Gawain 0 #1 December 6, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402016.html?hpid=moreheadlines I'm not a fan of the Post, but it's not a bad read. The most disturbing part to me though, is this quote from page 3: QuoteIn Washington, he used his BlackBerry to determine the bailout sum presented to Congress. His arithmetic: "We have $11 trillion residential mortgages, $3 trillion commercial mortgages. Total $14 trillion. Five percent of that is $700 billion. A nice round number." Looking back, he says, he is more confident about the two-by-sixes. "Seven hundred billion was a number out of the air," Kashkari recalls, wheeling toward the hex nuts and the bolts. "It was a political calculus. I said, 'We don't know how much is enough. We need as much as we can get [from Congress]. What about a trillion?' 'No way,' Hank shook his head. I said, 'Okay, what about 700 billion?' We didn't know if it would work. We had to project confidence, hold up the world. We couldn't admit how scared we were, or how uncertain." This guy doesn't live all that far from me, only a few hours away. What disturbs me most about this is the rush without knowing. And Paulson is a turd for forcing him to ram it together in only a weekend. What also disturbs me about this is that Paulson had better data to prepare for Kashkari. SecTreas John Snow is on record at least five times before sub-committees that Fannie and Freddie weren't on sure footing. Paulson too, knew this. Paulson was there during the take over of Fannie and Freddie. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #2 December 6, 2009 OK and you would have the banks fail, the country fall into a deep depression and feeel good about it. I've asked you before, as i have many conservs, you're president on Jan 20, 2009 (yes I realize the bailout was during Bush), what do you do? What do you do with the mortage mess / bank mess? You can sit there and talk about how it sucked, but you have no resolve, just criticism for those who actually act on the mess. How ridiculous is that? Let's hear a somewhat comprehensive solution - I won't wait. BTW, yes, we know the whole mess sucks, whining noted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #3 December 6, 2009 Bank failures this year. Every one costs the FDIC (government) money. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the megabanks had been allowed to fold? I agreed with Bush on almost nothing, but I though he handled 9/11 well once he arose from his stupor, I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, and I agreed that AIG and the big banks needed help to prevent a total meltdown.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #4 December 7, 2009 Quote What also disturbs me about this is that Paulson had better data to prepare for Kashkari. SecTreas John Snow is on record at least five times before sub-committees that Fannie and Freddie weren't on sure footing. Paulson too, knew this. Paulson was there during the take over of Fannie and Freddie. So what would YOU consider the "right thing" to do then?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 December 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat also disturbs me about this is that Paulson had better data to prepare for Kashkari. SecTreas John Snow is on record at least five times before sub-committees that Fannie and Freddie weren't on sure footing. Paulson too, knew this. Paulson was there during the take over of Fannie and Freddie. So what would YOU consider the "right thing" to do then? I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers here. But I know bullsh*t when I smell it. To spend this much money and force it down banks' systems, many banks not even needing it, is a problem. The entire system was not "infected" per se. Yes, it seems that many of the larger institutions were in a bad position with the value of this "paper". When TARP was first being talked about, and the bailouts, I objected because it wasn't going to be $700B. It wasn't. At the onset, it was padded with bullsh*t, an extra $150B. I objected because of the "big hurry" to get it done. I objected because it wasn't "money" the system needed. What it needed was value. What it needed was realistic ways to hold this debt and structure it for the long term. Changing accounting laws was a better answer than this bullsh*t of, "We'll even make money on it." If things were this dire, many of these banks and holding companies would not have paid back the money so quickly. Goldman, now BofA, etc. In less than a year, these outfits were able to balance their books not by lending (because they are not lending), but by trading on the markets (which are up...amazing). So, if the government was going to force this issue, it should have involved longer than a weekend, less numbers out of the "thin-air" and real look at the problems and how they started. Now, we're well over $2Tr (TARP, Omnibus, Stimulus) including interest (which is something I pointed out over a year ago), and the Fed has pumped somewhere around $8Tr in paper around the world. Banks which have not paid back their TARP are going to be forced to do one of two things with it in the future: pay it back (pending the "stress" test), or starting loaning it out. Once those flood gates open, I don't know what will happen. So, in broad strokes, I would have rather seen the government create the conditions to allow the sector to repair itself, rather than the government inject itself and it's control over major components of the economy.