It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What?
Originally posted by bruxfain
I have lately been acting under the assumption that the banking magnates are Al qaeda. I always figured that our system has been infiltrated and if these bankers were acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization, its not like they'd admit it. But their actions support this idea.
If you think the rest of the world is going to get out of this unscathed think again.
In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department’s mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night.
The theory, according to a participant in the negotiations, is that if the goal is to solve a liquidity crisis, it makes no sense to exclude banks that do a lot of lending in the United States.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson confirmed the change on ABC's "This Week," telling George Stephanopoulos that coverage of foreign-based banks is "a distinction without a difference to the American people."
"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said.
Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by antar
Finally, a counter-proposal begins to emerge.....Thank you.
Not to be a pain or anything but as to the MSM crisis spin and the current proposal on the table i have to ask.......REALLY?
I'm assuming most American have a mortgage which they will now all owe the government. You bought a bigger, better house than you could afford betting that you would have more tomorrow than you did today. I didn't.
I'm assuming most Americans have loans for toys they bought they couldn't pay for at the time. I don't.
I'm assuming you have banked on tomorrow to pay for today. I didn't.
I'm assuming you put your money in a market hoping to make more from the people who lost in the market that day. There is no new money. You gambled that someone would lose that day so that you could win.
Now you want us that didn't overextend to take on the bad debt? Let the big businesses fail. If you don't think we should do this proposal...then give Gools verbage he can copy and paste that would solve this problem. Offer a counter proposal solution that doesn't put my children and grandchildren on the hook for bad debts we never incurred.
My family, for generations now, has preserved what little we had and made due. Basically we didn't buy eggs...we bought chickens to make our own eggs. We don't spend more than we have.
Let the banks fail or offer a better solution. If you are going to write outraged letters....send a new proposal along that ends this madness. Instead of tearing up the copy of the proposal on the table....let's use posts to write a new one and send that because the one on the table now is WRONG and believe me, they ARE going to pass something this week.
How about mandating within the proposal that all profits made by these banks would also be nationalized along with this debt. Take the assets with the debts or let them fail.
It makes me sick that my children are getting saddled with debt they didn't get any benefit from. We have got to seize the assets along with the debt or no deal.
Let em fail. I feel like I have been an unknowing player in the game of monopoly and ended up in jail while the monopolies got dealt all the get out of jail free cards under the table.
Disgusted.
Sorry for the rant....but....REALLY?
Let's come up with a better solution.....the minds are here.....
If we don't like what is on the table then offer an alternative. All the MSM is talking about is tweaking what is being proposed.
The theory, according to a participant in the negotiations, is that if the goal is to solve a liquidity crisis, it makes no sense to exclude banks that do a lot of lending in the United States.
"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said.
"That's a distinction without a difference to the American people. The key here is protecting the system. ... We have a global financial system, and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things, and I believe a number of them will. But, remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers. and the American people don't care who owns the financial institution. If the financial institution in this country has problems, it'll have the same impact whether it's the U.S. or foreign."
Originally posted by pavilIf we don't let the government take on the burden of these horrible loans, more and more financial and Big Business institutions will fail. That alternative is bleaker than having the Government basically "eat" a good portion of these loans. It's not a good situation either way you look at it, you have to take the course of action that will do less damage to the economy.
The market was 500 trades away from Armageddon on Thursday, traders inside two large custodial banks tell The Post.
Had the Treasury and Fed not quickly stepped into the fray that morning with a quick $105 billion injection of liquidity, the Dow could have collapsed to the 8,300-level - a 22 percent decline! - while the clang of the opening bell was still echoing around the cavernous exchange floor.
Without commercial paper, "factories would have to shut down, people would lose their jobs and there would be an effect on the real economy," Paul Schott Stevens, of the Investment Company Institute, told the Wall Street Journal.
Banks, which usually keep an average of $2 billion in excess reserves earmarked for withdrawals, pumped that up to an astounding $90 billion by Wednesday, Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrighton ICAP, told The Journal.
Originally posted by kosmicjack
This is bad. Real bad. I am speechless.
I'm worried about Monday. Any ideas of what to expect?
Originally posted by Grinder
Anyone wants to make predictions ?