Did Kucinich vote for the Stimulus package?
- Thread starter Psynaut
- Start date
newnameman
Platinum Member
- Nov 20, 2002
- 2,219
- 0
- 0
Wow. Dang. What a load of crock this guy is too! I thought for sure he of all people would stick to his guns. Seems like his poo-pooing over everything Bush was just partisan...like usual.
We need a third party.
Most, like over 95%, of it the stimulus goes to infrastructure , education, medical research, and none of it goes to the bankers. The main problem is this needs to be 10 times greater, like the 8.3 trillion given to banks.
Atleast kucinich doesnt believe in this free market crap that got us into this situation in the first place.
I'm simply a person who isnt a narrow minded numbskull who can see the advantages and disadvantages of something. 8.3 trillion spent for the bankers and only .8 trillion that actually benefits the common people, really proves how fucked this "American" society really is. Down with the oligarchs!
Where is this 8.3 trillion figure you are spouting about coming from? You arent talking about potential liabilities are you? Because as it stands right now only 350 billion has been plowed into the banks. Obama got the authorization for the other 350 billion before he took office.
This is an old article. the 700 billion number was just a smoke screen. Financiers: "Lets think of a number that is really big to just give the sheep a general idea of what to expect, but not too big to cause them to revolt"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...k2rZMNgDw&pid=20601109
God bless the USA!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...k2rZMNgDw&pid=20601109
God bless the USA!
lol, you are truly stupid. Those numbers aren't for the benefit of the banks, but for the benefit of creditors. Had the government not provided temporary liquidity the meager amount of financing occuring now wouldn't be occuring at all. The market you see, consumer loans and such, is only the front of a huge debt market. That market is funded one of two ways, through public/private term securitization, or through private conduit ABCP securitization. The conduit securitization market, the only securitization market that's remotely functional right now, is still functional. Most committments are being renewed. However, since the ABCP market, which is normally funded by money managers, isn't completely liquid, the government steps in to help keep it liquid.
Programs, such as CPFF, are lending programs to keep the market liquid, not capital programs to invest in the banks. In the end, the benefits ARE the taxpayers you doof.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
They'll be back to donat....err...dispensing the remainders of the Bad Asset Relief Fund (BARF) to banks soon enough.
Hopefully there will at least be some more accountability with this new round...
This killer admits to working at a bank that lost a billion dollars, therefore invalidating all your credibility regarding the subject matter. banker's boy here cant catch the reality to the fact that despite this multi trillion giveaway, many are still losing their jobs and getting kicked out of their homes. i've told you this before, trying to bail out a substantial amount of derivatives is futile.
Please link to where I ever said my bank has lost billions? You don't even know my bank, so you cannot make any representation to that.
THis has nothing to do with "derivatives", the programs at the government are for LENDING you dipshit. You wouldn't even know what a derivative is if it came up and punched you.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
LOL, first off, this economic nightmare was caused primarily by the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates way too low for way too long. Definitely not "free market crap."
Secondly, you are right about Kucinich not being a "free marketeer," but at least he sees the dangers of the Fed.
What's sad about people like you is that you don't see the forest because you're looking at tree*s*, you don't see it because you're staring at A tree and thinking it's the only tree in the forest.
Even your hero Ron Paul knows the Federal Reserve is as private as Federal Express. Federal Reserve is there to benefit a few (the oligarchy) not the masses. I do think nationalizing it would be great start on the right track.
It wasn't the primary cause.
Rates could have been 0%, but without CDOs the mortgage financing wouldn't have occurred in volume.
Rates could have been 0%, but without the allowance for massive leverage, the volume wouldn't have occurred.
Rates could have been 0%, but without FAS140/Fin46 off-bs accounting, combined with enhanced leverage and CDO, the volume wouldn't have occurred.
Rates could have been 0%, but without the monoline insurance to pump them artificially up to AAA, the volume wouldn't have occurred.
Rates could have been 0%, but without the rating agencies rating CDOs AAA, the volume wouldn't have occured.
Rates could have been 0%, but without BS RE appraisals, allowance of exotic mortgages, and the allowance for reduction in underwriting, the volume wouldn't have occurred.
You're a blind fool who blames one institution's single policy for the whole thing.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
I edited my post above. With all due respect to Vic (which I mean that quite seriously), he might not be looking at the bigger picture either.
Low rates encourage borrowing. However, without the other tools of lending, such as the ability to leverage the entire capital structure of RMBS, plus being allowed to gain further massive balance-sheet leverage, lending HAS to stop eventually as financing for a riskier balance sheet dries up. That wasn't the case because all of the rest of the tools the banks had to originate this paper.
The housing boom wouldn't have been nearly as long, as wide, or as deep as it was if the other tools weren't allowed to be used.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Perhaps not the housing boom, but with the low rates, there would have been boom(s) elsewhere.
I am not arguing that other factors weren't involved. Hell, look at the comment I was originally replying to. I'm sorry but "free market economics" is NOT what caused this problem. Sure deregulation was certainly a major cause, no one is going to say otherwise. But to perceive that as "free market economics" is only fooling oneself.
What would have been the boom?
Over-leveraged fueled *EVERY* part of the credit cycle. LBOs = CLOs. Auto securitization, auto leases, credit cards = Off-BS treatement, SIVs (off BS + uber leverage), and uber-leverage of the banks.
Rates? Pfft, rates were pittance compared to under(de)regulation in these areas.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter