• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bust Up the Too Big To Fails

A

Anonymous

Guest
March 22, 2013

Issue: 44


Rasmussen Reports Header




It's Time To Bust Up the Big Banks
A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

Americans have a healthy respect for free market competition and are resistant to government interference -- even when they don't like what the market is up to. For example, 69 percent of Americans believe that large corporate executives are overpaid, but only 17 percent want the government to regulate their pay.

In that context, it's remarkable that 50 percent of voters nationwide favor a plan to break up our nation's megabanks. Just 23 percent are opposed.

There are more than 5,000 banks in the United States today, but 12 of them control 69 percent of the banking industry's total assets.

Most Americans want these megabanks treated like any other. If a large bank reaches the point where it can no longer meet its obligations, just 25 percent support a bailout to keep it in business. But federal policy is just the opposite. The view from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street is that these firms must be propped up at all costs because their collapse would hurt the overall economy.

This provides what Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, calls "perverse market incentives." It lets big banks engage in risky behavior knowing they can't lose because the federal government will have taxpayers pick up the tab.

Voters understand this. Two out of three recognize that most of the bailout money went to those who created the problem in the first place. That's one reason why 75 percent expressed anger at the bailed-out banks in 2011; 49 percent were "very angry." Those numbers put the banks at the same level as Congress in the court of public opinion.

That public anger led to passage in 2010 of the Dodd-Frank Act, a law that scored political points but didn't address the biggest problem. The limits of that law as far as the largest banks are concerned were highlighted in a recent Senate report showing the misbehavior of JP Morgan Chase while racking up record trading losses last year.

It's hard to put much faith in regulatory answers given the revolving door between big banks and big government. For example, current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew received a $944,000 bonus for his work at Citigroup right after leaving the bank to join the Obama administration. Citigroup had the money because of a taxpayer bailout. His predecessors from both parties have similar ties.

Fisher acknowledges the good intentions of the Dodd-Frank law, but argues that it is "working against the core problem it seeks to address." That problem is that no bank should ever be in a position where it could be deemed too big to fail. The only solution is to break up the megabanks.

The way to do that is to end the government subsidies the banks receive that guarantee their survival. Currently, even the worst run big bank can access money on better terms than better run smaller banks. Why? Because of the government guarantee. Take it away, and the big banks would be forced to compete on the same terms as other banks.

Bloomberg News estimates that the 10 biggest banks receive subsidies of $83 billion. Fisher and others agree that the size of the subsidies is roughly the same as the total profit reported by these banks.

Not surprisingly, in a nation where people hate crony capitalism, just 7 percent think these subsidies should continue. Seventy-six percent want them to end.

End the subsidies. Break up the banks.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Time for you to read "The Creature From Jekyll Island".

And by the way, it's written so a 6th grader can understand it..........you should have no problem.............
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sounds like people are still waiting for obama to fulfill his promise to close Gitmo, too. :lol: :lol:

If I remember correctly, it was the Tea Party that was looking for obama to break up the "too big to fails", stop the bailouts, and put a break on the spending after disagreeing with Bush's liberal spending handled.

And it was the Dems. that voted for obama, to stop all the excessive spending. It's become very obvious who the hypocrites are.
 

Aladar

Active member
a) the mega banks need to be broken up. no question about that.

b) FDIC insurance is not a government subsidy-- you need to go do a bit of homework to figure that one out. It is funded by ALL banks to protect depositor money, not capital and equity. Before the fund pays out, the owners equity is drained. The banks in this country prepaid 3 years of assessments into the fund to ensure the health of the fund-- nothing came from the government.

c) most of the loans, made to banks that are still solvent-- have been repaid with interest (not discounted and paid back for pennies on the dollar)

d) it was the banks, thru the FDIC fund that bailed out the Farm Credit System and their fiasco in the 80's-- and THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITY.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Aladar said:
a) the mega banks need to be broken up. no question about that.

b) FDIC insurance is not a government subsidy-- you need to go do a bit of homework to figure that one out. It is funded by ALL banks to protect depositor money, not capital and equity. Before the fund pays out, the owners equity is drained. The banks in this country prepaid 3 years of assessments into the fund to ensure the health of the fund-- nothing came from the government.

c) most of the loans, made to banks that are still solvent-- have been repaid with interest (not discounted and paid back for pennies on the dollar)

d) it was the banks, thru the FDIC fund that bailed out the Farm Credit System and their fiasco in the 80's-- and THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITY.

