Obama as expected taking credit for TARP's success

#1
D

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
WE saved us from a great depression by bailing out the banks

WE expect to get back most of the TARP money with interest because of the way WE designed the bailout.

WE stepped in to protect the average american


Ummmm you didn't do any of these things.
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
While I wasn't a big fan of TARP, as predicted the monies are coming back and there's a chance we might make a profit.

Now, what are the odds the GM and Chrysler bailouts work the same.
 
#4
#4
Based on recent reports, not very good... especially relative to Chrysler.
 
#5
#5
I don't care how much money TARP could make, I was and still am against it. Same goes for Obama's stimulus.

Philosophically, I don't agree with any of it. If we are going to have a free market, let's have a free market, through good and bad. TARP sets a precedent that acts as a disincentive for not taking the reckless risks that perpetuated the fall we saw. People will lose jobs, of course, investors will suffer, of course, but if the institution will ultimately survive, why should anyone care what those risks entail?
 
#6
#6
droski said:
WE saved us from a great depression by bailing out the banks

WE expect to get back most of the TARP money with interest because of the way WE designed the bailout.

WE stepped in to protect the average american


Ummmm you didn't do any of these things.
Click to expand...

:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:
Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm

Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm
:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

"The Chosen One" has spoken.
 
#7
#7
rjd970 said:
I don't care how much money TARP could make, I was and still am against it. Same goes for Obama's stimulus.

Philosophically, I don't agree with any of it. If we are going to have a free market, let's have a free market, through good and bad. TARP sets a precedent that acts as a disincentive for not taking the reckless risks that perpetuated the fall we saw. People will lose jobs, of course, investors will suffer, of course, but if the institution will ultimately survive, why should anyone care what those risks entail?
Click to expand...

we haven't ever had a true free market. If all these banks went under i can't see how unemployment wouldn't be twice what it is. and i still don't understand the risk argument. the majority of these people who took the undue risk got fired and their stock is worth next to zero. they would have also gotten fired if the banks went under and their stock would be worth zero. why punish theother 95% of the employees that actually are generating profits and are doing an honest good job. do you really think people think to themselves "well if i do a lot of risky stuff, i'll get fired, my stock will be worthless, but at least the company wont go under." and this encourages speculation? ridiculous.
 
#9
#9
droski said:
we haven't ever had a true free market. If all these banks went under i can't see how unemployment wouldn't be twice what it is. and i still don't understand the risk argument. the majority of these people who took the undue risk got fired and their stock is worth next to zero. they would have also gotten fired if the banks went under and their stock would be worth zero. why punish theother 95% of the employees that actually are generating profits and are doing an honest good job. do you really think people think to themselves "well if i do a lot of risky stuff, i'll get fired, my stock will be worthless, but at least the company wont go under." and this encourages speculation? ridiculous.
Click to expand...

My argument is still that there is something seriously wrong with the way the banking industry is set up if 5% of it's employees can bring the national economy to its knees.
 
#10
#10
rjd970 said:
My argument is still that there is something seriously wrong with the way the banking industry is set up if 5% of it's employees can bring the national economy to its knees.
Click to expand...

whaaa? the worst housing market in american history brought the national economy to it's knees. i don't think the banks are what caused the american consumer to stop spending money. let's not forget that the housing boom fueled consumer spending for most of the 2000s.
 
#11
#11
droski said:
whaaa? the worst housing market in american history brought the national economy to it's knees. i don't think the banks are what caused the american consumer to stop spending money. let's not forget that the housing boom fueled consumer spending for most of the 2000s.
Click to expand...

You're right droski, the banks are faultless. They are victims in this whole charade. It's only 5% of them that screwed the pooch anyway, and they are just victims of a bad housing market.
 
#12
#12
rjd970 said:
You're right droski, the banks are faultless. They are victims in this whole charade. It's only 5% of them that screwed the pooch anyway, and they are just victims of a bad housing market.
Click to expand...

they took too much risk, but let's not forget more banks went under during the savings and loan crisis. s- happens.
 
#13
#13
Do you think the banks would have needed a bailout had the only 5% you say messed everything up had been more responsible, despite the housing bust?
 
#14
#14
droski said:
they took too much risk, but let's not forget more banks went under during the savings and loan crisis. s- happens.
Click to expand...

every time I see this it always reminds me of this - "WOAH! Man, you just ran through a big pile of dog s**t!"
 
