Congress grants the Executive branch the power to break up any company

[WillowTree]

Could you imagine the outcry from the loony left if Bush & Co. had done this?

Don't have to imagine, they whined and bellyached for eight solid years about "executive power" see you have to remember the folks on the loony left only give a shit about the country when they are in charge.

Pot, kettle.

I don't know how you can be both,, but it looks good on ya.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

REALLY? Then how come we had so many laons being defaulted on?

All of those loans were made previous to the economic meltdown...that's what CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS...is long term memory becoming a problem for you? I would seek medical attention immediately for that symptom.

So, are you saying they made these loans BEFORE, then took our money, but now all of a sudden became smart? How is this possible? Aren't they the ones paying out HUGE bonuses to reatin their best talent?

OK...history lesson time....
throughout the 90's and into the 21st century the lending restrictions and regulations were eased on Freddie and Fannie through legislation brought about by Frank and Dodd. As money became easier and easier to get...more and more borrowed. Then guess what happened in December of 2007? Right. The economy tanks. Jobs begin to disappear. As people burned through their savings to hold onto their McMansions..banks could no longer support interest payments on their borrowed money and derivative holdings....then we began losing more jobs...and the cycle continues...people with no money default on loans...by the millions!!!! Please VaYank...try to understand ...I can't make it much simpler than this. The government TARP was a bank/insurance company bailout and it's being repaid. The Stimulus was a huge grant to the States and Wall Street to keep the States functional and Wall Street working.

 

[VaYank5150]

All of those loans were made previous to the economic meltdown...that's what CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS...is long term memory becoming a problem for you? I would seek medical attention immediately for that symptom.

So, are you saying they made these loans BEFORE, then took our money, but now all of a sudden became smart? How is this possible? Aren't they the ones paying out HUGE bonuses to reatin their best talent?

OK...history lesson time....
throughout the 90's and into the 21st century the lending restrictions and regulations were eased on Freddie and Fannie through legislation brought about by Frank and Dodd. As money became easier and easier to get...more and more borrowed. Then guess what happened in December of 2007? Right. The economy tanks. Jobs begin to disappear. As people burned through their savings to hold onto their McMansions..banks could no longer support interest payments on their borrowed money and derivative holdings....then we began losing more jobs...and the cycle continues...people with no money default on loans...by the millions!!!! Please VaYank...try to understand ...I can't make it much simpler than this. The government TARP was a bank/insurance company bailout and it's being repaid. The Stimulus was a huge grant to the States and Wall Street to keep the States functional and Wall Street working.

Oh, I completely understand PP. So, you are saying that without the Freddie and Fannie legislation, these banks would have been making great decisions, right? That is your premise. So, which legilsation forced the banks and the AIGs of the world start investing in and trading credit default swaps? You DO know what a credit default swap is, right?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So, are you saying they made these loans BEFORE, then took our money, but now all of a sudden became smart? How is this possible? Aren't they the ones paying out HUGE bonuses to reatin their best talent?

OK...history lesson time....
throughout the 90's and into the 21st century the lending restrictions and regulations were eased on Freddie and Fannie through legislation brought about by Frank and Dodd. As money became easier and easier to get...more and more borrowed. Then guess what happened in December of 2007? Right. The economy tanks. Jobs begin to disappear. As people burned through their savings to hold onto their McMansions..banks could no longer support interest payments on their borrowed money and derivative holdings....then we began losing more jobs...and the cycle continues...people with no money default on loans...by the millions!!!! Please VaYank...try to understand ...I can't make it much simpler than this. The government TARP was a bank/insurance company bailout and it's being repaid. The Stimulus was a huge grant to the States and Wall Street to keep the States functional and Wall Street working.

Oh, I completely understand PP. So, you are saying that without the Freddie and Fannie legislation, these banks would have been making great decisions, right? That is your premise. So, which legilsation forced the banks and the AIGs of the world start investing in and trading credit default swaps? You DO know what a credit default swap is, right?

credit default swaps have been around for YEARS!!! but with deregulation they became the norm rather than the exception...the risk is huge...but with governments printing money like it was going out of style and banks giving it away by the wheelbarrow full there was no way one could lose....or so they thought. It was a Ponzi scheme the likes of which has never been seen!!!!
read this...
PBS Frontline: The Warning -- How Greenspan, Summers & Rubin Conspired To Silence Derivatives Whistleblower Brooksley Born - Home - The Daily Bail

 

[PatekPhilippe]

VaYank...I'm not trying to change your views with respect to politics...I would just like you to see the other side of the story.

