Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

Feel free to stop using the internet, cretins.

For years, banks have been able to bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, deposits are at risk and taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.

Now let's sit back and watch the conservatives that pretended to hate the bailouts rage against this.

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

I did, many years ago. My farking money still bailed out these criminals though. So, feel free to shut the fark up.

Feel free to post impotent rage comments on fark commies.

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

That's hard to do when the banks come running to taxpayers who previously had nothing to do with them for a bailout when their asinine investments go south and threaten to take down the whole economy.

But you knew that, you just don't care because you're a ridiculous shill that just blasts out whatever blatantly ridiculous talking point you were fed alongside your Cheerios and Metamucil that morning.

Go be stupid somewhere else.

There's nothing so revealing about the Republican mindset than their reaction to the current bank protests. They really ought to be on the side of the protesters, right? After all, they spent the past three years whining that a black man was President complaining about bailouts of the banking industry. But once they saw that college educated young people, many of whom-gasp-weren't even white were part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, they realized that they had to revise their game-plan.

The ONLY motivation Republicans have for any belief or political position is hate. Well, hate and evil. Name a position, and Republicans will think long and hard about it, and then take the side that allows them to be the biggest possible douchebags.

So a banker goes to vegas...

I wonder how long until Goldman and some of the other newly created bank holding companies stop being banks?

Kit Fister: Simple solution: Banning banks from doing anything beyond storing money, lending money, and allowing customers to buy things. That's it.

So you don't want banks that also serve food? To be fair the Mellon mellons were a bit ne'er ripe but it was hardly something that should be illegal.

As to what you would allow them to do... That's exactly what they did and got in trouble with now. You know, lending money secured by collateral.

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

I use a credit union, but the banks still seem to use me.

Raging Thespian: Mavent: The ONLY motivation Republicans have for any belief or political position is hate. Well, hate and evil. Name a position, and Republicans will think long and hard about it, and then take the side that allows them to be the biggest possible douchebags.

What is their stand on the Kitten Punching Act of 2011?

It didn't go far enough.

KPA -11 is has wide bipartisan support

HotWingConspiracy: For years, banks have been able to bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, deposits are at risk and taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.

Now let's sit back and watch the conservatives that pretended to hate the bailouts rage against this.

Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.

Raging Thespian: Mavent: The ONLY motivation Republicans have for any belief or political position is hate. Well, hate and evil. Name a position, and Republicans will think long and hard about it, and then take the side that allows them to be the biggest possible douchebags.

What is their stand on the Kitten Punching Act of 2011?

When killing kittens is outlawed, shame on you. Outlaw killing kittens twice, can't... Your...

There will be a lot of outlaws and Fark shall lead them.

Is this just a return to Glass-Steagall? If you have FDIC deposits you can't also be an investment bank?

Tricky Chicken: HotWingConspiracy: For years, banks have been able to bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, deposits are at risk and taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.

Now let's sit back and watch the conservatives that pretended to hate the bailouts rage against this.

Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.


But just to clarify....Clinton was not the one who pushed for the Kitten Punching Act.

I use a local bank. So I never get buttraped by fees. But somehow BoA still got my money.

Tricky Chicken: Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.

Clinton did this by signing into Law a bill co-sponsored by noted Democrats Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley.

Tricky Chicken: HotWingConspiracy: For years, banks have been able to bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, deposits are at risk and taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.

Now let's sit back and watch the conservatives that pretended to hate the bailouts rage against this.

Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.

I remember when the republicans took him to task for that.

Oh wait, they didn't. Another lobbying job well done by our finance friends.

But anyhoo, those OWS people are dumb, eh?

trotsky: Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

I did, many years ago. My farking money still bailed out these criminals though. So, feel free to shut the fark up.

Credit unions are the hero. Thunderpipes have you considered an hero?

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

Member of local Credit Union since late 70's.

Kit Fister: Simple solution: Banning banks from doing anything beyond storing money, lending money, and allowing customers to buy things. That's it.

Um, that "lending money" thing encompasses buying and holding property, too. Collateral, participation in joint funds, etc.

Limiting the use of FDIC-insured funds to low-risk investments (well, "low risk", since mortgages are traditionally on the list of acceptable things to do with it) is reasonable, but generally restricting a financial institution from executing one of the major purposes of a financial institution is a bit ridiculous.

Congress and President Barack Obama had high hopes for the rule. But they left most of the details for regulators to sort out.

Well, there's absolutely no way that could backfire! It's not like the regulatory agencies are fully in the pockets of those they regulate, or that there is a revolving door between the SEC and Wall Street. I'm sure this new regulation will be full of teeth and lacking any loopholes that these banks could take advantage of. Why not just let BofA and Goldman Sachs write the damn regulations?

The Homer Tax: Tricky Chicken: Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.

Clinton did this by signing into Law a bill co-sponsored by noted Democrats Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley.

First, a president can either sign a bil into law, or he can veto it.

Second, your sarcasm aside, Phil Gramm was a democrat.

Kit Fister: Simple solution: Banning banks from doing anything beyond storing money, lending money, and allowing customers to buy things. That's it.

This.

It's unclear how strictly the ban will be enforced. For example, it can be hard to tell whether an investment is intended to benefit a bank or its clients and whether federally insured deposits could be put at risk by these trades.

In some cases, banks can get around the rule and continue making proprietary trades. For example, they can make such trades if they are intended to offset other risky trades made on behalf of clients.

Meh. I look forward to this bill changing absolutely nothing, but still causing shills for the banks to scream bloody murder.

Yakk: Is this just a return to Glass-Steagall? If you have FDIC deposits you can't also be an investment bank?

No but it's a step in the right direction.

I'm all for bringing Glass-Steagall back.

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

Go stick it up your pipe, 'Pipes.

Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

It's the other way around. The banksters brought us to the Hobson's choice: either risk the total collapse of our financial system and economy or provide trillions of taxpayer dollars for the exclusive benefit of the executive management teams of an array of failed financial companies. Having bailed out the banksters millions of those American taxpayers who enriched the crooks still lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes.

EABOD sweets.

Tricky Chicken: First, a president can either sign a bil into law, or he can veto it.

Right. Clinton signed a bad republican bill into law. This was a bi-partisan screwjob, the person to whom I was responding was pretending otherwise.

Second, your sarcasm aside, Phil Gramm was a democrat.

Phil Gramm hasn't been a Democrat for almost 3 decades. He was John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign.

Tricky Chicken: HotWingConspiracy: For years, banks have been able to bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, deposits are at risk and taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.

Now let's sit back and watch the conservatives that pretended to hate the bailouts rage against this.

Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.

No but he was paid off by lobbyists. Which is the reason why the 99% have no voice right now. Both parties are complete sell outs and I find it hilarious to see Democrats scrambling to identify with the 99% protesting right now.

Splinshints: Thunderpipes: Feel free to stop using banks hippies.

That's hard to do when the banks come running to taxpayers who previously had nothing to do with them for a bailout when their asinine investments go south and threaten to take down the whole economy.

But you knew that, you just don't care because you're a ridiculous shill that just blasts out whatever blatantly ridiculous talking point you were fed alongside your Cheerios and Metamucil that morning.

Go be stupid somewhere else.

Thanks dude. I larfed heartily.

Yakk: Is this just a return to Glass-Steagall? If you have FDIC deposits you can't also be an investment bank?

Apears to be more limited, but a return to Glass-Steagall would be in order with some more teath. Investment banks for investments and should be barred from making consumer loans. Thats what FDIC depositor banks are for; they play in the consumer loan market.

Junk debt & high risk credit should go to specialty houses. No FDIC or any kind of insurance bailouts, no interest rate limits either. Its junk credit, if you play in that market either as a consumer or investor you both deserve what you get.

The Homer Tax: Tricky Chicken: Yeah, because right there in the article, they note that Clinton changed the rules that separated savings banks and investment banks. You know the rule set up after the depression to ensure that deposits aren't at risk? But we all know that Clinton was an undercover conservative shill.

Clinton did this by signing into Law a bill co-sponsored by noted Democrats Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley.

Phil Gramm was a Republican.

Essentially, the government is FINALLY requiring banks to keep safe amounts of reserves on hand - but only really applying to banks considered "too large to fail". What this does in turn is penalize the big banks and give them a competitive disadvantage, and the only way to make up for this is to pass it along to us in some way. Personally, I'd rather see a tiny increase in loan rates than a big increase in fees. The loans are what's "too big to fail", no point shafting poor people who just want a bank account with a debit card.

Mavent: Republicans will think long and hard about it,

Nope. Republicans do what their corporate owners tell them to do. Thinking is discouraged. Obedience is rewarded.

The Homer Tax: Tricky Chicken: First, a president can either sign a bil into law, or he can veto it.

Right. Clinton signed a bad republican bill into law. This was a bi-partisan screwjob, the person to whom I was responding was pretending otherwise.

Second, your sarcasm aside, Phil Gramm was a democrat.

Phil Gramm hasn't been a Democrat for almost 3 decades. He was John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign.

Maybe it's like the one drop of blood rule.

The Homer Tax:
Phil Gramm hasn't been a Democrat for almost 3 decades. He was John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign.

I didn't say he is a democrat. But with a pedigree like his, you can't say he is hard core either party.

Regardless, I was just pointing out to the troll that this wasn't set up by conservatives. Unless Clinton was one.

Tricky Chicken: The Homer Tax:
Phil Gramm hasn't been a Democrat for almost 3 decades. He was John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign.

I didn't say he is a democrat. But with a pedigree like his, you can't say he is hard core either party.

Regardless, I was just pointing out to the troll that this wasn't set up by conservatives. Unless Clinton was one.

Oh is that what you were doing? How'd that go?

Yakk: Is this just a return to Glass-Steagall? If you have FDIC deposits you can't also be an investment bank?

That's what it sounds like, and Glass-Steagall worked fine for ~70 years, kept us out of crap like this.

Of course, just like Banks and Corporate American can't think further in the future than one fiscal quarter at a time, they can't think further in the past than a couple of years at most, so this is an "OMG End of the World!!!" thing to them.

As the headline says, expect new fees tacked on just because they can. BoA first, with Chase and Citi following suit right after.

If I was of a sinister mind, I'd simply use this act as a way to quietly reduce the volume of deposits under FDIC protection.

Yep, if I was evil that's what I would do, but I'd have to be really evil.

I mean really, really evil.

But, that's what I'd do...if I was evil.

That Thunderpipes has real talent. Trolled right in the boobies.

But really, banks are shiat. Credit unions for le win.

Tricky Chicken: The Homer Tax:
Phil Gramm hasn't been a Democrat for almost 3 decades. He was John McCain's economic adviser during his campaign.

I didn't say he is a democrat. But with a pedigree like his, you can't say he is hard core either party.

Regardless, I was just pointing out to the troll that this wasn't set up by conservatives. Unless Clinton was one.

Really? A guy who ran for the Republican nomination for the presidency (of the country, yes, yes...not of California) in 1996 isn't really a Republican? Or isn't Republican enough?

What a crazy world you live in.

Eh, it's all for show. Banks are like any other criminal organization. They got a taste of power and are not giving it up if there's anything they can do about it. By the time any law/regulation gets passed, it's so watered down, the practical effect will be negligible.

They don't give a fark what we think. They don't have to. They have all the money.