Posted on Mar 14, 2023
Silicon Valley Bank collapse would have been 'prevented' if not for Trump deregulation, Senate...
677
37
8
5
5
0
Democrats always attack their political enemies, with what they did!!! We’re sure printing trillions of dollars and spending like drunk sailors on a payday for over two years, and then raising interest rates to where people can’t afford to buy homes had nothing to do with these bank failures. Heck I’m sure our Executive Branch telling people how to invest their money (Environmental, Social And Governance Investing, ESG) had nothing to do with these banks melting down.
It amazes me the gall some people have in attacking their enemies. The sorry thing is, is that if you only get your news from mainstream media, you probably believe it.
It amazes me the gall some people have in attacking their enemies. The sorry thing is, is that if you only get your news from mainstream media, you probably believe it.
Silicon Valley Bank collapse would have been 'prevented' if not for Trump deregulation, Senate...
Posted from foxbusiness.com
Donald Trump
Democrats
Banking
Insurance
Edited 1 y ago
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
BUT BUT BUT ORANGE MAN BAD! Seriously...let it go folks. Biden has the watch and it happened under him take some responsibility ice cream man.
(6)
(0)
3
3
0
Yeah ... Republicans are at fault... If you even assume that the regulatory rollbacks that were killing small/medium-sized backs were the issue instead of the inflationary spending of this administration (which of course many Democratic politicians are saying because ... well ... Orange Man .. bad!!!), then line up your party in the firing squad you want to form as well.
The bill was truly bipartisan in creation (10 Democrats and 10 Republicans) were sponsors of the bill and was passed with 17 Senate Democrats and 33 House Democrats. Some have gone, but most remain and should be put up against the wall, right!?! Those dirty, nasty cripplers of America? Start with your own party (it's easier) and strip them of their seats and positions on committees. After that, don't endorse them and have others primary them in the next election they are in.
Or does that only apply when it's the other party?
However, the Law is not at fault. There's all this discussion about how it raised the limit to $250B for backs to have increased oversight and that nothing could be done for those below that limit.
"One provision in S. 2155 that should provide comfort is that it maintains the Federal Reserve’s ability to apply enhanced prudential standards to banks between $100-250 billion, thus providing a failsafe in case problems arise broadly at institutions of this size. However, for the failsafe to work, the Federal Reserve has to have the full legal authority, regulatory will, and proper judgment to act in ways that are likely to be politically unpopular."
Sound familiar?
https://www.brookings.edu/research/bipartisanship-in-banking-is-back/
The bill was truly bipartisan in creation (10 Democrats and 10 Republicans) were sponsors of the bill and was passed with 17 Senate Democrats and 33 House Democrats. Some have gone, but most remain and should be put up against the wall, right!?! Those dirty, nasty cripplers of America? Start with your own party (it's easier) and strip them of their seats and positions on committees. After that, don't endorse them and have others primary them in the next election they are in.
Or does that only apply when it's the other party?
However, the Law is not at fault. There's all this discussion about how it raised the limit to $250B for backs to have increased oversight and that nothing could be done for those below that limit.
"One provision in S. 2155 that should provide comfort is that it maintains the Federal Reserve’s ability to apply enhanced prudential standards to banks between $100-250 billion, thus providing a failsafe in case problems arise broadly at institutions of this size. However, for the failsafe to work, the Federal Reserve has to have the full legal authority, regulatory will, and proper judgment to act in ways that are likely to be politically unpopular."
Sound familiar?
https://www.brookings.edu/research/bipartisanship-in-banking-is-back/
Bipartisanship in banking is back
Aaron Klein looks at what is to like and not like in a bipartisan bill to amend Dodd-Frank.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Yes, he did fail to say the bill he was speaking about was bipartisan. This is the reason Washing DC was never intended to be a state. The founders realized it would be an animal unto itself.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
It is true that the idea that smaller banks were released from some regulation, this is about excess investment in bonds and the impact the rising interest rates to fight inflation had on the banks bottom line and liquidity. It was the lack of a risk management officer to monitor the investments and the type of depositors who created the run when the bank tried unsuccessfully to shore up its liquidity. This is about poor bank management more than anything else
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You and Mr. Wonderful should be brothers. In this article he explains why President Biden response to the bank failure is so dangerous and will actually lead to more bank failures. He basically is letting banks play with taxpayer money.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/mr-wonderful-torches-idiot-bankers-bidens-svb-nationalized-banking-system
https://www.foxnews.com/media/mr-wonderful-torches-idiot-bankers-bidens-svb-nationalized-banking-system
'Mr. Wonderful' torches 'idiot' bankers, says feds' SVB response 'nationalized the banking...
Kevin O'Leary, the Boston investor best known for his venture capitalism on 'Shark Tank,' joined Sean Hannity to sound off on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google