Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well why do you think that is?

In the top 20 investors to the Obama campaign we have Securities & Investment, Misc Finance, Commercial Banks, Insurance.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/in...&cid=N00009638

It makes me want to throw up the way banks and financial institutions are being treated, while unions and workers are getting the shaft.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't know why we can just put some of the regulations back in place that worked after the Great Depression. Of course we would also need new regulations for some of the new, irresponsible ways financial institutions make money nowadays. Maybe they should just criminalize them.

One reason it will be difficult to put some regs back in place is that Republicans in the Senate will do whatever they can to block it.

The next step?

I would hope that Obama meets his campaign pledge on credit card reform that at the very least would immediately outlaw the practices defined by the Federal Reserve Board as unfair or deceptive and include restrictions on the size of credit card fees and on the size and duration of penalty interest rates.

Obama on Jay Leon:

Obama: Most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal. And that's a sign of how much we've got to change our laws. We were talking earlier about credit cards. It's legal to charge somebody 30% on their credit card and charge fees and so forth that people don't always know what they are getting into. So the answer is to deal with those laws in a way that gives the average consumer a break. When you buy a toaster, if it explodes in your face, there's a law that says your toasters need to be safe. But When you get a credit card or you get a mortgage, there's no law on the books that says if that explodes in your face financially, somehow you're going to be protected. So this is the need for getting back to some common sense regulations. There's nothing wrong with innovation in the financial markets, we want people to be successful, we want people to be able to make a profit, banks are critical to our economy and we want credit to flow again, but we just want to make sure there's enough regulatory common sense in place that ordinary Americans are not taken advantage of and taxpayers at the back end are not taken care of.

Makes sense to me.

Who introduced the Federal Housing Reform Act of 2007 (including provisions on executive compensation)? That would be Barney Frank.

What prevented it from being enacted? That would be Republicans in the Senate along with a Bush veto pledge.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Republicans, who also got significant contributions from the financial services industry, response?

They sure didnt do a very good job Bush's last SEC chairman, a former Republican congressman

Originally Posted by Redux

Republicans in the Senate will do whatever they can to block it.

Originally Posted by Redux

Federal Housing Reform Act of 2007
What prevented it from being enacted? That would be Republicans in the Senate along with a Bush veto pledge.

Looks like the partisan blame game you were talking about last night - no?

Originally Posted by classicman

Looks like the partisan blame game you were talking about last night - no?

Absolutely...I plead guilty

In response to Merc's (and your) constant focus only on Obama and Dodd.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In the top 20 investors to the Obama campaign we have Securities & Investment, Misc Finance, Commercial Banks, Insurance.

And still no response from you guys on Obama's proposed sweeping regulations and support from Dodd, despite all those contributions and negative reaction from those contributors.

Rather than bitch more about Obama and Dodd....how about a more constructive discussion of the proposed regs?

If you think they suck and reward those who contributed to Obama and Dodd....what would you suggest as an alternative?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Absolutely...I plead guily

In response to Merc's (and your) constant focus only on Obama and Dodd.



And still no response from you guys on Obama's proposed sweeping regulations and support from Dodd, despite all those contributions and negative reaction from those contributors.

Rather than bitch more about Obama and Dodd....how about a more constructive discussion of the proposed regs?

If you think they suck and reward those who contributed to Obama and Dodd....what would suggest as an alternative?

I personally have no problem with Obama's attempts to deal with the issue even though I disagree with much of it. My issues are with Congress. My issues are the way people like you have become apologists for the responsiblities that the supposed democratic members share in this.

And I do have a problem with throwing money at many of these problems instead of letting them just go into receivership.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I personally have no problem with Obama's attempts to deal with the issue even though I disagree with much of it. My issues are with Congress. My issues are the way people like you have become apologists for the responsiblities that the supposed democratic members share in this.

And I do have a problem with throwing money at many of these problems instead of letting them just go into receivership.

I have said repeatedly that Dodd and Frank should be accountable for their share of the blame.

And IMO, they should be given credit when they act to address the problems like the legislation Frank introduced in 07 and their support for these new regs.

Who is not supporting these new regs or accepting any responsibility for past actions...that would be the Republicans in Congress.

So, if you disagree with much of Obama's proposed regs and you don't want to throw more money at the problem....what do you propose? What have the Republicans proposed.

I know that requires a bit more independent thinking than just pointing fingers just in the direction of one party.

I am ready to make it non-partrisan and focus on the issues and solutions any time you are.

