Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Jamie_B

Elizabeth Warren knocks it out of the park!!!

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='12 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1266009962' post='863083']
Im not sure if you guys are understanding the notion that it was regulation that kept these banks from becoming too big to fail in the first place.
[/quote]

I think the entire notion of a bank being "too big to fail" is a bunch of BS. It's just an excuse the politicians came up with to bail out their buddies in the banking industry since they are pretty much the ones really pulling the strings in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JohnnyUtah' date='15 February 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1266253153' post='863554']
I think the entire notion of a bank being "too big to fail" is a bunch of BS. It's just an excuse the politicians came up with to bail out their buddies in the banking industry since they are pretty much the ones really pulling the strings in this country.
[/quote]


Please watch the video in the link above. (the one from fox)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='15 February 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1266253237' post='863555']
Please watch the video in the link above. (the one from fox)
[/quote]

Okay I watched the video but I don't really see how it relates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JohnnyUtah' date='17 February 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1266445149' post='864024']
Okay I watched the video but I don't really see how it relates.
[/quote]


The point here is that she is in favor of breaking up the banks and putting them as consumer and investment banks again. This cant be pleasing to the Banks whom run things. I'm at school so I cant verify this at the moment as I have to get to class, but I'm pretty sure Obama said this might be an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JohnnyUtah' date='17 February 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1266445149' post='864024']
Okay I watched the video but I don't really see how it relates.
[/quote]

Jamie B's MO is to post a video and not say what he thinks about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sois' date='17 February 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1266451053' post='864035']
Jamie B's MO is to post a video and not say what he thinks about it.
[/quote]


uh, didnt i just say what I thought? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='12 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1266009962' post='863083']
Im not sure if you guys are understanding the notion that it was regulation that kept these banks from becoming too big to fail in the first place.
[/quote]

Explain. Unless you are talking about FDIC, this makes absolutely no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 February 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1266451140' post='864036']
uh, didnt i just say what I thought? :blink:
[/quote]

Yes you did, but only after you originally posted a video and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sois' date='17 February 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1266451619' post='864039']
Yes you did, but only after you originally posted a video and nothing else.
[/quote]
Sometimes that's just a polite way to bring an idea to someone's attention while allowing them to form their own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sois' date='17 February 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1266451478' post='864038']
Explain. Unless you are talking about FDIC, this makes absolutely no sense.
[/quote]

The banks became "too big to fail" when the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act gutted Glass-Stegal and allowed consumer banks to purchase investment banks and vice versa.


[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='17 February 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1266452844' post='864043']
Sometimes that's just a polite way to bring an idea to someone's attention while allowing them to form their own opinion.
[/quote]


Exactly, saying too much directs the conversation, I'd rather allow folks to digest it then discuss various opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 February 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1266450971' post='864034']
The point here is that she is in favor of breaking up the banks and putting them as consumer and investment banks again. This cant be pleasing to the Banks whom run things. I'm at school so I cant verify this at the moment as I have to get to class, but I'm pretty sure Obama said this might be an option.
[/quote]


what is being proposed..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/01/obama_to_break_up_banks.html


[quote]Banking reforms do not come bigger than those proposed today by President Obama.

In an echo of the break up of banks that was imposed in the United States after the Great Depression, he wants a limit on their overall size and he also wants them banned from three activities that in recent years have been central to many of them.

He is pushing for them to be prohibited from involvment in hedge funds, from buying and selling whole companies in what's known as private equity and from buying and selling securities for their own benefit on so-called proprietary trading desks.

In simple terms, he wants to prevent banks from taking speculative risks to generate colossal profits, while knowing that if their bets go wrong taxpayers will pick up the bill.

It means that some of the biggest banks in the US - from Bank of America, to JP Morgan and even Goldman Sachs - may have to be broken up.

Of course its possible (perhaps even likely) that pure investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, will be largely exempt.

But President Obama did not say that the reform would only apply to those banks with a retail presence, such as JP Morgan and Citigroup (although perhaps it is what he meant to say). He said it would apply to "banks" as defined in US law - and Goldman became one of those in the autumn of 2008.

The big banks will hate his proposals - and will doubtless use their formidable lobbying power and financial resources to persuade Congress to water down the reform plans.

But Obama is up for the scrap. "If these folks want a fight, it is a fight I am ready to have".

