The Case against the Dodd Bill

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 19:36, April 27, 2010 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with '{{Item |author=National Review editorial board |source=National Review |date=April 26, 2010 |url=')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) National Review editorial board
Source National Review
Date April 26, 2010
Quotes-start.png "The sophisticated creditors of non-banks, however, neither need nor deserve a bailout. The Dodd bill would not require the FDIC to impose losses on these creditors; it only expresses a “strong presumption” that such losses would be imposed. As structured, this authority would allow the government to bail out non-bank creditors, and worse, to play favorites among them, just as we saw when the Obama administration gift-wrapped large stakes in the automakers for its union allies at the expense of secured creditors." Quotes-end.png

Add or change this opinion item's references

This item argues against the position Act should be passed on the topic Restoring American Financial Stability Act.