posted April 23, 2010 04:19 PM         

Nevertheless, demoscats will pick off a couple of RINOs...Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and/or perhaps Lindsey Graham so they can call it a bi-partisan measure to rein in Wall Street.

Just don't be confused by the bullshiiit rhetoric coming out of O'Bomber's mouth..or large financial institutions. They love it.

posted April 23, 2010 05:59 PM         

All you have to do is prove what I've said about Wall Street Reform....endless bailouts for Wall Street via the FDIC....is WRONG.

That shouldn't be too difficult acoustic...if as you say, I am wrong.

I've also noticed no one has refuted what I've said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...2 of the largest institutional lenders...not being any part of the so called Wall Street Reform. And....Fannie and Freedie were the linchpins which kicked off the financial mess to begin with.

posted April 23, 2010 06:14 PM         

So now you think you can challenge me to disprove what you've said, while you still haven't even proved your assertion? Too funny. We'll probably have to wait for a bill to come out to be able to comment explicitly about it with any certainty.

quote:

---

I've also noticed no one has refuted what I've said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...2 of the largest institutional lenders...not being any part of the so called Wall Street Reform. And....Fannie and Freedie were the linchpins which kicked off the financial mess to begin with.

---

posted April 23, 2010 06:23 PM         

Here is one summation of How we got here.

Where today's deficits come from.

Next he will be going to a Jimmy the "teeth" Carter routine, and I will say I am totally bored with that dance.

*from ^

quote:

---

Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]

---

posted April 23, 2010 09:12 PM         

The US budget deficit for year 2008...the last year of the Bush administration was....455 Billion Dollars.

The first year of the O'Bomber administration the budget deficit was 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS. US budget defictits are projected to exceed 1 TRILLION DOLLARS annually for the next decade. For those in Rio Linda, a decade is 10 years.

posted April 23, 2010 11:40 PM         

Whoops

Sen. Lincoln unveils broad derivatives regulatory bill
Bill prohibits Wall Street swaps dealers from receiving federal assistance Whoops

April 16, 2010, 3:38 p.m. EDT
By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch

......"Based on the legislation, Wall Street firms registered as banks would need to spin off derivatives trading desks to be eligible for the protections made available to banks. A Wall Street financial institution engaging in "risky derivative" deals would not be eligible for federal bailouts. Whoops

....The Dodd bill doesn't prohibit regulators from providing federal assistance to banks involved in swaps transactions. Whoops...

Hahahaha, as anyone can clearly see, there are no provisions for bailouts for Wall Street institutions in O'Bomber's Wall Street Reform legislation. Right!

So, who are you going to believe; O'Bomber...or your lying eyes.

posted April 24, 2010 10:11 AM         

but still a third hand account. before anyone can "prove" you wrong how about you "prove" your claim by showing the real goods for a change?

no need to defend what hasn't been properly charged...!

posted April 24, 2010 12:00 PM         

Market Watch is a feature on the Wall Street Journal menu...the financial newspaper of record. I sometimes use Market Watch when I want to run down the balance sheets, credit standing, cash on hand and debt load of companies in which I'm considering buying stock.

They quoted directly from both the Dodd Bill and the Lincoln Bill...which are expected to be merged in the final stage of legislation before going to the floor for a vote.

BOTH bills talk about government assistance and one mentions BAILOUTS specifically.

Just what kind of federal assistance do you think they're talking about here. Do you really believe the federal government is going to deliver "assistance" in the form of cookies and milk when institutional banks are feeling blue or bankers are having a bad hair day?

Btw, the Federal Reserve is in no way a US Federal Agency of government. It's a private corporation. So, access to the Federal Reserve discount window is in no way "Federal Assistance". Further, it's a debatable question whether or not Congress can make rules for the Federal Reserve. The Fed is authorized...illegally, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and they make their own RULES. This is a private corporation which has never once been audited to see how they allocate money, to whom they give money, how much in reserves they have or any other aspects of their "Private Business".

Now, if you think I'm going to ignore financial experts like Market Watch, the Wall Street Journal or Senators who have actually read the more than 1000 page bill AND go read the 1000 page bill myself, then katatonic you're nuts.

