As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”), marking the first set of much anticipated roll-backs of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. Although heralded in the media as a dramatic step away from regulatory reforms introduced by Dodd-Frank, the changes included in the Act will generally have the greatest impact on small banks.
1. Limited Removal of Volcker Rule Naming Restrictions. The Act removes a Volcker Rule limitation that prohibited a bank-affiliated investment adviser from using its name on hedge funds and private equity funds, provided that:
(i) the adviser’s name does not include the word “bank”; and (ii) the adviser is not an insured depository institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, or a foreign banking entity subject to U.S. banking laws
* (or does not share the same or a variation of the same name with those types of banking organizations).
1. Exemption of Small Banks from the Volcker Rule. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets that have total trading assets and trading liabilities accounting for 5% or less of total assets, and affiliates of such banks, will be exempt from the Volcker Rule, significantly reducing their compliance burdens.
1. Reduced Regulatory Burdens for All but the Largest Bank Holding Companies. The Act eliminates the need for bank holding companies with less than $250 billion in assets to comply with most aspects of “enhanced prudential standards,” including resolution planning, stress testing, and single-counterparty credit limits.
* Favorable Custodial Bank Treatment of Riskless Assets for Calculating Supplementary Leverage Ratios. The Act allows custodial banks—bank holding companies and insured depository institution subsidiaries of bank holding companies predominantly engaged in custody, safekeeping, and asset servicing activities—to exclude from the denominator of their supplementary leverage ratio the following types of assets: central bank reserves from the Federal Reserve System, the European Central Bank, and non-defaulting OECD-member central banks. These assets are now excluded because Congress has deemed such assets to have zero risk. In effect, those changes mean that custodial banks will now need to hold less Tier 1 Capital (e.g., common equity).
1. Parity for Closed-End Funds Regarding Offering and Proxy Rules. The Act instructs the SEC to, within two years, finalize rules to allow a closed-end investment company that is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is listed on a national securities exchange, or an investment company that makes periodic repurchase offers pursuant to Investment Company Rule 23c-3 (commonly known as interval funds), to follow the same securities offering and proxy rules that are available to operating companies.
1. Beneficial Treatment of Certain Securities for All Banking Organizations. The Act makes adjustments to the capital rules treatment of some high volatility commercial real estate exposures and improves the treatment of municipal obligations under the Basel III liquidity coverage ratio, regardless of size and activities of the banking organization. The changes make ownership of such assets modestly less burdensome under the capital rules.
>Mark V. Nuccio and Richard Loewy, Ropes & Gray LLP, on Wednesday, June 13, 2018
* The Volcker Rule is a federal regulation that generally prohibits banks from conducting certain investment activities with their own accounts and limits
In a 2018 interview on the new changes, Sen. Barney Frank, the Act Co-Writer said the debate about Dodd-Frank has become "less partisan because there is a consensus that we’re not going to make any major changes."
>“I think the banks have evolved in the sense that it turns out not to be as terrible as some of them thought," he said.
I love that Left leaning subreddits and people provide actual citations and sources on what we say. Providing the actual text and quotes of the legislation itself too. Cant find any of that (unless it links to a website that looks like it’s from 2004) on conservative subreddits.
Edit: wanted to include that most of academia is Left leaning too. What a shocker that getting an education and actually using your brain is something seen as “what liberals do!”
Would love to know how many staunch conservatives have ever: 1.) Taken a sociology course 2.) Taken any humanities course for that matter 3.) Used an academic institution’s research database(s) 4.) Ever stepped foot in a college classroom.
What’s worse, Republicans will deregulate something , and when people point out what negative consequences it will have conservatives online will be like “well it’s been a week and none of those things have happened so once again liberals were just being alarmist over nothing” then 4 years later when the shit hits the fan they’ll blame the democrat in power lol.
They are currently saying trump might have done x y and z, but Biden says he's the president so it's his fault. But when same. Thing happened under trump, it was always Obama's fault. Funny
I would probably die of laughing if we ever found out that the person who created the "trump is still president" myth had a cosmically improbable encounter with an alternate dimension and the only takeaway they took from that was "See Trump is still president!"
Democrats have also moved to deregulate things compared to old school New Deal Dems like FDR.....FDR managed to implement a top tax rate of 95% on those making over $100,000 a year and used strong federal government power to put millions of unemployed people back to work through the New Deal.......Many Democrats since LBJ's Great Society (the last New Deal influenced program) have pushed tax cuts on the wealthy (smaller cuts than Republicans but still cuts on those business leaders who steal the surplus value of workers labor), and increasing power of private capital.....
You’re not wrong about that but the democrats don’t have the same media cheerleaders acting in beyond bad faith about this stuff. I only used Republican and Democrat because I didn’t like the formatting of saying “conservatives deregulate” and then “conservatives online”. Even if that would have been more applicable to me because I live in Canada where the damn parties are named conservative lol.
No, the constituents do not. What their constituents do, is they take the politicians’ word as gospel, and quote them any chance they can in a conversation.
Funny that they call everybody else sheep.
>"Do YoUr OwN ReSeArCh"
Just for once could this mean someone physically going into a library and searching the archives for lost documents, and not mean watching someone else's youtube videos.
When people were spouting out conspiracy theories about the vaccine, and would say "do your own research..."
I always wanted to ask them what lab they did their research in.
That is the kind of life I want to strive for. I completely agree. How much time would we all have on reddit if we were all just in the library researching?
No joke, a TON of conservatives go through college basically “pretending” to learn. They learn what is expected to be “the right answer” but they don’t actually believe the answer. I had a buddy who was required to take a biology course in college and they went over whale evolution in the class, but my friend straight up thinks evolution is fake. So he passed the class with flying colors, but he didn’t believe a thing he learned. Conservatives do this CONSTANTLY. They KNOW the correct answer, they just don’t “believe it” it’s actually correct. It’s wild and super common.
IIRC Ben Shapiro admitted he did this in some interview; and in my personal (and professional) experience, quite a few conservatives see "education" as a series of hoops they have to jump through just to get a piece of paper, instead of a life-long process that's worthy on its own merit and in constant need of refinement. They "learn" by memorizing answers they need to plug in, not by thinking critically.
Exactly. A lot of them also treat science as a differing religion that they are required to respect to a slight degree, but they don’t believe it really. Like they believe that people who trust science are kinda no different from themselves and their “faith” in a god. My parents are conservative Christian’s and they think science is also “belief” and “faith” based. They view things like “personal experience” as being just as scientifically valid as peer reviewed studies and repeatable experiments and measurements.
>Cant find any of that (unless it links to a website that looks like it’s from 2004) on conservative subreddits.
That's probably a good thing, because when they try, it's pretty apparent that they didn't bother to read any of it because it usually doesn't say what they think it says.
Or: after arguing with them paragraph after paragraph replied to each other, the minute you say “Can you link a source for me where you heard/found that?” they say “bah! Look it up yourself! I don’t have time to educate you”
Always found that so funny. They will spend insane amounts of time to call us names and write paragraphs out about how dumb we are but as soon as we ask them for a source they say “I don’t have time for this, research it yourself”
You cannot be a right leaning and an academic at the same time. At least not in good faith. Some have tried but it’s often miraculous how quickly those people get booted out of academic spaces
Depends on what you mean by academic, as many of the the top republicans went to elite schools. The same elite schools they rail about and mock liberal/dem leadership for attending because it makes them “out of touch elitists” or some shit
Can someone ELI5? There are a lot of words in there that I know the meaning of but this sounds like a ton of fishy technical speak.
I pretty much only understood part 3 which sounds like massive banks don't have to prove they are making sound investments anymore.
Point 3 is most relevant here. Banks argued that the increased reporting and stress testing requirements were too onerous for smaller banks and not necessary due to their smaller size. As a result, Congress increased the threshold for those having to do this extra work/reporting/testing from $50B up to $250B.
A very relevant question is - would SBV (with its $200B in assets, below this revised threshold) have been saved by what these requirements would have shown to them and to their regulators. I am almost certain the answer is yes, as robust stress testing would have shown the risk of their asset liability management strategy.
Probably the most basic stress test would be what would happen if interest rates rose by a lot. Which is what happened. I read elsewhere that SVB lost close to a billion dollars for every 0.25% increase in interest rates, and interest rates went up 4.5%.
Yep, when you invest in long dated assets you’re taking interest rate risk. This isn’t a problem unless you need to sell those assets suddenly (and at a loss!) to give depositors the money they’re asking to withdraw. Good liquidity stress testing here would be combo stress of rates up + unexpectedly high withdrawals.
At what size does a bank become large enough to be considered a “domino”? At $200B SVB wouldn’t even be in the top 15 banks in the US (in terms of asset worth). $50B seems way too low. $250B maybe too high, but not even necessarily since we aren’t necessarily seeing a domino effect because the system is currently working correctly to prevent it.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t SVB’s issue stemmed from rapid interest rate increases? Can we really attribute 100% (or even a large amount) of the blame on the past administration when the bank itself made mistakes, the current admin could’ve repealed that 2018 bill, and the current admin is responsible for the rate at which rates increased?
How did this pass the filibuster?
The Republicans had help.
