Senate Votes To End Debate on Dodd Frank Reform Bill…

The Senate voted 67-31 to end debate on a reform bill to modify the Dodd Frank banking bill.  While overall the approach is needed and will likely find White House support, the Senate Bill -as constructed- doesn’t do enough to modify the control held by massive multinational financial institutions, who hold lobbying power over congress.  Unfortunately, the corruptocrat leadership in the Senate will not allow the house to modify the bill as needed.

The current reform bill sets the tiered definition for lowered regulation at $250 billion in assets and there are some domestic banking beneficiaries.  However, it doesn’t break up the investment division from influence over the commercial banking.  The argument against breaking up the system is that if divisional separation is required – the banks best interests would naturally put the investment division ahead of commercial lending and the liquid capital within the overall economy would shrink.

The Trump/Mnuchin approach toward a secondary deregulated but financially sound banking system focused on commercial lending and was constructed around Community Banks and Credit Unions with far less regulatory and compliance hurdles.

WASHINGTON – All Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats voted to move the bill toward a vote on final passage, which is scheduled for Wednesday evening.

The bill, long expected to pass the Senate, faces an uncertain future in the House, where conservatives are demanding stronger curbs to Dodd-Frank before pledging their support.

[…]  Banks with less than $250 billion in global assets would no longer be subject to yearly Fed stress tests or higher capital requirements meant to ensure risky firms could weather a lending crisis. Those banks would also be exempt from submitting for Fed approval a “living will” that outlines how the company could be liquidated upon failure without causing a widespread meltdown.

The threshold for tighter Fed regulation is currently set at $50 billion, and the increase would free several major regional banks, including SunTrust, BB&T, Citizens, Fifth Third, M&T and BMO Financial Corp., from those standards. Those banks all have at least $100 billion in assets, and among the bill’s biggest beneficiaries.

The bill also exempts banks that extend 500 or fewer mortgages a year from reporting some home loan data to federal regulators and broadens the definition of qualified mortgages. (read more)

President Trump meets with leadership of small banks and credit unions.

Back in July 2010 when Dodd-Frank banking regulation was passed into law, there were approximately 12 to 17 banks who fell under the definition of “too big to fail”.

Meaning 12 to 17 financial institutions could individually negatively impact the economy, and were going to force another TARP-type bailout if they failed in the future.  Dodd-Frank regulations were supposed to ensure financial security, and the elimination of risk via taxpayer bailouts, by placing mandatory minimums on how much secure capital was required to be held in order to operate “a bank”.

One large downside to Dodd-Frank was that in order to hold the required capital, all banks decreased lending to shore-up their liquid holdings and meet the regulatory minimums.

Without the ability to borrow funds, small businesses have a hard time raising money to create business.  Growth in the larger economy is hampered by the absence of capital.

Another downstream effect of banks needing to increase their liquid holdings was exponentially worse.  Less liquid large banks needed to purchase and absorb the financial assets of more liquid large banks in order to meet the regulatory requirements.

The four to six big banks (JP Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, US BanCorp and Mellon) now control $9+ trillion (that’s “TRILLION).  Their size is so enormous this small group now controls most of the U.S. financial market.

Because they control so much of the financial market, instituting a Glass-Steagal firewall between commercial and investment divisions (in addition to the Dodd-Frank liquid holding requirements), would mean the capability of small and mid-size businesses to get the loans needed to expand or even keep their operations running would stop.

2010’s “Too few, too big to fail” became 2016’s “EVEN FEWER, EVEN BIGGER to fail”.

That’s the underlying problem for a Glass-Steagall type of regulation now.  The Democrats created Dodd-Frank which: #1 generated constraints on the economy (less lending), #2 made fewer banking options available (banks merged), #3 made top banks even bigger.

This problem is why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin were working on a proposal to create a parallel banking system of community and credit union banks that are entirely external to Dodd Frank regulations and could act as the primary commercial banks for small to mid-sized businesses.

The goal of “Glass Steagal”, ie. Commercial division -vs- Investment division, would be created by generating an entirely new system of banks under different regulation.  The currently remaining ten U.S. “big banks” operate as “investment division banks” per se’, and the lesser regulated community banks/credit unions operate as would be the “Commercial Side”.

Instead of fire-walling an individual bank internally within its organization, the Trump/Mnuchin plan was presented to fire-wall the banking ‘system’ within the U.S. internally.  Hope that makes sense.