The correct interpretation to put on what you, acoustic and O'Bomber have said about NO BAILOUTS in the Wall Street Reform bill IS

posted April 24, 2010 02:46 PM         

As I said, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, not an agency of the federal government.

As for the comrades in the Congress putting out paper on bills under consideration; I don't know why they can't get their act together, run bills through the committee process, hold bipartisan conferences and come up with finished legislation...before printing off copies for general distribution. I suppose it's the leftist way to do things behind closed doors with their little Socialist coven.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but we're still finding out what's in the O'BomberCare bill...and lots of people like it even less as they find things out than when it was passed.

This is just my personal opinion about the congressional comrades but they would be much better off for November elections if they just shelved everything, passed nothing, brought up nothing for consideration or simply recessed until the elections.

The bills they have on their menu of things to do before the election are going to pi$$ off America even more than they already are.

Crap and Tax AND
Amnesty for illegal aliens

posted April 24, 2010 05:25 PM         

yes i'm sure people are still finding out what's in the bill, which is online for them to do so and has been in its many forms all along, so listening to rush's precis or the american thinker's take on it ... well just categorizes as lazy really. i consider it best not to jump up and down in a panic about something i haven't researched.

i grant you the wall street journal is a better source than most for this sort of topic. did it also tell you what was going on behind people's backs to create this money crisis in the first place? did the activity on the market give a true picture of what was in store?

i'm no investor, sold the stocks i had years ago; but over the last 15 years i've been in several conversations with people who thought i should "get into the real estate game while i could afford it" (i couldn't but that's my business) and when i suggested that the unrealistic price inflation would come down at some point and couldn't keep going up all these "experienced" seasoned owners of real estate looked at me like you talk to me, no actually they were more polite but equally sure i was just a naif spouting garbage...

many of those people have little to no equity in their houses as they have been using the refinance option to float their very expensive lives for a couple of decades. my sister nearly lost her rag a month ago worrying that she wouldn't be able to get yet another loan in time to pay the balloon at the end of the one she had.

i am no market expert and i don't even own a house (thought own a mortgage would be a more truthful description of most "homeowners") but i can see when a house of cards is being sold as a castle pretty well. SHOULD i buy a house i would pay it off as fast as possible and not let the bank run my life for the rest of my years.

however my quarrel with you is not really about facts but about the perversion of facts you spout, the polarizing garbage you swallow, and your attitude that there is only one american way - history makes it very clear that even the founding fathers didn't agree about how the country and its money should be handled, whether we should get involved in other people's pies or stay home and take care of our own, and on to infinity.

so please, feel free to educate me but USE FACTS not propaganda. i am always willing to be proved wrong but i am not falling for the monkey shenanigans you - or sarah palin, the tea partiers, hannity et al (those charitable folk who donate a pittance of their take and claim it is 100%) - seem to think will save the country from itself.

and yes, i know the federal reserve, like the irs, is a private corporation. that is why i have been trying to tell you, SOCIALISM is not the bogey man you should be worrying about. another private corporation is the bank of england which some say is the party who actually collects the taxes we stump up. i can't prove that but there are plenty in a position to know who insist it is so. who owns it? PRIVATE banking interests INCLUDING THE CROWN of england (which david icke insists is actually the vatican. i do not consider icke reliable until i have found info to back him up. however he has been right about quite a few things since i first came across him years ago).

posted April 24, 2010 05:59 PM         

I've even read the court case in which a citizen involved in an auto accident with a Federal Reserve vehicle attempted to sue the Federal government for damages. The case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled...the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and that the US government could not therefore be a defendant in the suit. Essentially, the judge ruled the plaintiff had sued and was seeking damages from the wrong party.

When you posted this:
"prohibit swaps dealers from receiving any federal assistance, such as access to the Federal Reserve's discount window."

I took it as an attempt to refute the proposition there is a mechanism for bailouts in the so called Wall Street Reform bill(s) and that it merely contained "assistance" to institutional financial banks and institutions.

That assistance IS a bailout.

