100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Where does it stop? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Tue 03/24/09 11:20 PM
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the same article earlier today. I still stand behind my statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. Oops, she is going to come up with words of some "expert". Why can't you just trust Obama, a popped eye racer that clenched the steering wheel and terribly over steers out of his "foresight" of an incoming corner, only to lose traction and crash into an opposing one? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. Well, it's only at the proposal stage now. It sounds like he's panicking about our economic crisis to me. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They may not be marxist (I agree with you there) but they are trying to expand the federal government's power beyond all prior limits. This is all part of a master plan. Our emotions were taken advantage of and "we" (not willingly over here) gave us our civil liberties almost 8 years ago with the Patriot Act - my how we so soon forget. It IS something to keep our eyes on, Andrew. No, I won't forget that Patriot Act. I'm just thinking that they could be thinking of desperate moves to try to help keep the economy from getting worse. AIG is proof that throwing money at a company is not the way to fix a problem. We're so far in at this point and no better than when we started. Desperation and panic are not the traits of a good leader. We need stability. If geithner cannot provide it, he needs to step down. Andrew, The way things have been going didn't work. Something has to change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. I answered all of that. If you want the country to go into a depression that is on you. I cannot tell you what to want for this country. I have watched the experts and read the experts who know way more than I do and I understand what they are saying and why. My logic is good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. Well, it's only at the proposal stage now. It sounds like he's panicking about our economic crisis to me. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They may not be marxist (I agree with you there) but they are trying to expand the federal government's power beyond all prior limits. This is all part of a master plan. Our emotions were taken advantage of and "we" (not willingly over here) gave us our civil liberties almost 8 years ago with the Patriot Act - my how we so soon forget. It IS something to keep our eyes on, Andrew. No, I won't forget that Patriot Act. I'm just thinking that they could be thinking of desperate moves to try to help keep the economy from getting worse. AIG is proof that throwing money at a company is not the way to fix a problem. We're so far in at this point and no better than when we started. Desperation and panic are not the traits of a good leader. We need stability. If geithner cannot provide it, he needs to step down. Andrew, The way things have been going didn't work. Something has to change. it's worked for almost 40 years. the beauty is it fixes itself. why do we need to change it now? Give me some real thought into the subject. Economics is one of my strong points. i'll admit that at this point in this thread I'm just being a ****. If dragoness cannot back up her own responses, I assume she's just spewing the same old talking points with no real additional processing or thought. if that's her deal, it's her deal. i do not, however, give any respect to anyone that will call me out on my answers and calls them inaccurate with no real support. her hands wrote a check. her mind needs to cash it or she needs to stay out of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. I answered all of that. If you want the country to go into a depression that is on you. I cannot tell you what to want for this country. I have watched the experts and read the experts who know way more than I do and I understand what they are saying and why. My logic is good. I must have missed the answers. all I saw were statements. and what "experts?" oh, you mean the ones that didn't see all this coming. the ones on BSNBC and everything. where is your logic? that's what I want to see here. all i've seen is statements and talking points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. Well, it's only at the proposal stage now. It sounds like he's panicking about our economic crisis to me. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They may not be marxist (I agree with you there) but they are trying to expand the federal government's power beyond all prior limits. This is all part of a master plan. Our emotions were taken advantage of and "we" (not willingly over here) gave us our civil liberties almost 8 years ago with the Patriot Act - my how we so soon forget. It IS something to keep our eyes on, Andrew. No, I won't forget that Patriot Act. I'm just thinking that they could be thinking of desperate moves to try to help keep the economy from getting worse. AIG is proof that throwing money at a company is not the way to fix a problem. We're so far in at this point and no better than when we started. Desperation and panic are not the traits of a good leader. We need stability. If geithner cannot provide it, he needs to step down. Andrew, The way things have been going didn't work. Something has to change. it's worked for almost 40 years. the beauty is it fixes itself. why do we need to change it now? Give me some real thought into the subject. Economics is one of my strong points. i'll admit that at this point in this thread I'm just being a ****. If dragoness cannot back up her own responses, I assume she's just spewing the same old talking points with no real additional processing or thought. if that's her deal, it's her deal. i do not, however, give any respect to anyone that will call me out on my answers and calls them inaccurate with no real support. her hands wrote a check. her mind needs to cash it or she needs to stay out of it. It's not working now. My Grandparents and parents have told me how difficult the depression was for them. We can't go there again. Do you feel that we need to go there to fix ourselves? Our society is very different from those days. It would be uglier. Something has to change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. I answered all of that. If you want the country to go into a depression that is on you. I cannot tell you what to want for this country. I have watched the experts and read the experts who know way more than I do and I understand what they are saying and why. My logic is good. I must have missed the answers. all I saw were statements. and what "experts?" oh, you mean the ones that didn't see all this coming. the ones on BSNBC and everything. where is your logic? that's what I want to see here. all i've seen is statements and talking points. Just because I called your post in accurate and I stand behind what I said, is no reason to get yourself all in a tizzy. I know I am right. And unlike you, I don't have to prove myself, I already know I am correct. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. Well, it's only at the proposal stage now. It sounds like he's panicking about our economic crisis to me. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They may not be marxist (I agree with you there) but they are trying to expand the federal government's power beyond all prior limits. This is all part of a master plan. Our emotions were taken advantage of and "we" (not willingly over here) gave us our civil liberties almost 8 years ago with the Patriot Act - my how we so soon forget. It IS something to keep our eyes on, Andrew. No, I won't forget that Patriot Act. I'm just thinking that they could be thinking of desperate moves to try to help keep the economy from getting worse. AIG is proof that throwing money at a company is not the way to fix a problem. We're so far in at this point and no better than when we started. Desperation and panic are not the traits of a good leader. We need stability. If geithner cannot provide it, he needs to step down. Andrew, The way things have been going didn't work. Something has to change. it's worked for almost 40 years. the beauty is it fixes itself. why do we need to change it now? Give me some real thought into the subject. Economics is one of my strong points. i'll admit that at this point in this thread I'm just being a ****. If dragoness cannot back up her own responses, I assume she's just spewing the same old talking points with no real additional processing or thought. if that's her deal, it's her deal. i do not, however, give any respect to anyone that will call me out on my answers and calls them inaccurate with no real support. her hands wrote a check. her mind needs to cash it or she needs to stay out of it. It's not working now. My Grandparents and parents have told me how difficult the depression was for them. We can't go there again. Do you feel that we need to go there to fix ourselves? Our society is very different from those days. It would be uglier. Something has to change. but all i hear is change. it's never anything but this "government handles it all" answer and there's never any real logic behind anyone's answer. why do we need to go this route? why must the government assume 86% of the risk with these assets while not reaping 86% of the reward? Why must the government do everything? I think it's abundantly clear that government has been a large portion of the problem up to this point - why should we trust them to fix it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried to keep a open mind on the whole bale out program.I know that one of the reasons the government is loaning so much money out to some of these companies is because they don't want them to be bought out and owned by countries like Iran and China.
