I've been reading some of the coverage about the financial reform bills that are making their ways through the House and the Senate. I have two observations.
First, it is kind of cynically amusing that Republicans, having spent the last two yeas screaming that George W. Bush was wrong to bail out the banksters,[1] no oppose setting up a fund, paid for by the banks, to ensure that if any future bailouts are needed, that the money doesn't come from the taxpayers.
Second, the bills do nothing to address the "too big to fail" problem. If the banks were broken up, then a failing bank could indeed be allowed to fail, the same way that over a hundred smaller banks were allowed to fail last year. There is zero fairness in the reality that when Chase Bank got into trouble, they were bailed out and yet when the Six National Bank of Boogie Hollar gets into trouble, it fails and is liquidated by the FDIC.
But we all know which side of this game the Republicans are on, and it is not yours or mine.[2]
[1] Though they conveniently forget to mention Chimpy's name.
[2] I presume that none of the banksters read this blog, other than by accident.
No comments:
Post a Comment
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.