PDA

View Full Version : Banks Too Big to Fail



Chris
10-31-2015, 09:47 AM
Hillary was guest of Colbert's Late Show. He asked her what she would do next time banks to big to fail fail, would she bail them (as Bush and Obama did). She said no, let them fail. Then she added, she would break them up.

So, open discussion, what should be done about big banks?

I say let them fail. Period.

Matty
10-31-2015, 09:52 AM
I was listening to a discussion on FBN and they claim that if one of the big banks fail the economy will go under. They said it was as necessary now to bail them out as it was in 2008. I am no whiz at finance but another bailout just dosen't appeal to me. Maybe breaking them down to a smaller size has merit.

Crepitus
10-31-2015, 10:13 AM
Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Break the banks into smaller institutions. Investigate what caused failure and prosecute if there is evidence of criminal activity.

pragmatic
10-31-2015, 10:24 AM
Hillary was guest of Colbert's Late Show. He asked her what she would do next time banks to big to fail fail, would she bail them (as Bush and Obama did). She said no, let them fail. Then she added, she would break them up.

So, open discussion, what should be done about big banks?

I say let them fail. Period.


Problem is that the situation has gotten worse that it was in 2008. Bigger/more consolidated now than then.

The major banks are too big to allow to fail. The economic impact would be too great.

They need to either be broken up. Or increase regulation/monitoring of their activity/behavior.

pragmatic
10-31-2015, 10:26 AM
Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Break the banks into smaller institutions. Investigate what caused failure and prosecute if there is evidence of criminal activity.


Agree. Think the evidence was there. Executives/officials should have been prosecuted from that last event.

Matty
10-31-2015, 10:27 AM
Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Break the banks into smaller institutions. Investigate what caused failure and prosecute if there is evidence of criminal activity.


The failure was linked to the housing market. They kept moving mortgages around and selling fake derivatives. It finally caught up with them.

Crepitus
10-31-2015, 10:30 AM
The failure was linked to the housing market. They kept moving mortgages around and selling fake derivatives. It finally caught up with them.
I am aware. But nobody got more than a slap on the wrist for it.

Chris
10-31-2015, 10:33 AM
They got big(ger) because of government protections like promises to bail them out. So I'm leary of any proposal of government solution like breaking them up.

donttread
10-31-2015, 10:35 AM
Hillary was guest of Colbert's Late Show. He asked her what she would do next time banks to big to fail fail, would she bail them (as Bush and Obama did). She said no, let them fail. Then she added, she would break them up.

So, open discussion, what should be done about big banks?


I say let them fail. Period.


First of all she is lying. Secondly, for freedom to live the megacorps must die

pragmatic
10-31-2015, 10:39 AM
First of all she is lying. Secondly, for freedom to live the megacorps must die


Agree with that.

Chris
10-31-2015, 10:42 AM
First of all she is lying. Secondly, for freedom to live the megacorps must die

But they are protected by the government.

donttread
10-31-2015, 10:44 AM
But they are protected by the government.


Yes, we must also downsize the government

Ethereal
10-31-2015, 10:56 AM
Hillary is a liar who cannot be trusted, so there is no way I believe her when she says that.

And the "too big too fail" meme was invented by the bankers themselves in order to dupe well-meaning people into bailing them out. Don't believe that nonsense for a second. The only way a market can properly function is if such firms are allowed to fail of their own accord. Bailing them out will not magically erase the malinvestments or the misallocation of resources, it will just transfer the cost of those bad actions to the working classes. So not only is it economically idiotic, it's morally wrong.

pragmatic
10-31-2015, 11:20 AM
But they are protected by the government.


And "they" (the banks) provide the campaign cash which selects the representatives of that government.

Quite the dilemma, eh....??

Chris
10-31-2015, 11:34 AM
And "they" (the banks) provide the campaign cash which selects the representatives of that government.

Quite the dilemma, eh....??


Quite the corrupt collusion, no?

You can't break up one, the banks, without breaking up the other, the federal government.

valley ranch
10-31-2015, 11:51 AM
The revolving door, Banking executives move back and forth from government positions and positions in these large banks~Plus the banks finance the campaigns of politician.
The politicians gave the American peoples money to cover losses due to bad banking practices, this was corruption of government.

