Chessplayer on September 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM

How much spit do We The People deserve for our disgraceful, abject apathy?

Congress and presidents Clinton & Bush deserve our outrage for this economic disaster even more than the greedy bastards who profited. They are elected not just to try to deal with crisis but more to avoid them occuring in the first place if they can and this one did not require a crystal ball to have been avoided – the bubble was seen and complained about but congress mostly looks out only for itself. Most of them deserve our spit.

some of these comments border on insane. Why is it bad if Banks fail? How exactly does a bank fail, anyway? It’s investors run on it, that’s how. You people are loaning your money to the bank in the form or deposits. If everyone tries to save their own ass and get out, it will look like Argentina. The army defending the banks. Martial law will become a reality.

pc on September 25, 2008 at 6:49 AM

When a bank fails, it is arranged to be bought by another bank. The government could take that oppotunity to infuse capital by buying off bad debt from the failed institution only, instead of from everyone holding such paper whether the institution is solvent or not.

Goddamn fools asking for a depression. I do not understand you at all.

Help me understand exactly what happens if these banks fail.

yum… troll tastes like chicken.

CapedConservative on September 24, 2008 at 4:53 PM

So does rattlesnake.

Let’s re-set the table on this whole “Wall Street Meltdown” business.  In nutshell: Democrats, under the direction of the Clinton administration in 1999, took the Carter-originated Community Reinvestment Program, a boondoggle intended…

CC

Who created this Ponzi scheme? Congress did. Who demanded lower qualifiers for home mortgages and then insisted on having Fannie/Freddie turn them into investments to support the lenders? Congress did. The lenders share the responsibility as well, but without Fannie/Freddie making their bad lending decisions profitable, they would never have jumped into the sub-prime market with the kind of enthusiasm they did. Now Congress wants to leave them holding the bag and all the blame — and that’s pretty convenient for Congress.
Yes, and who co-sponsored and championed the legislation? And who supported him in Senate for the quest for de-regulation? And who went on to be the other’s economic advisor and called Americans whiners? And who has a small army of lobbyists including a campaign manager with long standing ties to financial and mortgage loan institutions? And who is all hell bent to get back to D.C. in a last minute attempt to deflect the heat that’s coming his way?

Fletch54 on September 24, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Permit me to clarify further….

Who created this Ponzi scheme? – Democrats
Who denied there was a problem when Bush pointed it out? – Democrats
Who voted down S.190? – Democrats
Who burdens our industry making them internationally uncompetitive? – Democrats
Who passes corporate tax laws sending business overseas? – Democrats
Who opposes oil exploration here? – Democrats
Who opposes drilling here? – Democrats
Who opposes nuclear here? – Democrats
Who opposes a strong military? – Democrats
Who insists we search 90 year old grandmothers instead of 25 year old Arab mulslims at airports? – Democrats
Who burdens small business with regulation? – Democrats
Who tries to use the courts as a legislative branch? – Democrats
Who wants to treat terrorists with full constitutional rights? – Democrats

Who appears to be making every honest effort to destroy the United States of America?

CC

Who created this Ponzi scheme? Congress did. Who demanded lower qualifiers for home mortgages and then insisted on having Fannie/Freddie turn them into investments to support the lenders? Congress did. The lenders share the responsibility as well, but without Fannie/Freddie making their bad lending decisions profitable, they would never have jumped into the sub-prime market with the kind of enthusiasm they did. Now Congress wants to leave them holding the bag and all the blame — and that’s pretty convenient for Congress.

Yes, and who co-sponsored and championed the legislation? And who supported him in Senate for the quest for de-regulation? And who went on to be the other’s economic advisor and called Americans whiners? And who has a small army of lobbyists including a campaign manager with long standing ties to financial and mortgage loan institutions? And who is all hell bent to get back to D.C. in a last minute attempt to deflect the heat that’s coming his way?

It’s a sticky mess we’re in. I don’t know if we’re going to get out of it. IrishSamurai — I feel worse than ever after reading your dang article, though I can see that guy definitely has an angle (who doesn’t?).

k2aggie07 on September 24, 2008 at 3:41 PM

That’s the other rub. Everyone’s got an agenda. Paulson. The author of that article. Everyone.

I just trust the author of the article more than I trust Paulson at this point cause he isn’t speaking generalities and spells out the problem in details.

Then I realized I’d be happier with a nice bonfire and some swinging bodies.

Shelby, DeMint now oppose bailout
It may be time for the Bush administration to start looking for a Plan
B. Two Republican Senators have now come out in opposition to the
Paulson bail-out plan, and with Democrats like Chris Dodd……

It’s a sticky mess we’re in. I don’t know if we’re going to get out of it. IrishSamurai — I feel worse than ever after reading your dang article, though I can see that guy definitely has an angle (who doesn’t?).

I just heard Maxine Watters expressing her concern… more speed in accomplishing the “loan modifications necessary” to keep people in their homes.

Golly. Let’s bail it out so we can keep doing the same stupid stuff. This is truly the Keystone Cops.

CC

CapedConservative on September 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM

You bet! Keep in mind this is the same maxine waters that said recently, “This liberal? THIS liberal would be for socializing… er, huh, taking over the oil industry.”

The mask has been off for a while now. Wish America would simply open their eyes and realize it. I actually think that’s happening, despite the open propaganda efforts of our media.

I just heard Maxine Watters expressing her concern… more speed in accomplishing the “loan modifications necessary” to keep people in their homes.

CapedConservative on September 24, 2008 at 3:24 PM

She’s speaking in sound bites for her local evening news. All of them are. She probably doesn’t understand clearly much of what Bernanke says anyway.

If you actually think that there wasn’t corruption and greed in the derivatives market at every financial institution, you need to read this article which articulates the point rather eloquently:

IrishSamurai on September 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM

I don’t doubt it. I’ll take a look at the article, thanks. There were many ingredients in this stew.

OK Patrick. I misunderstood. I thought you were one of those people who want 100% free markets. My sister is an auditor and she bemoans SOx to me all the time. I agree that it was a panacea that did nothing to prevent the type of scandals that prompted its creation.

How do you think we should address the rating issue Patrick? There is still some fundamental funk on these securities, even if theyre not forced to market.

k2aggie07 on September 24, 2008 at 2:59 PM

K2, I don’t know. I admit my career on the street was as a broker/trader. That stuff was on the institutional side. What I do know is that a more accurate analysis is always arrived at if it is not forced.

A second admittance. Even though I pound the table about mark to market, will it be a problem solver? I don’t know that either. What I do know based on past experience is that forced selling of what ever nature, limit downs etc, never arrives at true value. Don’t get me wrong, margin calls are a good thing, a time to reappraise. In fact they should never/rarely be met. However if the whole market gets a margin call on the same day I want to look at the trigger mechanism. At the moment that looks like this provision.

That said I would love to see what would happen if the SEC etc waived it akin to their constraining the ability to go short as they work on the bailout. You know, throw us a bone. Or if this analysis is wrong have them explain why without resorting to “just because, there might be a depression if we don’t act”.

Is that too much to ask?

And if that doesn’t work I’ll think of something different! Just kidding…