Obama lacks decorum

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?[/quote]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

[ucodegen]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

The problem is that investing in the banks was considered a safe dividend paying investment. This means that pension, retirement, endowments, and insurance companies were some of the largest investors in the banks. This causes the ‘cascade’ that would cause collapse. Each of these entities have their own outlay and people they pay. In addition, this country runs on credit these days, more so than 1920s. Kill most of the banks and it all comes to a screeching halt — depression.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

This is why I have no problem with the banks having to pay interest on TARP money, nor the existence of warrants against the stock that can be exercised at successively lower prices (every quarter, the strike price on the warrants the gov held dropped. BofA(s) were going to be ‘in the money’ in 2010). The problem is that the SEC did not watch naked shorting like they are supposed to and allowed the uptick rule to be removed so that short attacks were possible. Another problem is that banks and other institutions are vulnerable to foreign financial attacks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

I do have my suspicions that how some of the TARP money was doled out and handled is questionable. BofA, Wells Fargo and the like paid about 3.5%. I do wonder if Goldman Sachs got a sweetheart 0%. On the other hand Freddie and Fannie have to pay 10% on their TARP money. An interesting coincidence is that the Mortgage Bankers Association want to have Freddie and Fannie eliminated or have their business handed over to the MBA. The MBA do not like having Freddie and Fannie being an alternate source of funding for good credit mortgages. It holds down the gouge factor that the MBA could charge.

[ucodegen]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

The problem is that investing in the banks was considered a safe dividend paying investment. This means that pension, retirement, endowments, and insurance companies were some of the largest investors in the banks. This causes the ‘cascade’ that would cause collapse. Each of these entities have their own outlay and people they pay. In addition, this country runs on credit these days, more so than 1920s. Kill most of the banks and it all comes to a screeching halt — depression.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

This is why I have no problem with the banks having to pay interest on TARP money, nor the existence of warrants against the stock that can be exercised at successively lower prices (every quarter, the strike price on the warrants the gov held dropped. BofA(s) were going to be ‘in the money’ in 2010). The problem is that the SEC did not watch naked shorting like they are supposed to and allowed the uptick rule to be removed so that short attacks were possible. Another problem is that banks and other institutions are vulnerable to foreign financial attacks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

I do have my suspicions that how some of the TARP money was doled out and handled is questionable. BofA, Wells Fargo and the like paid about 3.5%. I do wonder if Goldman Sachs got a sweetheart 0%. On the other hand Freddie and Fannie have to pay 10% on their TARP money. An interesting coincidence is that the Mortgage Bankers Association want to have Freddie and Fannie eliminated or have their business handed over to the MBA. The MBA do not like having Freddie and Fannie being an alternate source of funding for good credit mortgages. It holds down the gouge factor that the MBA could charge.

[ucodegen]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

The problem is that investing in the banks was considered a safe dividend paying investment. This means that pension, retirement, endowments, and insurance companies were some of the largest investors in the banks. This causes the ‘cascade’ that would cause collapse. Each of these entities have their own outlay and people they pay. In addition, this country runs on credit these days, more so than 1920s. Kill most of the banks and it all comes to a screeching halt — depression.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

This is why I have no problem with the banks having to pay interest on TARP money, nor the existence of warrants against the stock that can be exercised at successively lower prices (every quarter, the strike price on the warrants the gov held dropped. BofA(s) were going to be ‘in the money’ in 2010). The problem is that the SEC did not watch naked shorting like they are supposed to and allowed the uptick rule to be removed so that short attacks were possible. Another problem is that banks and other institutions are vulnerable to foreign financial attacks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

I do have my suspicions that how some of the TARP money was doled out and handled is questionable. BofA, Wells Fargo and the like paid about 3.5%. I do wonder if Goldman Sachs got a sweetheart 0%. On the other hand Freddie and Fannie have to pay 10% on their TARP money. An interesting coincidence is that the Mortgage Bankers Association want to have Freddie and Fannie eliminated or have their business handed over to the MBA. The MBA do not like having Freddie and Fannie being an alternate source of funding for good credit mortgages. It holds down the gouge factor that the MBA could charge.