The government protects citizens bank accounts up to a certain amount, there was never intention for our government protecting banks from bad loan policies.
One party in government did arrange for banks to give loans to those who did not qualify. Failure of loan repayment was then paid for by the American People by actions of corrupt politicians in both parties.

This redistribution of wealth was never voted for by the American People.

Peter1469
10-31-2015, 03:34 PM
Never bail them out.

Separate financial institutions from banks.

Break up any bank that is "too big to fail."

Kurmugeon
10-31-2015, 09:02 PM
If you don't let them fail, and keep taxing the middle class to bail them out, sooner or later, they will have embezzled and exec bonus stolen ALL of the money and WE, the Middle Class will fail.

Let them fail, or we will fail!

-

Captain Obvious
10-31-2015, 09:12 PM
If you don't let them fail, and keep taxing the middle class to bail them out, sooner or later, they will have embezzled and exec bonus stolen ALL of the money and WE, the Middle Class will fail.

Let them fail, or we will fail!

-

Wow... I'm stunned, didn't expect this from you.

Tahuyaman
10-31-2015, 09:38 PM
First of all she is lying. Secondly, for freedom to live the megacorps must die


She really isn't lying. She really means that now. Being on the outside, responsible for nothing, she can say that truthfully. If she should become president and the situation presents itself, she will not have a choice but to reverse course.

The partisans would figure out a way to say she didn't flip-flop on the issue.

Crepitus
11-01-2015, 10:01 AM
If you don't let them fail, and keep taxing the middle class to bail them out, sooner or later, they will have embezzled and exec bonus stolen ALL of the money and WE, the Middle Class will fail.

Let them fail, or we will fail!

-
I agree but hearing this from you.....well

https://lebanonpennant.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/nuclear-mind-blown.jpg

Adelaide
11-01-2015, 10:01 AM
Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Break the banks into smaller institutions. Investigate what caused failure and prosecute if there is evidence of criminal activity.

Basically my thoughts. I've been advocating for Glass-Steagall for a while. But in general, these banks should not be allowed to become "too big to fail". Regulation is needed. Split them up and knock them down to size because continually bailing them out is not a feasible option or one that should give banks the ability to fail over and over again and know they'll always be caught.

Peter1469
11-01-2015, 10:05 AM
Business failure is good for the market. It weeds out the poor performers and makes room for new blood.

pragmatic
11-01-2015, 11:10 AM
Business failure is good for the market. It weeds out the poor performers and makes room for new blood.

Plus the fact that a business will take less risks if they know that the government isn't going to be there to rescue them.

Some of the discoveries that came out of the 2008 economic fiasco were astonishing. Packaging/repackaging/repackaging of mortgage instruments. Every layer designed to mask the overextended/non existent collateral of the underlying mortgages.

For those that recall. Even the financial experts reporting were struggling to understand/explain how complex that market was.


And the Rating Agencies just turned a blind eye while it was all happening.

Chris
11-01-2015, 11:12 AM
I don't see it as a matter of allowing banks to grow so big but as a matter of the government colluding with them to grow them so big.

Ethereal
11-01-2015, 10:06 PM
Regulation is needed.

The banking sector is one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, and the central component of the banking system, the USD, is a centrally planned government monopoly. I don't know how it could be anymore regulated than it already is.

Crepitus
11-01-2015, 10:56 PM
The banking sector is one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, and the central component of the banking system, the USD, is a centrally planned government monopoly. I don't know how it could be anymore regulated than it already is.
And yet they still managed to bend the rules far enough to crash the economy..........

zelmo1234
11-02-2015, 12:20 AM
Hillary was guest of Colbert's Late Show. He asked her what she would do next time banks to big to fail fail, would she bail them (as Bush and Obama did). She said no, let them fail. Then she added, she would break them up.

So, open discussion, what should be done about big banks?

I say let them fail. Period.

Well she is half right. in that they should have been allowed to fail. I have issues with the government breaking up private companies as the end result is usually worse for the people? but that is another topic.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/clinton_says_shell_vote_for_ba.html

The funny part of this however is, that she in fact voted in favor of bailing out the banks?

And the left will find another way to excuse this behavior I am sure.

zelmo1234
11-02-2015, 12:22 AM
Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Break the banks into smaller institutions. Investigate what caused failure and prosecute if there is evidence of criminal activity.

We already know what caused the failure.

