PDA

View Full Version : Paul Ryan



cpj
08-16-2012, 04:26 PM
There's a reporter in Cincinati that does a news segment called "Reality Check". His name is Ben Swann, WXIX is his station. Like him on Facebook and check out the piece he did on Paul Ryan. To quote Ryan in a speech he gave during one of the bailouts he voted for, "This bill offends my principles but i'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles".

menmon
08-16-2012, 04:41 PM
The bailout was the correct thing to do. What was wrong was the errosion of checks and balances in the banking system that allowed folks to get hurt and the lack of rules that allowed these banks to be insolvent and put all americans at risk. I would have thought he was an idiot if he had not of supported the bailout. He was not perserving principles he was covering a>s.

Franco
08-16-2012, 05:00 PM
Bailing out the banks, GM and Chrysler demonstartes just how corrupt our politicians have become!

If we had a true Free Market Economy and real Capitalism, this sort of crap would never happen. The banks were greedy, made bad choices and tax payers had to reward them by bailing them out. When one invest in banks stocks or any stock/mutual fund, thay are taking a risk. The tax payer should not have to provide a saftey net.

With the auto industry, had they been allowed to run thier natural course, the private sector would have picked up the pieces and the tax payer wouldn't be out of 35 BILLION plus. Lets call it what it was and that was a bailout of the UAW. Instead, they were rewarded for poor management and shoddy workmanship at the expense of the tax payer!

P S
Paul Ryan voted to raise the Debt Ceiling seven times and voted for the bailouts! Is he a reformed sinner? Or, is it that the American voter just wants more of the same?

menmon
08-16-2012, 05:20 PM
Franco....if everything had run its course we would be fighting for a spot in a soup line...that simple. There was a massive credit crunch and the only funding available was government. TARP for the most part has been repaid as has the auto bailout, so government got something right. Maybe had the Germans not drawn as hard a line, Europe would be on better footing.

Now just because government did the right thing during the crisis, does not mean that what they did to get us in the crisis is excusable

huntinman
08-16-2012, 05:22 PM
I'm not sure what the American voters want... But I know for sure what they don't want. Ron Paul. All 50 states said no thanks...

But you keep spouting the same crappola... Give it up till 2016... then you can roll him out again... of course by then you probably will have to literally roll him out... but that will be another story...

Franco
08-16-2012, 05:26 PM
Franco....if everything had run its course we would be fighting for a spot in a soup line...that simple. There was a massive credit crunch and the only funding available was government. TARP for the most part has been repaid as has the auto bailout, so government got something right. Maybe had the Germans not drawn as hard a line, Europe would be on better footing.

Now just because government did the right thing during the crisis, does not mean that what they did to get us in the crisis is excusable

We would not have been in soup lines, that was the scare tactic the politicians used to bailout their money doners. The bank executives wouldn't have walked with their golden parachutes and the tax payer wouldn't have been taken advantage of.

We are far from being repaid on the auto bailouts and I don't consider holding over-valued GM stock as a pay back. Last I checked, we were still owed a couple of TRILLION from the foreign banks we bailed out.

Germany is doing the right thing. Southern Europeans are lazy and are hooked on entitlements and the Germans know it.

menmon
08-16-2012, 05:37 PM
Don't argue economics with me....had the banks not been bailed out, every major bank in the world would have failed along with everyone's checking account. Honoring the FDIC insurance would have looked like a mountain compared to what they loaned the banks. God sake....you got this wrong, and I don't care to see this again to prove I'm right. This was not politics. It was a major f>>k up but not politics. It was the politics of the past that put us in the position, but this was not someone playing for political gain.

Paul's economic position is why I don't like him. Thank God others that don't know as much about economics as I do see it too.

road kill
08-16-2012, 05:43 PM
Don't argue economics with me....had the banks not been bailed out, every major bank in the world would have failed along with everyone's checking account. Honoring the FDIC insurance would have looked like a mountain compared to what they loaned the banks. God sake....you got this wrong, and I don't care to see this again to prove I'm right. This was not politics. It was a major f>>k up but not politics. It was the politics of the past that put us in the position, but this was not someone playing for political gain.

Paul's economic position is why I don't like him. Thank God others that don't know as much about economics as I do see it too.
Bravo Sierra!!!!!

huntinman
08-16-2012, 05:44 PM
Don't argue economics with me....had the banks not been bailed out, every major bank in the world would have failed along with everyone's checking account. Honoring the FDIC insurance would have looked like a mountain compared to what they loaned the banks. God sake....you got this wrong, and I don't care to see this again to prove I'm right. This was not politics. It was a major f>>k up but not politics. It was the politics of the past that put us in the position, but this was not someone playing for political gain.