The US President believes that banks are back to their bad old ways too soon after their woes led to the biggest bank global bail out in history.

Goldman Sachs would deny this, but its near record revenues of $45bn for 2009 and 50% rise in staff pay to $16bn - or $500,000 per head - shows that the banking crisis, for it at least, is a dim and distant memory.

UPDATE: 18:09

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has just told me that Obama's plan to break up the banks is consistent with the views he expressed in his recent bank reform paper.

His condition for implementing such a radical plan was that it needed international agreement.

Well, he has got that now. So he has told me - explicitly - that a Tory government would impose an identical dismantling of British banks to those suggested by President Obama.

Which will generate profound fear in the boardrooms of Royal Bank of Scotland and - more especially - Barclays.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='17 February 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1266458995' post='864063']
The banks became "too big to fail" when the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act gutted Glass-Stegal and allowed consumer banks to purchase investment banks and vice versa.





Exactly, saying too much directs the conversation, I'd rather allow folks to digest it then discuss various opinions.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, after a nap your original sentence made sense. Good work, I forgot I originally agreed with you when this thread started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sois' date='17 February 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1266462895' post='864082']
Oh yeah, after a nap your original sentence made sense. Good work, I forgot I originally agreed with you when this thread started.
[/quote]


No worries, I'm the same way in the morning before I have my coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sois' date='17 February 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1266462895' post='864082']
Oh yeah, after a nap your original sentence made sense. Good work, I forgot I originally agreed with you when this thread started.
[/quote]

:24:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I finally heard from Senator Webb on this as well.

[quote]Dear Mr. "B":

Thank you for contacting my office regarding controls placed on federal assistance to the financial sector. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

I believe that it is important to place restrictions on federal assistance at the time Congress approves legislation, which is why I worked to ensure that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the authorizing legislation for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, contained limits on executive compensation and important transparency provisions. However, I also strongly believe that given the significant sums of taxpayer money involved and the continuing instability in the financial sector and the overall economy, Congress has an ongoing duty to conduct strict oversight of the financial sector.

As the U.S. Senate debates matters pertaining to the financial sector and the economic crisis, please be assured that your specific views are helpful to me and my staff. I hope you continue to share your thoughts with us in the years ahead.

I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.

Thank you once again for contacting my office.

Sincerely,


Jim Webb
United States Senator[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Elflocko' date='17 February 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1266463459' post='864086']
:24:
[/quote]

Offseason Madness - Where you argue opposite of yourself in the same thread to break up the monotony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm kinda with [b]John~Galt[/b] on this issue, and yes, I do believe that the mortgage lending practices and the real estate speculation gone awry is a major contributor to this economic crises, because banks while unregulated kept shuffling around these loans that were fucking bad to BEGIN WITH, and real estate speculation was out of control. The banks abandoned their good sense in lending and people that borrowed money they couldn't afford to pay back because they couldn't be bothered to read the terms of the loan are to blame for this part of the economic meltdown.

As [b]John~Galt[/b] says, what in the fuck ever happened to personal responsibility? This isn't solely an issue relegated to our economy either, its become a festering litiguous issue to the point of insanity. Its pervaded all aspects of our society...everyone is a fucking victim of someone else's wrongdoing rather than a situation of their own making. The chickens are certainly roosting now.

I'm reminded of [b]Homer[/b] reminding all of us how unsustainable this all is...no doubt. But I tend to believe that a big part of this unsustainable problem is that even now, our government refuses to acknowledge that certain establishments (corporations) need to be held accountable for their misdeeds. Why is it the fault or obligation of the taxpayer to make sure Bear/Stearns continues to succeed? It ISN'T. Never has been. Shouldn't ever be.

The airlines are a different industry and maybe don't belong in the same argument. Air travel is a crucial aspect of American business that I would like the government help prop up in desperate times (even though privately I wonder about huge, profitable corporations never socking away money for "a rainy day"). Maybe homes are too. But the government is becoming too big, too involved, and spending WAAAAAAY too much of our money right now, particularly in light of the expenditures of fighting two wars simultaneously on top of it all.

Its a big clusterfuck and I don't know what the answers are except returning to more sober lending practices, and a return (as E Warren says) to a "hey! We're the fucking customer here!" attitude for banks.

Yeesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='17 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1266465532' post='864095']
As [b]John~Galt[/b] says, what in the fuck ever happened to personal responsibility?
[/quote]

As it is fictional, it never existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='sois' date='17 February 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1266466585' post='864096']
As it is fictional, it never existed.
[/quote]

That's a crock of shit. People used to have to jump through hoops of fire to get a bank to lend them money for a home, and that's when they had generally spotless credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='17 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1266465532' post='864095']
I'm kinda with [b]John~Galt[/b] on this issue, and yes, I do believe that the mortgage lending practices and the real estate speculation gone awry is a major contributor to this economic crises, because banks while unregulated kept shuffling around these loans that were fucking bad to BEGIN WITH, and real estate speculation was out of control. The banks abandoned their good sense in lending and people that borrowed money they couldn't afford to pay back because they couldn't be bothered to read the terms of the loan are to blame for this part of the economic meltdown.

As [b]John~Galt[/b] says, what in the fuck ever happened to personal responsibility? This isn't solely an issue relegated to our economy either, its become a festering litiguous issue to the point of insanity. Its pervaded all aspects of our society...everyone is a fucking victim of someone else's wrongdoing rather than a situation of their own making. The chickens are certainly roosting now.

I'm reminded of [b]Homer[/b] reminding all of us how unsustainable this all is...no doubt. But I tend to believe that a big part of this unsustainable problem is that even now, our government refuses to acknowledge that certain establishments (corporations) need to be held accountable for their misdeeds. Why is it the fault or obligation of the taxpayer to make sure Bear/Stearns continues to succeed? It ISN'T. Never has been. Shouldn't ever be.

The airlines are a different industry and maybe don't belong in the same argument. Air travel is a crucial aspect of American business that I would like the government help prop up in desperate times (even though privately I wonder about huge, profitable corporations never socking away money for "a rainy day"). Maybe homes are too. But the government is becoming too big, too involved, and spending WAAAAAAY too much of our money right now, particularly in light of the expenditures of fighting two wars simultaneously on top of it all.

Its a big clusterfuck and I don't know what the answers are except returning to more sober lending practices, and a return (as E Warren says) to a "hey! We're the fucking customer here!" attitude for banks.

Yeesh.
[/quote]

The fault lies with the deregulation and the bankers. You can blather on all you want about "personal responsibility" but the folks who were ultimately responsible failed to do their jobs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='17 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266467311' post='864097']
That's a crock of shit. People used to have to jump through hoops of fire to get a bank to lend them money for a home, and that's when they had generally spotless credit.
[/quote]

Yeah, but that still doesn't invalidate my point. Some people are just corrupt and without regulation, they will try to screw everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Elflocko' date='18 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1266470263' post='864098']
The fault lies with the deregulation and the bankers. You can blather on all you want about "personal responsibility" but the folks who were ultimately responsible failed to do their jobs...
[/quote]

To be fair, when I say "personal responsibility", I mean the corporations/banks/politicians too. All sides are to blame. The lenders for being predatory and underwriting what they had to know were bad loans, the politicians for allowing this scenario to happen and the borrowers for being stupid. The borrowers forgot that there's no such thing as a free lunch. All are to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='17 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266465532' post='864095']
I'm kinda with [b]John~Galt[/b] on this issue, and yes, I do believe that the mortgage lending practices and the real estate speculation gone awry is a major contributor to this economic crises, because banks while unregulated kept shuffling around these loans that were fucking bad to BEGIN WITH, and real estate speculation was out of control. The banks abandoned their good sense in lending and people that borrowed money they couldn't afford to pay back because they couldn't be bothered to read the terms of the loan are to blame for this part of the economic meltdown.

As [b]John~Galt[/b] says, what in the fuck ever happened to personal responsibility? This isn't solely an issue relegated to our economy either, its become a festering litiguous issue to the point of insanity. Its pervaded all aspects of our society...everyone is a fucking victim of someone else's wrongdoing rather than a situation of their own making. The chickens are certainly roosting now.

I'm reminded of [b]Homer[/b] reminding all of us how unsustainable this all is...no doubt. But I tend to believe that a big part of this unsustainable problem is that even now, our government refuses to acknowledge that certain establishments (corporations) need to be held accountable for their misdeeds. Why is it the fault or obligation of the taxpayer to make sure Bear/Stearns continues to succeed? It ISN'T. Never has been. Shouldn't ever be.