:agree: :clap:
 

Steve

Well-known member
well OT,.. what has Obama done to break up the big banks?

need a hint


2008 JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, $1.1 Billion JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2008 Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of America $50 Billion Bank of America
2008 Wells Fargo Wachovia Wells Fargo $15.1 Billion[9] Wells Fargo
2008 JPMorgan Chase Washington Mutual JPMorgan Chase $1.9 Billion[10] JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2008 Fifth Third Bank First Charter Bank Fifth Third Bank $1.1 billion[11] Fifth Third Bank
2008 PNC Financial Services National City Corp. PNC Financial Services $5.08 billion[12] PNC Financial Services
2008 U.S. Bancorp Downey Savings and Loan U.S. Bancorp U.S. Bancorp
2009 M&T Bank Provident Bank of Maryland M&T Bank M&T Bank
2009 M&T Bank Bradford Bank M&T Bank M&T Bank
2011 M&T Bank Wilmington Trust M&T Bank M&T Bank
2011 Capital One ING Direct USA Capital One $9 billion[13] Capital One
2012 PNC Financial Services RBC Bank PNC Financial Services $3.45 billion PNC Financial Services

if you need a diagram..

here it is... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Graph_of_Bank_Mergers_in_USA.svg

the sad fact is.. banks got bigger under Obama,...

well OT,.. what has Obama done to break up the big banks?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
well OT,.. what has Obama done to break up the big banks?

need a hint


2008 JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, $1.1 Billion JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2008 Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of America $50 Billion Bank of America
2008 Wells Fargo Wachovia Wells Fargo $15.1 Billion[9] Wells Fargo
2008 JPMorgan Chase Washington Mutual JPMorgan Chase $1.9 Billion[10] JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2008 Fifth Third Bank First Charter Bank Fifth Third Bank $1.1 billion[11] Fifth Third Bank
2008 PNC Financial Services National City Corp. PNC Financial Services $5.08 billion[12] PNC Financial Services
2008 U.S. Bancorp Downey Savings and Loan U.S. Bancorp U.S. Bancorp
2009 M&T Bank Provident Bank of Maryland M&T Bank M&T Bank
2009 M&T Bank Bradford Bank M&T Bank M&T Bank
2011 M&T Bank Wilmington Trust M&T Bank M&T Bank
2011 Capital One ING Direct USA Capital One $9 billion[13] Capital One
2012 PNC Financial Services RBC Bank PNC Financial Services $3.45 billion PNC Financial Services

if you need a diagram..

here it is... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Graph_of_Bank_Mergers_in_USA.svg

the sad fact is.. banks got bigger under Obama,...

well OT,.. what has Obama done to break up the big banks?


Weren't "big bank mergers" a Democrat policy to begin with?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Aladar said:
a) the mega banks need to be broken up. no question about that.

b) FDIC insurance is not a government subsidy-- you need to go do a bit of homework to figure that one out. It is funded by ALL banks to protect depositor money, not capital and equity. Before the fund pays out, the owners equity is drained. The banks in this country prepaid 3 years of assessments into the fund to ensure the health of the fund-- nothing came from the government.

c) most of the loans, made to banks that are still solvent-- have been repaid with interest (not discounted and paid back for pennies on the dollar)

d) it was the banks, thru the FDIC fund that bailed out the Farm Credit System and their fiasco in the 80's-- and THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITY.

The way to do that is to end the government subsidies the banks receive that guarantee their survival. Currently, even the worst run big bank can access money on better terms than better run smaller banks. Why? Because of the government guarantee. Take it away, and the big banks would be forced to compete on the same terms as other banks.

So Aladar are you saying that Mr. Rasmussen is wrong that even the worst big banks get access to money at better rates than better run small banks? Isn't it because they know the government will always bail them out?

c) most of the loans, made to banks that are still solvent-- have been repaid with interest (not discounted and paid back for pennies on the dollar)

So let me see if I understand the rightwingernut thinking-- Bailout loans to banks that are repaid are OK- but Bailout loans to auto dealers that are repaid are evil :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Bailout loans to banks that are repaid are OK- but Bailout loans to auto dealers that are repaid are evil

GM paid back most of the loans with taxpayer money. Grassley caught that shyster trick and Geithner let it go.

The GM stock owned by the U.S. taxpayer will never be sold for enough to pay us back.

GM still owes the taxpayers.......................

What's that about evil?

