Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been saying this for awhile. Obama dropped the ball on this one. Not sure why the right wingers paint him as some Socialist who is anti-Banks.
Quote:
"Neil Barofsky, the former Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, can sum up the state of the nation in two words: "Pretty ****ed." The concise assessment came Tuesday during a question and answer session on Gawker...Barofsky insisted that President Obama's administration, of which Geithner is a part, isn't doing enough to address issues inside the financial industry
You don't need the Young Turks to see that. We will never restore the old system. I can only hope the fall will be as gentle as possible and hope it's replacement will not be something even worse.
He's anti-middle class and doesn't care to do anything about getting jobs for the American people.
But no one says he's not for the globalist corporations and powerful international banks.
You do realize that calling him a Communist would mean he's anti globalist corporation and powerful international banks. Unless there is somewhere in the Communist Manifesto that praises powerful banks.
He's allowed people to get loans they can't afford..........he supported Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac giving mortgage relief to those that probably should never own a home in the first place. His problem is President Obama thinks the poor can afford a mortgage payment.
I say let them all fall and they will do better at manging their business, when they get a bailout it's like welfarethey never have to do any better.
And the first bank bailout was signed off on by a President from which political party?
I don't think we should have bailed out any banks, but the problem was that we allowed Glass-Steagall. If we allowed the investment banks to fall at that point, all banks would have fallen.
Reinstitute that barrier, between commercial and investment banks, and we don't need to bail anyone out ever again.
And the first bank bailout was signed off on by a President from which political party?
I don't think we should have bailed out any banks, but the problem was that we allowed Glass-Steagall. If we allowed the investment banks to fall at that point, all banks would have fallen.
Reinstitute that barrier, between commercial and investment banks, and we don't need to bail anyone out ever again.
Laws were in place that instructed the Fed who was suppose to oversee the banks to take over failing banks, not bail them out. Banks do not fail overnight. It was a long process. When the banks get taken over, everything freezes, including bonuses. This is of course why this action was not taken.
So those in the Fed did not do their job ie: Bernanke and Geithner. That they didn't means they are either complete and total morons incapable of doing their jobs are they are utterly corrupt. I believe even considering that Geithner was unable to do his own taxes it's most likely the latter.
Rather than fire them, they were gave complete control of billions and billions of dollars that belonged to taxpayers. That this happened had nothing to do with repeal of Glass-Steagall. Yep, those who did that deserve to be tarred and feathered, but the current continued corruption is because we continue to vote for the corrupt.
Laws were in place that instructed the Fed who was suppose to oversee the banks to take over failing banks, not bail them out. Banks do not fail overnight. It was a long process. When the banks get taken over, everything freezes, including bonuses. This is of course why this action was not taken.
So those in the Fed did not do their job ie: Bernanke and Geithner. That they didn't means they are either complete and total morons incapable of doing their jobs are they are utterly corrupt. I believe even considering that Geithner was unable to do his own taxes it's most likely the latter.
Rather than fire them, they were gave complete control of billions and billions of dollars that belonged to taxpayers. That this happened had nothing to do with repeal of Glass-Steagall. Yep, those who did that deserve to be tarred and feathered, but the current continued corruption is because we continue to vote for the corrupt.
The problem was that the fed didn't know how bad the investment banks were off. The fed is there to take over commercial banks.
When Glass-Steagall was repealed, the difference between the two went away.
And the problem was so large, that the federal government didn't have the money to "take over".
And the first bank bailout was signed off on by a President from which political party?
I don't think we should have bailed out any banks, but the problem was that we allowed Glass-Steagall. If we allowed the investment banks to fall at that point, all banks would have fallen.
Reinstitute that barrier, between commercial and investment banks, and we don't need to bail anyone out ever again.
well said. and while bush was the president that signed off on the bank bailouts, and even had his people force the bailouts on banks that didnt want or need the money, obama was in full support of the legislation, and if he had been president at the time he would have also signed off on it as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Laws were in place that instructed the Fed who was suppose to oversee the banks to take over failing banks, not bail them out. Banks do not fail overnight. It was a long process. When the banks get taken over, everything freezes, including bonuses. This is of course why this action was not taken.
wrong, the laws that would have stopped the problem were repealed in the 90s during the clinton administration. as memphis pointed out we need to reinstate the glass-steagall act and put the wasll between commercial banks and investment banks back up, and keep it there. dodd-frank is rubbish and wont do anything to improve the situation.
Quote:
So those in the Fed did not do their job ie: Bernanke and Geithner. That they didn't means they are either complete and total morons incapable of doing their jobs are they are utterly corrupt. I believe even considering that Geithner was unable to do his own taxes it's most likely the latter.
actually it is more like both. they are incompetent morons who are also quite corrupt.
Quote:
Rather than fire them, they were gave complete control of billions and billions of dollars that belonged to taxpayers. That this happened had nothing to do with repeal of Glass-Steagall. Yep, those who did that deserve to be tarred and feathered, but the current continued corruption is because we continue to vote for the corrupt.
it has everything to do with glass-steagall. with GS, the investment banks would never have been allowed to achieve the leverage ratios the did, and with GS, commercial banks would not have been allowed to also be investment banks, and as such would not have allowed the huge increase in the sub prime mortgage markets, and would not have been able to take those highly risky sub prime loans, bundle them up and sell of the pieces to other banks so as to lay off their risk onto others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
