Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Yea, he sent a message to all corporations tw, except financial ones.

The message of government will protect you did not come from Obama. That was the previous administration. Obama simply gave them (ie GM) time to submit a plan. George Jr never demanded any plans. When GM's plan was an obvious joke (and even the BoDs, stockholders, and bond holders did not complain), then Obama set the new standard.

It has only been two months. He had to give corporate America time to prove they are fixing themselves. Time to do what George Jr never demanded. GM is the first one that had to commit to a restructuring plan (big steel, big pharma, etc never had to). Two months and no plan. Boom. The #1 reason for problems: the top man's head rolls like it was on a guillotine. Hopefully that beheading was violent enough to shake up BoDs everywhere.

Its only been two months and already he has beheaded one of this nation's worst companies. Good. Leadership finally in Washington. "Let the message go out far and wide. Economic forces will now take revenge on those who forget the purpose of a company." Hopefully.

[sugarpop]

Read the article Merc posted in Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...takeover/print

Obama keeps giving more advantages to banks, and big investors, and financial institutions, some of which were responsible for the meltdown in the first place. I think more money should be going to stimulate the economy and help actual people, you know, like more money for infrastructure, more money to refinance homes at low interest rates, less money to banks. Now they are getting another bailout, with most of the risk being put on the taxpayers, with this plan to buy their toxic assets. Meanwhile, they are crushing the very people bailing them out by charging exhorbitant fees and interest rates on things like cars. And the interest rates were supposed to go down on mortgages so people could refinance, but they went up again last week after the stock market went up. It isn't right. They are so worried about recouping the losses that THEY INCURRED by making bad buiness decisions, and while taxpayers keep having to bail them out, they are doing almost nothing to help the very people who are bailing them out.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Read the article Merc posted in Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...takeover/print

Obama keeps giving more advantages to banks, and big investors, and financial institutions, some of which were responsible for the meltdown in the first place.

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

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

And yet Obama proposed sweeping new regulations last week, much to the dislike of those contributors:

The Obama administration's aggressive plan for strict scrutiny of hedge funds and other freewheeling investors, part of the biggest expansion of financial restraints since the Great Depression, is drawing instant opposition from Republican lawmakers and the rules' targets. And skeptics are questioning whether the new rulebook would work anyway.

The administration's proposals, which require congressional approval, include:

_ Imposing tougher standards on financial institutions that are judged to be so big that their failure would threaten the entire system.

_ Extending federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives — exotic instruments such as credit default swaps that are blamed for much of the economic carnage.

_ Requiring larger hedge funds and other private pools of capital, including private equity and venture capital funds, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

_ Creating a regulator to monitor the biggest institutions. Geithner did not say which agency should wield such authority, but the administration is expected to favor the Federal Reserve.

_ Empowering the government to take over major nonbank financial firms such as insurers and hedge funds if deemed necessary.

Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and many Democrats on the panel backed the proposals, while Republicans assailed them as too far-reaching.

Financial overhaul plan draws GOP opposition

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

The same old line whenever regs are proposed...."We dont need new regulations....just enforce the regulations on the books."

They sure didnt do a very good job of enforcing existing regulations between 2000-2006. Bush's last SEC chairman, a former Republican congressman, admitted much like Dodd, that he fucked up.

I dont know if this new regulatory approach is the right way forward. I dont like given more power to the Fed Reserve and I dont doubt there will be loopholes.

Is the better solution simply to enforce existing regs? I dont think so.

But I havent seen a better alternative than the one outlined above.

[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.

[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 sugarpop

Meanwhile, they are crushing the very people bailing them out by charging exhorbitant fees and interest rates on things like cars. And the interest rates were supposed to go down on mortgages so people could refinance, but they went up again last week after the stock market went up.

Interest rates are ridiculously low. You may not realize that interest rates this low for this long was almost never seen. Also appreciate what is coming because we spent the last ten years spending wildly. Nixon did it in 1968 and 1970. Therefore the debts came due in 1975 and 1979. Do you remember what Paul Volker finally did to fix the economy? Interest rates of 20% were common. We still have either massive inertest rate increases or devaluation of the dollar to look forward to. Or both.

