Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[tw]

Originally Posted by Redux

It appears the Senate might be taking a different approach, starting with a bi-partisan bill sponsored by McCain and Cantwell that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, ...

I asked my bankers - people in adjacent offices - about Glass-Stegall (1.5 years ago). Amazingly, they did not even know what Glass-Stegall was. And could not tell me if any of its provisions were still in force.

Well, parts of Glass-Stegall do exist - if only because many banks keep the investment group separate from commercial banking.

For example, Commerce Bank is now called TD (something). Same company also owns TD Ameritrade. But the two businesses still operate separately. Whether by law or just because some bankers were smarter - some banks still keep their investment groups separate from their commercial banking divisions.

Among the many problems are the large numbers of insolvent loans that were literally 'misplaced' on spread sheets. Today we still have numbers that do not add up. If 14% of the mortgages are non-performing and if something like 250,000 new mortgages are joining that list; then why are these banks showing profits?

If GMAC is that deep in debt, then why are 'powers that be' not discussing bankruptcy or the liquidation of many assets? Whereas the stock market has been saying, "Don't worry, be happy"; these looming details are quite troubling.

As usual the discussion need not include people with political agendas. This is about America, the interests of patriotic Americans (who are independents or party moderates), and a serious problem that remains not addressed. Problems (that I suspect) a majority do not even realize exist especially when stock market pundits are only promoting "Feel good" agendas.

I have a troubling feeling that another shoe will fall in February. Not a catastrophic one. But never forget the lessons of history. Stock market crashed in 1929. Jobs are lost in 1933. Stock market crashed in 2008. Jobs ...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would also suggest, they come with a long-term outlook and not a quick fix approach......leaving it open to short-term criticism.

What is that a joke? The last year has been filled with nothing but "quick fix" approaches. And the scumbags in Congress are planning another round of "quick fix" approaches this year. We just had all these planning groups trying to address the problems with the unemployed after promising us "millions of shovel ready jobs" back in Feb. They failed after spending billions of taxpayer dollars on pet projects in the Demoncratic home states that produced a small number of jobs. They would have been better off sending the estimated $200 per job produced to every person who was on employment. It would have had a bigger and more lasting impact than the failure of the current whorish spending.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What is that a joke? The last year has been filled with nothing but "quick fix" approaches....

While some of the funds were to "jump start" an economy that was on the brink of collapse (and contributed to mitigating that collapse, according to many (most?) economists and created or saved over 600,000 jobs, according to CBO and GAO), the bulk of the grants and contracts have yet to be awarded (by design) and are dedicated to programs like building a national broadband network, alternative energy development projects, national infrastructure improvement, etc.

These programs are in the country's long-term economic interests and provide long-term economic benefits.

Added:
I know you like to pick and chose articles and opinions. I can do that too:

New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy

....with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

BUT, the issue under discussion here is how to prevent future bail-outs, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans.

IMO, simply calling the proposal on the table "snake oil" hardly contributes to a constructive discussion.

SO what is your solution?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

BUT, the issue under discussion here is how to prevent future bail-outs, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans.

They are already planning another bailout. They have floated trial balloons and are assessing how it will be received politically.

Originally Posted by classicman

They are already planning another bailout. They have floated trial balloons and are assessing how it will be received politically.

The proposal floated by the White House is not another bailout but additional stimulus.....using the leftover $200 billion from the TARP fund for both deficit reduction and more infrastructure funding, small business tax cuts and a home energy conservation (or cash for clunker refrigerators type program).

We can discuss the pros and cons of that, but again, it is not addressing the issue of how to prevent future bailouts, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans..which is where I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to focus the discussion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Maybe that's because Congress is doing it, and they don't care what we think? They couldn't possibly upset their buddies anyway, because they might lose the next election and are counting on those buddies to keep them fat. It's always been that way, they are just aren't bothering to be sneaky anymore.

Yes, I know, my attitude makes me an enabler, but I've been watching this shit since I started working 55 years ago. For 55 years I've been pissing in the wind, bailing against the tide, and talking to the trees.
They still piss me off, but my time is better spent, more productive, killing Hobos.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

how to prevent future bailouts

Let them fail and actually put the fooking bastards in jail and take every penny they have.

shady investment practices,

Good luck with that. Aside from regulating everything to the point of nothing getting done, there is going to be some level of corruption/shadiness. What amount is acceptable?

questionable home mortgage loans..

This is the easiest one of all. Do not force lenders top qualify those that will not be able to afford the loan.

which is where I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to focus the discussion.

Why?

Originally Posted by classicman

Let them fail and actually put the fooking bastards in jail and take every penny they have.

Letting banks fail has a significant adverse impact on the credit market and the economy as a whole. The solution, IMO, is to have them pay for potential failures up front, with guarantee funds. Aside from that, you cant put the bastards in jail if they dont break the law...that is why we need new laws.

Good luck with that. Aside from regulating everything to the point of nothing getting done, there is going to be some level of corruption/shadiness. What amount is acceptable?

We're talking about regulating the mostly unregulated derivatives market, credit default swaps and hedge funds.

I dont know how that translates into getting nothing done.

