If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   $780 billion. Is this: A) The cost of Medicare and Social Security over the next decade, B) the value of spending cuts in Ryan's new budget, C) the size of the subsidies the US Government gives to the banking industry EVERY YEAR   (washingtonsblog.com) divider line 21
    More: Asinine, accounts receivable, Nouriel Roubini, TBA, free market economy, bankers, subsidies, secondary markets, accounting analyst  
•       •       •

3031 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2013 at 8:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-13 08:59:03 PM
4 votes:
I like to hate on banks and bankers as much as anyone, but I just don't see how VA/FHA backed loans and the FDIC are bank subsidies. they protect and help the consumer, not the banks.
2013-03-13 08:54:25 PM
3 votes:
This all started on January 20th 2009.
2013-03-13 10:12:29 PM
2 votes:
I'm an Obama supporter, but unlike republicans I can criticize someone I support if I disagree with them.

This probably the biggest issue I disagree with. Stop supporting them, regulate the fark out of them, send 99% of them to jail and start over.
2013-03-13 08:47:13 PM
2 votes:

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


What about the other 660 billion? Also untouchable?
2013-03-13 08:46:32 PM
2 votes:
But but but JOBS! Or some such bullshiat.
2013-03-13 08:32:17 PM
2 votes:
$120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.
2013-03-14 04:08:47 AM
1 votes:

EvilRacistNaziFascist: m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?

Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.


Yeah, that's bullshiat.  Under free market capitalism, there is nothing to stop companies from forming monopolies, collusions, and otherwise abusing their power.  At which point, they become too big to fail.   The libertarians will swear that it will never happen under a free market, but they also like to pretend that discrimination would never happen in a free market, even though it clearly did.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim that billionaire hedge fund managers deserve their salaries because they're irreplaceable financial wizards who are integral to the economy, and then claim that there would be no impact at all of they disappeared.

The only way to prevent "too big to fail" is to prevent corporations from amassing that much power in the first place.  That would require more regulation, not less.
2013-03-14 02:59:30 AM
1 votes:
2013-03-14 01:07:42 AM
1 votes:

EvilRacistNaziFascist: m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?

Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.



This.
explanation.
2013-03-14 12:30:29 AM
1 votes:

m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?


Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.
2013-03-13 11:54:16 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-13 11:27:35 PM
1 votes:

enik: Hey you people voted for Obongo -- not me.


It's cute that you think these sorts of things are Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal instead of rich vs. poor.
2013-03-13 09:33:02 PM
1 votes:
FDIC is paid through fees from the banks, so counting that money against banks as a "subsidy" is farking weird. While FDIC has the ability to borrow from the treasury if the fund ever run out (which would then lead to higher fees later to make up the shortfall), as far as I know it never has.

Given that failure with the first one I checked, it seems pointless to pursue the other items in the list, better to just assume it is just as ludicrously badly researched and not waste any more time.
2013-03-13 09:19:19 PM
1 votes:
That works out to $2600 per year per person, give or take. Something doesn't seem right about this.
2013-03-13 09:18:53 PM
1 votes:

log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.


It could be argued that guaranteed deposits remove the incentive to scrutinize your bank's lending and borrowing practices in order to make sure that the bank will be responsible with your money. Large, unscrupulous banks get customers that they otherwise wouldn't be able to attract if they had to be more transparent about their inner workings. So not only do the banks get more money in the form of deposits, but nobody bothers to pay close attention to their dealings, allowing them to make riskier bets with their customers' money.
2013-03-13 09:11:27 PM
1 votes:

Over_Zealously_Apathetic: It's like the Republicans are actively sprinting towards the next depression.  Don't they read history books?


They are hoping it happens while the the President has a D behind his name, so they can blame it all on him like they did Carter.
2013-03-13 09:10:04 PM
1 votes:

Bad_Seed: log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.

Like this.

cchris_39: The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums


If you want to argue that the premiums should be raised to the extent of losses, you have a legitimate point.  But then I'd have to threadjack you to Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, student loans, Fannie and Freddie, and every other federal insurance program that's in the red.

And none of us want that.
2013-03-13 09:01:22 PM
1 votes:

Bad_Seed: GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.

Just because you socialise the losses, doesn't mean you have to privatise the profits. FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.


Point of information:  the banks PAY an insurance premium for FDIC coverage.  The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums.  It goes to make the depositors whole, not to profit anyone.

It's hardly a "subsidy".
2013-03-13 08:56:50 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


Just because you socialise the losses, doesn't mean you have to privatise the profits. FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.
2013-03-13 08:46:09 PM
1 votes:
It's not B. Ryan's cuts are hyperbole and unicorn farts.
2013-03-13 08:45:57 PM
1 votes:
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the bankers!?  If they don't have enough money they won't be able to pay the bonuses, without which they will lose all that marvelous talent that periodically wrecks the world financial system.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report