The Senate Dodd Frank reform bill does little to change this structural issue.

This entry was posted in Bailouts, Donald Trump, Economy, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US Treasury. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Senate Votes To End Debate on Dodd Frank Reform Bill…

  1. The Boss says:

    So is anyone shocked that the Eunuch Party turned out such a crappy piece of legislation?

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Once again, the Senate proves that they can work together when their lifeblood is threatened.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Joshua2415 says:

    Thank you Sundance. That helps a lot.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “reinstating Glass Steagall”

      I had thought of that a few years ago (as originally written), but I did not know about this problem which arose because so many of the smaller banks were gone:

      This is from Sundance:
      “…instituting a Glass-Steagall firewall between commercial and investment divisions (in addition to the Dodd-Frank liquid holding requirements), would mean the capability of small and mid-size businesses to get the loans needed to expand or even keep their operations running would stop…”.

      There was some chatter the past year or two of “modernizing” Glass-Steagall. which just means lobbyists mucking up something which worked well for decades. I wonder if bringing back Glass-Steagall would work, IF the holding requirements were also abolished? Doing that would require the banks, NOT the depositors, would be on the hook for a bank’s screw ups. Right now they can stiff depositors by giving them some bank stock, instead of all their cash.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Donna in Oregon says:

        Derivatives are trillions of dollars….there is no way Glass-Steagall can put the toothpaste back in the tube. Some say gambling by the Globalists is approx. 1/2 quadrillion dollars. President Trump is not going to cover their bets.

        Credit Unions and Community banks should be reinforced and fortified to remain stable for the average American. When all the Globalist mega banks and financiers implode (begin feeding on each other) our little banks can pick and choose what assets we will take off the hands of the elitists in their fire sale. Just the good stuff…..

        Liked by 5 people

        • dginga says:

          Sadly, in the big financial meltdown of 2007 – 2008 (largely brought about by Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) the federal government went around picking the winners and losers. I saw this firsthand when our smaller bank was in danger of going under. Our CEO found a solid regional bank who wanted to buy us and keep us a going concern, which meant 2,000 employees would not lose their jobs. The Feds said “H*ll no!” because they had already promised our assets to another large bank. There was nothing financially wrong with the bank who wanted to buy us and keep us, in fact they are still in business and going strong. It was just that the government had decided that a different bank would be rewarded instead, and, in fact, fed the assets of several troubled banks to them, while the employees of all of those banks lost their jobs.


      • dianeax says:

        Trump had reinstating Glass Steagall included in the GOP 2016 platform.

        “We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits
        commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment. ”

        I hope he follows through.


  4. ForGodandCountry says:


    I’ll buy that argument. Re-instituting Glass-Steagal would harm small to mid-size businesses.

    What about breaking up the big banks?

    Have you ever read Raghuram Rajan and his thoughts on Financial Fragility? Essentially, the idea is that because the banks have so consolidated into such comparatively few hands….”too big to fail”….then if one fails, all will fail (due to common obligations). Thus, the financial system is very “fragile” to outside shocks (like 2008 Sub-prime).

    To protect against this, the “too big to fail” banks MUST be broken up into many smaller banks, so that if one fails for whatever reason, it doesn’t bring down the rest of the system. Thus, the financial system becomes in-fragile.

    After breaking up the big banks, Glass-Steagal can then be re-imposed, restoring the banking system to it’s traditional and limited role.

    How to do this? Anti-trust actions? I’m not sure. I only know that the “too big to fail” banks MUST be broken up, the consolidation of the past 2 decades+ undone.

    Liked by 6 people

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      You wrote:

      “This problem is why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin were working on a proposal to create a parallel banking system of community and credit union banks that are entirely external to Dodd Frank regulations and could act as the primary commercial banks for small to mid-sized businesses.

      The goal of “Glass Steagal”, ie. Commercial division -vs- Investment division, would be created by generating an entirely new system of banks under different regulation. The currently remaining ten U.S. “big banks” operate as “investment division banks” per se’, and the lesser regulated community banks/credit unions operate as would be the “Commercial Side”.

      Instead of fire-walling an individual bank internally within its organization, the Trump/Mnuchin plan was presented to fire-wall the banking ‘system’ within the U.S. internally. Hope that makes sense.”

