Yes, it is important to remember that these so called banks could not be legally taken over by the FDIC or anyone else.

It seems strange that banks cannot go "bankrupt" if they are covered by the FDIC. Their management can be replaced if their leverage falls below 6%, and they can be seized if it goes below 3%.

In countries where corruption is rife, legislation is often mooted against an unpopular industry, then the local pols collect contributions in order to "protect" that industry.
I suspect that is all that is going on here.

After all it is now 10 months since the meltdown and not one thing has been done to prevent it happening again. Not even against the proximate cause which was the financing of Wall st banks by money market funds. There hasn't even been a hearing by Congress into the causes.

You're very naive if you think this is anything other than armtwisting for "campaign" contributions.

But , But , Bernie Madoff ?
Are you after even more innocent Kings and Masters of the Universe ?
150 years for one should cool the blood , eh ?

Some new series are in the development for television this fall:

"CSI: Wall Street"

"CSI: Goldman Sachs"

"CSI: AIG"

"CSI: GITMO"

and

"CSI: The Bush/Cheney Years"

Whatever the merits of free market, supply and demand, capitalism they do not apply to finance capitalism, which must by its nature be regulated by the state because its "products" --debt -- are viral in nature. They infect everything. Think about finance as some radioactive material. Contained and properly regulated it can power an entire city. Uncontained and its destroys everything it touches. Finance operates exactly the same way. If GM goes down the results are tragic but largely known and confined. Not so with finance whose difficulties are almost by definition systemic in nature.

So the institutions have to write their own dissolution plans? Won't that mean that they'll know EXACTLY how to structure their affairs so as to render those same plans unusable when the time comes?

The only way to guarantee no Too Big To Fail is to outlaw Too Big. Period.

So the corporations that are deemed "too big to fail" will face greater government scrutiny? And if they are found to be financially shaky they will be required to have a higher percentage of actual assets on their books?

What a joke!

These companies will be monitored by the same agencies that missed the Savings and Loan crisis, the Dot-com bubble, Enron, the housing bubble and last year's financial meltdown?

While we're at it why don't we hire blind people to guard our county's borders?

And of course, even if the regulatory agencies do actually get their houses in order, or if they stumble across a problem by pure chance, the whole system depends on having an honest president. The SEC was told about Bernie Madoff for years, but they did nothing (not that Bernie Madoff was TBTF). The only people in the country who denied that Enron was manipulating energy prices in California was Bush's Justice Department.

If there is another laissiz faire president, or a president who surrounds himself with former Wall Street insiders (like Geitner and Summers), then this wonderful system of protections becomes a paper tiger.

Get ready for another crash in ten to twelve years, everyone.

The problem with the Obama people is that they announce these proposals and within a few days or weeks its all changed and nothing substantial happens. I don't know if its intentional or if its the lobbying that changes the proposal but I am sick and tired of the very loud barks with zero teeth.

This is really, really good news, if true.

its only good news if it comes to fruition as currently understood. If it goes through the meat grinder and comes out as yet more sausage for the plutocrats to feast on, or evaporates as more Obama mirage and misdirection, its worse than nothing.

When, will the plaudits for the FDIC acting as the 7th Cavalry stop? Yes, it is great they guarantee funds, but, not so great when they sweep into a troubled bank and cut off all credit lines, including those of old line customers who had nothing to do with the bad loan problems. They did this in Vancouver, WA. The bank had made questionable loans to real estate developers. But, FDIC came in with a take no prisoners attitude. Many of those cut off, and who had nothing to do with the problems, had their lines of credit cut off, making payrolls and needed purchases difficult. FDIC, when you take over a bank, keep your sabers in their scabbards until you know the facts. Stop coming guns a'blazin' and blowing "Gary Owen".

Unfortunately, "too big to fail" means "big enough to hire the top lobbyists". They'll have their pet Congresscritters block any such proposal. They'll attach a provision blocking it to every must-pass bill, and large chunks of the Dem leadership in the Senate will be on board with them.

Obama could still get it enacted, but he'd have to go to war (veto threats, going over Congress's heads to the public and embarrassing them) to get it done. So far, I've seen no sign that he has those kind of cojones.