dsgrue3 said:
I am speaking on the Senate's version of the GLB. In order to pass the bill with bipartisan support, it needed to be modified in order to produce the final bill that was ultimately passed 90-8. Since Republicans had a majority in the Senate, it passed regardless of Democratic disapproval. Learn the difference between would've and would have. (There is no "would of") I cannot stand to see such elementary errors on your behalf. 1) Banks were only able to do so in the couple years prior to GLB because it was a process of change. (Other provisions were relaxed from Glass-Steagall) 2) I can name several common acronyms that you would have no idea of their meaning. You define your acronyms prior to using them. This is common logic. 3) Never mentioned anything about Warren Buffet being a government entity. You seem rather confused. I stated that Warren saved a gigantic failing bank, which ultimately improved. The same can be said of the government bailouts. Why you would want banks to fail is beyond me. More banks = more competition and better rates for the populace.
|
Don't see your point. It would of been overridden in both houses.
A) Actually can't. Have dysgraphia. It's like dislexia but involves writing and grammer.
1) That Depends how you want to define couple of years... though either way, like I said, your wrong on that.
2) Considering the terms were already used earlier on... abreviations should be common sense? If two people were talking about the Teengage Mutant Ninja Turtles for the entire thread and someoby mentions the TMNT.... I think it should be common knowledge what is being referred to.
3) He saved a giant bank to make money.... as would of happened to any giant bank that could of still made money, thanks to the private sector.
Also no... saving banks =/= more competion. When the big banks were about to fail many smaller banks rose up and started making loans where the big guys couldn't anymore.
After the bailouts of the big banks, these banks were mostly crushed and destroyed. This led to less competiton. Which is generally the issue. When you hold banks as too big to fail... they can go out of their way to crush little banks, create bubbles (see rates that are too good) and can get unfair advantages thanks to regulations compliance. (They have to spend much less on it.)
Furthermore Dodd-Frank is now about to crush a bunch more smalller banks. End result is too big to fail will become even bigger and even more unable to fail in the minds of politicians.
Had we let the large banks fail, plenty of smaller banks would of rose up leading to far mroe competition as they each fought to fill their predecessors shoes, run by younger executives who learned from the mistakes of the big banks before them.
