If you have 'too big to fail' for cities or for states, and they believe they'll be bailed out, they'll continue to make unwise decisions.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We need to think deeply about whether we can sustain banks that are not only too big to fail, but potentially too big to bail.
Folks, this government isn't too big to fail, it's too big to succeed.
Forget about banks that are too big to fail; the focus should be on cities, municipalities and countries that are too big to fail.
If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.
If you or I fail at business, we fail. If we cheat and fail, we go to jail. But if you're rich and politically connected, your incompetence may be protected by a government bailout.
I don't think anybody's too big to fail. I think the - I think if what you've got is sort of a large number of institutions who are going to fail, then that ends up affecting the system.
I'm really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial.
While it may be difficult to understand why cities and even entire states would doom themselves to insolvency by undertaking these obligations, the answer is simple: Democratic politicians, who have near-total political control of California and of America's biggest cities, support this massive transfer of wealth to public employees.
The term 'too big to fail' must be excised from our vocabulary.
The only way to make sure no bank is too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big.
No opposing quotes found.