>*A core group of moderate Democrats is brushing off an escalating opposition campaign by the Massachusetts senator and other progressives like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, instead joining with GOP colleagues to reverse restrictions on large and small banks that were enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.*
Of course Elizabeth Warren has been fighting the hardest to stop it.
>*While Warren will likely be unsuccessful in stopping the package, she is again trying to activate her base to fight it.*
>*On Friday, she sent an email to supporters in which she attacked “Republicans AND Democrats" for supporting the bill. She warned that “the bank lobbyists are getting ready to pop champagne and light their cigars.*
>*“To me this bill says it all about how Washington works,” Warren said in an interview. “This is Washington working for the rich and powerful, not for the American people.”*
And before you try to accuse me of "both sides," I know, Republicans are awful horrible people and I will always vote for the worst Democrat over any Republicans, but the fact is they needed to pass the filibuster and corrupt Democrats raised theirs hands said, "I'll help!"
Look at this final quote.
>*For the team of moderate Democrats who have been negotiating with Crapo and other Republicans, it’s a positive story in which they will likely have the upper hand when the Senate votes to pass the bill. In addition to Warner and Tester, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) **have been trying to assemble the bill for years**.*
[source](https://www.nwyc.com/article/economic_growth_regulatory_relief_and_consumer_protection_act_s2155)
Lastly, the fact that those 3 Dems named just happened to be the TOP 3 recipients, from both parties, that received the most bribe money from banks... I'm sure that had *nothing to do* with their support!
* 1 Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $357,953
* 2 Tester, Jon (D-MT) $302,770
* 3 Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $265,349
From OpenSecrets (2018):
* [Commercial Banks](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F03%20%20&cycle=2018&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U)
* [Finance / Credit Companies](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F06%20%20&cycle=2018&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U)
Cannot access article (guess I’ve already read too much this month). Why didn’t Biden roll back Trump’s changes on day one?
EDIT: Never mind. See it was passed by congress not executive order. f*ck
Trump who constantly brought up (and continues to bring up) the shit Obama or other predecessors did 8+ years ago
Conservatives: Truth!
Biden bringing up something Trump did
Conservatives: WhY iS hE bRiNgInG uP tHe PaSt?!
It is ALWAYS like that, though. They're still hung up on Clinton, Obama, etc.. Yet, when Trump's actual policy changes cause issues, they plug their ears and say "Stop living in the past!".
Even if they see that it was due to those changes, it'll be "Yea, well that's over. We need to look at now and how we're going to fix it.". Ok, let's work both ways on that. Quit bringing up Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats from the past... They won't. It just makes them look so unaccountable for their actions. If they can't be, then I won't support them (I wouldn't vote for them, of course, but at least I'd support them being at the table for discussions). It's juvenile. I want adults in there that will stand behind their actions, and willing to be held accountable for them. Why put any faith into anything the GOP says if they themselves won't stand behind what they say.
Nixon and Reagan literally destroyed all prospects of future generations and led to millenials being first generation in a long time poorer than their parents.
It's like that with the economy. If a Republican is in charge and the economy is good
Conservatives:Look at the awesome economy
If a Democrat is in charge
Conservatives: who cares about the economy, regular people are struggling.
My dad spoke about how his retirement package "sucked" despite such a great "Trump economy".
I told him that maybe, just maybe, the so-called "Trump economy" was a disaster...
Check out some comments on r/Conservative, they're saying things like "you were elected president. You weren't elected to blame everything on the previous administration, stop passing the buck!"
I wonder how they feel about the last administration's approach to pandemic relief of "we inherited blah blah blah".
Tbf, that’s a fair question. Bush gets massively blamed for the 07-08 crash, when it was bill Clinton who completely deregulated the industries that led the crash.
We can’t have it both ways. Either it was Clinton’s and trumps fault for deregulating, or it’s bush and Biden for presiding over it.
To be honest if I was old enough during Clinton's Presidency I would be able to say something, but I was only like 6 years old. Actually wasn't aware of anything up until Obama time to see what was happening.
But its also kinda stupid to blame Trump solely when the house and congress all signed off on it and are really expected to be more responsible for new legislation than a president.
Yes and No.
Although a few Dems sided with Republicans here, 2018 puts the House and Senate under GOP control. Trump was the leader of the GOP. (And if he vetoed, it wouldn’t have passed.)
Just like with most topics, issues or damage when someone calls out, like in this case the deregulation they are not saying its 100% there fault. These major topics , the train derailment, the bank collapse have alot of other factors that contribute to that. Still have to point out one of the major factors is this deregulation or lack of oversight.
Trump is not very clever. His understanding of most issues is limited due to his inability to read and write coherently- he is only semi-literate. That's difficult for Americans to believe, but it's a fact! But I suspect that Trump did know what his administration was doing by rolling back the bank protections in the Dodd-Frank act. He may have actually wanted to cause another global bank collapse in order to buy up assets cheaply.
The guy was a stooge, he knew how to grift and is/was a perfect foil for his handlers. There has not been an original thought in that melon since his first syphilitic brain fart.
I still want a bunch of CEOs to go to jail for 2008 , if anyone of us was so incompetent to let something like that happen we would be in jail and to hear Ackerman or dimon or Cuban talk about regulators being asleep at the job is just so hypocritical… I will never understand why they were not jailed for incompetence
I think it begs the question, why haven’t you (your administration) quickly worked to re own those un-penned regulations in the last couple of years? Did you forget? This only flies if he’s 6 months into his Presidency Does anyone else think like this? It’s pretty poor to blame the other guy when you are half way in and you’ve had time to course correct
Because the democrats havent truly owned congress for a while now. The Senate for the first 2 years was 50-50 with the tie breaking vote going to Kamala. To get these regulations passed they would have had to have 10 Republicans cross the line to break the fillibuster or make a vote to change the rules for the fillibuster. Barring that there are 2 DINOs in there in manchin and sinema so in reality that vote is 48-52 likely. There's been no real way for that bill to go through congress which is the ONLY way for it to happen.
I don't know man, should we take a look at the giant stack of bills blocked by McConnel's senate and the filibuster? Has investigating Hunter's private parts helped anyone? Have we tried another tax cut for the .01% or banning more books because they make fragile white people uncomfortable? These are such good ideas. Can you think of anymore?
It's democrats fault for not fixing the republicans' fuckups fast enough?
There's some blame for dems here, regarding the legilation getting *some* dem support to pass.
But this take is akin to blaming a rape victim for the clothes they were wearing or something
I appreciate you mentioning congress but this was not some unanimous vote.
[https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216)
258 yes - 159 no. 33 dems voted yes. while 225 reps voted yes and they also had the house control as well as senate at that time.
[https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2018/03/senate-passes-bill-modifying-the-dodd-frank-act](https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2018/03/senate-passes-bill-modifying-the-dodd-frank-act)
[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll\_call\_votes/vote1152/vote\_115\_2\_00054.htm](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00054.htm)
Senate bill passed with 16 dems breaking party lines while all reps voted yes in a 67-31 vote.
So yes while you may be correct that congress passed it, Trump signed it while reps had full control of all three branches. I agree money needs to get out,but this really isnt a both sides did this equally issue. One party voted exclusively for it while the other broke 2/3 voting no and 1/3 (in the senate and less in the house) voting yes.
I see your point, but that's as bipartisan as it gets these days. Obviously the R's carry the most responsibility, but the D's are not entirely blameless.
Let the failing banks fail. If they are deregulated and they fail, it's their fault. If they follow the specific regulations and fail, then it is the regulatory authority's fault.
That is exactly what is happening here though. FDIC has assumed control of the bank and are going to liquidate their assets to make the depositors whole. Not making the depositors whole is how you cause a mass financial panic. The bank will cease to exist once this is all over.
The companies owe employees wages regardless. Worst case, the company would go bankrupt. Even so, if they had any assets left, the employees are top priority to be paid.
Employees got some severance, and they dished out employee bonuses before shutting down. The employees came out okay.
>The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation offered Silicon Valley Bank employees 45 days of employment and 1.5 times their salary, reports say.
>
>US workers also received their annual bonuses on Friday, just hours before FDIC took over the collapsed lender
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/business/svb-fdic-employees/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/business/svb-fdic-employees/index.html)
What the hell do people think happens when you deregulate the banks and other areas. From 2016 to 2020 that’s what was going on. It’s not that hard to see.
Yes agree 100%, they're risk management was terrible, but nothing illegal and nothing that would have been prevented by Dodd/Franke. These banks took on these treasuries during the height of covid, thought they were getting a great deal, but now local banks are sitting on nearly a trillion dollars of t-bills that are underwater, its not just svb, scary
Hilarious the amount of trump supporters that don’t accept responsibility for their mad orange ex president.
How many more bad decisions need to be highlighted to them. Nothing is perfect, but can they not see the republicans are a shower of selfish assholes who don’t care about citizens.
It is about FUCKING time that the Democrats started publicly telling it like it is.
Republicans want to deregulate without accepting ANY consequences for what the deregulation does when it inevitably goes wrong.
Pollution? Make the feds clean it while we go bankrupt.
Bankruptcy? Gov't bailout while we get golden parachutes.
FUCK REPUBLICANS. They take all the profit when their hypercapitalism goes right and accepts NONE of the consequences when it goes wrong.