The airlines are a different industry and maybe don't belong in the same argument. Air travel is a crucial aspect of American business that I would like the government help prop up in desperate times (even though privately I wonder about huge, profitable corporations never socking away money for "a rainy day"). Maybe homes are too. But the government is becoming too big, too involved, and spending WAAAAAAY too much of our money right now, particularly in light of the expenditures of fighting two wars simultaneously on top of it all.

Its a big clusterfuck and I don't know what the answers are except returning to more sober lending practices, and a return (as E Warren says) to a "hey! We're the fucking customer here!" attitude for banks.

Yeesh.
[/quote]


When you take away the safeguards that allow villainous people to be, well villainous, should you be surprised when some of them become so? If I come to you at the car wash and I have a basic understanding of how my car gets clean with soap and water, but because the system has now been opened and changed so that you get a pretty nice bonus if you can sell me a wash that includes more than soap and water, even if I may or may not need it, and even if I can't afford it, because you can always turn around and sell that wash elsewhere and at a profit to boot while getting rid of the toxicness of it, should I be surprised if that happens?

You see personal responsibility is fine, but the culture was one that there were all these new types of loans that were shiny and new and allowed people who thought they may not have been able to get a home to now get one and heck if you couldn't afford it, just do enough that you can sell it in a year, heck a few months and make a profit, the banks didnt care, why would they? They could sell the thing to someone else and even if they didn't they had a house that was worth more than the mortgage because everything was going up up up!!

But that doesnt even address the mortgage backed securities aspect of this. Should we be having a market in which people are betting on if you or I can afford to pay back our loans? And not just home loans themselves but also home equity loans? (And let's remember the system failed, or people failed to do their jobs, and everything was rated AAA) and should the banks that play in that market be tied to your personal bank? And should those banks be allowed to be involved in so many aspects of finance that if they fail because the system was set up like it was that we have an "oh shit" moment like we did, and mind you still are at risk to do again? Seriously watch the fox business link to understand why the tieing of community banks to investment banks is a problem. (And really listen to the link ElFlocko posted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='18 February 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1266504593' post='864141']
When you take away the safeguards that allow villainous people to be, well villainous, should you be surprised when some of them become so? If I come to you at the car wash and I have a basic understanding of how my car gets clean with soap and water, but because the system has now been opened and changed so that you get a pretty nice bonus if you can sell me a wash that includes more than soap and water, even if I may or may not need it, and even if I can't afford it, because you can always turn around and sell that wash elsewhere and at a profit to boot while getting rid of the toxicness of it, should I be surprised if that happens?

You see personal responsibility is fine, but the culture was one that there were all these new types of loans that were shiny and new and allowed people who thought they may not have been able to get a home to now get one and heck if you couldn't afford it, just do enough that you can sell it in a year, heck a few months and make a profit, the banks didnt care, why would they? They could sell the thing to someone else and even if they didn't they had a house that was worth more than the mortgage because everything was going up up up!!

But that doesnt even address the mortgage backed securities aspect of this. Should we be having a market in which people are betting on if you or I can afford to pay back our loans? And not just home loans themselves but also home equity loans? (And let's remember the system failed, or people failed to do their jobs, and everything was rated AAA) and should the banks that play in that market be tied to your personal bank? And should those banks be allowed to be involved in so many aspects of finance that if they fail because the system was set up like it was that we have an "oh shit" moment like we did, and mind you still are at risk to do again? Seriously watch the fox business link to understand why the tieing of community banks to investment banks is a problem. (And really listen to the link ElFlocko posted)
[/quote]

While I basically agree that the whole house of cards was bad, loans do not lend themselves. People have to sign paperwork/contracts to buy a home if they are borrowing money to do so. Knowing this, it behooves the borrower to know what they can and cannot afford, and what type of loan they are getting.

Whom in their right mind would think it was a great idea to buy a $350,000 house with no money down and an ARM mortgage whereby the payments became out of reach after only a handfull of years?

Again, equal blame goes all around, and I am only willing to argue the surface of this, without getting into the tying of bad loans to securities angle of it. ALL of it was bad, and it never should have happened.

That said, you guys are also right. The banks should have never been in a position to offer bad loans to bad prospects. It defies common sense and good faith in lending practices. OTOH, you are a fool or completely ignorant of the process or mortgages if you buy a house under those terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Go-Bengals.com on Facebook

Go-Bengals.com on Twitter

×