On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 19:59:57 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:53*pm, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:30:23 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:42*am, jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro...D-8A62-4D90-83...

"Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday planned to introduce legislation to
break up banks that have grown so big that the Justice Department
fears the financial system would be at risk if criminal charges were
filed. Rep. Brad Sherman proposed a companion bill in the House.

The 10 largest banks in the United States are bigger now than before a
taxpayer bailout following the 2008 financial crisis when the Federal
Reserve propped up financial institutions with $16 trillion in near
zero-interest loans and Congress approved a $700 billion rescue for
banks that some considered “too big to fail.” Attorney General Eric H.
Holder Jr. now says the Justice Department may not pursue criminal
cases against big banks because filing charges could “have a negative
impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

“We have a situation now where Wall Street banks are not only too big
to fail, they are too big to jail,” Sanders said. “That is
unacceptable and that has got to change because America is based on a
system of law and justice.”

“Never again should a financial institution be able to demand a
federal bailout,” Sherman said. *“They claim; ‘if we go down, the
economy is going down with us,’ but by breaking up these institutions
long before they face a crisis, we ensure a healthy financial system
where medium sized institutions can compete in the free market.”

The Sanders and Sherman legislation would give the Treasury Department
90 days to identify commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds
and insurance companies whose “failure would have a catastrophic
effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United
States economy without substantial government assistance.”

The list would have to include institutions deemed “systemically
important banks” by the Financial Stability Board, the G-20 body that
monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system.
The board in a press release last Nov. 4 identified eight U.S. banks
required to maintain extra capital buffers: Bank of America, Bank of
New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan
Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo. Treasury would be required to
break up those and any other institutions identified by the secretary
as too big to fail.

The six largest U.S. financial institutions today have assets of
nearly $9.6 trillion, a figure equal to about two-thirds of the
nation’s gross domestic product. These six financial institutions
issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards, over half of all
mortgages, control 95 percent of all derivatives held in financial
institutions and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits in the
United States.

“In my view,” Sanders concluded, “no single financial institution
should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the
world economy into crisis. *At the very least, no institution, no CEO
in America should be above the law. *If an institution is too big to
fail, it is too big to exist.”

About freaking time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TMT

Many years ago the USAF transferred me to Bangor Maine. Being a
cautious sort I obtained a certified check for $2,000 in order to move
my assets to Maine and my first day in Bangkok I set off to get some
money. Stopped at a "Savings and Loan" bank and tried to cash my
check. "Sorry sir, but we can't cash this", says the Teller and I
suggest that if they doubt the validity of the check that I will pay
for a phone call to the issuing bank to check. It seems that isn't the
problem as they tell me that they don't have $2,000 in cash to give me
in return for the check.

Yes Sir, small is certainly wonderful.
--
Cheers,

John B.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice story but it isn't true.

ANY bank/S&L/credit union will have more than $2K in the till.

They gave you an excuse...the question is why?

TMT

Given that you obviously wasn't in Bangor, Maine, in 1961 and didn't
visit that tiny little savings and loan yet you certainly claim to
have a lot of knowledge of the subject. Very reminiscent of some of
Gunner's stories, isn't it.

Strange you claim that Gunner lies but that your statements are TRUTH
(nothing but the truth, your honor).

You really are a piece of work, A bloody dreadful piece too.

--
Cheers,

John B.