30 replies [Last post]
expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives

As I stated, I'm not in favor of giving tax money to corporate executives. However, the salary cap issue is already sending shock waves through Wall Street. America has seen this before, when federal highway dollars were an axe held over states to coerce them to set the 55 mph speed limit, enact seatbelt laws, drinking ages, etc.

It's also a lot like the IMF making loans contingent on the subject nation enacting certain economic policies.

Wall Street doesn't like it because it sends a HUGE signal that this administration tilts toward socialism and views capitalism as evil. Every time this administration sends that signal, the Dow drops.

Like it or not, Wall Street drives our economy far more than Pennsylvania Avenue. Private industry, not government, provides jobs, income, and builds wealth. We need to keep our heads about us and avoid the temptation to put the screws to the engine that actually builds our economy in favor of pet social programs that drain it.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives
civetcat wrote:
I don't recall anyone on this forum who spoke out as being for the stimulus package We were talking about allowing bailed out bankers to take huge bonuses for losing money. Follow the thread.

What the heck do you think that the Bank Bailout was called?
STIMULUS PACKAGE
Therefore the thread is being followed.
You would be best served by trying and make yourself seem smart instead of trying to dumb down me.
If.......no, when this current one passes then the Bank Bailout will be STIMULUS PACKAGE #1

Lets get it together now.
Set the Bong down and Google the "Bank Bailout" and see what it says.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives
civetcat wrote:
[Financial regulation goes much further than sub prime loans. It includes all banks and securities markets as well as the comodities futers markets. Deregulation began in the 1980's it was the mantra of the Reaganites. Just let govmint get out of the way and capitalism do it's thing. .

So what do are we supposed to do now? Half a million more Americans out of work every month. Tens of thousands of people losing thier homes, kids without health insurance. Do nothing? No. You spend.

Everyone knows that giving tax breaks to rich people does very little to stimulate the economy. They put the money in the bank. We tried that for 8 years and look where we are. Tax breaks to working class peole is better because they spend more of it but not enough. They use a lot to pay of credit card debt, and besides they are already working. Spending on infrastructure and public works pays a lot higher. It puts people to work, and they buy stuff and more people work, and we end up with roads and bridges and schools.

I personaly think someone who has worked his entire life and is suddenly unemployed due to this downturn is worth giving a hand up to. Food stamps I'm ok with, health care through midicare ok, unemployment extension ok, and I'll go ahead and pay taxes for it. So will this guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Financial regulation goes much further than sub prime loans. It includes all banks and securities markets as well as the comodities futers markets. Deregulation began in the 1980's it was the mantra of the Reaganites. Just let govmint get out of the way and capitalism do it's thing
Are you out of your mind !!! Regulation got us here. As has been discussed already on this forum it was the Government MANDATE that forced Fannie and Freddie to guarantee loans to individuals that had no hope of repaying. And I believe that was under.....hummmm....lets see.....oh yeah, Clinton and a Democratically controlled Congress.
I want you and anyone else here to show specifically where Bush Sr or Jr or Reagan caused these banks to make these risky loans.

Everyone knows that giving tax breaks to rich people does very little to stimulate the economy. They put the money in the bank. We tried that for 8 years and look where we are. Tax breaks to working class peole is better because they spend more of it but not enough. They use a lot to pay of credit card debt, and besides they are already working. Spending on infrastructure and public works pays a lot higher. It puts people to work, and they buy stuff and more people work, and we end up with roads and bridges and schools

Yes everyone does know that except the lib dems, socialists and communist.
What do the Banks do with the money that gets deposited into them?
They loan it to others so that they can now create jobs and generate more taxes, produce more goods, which in turn produces more jobs...cycle goes on.
You really don't understand even basic economics or business do you?
8 years of the most prosperous growth this nation has ever seen, didn't end until Dems got control of the house.
Credit card debt is another major problem. People need to learn to live within their means. Take some personal responsibility and don't try and buy more than you can afford.

I personaly think someone who has worked his entire life and is suddenly unemployed due to this downturn is worth giving a hand up to. Food stamps I'm ok with, health care through midicare ok, unemployment extension ok, and I'll go ahead and pay taxes for it.

I am also for that....as a temporary helping hand and not a lifelong welfare career.
Thought you said in another post in another thread that you paid no taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I am sorry but the NY Times is not a credible news source.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives

JTapia I'm sorry but I don't want to look up and post a bunch of links to help you out, but I'd suggest you do.