      It does, but not as much as divesting the big banks of their size and breaking them up. But I guess if the alternate plan is the one being pursued, then breaking up the “too big to fail” banks is far more difficult, if at all possible.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “create a parallel banking system of community and credit union banks”

        They are probably looking at that public (as opposed to private) bank in North or South Dakota that is doing well.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “the “too big to fail” banks MUST be broken up,”

      Elizabeth Warren is all for that. Probably the only thing she is right about. Like a broken clock being right twice a day.

      Liked by 1 person

    • navysquid says:

      ForGod…that is one thing about gov’t is that when they decide something is “good” for us they never look at the second and third order effects of their actions. We in the military (in the IC) are always looking at what are the second and third order effects if we take out so and so ISIS leader??

      Our Gov’t appears to never even think about those scenarios when they pass legislation or regulations on us commoners. We will always find a way around legislation if it chokes off our revenue streams.


      • G. Combs says:

        “…that is one thing about gov’t is that when they decide something is “good” for us they never look at the second and third order effects of their actions….”

        Navysquid, you are making the assumption that the US government gives a rat’s behind about what is good for us free range slaves. — THEY DON’T. The laws are passed to consolidate more and more power and wealth into the hands of the Elite.

        See my comments down stream.


    • Donna in Oregon says:

      The mega banks have a cartel and it’s worldwide, not just an American issue. They are too intermingled, and must be pushed off on their own for the world to survive their foolishness and excessive greed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • rashomon says:

        When one starts investigating banking relationships, the weft and warp are so intermingled that pulling threads starts a major disintegration. No doubt it can be accomplished to serve the populace, but the last meltdown proves just how many below the elite leaders can be devastated. And none of those who crafted the corruption have been punished; they just chuckle on their merry way.

        How I would love to see their pyramid implode without hurting the little guy who trusted his savings to their corrupt cabal.


    • G. Combs says:

      “…. the “too big to fail” banks MUST be broken up into many smaller banks….”

      I certainly agree!! What ever happened to our laws about cartels and monopolies?
      How about re-instating The McFadden Act of 1927 or Amendment to the National Banking Laws and the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 69-639, 44 STAT. 1224): Prohibited interstate banking. That breaks up the banks very nicely. 😈

      Here is a bit of history on the banking laws. (Again from my old notes)

      Sometimes, Correlation Is Causation. The problem was the five new banking laws Clinton signed.

      The McFadden Act of 1927 or Amendment to the National Banking Laws and the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 69-639, 44 STAT. 1224): Prohibited interstate banking.

      Law: Negating above:
      Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994
      (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338).
      Permits bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state one year Beginning June 1, 1997, allows interstate mergers.

      The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162): Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

      Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133): Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.

      Law: Negating both of the above laws:
      Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
      (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338)
      Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters. Law creates a new financial holding company authorized to engage in: underwriting and selling insurance and securities, conducting both commercial and merchant banking, investing in and developing real estate and other “complimentary activities.”

      Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-242, 105 STAT. 2236).
      Also known as FDICIA. FDICIA [b]greatly increased the powers and authority of the FDIC. Major provisions recapitalized the Bank Insurance Fund and [b]allowed the FDIC to strengthen the fund by borrowing from the Treasury.

      Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550, 106 STAT. 3672).

      RTC Completion Act[/b] (P.L. 103-204, 107 STAT. 2369):
      implement provisions designed to improve the agency’s record in providing business opportunities to minorities and women.. Expands the existing affordable housing programs of the RTC and the FDIC by broadening the potential affordable housing stock of the two agencies.
      Increases the statute of limitations on RTC civil lawsuits. In cases in which the statute of limitations has expired, claims can be revived for fraud and intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment or substantial loss to the thrift.

      The Source was (wwwDOT)fdic(DOT) gov/regulations/laws/important/index.html which was removed from the internet during foreclosuregate. and has now been replaced with (wwwDOT)fdic(DOT)gov/regulations/laws/important/ however BOTH addresses now work (Bookmarked didn’t work a month ago – WIERD)


  5. fleporeblog says:

    It is a start! To get the Democrats to come onboard, you needed to do something that wasn’t considered to radical. For those banks that fall below the $250 Billion dollar 💵 threshold, they will benefit from the regulatory burdens that drove so many banks out of business.

    Hopefully this allows banks to come back and more importantly for banks to loan to people wanting to start a small business or expand their small business.

