It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Weighs Breaking Up Wall Street Banks, Raising U.S. Gas Tax

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
If Trump is serious, this is huge news, depending on what "break up" means.


President Donald Trump said he’s actively considering a breakup of giant Wall Street banks, giving a push to efforts to revive a Depression-era law separating consumer and investment banking.

“I’m looking at that right now,” Trump said of breaking up banks in a 30-minute Oval Office interview with Bloomberg News. “There’s some people that want to go back to the old system, right? So we’re going to look at that.”


A fuel tax increase to fund infrastructure development, this is very unpopular with the Repubs. I wonder if the tax will have a sun set...HA HA HA, just kidding.

www.bloomberg.com...
Trump also said he’s open to increasing the U.S. gas tax to fund infrastructure development, in a further sign that policies unpopular with the Republican establishment are under consideration in the White House. He described higher gas taxes as acceptable to truckers -- “I have one friend who’s a big trucker,” he said -- as long as the proceeds are dedicated to improving U.S. highways.


Return of a Glass Steagall style control on investment (gambling) and banks. Good if it have teeth and isn't written by the banks.


Trump officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, have offered support for bringing back some version of Glass-Steagall, though they’ve offered scant details on an updated approach. Both Mnuchin and Cohn are former bankers who worked for Goldman Sachs Group Inc.




posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
trump and his friend the truck driver?

sure

well paying more for gas is going to suck



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I'll believe it when I see it. Going by how often he does complete 180s on things, I fully expect "breaking up Wall Street Banks" to end up being more tax cuts for them. He seems to talk tough about something as his opening bargaining position, but rescind that initial position after seeing if it gained him any concessions.

ETA: For the record, Congress would have to pass the law to reinstate the Glass–Steagall Act or it's new variant. The President doesn't have the power to do that. In other words this suggestion is dead on arrival unless Congressional leaders are also supportive of it.
edit on 1-5-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Breaking up the banks will take an act of congress. Trump can't even push thru his healthcare plan with his own party in the majority.


edit on 1-5-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

President Donald Trump said he’s actively considering a breakup of giant Wall Street banks, giving a push to efforts to revive a Depression-era law separating consumer and investment banking.


Trump better keep his grubby little paws off.

If he wants to break up a bank.

The Federal Reserve from where all fiat currency comes from, and that control EVERY single financial instrument there is.

Except real estate.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Hmm.

Something I can get behind. Whodathunkit?



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Hmm.

Something I can get behind. Whodathunkit?


Until comes along another CLinton to repeal it.




posted on May, 1 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
trump and his friend the truck driver?

sure

well paying more for gas is going to suck


The awkward part is that increasing fuel efficiency has led to declining gas tax revenues for many states. In some cases, vehicles with larger gas tanks could simply coast through areas with higher fuel prices and gas taxes.

The cities, counties and states were wanting to introduce digital "mileage taxes" which would be charged per mile using GPS. But given the lack of precision between being on a freeway and on an adjacent side road that isn't likely to work.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell




The cities, counties and states were wanting to introduce digital "mileage taxes" which would be charged per mile using GPS. But given the lack of precision between being on a freeway and on an adjacent side road that isn't likely to work.


Hackers would have a field day with that one.


edit on 1-5-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Return of a Glass Steagall style control on investment (gambling) and banks. Good if it have teeth and isn't written by the banks.


Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And a 2020 run ain't out of the question.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It just occured to me....with Jareds link to BiBi and the federal reserve cartel. Could get interesting....

Will the neocons go along with it...? Probably not.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I didn't vote for her. I wouldn't in 2020 either, provided I'm still among the living. She said she's done though.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It's not surprising that no one mentions the actual bill that repealed most of the protections in the Glass Steagall Act. That bill is the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which is named after the 3 Republicans who cosponsored it, Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia). That bill passed in the Republican controlled Senate and the Republican controlled House of Representatives, yet Clinton's the only one who gets any blame for it.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I think the big banks should be broken up. No bank should be so big that it becomes "systematically important" a la too big too fail. If it is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist.

I have no problem reinstating Glass-Steagall.

It used to be your retail/commercial banks were regional in size. No one bank was too big. There were no BofAs, Wells Fargos, etc covering all 50 states and huge market shares. I also think that Wall Street firms should go back to being partnerships to ensure they have the appropriate amount of skin in the game.

I have no issue with a gas tax provided it is only used for transportation/infrastructure funding. It has to be set up so politicians can't get their hands on it for anything else.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Doesn't matter one damn bit.

Just as the way GW owns the Patriot Act.

Just as the way O owns the Affordable Care Act.

Clinton owns the Repeal of glass Stegall.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: neo96

It's not surprising that no one mentions the actual bill that repealed most of the protections in the Glass Steagall Act. That bill is the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which is named after the 3 Republicans who cosponsored it, Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia). That bill passed in the Republican controlled Senate and the Republican controlled House of Representatives, yet Clinton's the only one who gets any blame for it.


Clinton signed it. He could have vetoed it. Clinton also gets credit for the economy despite having a Republican controlled senate / congress. You can't have it both ways.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Quit deflecting. We're talking about the Glass Steagall Act and how some of Trump's officials are floating around the possibility of reinstating some parts of it (which is in the OP). I didn't post anything in this thread giving Clinton credit for that economy so you're arguing about something I didn't even mention.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Clinton was the executive who signed it into law. It wasn't veto-proof. He could've stopped it if he wanted to.

But he didn't. Nice try.




posted on May, 1 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Of course. (facepalm)

Even when Republican lawmakers write the laws and pass them, they still don't have to take responsibility for it. That's why the same Washington insiders keep getting reelected over & over again. Because people keep giving the 435 lawmakers in Congress a pass for their actions.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join