Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Senate Ends Subsidies For 2 Big 2 Fail Banks


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,084 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 25 March 2013 - 05:31 PM

Quote

This phrase will always be associated with the 2008 economic collapse that sent America into the deepest recession since 1929. In order to stop the financial bleeding, the U.S. government voted to rescue the big banks rather than allow them to fail and take our economy with them. Ever since, big banks have only gotten bigger on the premise that if they fail again, the government will bail them out. Billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies have been dealt to those very banks in the years since.

But on Friday, the U.S. Senate did something that it rarely does these days. An amendment was offered as an attachment to the Senate budget bill and it not only gained the support of both Republicans and Democrats, it received unanimous support. By a vote of 99-0, the U.S. Senate voted to strip “too big to fail” banks of the taxpayer subsidies they’ve been getting for far too long.

US Senate Unanimously Votes To End Unfair Subsidies For ‘Too Big To Fail’ Banks

This is great, now if the house republicans don't drop the ball.  Now if they will do the same to defense contractors and Big Oil so they aren't getting subsidies.

I think they should break up some of these big banking institutions if they can collapse our economy by their actions.  Or at least let them know if they do several someones might go to prison and we will take all their money.


#2    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,557 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 25 March 2013 - 07:42 PM

One huge reform would be a requirement that banking and investing cannot be done by the same company.  You're either one or the other.


#3    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 11,802 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 25 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

View PostRafterman, on 25 March 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

One huge reform would be a requirement that banking and investing cannot be done by the same company.  You're either one or the other.
I'm just a simple kind of man but even I have a problem with my banker and bookie being the same person....

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#4    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Knight of Sarcasm

  • Member
  • 8,743 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:33 AM

View Postand then, on 25 March 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm just a simple kind of man but even I have a problem with my banker and bookie being the same person....
it's even worse when the banker and the local gambler is the same person ;)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users