 

[VaYank5150]

OK...history lesson time....
throughout the 90's and into the 21st century the lending restrictions and regulations were eased on Freddie and Fannie through legislation brought about by Frank and Dodd. As money became easier and easier to get...more and more borrowed. Then guess what happened in December of 2007? Right. The economy tanks. Jobs begin to disappear. As people burned through their savings to hold onto their McMansions..banks could no longer support interest payments on their borrowed money and derivative holdings....then we began losing more jobs...and the cycle continues...people with no money default on loans...by the millions!!!! Please VaYank...try to understand ...I can't make it much simpler than this. The government TARP was a bank/insurance company bailout and it's being repaid. The Stimulus was a huge grant to the States and Wall Street to keep the States functional and Wall Street working.

Oh, I completely understand PP. So, you are saying that without the Freddie and Fannie legislation, these banks would have been making great decisions, right? That is your premise. So, which legilsation forced the banks and the AIGs of the world start investing in and trading credit default swaps? You DO know what a credit default swap is, right?

credit default swaps have been around for YEARS!!! but with deregulation they became the norm rather than the exception...the risk is huge...but with governments printing money like it was going out of style and banks giving it away by the wheelbarrow full there was no way one could lose....or so they thought. It was a Ponzi scheme the likes of which has never been seen!!!!
read this...
PBS Frontline: The Warning -- How Greenspan, Summers & Rubin Conspired To Silence Derivatives Whistleblower Brooksley*Born - Home - The Daily Bail

So, are you admitting that the loaning of money to individuals who should not have gotten loans was not the only reason these institutions deemed "too big to fail" were bailed out?

 

[Barb]

And yet i cant find a thread on it. I cant imagine that this is a good thing.

Today, people forget that U.S. corporations, or "corpses", as this ratitor thinks of them, were extremely limited in their powers and influence prior to the Civil War. We have much to re-learn regarding the facts of how citizens, at the time of the revolution of 1776 and afterwards, gave state legislatures the power to control the "crown corporations" they had had painful, personal experience of and suffered under, from the likes of the original American "Crown Colonys" -- which were companys -- of the King of England, as well as the Hudson's Bay Company and the East India Trading companies of Europe.

In the detailed and highly recommendable 32-page booklet, Taking Care of Business, Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation, the authors lay out how citizens, in the early days of this system of governance, constitutionalized the legal standing of "We The People" as a fundamental mechanism for controlling and limiting the destructive influence created by unbridled and unlimited concentrations of wealth:

When we look at the history of our states, we learn that citizens intentionally defined corporations through charters--the certificates of incorporation.

In exchange for the charter, a corporation was obligated to obey all laws, to serve the common good, and to cause no harm. Early state legislators wrote charter laws and actual charters to limit corporate authority, and to ensure that when a corporation caused harm, they could revoke its charter. . .

Our right to charter corporations is as crucial to self-government as our right to vote. Both are basic franchises, essential tools of liberty. . .

The colonists did not make a revolution over a tax on tea. They fought for many reasons, but chiefly to create a nation where citizens were the government and ruled corporations. . .

They knew that English kings chartered the East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company and many American colonies in order to control property and commerce. Kings appointed governors and judges, dispatched soldiers, dictated taxes, investments, production, labor and markets. . .

Having thrown off English rule, the revolutionaries did not give governors, judges or generals the authority to charter corporations. Citizens made certain that legislators issued charters, one at a time and for a limited number of years. They kept a tight hold on corporations by spelling out rules each business had to follow, by holding business owners liable for harms or injuries, and by revoking charters.

But throughout the 1800s, especially after the Civil War, "nder pressure from industrialists and bankers, a handful of 19th century judges gave corporations more rights in property than human beings enjoyed in their persons."(Ibid):

The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment [(even though that amendment had been written and ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves) [3]] , which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of "persons." Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on "equal terms" with neighborhood businesses and individuals. "There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view," Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later. [4]

Ending Corporate Governance: Revoking Our Plutocracy

Deregulation and failure to enforce antitrust laws for the last who knows how many years notwithstanding, this IS a good thing, and past time in coming.

 

[Care4all]

Kiinda hard to find a link if the MSM ain't covering it. Just sayin.

Then why even start a thread about it? It makes the OP look lilke he is trying to make something up. Just sayin'.