    Liked by 4 people

    • CorwinAmber says:

      my thoughts exactly…a start…which we would never have had under her Thighness. That being said, I predict this thread will be the least posted in recent memory…because who the heck can figure out what SD is talking about! :o)

      Liked by 3 people

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “this thread will be the least posted”
        The other threads have been exploding with posts lately, haven’t they? Makes it more difficult to go back and check your comments later.
        The mailbox overloads if you want updates.


      • calbear84 says:

        Corwin, that’s ‘Her Royal Thighness’, if you please. The easiest way I’ve ever figured out to tell what a bill is really about is to reverse the meaning of its official title. For example: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank).


      • G. Combs says:

        “…because who the heck can figure out what SD is talking about! “

        I certainly can and I have never taken an economics course in my life. I just have a degree in Chemistry, lots of stat, a couple of accounting and business law courses from the local Community College.

        We really need to teach kids more about economics and NOT Keynesian economics.


        • CorwinAmber says:

          y’know I was just kiddin’, right? that’s why I put a smiley face at the end, but I knew the material in this thread was a bit denser than most and only 65 replies is an indication that a well-considered post here was just not as much fun as tilting at the windmills on other issues


    • fleporeblog says:

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Sentient says:

    I hope they anticipate the entry of Amazon into financial services and make sure that Bezos is subject to each and every regulation and capital requirement that everyone else is bound by. Everyone should be concerned about Bezos. The richest man in the world is doing cloud storage for the CIA. What could possibly go wrong?

    Liked by 4 people

  7. billrla says:

    Market power is in the hands of individuals. If you have accounts at TBTF banks, dump the accounts, and the banks. Also, for loans, consider tapping the personal resources of more financially secure family members who might be interested in a nice, dependable, 3.5% return. Sure beats paying banks a lot more and your credit score won’t be impacted. Keep it all in the family whenever it’s an option.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dekester says:

      billrla, Koreans, Ishmaels and many other ethics do just that.

      It is a great idea.


    • calbear84 says:

      Love doing business with my local credit union. Not so sure about borrowing from family members (or friends).


      • G. Combs says:

        “….Not so sure about borrowing from family members (or friends)….”

        My favorite cousin still has not paid a dime on the 10K loan I made her 30 years ago. Stay away from family if you can.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Deplorable_Infidel says:

    I was happy with my small local community savings bank from 1986-1996. Then I had to move, so I went to another local community bank. Shortly after Dodd-Frank, they were bought up by a mega-bank. The regulatory burden was too much on the small banks, so they were sucked up by the giant mega-banks Mega bank was the pits.

    One example: An inquiry at a supermarket ATM of your checking account balance was from the previous day’s balance. The only place you could get that day’s actual balance was at an ATM at a bank branch. Well, if you do not have “extra” $$$ for a buffer, you can see how you could withdraw too much at an ATM and be bouncing a check or two the next day (which is what happened to me).I am now happy at my local Credit Union.

    Under Dodd-Frank, when you deposit money into a bank, IT LEGALLY BECOMES THE BANK’S MONEY. You are merely an “unsecured creditor” to the bank. If they screw up with their derivative investments, etc. they can legally give you “bank stock” in lieu of your cash.

    Not so with the depositor-owned Credit Unions. The mega banks hate it.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Brant says:

      I’m at one of those big ones. Wells Fargo and I hate it. I have 3 places I visit in 2 states, home base, family, and family. WF is the only one with branches in each place. Home base is quite rural. I have thought of taking my money out of WF and staying local since 90+% of my time is at home base and if I ever need cash (for “free”, no ATM fee), I can just do the Walmart route with credit card.

      Liked by 1 person

      • PaulM says:

        Although you find Wells Fargo in towns and cities of every size and economic status, I have found that when you see that a location only has a WF and/or a B of A, it’s a sure sign of blight. These are the top two banks for preying on the people who have no banking options.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Ausonius says:

    Crony capitalism: thank you, RINO’s AND Democrats! Or should we just say UNIPARTY, or REPUBLICRATS, RINOCRATS, etc.?

    We need a Teddy Roosevelt “trust-busting” crusade to increase the competition necessary for basic and healthy capitalism to flower. One would think that Dems – with all of their “Boo Big Business” AgitProp – would be fine with breaking up big banks.

    Until one realizes who is writing checks to their campaign committees! Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money!