[ucodegen]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

The problem is that investing in the banks was considered a safe dividend paying investment. This means that pension, retirement, endowments, and insurance companies were some of the largest investors in the banks. This causes the ‘cascade’ that would cause collapse. Each of these entities have their own outlay and people they pay. In addition, this country runs on credit these days, more so than 1920s. Kill most of the banks and it all comes to a screeching halt — depression.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

This is why I have no problem with the banks having to pay interest on TARP money, nor the existence of warrants against the stock that can be exercised at successively lower prices (every quarter, the strike price on the warrants the gov held dropped. BofA(s) were going to be ‘in the money’ in 2010). The problem is that the SEC did not watch naked shorting like they are supposed to and allowed the uptick rule to be removed so that short attacks were possible. Another problem is that banks and other institutions are vulnerable to foreign financial attacks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

I do have my suspicions that how some of the TARP money was doled out and handled is questionable. BofA, Wells Fargo and the like paid about 3.5%. I do wonder if Goldman Sachs got a sweetheart 0%. On the other hand Freddie and Fannie have to pay 10% on their TARP money. An interesting coincidence is that the Mortgage Bankers Association want to have Freddie and Fannie eliminated or have their business handed over to the MBA. The MBA do not like having Freddie and Fannie being an alternate source of funding for good credit mortgages. It holds down the gouge factor that the MBA could charge.

[ucodegen]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

The problem is that investing in the banks was considered a safe dividend paying investment. This means that pension, retirement, endowments, and insurance companies were some of the largest investors in the banks. This causes the ‘cascade’ that would cause collapse. Each of these entities have their own outlay and people they pay. In addition, this country runs on credit these days, more so than 1920s. Kill most of the banks and it all comes to a screeching halt — depression.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

This is why I have no problem with the banks having to pay interest on TARP money, nor the existence of warrants against the stock that can be exercised at successively lower prices (every quarter, the strike price on the warrants the gov held dropped. BofA(s) were going to be ‘in the money’ in 2010). The problem is that the SEC did not watch naked shorting like they are supposed to and allowed the uptick rule to be removed so that short attacks were possible. Another problem is that banks and other institutions are vulnerable to foreign financial attacks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

I do have my suspicions that how some of the TARP money was doled out and handled is questionable. BofA, Wells Fargo and the like paid about 3.5%. I do wonder if Goldman Sachs got a sweetheart 0%. On the other hand Freddie and Fannie have to pay 10% on their TARP money. An interesting coincidence is that the Mortgage Bankers Association want to have Freddie and Fannie eliminated or have their business handed over to the MBA. The MBA do not like having Freddie and Fannie being an alternate source of funding for good credit mortgages. It holds down the gouge factor that the MBA could charge.

[briansd1]

ucodegen, good points you’re making.

I take it that you support the bank bailout.

I would have preferred a FDIC take-over of the banks or some other type of nationalization, but short of that, I support the bailout as a necessary evil.

Like President Obama, I hate the bailout but it was necessary. It was better than doing nothing.

[briansd1]

ucodegen, good points you’re making.

I take it that you support the bank bailout.

I would have preferred a FDIC take-over of the banks or some other type of nationalization, but short of that, I support the bailout as a necessary evil.

Like President Obama, I hate the bailout but it was necessary. It was better than doing nothing.

[briansd1]

ucodegen, good points you’re making.

I take it that you support the bank bailout.

I would have preferred a FDIC take-over of the banks or some other type of nationalization, but short of that, I support the bailout as a necessary evil.

Like President Obama, I hate the bailout but it was necessary. It was better than doing nothing.

[briansd1]

ucodegen, good points you’re making.

I take it that you support the bank bailout.

I would have preferred a FDIC take-over of the banks or some other type of nationalization, but short of that, I support the bailout as a necessary evil.

Like President Obama, I hate the bailout but it was necessary. It was better than doing nothing.

[briansd1]

ucodegen, good points you’re making.

I take it that you support the bank bailout.

I would have preferred a FDIC take-over of the banks or some other type of nationalization, but short of that, I support the bailout as a necessary evil.

Like President Obama, I hate the bailout but it was necessary. It was better than doing nothing.

[afx114]

Is this the decorum to which you refer?

[afx114]

Is this the decorum to which you refer?

[afx114]

Is this the decorum to which you refer?

[afx114]

Is this the decorum to which you refer?

[Author]

Posts