I recall you're the guy who never picks up a newspaper and never reads the news. Just sayin.
House approves financial regulation overhaul - Yahoo! News

In addition to systemic risk regulation and the CFPA, the broader House bill would give the government new powers over large banks and set up new protocols for dealing with large firms, known as "too big to fail," that get into trouble.

It would also impose new curbs on executive pay, strengthen

protections for investors and, for the first time, set up a federal office to monitor the insurance industry.

More at the source.

The bill says nothing about the executive branch having the say all be all, as the person writing the op said?

Also, is there anything in this Bill that you agree needed to be done? Or are you just flat out against it all, and if so....WHY?

Care

 

[Claudette]

Gee. I wonder if the Federal Govt could be deemed to big to fail?????

 

[Barb]

And yet i cant find a thread on it. I cant imagine that this is a good thing.

Hmmm....seeing as how you started THIS thread, one would have thought YOU would provide the link to support your thread? Just sayin'.

Kiinda hard to find a link if the MSM ain't covering it. Just sayin.

Geeze, try google.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Oh, I completely understand PP. So, you are saying that without the Freddie and Fannie legislation, these banks would have been making great decisions, right? That is your premise. So, which legilsation forced the banks and the AIGs of the world start investing in and trading credit default swaps? You DO know what a credit default swap is, right?

credit default swaps have been around for YEARS!!! but with deregulation they became the norm rather than the exception...the risk is huge...but with governments printing money like it was going out of style and banks giving it away by the wheelbarrow full there was no way one could lose....or so they thought. It was a Ponzi scheme the likes of which has never been seen!!!!
read this...
PBS Frontline: The Warning -- How Greenspan, Summers & Rubin Conspired To Silence Derivatives Whistleblower Brooksley*Born - Home - The Daily Bail

So, are you admitting that the loaning of money to individuals who should not have gotten loans was not the only reason these institutions deemed "too big to fail" were bailed out?

I'm not admitting anything...I'm telling you what my opinion is....

If you have a person who is approached by a bank and asked if they would like a 100k credit line so the bank can bundle up their new mortgage into a mortgage derivative "bond" and sell it and that person lies on their application then yes not only should that person NOT have gotten the loan but the bank shouldn't have lent it. The agencies and banks deemed to big to fail were not only tied to bad American investments...but worldwide bad investments. That's what is meant by "to big to fail". They were beholden to foreign investment houses as well as American ones.

 

[Barb]

Could you imagine the outcry from the loony left if Bush & Co. had done this?

Yeah, like that was gonna happen

 

[VaYank5150]

credit default swaps have been around for YEARS!!! but with deregulation they became the norm rather than the exception...the risk is huge...but with governments printing money like it was going out of style and banks giving it away by the wheelbarrow full there was no way one could lose....or so they thought. It was a Ponzi scheme the likes of which has never been seen!!!!
read this...
PBS Frontline: The Warning -- How Greenspan, Summers & Rubin Conspired To Silence Derivatives Whistleblower Brooksley*Born - Home - The Daily Bail

So, are you admitting that the loaning of money to individuals who should not have gotten loans was not the only reason these institutions deemed "too big to fail" were bailed out?

I'm not admitting anything...I'm telling you what my opinion is....

If you have a person who is approached by a bank and asked if they would like a 100k credit line so the bank can bundle up their new mortgage into a mortgage derivative "bond" and sell it and that person lies on their application then yes not only should that person NOT have gotten the loan but the bank shouldn't have lent it. The agencies and banks deemed to big to fail were not only tied to bad American investments...but worldwide bad investments. That's what is meant by "to big to fail". They were beholden to foreign investment houses as well as American ones.

And yet these same institutions are preparing to dole out BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses in order to keep their "talent"????

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So, are you admitting that the loaning of money to individuals who should not have gotten loans was not the only reason these institutions deemed "too big to fail" were bailed out?

I'm not admitting anything...I'm telling you what my opinion is....

If you have a person who is approached by a bank and asked if they would like a 100k credit line so the bank can bundle up their new mortgage into a mortgage derivative "bond" and sell it and that person lies on their application then yes not only should that person NOT have gotten the loan but the bank shouldn't have lent it. The agencies and banks deemed to big to fail were not only tied to bad American investments...but worldwide bad investments. That's what is meant by "to big to fail". They were beholden to foreign investment houses as well as American ones.

And yet these same institutions are preparing to dole out BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses in order to keep their "talent"????