    Liked by 1 person

    • billrla says:

      Ausonius: We are better-off finding or creating our own alternatives to the big banks. Don’t wait for Congress to do something. They won’t. And if they do, it will be for the favor of the banks, not individuals.


    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “Follow the money”

      A Treeper on another thread said yesterday that their spouse suggested members of the House and Senate be required to wear NASCAR style jackets with the names of their big money “sponsors” on them, so it is easier for us to keep track of where their allegiance is!

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Scout says:

    The moral hazard is off the clock. The Too Bigs know that they can never fail while govt printing presses and govt computer keyboards exist, the worse that happens is a consortium of the others take them over, golden parachutes intact.
    Margin invest away boys, QE and Keynes have your back.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Donna in Oregon says:

    Everytime President Trump gets some of his financial measures thru the Capitol Hill Gang I think his Rally theme song should be changed to the cash register prelude to “Money” by Pink Floyd.

    The Rolling Stones are nice, but it feels like I’m getting everything that I want along with everything we need.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. lastinillinois says:

    “…..corrupt-o-crat leadership in the senate …”



  13. Justmom says:

    just eliminate the fdic, let the chips fall where they may. solvent banks of any kind will retain private insurance. thrifty folks will use solvent banks.


  14. navysquid says:

    I have always had my money with Credit Unions even while I worked for a time with Chase Bank. Banks cannot compare to the closeness and personal touch of a Credit Union.

    To many banks, you are just another number, another account, another source of revenue…they have the attitude of: well, if you close your account we don’t care, we’ll find another schlub to open an account. To a Credit Union you are truly a member, a person, an individual with a family and the potential to bring in more business to the family of Credit Union members.

    Tell us how you really feel…lol

    Credit Unions need to continue to sell the benefits of why they are better than banks in so many ways…however, there are too many bank lobbyists in the pockets of too many Congress people.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “there are too many bank lobbyists in the pockets of too many Congress people.”

      The big banks want to crush the Credit Unions out of existence so that everyone will be solely dependent on them. I find it amazing that they have not been able to achieve that yet, but they keep trying. They cry “foul” because the Credit Unions were exempt from the regs that killed off most of the small and mid-sized banks.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. Maquis says:

    Difficult, but this cries out for some Trust Busting.

    Has anyone done an exposé on the origins of the 2008 Mortgage Crisis? Considering the level of destruction wrought knowingly by the Muslim Usurper, and that he always had someone take out his electoral opponents via chicanery…where was George Soros in 2008?

    It looks like maybe instead of taking out his opponent, Obama took out the electorate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • wheatietoo says:

      The tipping point was when Gas Prices shot up that year.
      People with long commutes were suddenly faced with being able to fill their tanks…and get to work…or paying their mortgage payments.

      The Community Reinvestment Act was signed by Carter, and was being largely ignored by banks…until Ozero sued Citibank in 1995, to force them to make loans to low-income people.

      Ozero did that on behalf of ACORN.
      That lawsuit served to send a message to allbanks:
      “Make loans to subprime applicants, or you will be sued into oblivion.”

      That sent a shockwave out into the banking industry.

      Banks began making subprime loans right and left.
      A decade later…banks had lots of non-performing loans on their books.
      Quite a few of those mortgages had only one payment made on them, before they became non-performing.

      Since banks had essentially been ‘forced’ to make those problem loans…by Washington, DC…the weasels in DC knew that they had to bail them out, or the banks would point to them as being the Cause of it all.

      When the Gas Prices spiked, though…it caused even the performing loans to begin defaulting.
      Thus, the ‘Mortgage Crisis’ happened.

      Liked by 1 person

    • G. Combs says:

      Has anyone done an exposé on the origins of the 2008 Mortgage Crisis?

      See my comment above.

      Also Matt Taibbi of Rollling Stone had some decent articles during the foreclosure mess and the bank bailout (Good for showing your liberal friends.)


  16. wheatietoo says:


    The swamp clearly has had a different idea of what is meant by “reform”, than what the rest of us think it means.

    Ocare was sold to us as…’Healthcare Reform’.
    It has been a disaster.
    That was a ‘reform’ done entirely by the Dems when they were in control…and so was Dodd-Frank.

    So this is a reform of a reform.