Further, you failed to copy and paste the rest of what was said about the Lincoln bill, namely:

" A Wall Street financial institution engaging in "risky derivative" deals would not be eligible for federal bailouts."

This is confirmation that Wall Street financial institutions which do not deal in "risky derivatives" will be eligible for BAILOUTS

I do not pervert facts. Facts, by definition are true statements. I don't need to twist or distort O'BomberCare, Wall Street Bailouts, Crap and Tax, Amnesty for illegal aliens, the $860 Billion Porkulus bill, the Trillions used to bail out financial institutions under TARP...which were used in a much different manner than the legislation called for, the grabbing of US auto companies, the stiffing of secured bond holders of auto company bonds, Card Check, O'Bomber's 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit....or any of the other Socialist nonsense O'Bomber and his congressional comrades have passed or which O'Bomber pushed and voted for as a Senator.

The facts of these matters speak for themselves...to those who are paying attention.

I've also spoken to real estate...and how fast you'll find out who really owns that home if you fall 3 months or more in arrears in mortgage payments.

posted April 24, 2010 06:41 PM         

if a bank is going under and it is going to hurt millions, through no wrongdoing of their own, you think it is better to let it crash? even if these crooks are responsible and not this particular bank? the statement that shady dealings such as have been going on will not be bailed out does NOT say that others will. since most of them have been doing the same thing they are included in the exclusion. as the constitution states "rights not given" it is to be assumed that that right has not been given to anyone else either. correct me if i am wrong.

personally i could watch them all crash without a tear. nasty institutions for the most part. and what's going on is a good illustration of that.

but to trade my innocent savings account for a share in an investment that will make the investors a passle and put me on the dole, that should not be permitted. they have a nerve charging any fees at all the way they rake it off the top for their scammy schemes.

and i know who owns most peoples homes. i figured that out with the first mortgage contract i looked at. and i will not own a home until i can pay for it on my terms not theirs. if ever. my money thing is dogged by uranian upsets!! and i tend to agree with the indians that you cannot buy the sky or the earth, it is given on trust for your use...

posted April 24, 2010 08:22 PM         

Certainly, setting up a circumstance where financial institutions dealing in risky derivatives will not be bailed out means those who do not...will be bailed out.

I'm in favor of putting crooks in prison, not bailing them out.

The derivatives known as "credit default swaps" were nothing more than gambling...which without a gaming license is illegal.

There's more.

To give you a idea of the magnitude of the liability of these instruments, JP Morgan had $87.4 Trillion outstanding. Goldman Sachs had $30.2 Trillion. Bank of America had $38.3 Trillion and Citigroup had $31.9 Trillion outstanding.

If you do the math, you'll realize that just between these 4 financial institutions who wrote these derivatives there was $181.8 Trillion dollars in liability.

The total value of all goods and services produced in the United States for a year is about $14 Trillion dollars. The outstanding liabilities of just these 4 institutions represent the value of all goods and services produced in the United States in about 15 years.

This $181 Trillion dollars also represents many years of the total gross national products of all the nations on earth.

It also represents many times the total value of all the residential real estate in the United States...not just the real estate on which there are mortgages in default, but many multiples of the value of ALL US residential real estate.

These 4 institutions were not the only ones selling credit default swaps, there were many others as well.

It's clear these clowns violated the laws of the United States. It's clear they sold credit default swaps against the very same packages of real estate mortgage loans to many different buyers. It's like selling the Brooklyn Bridge to thousands of different buyers and giving each of them fee simple title to the bridge.

I think they reshuffled these real estate packages over and over and changed their composition for different buyers of swaps..essentially selling the very same swaps against the same real estate loans to many different buyers.

That's massive fraud and fraud is illegal under US law and punishable with prison time.

So, why were they bailed out instead of prosecuted?

The Federal Reserve will not tell Congress how much money they printed under TARP and they won't tell Congress to whom it went.

I'm not in favor of bailing out crooks. I'm in favor of putting them in prison for a long, long time.

I'm also in favor of letting the laws of the United States deal with crooks and long prison sentences for those who break those laws. I'm in favor of letting the law be the REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH US BUSINESSES MUST OPERATE.