If they have government bailout money they can't do that...oh...wait Barry granted some a waiver of that rule...as well as the salary cap....and it is Christmas...and that means it's bonus time for Wall Street...so say goodbye to more Stimulus grant money!!!

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm not admitting anything...I'm telling you what my opinion is....

If you have a person who is approached by a bank and asked if they would like a 100k credit line so the bank can bundle up their new mortgage into a mortgage derivative "bond" and sell it and that person lies on their application then yes not only should that person NOT have gotten the loan but the bank shouldn't have lent it. The agencies and banks deemed to big to fail were not only tied to bad American investments...but worldwide bad investments. That's what is meant by "to big to fail". They were beholden to foreign investment houses as well as American ones.

And yet these same institutions are preparing to dole out BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses in order to keep their "talent"????

If they have government bailout money they can't do that...oh...wait Barry granted some a waiver of that rule...as well as the salary cap....and it is Christmas...and that means it's bonus time for Wall Street...so say goodbye to more Stimulus grant money!!!

In the end, IMHO, this proposed legislation is a good idea. No longer will the American taxpayer be called upon to bail out businesses deemed "too big to fail". Not they ever should have t begin with....

 

[Care4all]

The right to REGULATE does not grant the right to break up just because the President doesn't think they are creating enough jobs.

And where do you get this crapola of yours from? link up.

And if memory serves, the government does have the right to break up monopolies, so what are you saying, they really don't????

care

RETARD ALERT, Retard alert.

Monopolies are bad for business. They cause price fixing and destroy competition and destroy business. Breaking up Companies cause they don't hire enough people according to the current Administration is NOT the same thing.

Please tell me, where are you getting this information that in this bill, power is given to the Executive branch, to break up companies because of who they hire? THIS is the information that I can not find, and I would appreciate you linking me up to this comment of yours.

IF this is true, and as you state, I doubt I would agree to it either.... but I can't find it, to prove it is true or not true....with the details of how that would be set up???

so once again, I am asking, where did you get this information from...?

Care

 

[VaYank5150]

And where do you get this crapola of yours from? link up.

And if memory serves, the government does have the right to break up monopolies, so what are you saying, they really don't????

care

RETARD ALERT, Retard alert.

Monopolies are bad for business. They cause price fixing and destroy competition and destroy business. Breaking up Companies cause they don't hire enough people according to the current Administration is NOT the same thing.

Please tell me, where are you getting this information that in this bill, power is given to the Executive branch, to break up companies because of who they hire? THIS is the information that I can not find, and I would appreciate you linking me up to this comment of yours.

IF this is true, and as you state, I doubt I would agree to it either.... but I can't find it, to prove it is true or not true....with the details of how that would be set up???

so once again, I am asking, where did you get this information from...?

Care

Oh boy.....are you actually looking for FACTS, Care? Good luck with that one.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

And yet these same institutions are preparing to dole out BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses in order to keep their "talent"????

If they have government bailout money they can't do that...oh...wait Barry granted some a waiver of that rule...as well as the salary cap....and it is Christmas...and that means it's bonus time for Wall Street...so say goodbye to more Stimulus grant money!!!

In the end, IMHO, this proposed legislation is a good idea. No longer will the American taxpayer be called upon to bail out businesses deemed "too big to fail". Not they ever should have t begin with....

When the government steps in to break up a company, what does that mean? It means they are assholes and elbows in debt...guess who pays off the creditors once Uncle Sam owns said failing company....hint...YOU AND ME AND THE REST OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obama is threatening business and banks right now to hire more people. It was JUST in the news. Give him the power to destroy business and Companies and that becomes one of the threats he will use.

Current events is not VaYank, Careforall or the liberals strong suit when it comes to their loved leaders.

 

[VaYank5150]

If they have government bailout money they can't do that...oh...wait Barry granted some a waiver of that rule...as well as the salary cap....and it is Christmas...and that means it's bonus time for Wall Street...so say goodbye to more Stimulus grant money!!!

In the end, IMHO, this proposed legislation is a good idea. No longer will the American taxpayer be called upon to bail out businesses deemed "too big to fail". Not they ever should have t begin with....

When the government steps in to break up a company, what does that mean? It means they are assholes and elbows in debt...guess who pays off the creditors once Uncle Sam owns said failing company....hint...YOU AND ME AND THE REST OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.

But, I bet you we taxpayers won't be paying for BILLIONS in bonuses the following year to retain their "talent"....