The US just spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out financial institutions that were "too big to fail" and the Democrats in full control of the government responded by making "too big to fail" (actually "systemically important") an officially recognized government label, thereby guaranteeing the continuation of such institutions (and the necessity of future bailouts). How is this even a race America?
What the Democrats did in reaction to the bailout was try and introduce regulations which would make too big to fail something that was a thing of the past, but the Republicans weakened it.
Unfortunately, I don't have a specific source for you. My understanding, however, is that Dodd-Frank labels certain institutions as "systemically important," and that this is likely to be seen by the market as an implicit government guarantee, thus lowering borrowing costs for such institutions and giving them a competitive advantage over non-systemically important competitors. If that happens, they would then likely become even larger, thus posing an even greater threat to the overall economy next time they are on the brink of failure, thus forcing the government's hand into further bailouts. If this is incorrect, I'd be happy to be shown the error of my ways.
This is why you get more sources to corroborate your favorite red-leaning newsreaders hand feed you. It doesn't take a genius to understand it. Just time and patience. Which admin started the bailout? When was "too big to fail" popularized? What was the first company that was considered "too big to fail" bought out in the last 10 years? Why? Your source might say what Dodd-Frank thinks it fixed, but what does Dodd-Frank claim they fix? From there, where did the initial problems come from? Is this an Obama/Democrat problem, or a systemic non-partisan problem? That's lip service. With greasy****ers like Schumer, Dodd, Frank, and Lieberman there's no way that would've passed any muster. Regulatory capture is past tense. Both parties are oversold.
Was this directed at me? I got most of my info on the subject from WSJ, NY Times, and from having worked on Wall Street for a while. I'm not being hand-fed conservative talking points from Fox.
I agree that both parties are oversold, and lobbyists have too much power, but that doesn't change that one party tried to introduce legislation to curb to big to fail, and a different party blocked and weakened it.
That's not actually the purpose of the "systemically important" label. Those institutions are now required to create windup plans to ensure, if they do move towards failure, there is a system in place to wind them down without a bailout. Those plans have to be approved (I believe) by both the Fed and the Treasury Dept. The idea is that, if they fail, there needs to be a mechanism already in place to ensure they don't force the government to bail them out.
You don't have a source, you are a layman at best, and Republicans were the ones who architected the bailouts to begin with. YOu are just regurgitation talking points without actual real knowledge. If you had real knowledge you'd know that regulations prevented these institutions from ever getting to big to fail. Those regulations were removed by both parties.
ummmm ok? So 6 trillion dollars takes up a lot of pallets....what's your point? Why does the physical size of that amount of cash significant? Would you not care as much if it was a $6 trillion check?
umm I think your missing the point of the graphic. it's to show that six trillion is a crap load of money and most people can't even comprehend just how large a trillion is.
No matter how well the country is run, the 1st/2nd/3rd biggest economy in the world with a 300 million population will spend in the trillions. People need to comprehend that large amounts of spending is not necessarily bad - it is only bad if it is not being put to good use or if it is obtained in a bad way.
Wall Street, K Street and Madison Avenue own both political parties. The only difference in financial policy is the Democrats have a pretense of defending the middle class.
Well, well, well.... Romney Flip Flops BIG TIME Say this morning that he will NOT repeal Obamacare. This will not sit well with the crazies that demand republicans repeal all of the law. Welcome to the dark side Willard. Mitt Romney: I’ll Keep The Good Parts Of ‘Obamacare’ Asked on “Meet The Press” if he wants to repeal those two popular provisions of the law, Romney said, “Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.”
How is this a flip flop? From the beginning, Romney has said his plan was to "repeal and replace." Mentioning that he likes two provisions of the law is not a flip flop.
