Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The repeal of Glass-Steagall for starters.

What would Glass-Steagall have done to prevent the crisis?
Be as specific as you can.

Financial institutions had already found ways around GS, but with GS in effect the major depository institutions wouldn't have faced such steep declines in capital when the financial markets collapsed. They would have been hurting for certain, but the scope of the problem in standard banks would have been smaller.

of course, the investment banks would have still been fried.

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

 

[8537]

Are you really not aware that the order in which creditors would be paid off was changed by the Obama Administration so that labor unions were moved up to a position where they would be paid before private investors?

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

you would prefer that people who put capital at risk...don't actually face risk with that capital.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What would Glass-Steagall have done to prevent the crisis?
Be as specific as you can.

Financial institutions had already found ways around GS, but with GS in effect the major depository institutions wouldn't have faced such steep declines in capital when the financial markets collapsed. They would have been hurting for certain, but the scope of the problem in standard banks would have been smaller.

of course, the investment banks would have still been fried.

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

Here, you can read as many analyses of the effect of repealing GS as you want:

glass-steagall repeal effects - Google Search

 

[8537]

What would Glass-Steagall have done to prevent the crisis?
Be as specific as you can.

Financial institutions had already found ways around GS, but with GS in effect the major depository institutions wouldn't have faced such steep declines in capital when the financial markets collapsed. They would have been hurting for certain, but the scope of the problem in standard banks would have been smaller.

of course, the investment banks would have still been fried.

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

If depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market, the capital declines from financial investments outside the money market would not have occurred.

 

[Jarhead]

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

what do you mean the UAW exchanged debt for equity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Financial institutions had already found ways around GS, but with GS in effect the major depository institutions wouldn't have faced such steep declines in capital when the financial markets collapsed. They would have been hurting for certain, but the scope of the problem in standard banks would have been smaller.

of course, the investment banks would have still been fried.

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

Here, you can read as many analyses of the effect of repealing GS as you want:

glass-steagall repeal effects - Google Search

You made the claim. So prove it.

 

[8537]

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

what do you mean the UAW exchanged debt for equity?

I'm not sure what you mean by that , exactly - the UAW exchanged its GM Debt (unsecured claims) for GM equity. Or maybe I didn't understand your question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Trickle down works. The reason people are not spending there money now is the same reason I am not. The leadership running this country has no understanding of what it is there suppose to be doing

That's bullshit.

THIS is the reason people aren't spending money:

They don't HAVE money to spend. That has nothing to do with the 'leadership'.

I think you are wrong. I think most Americans are getting themselves out of debt. They are paying off their credit cards and not spending to put new charges on them.. The feds outta follow that lead.

Oddly , that would prove I'm right, not wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Financial institutions had already found ways around GS, but with GS in effect the major depository institutions wouldn't have faced such steep declines in capital when the financial markets collapsed. They would have been hurting for certain, but the scope of the problem in standard banks would have been smaller.

of course, the investment banks would have still been fried.

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

If depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market, the capital declines from financial investments outside the money market would not have occurred.

Before the repeal "depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market"?
Which non money market investments caused the crisis?

 

[Oldstyle]

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

And what gives the Obama Administration the right to change the order in which creditors get paid? What makes private debt holders any "dumber" than unions for holding that debt? Why should private debt holders be compensated at a greatly reduced rate than the unions? There are laws in existence to protect the rights of investors. When those laws are tossed away for political expediency then we really aren't any better than Somalia.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

Here, you can read as many analyses of the effect of repealing GS as you want:

glass-steagall repeal effects - Google Search

You made the claim. So prove it.

I just supported it with dozens of references. If you refuse to read any of them, that's not my problem.

BTW, why aren't you asking JRK to prove it? He's the one who originally claimed it. I just agreed with him.

Take it up with JRK.

 

[JRK]

Tell me, Oldstyle - what payment did labor unions receive, specifically?

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

you would prefer that people who put capital at risk...don't actually face risk with that capital.

You asked for proof, you got proof
Ginsberg would not allow this to go before the full supreme court, it turns out
The tax payers had no say in this
If she would have, this event was DOA, she had jurisdiction (Chrysler as I recall)
congress never approved of this. in Fact even GWB went against what congress said to do with this. He used tarp funds and made it a loan
hell Obama just gave ot them

DUMB BOND HOLDERS?
and people wonder why there are no jobs, no one is investing a penny?

By the way explain to us who find you amazing and enjoy reading you threads, why would 1 job dis appear?
People would stop buying cars because the UAW collapsed?
I dont think so

 

[Jarhead]

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

what do you mean the UAW exchanged debt for equity?

I'm not sure what you mean by that , exactly - the UAW exchanged its GM Debt (unsecured claims) for GM equity. Or maybe I didn't understand your question.

