| Barry-xlovecam |
05-07-2016 06:21 AM |
US Bank Corporate Welfare Subsidy Cut -- WTF
Quote:
Big Banks Just Claimed A Constitutional Right To A Taxpayer Subsidy
WASHINGTON ? Big banks get a lot of free money from the federal government. And their lobbyists think they have a constitutional right to it. ...
... The top lobbyist for the American Bankers Association wrote a letter to the Fed last week calling the subsidy cuts ?an unconstitutional taking of member banks? property without compensation.?
?The government?s actions ... amount to a regulatory taking of member banks? property,? ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols wrote.
|
''While lawmakers originally proposed trimming the subsidy by $17 billion over five years, the legislation ultimately only cost banks $2.7 billion, thanks to a late compromise that allowed smaller banks to keep receiving full payment.''
Quote:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com...lSubsidies.pdf
Mr. Robert de V. Frierson April 28 , 2016 Page 5
... that member banks have a property interest cognizable under the Fifth Amendment in the arguably analogous situation of interest income on deposits held by a Reserve Bank. 33
The government?s actions under the FAST Act amount to a regulatory taking of member banks? property interest. Among the factors the Supreme Court has identified in deciding whether a taking has occurred is the extent to which government action interfered with ?distinct investment - backed expectations.? 34 Where the issue is not ?imposition of a new ?regulatory regime,? but legislative abrogation of the key rule of a pre - existing regime,? the ?critical question is whether a reasonable [investor] confronted with the particular circumstances would have expected the government to nullify? the rule. 35 A Federal Reserve member bank, as a reasonable investor , would not have expected Congress to unilaterally nullify the 6 percent dividend rate for banks with assets exceeding $10 billion. The dividend rate remained unchanged for over 100 years, and it has long been considered fundamental to the Federal Reserve?s ability to attract member banks.
If anything, the relatively low Federal Reserve membership figure, combined with increased concern on the part of regulators regarding ?shadow banking,? suggests that a reasonable investor would expect the dividend to increase, not decrease ...
|
Billions per year ... and you are worried about the piddly shit and conspiracy theories?
Banks in the USA are required to make certain guarantees and place reserves with the Federal Reserve Bank in part to receive FDIC insurance and some governance in the case of bank failure.
Could these banks exist without FDIC insurance and oversight by the Federal Reserve? Would you let ''The Bank of Joe'' keep your money safe?
Will Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump make this a campaign issue or just ignore the facts and talk about gun control and building walls to get their respective simpletons to hurrah them? |
