Politics
Out of context: Reply #1304
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
Seriously, go read how bad this bill would of been - it would of effectively legalized it for banks to hold ZERO reserves as of tomorrow. And to do that, they buried legal language across three different bills to hide it. In other words the banks could hold NOTHING against any money you deposit in it. If you can say, "No, please, let me bend over so you can ass rape me again." in legalese this would be it:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl…
(I know it's dailykos, so take that for what it is in terms of partinship, but it's a great dis-assembling of the crap that was in the bailout plan). Relevant part here:
"Yes, I read the bill. And here is what I found most shocking:
Follow along, so you know I am not making this up:
http://financialservices.house.g…So here is the bill. Kindly download and turn to page 83. The following passage:
13 SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
14 Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Re-
15 lief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by strik-
16 ing ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.This made me almost cry for my country. Looks pretty innocuous, just sitting there, looking all legal. Sitting pretty if you will. No one will ever see it, buried so deep.
Well, I did.
So what is Title 12 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, proudly passed by the Republican-lead Congress? You remember that gang, don’t you? Surely they would have our best interests at heart.
What’s in Sec. 203?
http://www.govtrack.us/...SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011.
Oh well, that’s fine. But what’s in the amendment?
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'.Wow, looks like somebody is taking a ratio to zero. I wonder what that ratio is? I bet you in the back already know.
Let’s go to 12 U.S.C. 461, and see exactly what is is we are adjusting.
Let’s see here, Section 2, Subnote A of 12 U.S.C. 461. How is that for obscure! Let’s see what we got here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/...
(2)
(A) Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and not less than 8 per centum, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).You dirty apes.
You mean to tell me that each depository institution can maintain zero reserves against its transaction accounts?
You put it right there in writing! Sure you buried it across three bills, but you are now allowing for the possibility that banks can hold zero reserves!
This is how the bank code would have read had the bill passed today:
Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero) for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and which may be zero, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).So you plan on restoring confidence in the banks by allowing the banks not to have any reserves to match people’s checking and savings accounts? What, was the FDIC just going to cover that all? Wait, don’t answer that, I already know the answer.
But remember the effective date! The original Relief Act of 2006 called for a date of October 1, 2011 to allow banks zero reserves, if the Federal Reserve Board thought it fit. This bill would have moved that up to tomorrow!
Tomorrow people! Do you hear me! Tomorrow we could have all woken up to the possibility of zero holdings in our banks and it being legally allowed!"
- Sounds like documentaries on these days will be passed by our kids to one another, despite instant jail threat.rafalski
- Wow. I really have zero faith in our government now. None. TBO, you going to be a Libertarian with me now?tommyo
- I don't like the Libertarian fashions really...I'll stick with my neo-left anarchist enlightenment aficianado tagTheBlueOne