Obama's Regulatory Tsunami

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know if you're intentionally being this dumb or whether you're actually this dumb but it's getting tiring.

Yes, I'm getting tired of asking you to provide proof for your claim.

That's okay, I know you're stupid, or a liar, most likely both.

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

Am I one of the ones you schooled? If I am, you have no idea what beiing schooled means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm happy that I've shown that the government have guaranteed twelve trillion dollars worth of various debt.

You proved no such thing.

And didn't you originally claim the government guaranteed all the bad debt?
And still did?
I know that several guarantee programs expired and none were open ended.

The Fed just offered unlimited dollar loans to foreign banks a few days ago to try and calm things down so of course all US debt is backed by the government in times of financial crisis. That's to calm markets down and prevent runs on banks, capital markets etc. It's just central banking 101. I can't imagine how a smart guy like you is unaware of it.

Of course the government does not back all US debt in times of crisis.
Can't believe you'd make such a claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why did you ask me to prove they'd suspended mark to market if you knew that they'd suspended it then?

Because most people have no idea what they did with mark-to-market.

You probably think none of the securities on their books are marked-to-market.

And you were one of them.

Tell me, are any of their securities marked to market?

Which ones are not?

Spell it out.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Yes, I'm getting tired of asking you to provide proof for your claim.

That's okay, I know you're stupid, or a liar, most likely both.

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

Am I one of the ones you schooled? If I am, you have no idea what beiing schooled means.

We've hardly spoken over the last few days. The last thibg I schooled you on was the Fed/other major central banks' unlimited dollar loans.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

You proved no such thing.

And didn't you originally claim the government guaranteed all the bad debt?
And still did?
I know that several guarantee programs expired and none were open ended.

The Fed just offered unlimited dollar loans to foreign banks a few days ago to try and calm things down so of course all US debt is backed by the government in times of financial crisis. That's to calm markets down and prevent runs on banks, capital markets etc. It's just central banking 101. I can't imagine how a smart guy like you is unaware of it.

Of course the government does not back all US debt in times of crisis.
Can't believe you'd make such a claim.

They back all debt that's threatened by any crisis. In 2008 that amounted to basically guaranteeing the US financial system. The only thing not under threat at the time was the bond market and the government already guarantees that with the full faith and credit blah blah.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Because most people have no idea what they did with mark-to-market.

You probably think none of the securities on their books are marked-to-market.

And you were one of them.

Tell me, are any of their securities marked to market?

Which ones are not?

Spell it out.

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you were one of them.

Tell me, are any of their securities marked to market?

Which ones are not?

Spell it out.

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

"The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value"

Really? Does the rule say they can mark those ones at any price they want?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Tell me, are any of their securities marked to market?

Which ones are not?

Spell it out.

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

"The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value"

Really? Does the rule say they can mark those ones at any price they want?

How fucking dumb can one person be? What part of mark-to-mark suspension don't you understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you were one of them.

Tell me, are any of their securities marked to market?

Which ones are not?

Spell it out.

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

"Rather than engage in traditional money lending, these banks have decided to simply borrow from the Fed at 0%, and make risk free loans to the Treasury at 3%"

I love this claim. Barry should know better.
Care to show how banks can borrow from the Fed at 0%?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Tell me, are any of their securities marked to market?

Which ones are not?

Spell it out.

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

"Rather than engage in traditional money lending, these banks have decided to simply borrow from the Fed at 0%, and make risk free loans to the Treasury at 3%"

I love this claim. Barry should know better.
Care to show how banks can borrow from the Fed at 0%?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DISCPRIM:IND

At some point you should show some class and say a big "thank you" for the education I'm giving you.

 

[oreo]

One aspect of Obamanomics that has been overshadowed by the spending and tax discussions is the vast increase in regulations which are suffocating the recovery.

219 regulations costing a minimum of $100M/year each are in the queue for implementation. When the private sector is forced to absorb more than $200B of increased over ten years, jobs are Not Created.

And Obama these are on top of the estimated $380B that Obama has already been enacted.

The report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee headed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., took aim at Obama's "regulatory tsunami" and concluded that the pace and scale of new regulations threatens the ability of the government to fulfill even its most basic regulatory functions. Here's how the congressional panel summarized its conclusions:

"The Obama Administration has created a regulatory environment that is suffocating America's entrepreneurs' ability to create jobs and grow businesses, ... This regulatory tsunami has caused job creators to lock down at a time when we need them to expand. The committee has found that the problems created by this regulatory tsunami goes far beyond the cost of the regulations themselves, but also include breakdowns in the regulatory process itself that is having a severe impact on large and small businesses alike."

Specifically, the panel found at least 219 "economically significant regulations in the pipeline, which if finalized, will impose costs of $100 million or more annually on the economy." That's a minimum of $219 billion in added costs to do business in this country over the next decade. Even worse, the panel found the Obama bureaucrats have already imposed 75 major new regulations that are projected to add another $380 billion in costs.

The Issa panel concluded that, as a result of this flood of new rules, "the regulatory process is broken" and that it is "being manipulated and exploited in an effort to reward allies of the Obama administration such as environmental groups, trial lawyers and unions."