The Equity in Housing Act and the Community Reinvestment Act. Here is the funny part, the policies that set this banking collapse in motion are still in effect today?

Ethereal
11-02-2015, 12:46 AM
And yet they still managed to bend the rules far enough to crash the economy..........

Probably because they are the ones who write the rules and promote the consolidation of the financial industry.

Brett Nortje
11-02-2015, 03:23 AM
Business failure is good for the market. It weeds out the poor performers and makes room for new blood.

If the banks fail, then people will lose their savings, and, not be able to get paid in time for the end of the month. as the money has disappeared from the private sector, there will be no investment, so no new banks will blossom. then, the private sector will end up with no money!

It is like having someone on medication, they will be unable to get more medication if they cannot have it now. it is something i call a relay.

Crepitus
11-02-2015, 07:19 AM
Now reconcile this statement with the one below it.



The banking sector is one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, and the central component of the banking system, the USD, is a centrally planned government monopoly. I don't know how it could be anymore regulated than it already is.


Probably because they are the ones who write the rules and promote the consolidation of the financial industry.

Crepitus
11-02-2015, 07:21 AM
We already know what caused the failure.

The Equity in Housing Act and the Community Reinvestment Act. Here is the funny part, the policies that set this banking collapse in motion are still in effect today?
bought and paid for politicians.

Common
11-02-2015, 07:28 AM
Hillary was guest of Colbert's Late Show. He asked her what she would do next time banks to big to fail fail, would she bail them (as Bush and Obama did). She said no, let them fail. Then she added, she would break them up.

So, open discussion, what should be done about big banks?

I say let them fail. Period.


Everyone tells us that Business makes investment and takes risks and deserve renumeration for those investments, I agree. However,

Banks are consistently being investigated and found guilty of all kinds of nefarious shenannigans by the justice debt. They get a fine and get to make the public statement, We did nothing wrong. Oh youre just paying a 300,000,000 dollar fine because you did it all straight up ? Gee thats nice of you.

Along with periodically robbing americans when they "say" they are failing we give them hundreds of billions more to save them while they continue to give out bonus's. Whos kidding who ? LET THEM FAIL

Common
11-02-2015, 07:30 AM
Reagan did this, with the "CREATED" savings and loan crisis that never really was. It was all by design by the richest and most influential americans to get rid of the small savings and loans that offered better services in some cases more interest and alot better and friendly customer service. The big money people wanted them gone. So they paid them off with taxpayer money creating the savings and loan fiasco and got what they wanted.

zelmo1234
11-02-2015, 07:32 AM
If the banks fail, then people will lose their savings, and, not be able to get paid in time for the end of the month. as the money has disappeared from the private sector, there will be no investment, so no new banks will blossom. then, the private sector will end up with no money!

It is like having someone on medication, they will be unable to get more medication if they cannot have it now. it is something i call a relay.

Of course the FDIC insurance would prevent this form happening but lets not take that into account.

zelmo1234
11-02-2015, 07:34 AM
Reagan did this, with the "CREATED" savings and loan crisis that never really was. It was all by design by the richest and most influential americans to get rid of the small savings and loans that offered better services in some cases more interest and alot better and friendly customer service. The big money people wanted them gone. So they paid them off with taxpayer money creating the savings and loan fiasco and got what they wanted.

You mean like the Credit Unions of today?

The S and L problem was real but they returned as credit unions that have better standards. If you are not part of a Credit union and you actually borrow money. you are a little crazy.

zelmo1234
11-02-2015, 07:35 AM
bought and paid for politicians.

Well we know that Barney the banking Queen Franks and Christopher I did know I got a 1% mortgage Dodd came out OK

Brett Nortje
11-02-2015, 08:06 AM
Of course the FDIC insurance would prevent this form happening but lets not take that into account.

How? please support your speculation?

Chris
11-02-2015, 08:57 PM
Interesting discussion. Not sure there's a good solution. It may be too late.

Good video, especially the second half history of bailouts beginning with Reagan...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT1WqIkg9es

Dr. Who
11-02-2015, 10:12 PM
Everyone tells us that Business makes investment and takes risks and deserve renumeration for those investments, I agree. However,

Banks are consistently being investigated and found guilty of all kinds of nefarious shenannigans by the justice debt. They get a fine and get to make the public statement, We did nothing wrong. Oh youre just paying a 300,000,000 dollar fine because you did it all straight up ? Gee thats nice of you.

Along with periodically robbing americans when they "say" they are failing we give them hundreds of billions more to save them while they continue to give out bonus's. Whos kidding who ? LET THEM FAIL
Meh, they deliberately created a real estate ponzi scheme of inordinately high ratio mortgages, unloaded it on other financial institutions and put it on the market to protect themselves. They knew it could blow up, but they didn't care. The short term gain was too attractive and they could not have done so if the regulations hadn't been relaxed. The CEO's and executive management of these organizations made enough money off their preferred stock holdings that they didn't have to care what happened next. They were protected by insurance policies and the banks were protected by the government. They are clever enough to make it look like there was no deliberate intention to defraud the market, which is why no one was arrested. However when it walks like a duck....

Common
11-02-2015, 10:17 PM
The savings and loan thing was to get rid of all the mom and pop banks that Wall street didnt want to compete with. It lowered competition in the banking industry dramatically. I was pissed I wasnt going to get any more toasters for opening an acct

Ethereal
11-02-2015, 10:26 PM
Now reconcile this statement with the one below it.

There's nothing to reconcile. The big banks have been promoting the consolidation of the financial industry since the late 1800's. The Federal Reserve system, which was a radical centralization of the banking industry, was pushed exclusively by elites like JP Morgan.

Common
11-02-2015, 10:30 PM
There's nothing to reconcile. The big banks have been promoting the consolidation of the financial industry since the late 1800's. The Federal Reserve system, which was a radical centralization of the banking industry, was pushed exclusively by elites like JP Morgan.

You mentioned in an earlier thread that banking industry is the most regulated. I just read early this morning that included in the budget bill 13 deregulatory clauses that wall street has been lobbying for a long time were snuck in there and no ones talking about them so that means it was a bipartisan move. I scrambled to go back and find the article but I just cant find it.

Ethereal
11-02-2015, 10:30 PM
Meh, they deliberately created a real estate ponzi scheme of inordinately high ratio mortgages, unloaded it on other financial institutions and put it on the market to protect themselves. They knew it could blow up, but they didn't care. The short term gain was too attractive and they could not have done so if the regulations hadn't been relaxed. The CEO's and executive management of these organizations made enough money off their preferred stock holdings that they didn't have to care what happened next. They were protected by insurance policies and the banks were protected by the government. They are clever enough to make it look like there was no deliberate intention to defraud the market, which is why no one was arrested. However when it walks like a duck....

They couldn't have done it if not for the implicit guarantee of a bailout. These banking firms know that the Federal Reserve system acts as a lender of last resort in situations where they've overextended themselves. So why would they engage in excessively risky business practices unless they knew they wouldn't be held accountable for it?

Ethereal
11-02-2015, 10:34 PM
You mentioned in an earlier thread that banking industry is the most regulated. I just read early this morning that included in the budget bill 13 deregulatory clauses that wall street has been lobbying for a long time were snuck in there and no ones talking about them so that means it was a bipartisan move. I scrambled to go back and find the article but I just cant find it.

FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/)

Federal Reserve System Regulations (http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm)

Get back to me in about a thousand years when you've finished reading them all... :grin:

Common
11-02-2015, 10:45 PM
FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/)

Federal Reserve System Regulations (http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm)

Get back to me in about a thousand years when you've finished reading them all... :grin:

Im not inclined to waste any time at all on that at this stage of my life :)

Common
11-02-2015, 10:46 PM
Im not inclined to waste any time at all on that at this stage of my life :)

But I will say this, i dont care if they had triple that many regulations, the banks still find ways to screw us out of billions and get away with it. No one ever gets indicted and they always get to say WE admit no wrongdoing, they pay a fine and thats that.

Dr. Who
11-02-2015, 10:48 PM
They couldn't have done it if not for the implicit guarantee of a bailout. These banking firms know that the Federal Reserve system acts as a lender of last resort in situations where they've overextended themselves. So why would they engage in excessively risky business practices unless they knew they wouldn't be held accountable for it?
Of course. They are the ultimate slime buckets who pass for the upper crust of society, collude with government and play the system. They are criminals, but since they have effectively bought the system, they will never be arrested. They make the heads of drug cartels and the mafia look like primitive unsophisticated thugs.

