Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

If they are so bad, why then did they only now crash? Fannie has been around since the 30s or 40s. Seems to have worked pretty well up until recently.

What they did and the reason for Fannie’s and Freddie's crash are different situations.

Fannie and Freddie crashed when recently doing something – finance 'toxic' mortgages. Mortgages that even Fannie and Freddie would never have touched 30 years ago.

Fannie and Freddie were established to make mortgages easier. As a result, home prices increased. Any bureaucratic solution to make mortgages easier was overridden by higher housing prices. Basic economics. Throwing money (ie lowering mortgage interest rates) does not make any economy wealthier or more productive. Throwing money makes a problem appear solved - short term ... then economics takes revenge – long term.

Fannie and Freddie should have been temporary solutions to a cash flow problem. When the problem was resolved, Fannie and Freddie were not longer necessary. Instead we added a new problem.

Something completely different are mortgages to anyone who could not afford them. Mortgages without any responsibility or due diligence. Even finance people 30 years ago would have never done this. The new mantra promoted by our wacko extremist’s political agenda: no responsibility got renamed deregulation. Short term money games - a ponzi scheme – that continued all through the 2000s also masked a 2004 downturn. What could have been a recession may now be a depression.

Fannie and Freddie, whose job should have been spun off to commercial banks, instead made things worse. Participated in another money game we now call mortgage backed securities and SIVs. But Fannie and Freddie were only doing what our wacko extremists politicians wanted. Encouraged by new Enron accounting techniques and corporate welfare. What Fannie and Freddie did are symptoms of a larger problem directly traceable to our 2000s government.

Ben Franklin's quote defines a patriotic American. Any great American from history innovated. Getting rich does not define a patriotic American. Any finance man who got rich only by financing - evil and corrupt.

A productive finance person is only a servant to the nation's patriots - people who actually innovate as Franklin defines. A finance person's job solves cash flow problems. Techniques such as investments, bridge loans, letters of credit, etc. are not innovations. A finance person deserves to be compensated as any servant or bureaucrat who pushes paper work. When the president of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan gets paid more than the president of Cisco or Hewlett Packard, then the economy has been corrupted by bean counters. The economy violates principles defined even by Franklin - where innovators deserve reward because they innovate rather than only push forms.

[classicman]

If we throw enough money at the economy - no matter where, will that really help?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

If we throw enough money at the economy - no matter where, will that really help?

GM simply threw money like a grenade at problems for decades. Therefore GM deserved bankruptcy long ago. AT&T constantly threw money at problems and therefore completely self destructed - a good thing for America. Comcast profited from AT&T executives (MBAs) who were so stupid that Roberts Jr would routinely and publically insult AT&T's president. Part of the agreement for selling AT&T's cable companies at a 60% discount to Comcast - Roberts had to stop insulting the intelligence of AT&T's president.

In every case, they did what any MBA would do - throw money at problems rather than use money as scalpel. Nothing new. Perot defined this decades ago. Perot was GM's largest stock holder who discovered back then what has not changed in GM. GM being a perfect example of what MBAs do because they can only throw money at problems.

We threw $150billion into AIG. AIG is rumored to need another $60billion because we did not let bankruptcy attack America's greatest enemies - finance people who believe the purpose of a company is profits. (Why do these elite people get more government money than all welfare moms combined?) We reward people whose philosophy is also called communism.

We are throwing money at GM. Not only at government levels. Some in the Cellar so hated America as to buy GM products. Until we decide what makes America great, we will continue selling America off to the world to pay for more debts.

Due to "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter", Bernanke and the US Treasury now have no options left. We must print money (massive inflation and dollar devaluation) to pay for excessive George Jr spending, corporate welfare, and welfare to the rich. That's right. All sources of money are now down to printing more dollar bills or mortgaging American to foreigners.

We saved America by letting MBA dominated AT&T disappear. We saved America by letting IBM almost go under. So IBM fixed itself. But in the past decade, communism from wacko extremists in the past decade so hated America as to save big Steel, the traditionally anti-American auto companies, and now finance companies (all investment backs, the top five commercial banks, AIG, etc) while endorsing corruption or mismanagement such as the mythical CA energy crisis, First Energy, Enron, LTCM, etc. All of this by one administration driven only by an extremists political agenda, a low intelligence president, and a belief that enriching the elite (ie Halliburton) is good for American.

Wackos used political agendas to throw money at problems (ie tax cuts to the rich) rather than grasp reality. We have yet to see inevitable 10+% (probably 15%) interest rates, world record government debt (double or more), maybe 20% unemployment, record trade deficits, etc. All that may happen. Because we threw money at problems based upon political agendas, we now have massive bills coming due. The agenda was obvious, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

Another $60billion for AIG. GM needs another $10billion. Citigroup needs who knows how much more money. And Wall Street executives need many tens of $billions in bonuses to preserve their standard of living.