Fany and Fredy aren't relulatory agencies, they are reinsurers. I'd start by doing a search on securities regulation and start reading from when the FdIC and the SEC were set up back in Roosvelts time. Wiki is a good place to start, much shorter and easier to use than say taking a course or reading a whole book. There has been an unbroken string of deregulation since the early 80s, yup, Buba did it too. Clinton wasn't so great on financial regulation.

All the bad mortgages bundled together would be cheap and easy to just buy. I only wish things were so cheap. It's the Banks that traded in securitized bundles of those morgages, or more to the point it's that banks were even degregulated so that they could act as investment firms at the same time.

It's true I pay very little in taxes, thank you George Bush. I wish i did because everyone else would also who makes money off investments. The link wasn't to a news source but to an opinion piece written by a CEO of a publicly held company, Netflix.

You way to tell it's an opinion piece is by the great big words "Opinion" written across the top of the page. I personaly like it when a source makes it easy to differentiate between opinion and news.

There are two large chunks of money that are discussed in the news regarding the Republican depression. The bank bailout, and the stimulous package. The bailout money was spent by bush and paulson, the stimulous is being worked out now. Two entirely different animals.

The bailout was never intended as a stimulous, only to keep them from imploding. The money went down a black hole. Nothing was produced, no cars, no bridges to nowhere, no libraries and fish ladders. If you count big bonuses for execs or the number of people employed by the finnancial services industries then I guess it had some stimulous affect. But I don't like those folks anyway. I say let New York bankers go begging but that's just me.

I too think the salary cap is the wrong way to go at a problem that can be had another way. Here's the link again to the netflix fella http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?partner=permal... (opinion not news)

I liked the 55 mph law in that it kept money out of the hands of middle east tyrants, saved a lot of lives, so do seat belts and raising the drinking age.

I'm way warry of blaming the financial meltdown on requiring banks to loan to minorities at rates similar to whites as long as the credit rating is the same. I know no one here is a racist, but I know a lot of folks who are like to blame everything on those brown folks. It's called scapegoating.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives
civetcat wrote:
JTapia I'm sorry but I don't want to look up and post a bunch of links to help you out, but I'd suggest you do.

Fany and Fredy aren't relulatory agencies, they are reinsurers. I'd start by doing a search on securities regulation and start reading from when the FdIC and the SEC were set up back in Roosvelts time. Wiki is a good place to start, much shorter and easier to use than say taking a course or reading a whole book. There has been an unbroken string of deregulation since the early 80s, yup, Buba did it too. Clinton wasn't so great on financial regulation.

All the bad mortgages bundled together would be cheap and easy to just buy. I only wish things were so cheap. It's the Banks that traded in securitized bundles of those morgages, or more to the point it's that banks were even degregulated so that they could act as investment firms at the same time.

You way to tell it's an opinion piece is by the great big words "Opinion" written across the top of the page. I personaly like it when a source makes it easy to differentiate between opinion and news.

.

The bailout was never intended as a stimulous, only to keep them from imploding. The money went down a black hole. Nothing was produced, no cars, no bridges to nowhere, no libraries and fish ladders. If you count big bonuses for execs or the number of people employed by the finnancial services industries then I guess it had some stimulous affect. But I don't like those folks anyway. I say let New York bankers go begging but that's just me.

I'm way warry of blaming the financial meltdown on requiring banks to loan to minorities at rates similar to whites as long as the credit rating is the same. I know no one here is a racist, but I know a lot of folks who are like to blame everything on those brown folks. It's called scapegoating.

Fany and Fredy aren't relulatory agencies
I never said they were regulatory agencies. Look closely and get your facts straight. What they are officially known as is "government-sponsored enterprises". Reread the part about trying to dumb me down.
"The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992"
google this and see where it all started and what was mandated to fannie and freddie, or as you suggested, wiki it.

All the bad mortgages bundled together would be cheap and easy to just buy. I only wish things were so cheap. It's the Banks that traded in securitized bundles of those morgages, or more to the point it's that banks were even degregulated so that they could act as investment firms at the same time.

See above, the Housing Act of 1992 Mandated a system to guarantee High Risk loans. Having them bundled, along with lower risk loans, so as to lower the risk score so that securities investors would purchase them was one of the solutions. Geez civet, do you familiarize yourself with anything you comment on?