Appreciate where we are. The stock market crashed in 1929. Therefore the resulting economic turmoil got ugly many years later - 1933. You have let to see the damage created by the money games of this last eight years. You are still living the good times. If you think this is bad, you have no clue what even the 1970s were like.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by tw

Interest rates are ridiculously low. You may not realize that interest rates this low for this long was almost never seen....

Not with credit cards. Rates are going up.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Not with credit cards. Rates are going up.

And you have not yet seen how high they may go. 22% interest rates were typical in the 1970s. The rates are going up and are still low.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by tw

And you have not yet seen how high they may go. 22% interest rates were typical in the 1970s. The rates are going up and are still low.

Some people have higher rates than that. Much higher. I know one person whose rate went up to 49.5%. WTF?

[sugarpop]

Merc, some jobs have been created and have already started. Maybe not a lot yet, but don't act is if none have, because that isn't so. MANY have been saved, and more will start up as time goes on.

classic, the terminology was changed because the job loss grew much faster than anyone predicted, so saving jobs became synonomous with creating jobs.

Redux, there hasn't been much transparency yet, especially with regard to the banks. And speaking of banks, I think this administration isn't putting the regulations we had back in place NOT because of republicans, but because they are too buddy-buddy with banks and Wall Street execs. Just look at the double standard that is being used for those who shower before work, and those who shower after. They should not be afraid of Wall Street execs, they should be afraid of the people. But you know, politicians will always favor where the money flows.

tw, banks AREN"T lending like they should be, or refinancing mortgages, and they are not being transparent AT ALL about the money they've received. I wish Obama would hang a few of those Wall Street execs, like they did Wagoner. Maybe then they would get the message. So far, I don't think they have gotten anything, except their own way.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Merc, some jobs have been created and have already started. Maybe not a lot yet, but don't act is if none have, because that isn't so. MANY have been saved, and more will start up as time goes on.

When you compare the amount of money spent by congress to "stimulate the economy" and look at how many jobs have been directly created for the money spent, it is criminal. Where are the "millions of jobs"?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Redux.....speaking of banks, I think this administration isn't putting the regulations we had back in place NOT because of republicans, but because they are too buddy-buddy with banks and Wall Street execs. Just look at the double standard that is being used for those who shower before work, and those who shower after. They should not be afraid of Wall Street execs, they should be afraid of the people. But you know, politicians will always favor where the money flows.

I understand the anger at the banks.

I dont understand the suggestion that Obama isnt putting new regs in place on banks/financial services because of his contributions from "buddies in the industry"....when in fact, he proposed sweeping regulations last week despite the opposition of those buddies.

In order for the regs to be adopted, they will need to be approved in legislation by Congress and the Republicans are certainly not jumping on board, to say the least.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

No I didn't, but this pisses me off. "Senate Democrats are making a new stab at limiting credit card interest rates -- fueling bankers’ threats that the measure will further reduce consumers’ access to credit..."

So we give them billions of dollars and they hold us hostage with our own money. Fucking bankers. I wish they would all die.

IMO, the bill voted out of Dodd's committee yesterday (on a party line vote) to ban abusive credit practices and enhance consumer disclosures, Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 is a good first step.

Again, its hard for me to understand how this is Dodd sucking up to his contributors (as some here suggest repeatedly), when they oppose it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Not with credit cards. Rates are going up.

Did you see this in the news today?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...kers-thre.html


http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...0_FORTUNE5.htm

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...iew/sid/35049/

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Did you see this in the news today?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...kers-thre.html


http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...0_FORTUNE5.htm

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...iew/sid/35049/

No I didn't, but this pisses me off. "Senate Democrats are making a new stab at limiting credit card interest rates -- fueling bankers’ threats that the measure will further reduce consumers’ access to credit..."

So we give them billions of dollars and they hold us hostage with our own money. Fucking bankers. I wish they would all die.