It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The amount of the Sequestration cuts is almost EXACTLY the amount of US subsidies for the BIG BANKS!

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:05 AM
I can't possibly think of a better way to cut the American budget deficit than by completely cutting the subsidies we the taxpayers shell out to the greedy, money sucking big banksters every year.

This Year’s Subsidy to Wall Street = the Amount of This Year’s Sequester Cuts

On February 20th, Bloomberg News editors headlined, “Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?” and issued the first-ever thorough and current analysis of the taxpayer-subsidy to the Wall Street mega-banks. They found that this subsidy is $83 billion this year, but they made no note of the fact that this amount is only $2 billion less than this year’s sequester cuts are estimated to be, so that all that would need to be done, in order to avoid those cuts, would be to have those mega-banks that we bail out every year forego their subsidy from taxpayers, for just one year. Unfortunately, this would be easier said than done.

The taxpayer-funded annual subsidy to these TBTF banks has never before been calculated as to its actual annual dollar-value, but this rigorous IMF study finally provided the means for doing that. Bloomberg’s summarizes: “What if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?”

“The top five banks – JP Morgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits.”

This $83 billion, in other words, is the current value of the annual subsidy received by America’s 10 mega-banks, from our Government’s special treatment of them as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (i.e., fully guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers, irrespective of the normal $250,000-per-account limit in savings and checking accounts), or TBTF institutions, which the other 7,053 (out of the total 7,063 FDIC-insured) banks are not – other banks can fail without destroying the U.S. economy. In a certain sense, these are the banks where the super-rich can enjoy FDIC protection without that $250,000-per-account limit, and can even gamble under the protection of that comforting umbrella.

Washington's Blog

It really is sickening to think that those greedy
are getting their six-plus figure salaries directly out of the pockets of the American taxpayers every year. Without the gubment propping them up, they wouldn't even be making a profit and would (rightfully) go out of business and have their assets picked up by smaller, more managable banks that aren't to big to fail.

If there's one thing the government really needs to shut down, its these needless subsidies for businesses that do nothing but suck the wealth out of the pockets of hard working American laborers.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:09 AM
We better not hold our breath in hope that the government will let the sequester 'cuts' ride on the backs of our mega-bank friends.

No, we'll pay for that.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem
Honestly (and I'll probably get flamed for this) I think they should let the sequester cuts ride, cut out subsidies for the big banks, cut all federal politician's salaries in half and cut the defense budget by a big, whopping 10% and see what that gets us. Once I consume some more coffee I'm sure I can think of some more places to trim the budget, but alas I am only on my first cup- though pulling out on funding so much "nation building" does come to mind easily.

Sad part is our leaders wont cut anything back- too afraid if they support cutting funding on one thing their own pet project's budgets will get cut in retaliation. Honestly we would do much better by getting rid of all the career politicians and putting the country's budget into the hands of a group of small business owners who know how to make the hard choices. Hell, even a group of people who know how to budget shop for groceries would do a better job than these jerks in DC.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:56 AM

The amount of the Sequestration cuts is almost EXACTLY the amount of US subsidies for the BIG BANKS!,

take a deep breath.

take a step back.

and look at the bigger picture here.

there is a DIRECT corralation that you have found here.
drop the b.s. sequester disinfo the 'government' is spreading.
our only way to stop them is to expose them, not to parrot them.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:00 AM
I agree, let the cuts ride. The "sequester" has been made out to be this huge scary crisis, and used as leverage for even more tax increases. This is continually used as a scare tactic to push the American public in the direction that D.C. wants... I woke up this morning and the sky is still there... doesn't appear to be falling yet... happy sequester day!

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by madmac5150

Sure, the whole sequester thing is nothing but political theater but, what the banks do is not and needs to be brought under control.

Neither bank executives nor shareholders have much incentive to change the situation. On the contrary, the financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy. The result is a bloated financial sector and recurring credit gluts. Left unchecked, the superbanks could ultimately require bailouts that exceed the government’s resources. Picture a meltdown in which the Treasury is helpless to step in as it did in 2008 and 2009.

Regulators can change the game by paring down the subsidy. One option is to make banks fund their activities with more equity from shareholders, a measure that would make them less likely to need bailouts (we recommend $1 of equity for each $5 of assets, far more than the 1-to-33 ratio that new global rules require). Another idea is to shock creditors out of complacency by making some of them take losses when banks run into trouble. A third is to prevent banks from using the subsidy to finance speculative trading, the aim of the Volcker rule in the U.S. and financial ring-fencing in the U.K.

Once shareholders fully recognized how poorly the biggest banks perform without government support, they would be motivated to demand better. This could entail anything from cutting pay packages to breaking down financial juggernauts into more manageable units. The market discipline might not please executives, but it would certainly be an improvement over paying banks to put us in danger.


The banksters of the world are the most dangerous force there is. They can collapse the world's economy so bad that all the money in the world couldn't bail them out. Subsidizing the TBTF banks only ensures that their recklessness will continue. We need to break them up NOW before they drag all of civilization down with their unlimited greed.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:04 PM
democrats created the fed, and the i.r.s. and are currently in control of the i.r.s.

they also wrote the bank laws.

but rich people are bad, and need to pay their fair share.

meanwhile the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets crushed.

kneel at the feet of the democrats, and beg...
edit on 1-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in