Bank con exposed on MSNBC!

Loan contracts are still NOT capital assets.

Loan contracts are still assets. Just as cash is an asset. Cash is not a hard asset, like real estate, but it is still considered an asset in accounting terms. Investments in the stock market are not hard assets, but they are still considered an asset.

If you're defining a capital asset as all tangible property that cannot be easily converted into cash and which is usually held for a long period of time, such as real estate, equipment, etc., then - by that definition - loan contracts would not be considered a "capital asset".

Loan contracts are held for a long period of time (30 years or more on average), and they can be easily converted into cash (via sale of the loan contract to a third party), but they are not tangible (though the underlying collateral - real estate for instance - is tangible).

But capital assets aren't the only kind of assets!

By the definition given above, cash isn't a "capital" asset because it wouldn't be considered "tangible property" like real estate. But it is still an asset! As are investments in the stock market (called "securities"), as are loan contracts, as are accounts receivables (payments owed a business).

Again, you are defying basic accounting principles. Any accountant will tell you that a signed and notarized loan contract is still an asset!

What on earth do you think is so special about "capital" assets anyway? Real estate is illiquid, which makes it a terrible asset in some circumstances. Any capital asset that is illiquid can be a terrible asset by the very definition of being illiquid. (Just ask any elderly person that needs liquid cash fast for a medical emergency and can't sell their paid-for house in a timely manner.)

Also, you failed to even mention the first lien position that a bank has on the collateral in any standard loan agreement. Loan contracts take a first lien position in a hard asset - such as real estate and equipment. If the borrower defaults, or breaks any covenants of the loan agreement (such as committing fraud in obtaining the loan), then the bank takes ownership of the hard asset.

Your argument is absolutely ludicrous.

By the way, many banks do have "capital" assets in the form of real estate owned. Consider the hard assets found in the form of retail banks. Banks own the land, the buildings, and all of the equipment in the retail branch. They also own corporate offices in downtown areas. These are all hard assets, or "capital" assets as you like to call them. Some banks have warehouses of check processing machines. ATM machines are hard assets. You get the idea.

Regardless, banks have significant assets. To suggest that bank assets don't count because the bulk of the assets are not hard assets like real estate, is pure bunk. The bulk of the bank's assets are in the form of legal loan contracts, of which the bank has first lien positions on collateral such as real estate.

Capiche?

A blog from a CEO isn't reliable evidence, nothing but his opinion, which is obviously might be a bit biased in his own favor. His own words, however demonstrate that his claims are not the truth.

Again, you completely ignored my reference to Ross Sorkin's book, Too Big To Fail. Paulson, when he initiated TARP, rounded up the CEO's of the top 9 banks, and threatened all of them to sign up for the TARP funds for the purpose of enhancing the overall stability of the financial system. Unprecedented times called for unprecedented action was the line of thinking at the time - especially when 1 Wall Street firm after another was falling by the wayside.

Now, where is your proof that these 9 banks were not forced to take TARP funds?

These CEO's didn't have a gun to their head - agreed - but they were certainly under threat from Paulson who gave them an ultimatum. Sign or else. No one asked what "or else" meant. Prove Sorkin wrong.

You made the allegation. Cite your sources.

Regarding Dimon: Do you have any tangible proof or evidence that JPMorgan Chase actually needed TARP money? Cite your sources.

(By the way, do you really consider Alex Jones and Prison Planet as an objective, reliable news source? Your sources speak volumes about your objectivity.)

The executives of these companies are more than willing to pay higher interest rates to the detriment of their investors, in order to protect their own bonuses.

No. What the article from TIME fails to mention is the utter stranglehold and government intervention that was attached to the TARP funds. Banks are already under heavy regulation and scrutiny from the Federal Reserve, state regulators, and the FDIC. TARP only made it worse. If that means raising funds at a slightly higher rate of interest - and without the stranglehold of government interference - why wouldn't they pay back TARP as fast as possible?

What bank CEO in their right mind wants yet another government bureaucracy interfering with their operations?

I would argue that investors are penalized even more by the heavy strings and burdens attached to TARP.

Your article from TIME even states:

"...Proponents of the banks paying back the government say the higher borrowing costs will only be temporary. As the market improves, banks will be able to issue bonds on their own at lower rates. Indeed, so-called bank credit spreads — the extra costs of borrowing — have already begun to fall. What's more, if the banks buy back the warrants now, while bank stocks are still relatively low, it could be much cheaper than waiting to do it once the share prices have recovered."

So now the CEO's have 2 legit reasons. First, avoid government interference. Second, it makes economic sense to pay back the government now while credit spreads are falling and the bank's stock price is relatively low.

Anyway you slice, the taxpayers still wind up financing their grossly over sized bonuses.

Cite one single example of a bank - any bank - where you feel that the taxpayers are funding executive bonuses.

Last time I checked, a big portion of the TARP funds were repaid.......with interest.

It is clear you don't care about the truth, you just want to spread propaganda.

