Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery

[OriginalPoster]

I was hoping to hear some interesting dialogue with intelligent give and take. Apparently, I was mistaken.

As for hate filled diatribe on my part, perhaps you confuse me with someone else. I will retire from this thread since it is apparently going nowhere. Thank you.

"Hate filled" is such a convenient label to put on people that one disagrees with. Resorting to that is beneath you.

[thailandlover]

Useless and pointless name calling with an intent to be abusive is, in my eyes, hate filled and really has no part in what could have been an intelligent discussion. Nevertheless, I will retire from this "discussion" since it serves no purpose to inform me of anything beyond that some people cannot think beyond using abusive words and name calling.

[OriginalPoster]

Useless and pointless name calling with an intent to be abusive is, in my eyes, hate filled and really has no part in what could have been an intelligent discussion. Nevertheless, I will retire from this "discussion" since it serves no purpose to inform me of anything beyond that some people cannot think beyond using abusive words and name calling.

And now will you retire from the discussion, or will you keep popping back to tell us how much you hate people who hate?

[lannarebirth]

Useless and pointless name calling with an intent to be abusive is, in my eyes, hate filled and really has no part in what could have been an intelligent discussion. Nevertheless, I will retire from this "discussion" since it serves no purpose to inform me of anything beyond that some people cannot think beyond using abusive words and name calling.

OK thailand lover, here's an example of what's wrong. upon announcement of the "Public Private Investment Partnership" a lot of so called "toxic mortgages" were bought up at about 30 cents on the dollar. the banksthat bought these are gaming the system, as they'll beselling them to the partnersip in short order for 50% markups. THEY DON'T CARE if the plan succeds. the already reamed the government and they're out next to nothing if the plan fails and they have unlimited upside if it works out. ITS FROUGHT WITH MORAL HAZARD. Now, if you had a government that was actually prosecuting these criminals then the public might buy into the idea. As it stands now, because they're not, it LOOKS LIKE THE GOVT. IS COMPLICIT in the theft of US taxpayers money.

On another note I DO like some of the new regulatory measures that the Obama administration wants to implement. I do not like their wanting to expand FED RES powers, and needless to say their "partner" banks will fight new regulation all the way.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/has...ic-private.html

Edited March 27, 2009 by lannarebirth

[AlexLah]

Thailandlover, please have a look at post 23 and 46 and give your thoughts.

Threads like these many times start a bit rough but can get interesting once people have positioned themselves.

Otherwise which policies would you like discussed here?

Would you like to discuss his "Intention" to close down Guantanamo (would save a lot of money).

Would you like to discuss his simulus plan?

Would it be interesting to discuss his promise to get the troops back home (which would save about 2 Billion a month).

Maybe a little side discussion about him signing the opening and financing of abortion sorry family planning clinics on his 2nd day in office?

Or would you like to discuss why Billions of futuristic taxpayers money went to overseas banks?

[dotcom]

Alex. I wish we had him under oath saying "I will veto the first spending bill to cross my desk containg earmarks".

If we had him under oath then impeachment hearings would already be underway.

As it stands that was just a lie told to get himself elected.

[sbk]

Thailandlover, please have a look at post 23 and 46 and give your thoughts.

Threads like these many times start a bit rough but can get interesting once people have positioned themselves.

Otherwise which policies would you like discussed here?

Would you like to discuss his "Intention" to close down Guantanamo (would save a lot of money).

Would you like to discuss his simulus plan?

Would it be interesting to discuss his promise to get the troops back home (which would save about 2 Billion a month).

Maybe a little side discussion about him signing the opening and financing of abortion sorry family planning clinics on his 2nd day in office?

Or would you like to discuss why Billions of futuristic taxpayers money went to overseas banks?

Alex, I think the OP makes his interest pretty clear in the topic title. Given that this is the BANKING, ECONOMY forum I think discussing abortion or anything else would be very inappropriate and would get this thread shut down in a hurry. I hope that is clear enough

[dotcom]

Congratulations on your promotion.

[AlexLah]

I understand SBK that he likes to discuss the financial part and economic decisions but he does not reply on these when I am asking a few simple questions regarding the deciscions taken by the administration under Mr Obama's leadership that will negatively affect economic performance.

I surely do not want to discuss abortion here but only mentioned it as people perhaps start to think about why that was such an important issue for him that he had to sign that on his second day in office.

