-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2010: Home Of "By The Time I Get To Arizona"
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
It's important to bear in mind what that fund was intended to do. It was not a "bailout fund", but rather to be used as a bridge fund to keep an in-peril "too big to fail" institution afloat for a few days while the regulators poured in and evaluated the situation. That way they could analyze, seize and either recapitalize - FDIC-style - or dismantle completely in an orderly way, not in an all-out panic.mckmas8808 said:
IIRC, In Dodd's bill, the $50 billion would be raised preemptively via a fee on major banks, similar to the FDIC insurance fund. In the compromise to drop the provision, the government would inject the bridge funding while the analysis of the firm is being conducted. Then, after the resolution, a fee to recoup all costs would be levied on the rest of the industry so the government cost is zero. In this way it will operate very similar to the $90b fee Obama proposed to recoup the rest of the TARP funds.
It's a very small concession, and one the Dems are willing to make if it means the consumer protection agency and derivatives won't get watered down. (Which is why, in the Politico article above, they're now targeting Lincoln's derivative legislation.)
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
cntrational said:
So where does the money come from when the first big bank fails? Who pays for the first wind down of the next Lehman Brothers failure?
platypotamus
Member
mckmas8808 said:
I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you missed Ghal's explanation, but it did come 20 minutes before this post. Come on, mck.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
platypotamus said:
TBH, Im on a cellphone because my broadband modem is dead. So I didn't know Ghal answered my question on the next page and I didn't know it.
But to answer Ghal's explanation, I don't think the comprimise is that terrible anymore. But I do worry that the GOP can better argue that a bailout provision is NOW in the bill when the see Ghal's explanation.
If the Federal govt will initially fork over the bridge money so that the big bank will be closed, then how do you think the GOP will explain that part of the bill? Because of that I still like the original idea better that Croaker ans Warner came up with.
Tacitus_ said:
Europe has had universal healthcare since forever and god seems to have been fine with that, but when america tries to do it, it pisses him off so much he decides to punish.. europe?
It would have been funny if one thought he actually believed it himself, now it's just evil how he uses any opportunity to rile up his teabagging masses. If you are in america, look forward to another email detailing this, forwarded to you by your douchebag evangelical coworker.
The bottom line is that the GOP is doing everything they can to scuttle the bill and come out looking, if not good, then not terrible for it. So they are lying about every provision they can come up with. The $50b fund was jointly developed with GOP support, and now they attack it as a bailout. Just as they jointly developed much of the healthcare bill and attack it as a government take over of healthcare.mckmas8808 said:
Which is why I generally don't spend any time worrying about what the GOP is going to call something. They're going to oppose everything, and say whatever they want in order to justify opposing it. Full stop.
Dreams-Visions
Member
It's Rush. We should be used to it by now.jorma said:
Sadly, people in his base eat it up.
Byakuya769
Member
jorma said:
Just means that God should be prepping punishment on Rush for being an extremely fat, pill popping, and hedonistic hate monger who just throws out red meat to dumb right wing christians when he himself has demonstrated no actual belief in any of it.
SouthernDragon
Member
Byakuya769 said:
If there is a god and some sort of punishment, I wonder what Rush would get.
I think nothing would be so painful as witnessing the long march and triumph of progressive ideas over and over again.
Who didn't see this coming: McConnell rejects compromise on the $50b, says they need to "go back to the drawing board" and will block debate on the bill in order to do so.
The Blue Jihad
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Assholes. Still the "Party of No." And falling back on the same tired talking point as the healthcare debate, too. At least they're doing all the Dem legwork for them. I can see the pro-reform ads now:
"When it comes to meaningful reform, Senator _______ says 'No.' That we need to 'go back to the drawing board.' Can you guess which reform bill they're talking about? Healthcare? Financial reform? We can't tell either. Republicans on Capitol Hill: The Party of No."
Peronthious
Member
The GOP appears to have become a big fan of drawing. I wonder what sort of pictures they make.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
My general feeling is that the GOP has gone to the well one too many times and that it will come back to bite them. After the protracted health care "debate" I don't think the average person will want to hear the same bullshit line of reasoning. It may keep the dicks of their base hard but that's about it.GhaleonEB said:
The Librarian
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
McConnell makes a lot of weird faces.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
bob_arctor said:
Don't be fooled by the Frank Luntz crowd.
Dreams-Visions
Member
""Republicans are blocking meaningful financial reform, even after what happened to your 401(k) accounts in 2008."GhaleonEB said:
Say it over and over and over and over and over. After all, it's the truth."
good comment is good.
RustyNails
Member
So I guess the next talking point after back to the drawing board is "don't ram the bill down America's throat"?GhaleonEB said:
Republicans are a fucking joke now.
SimpleDesign
Member
Scott Brown is such a free thinking independent.
Fuck Mitch McConnell.