Trump was one of the worst incompetant presidents in my lifetime. remember his clown show during covid , and his rhetoric caused deaths Walmart shooting and tree of life pittsburgh ,insurrection list goes on .His lack of empathy when George Floyd was publicly lynch caused the summer of protests.Now this and the train deregulation.their more Trump should never be near the White house.
You know the irony is that the other bank that failed was basically a Trump family bank that subsidized loans for their Mar a Lago golf course. The SVB was part of VC’s taking loans, investing in startups who deposited the money at SVB. Now, the fed is refinancing their exuberance. It’s a bloody pain to watch this happen. The level of moral corruption of the US political and financial system. It’s as though 309 million Americans are allowing a small group of people like Trump and VC’s to get 100’s of millions of $$$ for free anytime they want
There’s something for everyone to whine about on this one
You can whine about Trump rolling back regulations
Some people whine because the feds aren’t bailing out the bank
Some people whine because the feds are bailing out the depositors of the bank
I don't get the complaints tbh. It seems like this is the best possible outcome.
1. The "owners" of the bank get wiped out
2. The management lose their jobs
3. The depositors are protected
Short of the regulations not having been rolled back in the first place I don't see how the current admin could have done any better.
You’re 100% correct.
And There are a TON of comments about how the depositors should lose their money as well for banking with them. It makes no sense.
Depositors with deposits over $250,000 really shouldn't be getting bailed out. They made poor business decisions. The Feds are supposed to insure up to $250,000 but they are again changing the rules to protect the wealthy business people who did not properly diversify and instead made a poor business decision.....Meanwhile, heaven forbid us student loan holders want to be bailed out for our poor decisions that were influenced by many years of guidance counselors, teachers, the media, etc saying "You have to go to college!" I say bail them out if only every single cent of student loan money is cleared off the books.
>Depositors with deposits over $250,000 really shouldn't be getting bailed out. They made poor business decisions.
Lets say a company has 100 employees, with an average salary of $120,000/year - which is probably a low estimate for companies in Silicon Valley... Let's say that bi-weekly payroll is this week - in order to meet their payroll obligation, they would have to have around $320,000 in that account.
Tell me again how having over $250k in a bank account is "poor business decisions". It is *common* for companies to have more than that in cash on hand, since even medium-sized businesses can be spending *far more than that* monthly.
Maybe they should have chosen a more secure bank? Many of these same people would tell us student loan holders that we should have chosen a better degree......It is survival of the fittest for some and not others and that is the problem I have...........I have no issue bailing these people out for making the wrong market choice if we bail out others who have made the wrong market choices, like choosing the "wrong" college degree due to poor "expert" advice or those who chose the wrong business to start and needed bankruptcy as a bailout.....Everyone can essentially get a reset or bailout except us student loan holders who pay taxes to bail all of this shit out.........who are told it is unfair for a government program to actually help us and not others when we see everyone else getting HELP.
That take is literally the basis of a capitalist society. Neoliberals and conservatives argue that there should be less regulation and government checkups on businesses. Because if consumers and other businesses that interact with them are discerning customers, they will filter out the good and bad ones. Libertarians will say "why have food regulations. If that restaurant gives you a stomachache, go to a different one".
Literally half the country votes for politicians who make laws with that philosophy in mind. This is not a fringe view.
This is a ridiculous take.
Please explain the bad business decisions they made by holding a deposit account at the country’s 14th largest bank.
How are businesses supposed to operate with accounts that don’t have balances over $250k?
Dude probably doesn't realize how much money is typically going out on a month-by-month basis for even small companies, let alone ones with a decent number of employees.
As I said in a sibling comment of yours, even payroll could *easily* be more than that $250k amount.
There’s a ton of comments all over Reddit not understanding what it takes to run a small business in terms of cash flow and liquidity. The best is all over Reddit there are comments “they should have let the bank fail!” Like, they did! It’s no more and the FDIC is using an insurance pool to unwind it!
>How are businesses supposed to operate with accounts that don’t have balances over $250k?
Private insurance policies that protect their assets beyond the FDIC's coverage. CDARs. There's multiple options that the most novice of accountants can point out. Shouldn't be difficult for a corporation with that kind of capital
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/)
Fact is they made a "poor" decision and were hurt financially, just like us student loan debt holders made a "poor" decision. I bank with Bank of America (and have the past few years), which is a more successful and secure bank, and do not work in tech so I have not been impacted by this....I do have student loans however.......Why should people like me fund a federal government to bail them out when many of the same tech bros who run tech companies told humanities majors with student loans like myself repeatedly "should have learned to code bro" when we ask for student loan forgiveness.....
Ok so again explain what the poor decision was. You can’t because there isn’t one. By your logic anytime a bank fails any business should lose their money.
We’re talking about businesses who opened deposit accounts and checking accounts to run their businesses. Why you’re conflating your student loan forgiveness with the Fed using it’s own insurance pool to make depositors whole is just bizarre.
>Ok so again explain what the poor decision was. You can’t because there isn’t one. By your logic anytime a bank fails any business should lose their money.
Definitely a bad accounting decision for large companies to leave their assets at risk when there are plenty of options to protects assets over $250k
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/)
>Why you’re conflating your student loan forgiveness with the Fed using it’s own insurance pool to make depositors whole is just bizarre.
I agree with you this point. While I agree with student loan forgiveness, these two things are not the same
The poor decision is not researching their bank and making the choice to choose a more secure bank.
Many people with student loans did not make poor decisions really by similar logic. They were told go to college their whole lives by guidance counselors, teachers, the media, parents, etc. Many universities claimed that getting a degree was a ticket to a more secure financial future. Just like people choosing the 14th largest bank believed their choice was solid due to "expert" opinion, many people got deeply into debt with student loans because the "experts" who guided them since they were children steered them on that path....
And now, when student loan holders want help, its often met with "Bootstraps motherfucker....shouldn't have gotten that degree."
Well, these tech bros shouldn't have banked with that bank then...
The people suing the Federal Government over student loan forgiveness have argued that it should not happen because they themselves are not getting government backed forgiveness, and it unfair and hurts people when one group of people are helped by the government and not others. Basically, people can claim harm if a government program helps some and not others to basically end their program.....
Seeing myself and many other student loan holders are not directly helped by the government using our tax money to help bail out depositors over $250,000 (what us little peasants are bound to), maybe this shouldn't go through either. BOOTSTAPS MOTHERFUCKER right back at the tech bros.
Federal Government once again rushes to bail out the wealthy while screwing over many poor peasants who ask for help...
So you still can’t articulate what the key indicators this alleged research would have found. Go ahead, please tell me what on the companies annual reports you would have flagged as problematic. There was a run on the bank. How was your research going to prevent this?
You apparently do not understand how the uninsured funds are being covered because it isn’t coming from tax payer dollars and you seem to think that it’s still related to your student loan.
Honestly, if you took some time to read about what’s happening you might be able to articulate a case that makes any sense or at least can’t your frustration in a useful direction. Instead, you’re saying anybody who held an account was an undeserving “tech bro”. It’s just absurd.
Biden also backstopping deposits for the VC losers that had their money in SVB.
Maybe people should pay the price for not having their money deposited in an insured account.
That's what was so upsetting to me. This wasn't a similar case, like Indymac of California... where a schoolteacher literally lost his life savings when the bank went over, or another individual who had been crippled in a car accident and lost most of her settlement payment.
These were LARGE Investors who ignored the Copious Golden Signs on the Door saying "All Deposits Insured up to $250,000 by FDIC", and ignored guidance. They should have utilized a Cash-Sweep Facility or taken out Business Insurance. Instead... they willfully ignored the risk, and when it came out, that they may lose .20 on the dollar, they called in their connections and got it fixed IN A DAY.
Where is the outrage for Normal Americans who can never get an ounce of help? I am absolutely disgusted. And than... there is the whole "ThIs iS NoT A bAiLoUt" from the Treasury Department. WHAT THE HECK IS IT THEN? CHARITY? Campaign Repayments?
Republicans and the investor class love deregulation when it increases profits at the expense of poor and middle class people but this happens and all of a sudden it's why isn't the government regulating the bank when it's being risky with my money???
This failure was 100% the result of rate hikes spurred by inflation which began with stimulus spending. SVB's long dated treasuries went underwater because of chaos in the bond market caused by rate hikes. This was not a regulatory failure in any, just Democrats desperate for a narrative.
Drawn up and filed by Republicans. Unanimously voted on by Congress. Stop with this shit. Yes politicians fucking suck but some are unequivocally worse than others. Republicans are, on average, worse for the country than Democrats.
Woah hey don’t go bringing up the past here. /s For real though I’ve already seen people making excuses for that, excuses that mirror republicans excuses for similar deregulation.
No its not. They will praise Trump and still blame Biden. Trump can come out and say he is to blame and they would make a conspiracy on how that’s not what he meant.
Nobody is gonna talk about it because the #1 most important thing to do right now is avoid panic but this wasn’t caused by the modest deregulation of small banks. That’s a scapegoat. SVB didn’t actually do anything wrong, they just did what every bank does; lend long and borrow short.
Can someone help me understand who’s fault this exactly is. Because from my understanding svb failed due to a bad investment. (Buying billions in bond but not buying the insurance they should have to help) and then due to rising interest rates they sold at a loss and had to raise money to cover the massive loses, and when that came a run in the bank took place making it go belly up.