There is still $200 Billion due from the bailouts:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news/companies/taxpayer-bailouts/index.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Mike said:
Bailout loans to banks that are repaid are OK- but Bailout loans to auto dealers that are repaid are evil

GM paid back most of the loans with taxpayer money. Grassley caught that shyster trick and Geithner let it go.

The GM stock owned by the U.S. taxpayer will never be sold for enough to pay us back.

GM still owes the taxpayers.......................

What's that about evil?

I have a Liberal like emotion coming on...OT is going to get his azz kicked again in this thread.
 

Steve

Well-known member
So let me see if I understand the rightwingernut thinking-- Bailout loans to banks that are repaid are OK- but Bailout loans to auto dealers that are repaid are evil

you understand it wrong again,... :roll:

bailouts to banks were and are wrong...

them paying back the money is about the only responsible thing they have been forced to do ...

bailouts to auto makers was wrong,.. and they haven't paid it back...

U.S. loses $1.3 billion in exiting Chrysler

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.

Initial estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 2009, predicted the government would lose $40 billion on the overall auto bailout.

Now it estimates, by the time the $80 billion program is completely wrapped up, taxpayers will have lost $14 billion.

darn facts.. they sure do confuse those liberals..
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Mike said:
Bailout loans to banks that are repaid are OK- but Bailout loans to auto dealers that are repaid are evil

GM paid back most of the loans with taxpayer money. Grassley caught that shyster trick and Geithner let it go.

The GM stock owned by the U.S. taxpayer will never be sold for enough to pay us back.

GM still owes the taxpayers.......................

What's that about evil?

I have a Liberal like emotion coming on...OT is going to get his azz kicked again in this thread.

He never knows what the hell he is talking about before he inserts his foot in mouth.......................

He's like the "know it all" that everyone laughs at................... :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I never realized that GM was the only auto dealer- or the only one bailed out....

May 24, 2011

Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?



SUMMARY

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne announced Tuesday that the company had repaid $7.9 billion in debt and interest to the U.S. and Canadian governments, less than two years after receiving a bailout.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I never realized that GM was the only auto dealer- or the only one bailed out....

May 24, 2011

Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?



SUMMARY

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne announced Tuesday that the company had repaid $7.9 billion in debt and interest to the U.S. and Canadian governments, less than two years after receiving a bailout.

You idiot! Chrysler got taken over by Fiat. They paid the debts off...........well, all but $1.3 Billion.

The amount of money handed out to GM & Chrysler were so vast and shady, no one really knows the exact figure of what they owe the taxpayer. Just as Buckwheat had planned..............

On July 21, 2011, Fiat bought the Chrysler shares held by the United States Treasury. With the purchase, Chrysler once again became foreign owned; this time Italian car maker Fiat gained majority ownership and control of Chrysler.[38] The United States government's involvement in the Chrysler bankruptcy cost U.S. taxpayers $1.3 billion.

You probably remember when GM made the big announcement that it had paid off its loans from the bailout? You most likely also remember that subsequent investigation found that GM was simply using borrowed money from a government extended line of credit to “pay back” part of what was loaned under the bailout? In other words it took taxpayer money extended under the LOC and gave it to the government as a payment of “debt”. Overall, though, its debt remained the same.

This week Chrysler went through the same sort of shenanigans as Conn Carroll reports:

American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?

The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion.
This is simply more smoke and mirrors from the “Smoke and Mirrors” administration, now engaged in pre-election image burnishing. In fact, the payback (someone call Debbie Wasserman Shultz) involves allowing a foreign auto company to take more control of Chrysler and then tossing a loan for 3.5 billion from government on top of the Fiat purchase of Chrysler stock at a reduced price.

They want you to believe this signals a stronger and profitable Chrysler. In fact, it is a pathetic attempt to fool the public.

But it is even worse than that:

So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.
Again, don’t forget the $4 billion in loans the Obama administration has “forgiven” that taxpayers will never get back – all in an effort to make this truly horrendous deal for taxpayers seem better than it is so he can claim credit for “saving the US auto industry” during the coming political re-election campaign.

The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it’s all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Smack,,,You would think that oldtimer would learn sooner or later to just keep his mouth shut,,,gets it stuffed full of his feet every time he opens it...he googles something he thinks will coinvince us all of his wisdom but never bothers to research it,,,I wonder just how good of a father or rancher or neighbor he is,,,,that he spends all the time that he does on the net????????heck the amont of time he spends idolizing Borowich is amazing...Remember when he used to spend all the time watch the late night talk shows to get the Bush jokes so he could post them in here????Guess since oboma he has't posted the jokes, why is that oldtimer????
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
I never realized that GM was the only auto dealer- or the only one bailed out....

