Government Takeover? It sure looks that way.

[code1211]

Sorry, but I know too many people personally who have been devasted financially by what started as a huge securities ripoff by the very lending institutions which apparently now have your deepest sympathy, as they fully intend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.

The intricacies of those hellish deals are still not completely understood, even by economists holding Ph.D's. Who knew until the night before that even BofA was also in trouble? Do we really know that's on the books of BB&T? What do you suppose they intend to do with the troubled assets they recently purchased from bankrupt Colonial Bank? Nobody else wanted that albatross. As Paulson reminded everyone at the pinnacle of this disaster, with the banking industry, it's all about "liquidity."

You can defend them all you want and inject your political ideology to justify that, but if anyone's going to prison, it should be the greedy bastards who thought they could get away with it.

Maggie, these people were operating their businesses under the regulations laid upon them by Congress. And hell yeah, some were certainly taking advantage. But that's the REASON we bother with regulation at all... to keep that from happening.

The proposed "fees" are politically motivated. They're designed to cause division through class warfare, to unify the base, and to deflect the blame for poor regulation and poor enforcement.... to cover their own asses. This administration is harnessing the misery of our economically wounded citizens to its own advantage as political capital.

Of course, both parties share in the guilt, but people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who have spent their careers making an unholy mess of this thing are riding point on it. Instead of taking responsibility for their own screw-ups, now that their incompetence has created REAL DAMAGE, they're pointing the finger of blame at somebody else. Worse... they're doing the same things that caused the problems. Again, loosening lending standards and guaranteeing risky loans.

It's like bad parenting really. Leave the cookie jar out on the floor without explicit instruction to stay out of it, and then blame the kids when they take a cookie. Greed is as common to human nature as compassion. The whole purpose of "regulating" is to confine it.



For our purposes on this thread, it's not about "political ideology"... it's simpler than that. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Our national ideology abhors punishment without trial or any other kind of deviation from the assumption of innocence until guilt is PROVED. So, if the financial industry, or members of it, broke the law... why aren't they being tried and then punished?

You know, if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, I feel confident that we'd all agree that 'Extortion is always wrong' and that 'Guilt should be established before punishment'. I think, again if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, we'd likely both agree that the law should be applied to all Americans EQUALLY and without bias.

Political motivation? At this point, I really wonder just who is politicizing this. If Republicans were in charge and proposed such a "fee" (because the public is very, very angry at mega-banks these days), I do believe Republicans/conservatives/whateverpeoplecallthemselvestoday would be shouting hallelelujah.

The TARP was intended to stabalize the banks. The banks are stable, have paid back the TARP funds and now are making money.

That is a success story.

Conservatives believe that success should be rewarded while Liberals feel that success should be punished. The fact that Liberals want to punish this particular success is nothing new.

If a politician wants this, he is not a Conservative whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. Anybody who proposes or suppports this is a Liberal so the party I.D. is meaningless. Always has been and always will be.

 

[code1211]

The circus will begin once this gets to Congress, which must approve it, so until then I wouldn't get my panties in a wad.

They plan to attach it to the 2011 Budget Bill and have it effective by June. They're hoping that by "harnessing" the anger of voters, we won't make a ruckus about it when they bring the budget to the floor... and that by directing this anger onto the banks, we won't remember who REALLY caused this mess come November.

What's really sad is that such ploys are needed at all. If we didn't have a just-say-no Republican minority, which is already exploiting this issue so that there's no way in hell it won't be "remembered," some kind of bipartisan solution could be had.

This is one of those tree falling in the woods things, isn't it. If the Minority says, "no" and nobody listens, did they really say it?

The whole point is the Majority is not listening.

 

[code1211]

What's really sad is that such ploys are needed at all. If we didn't have a just-say-no Republican minority, which is already exploiting this issue so that there's no way in hell it won't be "remembered," some kind of bipartisan solution could be had.

Sometimes 'no' is the right answer. Certainly it is on this health care mess, cap-and-scam, card-check, and all this reckless spending.

And on a side-note, there has been ZERO "bipartisanship" offered. Not since 'Day 1' on the Porkulus package. Obama allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to set the tone in Congress. What he should have done is INSIST upon a bipartisan effort from the beginning, and he should have followed up by sending anything they brought him that wasn't "bipartisan" back for a rewrite. But instead, he propped Nancy up on "We-won-so-we-write-the-bill".

He has only himself to blame for the increase in partisan bickering. It's been due to his failure to provide real leadership on the matter. And that, in direct opposition to his pledges on the campaign trail.

Who could possibly have suspected that a man who is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine Politics would turn out to be a political hack with no intention of ever forming a bi-partisan coalition to govern.

Man-o-man! What a Shocker!

 

[Conspiracist]

Because all I see is Obama wanting his bailout money back.

Typical bleeding heart. It's not HIS.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Come on people we all know that governments exist ONLY to help the citizens under their care. Have faith, they just need a group hug.

 

[MaggieMae]

Political motivation? At this point, I really wonder just who is politicizing this. If Republicans were in charge and proposed such a "fee" (because the public is very, very angry at mega-banks these days), I do believe Republicans/conservatives/whateverpeoplecallthemselvestoday would be shouting hallelelujah.

Should people make their personal opinions on whether extortion should be tolerated or people should be penalized for crimes not established.. based on affiliation to a political party?

I, for one, can assure you... that I do not.

This proposed "fee" is wrong... because its wrong. It doesn't even begin to take into consideration the American ideology of justice and equality that we should be able to agree upon REGARDLESS of party.

So much for moral obligations, I suppose.

"The financial sector is reluctant to own up to its failings. Part of the moral behavior and individual responsibility is to accept blame when it is due. Yet bankers have repeatedly worked hard to shift blame to others, including to those they victimized. In today's financial markets, almost everyone claims innocence. They were all just doing their jobs..." [Joseph Stiglitz]

Extortion is masqueraded in many ways.