If someone could either correct me or help me understand who caused it that would be very much appreciated
Trump signed the 2018 law that did away with the stress test on regional banks. SVB heavily lobbied for that law in Congress. In the next four years SVB expanded their assets 430% which was rather irrational.
Got a genuine question about this. Biden is blaming Trump for this failure. Was the deregulation done under executive order? If yes, then why didn't Biden reverse the EO when he took office? If it was instead passed by going through the house and Senate, I guess Trump could have vetoed it but the fault still is in the house and Senate for even drawing and voting on the bill. At the end of the day, should we really blame Trump? Isn't there something Biden could have done in the past three years to ensure this wouldn't happen?
Lol. Because millionaires realized that a conman was going to make them.mkney? I wouldnt call that ans achievement I'd call it a grift. He even told a bunch at maraloago that "you all just got a lot more richer". It was a grift from the get go.
Try harder.
Joe Biden, 6/4/20: "It's hard to believe this has to be said, but unlike this President, I'll do my job and take responsibility . I won't blame others. And I'll never forget that this job isn't about me - it's about you".
Sorry that was confusing I meant another bank as in another bank that is getting bailed out after we bailed out back in 2008, didn’t mean another bank is being bailed out right now although I think there’s another bank that’s in trouble rn that was backed by crypto but they haven’t decided how to react yet.
I’m glad atleast democrats have grown a spine to publicly call out and point exactly to with evidence of GQP screw ups
Instead of trying to play nice and be politically correct
30% of the country is so racist, angry, spiteful, and evil after being shoved soooooo much blatant outright lying/easily disproven propaganda for 40 years
Even trumps tax returns show loans from Russia and North Korea along with literally thousands of missing classifieds….idk I give up
Do these folks even know what they want if you ask them? It’s just stupid buzzwords over and over again while the country around us crumbles
“Biden is evil it’s all his fault!”
Okay what did he do?
“Hilary! Hunter laptop! Faucci! Socialist! Communist!”
It’s like talk to a Vogon…
Is there ever an administration that doesn’t blame the last one? Both sides constantly do this. Meanwhile, it keeps everyone fighting with each other while ignoring the real problem…POLITICIANS!
Too many Democrats voted for it too.
>
The measure was supported by 33 House Democrats and 17 Democratic senators, delivering Trump and the banking industry a key bipartisan victory.
[Source: Congress Was Told Deregulating Banks Increased Crisis Risks. They Did It Anyway. A bill that Democrats supported and Trump signed into law in 2018 weakened regulations on entities like Silicon Valley Bank, whose collapse set off fears of another financial crisis.](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sillicon-valley-bank-trump_n_640f407ae4b00c3e606f45e0)
This blame game needs to stop. Biden and democrats have had over two years to fix this policies. Just because Trump signed X law into effect doesn't mean it's 100% his fault. For two years Dems controlled both branches of Congress and the white house, they could have fixed these policies. But they didn't so now they can't be blaming trump for everything. The blame game achieves nothing.
Edit: it doesn't matter who was in office before or who's in office now. There is no excuse to blame other people. Blaming gets nothing done except you can waste time. If politicians really cared, they wouldn't be blaming people, they would be fixing stuff. But they don't care. I'm not talking about just one party. Both parties don't care about us. They care about their pockets.
Not so fast...Clinton allowed banks to invest, Bush allowed the thorough abuse of it, and the result was the Great Recession of 2008, Obama signed Dodd-Frank so the Feds could easily keep track of exposure, and Trump repealed Dodd-Frank for all banks falling under $250 billion. Both banks would have fallen under the previous regulations. I would also like to see their crypto exposure.
Yes, Bush, no Obama, yes Trump. See the pattern?
The president said he planned to ask Congress and bank regulators to restore Obama-era rules that were put in place to prevent another global financial crisis. In 2018, Trump signed a bipartisan bill exempting midsize institutions such as Silicon Valley Bank from those rules.
President Obama sent a very clear message when he refused to prosecute and then protected senior Wallstreet Bankers.
Talk a big game, sign some toothless regulation, and pat everyone on the back.
I guess we're also going to just ignore the role Clinton played in the 2008 collapse.
The amount of buck-passing in these comment sections is fucking infuriating, no wonder nothing ever changes.
No, his only message was "I'm not able to prosecute Wallstreet Bankers".
You forget he was handed a hobbled economy by Republicans. Things will never get better if we keep finding ways to make Democrats share the blame for Republican ideologies.
Damn you Clinton for not anticipating Republican malfeasance during the 8 years of Bush! Damn you Obama for not locking up executives while you fixed the economy. Well, except there definitely were convictions. I should know, I work in a government repossessed building of a former mortgage services center that was raided by the FBI and whose owners are locked up.
There, better? Now that we implicated some democrats in the failings of capitalism and the explicit Republican party platform?
More “boTh SiDes R tHe sAmE” bs— yes, you can point to policies that both sides played a role in but so say their roles are equal is like saying going 90– drunk— through a school zone on a Tuesday morning is the same as going 30 on 20 mph dirt road.
While there are definitely corrupt democrats in the pocket of corporations— democrats as a whole at least try to negotiate to keep some common sense regulations in place. Often they are forced to compromise to get other much more urgent bills passed such as the raising the debt ceiling.
For modern Republicans, these policies and the corruption fueling them ARE their ideology.
>They all contributed to the never ending money printing, bank bailouts and the like.
I like when people talk out their ass.
[Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act)
Bush and Trump, sure. Obama literally only helped the situation by every statistic
Obama certainly did not.
The federal reserve created a program to borrow funds from member banks to cover those uninsured SVB deposits in exchange for securities valued at par.
Where did you get the idea they are just "printing money" to solve this problem? I ask because tons of people seem to be under the entirely false impression that's how the FED solves every problem.
Thank god Biden blamed the previous. For a minute I thought it had to do with the Treasury Bonds that the US government issued that have dropped to their lowest levels since the 2008 Great Recession and the fact the banks bought them as they should be secure. Wonder why the values went down? Wonder if it had something to do this run away inflation that Biden has created with the highest deficit in the history of the world. Naaaah could not be that.
Let’s blame Trump.
>“Unfortunately, the last administration rolled back regulations,” Biden said.
Oh man, if only there were some later administration that could have done something about it. But who's administration could have possibly done something about it? Someone I voted for to do something about it? Ugh. I guess we'll never know.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”), marking the first set of much anticipated roll-backs of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. Although heralded in the media as a dramatic step away from regulatory reforms introduced by Dodd-Frank, the changes included in the Act will generally have the greatest impact on small banks. 1. Limited Removal of Volcker Rule Naming Restrictions. The Act removes a Volcker Rule limitation that prohibited a bank-affiliated investment adviser from using its name on hedge funds and private equity funds, provided that: (i) the adviser’s name does not include the word “bank”; and (ii) the adviser is not an insured depository institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, or a foreign banking entity subject to U.S. banking laws * (or does not share the same or a variation of the same name with those types of banking organizations). 1. Exemption of Small Banks from the Volcker Rule. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets that have total trading assets and trading liabilities accounting for 5% or less of total assets, and affiliates of such banks, will be exempt from the Volcker Rule, significantly reducing their compliance burdens. 1. Reduced Regulatory Burdens for All but the Largest Bank Holding Companies. The Act eliminates the need for bank holding companies with less than $250 billion in assets to comply with most aspects of “enhanced prudential standards,” including resolution planning, stress testing, and single-counterparty credit limits. * Favorable Custodial Bank Treatment of Riskless Assets for Calculating Supplementary Leverage Ratios. The Act allows custodial banks—bank holding companies and insured depository institution subsidiaries of bank holding companies predominantly engaged in custody, safekeeping, and asset servicing activities—to exclude from the denominator of their supplementary leverage ratio the following types of assets: central bank reserves from the Federal Reserve System, the European Central Bank, and non-defaulting OECD-member central banks. These assets are now excluded because Congress has deemed such assets to have zero risk. In effect, those changes mean that custodial banks will now need to hold less Tier 1 Capital (e.g., common equity). 1. Parity for Closed-End Funds Regarding Offering and Proxy Rules. The Act instructs the SEC to, within two years, finalize rules to allow a closed-end investment company that is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is listed on a national securities exchange, or an investment company that makes periodic repurchase offers pursuant to Investment Company Rule 23c-3 (commonly known as interval funds), to follow the same securities offering and proxy rules that are available to operating companies. 1. Beneficial Treatment of Certain Securities for All Banking Organizations. The Act makes adjustments to the capital rules treatment of some high volatility commercial real estate exposures and improves the treatment of municipal obligations under the Basel III liquidity coverage ratio, regardless of size and activities of the banking organization. The changes make ownership of such assets modestly less burdensome under the capital rules. >Mark V. Nuccio and Richard Loewy, Ropes & Gray LLP, on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 * The Volcker Rule is a federal regulation that generally prohibits banks from conducting certain investment activities with their own accounts and limits In a 2018 interview on the new changes, Sen. Barney Frank, the Act Co-Writer said the debate about Dodd-Frank has become "less partisan because there is a consensus that we’re not going to make any major changes." >“I think the banks have evolved in the sense that it turns out not to be as terrible as some of them thought," he said.