Why the U.S. economy is headed for a double dip | Examiner Editorial | Opinion | Washington Examiner

Oh yes--and my favorite is the NEW GOAT HERDER LEGISLATION-- No I am not kidding--it exists.



Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

"The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value"

Really? Does the rule say they can mark those ones at any price they want?

How fucking dumb can one person be? What part of mark-to-mark suspension don't you understand?

You're the expert. Explain it.

Do you think it means they can mark any security at any price they want?

Or only some securities?

Any limitation on what they can mark them at? Can they mark a bond worth $50 to $1000?

Come on, school me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value. The ones that would show banjks to be insolvent if they were marked to market :

These banks STILL have to much debt, too little capital. They books are festooned with bad loans, which, thanks to our corrupt Congress, they no longer have to disclose appropriately. Thanks to Mark-to-Make-Believe, they can pretend these assets are worth near what they paid for them. In reality, they cannot sell them even at 50% off.


Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational | The Big Picture

"Rather than engage in traditional money lending, these banks have decided to simply borrow from the Fed at 0%, and make risk free loans to the Treasury at 3%"

I love this claim. Barry should know better.
Care to show how banks can borrow from the Fed at 0%?

Federal Reserve US Primary Credit Discount Rate (DISCPRIM:IND) Index Performance - Bloomberg

At some point you should show some class and say a big "thank you" for the education I'm giving you.

Hate to break it to you, but 0.75% is more than 0%.

Thanks for allowing me to point out your ignorance.

 

[Baron]

I do not wonder because all communists are obsessed with over-regulation.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

"The securities not currently marked to market are the ones that are worth only a fraction of their current stated value"

Really? Does the rule say they can mark those ones at any price they want?

How fucking dumb can one person be? What part of mark-to-mark suspension don't you understand?

You're the expert. Explain it.

Do you think it means they can mark any security at any price they want?

Or only some securities?

Any limitation on what they can mark them at? Can they mark a bond worth $50 to $1000?

Come on, school me.

No limitation at all. That's why the current system is referred to as mark-to-make-believe.


FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg

 

[Raoul_Duke]

"Rather than engage in traditional money lending, these banks have decided to simply borrow from the Fed at 0%, and make risk free loans to the Treasury at 3%"

I love this claim. Barry should know better.
Care to show how banks can borrow from the Fed at 0%?

Here is the current yield curve, nominal rates :

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

and here are current real rates :

Daily Treasury Real Yield Curve Rates

If you use real rates rather than nominal rates it's actually a negative rate.

Here is the current yield curve, nominal rates :

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

and here are current real rates :

Daily Treasury Real Yield Curve Rates

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How fucking dumb can one person be? What part of mark-to-mark suspension don't you understand?

You're the expert. Explain it.

Do you think it means they can mark any security at any price they want?

Or only some securities?

Any limitation on what they can mark them at? Can they mark a bond worth $50 to $1000?

Come on, school me.

No limitation at all. That's why the current system is referred to as mark-to-make-believe.


FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg

"The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive"

Relax. That doesn't sound like eliminate.

"Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities.

Significant judgement, not whatever they feel like.
Not all securities, merely "some investments".

See that. My constant questioning pushed you to do some actual research.
Now we can all see how wrong your initial claims were.

As always, happy to help the ill-informed.

Still waiting for your proof about Bush and the regulation against selling mortgages.

Oh well, one baby step at a time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is the current yield curve, nominal rates :

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

and here are current real rates :

Daily Treasury Real Yield Curve Rates



Federal Reserve US Primary Credit Discount Rate (DISCPRIM:IND) Index Performance - Bloomberg

At some point you should show some class and say a big "thank you" for the education I'm giving you.

Hate to break it to you, but 0.75% is more than 0%.

Thanks for allowing me to point out your ignorance.

If you use real rates rather than nominal rates it's actually a negative rate.

Stop it, you're killing me.

When the Fed loans at real rates, let me know.

In the meantime, I rate your response a FAIL!

 

[Raoul_Duke]

You're the expert. Explain it.

Do you think it means they can mark any security at any price they want?

Or only some securities?

Any limitation on what they can mark them at? Can they mark a bond worth $50 to $1000?

Come on, school me.

No limitation at all. That's why the current system is referred to as mark-to-make-believe.


FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg

"The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive"

Relax. That doesn't sound like eliminate.

"Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities.

Significant judgement, not whatever they feel like.
Not all securities, merely "some investments".

See that. My constant questioning pushed you to do some actual research.
Now we can all see how wrong your initial claims were.

As always, happy to help the ill-informed.

Still waiting for your proof about Bush and the regulation against selling mortgages.

Oh well, one baby step at a time.

Yes, I know, I already explained this to you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/185788-obamas-regulatory-tsunami-13.html#post4188939

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you use real rates rather than nominal rates it's actually a negative rate.

Here is the current yield curve, nominal rates :

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

and here are current real rates :

Daily Treasury Real Yield Curve Rates

One more thing, the Treasury borrows at Treasury rates.
The Fed lends at the Discount Rate.