There are a lot more strange policies and bills being passed which make no sense at all when looking at the supposed financial crisis but when you compile those actions and non actions all together it becomes rather disturbing and will in some way do harm for many people living on this planet.

I mentioned before that threads like these many times start a bit chaotic but could turn out very interesting, similar we had in the financial crisis thread but is going well now.

So my apologies for mentioning the abortion thing, I will not mention it again.

Thailand lover could you please react on post 23 and 46 as it might be a good start to discuss those measures and possible recovery of an economy.

[OriginalPoster]

I understand SBK that he likes to discuss the financial part and economic decisions but he does not reply on these when I am asking a few simple questions regarding the deciscions taken by the administration under Mr Obama's leadership that will negatively affect economic performance.

I surely do not want to discuss abortion here but only mentioned it as people perhaps start to think about why that was such an important issue for him that he had to sign that on his second day in office.

There are a lot more strange policies and bills being passed which make no sense at all when looking at the supposed financial crisis but when you compile those actions and non actions all together it becomes rather disturbing and will in some way do harm for many people living on this planet.

I mentioned before that threads like these many times start a bit chaotic but could turn out very interesting, similar we had in the financial crisis thread but is going well now.

So my apologies for mentioning the abortion thing, I will not mention it again.

Thailand lover could you please react on post 23 and 46 as it might be a good start to discuss those measures and possible recovery of an economy.

Cut Obama a break, just yesterday he said that he didn't think that legalizing marijuana was important to the country's future. That shows that he's a risk taker, willing to alienate his base if necessary.

About your posts 23 and 46 that you keep on asking people to comment upon, maybe you need to phrase them more lucidly into order to get the response that you seek.

Edited March 27, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[dotcom]

"Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery, Will they work? When will the US economy recover?"

Here's the fault with this approach.

Unsucessful banks need to be killed off not saved.

We have the FDIC to protect depositors.

A.I.G. ditto - receivership. END OF PROBLEM

Bush equally to blame as the current prop.

[OriginalPoster]

"Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery, Will they work? When will the US economy recover?"

Here's the fault with this approach.

Unsucessful banks need to be killed off not saved.

We have the FDIC to protect depositors.

A.I.G. ditto - receivership. END OF PROBLEM

Bush equally to blame as the current prop.

I'm not so sure that you could allow them to fail, but I think that you could allow them to go into some form of receivership and for their shareholder's to lose their investment. The government could run them while under receivership if they wanted, but why preserve the shareholder's investment at the expense of the taxpayer's?

[lannarebirth]

"Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery, Will they work? When will the US economy recover?"

Here's the fault with this approach.

Unsucessful banks need to be killed off not saved.

We have the FDIC to protect depositors.

A.I.G. ditto - receivership. END OF PROBLEM

Bush equally to blame as the current prop.

You've drastically oversimplified the extent of the problem and the solutions. the solutions will come from government and the taxpayers. That much is certain. Some companies should be allowed to fail and NO persons nvolved in creating the problem should be involved with the solution. bankers caught gaming the system should be summarily judged and shot, although if they just get shot, that would be OK too.

[flying]

bankers caught gaming the system should be summarily judged and shot, although if they just get shot, that would be OK too.

Dee Mak !!! I like the way you think

[dotcom]

I'm not so sure that you could allow them to fail, but I think that you could allow them to go into some form of receivership and for their shareholder's to lose their investment. The government could run them while under receivership if they wanted, but why preserve the shareholder's investment at the expense of the taxpayer's?

Wrong. You don't want the government running anything.

Remember Amtrak?

Run them through debtor in posession financing - a prepackaged bankruptcy. And that stupid GM & Chrysler which is owned by a hedge fund Cerberis Capital or whatever it's called.

Unions be damned.

[OriginalPoster]

"Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery, Will they work? When will the US economy recover?"

Here's the fault with this approach.

Unsucessful banks need to be killed off not saved.

We have the FDIC to protect depositors.

A.I.G. ditto - receivership. END OF PROBLEM

Bush equally to blame as the current prop.

You've drastically oversimplified the extent of the problem and the solutions. the solutions will come from government and the taxpayers. That much is certain. Some companies should be allowed to fail and NO persons nvolved in creating the problem should be involved with the solution. bankers caught gaming the system should be summarily judged and shot, although if they just get shot, that would be OK too.