But this is nothing new.Huge companies have failed before and the government did nothing.They govenment didn't do anything during the dot com implosion.Why should this be any different? Despite throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem it hasn't changed anything.You still have the same failed,bankrupt,company. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried to keep a open mind on the whole bale out program.I know that one of the reasons the government is loaning so much money out to some of these companies is because they don't want them to be bought out and owned by countries like Iran and China. But this is nothing new.Huge companies have failed before and the government did nothing.They govenment didn't do anything during the dot com implosion.Why should this be any different? Despite throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem it hasn't changed anything.You still have the same failed,bankrupt,company. Not to mention that they're going to infuse several trillion into the marketplace in order to do so. $1.2 in buying back securities, over $800B potentially in order to get this bad debt. $787 billion in bailouts, another $75B for mortgages. the still record deficit built into last year's budget inflation is coming. and we are going to get caught with our pants down when it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. I answered all of that. If you want the country to go into a depression that is on you. I cannot tell you what to want for this country. I have watched the experts and read the experts who know way more than I do and I understand what they are saying and why. My logic is good. I must have missed the answers. all I saw were statements. and what "experts?" oh, you mean the ones that didn't see all this coming. the ones on BSNBC and everything. where is your logic? that's what I want to see here. all i've seen is statements and talking points. Just because I called your post in accurate and I stand behind what I said, is no reason to get yourself all in a tizzy. I know I am right. And unlike you, I don't have to prove myself, I already know I am correct. so you admit you can't defend them? I'm correct in assuming you're just regurgitating then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. why is the government the only one that can buy up the assets? why will the banks be in severe trouble? how will this result in a depression? What are the leading factors that give that indication? I just want a little insight into your logic. I answered all of that. If you want the country to go into a depression that is on you. I cannot tell you what to want for this country. I have watched the experts and read the experts who know way more than I do and I understand what they are saying and why. My logic is good. I must have missed the answers. all I saw were statements. and what "experts?" oh, you mean the ones that didn't see all this coming. the ones on BSNBC and everything. where is your logic? that's what I want to see here. all i've seen is statements and talking points. Just because I called your post in accurate and I stand behind what I said, is no reason to get yourself all in a tizzy. I know I am right. And unlike you, I don't have to prove myself, I already know I am correct. so you admit you can't defend them? I'm correct in assuming you're just regurgitating then? Nope not correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok guys, if you all think your on the rigth track and Obama is not, please spell out what would happen if we just let them ALL fail, and please include all that is involved with all these companies and all the companies and emplyees dependent on these companies?
I am not being a smartass here, I want to know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok guys, if you all think your on the rigth track and Obama is not, please spell out what would happen if we just let them ALL fail, and please include all that is involved with all these companies and all the companies and emplyees dependent on these companies? I am not being a smartass here, I want to know. Psst, make them leave out all "conspiracy to take over the country" parts too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok guys, if you all think your on the rigth track and Obama is not, please spell out what would happen if we just let them ALL fail, and please include all that is involved with all these companies and all the companies and emplyees dependent on these companies? I am not being a smartass here, I want to know. The company fails (bankruptcy). Many lose their jobs while the company restructures itself or starts to sell off assets. if the company dissolves, everyone loses their job. The assets will likely be used to form new companies in the area taking up some of those unemployed. The rest of the unemployed should have done more to make them selves more appealing to employers. They will have to look elsewhere. Over time, the economy will recover. Businesses and their execs/owners will realize the potential for failure and that the government will not bail them out if they **** up and will adjust business plans accordingly. We have real, strong recovery on a new backbone of those that were smart enough to be responsible in the first place (credit unions for example are doing very well as a whole still) and we learn from our mistakes. as of now, all we have learned is that if you're in a large company, the government will not let you fail. You can take unnecessary risks and if you fail, you still end up with very little negative impact. I never said it'd be painless. I never said it would be easy or fair. Capitalism is economics. Economics is a science. there is no room for feelings and fairness in science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok guys, if you all think your on the rigth track and Obama is not, please spell out what would happen if we just let them ALL fail, and please include all that is involved with all these companies and all the companies and emplyees