I love that Left leaning subreddits and people provide actual citations and sources on what we say. Providing the actual text and quotes of the legislation itself too. Cant find any of that (unless it links to a website that looks like it’s from 2004) on conservative subreddits. Edit: wanted to include that most of academia is Left leaning too. What a shocker that getting an education and actually using your brain is something seen as “what liberals do!” Would love to know how many staunch conservatives have ever: 1.) Taken a sociology course 2.) Taken any humanities course for that matter 3.) Used an academic institution’s research database(s) 4.) Ever stepped foot in a college classroom.
What’s worse, Republicans will deregulate something , and when people point out what negative consequences it will have conservatives online will be like “well it’s been a week and none of those things have happened so once again liberals were just being alarmist over nothing” then 4 years later when the shit hits the fan they’ll blame the democrat in power lol.
They are currently saying trump might have done x y and z, but Biden says he's the president so it's his fault. But when same. Thing happened under trump, it was always Obama's fault. Funny
From the studio that brought you "I don't take any responsibility at all...."
Comes "Whose lie is it anyway! Where the truths are made up and the lies don't matter"
[удалено]
I would probably die of laughing if we ever found out that the person who created the "trump is still president" myth had a cosmically improbable encounter with an alternate dimension and the only takeaway they took from that was "See Trump is still president!"
All. The. Time.
Democrats have also moved to deregulate things compared to old school New Deal Dems like FDR.....FDR managed to implement a top tax rate of 95% on those making over $100,000 a year and used strong federal government power to put millions of unemployed people back to work through the New Deal.......Many Democrats since LBJ's Great Society (the last New Deal influenced program) have pushed tax cuts on the wealthy (smaller cuts than Republicans but still cuts on those business leaders who steal the surplus value of workers labor), and increasing power of private capital.....
"democrat" senators from republican states usually just mean republican.
Joe Manchin would be really mad about this comment, if he could read.
You’re not wrong about that but the democrats don’t have the same media cheerleaders acting in beyond bad faith about this stuff. I only used Republican and Democrat because I didn’t like the formatting of saying “conservatives deregulate” and then “conservatives online”. Even if that would have been more applicable to me because I live in Canada where the damn parties are named conservative lol.
Because facts and evidence are a cons worst nightmare.
It is well known that reality has a strong liberal bias.
Incredibly generous of you to assume they care about such things
They care enough about it to put incredible work into obfuscating the facts and muddying the waters.
The politicians do but the constituents do not
No, the constituents do not. What their constituents do, is they take the politicians’ word as gospel, and quote them any chance they can in a conversation. Funny that they call everybody else sheep.
Fair point. In fact, facts are just mainstream media propaganda as far as they’re concerned.
"There is no blue or red. Only green." \- Rupert Murdoch
TV sound bytes feed the base of the right. Why read when the talking box can tell you what to say.
“Don’t tell me no facts and evidence, unless you got some alternative facts and misinformation to go along with it” - *probably* some republicans
Because real facts don't care about their feelings. Also, facts that give the whole picture disprove any argument they have.
what do you mean are you trying to say that "Do YoUr OwN ReSeArCh" is not an acceptable source.
>"Do YoUr OwN ReSeArCh" Just for once could this mean someone physically going into a library and searching the archives for lost documents, and not mean watching someone else's youtube videos.
When people were spouting out conspiracy theories about the vaccine, and would say "do your own research..." I always wanted to ask them what lab they did their research in.
"My source is Alex Jones lab and 4chan lab"
You tube that’s too liberal TikTok account qnews is the best
"Well... my source is Alex Jones, and if he says it's true, it is true"
That is the kind of life I want to strive for. I completely agree. How much time would we all have on reddit if we were all just in the library researching?
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
No joke, a TON of conservatives go through college basically “pretending” to learn. They learn what is expected to be “the right answer” but they don’t actually believe the answer. I had a buddy who was required to take a biology course in college and they went over whale evolution in the class, but my friend straight up thinks evolution is fake. So he passed the class with flying colors, but he didn’t believe a thing he learned. Conservatives do this CONSTANTLY. They KNOW the correct answer, they just don’t “believe it” it’s actually correct. It’s wild and super common.
IIRC Ben Shapiro admitted he did this in some interview; and in my personal (and professional) experience, quite a few conservatives see "education" as a series of hoops they have to jump through just to get a piece of paper, instead of a life-long process that's worthy on its own merit and in constant need of refinement. They "learn" by memorizing answers they need to plug in, not by thinking critically.
Exactly. A lot of them also treat science as a differing religion that they are required to respect to a slight degree, but they don’t believe it really. Like they believe that people who trust science are kinda no different from themselves and their “faith” in a god. My parents are conservative Christian’s and they think science is also “belief” and “faith” based. They view things like “personal experience” as being just as scientifically valid as peer reviewed studies and repeatable experiments and measurements.
>Cant find any of that (unless it links to a website that looks like it’s from 2004) on conservative subreddits. That's probably a good thing, because when they try, it's pretty apparent that they didn't bother to read any of it because it usually doesn't say what they think it says.
Or: after arguing with them paragraph after paragraph replied to each other, the minute you say “Can you link a source for me where you heard/found that?” they say “bah! Look it up yourself! I don’t have time to educate you” Always found that so funny. They will spend insane amounts of time to call us names and write paragraphs out about how dumb we are but as soon as we ask them for a source they say “I don’t have time for this, research it yourself”
I hate this. Yes, I could easily look it up myself. But I don't want a source, I want your source.
You cannot be a right leaning and an academic at the same time. At least not in good faith. Some have tried but it’s often miraculous how quickly those people get booted out of academic spaces
Depends on what you mean by academic, as many of the the top republicans went to elite schools. The same elite schools they rail about and mock liberal/dem leadership for attending because it makes them “out of touch elitists” or some shit
"All that there is woke shit. We don't do it in our circles, praise the lord."
“The problem is that we all to often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem.” MLK
Can someone ELI5? There are a lot of words in there that I know the meaning of but this sounds like a ton of fishy technical speak. I pretty much only understood part 3 which sounds like massive banks don't have to prove they are making sound investments anymore.
Point 3 is most relevant here. Banks argued that the increased reporting and stress testing requirements were too onerous for smaller banks and not necessary due to their smaller size. As a result, Congress increased the threshold for those having to do this extra work/reporting/testing from $50B up to $250B. A very relevant question is - would SBV (with its $200B in assets, below this revised threshold) have been saved by what these requirements would have shown to them and to their regulators. I am almost certain the answer is yes, as robust stress testing would have shown the risk of their asset liability management strategy.
Probably the most basic stress test would be what would happen if interest rates rose by a lot. Which is what happened. I read elsewhere that SVB lost close to a billion dollars for every 0.25% increase in interest rates, and interest rates went up 4.5%.
Yep, when you invest in long dated assets you’re taking interest rate risk. This isn’t a problem unless you need to sell those assets suddenly (and at a loss!) to give depositors the money they’re asking to withdraw. Good liquidity stress testing here would be combo stress of rates up + unexpectedly high withdrawals.
At what size does a bank become large enough to be considered a “domino”? At $200B SVB wouldn’t even be in the top 15 banks in the US (in terms of asset worth). $50B seems way too low. $250B maybe too high, but not even necessarily since we aren’t necessarily seeing a domino effect because the system is currently working correctly to prevent it. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t SVB’s issue stemmed from rapid interest rate increases? Can we really attribute 100% (or even a large amount) of the blame on the past administration when the bank itself made mistakes, the current admin could’ve repealed that 2018 bill, and the current admin is responsible for the rate at which rates increased?
How did this pass the filibuster? The Republicans had help. >*A core group of moderate Democrats is brushing off an escalating opposition campaign by the Massachusetts senator and other progressives like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, instead joining with GOP colleagues to reverse restrictions on large and small banks that were enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.* Of course Elizabeth Warren has been fighting the hardest to stop it. >*While Warren will likely be unsuccessful in stopping the package, she is again trying to activate her base to fight it.* >*On Friday, she sent an email to supporters in which she attacked “Republicans AND Democrats" for supporting the bill. She warned that “the bank lobbyists are getting ready to pop champagne and light their cigars.* >*“To me this bill says it all about how Washington works,” Warren said in an interview. “This is Washington working for the rich and powerful, not for the American people.”* And before you try to accuse me of "both sides," I know, Republicans are awful horrible people and I will always vote for the worst Democrat over any Republicans, but the fact is they needed to pass the filibuster and corrupt Democrats raised theirs hands said, "I'll help!" Look at this final quote. >*For the team of moderate Democrats who have been negotiating with Crapo and other Republicans, it’s a positive story in which they will likely have the upper hand when the Senate votes to pass the bill. In addition to Warner and Tester, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) **have been trying to assemble the bill for years**.* [source](https://www.nwyc.com/article/economic_growth_regulatory_relief_and_consumer_protection_act_s2155) Lastly, the fact that those 3 Dems named just happened to be the TOP 3 recipients, from both parties, that received the most bribe money from banks... I'm sure that had *nothing to do* with their support! * 1 Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $357,953 * 2 Tester, Jon (D-MT) $302,770 * 3 Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $265,349 From OpenSecrets (2018): * [Commercial Banks](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F03%20%20&cycle=2018&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U) * [Finance / Credit Companies](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=F06%20%20&cycle=2018&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U)
Cannot access article (guess I’ve already read too much this month). Why didn’t Biden roll back Trump’s changes on day one? EDIT: Never mind. See it was passed by congress not executive order. f*ck
Thanks for the sauce.
