"Idiots" Indeed.

[AllieBaba]

People think they can shell out billions of dollars to "save the economy" despite the outcry of the majority of people who know it will not work; then whine when it doesn't work.

It's not going to work, ever, in any way. I wonder how long before they finally admit it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL the president seems to like tax cheats doesn't he?

He made it through confirmations so the president is not the only one who like him.

Oh, so because other people like him for their own reasons, he is a stand-up guy?

Other people are other Dimocrats for the most part. So the party of the people parties with people who cheat on their taxes.

 

[AllieBaba]

True capitalism is increasing government spending, while stealing from the government....

 

[AllieBaba]

Or rather, increasing taxes..then illegally not paying them yourself.

 

[garyd]

Never, Allie

This was government driven from day one. The mortgage companies did what they had to do to stay in buisness. The derivitives market was modified in the hope that we could put off the inevitable collapse of many mortgage companies if we could spread the bad debt a bit wider. It failed now we are going to spread the bad debt wider still.with the hope that maybe that will work. It won't but that's what Bush hoped for and the Dems are still hoping for.

 

[dilloduck]

Never, Allie

This was government driven from day one. The mortgage companies did what they had to do to stay in buisness. The derivitives market was modified in the hope that we could put off the inevitable collapse of many mortgage companies if we could spread the bad debt a bit wider. It failed now we are going to spread the bad debt wider still.with the hope that maybe that will work. It won't but that's what Bush hoped for and the Dems are still hoping for.

Which makes one wonder who is really calling the shots in America.

 

[Care4all]

do you really think that every person on Wall Street is responsible? Every single person who works in finance is responsible for this mess?

Of course not. there are many banks, many investment advisers etc who did not play the mortgage backed securities games.

And your outrage and indignation should be more with the Fed and the government offering to back mortgages with tax payer monies than with anyone else.

If the government did not promise to back mortgages, do you think banks would have been so cavalier in their lending policies?

more than 75% f subprime mortgages were issued by banks and financial institutions that KNEW THEY WOULD NOT BE BACKED by fannie/freddie.....

your premise falls flat...

And this is about huge corporations that were heavily in to this ponzi scheme that take tax payer's bailout money....no?

link, support for your claim. And even if your number is right, it doesn't matter if it wasn't Fanny it was the fed fucking up either way it boils down to government interference and that is where the "outrage" should start.
The fed held interest at negative rates what do you think negative interest rates do to the number of loans being applied for?

No the figure of 18 billion was the TOTAL bonuses for ALL of Wall Street and not just the companies that took Tarp money. If you bothered to read the piece or even the small bit I quoted you would have seen that.

i was wrong....only 6% of the subprime loans made or covered by GSE;s were due to the gvt CRA program to get more, disadvantaged people in to homes....the other subprime mortgages were issued for GREED.

Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, says the CRA isn’t to blame for the subprime mess, "First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together… we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis," Kroszner said: "Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders, (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes."[129]

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair disputes that the CRA was a problem "Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple."[130]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

oh, and the compensation cap, is for the big institutions that took tarp money, so not to fall apart...

why would anyone be paid a bonus if the company they worked for was going belly up?

bonuses are paid for the SUCCESS of the company, not for the failure....stock holders nor tax payers should be paying bonuses if the corp is failing????

Senator Claire McCaskill rolled out legislation to put a compensation cap of $400,000 on executives whose firms receive bailout money. She also proposes creating a court to restrain their "massive self-indulgences." The Senator from Missouri then spoke of "a bunch of idiots on Wall Street."

my husband was on a conference call with his corporation, they told ALL of their thousands of employees and management, that NO ONE would be getting a raise this year, no one would be getting a bonus this coming year.....NO MATTER how well they did, with own individual goals....and this corp has NOTHING to do with the finance/banking industry or TARP......

get REAL......!!

 

[RodISHI]

The government should have let those companies that were going to fail do just that.

But not all banks or finance companies took taxpayer money and that those companies and banks pay bonuses in no way affects you or your grandchildren as those bonuses were not paid with taxpayer dollars.

Hey lots of people, even most people, have taken loans, mortgages and have saved and invested money and are not being screwed by the banks or by Wall St.

So instead of being pissed at companies who screwed up and should be allowed to fail. Be pissed that the fucking government used your money to bail them out.

The government did not let them fail though and they have no intentions of doing so.

THE FACT IS EVERYONE WHO BANKS AND DOES BUSINESS WITH THESE COMPANIES HAS A DEGREE OF FAULT WHEN THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT THESE COMPNAIES ARE DOING.

That includes every employer out there that banks with these companies. Did you know that there are people out there that get their payroll check that was made out on the bank WF that have to pay $5.00 just to get their paycheck cashed at their employers bank? Most of those employers that bank with these guys do not know they are breaking labor laws by assisting this bank in extorting their employees to either bank with them or pay five bucks to get their hard earned pay.

Tell me your little local bank is in no way connected with collecting government fees, funds or assistance of any kind. I'll tell you you are more than likely in error. Although if I had my way I would encourage everyone to drop these BIG banks that took bailout money and go to their local community banks and credit unions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

what talent? the talent that they used to get us in this mess?

Now replace that talent with government stooges. Now understand?

Another way to go with this:

That is an oversimplification of the issue. The CEOs are just as much victims of this implosion as asny of the workers, or any of the rest of us. We have just been taught not to feel compassion for people who have money.

Fisty, I gotta say BULLCRUD to that one....

They were NOT VICTIMS, they knew exactly what was going on and what they were doing....if they didn't, then they did NOT DESERVE the multi million dollar salaries with bonuses in the first place.....

They were paid to be good fiduciaries of the stock owners money and to make wise business decisions.....they did NO SUCH THING fisty!

Care

Actually with the Government backing the programs they DID make good decisions. With the lack of Government oversight and irresponsible Government meddling to force loans they DID in fact make what was considered good choices.

Even as late as Spring 2008 Barney Frank was INSISTING on National TV that there was no crisis and all the loans were perfectly solid and sound. Who was the other one insisting nothing was wrong? As I recall Dodd. Both are Liberal Democrats by the way. The same people that shot down Bush and the Republicans twice when they tried to impose more oversight and more Government control.

 

[Care4all]

Now replace that talent with government stooges. Now understand?

Another way to go with this:

That is an oversimplification of the issue. The CEOs are just as much victims of this implosion as asny of the workers, or any of the rest of us. We have just been taught not to feel compassion for people who have money.

Fisty, I gotta say BULLCRUD to that one....

They were NOT VICTIMS, they knew exactly what was going on and what they were doing....if they didn't, then they did NOT DESERVE the multi million dollar salaries with bonuses in the first place.....

They were paid to be good fiduciaries of the stock owners money and to make wise business decisions.....they did NO SUCH THING fisty!

Care

Actually with the Government backing the programs they DID make good decisions. With the lack of Government oversight and irresponsible Government meddling to force loans they DID in fact make what was considered good choices.

Even as late as Spring 2008 Barney Frank was INSISTING on National TV that there was no crisis and all the loans were perfectly solid and sound. Who was the other one insisting nothing was wrong? As I recall Dodd. Both are Liberal Democrats by the way. The same people that shot down Bush and the Republicans twice when they tried to impose more oversight and more Government control.

6% of subprime loans OF and BACKED BY Fannie/freddie were due to CRA, the community reinvestment act. not a dimple in this mess....

read the entire link i posted, along with all the original links used by them as support from various newspapers.

 

[Annie]

I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

 

[garyd]

The government for the most part. We have hundreds of lobbyists largely because we have a hugely intrusive government which sets rules and regulations on how virtually everything is done in any given business that has more than about 5 people employed in it. It seems like every fifth person you add to the payroll reqiuires you to add one more just to make sure you are in compliance with the new Government rules that now come into effect for your business.

 

[dilloduck]

I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

There should be no money available for companies to take.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

Are you saying that companies can refuse the money?

 

[Annie]

I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

Are you saying that companies can refuse the money?

Of course they can, I believe some local banks applied before the deadlines, then read the fine print and refused the money.

The Associated Press: On second thought, never mind about that bailout

On second thought, never mind about that bailout
By MATT APUZZO – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A small but growing number of community banks are backing out of the government's bailout, which they see as fraught with hidden strings and government interference.

About 20 banks so far that applied for or had been approved to receive about $1 billion combined in taxpayer money have reversed course in the past month and refused to take the money. That's just a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars the government already has spent, but it shows that taxpayers aren't the only ones anxious about the financial bailout.

"The government's going to own a good portion of these banks," said David Heintzman, president of Stock Yards Bank & Trust in Louisville, Ky. The bank recently turned down $43 million in approved bailout money....

 

[Annie]

I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

There should be no money available for companies to take.

I won't disagree with you there, but it's there. So now the companies decide if they want the government to have the strings on their business.

 

[RodISHI]

The government for the most part. We have hundreds of lobbyists largely because we have a hugely intrusive government which sets rules and regulations on how virtually everything is done in any given business that has more than about 5 people employed in it. It seems like every fifth person you add to the payroll reqiuires you to add one more just to make sure you are in compliance with the new Government rules that now come into effect for your business.

The major banks taking TARP money do not have that compliance or regulation problem. With everyones money they can afford lobbyist and a shit load of payoffs.

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

There should be no money available for companies to take.

I won't disagree with you there, but it's there. So now the companies decide if they want the government to have the strings on their business.

True--hopefully more won't be made available.

 

[garyd]

And we have in power the people that they gave most of the money to so guess what dude the tarp is going to get a hell of a lot bigger... And the Tarp comes with more rules and regualtions than they had before. Everything from maximum size of a bonus that your top trader can earn to hoiw long and under what circunstances you can foreclose on a house and everything in between and around.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Exactly. If the businesses want to remain captains of their own destinies, they need to take control of their own situations, not take the government money.

The 'easy money' will not be any such thing and will destroy the economy of our nation.

Are you saying that companies can refuse the money?

Of course they can, I believe some local banks applied before the deadlines, then read the fine print and refused the money.

The Associated Press: On second thought, never mind about that bailout

On second thought, never mind about that bailout
By MATT APUZZO – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A small but growing number of community banks are backing out of the government's bailout, which they see as fraught with hidden strings and government interference.

About 20 banks so far that applied for or had been approved to receive about $1 billion combined in taxpayer money have reversed course in the past month and refused to take the money. That's just a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars the government already has spent, but it shows that taxpayers aren't the only ones anxious about the financial bailout.

"The government's going to own a good portion of these banks," said David Heintzman, president of Stock Yards Bank & Trust in Louisville, Ky. The bank recently turned down $43 million in approved bailout money....

That is refreshing.