(05-13-2009 09:14 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  I didn't say you were a bank, Orifice. It was a simple borrower/lender comparison. That's it. I'm sorry you can't grasp it.

What you cannot grasp is that being a bank changes everything, so your comparison is invalid.

At this point, its clear that youre just being argumentative, and partisan to a fault. You're way off base here, as I've shown.

Being a bank doesn't change anything. It is a simple comparison. They are a borrower in the bailout, just like you are a borrower from them if you have an auto or any other type of loan from them. That's it. End of comparison. They do not and should not check to make sure you are "well capitalized" when you pay back your loan.

If you want to believe that corporate America is inherently evil and the root of all our problems, and that our gov't only has our best interests and well-being at heart, go right ahead, but don't call me "argumentative" and "partisan" when you are doing nothing but spouting off liberal talking points and saying "Derrr...I'm not a bank."

(05-12-2009 02:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 02:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 01:42 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Quote:You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your ****. Whatever the master does, you’re on board.

This applies even more so to the government worshipping left-wingers.

Businessmen have no control over monetary policy, taxes, laws, etc. Politicians, unfortunately, do.

What world do you live in?

No more control than unions, ACORN, or any other special interest group.

Now, you were saying? They don't make policy.

Are you saying that businesses don't make policy? Heard of Exxon, Haliburton, the whole mess of Wall Street, medical segment. But yeah, they don't make policy.

They influence. They don't make.

(05-12-2009 04:15 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Artifice Wrote:

Quote:How would you like it if you tried to pay off your car early, and the lender (perhaps the same institution that you bank with) refused and said "Sorry, but we reviewed your account information, and we don't think you are really in a position to do that right now"?

I am not a bank. I am a consumer. There is a big difference.

No, in this scenario, you are the borrower and the bank is the lender. Just like with the bailout, the bank is the borrower and the U.S. Treasury is the lender.

The difference you have here is this is not your typical lending situation. In your scenario, if the consumer pays off a loan early and end up hurting himself financially in the long run the bank would be more then happy to make another loan as it makes income off the interest.

Since the bailout was a loan made under unusual circumstances, it is not unreasonable to reject early payment if there is a possibility the company is so unstable after making the payment another loan of this kind will be needed again.

uhmump95 Wrote:The difference you have here is this is not your typical lending situation. In your scenario, if the consumer pays off a loan early and end up hurting himself financially in the long run the bank would be more then happy to make another loan as it makes income off the interest.

Since the bailout was a loan made under unusual circumstances, it is not unreasonable to reject early payment if there is a possibility the company is so unstable after making the payment another loan of this kind will be needed again.

Who is the U.S. Treasury to decide that? Do you really think that a bank is going to pay back the funds if it is going to cause them to go belly up, or require another gov't loan with even more strings attached like the ones they are trying to get rid of? It was the gov't's mistake in the first place to place the "too big to fail" tag on them.

The gov't, meanwhile, has incentive to give the large banks a failing grade on the stress tests, so that they will most likely have to convert the bailout funds to common stock in order to pay it back, giving the gov't a majority share. -----> POWER GRAB.

(05-13-2009 12:49 PM)Paul M Wrote:  They influence. They don't make.

Lobbyists literally write the laws these days. That is not hyperbole. They actually write the language and hand it to their paid for legislators for introduction on the floor. Currently, corporations and special interests actually write our laws. Google it. Should frighten you.

(05-13-2009 01:15 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Who is the U.S. Treasury to decide that?

Other than the note maker and regulator of the banks which hold in trust the deposits of the public?

Quote:Do you really think that a bank is going to pay back the funds if it is going to cause them to go belly up

Having witnessed this firsthand, I not only think so, I know so.

(05-13-2009 01:15 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

uhmump95 Wrote:The difference you have here is this is not your typical lending situation. In your scenario, if the consumer pays off a loan early and end up hurting himself financially in the long run the bank would be more then happy to make another loan as it makes income off the interest.

Since the bailout was a loan made under unusual circumstances, it is not unreasonable to reject early payment if there is a possibility the company is so unstable after making the payment another loan of this kind will be needed again.

Who is the U.S. Treasury to decide that? Do you really think that a bank is going to pay back the funds if it is going to cause them to go belly up, or require another gov't loan with even more strings attached like the ones they are trying to get rid of? It was the gov't's mistake in the first place to place the "too big to fail" tag on them.

The gov't, meanwhile, has incentive to give the large banks a failing grade on the stress tests, so that they will most likely have to convert the bailout funds to common stock in order to pay it back, giving the gov't a majority share. -----> POWER GRAB.

I agree with you that it was a mistake to bail out these banks. It doesn't take a genius to see where this whole scenario was going once the banks accepted government money.

However you asked about the banks fiscal responsibility. If the banks were truely as responsible if you hoped, then they wouldn't have gotten into a situation where they had to accept government money in the first place.

(05-13-2009 12:58 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 04:15 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Artifice Wrote:

Quote:How would you like it if you tried to pay off your car early, and the lender (perhaps the same institution that you bank with) refused and said "Sorry, but we reviewed your account information, and we don't think you are really in a position to do that right now"?

I am not a bank. I am a consumer. There is a big difference.

No, in this scenario, you are the borrower and the bank is the lender. Just like with the bailout, the bank is the borrower and the U.S. Treasury is the lender.

The difference you have here is this is not your typical lending situation. In your scenario, if the consumer pays off a loan early and end up hurting himself financially in the long run the bank would be more then happy to make another loan as it makes income off the interest.

Since the bailout was a loan made under unusual circumstances, it is not unreasonable to reject early payment if there is a possibility the company is so unstable after making the payment another loan of this kind will be needed again.

You are right, this isn't your typical lending situation. This is more like when someone is in debt because of a fire casued by someone else. They have to raise some funds and quick, but the problem is that there assets have all perished in the fire caused by someone else (ie equal opportunity lending meltdown). So that person turns to a loan shark (Obama administration) who wants control of you until you pay the loan back.

Yep, it's different from the typical lending situation.

(05-15-2009 10:31 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  You are right, this isn't your typical lending situation. This is more like when someone is in debt because of a fire casued by someone else. They have to raise some funds and quick, but the problem is that there assets have all perished in the fire caused by someone else (ie equal opportunity lending meltdown). So that person turns to a loan shark (Obama administration) who wants control of you until you pay the loan back.

Yep, it's different from the typical lending situation.

I am sorry. But the banks may want to blame this all on the government, but they have to bear responsibility for their actions. Even though they were required to loosen their credit requirements, it was no reason for them to have open the door to the vaults and let people they knew didnt have the means to repay a large loan have one.

(05-15-2009 10:37 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(05-15-2009 10:31 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  You are right, this isn't your typical lending situation. This is more like when someone is in debt because of a fire casued by someone else. They have to raise some funds and quick, but the problem is that there assets have all perished in the fire caused by someone else (ie equal opportunity lending meltdown). So that person turns to a loan shark (Obama administration) who wants control of you until you pay the loan back.

Yep, it's different from the typical lending situation.

I am sorry. But the banks may want to blame this all on the government, but they have to bear responsibility for their actions. Even though they were required to loosen their credit requirements, it was no reason for them to have open the door to the vaults and let people they knew didnt have the means to repay a large loan have one.

Absolutely, there was some greed in it as well.

the banks were forced to loan out funds to certain zip codes(politically favored), regardless of the risk involved with the loans, by the Govt. via the Force of Fannie/Freddie and the CRA. In a truly "Free Market"...these things do not occur, Govt. stays limited instead of active and controlling.

combine that with monetary policy from greenspan that got too loose and made it more possible.

Banks loaning money out of greed, to people they know couldn't pay it back, would have to be very blind greed because they would have to ignore the horrible business decision they were making, practically giving away money..........

the other aspect in this are the Deriviatives that AIG created, which really made this whole thing blow up in our faces into Trillions in losses instead of just billions.


Asset bubbles aren't knew however, market econmies have experienced them since the first Open Society Market economy, by the Dutch Reformers with the famous "Tulip Bubble"