May 24, 2011

Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?



SUMMARY

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne announced Tuesday that the company had repaid $7.9 billion in debt and interest to the U.S. and Canadian governments, less than two years after receiving a bailout.

You idiot! Chrysler got taken over by Fiat. They paid the debts off...........well, all but $1.3 Billion.

The amount of money handed out to GM & Chrysler were so vast and shady, no one really knows the exact figure of what they owe the taxpayer. Just as Buckwheat had planned..............

On July 21, 2011, Fiat bought the Chrysler shares held by the United States Treasury. With the purchase, Chrysler once again became foreign owned; this time Italian car maker Fiat gained majority ownership and control of Chrysler.[38] The United States government's involvement in the Chrysler bankruptcy cost U.S. taxpayers $1.3 billion.

You probably remember when GM made the big announcement that it had paid off its loans from the bailout? You most likely also remember that subsequent investigation found that GM was simply using borrowed money from a government extended line of credit to “pay back” part of what was loaned under the bailout? In other words it took taxpayer money extended under the LOC and gave it to the government as a payment of “debt”. Overall, though, its debt remained the same.

This week Chrysler went through the same sort of shenanigans as Conn Carroll reports:

American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?

The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion.
This is simply more smoke and mirrors from the “Smoke and Mirrors” administration, now engaged in pre-election image burnishing. In fact, the payback (someone call Debbie Wasserman Shultz) involves allowing a foreign auto company to take more control of Chrysler and then tossing a loan for 3.5 billion from government on top of the Fiat purchase of Chrysler stock at a reduced price.

They want you to believe this signals a stronger and profitable Chrysler. In fact, it is a pathetic attempt to fool the public.

But it is even worse than that:

So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.
Again, don’t forget the $4 billion in loans the Obama administration has “forgiven” that taxpayers will never get back – all in an effort to make this truly horrendous deal for taxpayers seem better than it is so he can claim credit for “saving the US auto industry” during the coming political re-election campaign.

The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it’s all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.

This is why I drive Fords. To say you were against the bailouts and then buy a GM or Chrysler product puts one in the same league as OldDumbass.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
I never realized that GM was the only auto dealer- or the only one bailed out....

May 24, 2011

Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?



SUMMARY

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne announced Tuesday that the company had repaid $7.9 billion in debt and interest to the U.S. and Canadian governments, less than two years after receiving a bailout.

You idiot! Chrysler got taken over by Fiat. They paid the debts off...........well, all but $1.3 Billion.

The amount of money handed out to GM & Chrysler were so vast and shady, no one really knows the exact figure of what they owe the taxpayer. Just as Buckwheat had planned..............

On July 21, 2011, Fiat bought the Chrysler shares held by the United States Treasury. With the purchase, Chrysler once again became foreign owned; this time Italian car maker Fiat gained majority ownership and control of Chrysler.[38] The United States government's involvement in the Chrysler bankruptcy cost U.S. taxpayers $1.3 billion.

You probably remember when GM made the big announcement that it had paid off its loans from the bailout? You most likely also remember that subsequent investigation found that GM was simply using borrowed money from a government extended line of credit to “pay back” part of what was loaned under the bailout? In other words it took taxpayer money extended under the LOC and gave it to the government as a payment of “debt”. Overall, though, its debt remained the same.

This week Chrysler went through the same sort of shenanigans as Conn Carroll reports:

American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?

The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion.
This is simply more smoke and mirrors from the “Smoke and Mirrors” administration, now engaged in pre-election image burnishing. In fact, the payback (someone call Debbie Wasserman Shultz) involves allowing a foreign auto company to take more control of Chrysler and then tossing a loan for 3.5 billion from government on top of the Fiat purchase of Chrysler stock at a reduced price.

They want you to believe this signals a stronger and profitable Chrysler. In fact, it is a pathetic attempt to fool the public.

But it is even worse than that:

So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.
Again, don’t forget the $4 billion in loans the Obama administration has “forgiven” that taxpayers will never get back – all in an effort to make this truly horrendous deal for taxpayers seem better than it is so he can claim credit for “saving the US auto industry” during the coming political re-election campaign.

The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it’s all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.

Mike, rubbing his knuckles, turns and walks away. OT slowly getting to his knees, starts to cry, and blows his bloody nose into his shirt.
 
Top