Cheap shot. Stick with the facts and cite your sources. Only this time, see if you can find a source a little more reliable than Alex Jones and Prison Planet, okay?

reply to post by CookieMonster09


I never claimed that loans are not assets, they are just not capital assets, they are not tangible, they are not physically real.

Obviously you have a problem with this reality, sorry. Look at the link I provided with a definition of what a capital assets is.

Now, where is your proof that these 9 banks were not forced to take TARP funds?

Once again, where is your proof that the banks were forced to take the money? This claim is nothing but a lie put out by the banks who freaked out when they found out that their huge unjustified bonuses were going to be taken away.

Even the link you provided, admits that the problem came down to bonuses. However, some bank CEO belly aching about bonuses does not come close to proving your or his claim that they were forced to take the money.

I provided two sources, you provided a blog. You are going to have to do far better.

The NY Times article points out that TARP is being paid back by borrowing to the detriment of the stock holders, and the economy, all to serve the needs of the corporate execs for outrageous bonuses.

As far as government interference in the banks goes, banks exist on privileges granted to them by the government in the form of charters. The government has every right to interfere in their business to prevent rampant fraud which has reigned since Newt deregulated the banks.

If banks and the investment sector do not want to deal with government rules, then the government should stop all backing, take back the control of currency, and start taxing banks and investment companies at the same rate they tax casinos, because in reality, that is all they have become, gambling houses.

Maybe you don't like Alex Jones and Prison Planet, but their article lays it out the way it is. You can attack the source, but you have no argument to stand up to the facts presented.

Prison planet is right on the money, the fact that these big financial institutions still have that big government money to borrow at very low interest rates makes them very secure investments, and that makes it far easier for them to raise funds. It is all backed by taxpayer dollars, and for you to pretend differently is a joke.

I never claimed that loans are not assets, they are just not capital assets, they are not tangible, they are not physically real. Obviously you have a problem with this reality, sorry. Look at the link I provided with a definition of what a capital assets is.

An asset does not have to be in the form of real estate, property, or equipment to qualify as an asset. Cash is an asset. It is intangible. So are stock investments. Both are assets. Legal loan contracts are assets as well.

You want to change accounting rules by suggesting that loan assets (because they are "intangible") are somehow inferior to hard assets (or "capital assets"). They are not. Hard assets are actually - especially now - considered to be inferior because they are not liquid (meaning they cannot be easily converted to cash).

Regardless, you are the one that made the inference that loan assets are somehow inferior. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't have a problem with reality. I have a problem with people such as yourself that use make-believe accounting rules that only exist in their own fantasy world. As I said before, and I will say it again: Banks have significant assets. Many to the tune of billions of dollars. These assets consist of loan assets, but they also consist of investments, real estate, property, and equipment.

Once again, where is your proof that the banks were forced to take the money?

For the third time, get your hands on Andrew Ross Sorkin's book, "Too Big To Fail". Read it. It shouldn't be hard to find. As Sorkin explains, at the onset of TARP, Paulson threatened 9 bank CEO's to take TARP funds for fear that the entire financial system would collapse if they didn't. Read the book. That's the source.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has publicly stated (on multiple occasions) that his bank did not need TARP funds. You have yet to provide me with one shred of evidence to refute his claim.

By the way, speaking of TARP, you might find this link helpful:

www.ibanknet.com...

It's a list of all of the banks that have repaid TARP, with interest. As you can see from the list, most of the banks have already repaid TARP.

So how exactly are these banks being backed by taxpayer funds if TARP has already been repaid? Do tell.

The NY Times article points out that TARP is being paid back by borrowing to the detriment of the stock holders, and the economy, all to serve the needs of the corporate execs for outrageous bonuses.

The New York Times? At least quote the Wall Street Journal, or even the BBC.

No. Read your TIME article:

"...Proponents of the banks paying back the government say the higher borrowing costs will only be temporary. As the market improves, banks will be able to issue bonds on their own at lower rates. Indeed, so-called bank credit spreads — the extra costs of borrowing — have already begun to fall. What's more, if the banks buy back the warrants now, while bank stocks are still relatively low, it could be much cheaper than waiting to do it once the share prices have recovered."

The investor is not being hurt by the repayment of TARP. In fact, the borrowing costs for repaying TARP are only temporary, and credit spreads - the cost of borrowing - have already begun to fall. It's also much, much cheaper to repay TARP now while bank stock prices are low, because buying back warrants at a later date would be far more expensive when the bank's stock prices rise. (Do you understand what this means? Do you understand what a warrant even is?)

So, no, it's not just about big bonuses to the executives. It's about doing what is best for shareholders and what is best for the long-term financial health of the bank. Owing money to the Federal Government is widely recognized as a crappy long-term business strategy.

By the way, most CEO's have a significant portion of their pay in the form of stock options. Same with the "bonuses" you describe. Many are tied to stock ownership in the bank.