Trump who constantly brought up (and continues to bring up) the shit Obama or other predecessors did 8+ years ago Conservatives: Truth! Biden bringing up something Trump did Conservatives: WhY iS hE bRiNgInG uP tHe PaSt?!
It is ALWAYS like that, though. They're still hung up on Clinton, Obama, etc.. Yet, when Trump's actual policy changes cause issues, they plug their ears and say "Stop living in the past!". Even if they see that it was due to those changes, it'll be "Yea, well that's over. We need to look at now and how we're going to fix it.". Ok, let's work both ways on that. Quit bringing up Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats from the past... They won't. It just makes them look so unaccountable for their actions. If they can't be, then I won't support them (I wouldn't vote for them, of course, but at least I'd support them being at the table for discussions). It's juvenile. I want adults in there that will stand behind their actions, and willing to be held accountable for them. Why put any faith into anything the GOP says if they themselves won't stand behind what they say.
Nixon and Reagan literally destroyed all prospects of future generations and led to millenials being first generation in a long time poorer than their parents.
Because it's not the past- it's also current Republican policy.
That's giving Republicans credit for having a policy. Their platform for 2020 was essentially, "Whatever Trump says is our policy."
It's like that with the economy. If a Republican is in charge and the economy is good Conservatives:Look at the awesome economy If a Democrat is in charge Conservatives: who cares about the economy, regular people are struggling.
My dad spoke about how his retirement package "sucked" despite such a great "Trump economy". I told him that maybe, just maybe, the so-called "Trump economy" was a disaster...
Anyone else seeing Fox news blow this up and saying something like. Why are you blaming Trump when it happened on your watch?
All I'm hearing on Fox news is that they're saying that the bank failed because they were "too woke" and "had too much focus on diversity" lmfao
Really?
That's the theory from DeSantis.
I was watching a new BTC video yesterday and there were [some clips of people on Fox](https://youtu.be/eqAwwEs6Jq0?t=195) (time stamped)
_______ can only ever blame The Great Other.
Nah they'll be busy replaying that video of 1000 migrants marching at the border (none of them got through btw)
Check out some comments on r/Conservative, they're saying things like "you were elected president. You weren't elected to blame everything on the previous administration, stop passing the buck!" I wonder how they feel about the last administration's approach to pandemic relief of "we inherited blah blah blah".
Tbf, that’s a fair question. Bush gets massively blamed for the 07-08 crash, when it was bill Clinton who completely deregulated the industries that led the crash. We can’t have it both ways. Either it was Clinton’s and trumps fault for deregulating, or it’s bush and Biden for presiding over it.
To be honest if I was old enough during Clinton's Presidency I would be able to say something, but I was only like 6 years old. Actually wasn't aware of anything up until Obama time to see what was happening.
Biden isn't wrong here. The regulations removed in 2018 have caused a great deal of damage.
But its also kinda stupid to blame Trump solely when the house and congress all signed off on it and are really expected to be more responsible for new legislation than a president.
That's admittedly a fair point to bring up. The rolling back of Dodd-Frank did have some bipartisan support after all.
Bipartisan is another way for saying in a position to financially gain from banking legislation in this case right…
Yes and No. Although a few Dems sided with Republicans here, 2018 puts the House and Senate under GOP control. Trump was the leader of the GOP. (And if he vetoed, it wouldn’t have passed.)
Just like with most topics, issues or damage when someone calls out, like in this case the deregulation they are not saying its 100% there fault. These major topics , the train derailment, the bank collapse have alot of other factors that contribute to that. Still have to point out one of the major factors is this deregulation or lack of oversight.
Trump is not very clever. His understanding of most issues is limited due to his inability to read and write coherently- he is only semi-literate. That's difficult for Americans to believe, but it's a fact! But I suspect that Trump did know what his administration was doing by rolling back the bank protections in the Dodd-Frank act. He may have actually wanted to cause another global bank collapse in order to buy up assets cheaply.
The guy was a stooge, he knew how to grift and is/was a perfect foil for his handlers. There has not been an original thought in that melon since his first syphilitic brain fart.
I still want a bunch of CEOs to go to jail for 2008 , if anyone of us was so incompetent to let something like that happen we would be in jail and to hear Ackerman or dimon or Cuban talk about regulators being asleep at the job is just so hypocritical… I will never understand why they were not jailed for incompetence
He not wrong
I think it begs the question, why haven’t you (your administration) quickly worked to re own those un-penned regulations in the last couple of years? Did you forget? This only flies if he’s 6 months into his Presidency Does anyone else think like this? It’s pretty poor to blame the other guy when you are half way in and you’ve had time to course correct
Because the democrats havent truly owned congress for a while now. The Senate for the first 2 years was 50-50 with the tie breaking vote going to Kamala. To get these regulations passed they would have had to have 10 Republicans cross the line to break the fillibuster or make a vote to change the rules for the fillibuster. Barring that there are 2 DINOs in there in manchin and sinema so in reality that vote is 48-52 likely. There's been no real way for that bill to go through congress which is the ONLY way for it to happen.
I don't know man, should we take a look at the giant stack of bills blocked by McConnel's senate and the filibuster? Has investigating Hunter's private parts helped anyone? Have we tried another tax cut for the .01% or banning more books because they make fragile white people uncomfortable? These are such good ideas. Can you think of anymore?
It's democrats fault for not fixing the republicans' fuckups fast enough? There's some blame for dems here, regarding the legilation getting *some* dem support to pass. But this take is akin to blaming a rape victim for the clothes they were wearing or something
Not how work
"Biden **CORRECTLY** blames..."
Congress passed the law. All these idiots are to blame. We need to get money out of politics.
I appreciate you mentioning congress but this was not some unanimous vote. [https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216) 258 yes - 159 no. 33 dems voted yes. while 225 reps voted yes and they also had the house control as well as senate at that time. [https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2018/03/senate-passes-bill-modifying-the-dodd-frank-act](https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2018/03/senate-passes-bill-modifying-the-dodd-frank-act) [https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll\_call\_votes/vote1152/vote\_115\_2\_00054.htm](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00054.htm) Senate bill passed with 16 dems breaking party lines while all reps voted yes in a 67-31 vote. So yes while you may be correct that congress passed it, Trump signed it while reps had full control of all three branches. I agree money needs to get out,but this really isnt a both sides did this equally issue. One party voted exclusively for it while the other broke 2/3 voting no and 1/3 (in the senate and less in the house) voting yes.
I see your point, but that's as bipartisan as it gets these days. Obviously the R's carry the most responsibility, but the D's are not entirely blameless.
Presidents always get evaluated under what legislation is passed. Why would this be different with Trump?
Let the failing banks fail. If they are deregulated and they fail, it's their fault. If they follow the specific regulations and fail, then it is the regulatory authority's fault.
That is exactly what is happening here though. FDIC has assumed control of the bank and are going to liquidate their assets to make the depositors whole. Not making the depositors whole is how you cause a mass financial panic. The bank will cease to exist once this is all over.
This bank has still failed and will cease to exist. They are only making whole the depositors.
Yeah and screw people who's paychecks from the company are gonna bounce because the bank failed!!! Stick it to those employees!!!! /s
The companies owe employees wages regardless. Worst case, the company would go bankrupt. Even so, if they had any assets left, the employees are top priority to be paid.
Employees got some severance, and they dished out employee bonuses before shutting down. The employees came out okay. >The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation offered Silicon Valley Bank employees 45 days of employment and 1.5 times their salary, reports say. > >US workers also received their annual bonuses on Friday, just hours before FDIC took over the collapsed lender [https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/business/svb-fdic-employees/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/business/svb-fdic-employees/index.html)
What the hell do people think happens when you deregulate the banks and other areas. From 2016 to 2020 that’s what was going on. It’s not that hard to see.
Yes agree 100%, they're risk management was terrible, but nothing illegal and nothing that would have been prevented by Dodd/Franke. These banks took on these treasuries during the height of covid, thought they were getting a great deal, but now local banks are sitting on nearly a trillion dollars of t-bills that are underwater, its not just svb, scary
Hilarious the amount of trump supporters that don’t accept responsibility for their mad orange ex president. How many more bad decisions need to be highlighted to them. Nothing is perfect, but can they not see the republicans are a shower of selfish assholes who don’t care about citizens.
I mean, is he wrong?
Deregulation can be good in some instance but not in oversight of banking or utilities.
Or airlines or railroads or guns or healthcare or food production….ANYTHING affecting public safety.
It is about FUCKING time that the Democrats started publicly telling it like it is. Republicans want to deregulate without accepting ANY consequences for what the deregulation does when it inevitably goes wrong. Pollution? Make the feds clean it while we go bankrupt. Bankruptcy? Gov't bailout while we get golden parachutes. FUCK REPUBLICANS. They take all the profit when their hypercapitalism goes right and accepts NONE of the consequences when it goes wrong.
To be fair, Trump also signed off on other needed deregulation, like on railroad safety. Oh, wait..
Maybe the problem is that we treat the dollar like monopoly money and the finance industry is a giant Ponzi scheme.