Paul's economic position is why I don't like him. Thank God others that don't know as much about economics as I do see it too.

A legend in your own mind...

Franco
08-16-2012, 05:54 PM
Don't argue economics with me....had the banks not been bailed out, every major bank in the world would have failed along with everyone's checking account. Honoring the FDIC insurance would have looked like a mountain compared to what they loaned the banks. God sake....you got this wrong, and I don't care to see this again to prove I'm right. This was not politics. It was a major f>>k up but not politics. It was the politics of the past that put us in the position, but this was not someone playing for political gain.

Paul's economic position is why I don't like him. Thank God others that don't know as much about economics as I do see it too.

Sambo, I would say that they have you fooled. Just like the Debt Ceiling scare tactics they use to raise the Debt Ceiling.

In case you missed it, most of the smaller community banks were solvent during the bailouts. It was the big banks run by greed that caused the problems. Those with good credit could walk into any community bank and get a loan during that time. I know, because I did!

mngundog
08-16-2012, 05:57 PM
Wasn't the bail bailout Bushy's baby? I thought all the Republican rank and file lined up to give billions to bankers so they could split up bonuses to themselves.

Franco
08-16-2012, 06:16 PM
Wasn't the bail bailout Bushy's baby? I thought all the Republican rank and file lined up to give billions to bankers so they could split up bonuses to themselves.

Almost correct, all but one of the Repubs did line up to handout the bailouts, except for one House member. One of the few with any scruples. Obama's payoff was to the UAW and other unions via the stimulus.

And, the crooks are walking free, living in the lap of luxury and donating money to their favorite PAC.

gmhr1
08-16-2012, 06:18 PM
Saturday Paul Ryan will be in the "Villages" a popular senior community his mom who lives in Fl and is on Medicare will be there. He will be answering audience questions This could be to much for Obama

BonMallari
08-16-2012, 06:25 PM
Don't argue economics with me....had the banks not been bailed out, every major bank in the world would have failed along with everyone's checking account. Honoring the FDIC insurance would have looked like a mountain compared to what they loaned the banks. God sake....you got this wrong, and I don't care to see this again to prove I'm right. This was not politics. It was a major f>>k up but not politics. It was the politics of the past that put us in the position, but this was not someone playing for political gain.

Paul's economic position is why I don't like him. Thank God others that don't know as much about economics as I do see it too.


Ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you are in the banking industry..point Sambo

BUT IMO opinion the truth is somewhere between your stance and Franco's....both of you are on complete polar opposites of the bank bailout issue

Franco is right about letting some businesses fail, in a free market that should have happened, but I don't think the entire banking system would have folded...but some people got VERY rich off the bank bailout...point Franco

I do agree with your statement that it was not politics, it was a MAJOR ____up

mngundog
08-16-2012, 06:34 PM
Franco....if everything had run its course we would be fighting for a spot in a soup line...that simple. There was a massive credit crunch and the only funding available was government. TARP for the most part has been repaid as has the auto bailout, so government got something right. Maybe had the Germans not drawn as hard a line, Europe would be on better footing.

Now just because government did the right thing during the crisis, does not mean that what they did to get us in the crisis is excusable
Sambo, although I completely disagree with you on this topic, I will give you credit to sticking to your guns. The hard core Repeblicans on the board have selective memory when it comes to remembering what their guys did only a few years ago. No one wants to talk about the billions their guys gave away, only the billions the other guy gave away, everyone wants to talk about what a how moronic Obama's health care mandate was and not how moronic Romney's health care mandate was.

Cody Covey
08-16-2012, 06:40 PM
Sambo, although I completely disagree with you on this topic, I will give you credit to sticking to your guns. The hard core Repeblicans on the board have selective memory when it comes to remembering what their guys did only a few years ago. No one wants to talk about the billions their guys gave away, only the billions the other guy gave away, everyone wants to talk about what a how moronic Obama's health care mandate was and not how moronic Romney's health care mandate was.

Your reading comprehension must be awful but I'll give a try to helping you out anyway. Search these boards and you will find that we have said MANY times that Bush's bailout was just as bad for this country as Obama's was. Your next point is comparing apples and oranges but I suspect you know that. You might not know that many on this board have complained about the Romney health care. What you and others are missing is that his was a state run program that affected only his state and he has said that he would never implement that on a national scale. Good enough for me. States rights are still in play for now no matter how much you and Obama supporters hate it.