You way to tell it's an opinion piece is by the great big words "Opinion" written across the top of the page. I personaly like it when a source makes it easy to differentiate between opinion and news
Reread the part about trying to dumb me down.
When I see "nytimes" I see it as ALL opinion and ZERO news so your pitiful attempt at sarcasm is irrelevant.

The bailout was never intended as a stimulous, only to keep them from imploding. The money went down a black hole. Nothing was produced, no cars, no bridges to nowhere, no libraries and fish ladders. If you count big bonuses for execs or the number of people employed by the finnancial services industries then I guess it had some stimulous affect. But I don't like those folks anyway. I say let New York bankers go begging but that's just me.

I have repeatedly stated I was against the bailout so making arguments as to whether it is "stimulus" or not is just silly.
But since you bring it up again, It was however touted as an "economic stimulus" package designed to give failing banks a boost and ease the fears so that other banks would continue loaning money to keep the economy going.

I'm way warry of blaming the financial meltdown on requiring banks to loan to minorities at rates similar to whites as long as the credit rating is the same. I know no one here is a racist, but I know a lot of folks who are like to blame everything on those brown folks.

Who, but you, has said that the "brown people" should not get loans that "white people" get even though their credit scores and their ability to repay are equal?
That is a racist remark made by you and nobody else. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives
Quote:
Who, but you, has said that the "brown people" should not get loans that "white people" get even though their credit scores and their ability to repay are equal?
That is a racist remark made by you and nobody else. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Hey Jtap! Aren't you one of those "brown folk"? I knew all this was your fault! At our last "whitey" meeting (at the bowling alley near the trailer park) we discussed how it was all your fault! We spent so much time on it we never even got to what we're going to do to keep black folk down. Now look who's president! See what you've done? For shame!

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives

Reread the part about trying to dumb me down.

Didn't mean to be condescending, sorry. Your right, I'm wrong. This whole world financial crisis totaling trillions and trillions of dollars was caused by our government trying to help underserved peopel get into a house. Don't know how I ever missed it.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives

Apology accepted.
Glad you have finally come to your senses.
Actually only the 1st "Bailout" was caused by that and I don't think it was limited to those "brown" folks. I personally know several "whiteys" that are close to foreclosure or in foreclosure.
The whole economic meltdown has alot to do with the housing market falling flat on its arse but thats just one piece of the puzzle.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives

In reading elswhere I ran across this interesting article, no it's not the NYT.

I like the way it ties together so many of the bad actors from the financial industry including many heading into the Obama administration.

Larry Summers, Obama's top ecenomic advisor.

Gary Gensler up for appointment to the Comodities Futures Trading Commision, (all those pork bellies, and oil, and gold, and gas futures etc etc etc)

Rubin, former Fed for Clinton and exec at Citigroup, one of the biggies we just bailed out.

Phil Graham McCains top economic advisor, "stop your whining little people" ex senator and deregulator in chief.

It was leaving the derivatives unregulated more than anything else that did it this time. The failure to regulate credit default swaps. That's how you turn funky loans to poor people into something big enough to tear down the world economy. Brilliant.

Now some of these bad actors are still at it. The CFTC is actually a big job. Don't like Giethner (new Treasury Secretary) much either, I wish Dashell had come up for confirmation first, I'd much rather they gave Giethner the boot.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090216/hayes

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1550
Bailout business; Salary caps for Executives

I don't believe it would be best described as "Un-regulated" being the problem as it would be described as lack of oversight.
Yes Bush was at fault for that. It was his watch, his responsibility. He should have seen it coming and did something to curtail it. He could not have stopped it completely but he certainly could have slowed it down enough to lessen the severity of it all.
I'll say it for you, "dang Bush, liar. I really hate that guy, he's the reason Donkey Kong was throwing those barrels at poor ole Mario."

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Here Come Salary Capsexpatriate303/31/2009 23:05 pm
Starting pointJSmitty507/22/2011 09:05 am
Obama Wants to Cut Executive Pay 90 Percentexpatriate2811/10/2009 14:41 pm
More News From the War On Capitalismexpatriate1203/23/2009 22:18 pm
Bush Talk - Bailout PollCVC009/24/2008 19:14 pm