majorspark;925894 wrote:"Bailouts" and bankruptcy are two different things. You can't equate the two. An individuals only choice is to take the bankruptcy route for their bailout. Bankruptcy was meant for corporate entities as well. That is where they should have sought their "bailout".

The bailout the corporations/banks got were in the form of federal government handouts. Loans and interjections of capital. Free of bankruptcy rules and consequences under the constitution. The "bailout" the corporations/banks got were outside the rule of constitutional law.

Well said.

O-Trap;925090 wrote:I do NOT believe anyone else should be encouraged by a governing entity to adopt these positions. However, I believe people should then be held responsible to take care of THEMSELVES if the consequences of their actions. As such, they should not have a governing entity encourage ANY values, and you should not have to pay one dime to cover the consequences of someone else's actions in light of their values.

First off let me state that the federal government has no authority to spend tax dollars to encourage or discourage any activity. I get my daily fill of this via the ad council. An agency by the way that was birthed by war. Case in point that a federal agency, or one they sponsor, once created even under the most extreme circumstances never dies.

That said if states and localities want to fund public address campaigns to encourage its citizens to not do drugs, don't have sex outside of marriage, tobacco is bad, vegan is a more healthy lifestyle, or humping trees is cool (for those on the left coast). Go for it. If you want to spend money on these encouragements fine. Just don't try to subject me to it via the central government. Most Americans are not libertarians. Keep it to yourselves and we can live in peace.

I Wear Pants;925892 wrote:Pretty sure they "paid back" the TARP money with the normal money that they can get loaned from the government.

Umm, how would that work, exactly? If they pay it back with money they are NORMALLY loaned from the govt, then where does the extra money come from to pay back the "bailout"?

Truth be told, all the "bailouts", even GM, was the least costly economically vs. doing nothing. Yes, the govt will or did lose tens of billions on the GM bailout, but that pails in comparison to the lost tax revenues (from workers) and the assumption of the pension by the PBGC. From an ROI perspective, all the bailouts were the correct decision. A more accurate term than "bailout" would be reorg, which is a form of bankruptcy. The govt essentially stepped in to provide DIP financing with the market unable to do so, which is very common in bankruptcy.

In my mind, "bailout" implies handout, meaning you CHOSE to give out of the goodness of your heart. And we didn't really have a choice. Plus only a few BB banks needed TARP money, they just forced them all to take it to keep the vultures from spreading contagion. People also forget the govt basically let Lehman and Bear go belly up, which is 2 of the 7 you might have argued "too big to fail".

I'd be remiss not to mention FNMA and FMAC...

gut;925908 wrote:Umm, how would that work, exactly? If they pay it back with money they are NORMALLY loaned from the govt, then where does the extra money come from to pay back the "bailout"?

Truth be told, all the "bailouts", even GM, was the least costly economically vs. doing nothing. Yes, the govt will or did lose tens of billions on the GM bailout, but that pails in comparison to the lost tax revenues (from workers) and the assumption of the pension by the PBGC. From an ROI perspective, all the bailouts were the correct decision. A more accurate term than "bailout" would be reorg, which is a form of bankruptcy. The govt essentially stepped in to provide DIP financing with the market unable to do so, which is very common in bankruptcy.

In my mind, "bailout" implies handout, meaning you CHOSE to give out of the goodness of your heart. And we didn't really have a choice. Plus only a few BB banks needed TARP money, they just forced them all to take it to keep the vultures from spreading contagion. People also forget the govt basically let Lehman and Bear go belly up, which is 2 of the 7 you might have argued "too big to fail".

I'd be remiss not to mention FNMA and FMAC...

That's the first time I've ever heard bailout defined that way.

A loan made by the government that isn't at market rate is definitely a bail-out. How else would one describe it?

The Solyndra loan is a perfect example....a loan of that magnitude (in comparison to their balance sheet) that was voluntarily subordinated by the DOE?

majorspark;925905 wrote:That said if states and localities want to fund public address campaigns to encourage its citizens to not do drugs, don't have sex outside of marriage, tobacco is bad, vegan is a more healthy lifestyle, or humping trees is cool (for those on the left coast). Go for it. If you want to spend money on these encouragements fine. Just don't try to subject me to it via the central government. Most Americans are not libertarians. Keep it to yourselves and we can live in peace.

+infinity

"Pretty sure they "paid back" the TARP money with the normal money that they can get loaned from the government. "

Not exactly. GM paid back the loan from a drawdown that came from the equity escrow investment. It was a debt for equity swap. On the one hand it was good for GM not to be on the hook for the servicing payments, not sure it was a great deal for the taxpayers since GM would have to pull an Apple to get them in the black.