Prison planet is right on the money, the fact that these big financial institutions still have that big government money to borrow at very low interest rates makes them very secure investments, and that makes it far easier for them to raise funds. It is all backed by taxpayer dollars, and for you to pretend differently is a joke.

Again, you might want to try another news source besides Prison Planet. Try reading the Wall Street Journal for starters. Prison Planet is hardly a reliable source of information.

TARP has been repaid.

The Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental conglomerate of private banks. The Fed isn't taxpayer funded.

The FDIC window? Who funds the FDIC? Not taxpayers. The FDIC is funded by the banks themselves and doesn't have one dime of taxpayer money as its funding source. Besides, most banks have opted out of participating altogether. Over 6,000 FDIC-insured entities (i.e., banks) have opted out of the FDIC's Debt Guarantee Program.

Frankly, I don't see any specific evidence that the banks are being backed by taxpayer dollars whatsoever aside from the very few remaining banks that still owe TARP.

As far as banks benefiting from the AIG shakeout, most analysts agree that it was FOREIGN banks that received the benefit of full payouts on their AIG credit derivative instruments, not American banks.

Cite me a single American bank - you choose any bank you want - and show me where in their balance sheet they are taking taxpayer funds!

I asked you before (you conveniently ignored me): Cite one single example of a bank - any bank - where you feel that the taxpayers are funding executive bonuses. I am all ears. And, if you would be so kind, choose a publicly traded bank so we can both examine their audited financial statements as evidence. (I can't wait to hear your response to this one.)

The government has every right to interfere in their business to prevent rampant fraud which has reigned since Newt deregulated the banks.

Reagan. Not Newt. If you want the banks to be nationalized, just say so.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by CookieMonster09]

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Your posts sure make it look like you are a bankster agent. Do you work for one of the major banks? I only ask because your posts historically seem to settle around the banking topic.

I am not an agent for anyone. Thank you for asking.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


Thank you for sharing. I missed that one. that basically covers it.
we are late in the game and the NWO thinks it has won. maybe it has.

This one is good too~!
www.msnbc.msn.com...


[edit on 13-4-2010 by Anti-Evil]

reply to post by CookieMonster09


motherjones.com...

In her book, It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street, Nomi Prins uncovers the hush-hush programs and crunches the hidden numbers to calculate the shocking actual size of the bailout: $14.4 trillion and counting.

motherjones.com...

Money Market Mutual Fund: In September 2008, the Treasury announced that it would insure the holdings of publicly offered money market mutual funds. According to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), these guarantees could have potentially cost the federal government more than $3 trillion [PDF]. Public-Private Investment Fund: This joint Treasury-Federal Reserve program bought toxic assets from banks and brokerages—as much as $5 billion of assets per firm. According to SIGTARP, the government's potential exposure from the PPIF is between $500 million and $1 trillion [PDF]. TARP: As part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury has made loans to or investments more than 750 banks and financial institutions. $650 billion has been paid out (not including HAMP; see below). As of December 21, 2009, $117.5 billion of that has been repaid. Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) stock purchase: The Treasury has bought $200 million in preferred stock from Fannie Mae and another $200 million from Freddie Mac [PDF] to show that they "will remain viable entities critical to the functioning of the housing and mortgage markets." GSE mortgage-backed securities purchase: Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the Treasury may buy mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to SIGTARP, these purchases could cost as much as $314 billion [PDF]. Advertisement Advertisement Citigroup asset guarantee: In this joint Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC program, the government agreed to cover potential losses to a Citigroup asset pool worth $301 billion [PDF]. T-bill auctions to fund the Fed: In November 2008, the Treasury announced that it would borrow $260 billion to fund the Supplementary Financing Program, whose proceeds were deposited with the Federal Reserve. TARP overpayment: This June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government would lose $159 billion from its TARP loans and investments due to changes in their market value. (So far, Treasury has earned $14.4 billion in dividends from TARP.) Bank of America asset guarantee: In this joint Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC program, the government agreed to cover potential losses to a Bank of America asset pool worth $118 billion. Bank of America has withdrawn from the program and has paid the government $425 million [PDF] in compensation. Potential international fund liabilities: In April, the United States committed up to $100 billion to fund the International Monetary Fund's lending and ensure that it "has adequate resources to play its central role in resolving and preventing the spread of international economic and financial crises." HAMP: The Home Affordable Modification Program offers financial incentives to lenders to modify home loans. $75 billion in federal funds has been committed; $50 billion of that comes from TARP is set aside to modify mortgages not owned or guaranteed by Frannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other government-sponsored entities. Treasury exchange stabilization fund: A temporary program to insure the holdings of publicly offered money market mutual funds. GSE credit facility program: Additional credit made available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Expires December 31, 2009. Federal Reserve bailout programs Commercial Paper Funding Facility: With the support from the Treasury, the Fed established the CPFF in October 2008 to increase the availability of short-term debt (commercial paper) funding. Up to $1.8 trillion [PDF] was earmarked for the program. Mortgage-backed securities purchase: In 2009, the Fed earmarked up to $1.25 trillion to buy investments based on home loans. Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: TALF provides financing to investors who are buying asset-backed securities. In February 2009, the Fed and Treasury announced an expansion of the program to generate up to $1 trillion in new lending. Foreign Central Bank Currency Liquidity Swaps: The Fed has provided $755 billion [PDF] for currency liquidity swaps with foreign central banks. Money Market Investor Funding Facility: The MMIF was established in October 2008 to provide loans for investors buying certificates of deposit and commercial paper. According to SIGTARP, $600 billion [PDF] was allocated for the program. Treasury Purchase Program: In March 2009, the Fed was authorized to purchase up to $300 billion of treasury securities. GSE Program: In March 2009, the Fed increased its purchases of debt from government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) from $100 billion to $200 billion. Primary Dealer Credit Facility: The PDCF provides overnight loans to primary dealers (financial firms that can engage in direct transactions with the federal government). The Fed allocated $147.7 billion [PDF] for it in 2009. ABCP MMMF liquidity facility: The Asset-Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) Money Market Mutual Fund (MMMF) Liquidity Facility (whew!) provides loans to financial institutions purchasing commercial paper from money market mutual funds. According to SIGTARP, the Fed allocated $145.9 billion for the program in 2009. JPMorgan Chase/Lehman Brothers: In September 2008, the Fed gave JPMorgan Chase $148 billion in help the near-bankrupt Lehman Brothers. Open Market Operations: In September 2008, the Fed injected $125 billion into the market by purchasing securities and repurchase agreements, or repos, in which primary dealers borrow cash from the fed. Tri-Party Repurchase Agreements: The Fed provided $124.6 billion [PDF] for this type of repo in 2009. Primary Credit: The Fed provided $112 billion [PDF] to offer loans at a discounted rate to eligible institutions in 2009. Temporary Reserves: Between August and September 2007, the Fed made $93 billion of temporary reserves available for loans to financial firms. Single-Tranche Repurchase Agreements: In 2009, the Fed offered a total of $80 billion for short-term loans to holders of mortgage-backed securities. Term Auction Facility: Under TAF, the Fed auctions short-term loans to financial institutions. The amount of loans offered has varied widely; between December 2009 and January 2010, $75 billion in loans will be available. AIG preferred stock interests, credit, and loan: The Fed provided $53 billion to the struggling AIG in various forms between 2008 and 2009. AIG Securities Lending Facility: In October 2008, the Fed authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to borrow up to $37.8 billion in securities from AIG. Maiden Lane II and III (AIG): In 2008, the Fed authorized its New York branch to form three limited liability companies: Maiden Lane, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III. It provided $52.5 billion to Maiden Lane II and III to assist AIG. Maiden Lane I (Bear Stearns): The Fed provided $29.8 billion to Maiden Lane I to acquire Bear Stearns' assets and facilitate its merger with JPMorgan Chase. TSLF: The Term Securities Lending Facility offers Treasury collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York so it can auction weekly loans to financial institutions. $25 billion in loans will be available between November 2009 and January 2010. TOP: The Term Securities Lending Facility Options Program allowed primary dealers to get TSLF loans in exchange for collateral. At the time of the program's termination in June 2009, $50 billion in loans had been offered. Expansion of system open market account securities lending: In July 2009, the Fed increased its limit for loans of securities to brokers from $3 billion to $5 billion, for a total of $36 billion [PDF] in new lending. JPMC/Bear Stearns Loan: The Fed provided a $12.9 billion bridge loan [PDF] to JPMorgan Chase during its acquisition of Bear Stearns.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by drew hempel]

Hempel -

You've given me a pretty sizeable task to take apart each and every one of these programs and dissect them. Nevertheless, for the sake of brevity, I will take the largest items in your charts and discuss. If you want to delve deeper, or want to dissect others, just let me know.

Under the first link you provided, I will again state what I stated before. The Federal Reserve is not funded by taxpayer dollars. So the second chart provided in your Mother Jones link can be thrown out in its entirety - $7.2 trillion.

Any lending facilities that you see the Federal Reserve doing - whether to assist in buyouts of distressed firms, etc. - is NOT taxpayer money.

The Federal Reserve has never been funded by taxpayer dollars. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental private conglomerate (some say cartel) of the biggest banks. Banks own the Fed, not taxpayers. It has Congressional oversight, but that's not saying much. Hence, you hear from time to time calls for the Fed to be abolished - and that's a whole other discussion altogether. Regardless, the Federal Reserve is NOT using taxpayer dollars when it lends.

Same thing with the FDIC. Anytime that you see an FDIC related program, remember that the FDIC is not funded by taxpayer dollars - it's funded by yearly bank assessments.

The government agency that you need to watch is the Treasury, not the FDIC nor the Federal Reserve. Only the Treasury would truly be considered "taxpayer money".

Half your Mother Jones argument just went out the door. Let's look at the other half.

In the first chart, under the Treasury Department section, the Money Market Mutual Fund guarantee program - $3.757 trillion of the $7.2 trillion - was a temporary guarantee program. Money market mutual funds had to pay a fee to even participate:

www.ustreas.gov...

It is no longer being offered. So you can strike $3.757 out of the Mother Jones pie chart right off the bat.

Another big chunk of your argument just blew up in smoke. Make-believe "potential losses" don't count. The program expired September 2009.

In the first chart, under the $1 trillion in the Public-Private Investment fund, these monies would be funded from the Federal Reserve (not taxpayer money), the FDIC (not taxpayer money) and private investors (not taxpayer money), in addition to funds from the Treasury:

www.ustreas.gov...

The proposed size of the Public Private Investment Fund has been drastically reduced from its original proposed size. It hasn't even gotten off to much of a start, and there are several administrative challenges to the program even becoming operational:

"The program has been hampered by the announcement by Standard & Poor's that many eligible assets would be downgraded by the rating agency, making them ineligible for the program."

www.bloomberg.com...

(Part of this Public-Private Investment program deals with toxic real estate assets. And these are the kind of assets no one wants to touch, so it's going to be interesting to see how it unfolds.)

The TARP figures that you show on your pie chart are showing from October 2009. A bit dated. Since that time, nearly all of the TARP funds have been repaid:

www.ibanknet.com...

Credit given to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Purchases of stock in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government agencies, not banks. This is not credit given to private banks, and not the stock purchase of private banks. Big difference.

GSE-Mortgaged backed securities purchase? These are investments by the Treasury in select mortgage-backed securities. Taxpayers are expected to profit from these investments, not lose money:

www.ustreas.gov...

Need I continue?

Most of these programs were designed as a temporary backstop to slow down a systemic meltdown in the financial sector - perceived or real. Most involved the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, not taxpayer funds - and most emphatically NOT retail banks. When the Treasury was involved, it was typically in conjunction with the FDIC, Fed, and private investors.

Again, I would question your sources. With just a little bit of research, you can see the liberal bent, and Mother Jones is a liberal leaning POLITICAL magazine. It is not a business publication like the Wall Street Journal.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Sorry if you don't like the term capital assets, but accounting rules do recognize the distinction for accounting purposes.

Your relationship with reality is clearly on display here, and permeates your posts. Sorkin is a Wall Street insider / media darling, have you ever managed to think about what enables him to be a Wall Street insider, how it establishes his career, so what is the surprise that he writes a book that exonerates those who allow him his insider privileges. It pokes fun at them and all that, but mainly it excuses them, as you have persistently insisted they should be excused based upon his book.

Of course you dismiss the NYT, while hanging your whole argument on a book written by a NYT darling.

The banks are playing hard ball on this whole issue, and it is time the U.S. public plays hard ball back. Maybe you might choose to buy the "they forced us to take the money", for whatever reason, but anybody with a lick of sense sees right through what is just another con.

The finance sector destroyed the world's economy out of sheer greed. The more they continue to repeat their lies, the angrier the public around the globe is getting.

www.marketwatch.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...

The Conservatives also said they would go further than Labour on City reform by placing a unilateral levy on banks if it proved impossible to reach international agreement. A Cameron government would also seek an international deal on severing "safe" retail banks from those engaged in speculative activities.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


The Fed Res has been granted special powers by the U.S. government in what is one of the shadiest votes in congressional history that allows them to print money. They don't need to borrow from the U.S. government, they create the money, all backed by taxpayers.

The fact that they can borrow money on the taxpayers credit does mean that they borrow from the U.S. public.

You are trying to claim a technicality that once again denies reality.

Sorry if you don't like the term capital assets, but accounting rules do recognize the distinction for accounting purposes.

Whether it's a legal contract or a piece of equipment, at the end of the day, it's still an asset for accounting purposes. Accountants may list assets on a Balance Sheet - such as cash, loan contracts, receivables, equipment, real estate, etc. - but at the end of the day, an asset is an asset!

You can't pick and choose which assets are superior to others, just because you have a bias against the banking industry. You can't suggest that bank assets are somehow inferior because they don't involve real estate or tangible property.

Accountants make no distinction regarding loan assets: They don't state that loan assets are somehow inferior to capital assets such as real estate or equipment. That is what you are trying to do, and accounting just doesn't work that way.

On any balance sheet, they list all of the assets - tangible and intangible.

The only argument you could possibly have is that the loan contracts are backed by weakened collateral because real estate assets have fallen. Even then, that only matters in the event of a default, because if you signed a loan contract, whatever the loan contract states is what you owe. But that's not what you are saying. You're trying to imply that - because banks have loans on the books - that these assets are somehow inferior to capital assets such as real estate and equipment. It's a patently ridiculous argument.

Of course you dismiss the NYT, while hanging your whole argument on a book written by a NYT darling.