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #6 December 9, 2009 Quote I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers here. But I know bullsh*t when I smell it. To spend this much money and force it down banks' systems, many banks not even needing it, is a problem. We all see where the problems are, and it was pretty clear that you do not like the TARP. Your post just continues identifying more issues. But the question was what YOU would do, besides just identifying the problem? And the reason for it, of course, is that there is no perfect solution, and whatever you offer would introduce similar - or different - but still problems.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #7 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers here. But I know bullsh*t when I smell it. To spend this much money and force it down banks' systems, many banks not even needing it, is a problem. We all see where the problems are, and it was pretty clear that you do not like the TARP. Your post just continues identifying more issues. But the question was what YOU would do, besides just identifying the problem? And the reason for it, of course, is that there is no perfect solution, and whatever you offer would introduce similar - or different - but still problems. Actually, people not seeing where the problems are got us into this mess. The solution? Eliminate the problem. (the Fed & political interference in the markets). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #8 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers here. But I know bullsh*t when I smell it. To spend this much money and force it down banks' systems, many banks not even needing it, is a problem. We all see where the problems are, and it was pretty clear that you do not like the TARP. Your post just continues identifying more issues. But the question was what YOU would do, besides just identifying the problem? And the reason for it, of course, is that there is no perfect solution, and whatever you offer would introduce similar - or different - but still problems. Actually, people not seeing where the problems are got us into this mess. The solution? Eliminate the problem. (the Fed & political interference in the markets). It was LACK of adult supervision that led to the financial meltdown in the first place. Relaxation of supervision gave us Enron too. The govt. was not responsible for: Enron Worldcom Indymac AIG Lehman Bros Bernie Madoff GM Chrysler These, which have cost the taxpayers plenty.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #9 December 9, 2009 QuoteOK and you would have the banks fail, the country fall into a deep depression and feeel good about it. I've asked you before, as i have many conservs, you're president on Jan 20, 2009 (yes I realize the bailout was during Bush), what do you do? What do you do with the mortage mess / bank mess? You can sit there and talk about how it sucked, but you have no resolve, just criticism for those who actually act on the mess. How ridiculous is that? Let's hear a somewhat comprehensive solution - I won't wait. BTW, yes, we know the whole mess sucks, whining noted. Several of the 9 big banks that took TARP money didn't need it and tried to refuse it. Much the TARP money has gone unspent. Several of the banks have repaid most or all of the TARP money because they didn't need it in the first place and are now trying to get out from under the restrictions it brought with it. The whole banking system was about to collapse? Yeah, right.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #10 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote The whole banking system was about to collapse? Yeah, right. That WAS the opinion of the Bush administration. I thought you supported them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ion01 1 #11 December 9, 2009 QuoteOK and you would have the banks fail, the country fall into a deep depression and feeel good about it. I've asked you before, as i have many conservs, you're president on Jan 20, 2009 (yes I realize the bailout was during Bush), what do you do? What do you do with the mortage mess / bank mess? You can sit there and talk about how it sucked, but you have no resolve, just criticism for those who actually act on the mess. How ridiculous is that? Let's hear a somewhat comprehensive solution - I won't wait. BTW, yes, we know the whole mess sucks, whining noted. Okay, so the government got involved and screwed things up so your answer is more government involvement? More of the same? That doesn't make sense. Also, the great depression was mainly caused by the federal reserve (government) not the banks that closed because of the federal reserve. If you actually understood the great depression you would realize that what is being done now is helping to cause a depression. If you look back at the drop in the stock market in the 1920's (which was large than the drop that marked the depression) the market bounced back basically immediately becuase the government stayed out and the free market was allowed to work making market boom after the drop. The government gets involved and we end up with the great depression and what we have now. The obvious solution is to get government out so we, as free individuals, can help ourselves which, in turn, helps the free market (which, btw, we no longer have a free market......instead we have some marxism mixed with corporatism and massive federal regulation). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #12 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote The whole banking system was about to collapse? Yeah, right. That WAS the opinion of the Bush administration. I thought you supported them. Don't confuse my support for some of Bush's actions with support for "them". "Them" are a bunch of politicians, regardless of what letter they place by their names. 