At least some of the billions of dollars that JPMorgan Chase lost gambling on credit derivatives once belonged to you. Last week, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) had the gall to spoil the Senate Banking Committee's gentle grooming of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon by pointing out that his bank would not still be in existence without taxpayer assistance. Outraged by Merkley's impunity, Dimon roared that his bank only took the government's lousy bailout money and only borrowed at rock-bottom interest rates from the Federal Reserve because the government insisted that it do so, for the sake of appearances and the good of the country. And JPMorgan is the country's greatest hero, so it had no choice but to accept all of this free money the government was handing out. It certainly did not need it. What Dimon did not say, however, was that JPMorgan Chase continues to get loads of free government money -- probably $14 billion per year, according to number-crunching by Bloomberg, based on an International Monetary Fund study. Bloomberg's editors write: The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...nt-subsidy_n_1608859.html?utm_hp_ref=business
and if we lower their taxes they would create even more jobs and lower the national debt at the same time. every good republican knows that lower taxes fixes everything.
So...how come Obama has done something about it? And why do you continue to support a president that allows this to continue?
I can rename this thread. Libtards give JPMorgan 14 billion per year in gov subsidy, Libtards complain about it.
JPMorgan mess: Why Mitt Romneyâs wrong on Dodd-Frank When financial giant JPMorgan Chase recently revealed that it had lost far more than $2 billion in a credit derivatives trade gone wrong, the news sent a clear message: Opponents of financial reform are wrong. Without the Dodd-Frank Act and the global reforms being led by the United States, the financial sector would go back to its old ways, eventually putting taxpayers and the economy at grave risk of harm. Yet for the presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney, the news sent a very different message. He repeated his call to repeal Dodd-Frank, though it made the system stronger, and though JPMorganâs revelations demonstrated the need for robust rules. Romney and many Republican lawmakers seem intent on going back to the financial casino that led to the worst economic crisis in 80 years. The financial industry has spent far more than $100 million trying to roll back Wall Street reform. Romney, meanwhile, has been clear about what he wanted to get rid of â a comprehensive financial reform package that passed Congress and was signed by the president. Yet he makes only the vaguest of promises about what he might do instead. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76728.html#ixzz1yLeIoNIl
1.He did,he passed Dodd -Frank 2.Because JP Morgan would get more benefits from Romney,which is why they are his 2nd biggest contributor
did any of you watch Dimon and Frank exchange? Dimon a career in finance and Frank a career in Poltics, For the life of me I cannot grasp what Barney Frank is an expert in after all these years in DC. Or any career politician for that matter. What can they possibly know? What do they do except spend other peoples money? do career politicians even care about the results of their spending? At least in the old days most politicians were farmers, they could plant corn. today, most are lawyers and not very good ones at that, they are political lawyers (lawyers who write poor law).