If an institution is "too big to fail".....

[Postman]

Then it is too big. Period.

Don't allow institutions to become so large as to have such an impact on the economy.

[Odin2005]

1. Nationalize 'em n/t.

[BraneMatter]

2. Call it what it is...

What we have here is: economic blackmail, extortion, and terrorism. Let's call it what it be.

And, the biggest transfer of wealth from the workers and taxpayers to the wealthy capitalist robber barons in history!

Or maybe it's a nanny state for the super-rich, socialism for billionaires! The capitalists must be saved from "systemic risk" and "illiquid assets." (Hey, how do I get that deal??? No wonder they were smiling on Wall Street today.)

Or, maybe, when reading the Manifesto, they just got confused and thought Marx said it was the bourgeoisie that was the oppressed class...

Anybody wanna pay all MY bills???

What? No volunteers???

[20score]

3. The whole purpose of the Anti-Trust laws. If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist.

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. Hell yeah! A private entity that is "too big to fail" is like a football team that's too big to lose

Which is nonsense. Either the team is competing with others so the best team wins, or the team is part of the rulemaking body, aka the refs, meaning it is highly regulated. There can be no in between.

[orleans]

5. i think olbermann said this tonight: we're all socialists now.

and at least they can't throw this "socialist" shit onto obama anymore.

[Postman]

8. But it's not socialism. It's fascism

if it were socialism, we the people, would be owning the profits as well as the losses.

As it is, we are on the hook for the losses only.

[BraneMatter]

12. Right on the "money"

Pardon the bad pun.

You're exactly right.

[BraneMatter]

10. Well... not exactly.

Socialism for the rich only, maybe. Like I said, apparently they got confused when they read the Manifesto.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Bernie Sanders said that on Thom Hartmann's show today

Is there no such thing as competition among these big banks?

[Rage for Order]

7. I don't think they have a choice right now

It's as if a house is on fire, the fire dept hooks the hose up to the hydrant and is about to turn on the water, and then someone says, "Wait a minute. This could reduce the water pressure in the neighbor's house, and that guy's about to take a shower." Right now we need to put out the fire. Part of putting out the fire is having institutions with sufficient deposits to inspire confidence in the banking system as a whole. Once things calm down and the market panic subsides, I can see some break-ups coming down the pipe. We're at least 6 months to a year away from those talks even starting though. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Postman]

9. There is a choice. They're opting to allow the fraud to survive.

If the scumbag republicans were true to their own rhetoric of doing away with gov't help, then they should be crashing and burning and refusing the "bail-outs"

Like they are on all issues, they are hypocrites.

[BraneMatter]

13. Well...

the Democrats also allowed the Ponzi scheme to go on, and just watch the vote on the bailout details coming up before Congress adjorns. The bill is already at two and a half TRILLION, and no one really knows where the bottom is...

And wasn't that Reid and Pelosi standing right next to Secretary Paulson, who went on and on about how proud Americans would be if only they had seen all the bipartisan intercourse going on in that room, and how it was all being done for "the good of the American people"? Right.

All hail the saviours of the world!

The Democrats and Republicans are just two "families" of the same criminal syndicate of robber barons who run the world. Just watch the Sopranos, and you will understand everything!

[BraneMatter]

14. Don't have a choice???

Then how can it be called "the free world"?

Hmmmmm... something smells in Denmark methinks....

[RB TexLa]

11. After you let them fail you will find out nothing is "too big to fail"