43 proved to be just like the rest of "them" when it comes to screwing over the American people. Looks like B.O. will just finish the job.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yourmomma 0 #13 December 9, 2009 3 posts after someone gave examples of the effects of non-regulation. You dedicate an entire post to saying de/non-regulation is the ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #14 December 9, 2009 Quote Actually, people not seeing where the problems are got us into this mess. The solution? Eliminate the problem. (the Fed & political interference in the markets). This is kind of solution which creates a bunch of other issues instead. How funny would be to have AIG go bankrupt? How many more Madoff-style investment funds would we have? Note that Ponzi schemes do not pay off by definition, no matter whether you have Fed interference or not.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #15 December 9, 2009 Quote3 posts after someone gave examples of the effects of non-regulation. You dedicate an entire post to saying de/non-regulation is the ticket. It's simple enough. If you don't create the situation that requires regulation in the first place, there's no need for that regulation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Ion01 1 #11 December 9, 2009 QuoteOK and you would have the banks fail, the country fall into a deep depression and feeel good about it. I've asked you before, as i have many conservs, you're president on Jan 20, 2009 (yes I realize the bailout was during Bush), what do you do? What do you do with the mortage mess / bank mess? You can sit there and talk about how it sucked, but you have no resolve, just criticism for those who actually act on the mess. How ridiculous is that? Let's hear a somewhat comprehensive solution - I won't wait. BTW, yes, we know the whole mess sucks, whining noted. Okay, so the government got involved and screwed things up so your answer is more government involvement? More of the same? That doesn't make sense. Also, the great depression was mainly caused by the federal reserve (government) not the banks that closed because of the federal reserve. If you actually understood the great depression you would realize that what is being done now is helping to cause a depression. If you look back at the drop in the stock market in the 1920's (which was large than the drop that marked the depression) the market bounced back basically immediately becuase the government stayed out and the free market was allowed to work making market boom after the drop. The government gets involved and we end up with the great depression and what we have now. The obvious solution is to get government out so we, as free individuals, can help ourselves which, in turn, helps the free market (which, btw, we no longer have a free market......instead we have some marxism mixed with corporatism and massive federal regulation). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #12 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote The whole banking system was about to collapse? Yeah, right. That WAS the opinion of the Bush administration. I thought you supported them. Don't confuse my support for some of Bush's actions with support for "them". "Them" are a bunch of politicians, regardless of what letter they place by their names. 43 proved to be just like the rest of "them" when it comes to screwing over the American people. Looks like B.O. will just finish the job.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yourmomma 0 #13 December 9, 2009 3 posts after someone gave examples of the effects of non-regulation. You dedicate an entire post to saying de/non-regulation is the ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #14 December 9, 2009 Quote Actually, people not seeing where the problems are got us into this mess. The solution? Eliminate the problem. (the Fed & political interference in the markets). This is kind of solution which creates a bunch of other issues instead. How funny would be to have AIG go bankrupt? How many more Madoff-style investment funds would we have? Note that Ponzi schemes do not pay off by definition, no matter whether you have Fed interference or not.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #15 December 9, 2009 Quote3 posts after someone gave examples of the effects of non-regulation. You dedicate an entire post to saying de/non-regulation is the ticket. It's simple enough. If you don't create the situation that requires regulation in the first place, there's no need for that regulation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
yourmomma 0 #13 December 9, 2009 3 posts after someone gave examples of the effects of non-regulation. You dedicate an entire post to saying de/non-regulation is the ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #14 December 9, 2009 Quote Actually, people not seeing where the problems are got us into this mess. The solution? Eliminate the problem. (the Fed & political interference in the markets). This is kind of solution which creates a bunch of other issues instead. How funny would be to have AIG go bankrupt? How many more Madoff-style investment funds would we have? Note that Ponzi schemes do not pay off by definition, no matter whether you have Fed interference or not.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #15 December 9, 2009 Quote3 posts after someone gave examples of the effects of non-regulation. You dedicate an entire post to saying de/non-regulation is the ticket. It's simple enough. If you don't create the situation that requires regulation in the first place, there's no need for that regulation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