#15
#15
rjd970 said:
Do you think the banks would have needed a bailout had the only 5% you say messed everything up had been more responsible, despite the housing bust?
Click to expand...

the major banks like citi and b of a and aig? absolutely not. the smaller and regional ones? absolutely. it's funny that people say these guys were getting rich off of these mortgage backs. do you know that for citi the $100 bil or so in mortgage backs they owned provided less than 1% of the earnings of the bank? stupidity shouldnt' be confused with greed.
 
#16
#16
droski said:
the major banks like citi and b of a and aig? absolutely not. the smaller and regional ones? absolutely. it's funny that people say these guys were getting rich off of these mortgage backs. do you know that for citi the $100 bil or so in mortgage backs they owned provided less than 1% of the earnings of the bank? stupidity shouldnt' be confused with greed.
Click to expand...

You are arguing multiple points. The bigger institutions wouldn't have needed a bailout had their small group of employees been more responsible? So now you are saying that 5% of the employees can bring the entire institution down. Right? Because it obviously wasn't the entire instution that is being unfarily victimized in the media.

Call it whatever you want droski....stupidity, greed...but if you are saying that had the small group of idiots at these instutions been more responsible Citi, BoA, and AIG wouldn't have needed a bailout...then how are you not saying that said group of people didn't bring the economy to its knees?

Are you assuming that the failure of Citi, AIG, and BoA wouldn't have crippled the US economy?

....And if you are saying that, then the bailout was nothing more than corporate socialism because the US economy didn't have an interest in saving these institutions.
 
#17
#17
rjd970 said:
You are arguing multiple points. The bigger institutions wouldn't have needed a bailout had their small group of employees been more responsible? So now you are saying that 5% of the employees can bring the entire institution down. Right? Because it obviously wasn't the entire instution that is being unfarily victimized in the media.

Call it whatever you want droski....stupidity, greed...but if you are saying that had the small group of idiots at these instutions been more responsible Citi, BoA, and AIG wouldn't have needed a bailout...then how are you not saying that said group of people didn't bring the economy to its knees?

Are you assuming that the failure of Citi, AIG, and BoA wouldn't have crippled the US economy?

....And if you are saying that, then the bailout was nothing more than corporate socialism because the US economy didn't have an interest in saving these institutions.
Click to expand...

It's probably more like 1%. if that guy has the ability to add $100 billion of off balance sheet debt than yes he can bring down the company. obviously their risk people were out to lunch.

the economy was already brought to it's knees. we started losing jobs in late 07. Well before the banks wanted to get bailed out. THis sort of housing collapse woudl have significantly hurt the major banks if they didn't take on the mortgages, but they probably would have survived. taht isn't to say their stock prices wouldn't have halved though.

the fall of the banks would have torpoed the economy because the economy is based on belief in the solidarity of the banking system. and lending would have gone even lower than it already is.

you are connecting unrelated things.
 
#18
#18
droski said:
It's probably more like 1%. if that guy has the ability to add $100 billion of off balance sheet debt than yes he can bring down the company. obviously their risk people were out to lunch.

the economy was already brought to it's knees. we started losing jobs in late 07. Well before the banks wanted to get bailed out. THis sort of housing collapse woudl have significantly hurt the major banks if they didn't take on the mortgages, but they probably would have survived. taht isn't to say their stock prices wouldn't have halved though.

the fall of the banks would have torpoed the economy because the economy is based on belief in the solidarity of the banking system. and lending would have gone even lower than it already is.

you are connecting unrelated things.
Click to expand...

OK. This is all nonsense.

1. If the small group of risk takers been more responsible, would the banks have needed a bailout? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, then all your talk about only a small group of people being culpable is empty, they were just doing their jobs. And the banks, De Facto, are at no fault here. The bailout was nothing more than corporate socialism to save the day when the beloved free market didn't work out like the power brokers planned. It is a philosophy of arguing the free market to privatize gains, and arguing the greater good for socialized losses.

If the answer is no, then you are saying that the actions of these few people are directly responsible for these instiutions needing a bailout. De Facto, per your last paragraph, saying they brought the economy to its knees.

All this other stuff you are talking is smoke and mirrors.
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
OK. This is all nonsense.

1. If the small group of risk takers been more responsible, would the banks have needed a bailout? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, then all your talk about only a small group of people being culpable is empty, they were just doing their jobs. And the banks, De Facto, are at no fault here. The bailout was nothing more than corporate socialism to save the day when the beloved free market didn't work out like the power brokers planned. It is a philosophy of arguing the free market to privatize gains, and arguing the greater good for socialized losses.

If the answer is no, then you are saying that the actions of these few people are directly responsible for these instiutions needing a bailout. De Facto, per your last paragraph, saying they brought the economy to its knees.