Crepitus
11-02-2015, 11:05 PM
The banking sector is one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, and the central component of the banking system, the USD, is a centrally planned government monopoly. I don't know how it could be anymore regulated than it already is.


There's nothing to reconcile. The big banks have been promoting the consolidation of the financial industry since the late 1800's. The Federal Reserve system, which was a radical centralization of the banking industry, was pushed exclusively by elites like JP Morgan.
You say they are both heavily regulated and that they write their own rules. Are they heavily regulated by themselves? If that is what you mean then we have the fox guarding the hen house.

Ethereal
11-02-2015, 11:48 PM
You say they are both heavily regulated and that they write their own rules. Are they heavily regulated by themselves? If that is what you mean then we have the fox guarding the hen house.

Yes, that is exactly it.

Peter1469
11-03-2015, 02:43 AM
Meh, they deliberately created a real estate ponzi scheme of inordinately high ratio mortgages, unloaded it on other financial institutions and put it on the market to protect themselves. They knew it could blow up, but they didn't care. The short term gain was too attractive and they could not have done so if the regulations hadn't been relaxed. The CEO's and executive management of these organizations made enough money off their preferred stock holdings that they didn't have to care what happened next. They were protected by insurance policies and the banks were protected by the government. They are clever enough to make it look like there was no deliberate intention to defraud the market, which is why no one was arrested. However when it walks like a duck....


Bankers in Iceland were arrests. I think around 26 got jail time.

Peter1469
11-03-2015, 02:47 AM
But I will say this, i dont care if they had triple that many regulations, the banks still find ways to screw us out of billions and get away with it. No one ever gets indicted and they always get to say WE admit no wrongdoing, they pay a fine and thats that.

After the S&L crisis, around 1100 bankers were jailed with felony charges in the US. Nothing under Obama.

Chris
11-03-2015, 08:55 AM
You say they are both heavily regulated and that they write their own rules. Are they heavily regulated by themselves? If that is what you mean then we have the fox guarding the hen house.

Both. They're regulated, and incentivized by the government, and internally as any club (economic sense) would be, though the two don't aim at the same purpose.

pragmatic
11-03-2015, 10:22 AM
We already know what caused the failure.

The Equity in Housing Act and the Community Reinvestment Act. Here is the funny part, the policies that set this banking collapse in motion are still in effect today?

Not accurate. Those acts/actions only provided the fodder.

The banking collapse was a result of those bad investments being bundled/masked into new complex trading investment entities.

And then the Rating Agencies giving those flawed items a AAA rating.


Reality is that if the Rating Agencies (S&P, Moodys, Fitch) had done their jobs that banking crash would never have happened. Or certainly not to the degree that occurred. People should have gone to prison.

donttread
11-03-2015, 08:06 PM
It was a scam from the beginning. No business is too big to fail, as long as a market exist someone (hopefully lots of little someone's ) will supply it

Chris
11-03-2015, 08:08 PM
It was a scam from the beginning. No business is too big to fail, as long as a market exist someone (hopefully lots of little someone's ) will supply it

But markets are competitive. It take the government to create monopolies.

donttread
11-03-2015, 09:04 PM
But markets are competitive. It take the government to create monopolies.

Not sure about that but corporate ownership of governent certainly does help monopolies

Chris
11-03-2015, 09:08 PM
Not sure about that but corporate ownership of governent certainly does help monopolies

One would not exist without the other. It's just the nature of government. Power attracts rent seekers. Put the current crop behind bars, more will come, as long as power in centralized.

Dr. Who
11-03-2015, 09:43 PM
And "they" (the banks) provide the campaign cash which selects the representatives of that government.

Quite the dilemma, eh....??
It is the very definition of conflict of interest and yet it and professional lobbying are legally enshrined in the political process. How can there possibly be any outcome other than what is occurring? There is a for sale sign on every candidate that runs for office who receives funding from corporate interests.

Chris
11-03-2015, 09:46 PM
It is the very definition of conflict of interest and yet it and professional lobbying are legally enshrined in the political process. How can there possibly be any outcome other than what is occurring? There is a for sale sign on every candidate that runs for office who receives funding from corporate interests.

Indeed, the problem is systemic, it is the political system we have.

Dr. Who
11-03-2015, 09:52 PM
Indeed, the problem is systemic, it is the political system we have.
If enough people recognize the problem, then perhaps - and I know it's a long shot - there will be a demand for change.