SpeedySwaf
Member
The line of reasoning must be that since they didn't suffer in the polls too much from blocking health care, then they couldn't suffer by blocking this either. Problem being that I think significantly more people can relate to what happened with Wall Street then with Health Care.
They're going to have to spout so much bullshit to cover themselves, they may as well replace their mouths with their anus.
They're going to have to spout so much bullshit to cover themselves, they may as well replace their mouths with their anus.
SouthernDragon
Member
RustyNails said:
Now?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
SpeedySwaf said:
replace?
RustyNails
Member
http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-clever-sec-bait-goldman-sachs-into.html
must read more at link
includes this disclaimer:
must read more at link
includes this disclaimer:
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
RustyNails said:
The evil peace!
Incognito said:
This sentence reads a little odd given that the blogger's name is Sam Antar: "I helped Eddie Antar and other members of his family . . . ." I suppose Sam Antar could have worked as the CFO in Eddie Antar's criminal enterprise and not be related, but that does kind of stretch one's imagination.
Interesting link, though. Thanks.
leroy hacker
Member
Wow. Anyone else remember those commercials?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Tamanon said:
Endless tax payer bailouts of Wall Street? Seems like that will work, given time.
Dems to forge ahead on Wall Street reform despite GOP resistance
Pushing ahead to vote to consider the bill on Wednesday or Friday. This made me laugh though:
Pushing ahead to vote to consider the bill on Wednesday or Friday. This made me laugh though:
At least he's consistent. Dude is really looking out for insurance companies.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
GaimeGuy said:
These people are a national disgrace. Seriously. They're the most embarrassing thing to come out of America since uh...uhm....Sarah Palin.
turnbuckle
Member
I remember a This American Life podcast where they interviewed Sam Antar about a year or so ago.
....
Err, actually it was a Planet Money podcast. Here's the page for the show and it has some commercials too.
Hear: Inside The Mind Of A Financial Criminal
....
Err, actually it was a Planet Money podcast. Here's the page for the show and it has some commercials too.
Hear: Inside The Mind Of A Financial Criminal
backbreaker65
Banned
nm
You know, if you'd actually read my posts instead of looking for "conservative buzzwords" you'd see I am advocating the complete opposite of that, and if you were willing to give me the benefit of the doubt I'd like to think you'd think I wasn't thinking(what the hell?? lol) that going back to something that's already failed once was a legitimate answer. A Republic covers a wide range of options, the States can have more power and still be a Republic and the Federal government can have more power and still be a Republic so I don't see the need to assume I was advocating a Confederacy, which I don't support as it'd make everything I said in the following post post even more annoying and backwards.Freshmaker said:
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
mAcOdIn said:
When you say it should either be federalized or states should be granted more power and the federal government minimized, it's worth pointing out that such a system was attempted and that it failed.
One option is not as good as the other. If the states were capable of operating like this, we wouldn't be having these stupid civil rights debates to this day.
You're thinking in extremes, saying States should have more power does not mean Confederacy, at all really.Freshmaker said:
It really comes down to money, the Fed is rolling in dough while some States are struggling, what Programs could a State administer if it were instead getting a large portion of the money that the Federal government was collecting from it's citizens? That's what's kind of annoying, you have the Fed taking huge chunks of people's earnings, with very little regard to what's left over for the State to take, then the State has to look at what people on average have left over and take what they need on top of it. I'm still more against this idea because having the fed do most of the work allows richer States to help the poorer States, but there's plenty of play in this formula, that's why I'd like to see the roles more clearly defined one way or another, so the two aren't constantly stepping on each others toes. Again, I'm clearly more preferential to the Federal government having more power, but I do think we could shift the balance back to the States as well and have a better system than we do now today as well.
if you learn one thing about me on Gaf, It's that I hate inconsistency, I hate that Social Security, for example, is pretty much completely federal, while Medicaid or Unemployment compensation is jointly done by the State and Federal government. I want to know who to fucking deal with and I want it to be the same cronies for everything. In either scenario it's still completely possible to have the Federal government be the ultimate administrator that's setting the standards and ensuring compliance but having it run some things and the State run others and them jointly running yet others is just silly in my opinion. But that's an anal retentive quirk of mine.
Edit: But clearly, in any mix of Federal and State run programs having the Federal government collect a little more than it needs to operate so that it can spread that money to poorer areas is ideal, I'm not debating that, at all. As if Louisiana or Arkansas even could run a UHC in it's State without help from the outside, I'm not crazy.
Edit 2: Interestingly enough though, you do know of Switzerland right? Just sayin'.
Although I still think a stronger Fed is the way to go.
RustyNails
Member
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Puddles said:
Thats the point. Its a shadow bank where the money doesn't really exist. Its basically monopoly money that is being traded and promised. Banks are trading make believe $$$.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked