive implosion would be naturally filled
these things are inevitable

But by propping them back up artificially we have simply a damaged and crippled Nanny organism
And that is NOT what America needs

bluehenbillk wrote:Agree 100%. It's ironic that some people talk out both sides of their mouth, wanting less government overall and less intervention & regulation, until they need the government to bail them out.

SDHornet wrote: Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Hey me too! Agreed...Never seen so much consensus on here across the political spectrum...

SuperHornet wrote:Forget Palm Springs.

I'd rather be in 29 or Barstow....

Chizzang wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Housing prices have been going up and up here in CA (and probably elsewhere) as this next housing bubble begins to take legs and start to grow again...it couldn't have gotten here if only the rich are the ones buying houses.

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Seattle houses are going up so fast me and the girlfriend won't buy one...
They're artificially astronomical - and a bad idea

We just purchased a house in Palm Springs however... A lovely place
Its a nice little cottage in Cathedral City

What's all this "we" crap?

It's HER house

Don't you forget it, mister

SDHornet wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
To some extent we're already there - there have been complaints since 2008 that banks aren't giving out money to the poor as much as they are giving out to the rich. When banks do follow a low risk model people start complaining. No one cares about a high risk model until right about at the moment when it fails.

Housing prices have been going up and up here in CA (and probably elsewhere) as this next housing bubble begins to take legs and start to grow again...it couldn't have gotten here if only the rich are the ones buying houses.

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Of course the next bubble will be forming - it's been 7 years since the last economic recession, and yes, banks are starting to loosen the lending strings again. The cycle continues, nothing more.

SDHornet wrote:

Should have let the banks, and GM fail.

Yup.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Seattle houses are going up so fast me and the girlfriend won't buy one...
They're artificially astronomical - and a bad idea

We just purchased a house in Palm Springs however... A lovely place
Its a nice little cottage in Cathedral City

What's all this "we" crap?

It's HER house

Don't you forget it, mister

This is true...
The last house I purchased was handed over to my ex-wife back in 2002
along with a small but charming motel in Old Town a duplex and two vehicles

It was a bad week for me financially