The paradox is that it doesn't seem like there are many people qualified to deal with the problem who do not have at least somewhat dirty hands.

[OriginalPoster]

I'm not so sure that you could allow them to fail, but I think that you could allow them to go into some form of receivership and for their shareholder's to lose their investment. The government could run them while under receivership if they wanted, but why preserve the shareholder's investment at the expense of the taxpayer's?

Wrong. You don't want the government running anything.

Remember Amtrak?

Run them through debtor in posession financing - a prepackaged bankruptcy. And that stupid GM & Chrysler which is owned by a hedge fund Cerberis Capital or whatever it's called.

Unions be damned.

By the same logic as one would say that they don't want the government running anything, couldn't one say that we don't want Wharton graduates running anything? Remember Countrywide, remember Bear Strearns, remember Lehman? How were they less inept than Amtrak or the Post Office?

[lannarebirth]

"Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery, Will they work? When will the US economy recover?"

Here's the fault with this approach.

Unsucessful banks need to be killed off not saved.

We have the FDIC to protect depositors.

A.I.G. ditto - receivership. END OF PROBLEM

Bush equally to blame as the current prop.

You've drastically oversimplified the extent of the problem and the solutions. the solutions will come from government and the taxpayers. That much is certain. Some companies should be allowed to fail and NO persons nvolved in creating the problem should be involved with the solution. bankers caught gaming the system should be summarily judged and shot, although if they just get shot, that would be OK too.

The paradox is that it doesn't seem like there are many people qualified to deal with the problem who do not have at least somewhat dirty hands.

So they say. I'm not so sure. What I am sure of is, they have to drastically cull that gang of rabid vulture bankers. They need to make 100's of arrests and prosecutions. Not one or two symbolic ones. They're like a flesh eating disease and will eventually kill their host.

BTW, avery sensible website where you can see more details and aspects of ongoing finacial crisis:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Edited March 27, 2009 by lannarebirth

[AlexLah]

Quote: "to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness"

Very disturbing indeed.

Why is it that those people are allowed to decide the faith of millions of people in a negative way?

I just only hope that during the G20 meeting this president of Brazil gets his 10 minutes of fame, seems a decent guy to me.

And I fully agree lana with prosecuting those psychopaths, and once convicted we nail them (with rusty nails) against a cold stone wall and watch them slowly dieing from gangrene.

[dotcom]

nobama doesn't want the public private partnership to work. He's for nationalizing the banks. And everything else.

[AlexLah]

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business...=1&emc=eta1

Article published in 1999?

[lannarebirth]

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business...=1&emc=eta1

Article published in 1999?

That's when the law was repealed Alex. The original link you looked at was referencing the 1999 repeal of the act.

[AlexLah]

Ok, I got a bit confused on that one.

Anyway I am searching for some news on organised protests in the US regarding this mess, but can't find much.

Is it repressed or something?

Surely a lot of peeps must be angry right?

[Jingthing]

nobama doesn't want the public private partnership to work. He's for nationalizing the banks. And everything else.

No, he is not for nationalizing banks.

[teatree]

Ok, I got a bit confused on that one.

Anyway I am searching for some news on organised protests in the US regarding this mess, but can't find much.

Is it repressed or something?

Surely a lot of peeps must be angry right?

'End The Fed'

Next rally April 25th

http://endthefed.us/

[Wrong Turn]

dotcom:

All of his policies are socialist. 100% Serious.

Wrong Turn:

Serious question: what policies are Socialist?

dotcom:

Now I've given you a clue. Study what the marxist says in his speeches. He is the greatest ally to unions since FDR.

I have read Marx. Marx and Engels wrote their works in the late 1800s while living in London.

As for unions, less than 10% of the US workforce are in unions, and the EFCA is not that strong right now, and losing votes. Do you know what the EFCA is?

Again, what policies are socialist?

My point: Obama is a Keynesian.

[OriginalPoster]

"Obama's Bank Rescue Measures And Us Recovery, Will they work? When will the US economy recover?"

Here's the fault with this approach.

Unsucessful banks need to be killed off not saved.

We have the FDIC to protect depositors.

A.I.G. ditto - receivership. END OF PROBLEM

Bush equally to blame as the current prop.