" The govt essentially stepped in to provide DIP financing with the market unable to do so, which is very common in bankruptcy"

The government did a lot more than that, which isn't common in bankruptcy. They allowed GM to carry over their losses which normally would be reduced by the amount of debt forgone in the bankruptcy, which some economists claim provides an additional $40B tax benefit to GM.

Man....all this semantics and arguing over who bought a $2000 tv or something.

The executives on Wall Street are CRIMINALS, this is what is being called out. They committed FRAUD and AREN'T BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE. When you attack the protesters as hippies, liberals, whatever, you are distracting from the message, that the Americans were TAKEN in a Ponzi scheme.

And stop saying "its not Wall Street, its Washington", folks....they are one in the same. All of Obama's economic advisers held top positions at Goldman Sachs, Merryl Lynch, etc. before they were appointed. Same with Bush. Same with Clinton. This is not a Right vs. Left thing.....this is a 99% against 1% thing. And again unless you are in the 1% (you're not), you should agree with this. You don't have to join the protests....you don't even have to like it, but don't bash it because some talking head on tv or radio says its ACORN or a democratic scheme.

Would it be wrong if a guy comes up to you and gives you a car, you're kind of wary of him just giving you a car because who the f is this guy? But then, a trusted person comes by whose living it is to vouch for people who are legit/illegit (lets say for this argument's sake its.....i dunno.....a guy who works in the auto industry). He knows cars, he knows this guy.....he says both are legit don't worry about it....I recommend you take this car, its a good deal. Turns out guy who gave you the car is paying auto industry guy to tell people that both him and the car are good when in fact he knows they are not. Guy who gives you the car then takes out insurance on both you and your car. Car crashes and burns, guy collects not only the insurance, but also a "bet" that your car is going to crash and burn. Is this fraud? Should all parties be held accountable? This is quite a rough simplification of what happened on Wall Street, but if you don't think its unjust then I have no idea what to tell you, because I could never begin to understand where you're coming from.

Taking advantage of people is wrong. When your company goes bankrupt but you sold off your stock and made half a billion in the months before bankruptcy without giving anyone warning of impending failure, thats wrong. When you collect billions in "bonuses" as a CEO even while your company recorded record losses, that is wrong. When the very people who are overseeing Wall Street are former board members of Wall Street firms, and collect millions after leaving office and returning to those firms, that is a conflict of interest and is wrong.

"When you collect billions in "bonuses" as a CEO even while your company recorded record losses, that is wrong."

Hyperbole much? Lay off of the granola smoking. Even the wealthiest CEOs (Gates/Jobs/etc.) never collected billions of bonuses.

This is why this movement is so ineffective, they don't even understand what they are arguing against.

That entire post did you no favors at all.

"
Would it be wrong if a guy comes up to you and gives you a car, you're kind of wary of him just giving you a car because who the f is this guy? But then, a trusted person comes by whose living it is to vouch for people who are legit/illegit (lets say for this argument's sake its.....i dunno.....a guy who works in the auto industry). He knows cars, he knows this guy.....he says both are legit don't worry about it....I recommend you take this car, its a good deal. Turns out guy who gave you the car is paying auto industry guy to tell people that both him and the car are good when in fact he knows they are not. Guy who gives you the car then takes out insurance on both you and your car. Car crashes and burns, guy collects not only the insurance, but also a "bet" that your car is going to crash and burn. Is this fraud? Should all parties be held accountable? This is quite a rough simplification of what happened on Wall Street, but if you don't think its unjust then I have no idea what to tell you, because I could never begin to understand where you're coming from."

Not a single word of this made any type of sense.

You don't happen to work for a Nigerian prince, do you?

LOL at the splitting hairs!

OK change billions to millions. Feel better now?

Does it make it ok now that they collected millions and not billions? (they did collect billions in bonuses over the 7 year period leading up to the collapse, aka "the bubble")

Mooney44Cards;925956 wrote:LOL at the splitting hairs!

OK change billions to millions. Feel better now?

Does it make it ok now that they collected millions and not billions? (they did collect billions in bonuses over the 7 year period leading up to the collapse, aka "the bubble")

Considering that a billion is a thousand multiple of a million, I would consider that a bit more than splitting hairs. Adding up the real estate we own our net worth is probably over a million, that's a far cry from a billion. If it was a billion I wouldn't be spending my time posting here.

Again, you haven't done yourself any favors with that incoherent rant. If you are part of the 99%, I'll be the part of the 1% that is sane. Even if your argument has some substance, you've damaged your credibility with your lack of reality.

Manhattan Buckeye;925954 wrote:"
Would it be wrong if a guy comes up to you and gives you a car, you're kind of wary of him just giving you a car because who the f is this guy? But then, a trusted person comes by whose living it is to vouch for people who are legit/illegit (lets say for this argument's sake its.....i dunno.....a guy who works in the auto industry). He knows cars, he knows this guy.....he says both are legit don't worry about it....I recommend you take this car, its a good deal. Turns out guy who gave you the car is paying auto industry guy to tell people that both him and the car are good when in fact he knows they are not. Guy who gives you the car then takes out insurance on both you and your car. Car crashes and burns, guy collects not only the insurance, but also a "bet" that your car is going to crash and burn. Is this fraud? Should all parties be held accountable? This is quite a rough simplification of what happened on Wall Street, but if you don't think its unjust then I have no idea what to tell you, because I could never begin to understand where you're coming from."

Not a single word of this made any type of sense.

You don't happen to work for a Nigerian prince, do you?

Lol I get it! Cuz Nigerian princes send those emails! You're so funny and topical with your humor! Man its been awhile since I heard internet jokes such as these!

Just so I know that you have a basic understanding of what went on on Wall Street to cause the collapse, would you mind explaining it to me? I'd hate to keep arguing with someone who I'm not sure exactly knows what is being protested on Wall Street.

Manhattan Buckeye;925957 wrote:Considering that a billion is a thousand multiple of a million, I would consider that a bit more than splitting hairs. Adding up the real estate we own our net worth is probably over a million, that's a far cry from a billion. If it was a billion I wouldn't be spending my time posting here.

Again, you haven't done yourself any favors with that incoherent rant. If you are part of the 99%, I'll be the part of the 1% that is sane. Even if your argument has some substance, you've damaged your credibility with your lack of reality.

I don't get what you're arguing? Is Wall Street NOT crooked, is that your argument? So you're defending them and everything they did to cause the collapse? Is that how I'm understanding why you're arguing with me? Or are you just arguing with me because you think that Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of hippy liberals and therefore you could never agree with them so you are defending a broken and corrupt bunch of millionaires and billionaires?

Mooney44Cards;925943 wrote:Man....all this semantics and arguing over who bought a $2000 tv or something.

The executives on Wall Street are CRIMINALS, this is what is being called out. They committed FRAUD and AREN'T BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE. When you attack the protesters as hippies, liberals, whatever, you are distracting from the message, that the Americans were TAKEN in a Ponzi scheme.

And stop saying "its not Wall Street, its Washington", folks....they are one in the same. All of Obama's economic advisers held top positions at Goldman Sachs, Merryl Lynch, etc. before they were appointed. Same with Bush. Same with Clinton. This is not a Right vs. Left thing.....this is a 99% against 1% thing. And again unless you are in the 1% (you're not), you should agree with this. You don't have to join the protests....you don't even have to like it, but don't bash it because some talking head on tv or radio says its ACORN or a democratic scheme.

Would it be wrong if a guy comes up to you and gives you a car, you're kind of wary of him just giving you a car because who the f is this guy? But then, a trusted person comes by whose living it is to vouch for people who are legit/illegit (lets say for this argument's sake its.....i dunno.....a guy who works in the auto industry). He knows cars, he knows this guy.....he says both are legit don't worry about it....I recommend you take this car, its a good deal. Turns out guy who gave you the car is paying auto industry guy to tell people that both him and the car are good when in fact he knows they are not. Guy who gives you the car then takes out insurance on both you and your car. Car crashes and burns, guy collects not only the insurance, but also a "bet" that your car is going to crash and burn. Is this fraud? Should all parties be held accountable? This is quite a rough simplification of what happened on Wall Street, but if you don't think its unjust then I have no idea what to tell you, because I could never begin to understand where you're coming from.

Taking advantage of people is wrong. When your company goes bankrupt but you sold off your stock and made half a billion in the months before bankruptcy without giving anyone warning of impending failure, thats wrong. When you collect billions in "bonuses" as a CEO even while your company recorded record losses, that is wrong. When the very people who are overseeing Wall Street are former board members of Wall Street firms, and collect millions after leaving office and returning to those firms, that is a conflict of interest and is wrong.