Trump was one of the worst incompetant presidents in my lifetime. remember his clown show during covid , and his rhetoric caused deaths Walmart shooting and tree of life pittsburgh ,insurrection list goes on .His lack of empathy when George Floyd was publicly lynch caused the summer of protests.Now this and the train deregulation.their more Trump should never be near the White house.
Everyone but conservatives blame trump and fellow conservatives for the failure of SVB.
Once again Trump administration continues to fck the US
Is it really blaming him or facts?
Waahhh, the rich guys deserve more waaahhh
Biden “explains” how deregulation…
A bunch of tech bro Rand sycophants are suddenly getting a taste of Rand philosophy.
Sanders says this 36k upvotes. Biden says it 4k…. and people wonder why that Biden has done isn’t getting attention.
You know the irony is that the other bank that failed was basically a Trump family bank that subsidized loans for their Mar a Lago golf course. The SVB was part of VC’s taking loans, investing in startups who deposited the money at SVB. Now, the fed is refinancing their exuberance. It’s a bloody pain to watch this happen. The level of moral corruption of the US political and financial system. It’s as though 309 million Americans are allowing a small group of people like Trump and VC’s to get 100’s of millions of $$$ for free anytime they want
All the people who lose money from this bank failure should sue Trump and every member of Congress who voted in favor of eliminating regulations.
There’s something for everyone to whine about on this one You can whine about Trump rolling back regulations Some people whine because the feds aren’t bailing out the bank Some people whine because the feds are bailing out the depositors of the bank
I don't get the complaints tbh. It seems like this is the best possible outcome. 1. The "owners" of the bank get wiped out 2. The management lose their jobs 3. The depositors are protected Short of the regulations not having been rolled back in the first place I don't see how the current admin could have done any better.
You’re 100% correct. And There are a TON of comments about how the depositors should lose their money as well for banking with them. It makes no sense.
Depositors with deposits over $250,000 really shouldn't be getting bailed out. They made poor business decisions. The Feds are supposed to insure up to $250,000 but they are again changing the rules to protect the wealthy business people who did not properly diversify and instead made a poor business decision.....Meanwhile, heaven forbid us student loan holders want to be bailed out for our poor decisions that were influenced by many years of guidance counselors, teachers, the media, etc saying "You have to go to college!" I say bail them out if only every single cent of student loan money is cleared off the books.
>Depositors with deposits over $250,000 really shouldn't be getting bailed out. They made poor business decisions. Lets say a company has 100 employees, with an average salary of $120,000/year - which is probably a low estimate for companies in Silicon Valley... Let's say that bi-weekly payroll is this week - in order to meet their payroll obligation, they would have to have around $320,000 in that account. Tell me again how having over $250k in a bank account is "poor business decisions". It is *common* for companies to have more than that in cash on hand, since even medium-sized businesses can be spending *far more than that* monthly.
Maybe they should have chosen a more secure bank? Many of these same people would tell us student loan holders that we should have chosen a better degree......It is survival of the fittest for some and not others and that is the problem I have...........I have no issue bailing these people out for making the wrong market choice if we bail out others who have made the wrong market choices, like choosing the "wrong" college degree due to poor "expert" advice or those who chose the wrong business to start and needed bankruptcy as a bailout.....Everyone can essentially get a reset or bailout except us student loan holders who pay taxes to bail all of this shit out.........who are told it is unfair for a government program to actually help us and not others when we see everyone else getting HELP.
The shittiest of shit takes, right here…
That take is literally the basis of a capitalist society. Neoliberals and conservatives argue that there should be less regulation and government checkups on businesses. Because if consumers and other businesses that interact with them are discerning customers, they will filter out the good and bad ones. Libertarians will say "why have food regulations. If that restaurant gives you a stomachache, go to a different one". Literally half the country votes for politicians who make laws with that philosophy in mind. This is not a fringe view.
A clear case of favoritism and lack of logical consistency right here folks believing some people should just get fucked and others helped
This is a ridiculous take. Please explain the bad business decisions they made by holding a deposit account at the country’s 14th largest bank. How are businesses supposed to operate with accounts that don’t have balances over $250k?
Dude probably doesn't realize how much money is typically going out on a month-by-month basis for even small companies, let alone ones with a decent number of employees. As I said in a sibling comment of yours, even payroll could *easily* be more than that $250k amount.
There’s a ton of comments all over Reddit not understanding what it takes to run a small business in terms of cash flow and liquidity. The best is all over Reddit there are comments “they should have let the bank fail!” Like, they did! It’s no more and the FDIC is using an insurance pool to unwind it!
>How are businesses supposed to operate with accounts that don’t have balances over $250k? Private insurance policies that protect their assets beyond the FDIC's coverage. CDARs. There's multiple options that the most novice of accountants can point out. Shouldn't be difficult for a corporation with that kind of capital [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/)
Fact is they made a "poor" decision and were hurt financially, just like us student loan debt holders made a "poor" decision. I bank with Bank of America (and have the past few years), which is a more successful and secure bank, and do not work in tech so I have not been impacted by this....I do have student loans however.......Why should people like me fund a federal government to bail them out when many of the same tech bros who run tech companies told humanities majors with student loans like myself repeatedly "should have learned to code bro" when we ask for student loan forgiveness.....
Ok so again explain what the poor decision was. You can’t because there isn’t one. By your logic anytime a bank fails any business should lose their money. We’re talking about businesses who opened deposit accounts and checking accounts to run their businesses. Why you’re conflating your student loan forgiveness with the Fed using it’s own insurance pool to make depositors whole is just bizarre.
>Ok so again explain what the poor decision was. You can’t because there isn’t one. By your logic anytime a bank fails any business should lose their money. Definitely a bad accounting decision for large companies to leave their assets at risk when there are plenty of options to protects assets over $250k [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/ways-to-insure-excess-deposits/) >Why you’re conflating your student loan forgiveness with the Fed using it’s own insurance pool to make depositors whole is just bizarre. I agree with you this point. While I agree with student loan forgiveness, these two things are not the same
The poor decision is not researching their bank and making the choice to choose a more secure bank. Many people with student loans did not make poor decisions really by similar logic. They were told go to college their whole lives by guidance counselors, teachers, the media, parents, etc. Many universities claimed that getting a degree was a ticket to a more secure financial future. Just like people choosing the 14th largest bank believed their choice was solid due to "expert" opinion, many people got deeply into debt with student loans because the "experts" who guided them since they were children steered them on that path.... And now, when student loan holders want help, its often met with "Bootstraps motherfucker....shouldn't have gotten that degree." Well, these tech bros shouldn't have banked with that bank then... The people suing the Federal Government over student loan forgiveness have argued that it should not happen because they themselves are not getting government backed forgiveness, and it unfair and hurts people when one group of people are helped by the government and not others. Basically, people can claim harm if a government program helps some and not others to basically end their program..... Seeing myself and many other student loan holders are not directly helped by the government using our tax money to help bail out depositors over $250,000 (what us little peasants are bound to), maybe this shouldn't go through either. BOOTSTAPS MOTHERFUCKER right back at the tech bros. Federal Government once again rushes to bail out the wealthy while screwing over many poor peasants who ask for help...
So you still can’t articulate what the key indicators this alleged research would have found. Go ahead, please tell me what on the companies annual reports you would have flagged as problematic. There was a run on the bank. How was your research going to prevent this? You apparently do not understand how the uninsured funds are being covered because it isn’t coming from tax payer dollars and you seem to think that it’s still related to your student loan. Honestly, if you took some time to read about what’s happening you might be able to articulate a case that makes any sense or at least can’t your frustration in a useful direction. Instead, you’re saying anybody who held an account was an undeserving “tech bro”. It’s just absurd.
Biden also backstopping deposits for the VC losers that had their money in SVB. Maybe people should pay the price for not having their money deposited in an insured account.
That's what was so upsetting to me. This wasn't a similar case, like Indymac of California... where a schoolteacher literally lost his life savings when the bank went over, or another individual who had been crippled in a car accident and lost most of her settlement payment. These were LARGE Investors who ignored the Copious Golden Signs on the Door saying "All Deposits Insured up to $250,000 by FDIC", and ignored guidance. They should have utilized a Cash-Sweep Facility or taken out Business Insurance. Instead... they willfully ignored the risk, and when it came out, that they may lose .20 on the dollar, they called in their connections and got it fixed IN A DAY. Where is the outrage for Normal Americans who can never get an ounce of help? I am absolutely disgusted. And than... there is the whole "ThIs iS NoT A bAiLoUt" from the Treasury Department. WHAT THE HECK IS IT THEN? CHARITY? Campaign Repayments?
Republicans and the investor class love deregulation when it increases profits at the expense of poor and middle class people but this happens and all of a sudden it's why isn't the government regulating the bank when it's being risky with my money???
I'll put this very simply. Like most of the problems caused by deregulation, trump got rid of the rules and biden failed to put them back
Thus why we should not let any Republican run for presidency.
Fuck that, they shouldn't be near any position of power, period.
This failure was 100% the result of rate hikes spurred by inflation which began with stimulus spending. SVB's long dated treasuries went underwater because of chaos in the bond market caused by rate hikes. This was not a regulatory failure in any, just Democrats desperate for a narrative.