    Just like repealing the ACA/Ocare, we would probably be better off if they just repealed Dodd-Frank and did a new bill — a bill that would actually be helpful.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. MontanaMel says:

    A couple of points here:
    1) First in the EU and now into most countries of the world – there will never be another “Bail-Out” of any bank by any Govt/Public funds. IN PLACE of such, YOU AND ME are now the source of “BAIL-IN” funds…ie: our deposit accounts with “any” bank… (special case w/o exposure is a trust account). This means, that WHEN any bank suffers a “hit” on their asset value – they FIRST have to raid your money on deposit as “unsecured investors”…without recourse! It’s gone once they grab it…FDIC does NOT cover this as the bank has not “failed” as yet… IF their problems persist, and it fails, THEN they look at your “then, current” account amount – which may then be covered at that level…say 75% to 90% LESS than before the “Bail-In” raid on YOUR funds!
    2) Now, the biggest problem we have in the USA banking field today is they are “playing craps with our money” – without our understanding or consent…! They are behind a very special type of financial contract called a “derivative”…These have a full-face or “notational” value of risk which the banks all ignore because they say: “will never happen” (to us!)… You only have to look at ENRON and a couple of other monster-failures to realize – THEY LIE….it CAN and WILL happen, sooner rather than later in the USA or in the EU – and, then, it “cross-activates” into the other side. This is the “domino effect” some speak of. The “size” of this risk being taken with your money is unbelivable…in the TRILLION’s within each bank entity….

    Glass-Seagall forced the banks to “fire-wall” off such risky ventures from their deposit base accounts/values…that was changed under Obummer and remains…that banks love it because they no have “another money pit” from which to scoop funds as needed…and, in this case, with the blessing of the regulators!… Get the feeling we’ve been lied to, eh?..

    Most of these derivatives are linked to “commodities” for their “action=reaction” basis. Now comes the FED… and, one of their lessor known entities: The market intervention committee! This is where they again use our money, this time as taxpayers, to actually buy and sell commodities, stocks, bonds, etc. to “influence the actual ticker price”….as they “see fit”. So, with this tool being used to force commodity prices into a very narrow “range” – the underlying derivatives don’t show much movement or “trigger”… See the problem?…

    Should the FED lose the “handle on things” — the “trigger” can be pulled within moments…once pulled, they’ll never recover.
    Have you tried to withdraw a large sum of cash lately?… This is the start of a “cashless” economy, which all the banks want dearly!… with it only in “digits” in some “data base”….they can “tap any and all” so recorded. No nasty cash that retains value “outside their clutches”.. ie: under the mattress!… or, converted into Gold/Silver coin…. Check-6.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      Have you tried to withdraw a large sum of cash lately?… This is the start of a “cashless” economy, which all the banks want dearly!… with it only in “digits” in some “data base”….they can “tap any and all” so recorded. No nasty cash that retains value “outside their clutches”.. ie: under the mattress!

      I have not tried to withdraw a large sum, but I know people that have (to close an account out of a bank to move to a credit union, etc.) and they practically want to know how many pubic hairs you have (why are you taking it out? What are you going to do with it? It is not safe, etc.) when it is none of their damn business what you want to do with your money. Eventually it will come down to this:

      Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
      16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
      17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

      However, the believers today will be gone before that event in Revelation:

      1Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

      Then God’s prophetic clock will resume and he will go back to dealing with the nation of Israel. The miraculous signs at the end of the book of Mark, etc. are for God’s people living at that time of judgment (aka the 70th week of Daniel) so that they can “endure until the end” when they will receive their Kingdom on this earth. God will feed the believers with manna like in the wilderness after escaping Egypt because they will not be able to buy or sell.
      Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
      3 Give us day by day our daily bread.


      • Some banks limit withdrawal’s at ATM’s to a few hundred. I found this out the hard way against an account that I literally started 5 or 6 bank names ago. Each one in turn was bought out by a bigger bank until I have the one I have no. I’m slowly draining the account and putting the money in my credit union account which I have also had since the 1980s.


        • Deplorable_Infidel says:

          “withdrawal’s at ATM’s to a few hundred”.

          All ATM’s have limits for security reasons. If you want a lot, you have to withdraw in person. I can withdraw $500 max per day at Credit union office ATM, $400/day max remotely, like Walgreen.


    • Donna in Oregon says:

      The creative accounting measures are still in play for the mega banks. The smarty-pants always find a way around.

      Our smart move is to get as many degrees of separation as we can from the mega banks/Wall Street cartels crooked economic shenanigans.