Welcome to what happens when, for the past decade, we literally threw money at deserving parts of the economy - the elite rich and corporations. We have yet to see bills for "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" politics. Coming will be throwing more money as those bills come due. We have yet to see damage created by George Jr's "throw money at problems" solutions.

Obama has no choice but to pay those bills.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

If we throw enough money at the economy - no matter where, will that really help?

Obama and the Demoncrats are trying.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You must acknowledge that the system that loses those jobs, created those jobs in the first place. It's the same system.

Look at me. I was laid off the week after the crunch and I have a shitty mortgage in a house I can't afford, living on UI and charity. Sorry, it's not a tragedy, that I go around looking to blame on something. Humbling maybe, but the worst that will happen is that I will have to sell the house and we'll move into an apartment or rent a townhouse. Sucks to be me? Hell no, I will remain awesome (in a humble sort of way ) no matter what.

Good luck selling your house. My mother had her house on the market for over a year, for significantly less than what it was worth. She took it off the market about 6 months ago. Really, I sincerely wish you luck, if it comes to that. I hope you get an accurate and honest value for its worth.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Mercenary:
That is the point exactly. It will never be the same. People need to get over it and move on, come up with new and innovative ways to make a living as well as come up with new plans, be willing to change jobs, relearn, etc. But most people are not willing to do that. Why? Now just wait for the government to bail them out. I will not defend the corps that go off shore, but I find it hard to condemn them as well. IMHO that all started with Clinton and NAFTA. It is only because of the current round of massive layoffs that people are now willing to do anything to get by. You want to blame all of this on Corps and that is a simplistic view.

Maybe because they're too old? There is such a thing as ageism you know. Maybe there are no jobs out there. Some people cannot afford to move to places where jobs are more prevalent.

I have always blamed Clinton for the beginning of this. In addition, you don't seem to EVER want to lay the blame at the feet of greedy corporate pirates.

Who says it is their fault? Not me. Who says that corps and "rich people have chosen to hire illegal’s instead of giving jobs to Americans". That is a pretty damm broad sweeping list of allegations on which to blame all of the countries economic ills. I doubt you can back most of it up. How about Corps have gone where labor is cheap because it is a profit driven industry. You have this hard on for anyone who makes money. How about the companies have given jobs to people who are willing to work hard, not the slackers who would rather sit on their ass and complain about how the man is keeping them down and enslaving them while they spit out another baby from some baby daddy? How do you explain the Korean immigrants who moved to the most depressed parts of cities in America and opened hugely successful chains of grocery stores? How about the waves of immigrants from India or Pakistan and have opened huge successful chains of hotels and motels? Where is the American drive to do that among those who started with or had very little to do that? You can't blame Corps and "rich people" for all the ills of this Nation. That is a ridiculous notion. This country was founded on the tenacity, innovation, and investment of "rich people".

OMG. I am NOT defending women having babies when they are on welfare. Did you not READ my posts in the thread about that woman? Besides, you KNOW me better than that.

I have nothing but respect and goodwill toward immigrants who come here LEGALLY and make something of themselves. I DO have a beef with people who come here illegally and take jobs away from Americans and drive down wages. And some of those Americans are hardworking, and do a BETTER job, but they won't work for ridiculous pay. You actually KNOW SOMEONE in that situation. You know I'm telling the truth.

And I'm sorry, but profits should not be the bottom line. Corporations (and the people who own/run them) are allowed to prosper in this country. They should not get tax breaks (which they do) for going overseas to create jobs for cheap labor, in the name of the allmighty dollar, when they are going to bring their products back into the United States to sell. We should learn from the whole crash that Argentina suffered.

Rich people have prospered for the past 3-4 decades while wages for most everyone else have stagnanted. It's time they paid something back.

So people are greedy if they work hard to get an advanced education and take advantage of a system that rewards hard work? Wow. Envy much?

I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. And why is any ONE kind of work any more worthy than another? IT'S NOT. You are a classist.

Who gets to say who deserves what in this life? I don't disgree that we have huge sectors of our society that is underpaid and under appreciated. You can't defend a socialist construct to me. I don't buy it.

Well apparently those in power get to decide for the masses. Since they are WAY in the minority, they shouldn't get to do that. Especially when they prosper at the expense of everyone else and society as a whole.

And the millions of illegal aliens, and welfare mothers on the dole.