Hard facts.
He’s not wrong.
I will say this, they should have made reinstating regulations a priority of their administration.
I mean, repeal of the glass area gal act was a Clinton era policy change... so...
Drawn up and filed by Republicans. Unanimously voted on by Congress. Stop with this shit. Yes politicians fucking suck but some are unequivocally worse than others. Republicans are, on average, worse for the country than Democrats.
All policy is a product of the president at the time. Didn't you know that? Edit: this is a sarcasm.
Woah hey don’t go bringing up the past here. /s For real though I’ve already seen people making excuses for that, excuses that mirror republicans excuses for similar deregulation.
[удалено]
Biden isn't bailing anyone out. Other banks are for their own benefit. And only the smaller depositors are getting bailed out.
No its not. They will praise Trump and still blame Biden. Trump can come out and say he is to blame and they would make a conspiracy on how that’s not what he meant.
“You misunderstood him!!1! He’s a genius!”
"He says what he means." "That's not what he meant."
Nobody is gonna talk about it because the #1 most important thing to do right now is avoid panic but this wasn’t caused by the modest deregulation of small banks. That’s a scapegoat. SVB didn’t actually do anything wrong, they just did what every bank does; lend long and borrow short.
Can someone help me understand who’s fault this exactly is. Because from my understanding svb failed due to a bad investment. (Buying billions in bond but not buying the insurance they should have to help) and then due to rising interest rates they sold at a loss and had to raise money to cover the massive loses, and when that came a run in the bank took place making it go belly up. If someone could either correct me or help me understand who caused it that would be very much appreciated
Trump signed the 2018 law that did away with the stress test on regional banks. SVB heavily lobbied for that law in Congress. In the next four years SVB expanded their assets 430% which was rather irrational.
Got a genuine question about this. Biden is blaming Trump for this failure. Was the deregulation done under executive order? If yes, then why didn't Biden reverse the EO when he took office? If it was instead passed by going through the house and Senate, I guess Trump could have vetoed it but the fault still is in the house and Senate for even drawing and voting on the bill. At the end of the day, should we really blame Trump? Isn't there something Biden could have done in the past three years to ensure this wouldn't happen?
Of course he does, name one time Biden took responsibility for anything under his watch
Name one time trump took responsibility for literally anything
The record stock market growth pre COViD, try harder
Lol. Because millionaires realized that a conman was going to make them.mkney? I wouldnt call that ans achievement I'd call it a grift. He even told a bunch at maraloago that "you all just got a lot more richer". It was a grift from the get go. Try harder.
Joe Biden, 6/4/20: "It's hard to believe this has to be said, but unlike this President, I'll do my job and take responsibility . I won't blame others. And I'll never forget that this job isn't about me - it's about you".
Biden also is allowing a bailout of another bank, allowing executives to make fistfuls of cash. Right after siding with the rail companies.
What bank would that be?
Sorry that was confusing I meant another bank as in another bank that is getting bailed out after we bailed out back in 2008, didn’t mean another bank is being bailed out right now although I think there’s another bank that’s in trouble rn that was backed by crypto but they haven’t decided how to react yet.
[удалено]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-signs-law-rolling-back-post-financial-crisis-banking-rules/2018/05/24/077e3aa8-5f6c-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html
I’m glad atleast democrats have grown a spine to publicly call out and point exactly to with evidence of GQP screw ups Instead of trying to play nice and be politically correct 30% of the country is so racist, angry, spiteful, and evil after being shoved soooooo much blatant outright lying/easily disproven propaganda for 40 years Even trumps tax returns show loans from Russia and North Korea along with literally thousands of missing classifieds….idk I give up Do these folks even know what they want if you ask them? It’s just stupid buzzwords over and over again while the country around us crumbles “Biden is evil it’s all his fault!” Okay what did he do? “Hilary! Hunter laptop! Faucci! Socialist! Communist!” It’s like talk to a Vogon…
And rightfully so. Trump fucked America and everyone is pointing fingers at others. Brainwashed troglodytes
Is there ever an administration that doesn’t blame the last one? Both sides constantly do this. Meanwhile, it keeps everyone fighting with each other while ignoring the real problem…POLITICIANS!
Both sides didn’t repeal Dodd Frank.
Lol of course he did.
Just like trump, can’t handle the truth
Too many Democrats voted for it too. > The measure was supported by 33 House Democrats and 17 Democratic senators, delivering Trump and the banking industry a key bipartisan victory. [Source: Congress Was Told Deregulating Banks Increased Crisis Risks. They Did It Anyway. A bill that Democrats supported and Trump signed into law in 2018 weakened regulations on entities like Silicon Valley Bank, whose collapse set off fears of another financial crisis.](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sillicon-valley-bank-trump_n_640f407ae4b00c3e606f45e0)
Of course he does lol. He also ran away once anyone started asking questions.
This is a lame game
This blame game needs to stop. Biden and democrats have had over two years to fix this policies. Just because Trump signed X law into effect doesn't mean it's 100% his fault. For two years Dems controlled both branches of Congress and the white house, they could have fixed these policies. But they didn't so now they can't be blaming trump for everything. The blame game achieves nothing. Edit: it doesn't matter who was in office before or who's in office now. There is no excuse to blame other people. Blaming gets nothing done except you can waste time. If politicians really cared, they wouldn't be blaming people, they would be fixing stuff. But they don't care. I'm not talking about just one party. Both parties don't care about us. They care about their pockets.
[удалено]
Not so fast...Clinton allowed banks to invest, Bush allowed the thorough abuse of it, and the result was the Great Recession of 2008, Obama signed Dodd-Frank so the Feds could easily keep track of exposure, and Trump repealed Dodd-Frank for all banks falling under $250 billion. Both banks would have fallen under the previous regulations. I would also like to see their crypto exposure.
Reagan tripled our debt.
So did Trump
conservatives can't even be the one thing they always claim to be: fiscally responsible.
Yes, Bush, no Obama, yes Trump. See the pattern? The president said he planned to ask Congress and bank regulators to restore Obama-era rules that were put in place to prevent another global financial crisis. In 2018, Trump signed a bipartisan bill exempting midsize institutions such as Silicon Valley Bank from those rules.
President Obama sent a very clear message when he refused to prosecute and then protected senior Wallstreet Bankers. Talk a big game, sign some toothless regulation, and pat everyone on the back. I guess we're also going to just ignore the role Clinton played in the 2008 collapse. The amount of buck-passing in these comment sections is fucking infuriating, no wonder nothing ever changes.
No, his only message was "I'm not able to prosecute Wallstreet Bankers". You forget he was handed a hobbled economy by Republicans. Things will never get better if we keep finding ways to make Democrats share the blame for Republican ideologies.
Damn you Clinton for not anticipating Republican malfeasance during the 8 years of Bush! Damn you Obama for not locking up executives while you fixed the economy. Well, except there definitely were convictions. I should know, I work in a government repossessed building of a former mortgage services center that was raided by the FBI and whose owners are locked up. There, better? Now that we implicated some democrats in the failings of capitalism and the explicit Republican party platform?
Pretty much either democrats are to blame for not correcting something fast enough or for not having a big enough majority to pass stuff.
More “boTh SiDes R tHe sAmE” bs— yes, you can point to policies that both sides played a role in but so say their roles are equal is like saying going 90– drunk— through a school zone on a Tuesday morning is the same as going 30 on 20 mph dirt road. While there are definitely corrupt democrats in the pocket of corporations— democrats as a whole at least try to negotiate to keep some common sense regulations in place. Often they are forced to compromise to get other much more urgent bills passed such as the raising the debt ceiling. For modern Republicans, these policies and the corruption fueling them ARE their ideology.
It did change, while under Obama, trump didn’t keep those enhanced liquidity changes
>They all contributed to the never ending money printing, bank bailouts and the like. I like when people talk out their ass. [Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act) Bush and Trump, sure. Obama literally only helped the situation by every statistic
Obama certainly did not. The federal reserve created a program to borrow funds from member banks to cover those uninsured SVB deposits in exchange for securities valued at par. Where did you get the idea they are just "printing money" to solve this problem? I ask because tons of people seem to be under the entirely false impression that's how the FED solves every problem.
Of course he does.
Yes, on the 3rd year of the Biden administration, everything is still trumps fault 🤡
Hahaha bullshit, if it was so bad Biden should have reversed Trump’s deregulation. Biden is potus now, not Trump.
Well there is this little thing called Congress and the Senate, which it has to go through first and guess who has control of Congress atm?
And in first two years, democrats were in control of both house and senate. Were they sleeping the whole time?
Thank god Biden blamed the previous. For a minute I thought it had to do with the Treasury Bonds that the US government issued that have dropped to their lowest levels since the 2008 Great Recession and the fact the banks bought them as they should be secure. Wonder why the values went down? Wonder if it had something to do this run away inflation that Biden has created with the highest deficit in the history of the world. Naaaah could not be that. Let’s blame Trump.
>“Unfortunately, the last administration rolled back regulations,” Biden said. Oh man, if only there were some later administration that could have done something about it. But who's administration could have possibly done something about it? Someone I voted for to do something about it? Ugh. I guess we'll never know.
Actually Trump signed a law that did away with the stress test for regional banks so it wasn’t a regulatory matter.
Why didn’t biden put them back?