Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a huge part of the bill, so I suspect the Dems will drop it just to shut up Mitch McConnell with his Frank Luntz talking points.
Exactly. This is McConnell caught with his foot stuck in his mouth reading directly from the spin-book of Frank Luntz. The puppet-show sham and mockery that is the Republican Party leadership marches on.
Meanwhile, there is very little partisan difference on the reform bill itself. The things that are taking time are taking time because they are hard. Still, look for a vote out of the Senate by the end of the month. If not, then sometime early next month.
Doesn't answer my question which was... Where does the fund come from?
Its a $50B hidden tax on consumers..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
One word: Regulation. Don't like it? Too bad.
The industry needs laws created to seperate FDIC insured funds from investment funds, but other than that, hedge funds which fail, should fail by their own accord, and through the bankruptcy courts. No other federal office is needed to "wind down" what takes place thousands of times daily in this country without issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Unless we expand the powers of them all to cover every regulation. But, aren't regulations about "takeovers" you had an issue with?
No need to take over hedge funds. Bernie Maddoff fund was wound down without a federal version of the FDIC. yeah there were numerous legal challenges, but thats due to fraud. Buffet himself wound down his investment mechanisms back in the 70's for a period of time. No federal regulations or oversight needed. I wind down several trusts a year and create several new ones, never had an issue. Its a civil contract between investors and myself. The imaginary need for federal control into an industry that rarely has issues, is nothing but an expansion of government into an industry villiafied to the public for the purpose of moving an agenda forward. Nothing else..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
So what? Shameless creatures have shown their colors enough.
Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) claim that the financial reform bill currently being debated in the Senate "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks" at the expense of taxpayers is false, according to Politifact.
Lying is just what the Republicans do. They literally lie about everything and have been doing so for years. You can almost always simply bet the truth is the exact opposite of their claims and be correct.
It's politics, and politics is politics - there are no clean hands.
One side is occasionally incorrect but normally truthful while the other ALWAYS deliberately lies. There simply is no way to pretend the two are the same.
One side is occasionally incorrect but normally truthful while the other ALWAYS deliberately lies. There simply is no way to pretend the two are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Only the dishonest would try to claim that it's only "the other guy" that does it.
Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) claim that the financial reform bill currently being debated in the Senate "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks" at the expense of taxpayers is false, according to Politifact.
Your title sounds so much like what the White House is telling the state owned media and all those willing to work for them against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Did you forget and post their words by mistake?
Does the financial regulatory bill put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts? Or does it "institutionalize" them? Viewers of the Sunday political talk shows and recent C-SPAN clips from the Senate floor might well be wondering, as Democrats (the "end of bailouts" crowd) and some Republicans (the "institutionalize" camp) have made these contradictory claims.
No piece of legislation can guarantee that a future Congress won’t allow the federal government to prop up a failing financial institution. But claims that this bill makes taxpayer-funded bailouts a permanent fixture are misleading, to say the least.
The main point of contention is a provision that calls for a $50 billion fund to be used to liquidate a bank that’s on the verge of collapse. The bill does not authorize use of the fund to prop up companies or bail them out. Rather, it would be used to keep a troubled company operating long enough for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to dismantle it. The Senate bill, which is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, states that the fund would be available to the FDIC to be used for "the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies, payment of administrative expenses, the payment of principal and interest by the Corporation on obligations issued under paragraph (9), and the exercise of the authorities of the Corporation under this title." (The "Corporation" is the FDIC.) This fund is even called the "Orderly Liquidation Fund" in the bill.
Furthermore, while critics speak of "taxpayer-funded bailouts," the fund in question isn’t financed by ordinary taxpayers at all. The bill requires banks and financial institutions to fund it, and replenish it if funds are used. The FDIC would decide which companies have to contribute, and how much, based on an institution’s risk. The FDIC would have between five and 10 years to reach that target of $50 billion.
Does the financial regulatory bill put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts? Or does it "institutionalize" them? Viewers of the Sunday political talk shows and recent C-SPAN clips from the Senate floor might well be wondering, as Democrats (the "end of bailouts" crowd) and some Republicans (the "institutionalize" camp) have made these contradictory claims.
No piece of legislation can guarantee that a future Congress won’t allow the federal government to prop up a failing financial institution. But claims that this bill makes taxpayer-funded bailouts a permanent fixture are misleading, to say the least.
The main point of contention is a provision that calls for a $50 billion fund to be used to liquidate a bank that’s on the verge of collapse. The bill does not authorize use of the fund to prop up companies or bail them out. Rather, it would be used to keep a troubled company operating long enough for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to dismantle it. The Senate bill, which is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, states that the fund would be available to the FDIC to be used for "the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies, payment of administrative expenses, the payment of principal and interest by the Corporation on obligations issued under paragraph (9), and the exercise of the authorities of the Corporation under this title." (The "Corporation" is the FDIC.) This fund is even called the "Orderly Liquidation Fund" in the bill.
Furthermore, while critics speak of "taxpayer-funded bailouts," the fund in question isn’t financed by ordinary taxpayers at all. The bill requires banks and financial institutions to fund it, and replenish it if funds are used. The FDIC would decide which companies have to contribute, and how much, based on an institution’s risk. The FDIC would have between five and 10 years to reach that target of $50 billion.
do you actually believe factcheck.org is not biased? Have you ever looked at the site? and did you even read the things you placed in red ink? Do you actually understand any of this? I'm thinking you don't because none of what you put in there actually supports the purpose of this thread. It's pure BS, though, so it fits in perfectly. Congrats
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