And I am against paying for illegals. But you throw around the word "welfare" very freely. What you really mean is poor people or the middle class who can't afford to pay for health care on their own, because it's SO fucking ridiculously expensive. THAT is because health care costs have risen exponentially for years, since Nixon made health care a business for profit. It never should have happened, and that has caused a HUGE problem in this country, for the people, and also for business. That is another reason why so many corporations have fled offshore, because the health care costs are so high. They can't compete with corporations in other comparable countries because those countries have government-sponsored health care paid for with taxes.

Many people would disagree with that. You completely ignore the revenue that is gained from attracting millions of people to the events where they then spend money on the local economy.

Why is up to taxpayers to pay for stadiums that aren't even in their state? That is ridiculous. It creates revenue for that city, but no one else. I think most of the people who would disagree are people who are profiting from the practice. In fact, why should taxpayers pay for shit like this at all? You rant against taxes and wasteful spending and "pork," well, this is frivolous pork, obviously.

Actually our high prices of medications pay for that, not our taxes. Get your facts straight.

Bullshit. My brother's wife was a VP for a big pharmaceutical company for many, many years. They are highly corrupt, and they don't pay for most of the research, the NIH pays for the research, and they are a government agency paid for with taxes. The high prices we pay (but no other country on earth pays, surprise surprise) pays for the ADVERTISEMENTS, NOT the research.

I agree we need to get some equilibrium back and inact a flat tax so every single person pays the same rate, regardless of income. You make $1000, you pay $200 to tax. You make $100,000, you pay $20,000. No one gets a pass.

No, if you make more, you can afford to PAY more. That is how it works. Until the society we live in is actually equal for everyone, which it isn't, then people who make more should pay more. IF the flat tax was more fair, then I would support it.

It disturbs me that you judge me about what I do and how I feel. I take care of people everyday who are less fortunate than me.

I am not judging what you do, I am judging your words. I know you take care of people, but what if someone came in who was dying, or seriously ill, and they had no health insurance and no way to pay for treatment? What then? I don't think good health care is only for rich people, or people who are still fortunate enough to have insurance through their work. I think it should be for every citizen of this country. Health care should not be about profit, it should be about helping people.

What if I did? I would sell my assets and start over. And that is why I pay so much for insurance.

And what if your insurance company decided they wouldn't pay for some reason? It happens more often than you think, to people who think they have good benefits. And what if you couldn't sell your house? What if you ended up on the street? Wouldn't you want some compassion from your government? Don't you think your taxes should insure you don't end up on the street through no fault of your own?

Why are you judging my feelings again? There is much I could tell you about my family and their plights in life but it doesn't change the situation they find themselves in right now. And nothing I can say or do will change any of that. How for one fucking minute can you say that because of the plight of your family that I don't have my own issues to deal with concerning family members? What? Because I am not willing to put them on some public board? When times get tough we focus on our own families and issues, not yours. I have no responsibility for your problems or your families, my plate is full.

I am judging your feelings, because you are judging mine. I was just giving you an example of how bad things are for people who did nothing to cause these problems, and who have worked as hard as you have, because you seem to think the only people who are in trouble are people who have been living beyond their means, who have not taken the time to educate themselves, or who have not worked as hard as you have. You seem to think only slackers are being negatively affected. That is a serious misconception on your part. I am only trying to make you see that. I apologize if it seems too personal. You know I love you, I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. My belief though, is that as a society, we are all obligated to that society. Our taxes should pay for stuff like this. To me, this is way more important than paying for sports stadiums, or other frivolous stuff.

Who said it was?

You implied it is the fault of people who lose their jobs and can't find another one. You have implied, over an over, that the collapse of the economy is not the fault of corporations and the people who run them, but of the people who have lost their jobs.

Well I know for one thing your simplistic view of who to blame is wrong.

Really? Please explain. I have tried to give you examples to show you how your thinking is flawed. Please, show me how I'm wrong.

[classicman]

Rich Americans Sue UBS to Keep Names Secret

UBS was sued on Tuesday in a Swiss federal court by wealthy American clients seeking to prevent the disclosure of their identities as part of a tax-evasion investigation by the United States Justice Department.

The lawsuit accuses UBS and Switzerland’s financial regulator, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, or Finma, of violating Swiss bank secrecy laws and of conducting what Swiss law considers illegal activities with foreign authorities. It also named Peter Kurer, the chairman of UBS, and Eugen Haltiner, the chairman of Finma, as defendants.

The suit, filed by a lawyer in Zurich, Andreas Rued, on behalf of nearly a dozen American clients, underscores the growing clash between Swiss banking secrecy laws and those of the United States. Tax evasion is not considered a crime in Switzerland. Disclosing client names under Swiss law is a criminal offense and can expose bank executives and officers to fines, prison terms and other penalties.

UBS is the world’s largest private bank and Switzerland is the world’s largest offshore tax haven, with trillions of dollars in assets.

The lawsuit, which UBS described in an internal memo late Tuesday, stems from UBS’s agreement last week to turn over to federal authorities in Washington the names of 250 wealthy Americans suspected of using secret UBS offshore accounts and entities to evade taxes.
UBS reached a $780 million deferred-prosecution agreement to settle accusations that it used undisclosed offshore private banking services to help wealthy Americans evade taxes. But the bank is still under scrutiny by the Justice Department, which is seeking to force it to disclose the names of the 52,000 American clients it suspects may have evaded taxes.

Mr. Rued could not be reached for comment.

Copyright © 2009 NYTimes.com. All rights reserved.

These guys should be outed - Period.

[Griff]

I'm glad I pulled my millions when they got off the gold standard.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Rich Americans Sue UBS to Keep Names Secret

This actually could become a very big deal if the names are exosed. I would like to see who is on that list.

[classicman]

Yup - I hope they are a bunch of politicians and banking or Wall Street execs. Then we can actually hold them accountable.

[TheMercenary]

I want to see the list of politicians, former and current that may be there. It would be perfect.

[sugarpop]

I hope they release ity as well. I'm sick to death of people getting away with crap like this, regardless of who they are (politicians, corporate pirates, etc.). I think they may be cooperating because rich pricks in America caused the economic collapse of the entire world.

[tw]

I remember those UBS commercials that were advertising moving money overseas to reduce taxes. Back then, I was asking myself how UBS could do this and not invite government investigation. Well, today we know why. A fox was in the hen house. Legalized corruption renamed as deregulation.

[classicman]

UBS AG Helps Fill Lawmakers' Coffers

Swiss bank UBS AG agreed today to pay $780 million to settle claims by the U.S. Department of Treasury that it helped American customers evade paying taxes by hiding their Swiss bank accounts from U.S. tax authorities. But that's not the only help that UBS has provided Americans. In the 2008 election cycle, the foreign bank's employees and PAC contributed $3.1 million to federal candidates (including candidate committees and leadership PACs), parties and PACs, 54 percent of which went to Democrats. Among all finance, insurance and real estate companies, UBS has given more campaign donations than all but six other companies. It also spent nearly $1.3 million lobbying between 2007 and 2008.

UBS not only split its funds between Republicans and Democrats, it also made sure to help out more than one presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle and directed its funds to a few of the higher ups of the finance-related congressional committees. Here are some of the notable recipients.

* President Obama collected more from employees of the company than any other candidate or party committee, bringing in $512,800 for his presidential bid. As a senator, Obama co-sponsored a bill, S. 681, in 2007 that would have gotten tougher on tax havens, and listed Switzerland, among others, as an "offshore secrecy jurisdiction." The bill didn't appear to make it past the Senate Committee on Finance.

* Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), came in second with $170,900.

* Former presidential candidate and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the top 10 individual recipients ($108,500), in addition to former presidential candidates Mitt Romney ($123,350) and Rudy Giuliani ($111,300).

* Former congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel collected $64,700. Emanuel received more from UBS than any other member of the House in the 2008 cycle.

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs brought in $61,500. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.


And just as the company has invested in lawmakers, a few have invested their personal funds in the foreign bank and its subsidiaries. In 2007, seven members of Congress had between $207,187 and $500,180 of their own funds invested in the bank. (Members of Congress report the value of their assets in ranges, making it impossible to calculate their exact worth.)
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) had the most invested at between $100,001 and $250,000. Others with money wrapped up in the bank include:
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif),
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.),
Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.),
Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas),
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Clinton.
For the complete list of recipients in the 2008 election cycle, download this file:
UBS Chart.xls

Originally Posted by tw

Legalized corruption renamed as deregulation.

They gave to both parties, but heavily favored the D's. This had nothing to do with deregulation and everything to do with buying politicians.

Also -

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.

How the heck is that legal? How can that not be the most blatant form of influence peddling? Conflict of interest anyone?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

They gave to both parties, but heavily favored the D's.

Again you got it backwards to promote wacko extremism. Republicans were in power then. Republicans got most of the money. Why purchase the party that had no power? Convenient when a staunch Republican takes every opportunity to take cheap shots at Democrats and Obama. classicman lied again.

Those USB contributions are for 2007 and 2008. But those advertisements and money laundering were being promoted somewhere around 2002/3.

Did classicman forget a Jack Abramoff scandel that set new records for corruption - exceeding all previous corruption by a factor of 10? Record corruption directly almost exclusively at Republicans such as Tom Delay. USB would be only one taking advantage of 'deregulation'.

Many think of the Caymans as a haven for money laundering and tax evasion. But the list of largest money trafficer includes some Pacific Islands and Israel was in the top five back then. Caymans did not even make the top ten as I recall. Who was the party to buy? Republicans were pushing all this 'deregulation' then.