Again, you are avoiding the main question, which is whether or not TARP was forced down the throat of the 9 initial banks or not. Dimon says it was pretty much a put-up or shut up moment when Paulson made the first 9 CEO's sign up for TARP. Sorkin attests to that in his book.

You asked for a single reference, and I gave you one. So now you have a beef against the NY Times? Interesting. You can't seem to make up your mind. Is the NY Times legit or not? If it is, then Sorkin stands. If not, then your earliest post from the NY Times isn't legit. Which is it? You tell me, because you are the one that keeps flip-flopping on the issue.

Regardless, it's a moot point. Because, by and large, TARP has been repaid. I would even hazard to guess that within the next 6-12 months, TARP will be a permanent part of history.

And what was the purpose of TARP that you find so objectionable? Here the U.S. financial system is in obvious chaos, with banks failing left and right, and Wall Street collapsing. A crisis of confidence. Did you want Paulson to do nothing? Stand by and watch everything unfold? You tell me.

In hindsight, TARP looks pretty smart to me. The damage from the hysteria of the crisis was halted by the U.S. government's swift action to stand behind the U.S. financial system, providing unprecedented support and backing in a time of crisis.

Maybe you might choose to buy the "they forced us to take the money", for whatever reason, but anybody with a lick of sense sees right through what is just another con.

How is it a con if no one got swindled? TARP was repaid! With interest to boot! Maybe you have a warped sense of what a con is. If TARP weren't repaid, you might have a point. If the banks stiffed the U.S. Treasury, I would say you had a point. But facts speak for themselves - TARP was repaid with interest.

Regarding the BOA pending lawsuit, it's one of many, I am sure. After all, these kind of lawsuits happen daily with an organization as large as BOA.

But BOA isn't the banking industry, and neither is Chase. No, there are literally thousands of retail banks that don't fall in the Chase or BOA footprint. That's like saying all auto manufacturers are dangerous because of Toyota's safety issues.

The Governor of the Bank of England gives a political speech. I don't see how that relates to public anger.

And while I agree that the public is angry, their anger is misdirected. It should be directed where the real blame lies:

- the politicians that pressed the lending industry to devise creative financing schemes so that "every American" could afford a new home even if they didn't deserve it (now an American nightmare),
- crooked mortgage loan officers at sub-prime mortgage companies that sold interest-only mortgage products and fraudulently doctored loan applications (mortgage companies are NOT banks),
- executives at sub-prime mortgage companies that encourage the fraud to continue and turned a blind eye,
- real estate speculators (house "flippers"),
- appraisers that knowingly inflated house values,
- speculative home builders that borrowed beyond their means to repay leaving whole subdivisions unfinished --- all the while building sub-standard houses using undocumented foreign workers,
- borrowers that knowingly took out fraudulent mortgage loans by inflating their income,
- ratings agencies that gave AAA ratings to bundles of sub-prime mortgage assets,
- and the Wall Street firms that knowingly sold bundles of these sub-prime loans to investors.

The retail banks, if anyone, got utterly screwed by these crooks. These are the real culprits to this crisis.

The Fed Res has been granted special powers by the U.S. government in what is one of the shadiest votes in congressional history that allows them to print money.

It's a completely separate conversation regarding the Fed's legitimacy, which is not even what we are talking about. The issue at hand, mind you, is whether banks are illegitimately receiving taxpayer dollars.

At every turn, I have shown you that this is not the case. The only true instance is TARP, and TARP was repaid with interest in record time.

The fact that they can borrow money on the taxpayers credit does mean that they borrow from the U.S. public.

Cite me a single American bank - you choose any bank you want - and show me where in their balance sheet they are taking taxpayer funds.

You are trying to claim a technicality that once again denies reality.

No technicalities here. Just straight facts.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


You are really off the map here, and I am not going to bother addressing your numerous false claims, just a few.

I never said anything bad about the NYTs, you are the one playing both sides of that argument depending on which side serves your interests.

You have one source to back all your claims, Sorkin, a Wall Street insider parroting the excuse put out by wall Street con artists that government made them take the money.

Really? Do you think anyone buys this lie?

Sorkin wrote a book saying just what the people who provide him with his insider privileges wanted him to say.

If you want to know who is responsible for the financial disaster, follow the money, and that tells you who made it happen, and it all leads to Wall Street.

Our financial markets have been turned into one huge ponzi scheme, and we need to put people in office who will get the money back.

Originally posted by romanmel
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_

 

S & F...Surprisingly frank and on MSNBC, no less.
Too bad no one watches MSNBC.

.......

........

I was suprised it was on MSNBC as well, and only because (IMO) of the way they report the news. I'm not saying its wrong, it jsut seems they care about the wrong thing.. So yes, I think its good that MSNBC reported it.. The question now is how to fix it.

Elections - Time to vote them all out.

The Federal Reserve is a quasi private entity with the heads being appointed by the President, with approval by Congress.

Having the bankers in control of monetary policy is, to borrow a phrase from JAG, like having the S.S. investigate aushwitz.

The only way this is going to change is for us to take part in the system and vote. This mess happened because of apathy in our country, and that can easily be fixed by participating in the system.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Remember, the reason we got the TARP funds paid back is because the current administration just put into office put restrictions on the borrowers as terms for the loans, restricting pay and bonuses.

Those restrictions were a great move by the Obama admin, and one of his campaign promises is to stop the abuses that the finance sector has heaped upon the public. We should be supporting Obama in his effort to reform Wall Street.

All these attempts to blame the government for the sins of Wall Street are acidulously foolish.

There was an article in Harpers a few years back stating that the finance sector was taking about a 40% bite out of our economy. That is a deadly bite.

You are really off the map here, and I am not going to bother addressing your numerous false claims, just a few.

I'm not the one making false claims here. Let's be clear. You have made several statements that I have refuted. You just refuse to reply to my refutations because you don't have a coherent argument.

Let's be clear. You can't cite a single American bank - you choose any bank you want - and show me where in their balance sheet they are taking taxpayer funds.

Let's be clear - You can't prove to me that TARP was a con, because we both know that TARP was repaid with interest.

You can't even provide me with one shred of evidence that executive bonuses are being paid with taxpayer dollars, and not out of the profits of the banks themselves.

Because of your liberal bias, you think that all banks are "bad guys", and that taxpayers are "getting ripped off". That's your vantage point - You just can't logically prove it with any evidence whatsoever.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is contrary to the truth.

You have one source to back all your claims, Sorkin, a Wall Street insider parroting the excuse put out by wall Street con artists that government made them take the money.

I gave you two sources - Jamie Dimon, and Sorkin's book, "Too Big to Fail". Do you want more references?

And by the way, where are your sources to prove otherwise? Where on earth is any proof from you whatsoever that the initial 9 banks were NOT forced by Treasury Secretary Paulson to take TARP?

Are we supposed to believe you just because you say so? At least I gave you credible, documented references.

Where is your proof that JPMChase needed TARP funds? You make these blind accusations, but then refuse to answer a single one of my questions!

Answer the question: How is it a "con" if TARP was repaid with interest? The taxpayer wasn't defrauded. The spiraling worldwide financial panic was averted.

If you knew anything about the financial system, you would realize that there were fundamental and systemic problems uniformly throughout the entire financial sector - all originating from mortgage fraud at the local level.

As I noted before, the roots of the issue have to do with sub-prime mortgage fraud, wherein banks were totally defrauded by sub-prime mortgage brokers, fraudulent borrowers, and speculative real estate investors ("house-flippers").

Retail banks were defrauded by all of these criminal parties. Yet you choose to blame the banks! How strange is that?

Sorkin wrote a book saying just what the people who provide him with his insider privileges wanted him to say.

Have you read the book? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you did, you would know that the chain of events described are not "insider privileges", but historical facts of record that can easily be documented. Example: Lehman Brothers public conference call to investors. This is a factual record.

Secondly, the book sure doesn't make any of the "insiders" look too good. In fact, most of the insiders appear quite out of their league in dealing with the catastrophic events as they unfold. Some of the "insiders" actually appear quite comical as they flounder to stay afloat.

You act as if these "insiders" forced Sorkin to write the content of the book. First, that is quite a statement to accuse a nationally recognized author of doctoring the content of his book. That is quite a serious accusation. Where is your evidence? Where is your proof?

You have none because you haven't even read the book. It's just another one of your bloated assertions.

And why would an "insider" tell Sorkin to make him or her look bad in print? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you want to know who is responsible for the financial disaster, follow the money, and that tells you who made it happen, and it all leads to Wall Street.

There is a huge difference between Wall Street and your local retail bank. Even in my prior post, I suggested that Wall Street was to blame for bundling up these toxic assets and selling them to investors as "AAA" investments. The ratings agencies were also to blame for giving these sub-prime investments AAA ratings. We have no argument there.

But Wall Street and the ratings agencies are only after the fact.

The real blame lies at the local level, where borrowers and mortgage brokers submitted totally fraudulent loan applications with inflated incomes and doctored appraisals.

If you "follow the money", you will see that sub-prime mortgage brokers earned hefty six figure incomes during the boom years, and the sub-prime mortgage companies rewarded this fraud with bonuses, stock payouts, vacations, and similar privileges. All based on defrauding banks.

If you "follow the money", you will see that borrowers and speculative real estate investors committed mortgage fraud on a grand scale. All based on defrauding banks.

If you "follow the money", you will see how homebuilders built speculative residential real estate developments using substandard materials (have you heard about the Chinese drywall scam yet?) and undocumented foreign labor. Then, when the market collapsed, these same builders skipped town, leaving the banks holding the bag with record numbers of unfinished houses. When the banks pursued the builders, they filed bankruptcy and cleverly claimed financial hardship by hiding assets. All based on defrauding banks.