      Elites were leaping out of buildings in the 1920’s. When this crash happens many will be checking out of this Hotel Kalifornia too.


    • G. Combs says:

      ChiefIO on the Cyprus Bank Bailoutκύπρος-κυπριακή-δημοκρατία-cyprus/

      THE USA bank bailout tax payer money went to bailout the EU banks! This is why Ron Paul had such a hard time getting the FED to cough up the information. (Sorry my computer is too slow to drag that link out.)

      If you read none of the others, this one is worth the read. The IMF in 2013 suggested a ‘haircut’ of 10% of the wealth of Americans to bring the US debt back to the levels before Obummer.


  18. Deplorable_Infidel says:

    “converted into Gold/Silver coin”

    Even that you have to hide in the sump pump pit of your basement or floor safe under a cabinet because you can be denied access to your safe deposit box in a “banking emergency” ala Cyprus a few years ago.

    I have been giving US Silver Eagles to the children and grandchildren for presents lately.


  19. G. Combs says:

    The Clinton – Obummer – Bankster connections get even wilder. Remember it was Bill Clinton who appointed Lynch to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York straight from law firm Cahill, Gordon & Reindel –> “the go-to law firm for New York’s financial crooks.”

    From my old notes

    This one is really good: Zerohedge: US ‘Justice’ Department Proclaims Big Banks Have a License to Steal

    And WHO is the US Attorney General? — Loretta E. Lynch — a commenter tells us: “Pam and Russ Martens’ (wwwDOT) has chronicled this quite accurately. Obama’s replacement for Holder sat on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2003 to 2005 under then President of the Board Tim Geithner.”
    Remember Geithner then served as the US Secretary of the Treasury under Obama from 2009 to 2013.

    I can not find the article referred to above but there is this:

    This is what Ted Turner’s CNN left out of that Lynch Timeline…. Interesting. 😈
    Federal Reserve Bank of New York:

    The Board of Governors also appointed LORETTA E. LYNCH, Partner, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., New York, N.Y., a class C director of this Bank for a three-year term beginning January 2003.

    This is amusing —- I can’t find a darn thing about Lynch’s bankster connection in the US MSM I have to go to Aljazeera.

    ….What’s most ludicrous about Lynch’ prosecuting FIFA officials for financial crimes is that she has, for much of her legal career, defended some of Wall Street’s worst financial criminals. When she left Harvard, she took a job as a litigation assistant for Cahill Gordon & Reindel (CG&R) — the go-to law firm for New York’s financial crooks — from 1984 to 1990. CG&R attorneys represented some of the more notorious figures behind the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s and 1990s. The “securities litigation and white-collar criminal defense” section of CG&R’s website describes the type of clients the firm represents. Headliners include the bankers behind the $5 trillion-per-day LIBOR market scandal, which Lynch’s office recently slapped with a $6 billion fine, and the ratings agencies that knowingly rated doomed-to-fail mortgage-backed securities as AAA.

    Lynch’s legal career is emblematic of the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street. After 11 years of working for the U.S. attorney’s office, Lynch took a job at Hogan & Hartson (now known as Hogan Lovells), working alongside John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States. Lynch’s first case at Hogan was defending an Arthur Andersen partner who got caught cooking the books for Enron. From 2003 to 2005, she served on the board for the New York Federal Reserve, working directly under Tim Geithner, who became famous for turning a blind eye to Wall Street’s high-risk gambling schemes that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Lynch stayed at Hogan until President Barack Obama appointed her as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. No wonder Lynch hasn’t ever put a banker in jail during her legal career: They’re her former clients.

    Should FIFA officials do jail time for their crimes? Of course. But football fans around the world following the FIFA investigation would be wise to hold off on praising Lynch as a paragon of justice even if she convicts them all. If the FIFA executives accused of financial crimes were Wall Street bankers, they would never have to worry about spending one day inside a prison cell….

    Lordy you can’t make this stuff up! A publisher of fiction would say it was too unbelievable!


  20. wodiej says:

    In more honest days, banks small enough to fail were much better at actually serving customers best interests and also treated their employees much better. I worked for a local bank which was bought out twice and eventually owned by Wells Fargo. I went to a local insurance company who was great to their employees until Wells Fargo bought them out also. I finally just ventured out on my own and am self-employed. Who’s going to treat me better than me?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s