Chris
11-03-2015, 10:02 PM
If enough people recognize the problem, then perhaps - and I know it's a long shot - there will be a demand for change.

Right, bigger government, more corruption. Few seek less government.

Dr. Who
11-03-2015, 10:18 PM
Right, bigger government, more corruption. Few seek less government.
A good beginning would be an ethical government.

Chris
11-03-2015, 10:33 PM
A good beginning would be an ethical government.

A systemically corrupt system cannot be ethical.

Dr. Who
11-03-2015, 10:53 PM
A systemically corrupt system cannot be ethical.
Eliminating systemic corruption would be a good place to start, no?

Chris
11-03-2015, 11:11 PM
Eliminating systemic corruption would be a good place to start, no?

How do you stop corrupt government?

Dr. Who
11-03-2015, 11:37 PM
How do you stop corrupt government?
By identifying the sources of the corruption. It begins with the election process. That is a good place to start. Make the government the only funder of campaigns. Don't let the MSM decide who will participate in debates - put all debates online. Set a fixed budget for professional campaign advertising*, however no restriction on personal appearances on the internet. The MSM can rebroadcast debates or ads at their own cost.

*Require that all campaign advertising reflect the candidates platform and not wage their campaign based on negative attack ads on their opponents.

Peter1469
11-04-2015, 03:44 AM
A good beginning would be an ethical government.

Transparency would help. If the people knew about all of the lobbying efforts (mandatory reporting on a webpage) and the results, they may start to care at the polls. If the politicians think that they might lose their jobs, they may be less apt to pass legislation written or heavily influenced by powerful lobbyists.

donttread
11-04-2015, 07:01 AM
One would not exist without the other. It's just the nature of government. Power attracts rent seekers. Put the current crop behind bars, more will come, as long as power in centralized.

I am definitely for decenralizing government

donttread
11-04-2015, 07:02 AM
By identifying the sources of the corruption. It begins with the election process. That is a good place to start. Make the government the only funder of campaigns. Don't let the MSM decide who will participate in debates - put all debates online. Set a fixed budget for professional campaign advertising*, however no restriction on personal appearances on the internet. The MSM can rebroadcast debates or ads at their own cost.

*Require that all campaign advertising reflect the candidates platform and not wage their campaign based on negative attack ads on their opponents.

I think a Constitutional review of all current federal laws and practices after a period of public education

donttread
11-04-2015, 07:05 AM
Right, bigger government, more corruption. Few seek less government.


. Jefferson told us the price of freedom was" eternal viglance" and somewhere along the line we the sheep quit making the payments. Now we the people must take our freedom back by returning government to it's Constitutional limitations

Chris
11-04-2015, 07:35 AM
By identifying the sources of the corruption. It begins with the election process. That is a good place to start. Make the government the only funder of campaigns. Don't let the MSM decide who will participate in debates - put all debates online. Set a fixed budget for professional campaign advertising*, however no restriction on personal appearances on the internet. The MSM can rebroadcast debates or ads at their own cost.

*Require that all campaign advertising reflect the candidates platform and not wage their campaign based on negative attack ads on their opponents.

The source of corruption is well known, power, iow, the government, and your solution is to give it more power.

Chris
11-04-2015, 08:31 AM
I think a Constitutional review of all current federal laws and practices after a period of public education

Now that would gut the government.

donttread
11-04-2015, 03:33 PM
Now that would gut the government.


And return power the the states. Under our current situation I refer to us simply as America as we are no longer a union of states

Chris
11-04-2015, 03:43 PM
And return power the the states. Under our current situation I refer to us simply as America as we are no longer a union of states

And the states could return it to communities.

Also return it to the people where it rightfully belongs.

Mini Me
11-04-2015, 03:47 PM
Hillary was guest of Colbert's Late Show. He asked her what she would do next time banks to big to fail fail, would she bail them (as Bush and Obama did). She said no, let them fail. Then she added, she would break them up.

So, open discussion, what should be done about big banks?

I say let them fail. Period.

She is stealing Bernie Sanders points! 100%, because folks listen to him!

She is a product of Goldman Sachs, fer krissake!

Chris
11-04-2015, 04:05 PM
She is stealing Bernie Sanders points! 100%, because folks listen to him!

She is a product of Goldman Sachs, fer krissake!



Indeed, she's in the top 0.1%.