I was questioning what you meant when you said "the UAW exchanged debt for equity".

What you left out of your analysis...and by no means did I ignore the accuracy of what you said....

1) the reward to the UAW was the influx of capital saved the jobs of the employees
2) Those that financed the company and were pushed in the back of the line lost out on what they would get if GM went Bankrupt...a certain percentage on their investment when all assets were liquidated.

Now bear in mind...when people infused captial into GM, it was an investment made knowing the risk....and the risk they analyzed the investment with, was increased dramatically when they were put at the back of the line.

(risk referring to "least return on investment")

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you admit that DE-regulation of the banking system was wrong.

DE-regulation? When?
Which regulations would have prevented the crisis if they had been kept?
Be as specific as you can.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall for starters.

You made the claim.
Right here.
So prove it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Everyone here grasps that concept. Don't forget that people who have government jobs, whether directly or indirectly...

...they also pay taxes, they also consume, they also invest. Their money as it relates to the economy is just as good as anyone elses.

No one is disputing that fact. What you still refuse to admit however is that without revenues from the private sector supporting those government jobs...public sector employees would not have the money to pay taxes, consume or invest. Revenues have been way down because instead of spending stimulus money in the private sector the majority of it was spent keeping public sector people employed. Now that money has run out and Obama is back asking for another half a trillion dollars to keep those government jobs from being lost. And if he gets that money we'll be that much further in debt and when that money runs out we'll STILL have to lay off those people because we haven't created jobs that produce revenue.

Solyndra was in the private sector.

Do you REALLY want to bring Solyndra into this conversation?

 

[8537]

What in Glass-Steagall, specifically, would have stopped capital from declining as much?

If depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market, the capital declines from financial investments outside the money market would not have occurred.

Before the repeal "depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market"?
Which non money market investments caused the crisis?

Mortgage-backed securities and synthetic credit default swaps, among others.

This conversation would move a bit faster if you actually made a point instead of offering a quiz.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market, the capital declines from financial investments outside the money market would not have occurred.

Before the repeal "depository institution were not allowed to put deposits at risk outside the money market"?
Which non money market investments caused the crisis?

Mortgage-backed securities and synthetic credit default swaps, among others.

This conversation would move a bit faster if you actually made a point instead of offering a quiz.

Mortgage backed securities weren't allowed under Glass-Steagall?

You know that derivatives are zero sum, right?

My point is lots of people think Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crisis.
So far I haven't seen a single person prove it.

 

[8537]

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.
GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg
Top 10 Labor Union Outrages - HUMAN EVENTS
hen U.S. taxpayers bailed out the automakers, the United Auto Workers got a major stake in the car companies even though it was union-negotiated Cadillac health care plans that put automakers at a competitive disadvantage in the first place. While the government bailout money has yet to be paid back, union auto workers are getting record bonuses this year.
The Auto Industry / UAW Bailout

not old style, but I will do

Oh, I was hoping you would post that! Thanks. Now let's review, shall we:

The US Taxpayer (that's you!) stepped in to fund the company. The company, mind you, not the people dumb enough to hold the company's equity.

US taxpayer funds were distributed in order to ensure that over a million jobs didn't disappear, not in order to ensure that people dumb enough to hold the company's debt could be made whole. The courts owe the debt holders nothing - and if the debt holders felt they were illegally harmed they could get in line in court (a short line, as it turns out).

US taxpayer funds were put forth to ensure that the company was able to continue producing cars. Paying off dumb debt holders doesn't secure a job, doesn't keep the company competitive and doesn't help stave off the chain-reaction collapse of so many suppliers.

The UAW exchanged debt for equity, which kept it's employees closer to whole. Common debt holders exchanged debt for equity at a lower rate - which makes sense because they don't have the same stake in the company.

And what gives the Obama Administration the right to change the order in which creditors get paid? What makes private debt holders any "dumber" than unions for holding that debt?

They're not dumber. They have less leverage.

Why should private debt holders be compensated at a greatly reduced rate than the unions?

I explained that in the previous post. The taxpayer money pumped into GM was not put there to make investors whole. It was put there to save the company.

There are laws in existence to protect the rights of investors. When those laws are tossed away

Those laws were not tossed away. That's why the line of bondholders filing suit has zero people in it.

 

[Truthmatters]

read my signature and rread the link

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second release concerning certain bank dealer activities and other related matters.

"A customer should be able to walk into a financial institution and get any financial product he or she needs — securities, insurance, banking or trust services," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "But Congress recognized those benefits couldn't be achieved without new ways to safeguard investors that would be consistent with continued innovation. Today's historic action, coming eight years after the passage of the law, is long overdue but welcome news for investors who will now begin to see the benefits of broader services and lower costs that the law intended."