Mr. Mooney44Cards, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

jmog;925962 wrote:Mr. Mooney44Cards, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Again, are you defending what went on on Wall Street? I don't get all this pushback against me (I mean, yeah....I get it, its a right vs. left thing), but it doesn't make much sense. You all just come off as Wall Street apologists. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. If you don't agree with OWS's methods....write your congressman or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and ask them to talk more about why Wall Street isn't held accountable for what they did.

Mooney44Cards;925959 wrote:I don't get what you're arguing? Is Wall Street NOT crooked, is that your argument? So you're defending them and everything they did to cause the collapse? Is that how I'm understanding why you're arguing with me? Or are you just arguing with me because you think that Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of hippy liberals and therefore you could never agree with them so you are defending a broken and corrupt bunch of millionaires and billionaires?

I'm arguing that you aren't making sense and are hurting your credibility. If I have a discussion with someone that tells me that he thinks the Jets will beat the Patriots this weekend, I am willing to listen to arguments and perhaps if not likely agree with him - if he continues by saying the Jets will win because Mark Sanchez is a wizard that will summon his dragons to help defeat the Patriots hoard it becomes evident that the guy doesn't have credibility.

Likewise, someone that confuses a million with a billion (which again, is 1,000 millions) sort of lacks credibility IMO.

Manhattan Buckeye;925967 wrote:I'm arguing that you aren't making sense and are hurting your credibility. If I have a discussion with someone that tells me that he thinks the Jets will beat the Patriots this weekend, I am willing to listen to arguments and perhaps if not likely agree with him - if he continues by saying the Jets will win because Mark Sanchez is a wizard that will summon his dragons to help defeat the Patriots hoard it becomes evident that the guy doesn't have credibility.

Likewise, someone that confuses a million with a billion (which again, is 1,000 millions) sort of lacks credibility IMO.

OK so we have come to the conclusion that human beings are imperfect and I am not good at analogies....now answer my question: Are you defending what went on on Wall Street?

"Bailouts" and bankruptcy are two different things.

Of course that is the case. I said the taxpayers bailout corporations...and they bailout individuals too, in ways that go beyond bankruptcy. Public assistance programs, unemployment benefits are taxpayer funded handouts in the same way...no repayment is required. Probably if you looked at it over the years in toto...taxpayers have spent a lot more bailing out the individual than they have corporations.

If you truly believe in the Free Market and Capitallism, you cannot believe in bailouts. It amazes how fellow conservatives will fight to the death to protect and defend these corporations and banks who have done everything possible to screw you over just like the Federal Government. They are both in it together and you have some Liberals on the side of the government and you have some conservatives on the side of the Banks.

Things will not get better until the people realize they are the ones who have the power. They are the ones who employ the politicians and the ones who decide what businesses should succeed or fail.

Mooney is right in the fact that Wall Street is a big reason as to why we are in this mess. They purposely committed fraud and practiced unethical business practices, however the blame doesnt stop there.

Washington is also to blame because of providing a safety net for these companies and creating a To Big to fail enviroment, along with wanting to impose way too many regulations which does hinder business.

And then the last one, The American People are also to blame. Taking out bad loans or loans you know you can't afford is not the Banks fault or the Governments fault. It is your fault. Ignorance is not an excuse. I understand that many people put trust in people who were suppose to be looking out for them, but at the end of the day, you owe it to yourself to make sure you are doing what is best for you.


The common theme? Accountability. As you can see from the past 4-5 years, there has been absolutely none taken by any of the parties involved. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else instead of pointing at yourself.

pmoney25;926013 wrote:The common theme? Accountability. As you can see from the past 4-5 years, there has been absolutely none taken by any of the parties involved. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else instead of pointing at yourself.

Can't disagree with that. When we all figure out that we vote for our politicians and we vote with our wallets there may, indeed, be hope 7 change.

pmoney25;926013 wrote:The common theme? Accountability. As you can see from the past 4-5 years, there has been absolutely none taken by any of the parties involved. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else instead of pointing at yourself.

Can't disagree with that. When we all figure out that we vote for our politicians and we vote with our wallets there may, indeed, be hope & change.

The common theme? Accountability. As you can see from the past 4-5 years, there has been absolutely none taken by any of the parties involved. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else instead of pointing at yourself.

I can't disagree with that part. But it goes both ways. If for years, you are going to give individual 'entities' money off the taxpayer dole whether they are fiscally responsible or not, why would corporate 'entities be any less entitled? Wall street protesters have no argument unless they are refusing to accept their governmnet handout.

Don't get me wrong...I am not arguing for continued bailouts. Corrections are needed, and the cycle of dependency created by politicians buying votes needs to be ended.