[TheMercenary]

Well first of all the spending bills passed to date still have not produced "shovel ready jobs" and the employment of "millions of people". I would start by not spending money on any project that does not produce jobs and they should be prioritized and spent in a prioritized fashion. Instead we have a the current Congressional approach of a shotgun spending package, hoping we do some good in the end. This approach is destined to ensure that they will not reach their goals and blame will follow. IMHO the dems have really stuck their necks out on this one and I see blades being sharpened.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well first of all the spending bills passed to date still have not produced "shovel ready jobs" and the employment of "millions of people". I would start by not spending money on any project that does not produce jobs and they should be prioritized and spent in a prioritized fashion. Instead we have a the current Congressional approach of a shotgun spending package, hoping we do some good in the end. This approach is destined to ensure that they will not reach their goals and blame will follow. IMHO the dems have really stuck their necks out on this one and I see blades being sharpened.

IMO, its a bit disingenuous to say the stimulus bill hasnt produced "shovel ready jobs" to date or the "employment of millions of people"....damn...its been just over one month and the law has procedures to follow, including safeguards against the potential abuse that concerns you.

It has for a fact already saved teachers and police jobs....not "shovel ready", but jobs that were to be cut in my cities as a result of local government budget constraints.

At the same time, there are steps being taken by federal agencies (DOT, DOE, HUD, etc) to put procedures in place for the awarding of those funds with criteria to verify "shovel ready"...that proper oversight is expected to take another month or so.....I can live with that.

[TheMercenary]

Well I can tell you that many people cannot wait another 30 days. And if the general public does not begin to see some concrete changes and the markets do not begin to level off very soon it will be viewed as a short term failure. History may prove that notion to incorrect but the risk is that the damage to the image may be done. This is of course all just my opinion but you can see stress among previous die hard supporters of Obama and the Dems beginning to develop.

You complain if they just throw money at the problem with no oversight and you complain if they take a month or two to impose proper funding criteria first.

They cant win.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You complain if they just throw money at the problem with no oversight and you complain if they take a month or two to impose proper funding criteria first.

They cant win.

Actually I do believe that I said they need to ensure that money should be thrown only at projects which produce jobs now. Obama pleged to start putting money into "shovel ready" jobs. Where are they? Much money has already been spent and disbursed.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Actually I do believe that I said they need to ensure that money should be thrown only at projects which produce jobs now. Obama pleged to start putting money into "shovel ready" jobs. Where are they? Much money has already been spent and disbursed.

I can see we are not getting anywhere here.

Shovel ready jobs need to be verified by the funding agencies to meet minimum qualification standards....that doesnt happen overnight. A month or two is not an unreasonable time frame, IMO....I guess it is for you.

And as far as I know, the only money that has been disbursed so far are the state/local emergency relief funds to support expansion of unemployment comp or to prevent layoffs of teachers and police and other similar priorities.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Read the article Merc posted in Rolling Stone.

I am not happy about that part. However, appreciate his objectives. Do you throw more money at the rich (as George Jr did) to create more yachts, expensive vacations, and obese homes? Or do you channel that same money into capital items that create universal wealth, increased living standards, innovative technology, new industries, etc?

If the money is not channeled through banks who now are obliged to vete their loans, then where do you suggest investing in America?

New demands for responsibility are places even on bankers who were now told that big bonuses means they were charging excessive service charges or that their 1% fees are too high. Not only must their operations be exposed to public scrutiny, they must also rechannel cash to the fewer things that make jobs, products, capital equipment, etc. Not into mythical assets such as CDOs, SIVs, etc.

I don't like banks getting government money. But I love it when finance people must act more like what they really are - bureaucrats whose job is to service the economies only innovators.

Bankers that got money now must learn what their true purpose is. There are string attached to that money. Later, we will apply even more and necessary regulations to the few parts of the American economy that require heavy oversight.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I can tell you that many people cannot wait another 30 days. And if the general public does not begin to see some concrete changes and the markets do not begin to level off very soon it will be viewed as a short term failure.

That's the classic bean counter mentality. Any useful solution to this mess will happen many years later. Only corrupt finance types believe economic solutions occur within the quarterly report period.

The meltdowns today are from investment scams mostly of four and more years ago. We still have to pay for "Mission Accomplished". Only extremists or bean counter mentalities would be disappointed because solutions did not appear two months later. It will take years just more scams from years ago to adversely appear in economic data.

We still have other things that must occur such as selling off significant parts of America to pay for bills such as "Mission Accomplished". Chrysler may be one example of what we must do because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". We have yet to see all that resulting damage.