Trust me, when con and fraud artists in the financial institutions are indicted, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned the word will spread through the financial community like wildfire and all the bs will stop dead in it's tracks.

Continuing to bail them out only encourages them....but, Goldman Sachs gave O'Bomber about a million dollars and other institutions gave O'Bomber about 4 million more. That's not counting the money given to Chris Dodd and other members of Congress.

These derivatives did not affect the checking and savings accounts of depositors...like you. Those deposits are insured by the FDIC up to $100,000...the last time I checked.

posted April 24, 2010 09:42 PM         

the federal reserve discount window since the federal reserve is NOT FEDERAL in any real sense of the word, is not a federal bailout, now, is it? and it is not the kind of bailout we have seen in the last couple of years either.

but jwhop wall street has been behind EVERY administration for years. ever since they saw what FDR did they have been working on LEGALLY getting it ALL in their "portfolio" if you like.

while i might agree with you about trying them and putting them in prison they are the richest, best lawyered, best padded (by subordinates) people in the world. they are not necessarily american and this is not happening just to america. put some of them in jail and they will just be replaced by someone who can get away with not getting caught for another while. without any regulation that is just what they do. the mafia ain't got nothing on these guys.

"let me control a country's money and i care not for its laws..." guess who said that? a banker perhaps? an investment manager? a rothschild? how many people would we have to get hold of, prosecute, and put away before we got even close to the men behind the scenes?

how many big mafia bosses have been put away for life? it hasn't made a dent in the organization, has it? it did however, inspire them to get more thoroughly involved in "legitimate" business.

posted April 24, 2010 09:53 PM         

quote:

---

It sounds remarkably like you don't have a single fact with which to challenge what I say acoustic.

---

Hmmm...because it looks to me that you haven't shown that you're in possession of a single fact on the issue yourself. You were asked to prove what you were saying, and you didn't. Not only did you not prove what you said, you didn't prove it repeatedly. Instead you again made the same claim that I've been asking you to prove.

Now WHO has trouble with facts?

You finally at least tried to back up your assessment after my repeated challenge with that marketwatch article...only what you've said still isn't supported by that article. There are no "permanent bailouts" as you've suggested. That article makes NO such claim.

This:

"The Dodd bill doesn't prohibit regulators from providing federal assistance to banks involved in swaps transactions."

Is not a "Whoops". You need to continue reading about how the banks may have to capitalize their derivative segments separately, which would untie one function of the bank from the other.

quote:

---

BOTH bills talk about government assistance and one mentions BAILOUTS specifically.

---

You have yet to prove that they speak of these things in the manner you've presented. That's the point I've been making!

quote:

---

I do not pervert facts.

---

Who are you trying to kid with this one?

posted April 25, 2010 11:06 AM         

Here, let me feed you the facts from a left nipple, NPR..National Public Radio. You're not mature enough or strong enough to take straight conservative facts.

Experts Say Bills Won't End 'Too Big To Fail'
by Adam Davidson
April 23, 2010

We at Planet Money did an informal survey of economists and regulatory experts on the left and the right. We couldn't find any who fully endorse the reforms backed by President Obama and Democrats in Congress.

Everyone thinks the reforms just aren't enough to solve the problem.

Take, for example, "too big to fail" -- the idea that if one of the largest banks in the country gets into trouble, the government will save it with taxpayer money.

"A vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts," Obama said in his speech in New York on Thursday.

I cannot find any experts -- of any party -- who are willing to agree with Obama on this one.

"We're not seeing a very forceful step on the too-big-to-fail problem," said Carmen Reinhart, an economist at the University of Maryland. "If there's any doubt that the crisis may be systemic, we will bail out again."

So, if a major bank says, "Hey, save us or the economy will go under," the government's going to save the bank. Full stop.

We did find one expert, Doug Elliott of the Brookings Institution, who is actually a huge fan of the regulatory reform bills. He says they bring a bunch of changes that make our economy safer.

But they don't end too big to fail, he said. The only way to do that is to break them up so that "they're so small that we don't care" if they fail.