All this other stuff you are talking is smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

I'm saying no and if you read my post it's pretty clear i said they major banks wouldn't have needed a bailout. JP morgan didn't need a bail out, for instance, and that's because they didn't overload on mortgages. and these people did not bring the economy to it's knees. THEY COULD HAVE. Don't you see the difference?

1) housing market torpedoed

2) economy tanked because of this

3) because of 1 and 2 banks started having huge losses in AAA mortgage portfolios

4) banks needed bailout

5) if banks go under the economy FURTHER torpedoes
 
#20
#20
droski said:
I'm saying no and if you read my post it's pretty clear i said they major banks wouldn't have needed a bailout. JP morgan didn't need a bail out, for instance, and that's because they didn't overload on mortgages. and these people did not bring the economy to it's knees. THEY COULD HAVE. Don't you see the difference?

1) housing market torpedoed

2) economy tanked because of this

3) because of 1 and 2 banks started having huge losses in AAA mortgage portfolios

4) banks needed bailout

5) if banks go under the economy FURTHER torpedoes
Click to expand...

But again, even if the economy was on its knees before everything came to a head, the actions of a few risked it completely getting knocked over. This is to say nothing of the culpability of those in 3&4 being responsible for 1&2. So back to my original point, why not take the risk (or address it when it is happening) when you know that you will get bailed out if it doesn't work out? TARP is incentive for bad behavior, or at the very least, encourages apathy about it.

The economy would have recovered eventually, but because of the actions of a few, we needed TARP to keep the economy from total collapse. So none of this takes away from my argument that during a given downturn, a few could bring the entire system crashing down. This once in a lifetime explanation about the housing downturn doesn't fly with me, especially when there is a feedback loop that includes the banks making it worse.

And it all goes back to my original comment about not agreeing with TARP to begin with. It was sold as saving the economy. But in reality, it was about saving these banks and giving them a free market pass for not addressing the systematic greed and stupidity that reigned during the height of the bubble. The free market was calling for these institutions to fail, and they should have done just that. If that means the economy would have collapsed, then that means there was (and still is) something fundamentally wrong with this system where 1% of its employees can bring it all crashing down. And a restructure should have occured where your poor victimized 99% of responsible people wouldn't be punished for the actions of a few.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
i just don't understand why you think these people care if the company gets bailed out if they are losing their jobs and all their net worth that is in the company's stock? if these guys had any idea that the housing market was going to do this i am sure they wouldn't have overloaded on these positions. you have to realize housing prices went up for 20+ years and people just stupidly thought this woudl continue (even greenspan said that we weren't in a housing bubble). now i agree it's a problem that people every 10 years do something stupid that creates a systematic risk, but i don't see how letting these companies fail proves any point or prevents it from happening again.
 
#22
#22
droski said:
.....now i agree it's a problem that people every 10 years do something stupid that creates a systematic risk, but i don't see how letting these companies fail proves any point or prevents it from happening again.
Click to expand...

I wish I could use this as a viable argument when I make a financial decision that ends in disaster. After all, what good does it do to make me file for bankruptcy? It doesn't prove a point, or prevent it from happening again, does it?
 
#23
#23
i think comparing a company to your personally is a bit ridiculous. no one is bailing out the individuals who took the risk. those people got fired and as i said before lost whatever money they had in their company stock which was rather sizable for companies like citi where they forced you to take a large % of your annual bonus in stock. it's like you are arguing semantics or something. if we call it a bankruptcy would that make you feel better?
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
droski said:
i think comparing a company to your personally is a bit ridiculous. no one is bailing out the individuals who took the risk. those people got fired and as i said before lost whatever money they had in their company stock which was rather sizable for companies like citi where they forced you to take a large % of your annual bonus in stock. it's like you are arguing semantics or something. if we call it a bankruptcy would that make you feel better?
Click to expand...

I don't care what you call it. But let's take it for what it is, different rules of capitalism if you are in the "too big to fail" category. This is socialization of corporate losses. Benefitting the same corporations that decry corporate tax rates and talk of windfall profit taxes. Capitalism if they win, socialism if they lose. It's the new american way, all in the name of the greater good....excuse me while I go find a copy of the communist manifesto.

Whatever happened to capitalism and free market economics, all the time?
 
#25
#25
so what you are saying is we should torpedo the economy on principle? let's teach those guys a lesson! right? who is being taught the lesson exactly? the new people taking over sure as hell weren't taught it. so what does this accomplish besides making YOU feel good? all this is is envy. plain and simple. the american people were pissed there were people making a lot more money they they were doing things they don't understand. this is why we didn't see nearly the same uproar over bailing out the autos despite the fact that there was little systematic risk and it's likely we never see the money again.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top