And because there will always be some level of corruption seems to me to be a poor excuse to not regulate. There will also be crime and unethical practices in any industry (and in crime and shadiness on a personal level). The goal of laws and regulations is to minimize the opportunity for illegal and unethical actions and maximize the penalty.

This is the easiest one of all. Do not force lenders top qualify those that will not be able to afford the loan.

Sub-prime lenders were not forced to quality loans to those who could not afford it...they willingly offered loans to persons they had reason to suspect were not qualified.

This too should be regulated.

Why?

Agreed...there is obviously no interest in further discussion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

While some of the funds were to "jump start" an economy that was on the brink of collapse (and contributed to mitigating that collapse, according to many (most?) economists and created or saved over 600,000 jobs, according to CBO and GAO), the bulk of the grants and contracts have yet to be awarded (by design) and are dedicated to programs like building a national broadband network, alternative energy development projects, national infrastructure improvement, etc.

First of all the 600k number is right out of the White House talking points, the number is easily disputed. The CBO only takes the numbers Congress gives them and produces a result, and as such if you put BS in BS comes out. And even if 600k was accurate it would be pissing in the wind compared to the number of jobs lost. There were NOT 600k jobs produced, and the millions of jobs to be created as promised by Pelosi and Obama never happened, after they spent all the taxpayer money.

These programs are in the country's long-term economic interests and provide long-term economic benefits.

Well that is what the Demoncrats want you to believe. The public is beginning to see through your smoke and mirrors spending spree.

BUT, the issue under discussion here is how to prevent future bail-outs, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans.

And continuing to throw good money at bad investments and programs is not the answer.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

First of all the 600k number is right out of the White House talking points, the number is easily disputed. The CBO only takes the numbers Congress gives them and produces a result, and as such if you put BS in BS comes out. And even if 600k was accurate it would be pissing in the wind compared to the number of jobs lost. There were NOT 600k jobs produced, and the millions of jobs to be created as promised by Pelosi and Obama never happened, after they spent all the taxpayer money.

Well that is what the Demoncrats want you to believe. The public is beginning to see through your smoke and mirrors spending spree.

And continuing to throw good money at bad investments and programs is not the answer.

Thanks for your opinion.

[TheMercenary]

Fact:

The administration last month claimed that 150,000 jobs had already been saved or created due to the stimulus bill, though that number is based on a theoretical projection and not an actual count.

As ABC News’ David Kerley points out, last week Keith Hall, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, told a House subcommittee that he could not substantiate the claim.

“No,” Hall said. “That would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate…We're busy just counting jobs.”

In January, when the Obama team began presenting their pitch for the stimulus plan, they denied an overly rosy scenario. But the chart then-President-elect Obama’s economic team provided to the public indicates that the unemployment rate, which is currently 9.4%, is higher than the Obama team forecast it would be even if the stimulus plan had not become law.

Back then Council of Economic Advisers chair Christine Romer predicted that with the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate right now would be under 8%. Without the $787 billion stimulus package, Romer predicted an unemployment rate of just over 8%.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-100-days.html

The Obama Administration is touting that their stimulus program has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October. This number is updated and posted on the Administration’s recovery.gov web site. That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far! Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a year’s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs!

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-petho...jobs-stimulus/

600k is a smoke and mirrors propaganda number to make all the unemployed feel better about still being unemployed. And yet they still ask, were are all the jobs you promised with the stimulus bill passed in Feb?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

The solution, IMO, is to have them pay for potential failures up front, with guarantee funds.

On the face that sounds reasonable.

We're talking about regulating the mostly unregulated derivatives market, credit default swaps and hedge funds.

How are we going to regulate this? Who is going to be responsible for it?

Sub-prime lenders were not forced to quality loans to those who could not afford it...they willingly offered loans to persons they had reason to suspect were not qualified.
This too should be regulated.

Lenders were STRONGLY encouraged to lend to the lower end of the market.

Agreed...there is obviously no interest in further discussion.

I asked because I am curious why you wanted to steer the subject toward that particular direction.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My new years resolution was to point out spam when I see it and move on to the next post.

Originally Posted by classicman

How are we going to regulate this? Who is going to be responsible for it?

The same way we regulate all other securities.

Lenders were STRONGLY encouraged to lend to the lower end of the market.

A riight wing myth - blame the low income borrowers and the Community Reinventment Act (CRA) -- that has been debunked by the Federal Reserve, Congresional Research Service, Bush's HUD, National Association of Housing Officials. Urban Institute.....

Most sub-prime loans were not in the lower end of the market, unless you think homes in the $500k - $1 million are low end.

And those loans that were in the lower end market under the CRA were more highly regulated.

Call it what it was....predatory and/or unethical lending, mostly by unregulated mortgage companies rather than commercial banks.....with the blame shared by borrowers who knew they could not realistically afford the new home.

I asked because I am curious why you wanted to steer the subject toward that particular direction.

I dont know what I was thinking.....perhaps having a constructive discussion on the issue of how to prevent future bailouts, shady investment schemes, predatory or unethical sub-prime lending?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

My new years resolution was to point out spam when I see it and move on to the next post.

WOW. You think a quote to a Congressional hearing by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is spam? OK.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I dont know what I was thinking.

Uh ok - I was asking why that particular aspect.
Jeebus, why so touchy?