If you follow the money you will see that Wall Street execs made, by far, the most money, and the rest got chump change.

www.reuters.com...

Average taxable bonuses on Wall Street rose to $123,850 in 2009, DiNapoli said. Compensation at Goldman Sachs Group Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Morgan Stanley, three of New York's biggest banks, rose 31 percent, he added.

Wall Street got bailed out for their bad risks, and the taxpayers wound up covering their risks.

Then they paid back the TARP funds at extremely low interest rates while charging the public loan shark rates.

The concept is that investors take risks that justify their interest charges, but when the public, the taxpayers, bail them out when they fail, then they aren't really taking risk, and they shouldn't be making so much money.

Meanwhile, the worlds economy is still in dire straits as these Wall Street parasites continue to feed, sucking the life out of the economy.

now you have to ask yourself

if they allowed us to find out about this...

what was teh reason behind it? Something much more sinister is my guess

Star & flag, stuff like this is why I love Dylan Ratigan.

If you don't watch MSNBC (which most of you don't), let me tell you that Dylan has been screaming against the whole bailout & the government since the bailout started. He used to have a show right after Morning Joe at 9, but they took him down because all he would talk about was how bad the fed is, etc etc. The demand was so great for him to come back, so they put him on in the afternoon a while back.

Anyways, Dylan really is one of the only sane voices on MSNBC, besides Joe & Maddow(though more than a little liberal).

I'm tired of people saying 'Oh my god, THEY let him tell us this, they must be planning something! WHOAMG!'

Are you kidding me? Honestly? Does everything have to be orchestrated by 'the man'? Give me a break, if you've never watched someone on a certain network then just be quiet. Dylan really doesn't care what the party line is on whatever network he's on, he'll say what he wants to say & damn whatever they do to him.

You people really should stop being so damn suspicious of everything, that's why everyone laughs at you.

Wag the wagging dog?

Ive been reading a lot about this 'revelation' from msnbc. I think its a conjob.

The banks are con men, often evil, vivid bullying loan sharks....so what?
Everybody knows that and has known it for eons now right?

Even so, and as big and 'powerful' as they seem, they simply cant force you to go into debt unless you consent and you choose to sign the form.
If you are being shanked right now, it is because you have given them consent to shank you!

In the creative process of preshanking rehtoric and snake charming yes, they do rely on manipulation, of your greed, immaturity and desires, even your dreams hopes and expectations...pardon the pun but they literally bank on these things.
Again though, being aware of this, and much as the effect of greed and want in your life, is your personal responsibility to your self, its not theirs to claim or own.

If a snake bites you, and except in very very rare instances, its still you that put your hand in its way to be bitten, so if you are buying into this msnbc 'revelation' you are at risk of giving away the one real tool of authentic ownership you do have in this life - your personal responsibility - and at the drop of an msnbc cue which is a bit sheepish and futile now dont you think?

In blaming the con or conmen for your predicament you wont help yourself do any more than vent your frustration which isnt a cure to this kind of problem. It wont solve anything. It wont help you. It will only help them net and play more 'willing victims' in the future.

Abdicating personal responsibility and ignoring reason and common sense was the begining of the financial disease-of-more and the only solution or cure for that diease is accepting where you are at and how you really got there. Owing it and sucking it up, growing up and being more personally responsible in future - which is a 'cure' you wont hear msbnc telling you about. Its 'too hard' for most folks...they dont want to hear it. Better to blame 'them'...easier...less painful than taking on board any real personal measure of accountability or responsibility.

For as long as you remain willing to be shanked and shilled, they - msnbc and Oprah et al - will continue telling you that you were a 'poor victim' of mega banking cartels, which is the bleeding obvious on some levels but also an outright misrepresentation of the truth, because in reality and on many levels, you were an active and willing participant in your own shanking - that is the truth - so what did you expect?

Yet msnbc will still wave their sympathy wand of magical distaction and say it isnt your fault you poor dear thing..which isnt the truth because it IS your fault if you signed the loan/credit card/store credit form! No one held you down and forced you into signing it!

Denying that truth for you, is just a way for them to get ratings and a red flag to a whole new wag the waging dog conjob they are unwittingly (or deliberately) playing right into themselves.

There is nothing a predator or scavenger likes more than a helpless powerless victim who *feels* like a victim...and you can take it to the bank that in order to help you back to sleep and mental necrosis, these guys want you feeling that way and whats more, you can bet msnbc and mega media inc has every intention of making you into a sleeping victim if your not..and keeping you one if you are already.

Its futile ( imo ) to focus on what cant be changed when the power and ability to prevent and to change what can be changed is already in your hands...not theirs. Its about that horrible word no one wants to face because of the fear of having to actually do someting..to act and think..... R e s p o n s i b i l i t y.....something that when compared to the anger and shame of loss of your home car or childrens education fund..isnt that painful and may be the only real key to personal freedom there is.





Ro


[edit on 15-4-2010 by Rosha]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Rosha]