This is close to a consensus view among the experts. Some say that's a good idea, some say it isn't. But most say that unless you chop up the big banks into lots of small banks, you won't end too big to fail.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126203939

Now, if it comes down to "who do you believe"...on any issue, the serial liar O'Bomber and his lying Socialist comrades in congress are going to be at the very bottom of the list...as are O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers like you acoustic.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste acoustic. Let me suggest you attempt to turn yours on. Ignore the screeching and howling as this rusty long unused equipment is engaged. Likewise, ignore the smoke and smell coming off that slipping rubber band turning all those rusty screeching and howling gears and pulleys.

Since this is all so new to you acoustic, I've done some of the heavy lifting for you.

Attempt to read the following sections of the so called Wall Street Reform bill with understanding. Don't expect to see the word "Bailout(s)" in the actual language. Government assistance, government backing, government guarantees and other language in the bill...which doesn't DEFINE terms...means the very same thing.

Section 113
Financial Stability Oversight Council identifies those institutions which are too big to let fail

Section 204
Gives the FDIC authority to tap the US treasury for funding to bail out institutions creditors. This is a permanent bail out authority of the FDIC to buy the debts of institutions. it not only bails out institutions but their creditors as well and permits institutions to enter an orderly bankruptcy process in which they could emerge debt free...thanks to the federal government and US taxpayers.

Section 210
Orderly Resolution Fund funded by taxes on institutions which will be passed on to customers, employees and investors in the institutions...AS ALL TAXES AND COST OF REGULATION ON CORPORATIONS ARE PASSED ON TO CUSTOMERS AND THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE CORPORATIONS ALL OF WHOM ARE TAXPAYERS.

Section 210
Line of credit from the US treasury to the FDIC secured by the asset value of institutions which are failing. Another form of bailout funded by taxpayers. These assets are only security IF they are correctly and accurately valued. We should have learned something from the non-performing and defaulted mortgage loans carried on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac books at their full face value. I doubt government geeks are capable of learning anything.

Section 1155
FDIC is authorized to "Guarantee the debt" of even solvent institutions...not if they're failing but even if they're temporarily illiquid. Another taxpayer funded bailout.

The obvious correct path is to let businesses which through mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance or illegality are failed businesses...enter bankruptcy. There, those who have been derelict in granting business credit, stockholders and others who should have known better will lose their investment. That's the way it should work.

What's proposed will give failed or failing institutions the best credit rating on earth..by guarantees to creditors backed by the United States government...and therefore US taxpayers. They can't lose..thanks to taxpayers.

Hahaha

Far from going after Wall Street, O'Bomber and demoscats are giving Wall Street access to the US Treasury and US taxpayer funds....to bail them and their creditors out.

posted April 25, 2010 03:00 PM         

Further, this 50 billion dollar fund that can be accessed for bailouts is not taxpayer funded. It's funded by large banks, so when we're talking about the FDIC, we're NOT talking about taxpayer funds.

So much for that.

posted April 25, 2010 04:24 PM         

Your arguments are off point. No one, not even leftists agree with your position.

This legislation clearly provides for bailouts for institutions, including banks AND their creditors...at US taxpayer expense.

The fact no one want to see that happen...except the institutions and their creditors is beside the point.

Even the $50 billion fund created by taxes on institutions will be borne by taxpayers as these institutions pass their costs through to consumers.

This is just another bad piece of legislation being pushed by O'Bomber to make him look good to the crazies and Kool-Aid drinkers but in reality, it's a boon for institutions, including banks and their creditors.

I still think there will be a bill of some kind for which O'Bomber can take credit. He needs all the credit he can get considering he's screwed up everything he's touched so far.

katatonic, you're welcome.

**edit

posted April 25, 2010 04:41 PM         

i will be surprised if anything with teeth gets very far considering the millions set aside to lobby our representatives and senators to do their best to water it down. this is why goldman is visiting the president too, most likely.

however what i have seen on the lincoln bill, just a summary, mentions the loopholes which made it LEGALLY possible for the shenanigans to go on up till now. which is why trying individuals, assuming you can finger the actual wrongdoers/decision makers, is a fairly useless pastime...