You've drastically oversimplified the extent of the problem and the solutions. the solutions will come from government and the taxpayers. That much is certain. Some companies should be allowed to fail and NO persons nvolved in creating the problem should be involved with the solution. bankers caught gaming the system should be summarily judged and shot, although if they just get shot, that would be OK too.

The paradox is that it doesn't seem like there are many people qualified to deal with the problem who do not have at least somewhat dirty hands.

So they say. I'm not so sure. What I am sure of is, they have to drastically cull that gang of rabid vulture bankers. They need to make 100's of arrests and prosecutions. Not one or two symbolic ones. They're like a flesh eating disease and will eventually kill their host.

BTW, avery sensible website where you can see more details and aspects of ongoing finacial crisis:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

I'm sure that we'll see some scapegoats put on trial and convicted of something. I think that we'll see just enough of that to prevent peasants with pitchforks from taking justice into their own hands. However I remain unconvinced that illegal activity was a primary cause of the crisis, unless the illegal activity that we are talking about is the ongoing conspiracy being conducted by the nameless, faceless members of the Illuminati.

Edited March 28, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[ironhut]

The US economy (and most economies) are built upon consumer confidence and trust. Although not perfect, the US economy wasn't in bad shape UNTIL the sub-prime issue was brought to light in August by Obama and the left when he was down 7 points to McCain/Palin in the election.

As most know, the sub-prime issue actually surfaced early in 2008. But...it was made election fodder in August for the sole purpose of vaulting Obama to the White House. Comments like "It's not how your were doing four years ago, but how you were doing four weeks ago that matter here" were used by the Dems to incite a lack of confidence and mistrust in the existing government at the time.

The tactics of slamming the economy to gain a seat in the White House had an alternate effect...a spiraling economy that may not be repaired for many years. The trust and confidence in what was left of the US economy was shattered with calculated comments and posturing. Now we're all paying for it.

It worked. It worked too well. Now what?

Another point to chew. People in the US who have NOT lost their jobs are still getting paid what they once were (as prices keep falling). So why is the economy in a tailspin?....A: Because those same people are afraid they'll lose their jobs next week and won't spend. The current administration can't seem to stop the train...one that they initially helped gather steam.

[OriginalPoster]

BTW, avery sensible website where you can see more details and aspects of ongoing finacial crisis:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

That website's a real treat, written with a blank line after each and every sentence, much like an Alex Lah post. It produces the same breathless staccato sound in my mind that his posts do.

Edited March 28, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[lannarebirth]

You've drastically oversimplified the extent of the problem and the solutions. the solutions will come from government and the taxpayers. That much is certain. Some companies should be allowed to fail and NO persons nvolved in creating the problem should be involved with the solution. bankers caught gaming the system should be summarily judged and shot, although if they just get shot, that would be OK too.

The paradox is that it doesn't seem like there are many people qualified to deal with the problem who do not have at least somewhat dirty hands.

So they say. I'm not so sure. What I am sure of is, they have to drastically cull that gang of rabid vulture bankers. They need to make 100's of arrests and prosecutions. Not one or two symbolic ones. They're like a flesh eating disease and will eventually kill their host.

BTW, avery sensible website where you can see more details and aspects of ongoing finacial crisis:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

I'm sure that we'll see some scapegoats put on trial and convicted of something. I think that we'll see just enough of that to prevent peasants with pitchforks from taking justice into their own hands. However I remain unconvinced that illegal activity was a primary cause of the crisis, unless the illegal activity that we are talking about is the ongoing conspiracy being conducted by the nameless, faceless members of the Illuminati.

I disagree. Lots and lots of systemic criminality. You could fill the prisons solely with mortgage brokers if you cared to. Don't know much about the Illuminati or the Freemasons either. Enjoyed Angels and Demons though.

I have a different take than most posters however. I think the citizenry needs only a marginal amount of confidence in financial institutions. In fact I suggest they not have much more than that. Where the confidence need lie is with the government to protect the peoples interests against siad fiduciary criminals. Not to protect the people from their own bad choices of course, but to protect the treasury. Failure to do so will cause the government to lose credibility. That's the real problem, not the fact that banks won't lend. the banks are simly doing what is in their own best interest. The government needs to override that interest for the benefit of the governed. Thusfar they have failed to do this and make themselves appear complicit with the banks. It's a stupid stupid policy.

Edited March 28, 2009 by lannarebirth