dependent on these companies? I am not being a smartass here, I want to know. The company fails (bankruptcy). Many lose their jobs while the company restructures itself or starts to sell off assets. if the company dissolves, everyone loses their job. The assets will likely be used to form new companies in the area taking up some of those unemployed. The rest of the unemployed should have done more to make them selves more appealing to employers. They will have to look elsewhere. Over time, the economy will recover. Businesses and their execs/owners will realize the potential for failure and that the government will not bail them out if they **** up and will adjust business plans accordingly. We have real, strong recovery on a new backbone of those that were smart enough to be responsible in the first place (credit unions for example are doing very well as a whole still) and we learn from our mistakes. as of now, all we have learned is that if you're in a large company, the government will not let you fail. You can take unnecessary risks and if you fail, you still end up with very little negative impact. I never said it'd be painless. I never said it would be easy or fair. Capitalism is economics. Economics is a science. there is no room for feelings and fairness in science. Well I do agree we are sending some if not all companies the wrong message by bailing them out with no consequences, that makes me madder than a wet hornet, but at the same time I don't know that you are taking into account all the small businesses and employees that depend on those companies. Look I am no economist, I have no bloody idea what Obama is doing, though I suspect that those in the administration didn't get there by being dumb, so they must have a method to their madness, I would just like to understand what it is they are doing but that still might very well go over my head. Yes I hear you guys think he is completely going in another direction, but economists cant all agree here either. So it's frustrating as all hell to understand either side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok guys, if you all think your on the rigth track and Obama is not, please spell out what would happen if we just let them ALL fail, and please include all that is involved with all these companies and all the companies and emplyees dependent on these companies? I am not being a smartass here, I want to know. The company fails (bankruptcy). Many lose their jobs while the company restructures itself or starts to sell off assets. if the company dissolves, everyone loses their job. The assets will likely be used to form new companies in the area taking up some of those unemployed. The rest of the unemployed should have done more to make them selves more appealing to employers. They will have to look elsewhere. Over time, the economy will recover. Businesses and their execs/owners will realize the potential for failure and that the government will not bail them out if they **** up and will adjust business plans accordingly. We have real, strong recovery on a new backbone of those that were smart enough to be responsible in the first place (credit unions for example are doing very well as a whole still) and we learn from our mistakes. as of now, all we have learned is that if you're in a large company, the government will not let you fail. You can take unnecessary risks and if you fail, you still end up with very little negative impact. I never said it'd be painless. I never said it would be easy or fair. Capitalism is economics. Economics is a science. there is no room for feelings and fairness in science. Well I do agree we are sending some if not all companies the wrong message by bailing them out with no consequences, that makes me madder than a wet hornet, but at the same time I don't know that you are taking into account all the small businesses and employees that depend on those companies. Look I am no economist, I have no bloody idea what Obama is doing, though I suspect that those in the administration didn't get there by being dumb, so they must have a method to their madness, I would just like to understand what it is they are doing but that still might very well go over my head. Yes I hear you guys think he is completely going in another direction, but economists cant all agree here either. So it's frustrating as all hell to understand either side. No I fully understand it will be massive negative impact. I am a proponent of this mindset because 1. I believe government has no place in the marketplace, and 2. it's the only option I've seen thus far that enforces a positive ideal to those that are currently caught up in the middle. IMO, the bailouts are more politically motivated than economically. there are many on wall street that have given good money to those in washington... the good old boys in washington wouldn't want to let some of their best financiers down, now would they? for the record, Dodd and Obama are in the top 3 recipients from AIG. how's that for conflict of interest. personally, I think every national campaign should be given federal funds and could use only those funds for the campaign and private parties are not allowed to get involved either. it'd be way cheaper than paying out to special interests that's for sure. everyone in washington is dirty. That's why I laugh and scoff at those who think this is any real kind of change. It's now obama and the democrats' turn to repay the favors. "Democracy's become a tattered vision of truth, the corporate sponsorship raping and ruining the land. Do you think what you say will make it any better, yeah it's been this way two hundred years, it's gonna stay this way forever." --Strung Out, "In Harm's Way" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Had the economy not been in a dive, none of this would have happened anyway so to say it is a control move or tit for tat on campaign contributions is mute at that level. We have never had to bail out at this level before because the economy was not as bad off before.
|
|
|
|
|