 

[MaggieMae]

What's really sad is that such ploys are needed at all. If we didn't have a just-say-no Republican minority, which is already exploiting this issue so that there's no way in hell it won't be "remembered," some kind of bipartisan solution could be had.

Sometimes 'no' is the right answer. Certainly it is on this health care mess, cap-and-scam, card-check, and all this reckless spending.

And on a side-note, there has been ZERO "bipartisanship" offered. Not since 'Day 1' on the Porkulus package. Obama allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to set the tone in Congress. What he should have done is INSIST upon a bipartisan effort from the beginning, and he should have followed up by sending anything they brought him that wasn't "bipartisan" back for a rewrite. But instead, he propped Nancy up on "We-won-so-we-write-the-bill".

He has only himself to blame for the increase in partisan bickering. It's been due to his failure to provide real leadership on the matter. And that, in direct opposition to his pledges on the campaign trail.

On some of those points I agree. Obama never should have turned any spending program directly over to Pelosi, but in all fairness, I do believe at least at the outset that he believed constitutionally HE shouldn't be the one writing the bills or interfering with what Congress does in the creation of bills. But as time goes on, Obama definitely needs to be more asssertive and play a larger role.

As for "spending," I'm still of the opinion that spending on domestic issues was placed on hold far too long in favor of war spending (and all the tentacles involved). Conservatives now believe we should spend zip on anything at all, after years of passing everything the Republicans asked for.

You have your opinions on what will work and what won't on specific issues, and I have mine. Health care DOES need to be reformed since it IS a huge part of the overall economy, but because of the potential costs involved in the current proposals, it needs to be toned down to baby steps instead of giant leaps. The stimulus bill was necessary. Cap and trade won't fly, period, but a new energy bill even without it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ok... GM and Chrysler are big employers that were deemed too big to fail. They took taxpayer money to bailout the poor decisions their management teams had made. So to insure that we, the taxpayers, never have to bail out their future bad decisions, we should assess fines on Ford. Under the Obama ( and Maggie ) plan wouldn't that make sense?

The automakers don't lend out money. What they DO, in addition to selling vehicles, is employ a helluva lot of people, including small businesses that support their industry.

Bullshit Maggie.

"GMAC is a global financial services company that was founded in 1919. Initially formed to provide automotive finance products and services to General Motors dealers and clients, GMAC has since expanded its business to include mortgage operations, insurance, commercial finance and online banking.
Until 2006, GMAC was a wholly owned subsidiary of GM. On Nov. 30, 2006, GMAC began a new era as an independent finance company when GM sold a 51 percent stake in the company to a group of investors led by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Dec. 24, 2008 was a key turning point in GMAC's history when it was approved as a bank holding company by the Federal Reserve Board under the Bank Holding Company Act.
Another defining moment for the company was when GMAC entered into an agreement with Chrysler in April 2009 to provide auto finance products and services to Chrysler dealers and customers. This allowed GMAC to leverage its core strength of auto financing and become part of a solution with the U.S. government to restructure the auto industry.
In May 2009, GMAC's ownership structure was amended again when GM and Cerberus significantly reduced their holdings in GMAC, leading to future diversity in the ownership structure of the company.
As of Sept. 30, 2009, the company had approximately $178 billion in assets, with 15 million customers worldwide."


http://www.gmacfs.com/us/en/about/who/index.html


And Maggie.. Do you think banks don't employ people?

I've already defined GMAC as one of the lenders that a fee will be assessed upon. It does not, however, actually manufacture the automobiles.

Tell all those folks without degrees that they can just pull themselves up by their muddy bootstraps and go to work for some bank and wear wing tips instead. Shall I wait for their response to you?

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, these people were operating their businesses under the regulations laid upon them by Congress. And hell yeah, some were certainly taking advantage. But that's the REASON we bother with regulation at all... to keep that from happening.

The proposed "fees" are politically motivated. They're designed to cause division through class warfare, to unify the base, and to deflect the blame for poor regulation and poor enforcement.... to cover their own asses. This administration is harnessing the misery of our economically wounded citizens to its own advantage as political capital.

Of course, both parties share in the guilt, but people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who have spent their careers making an unholy mess of this thing are riding point on it. Instead of taking responsibility for their own screw-ups, now that their incompetence has created REAL DAMAGE, they're pointing the finger of blame at somebody else. Worse... they're doing the same things that caused the problems. Again, loosening lending standards and guaranteeing risky loans.

It's like bad parenting really. Leave the cookie jar out on the floor without explicit instruction to stay out of it, and then blame the kids when they take a cookie. Greed is as common to human nature as compassion. The whole purpose of "regulating" is to confine it.



For our purposes on this thread, it's not about "political ideology"... it's simpler than that. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Our national ideology abhors punishment without trial or any other kind of deviation from the assumption of innocence until guilt is PROVED. So, if the financial industry, or members of it, broke the law... why aren't they being tried and then punished?

You know, if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, I feel confident that we'd all agree that 'Extortion is always wrong' and that 'Guilt should be established before punishment'. I think, again if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, we'd likely both agree that the law should be applied to all Americans EQUALLY and without bias.

Political motivation? At this point, I really wonder just who is politicizing this. If Republicans were in charge and proposed such a "fee" [I](because the public is very, very angry at mega-banks these days)[/I], I do believe Republicans/conservatives/whateverpeoplecallthemselvestoday would be shouting hallelelujah.

Are you really so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see the POTUS is effectively acting as the leader of a lynch mob, trying to make political capital because the public is angry? The public being angry is and should not be the litmus test against which our laws are made.

Gee whiz, I guess the Tea Party Patriots didn't get the memo.