Why is it when you guys disagree with something said by the right you instantly jump to saying, "Well you guys did it to" and then add that us on the right supported that? It's incorrect, but again I think you guys know that...

road kill
08-16-2012, 06:47 PM
Sambo, I would say that they have you fooled. Just like the Debt Ceiling scare tactics they use to raise the Debt Ceiling.

In case you missed it, most of the smaller community banks were solvent during the bailouts. It was the big banks run by greed that caused the problems. Those with good credit could walk into any community bank and get a loan during that time. I know, because I did!
Franco and I in perfect alignment......on the FACTS!!!!!

mngundog
08-16-2012, 06:51 PM
Your reading comprehension must be awful but I'll give a try to helping you out anyway. Search these boards and you will find that we have said MANY times that Bush's bailout was just as bad for this country as Obama's was. Your next point is comparing apples and oranges but I suspect you know that. You might not know that many on this board have complained about the Romney health care. What you and others are missing is that his was a state run program that affected only his state and he has said that he would never implement that on a national scale. Good enough for me. States rights are still in play for now no matter how much you and Obama supporters hate it.

Why is it when you guys disagree with something said by the right you instantly jump to saying, "Well you guys did it to" and then add that us on the right supported that? It's incorrect, but again I think you guys know that...
The Republicans had taken a hard line stance that Nationalized health care was evil and the individual mandate was unconstitutional, that is the only reason he said he would never implement it. I don't believe that any reasonable person could believe that Romney thought the mandate was a fantastic idea on a State level and a aweful idea on a National level it was a pure flip-flop simple as that.

cpj
08-16-2012, 06:52 PM
I was on the board of directors of a regional bank that at the time of the banking crisis. At that time we had 600 plus million dollars in assets. We were never at risk of failure. In '06 I believe it was, our CEO told us a double dip recession was coming. He spent some time on the board of one of the Federal Reserve banks. I have to believe plenty of people knew what was coming. Has anyone watched the news report I referenced?

road kill
08-16-2012, 06:52 PM
The Republicans had taken a hard line stance that Nationalized health care was evil and the individual mandate was unconstitutional, that is the only reason he said he would never implement it. I don't believe that any reasonable person could believe that Romney thought the mandate was a fantastic idea on a State level and a aweful idea on a National level it was a pure flip-flop simple as that.
I guess that makes me (an advocate for states rights) unreasonable, but you already thought that anyways..........:cool:

cpj
08-16-2012, 06:58 PM
Actually Bill, Ron Paul won the majority of delegates in 5 states. Louisiana and Maine are fighting the legal elections of Paul delegates currently. These states are refusing to allow the delegates to go to Tampa unless they agree to vote for Romney and not to speak negatively about him to the media among other stipulations.

ARay11
08-16-2012, 07:01 PM
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Francohttp://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=999473#post999473)Sambo, I would say that they have you fooled. Just like the Debt Ceiling scare tactics they use to raise the Debt Ceiling.

In case you missed it, most of the smaller community banks were solvent during the bailouts. It was the big banks run by greed that caused the problems. Those with good credit could walk into any community bank and get a loan during that time. I know, because I did!
Franco and I in perfect alignment......on the FACTS!!!!!


I do think scare tactics are a huge part of the tail wagging the dog. The politicians use it TOO often. .
I do not think our world would be turned upside down if GM were allowed to fail. Perhaps the UAWs world, but not the entire world.

The banks may have been a different story, but I know I make a lot of money off of a few of those banks.... and I'm kinda glad they didn't go away. Although, I'm pretty sure there would have been another bank ready to step in and take the wheel.

I see the bailouts a lot like the war.... tons of money spent on what we now know were not WMDs.... but who would have done it differently? The nation was screaming for revenge after 9/11....and both sides of the aisle were anxious to provide it. Then, the cry came out to help the banks, the cars, the insurers..... both sides of the aisle seemed ready to help. Now, looking back, letting a few fail and a few make it? ... well, who gets to play God in that scenario?

mngundog
08-16-2012, 07:09 PM
I guess that makes me (an advocate for states rights) unreasonable, but you already thought that anyways..........:cool:

Being an advocate for states rights doesn't make you unreasonable, trying to defend Romney for flip-flopping on the mandate would, your smarter than that.

gmhr1
08-16-2012, 07:14 PM
wonder when Biden will tell us his plan since he brings so much to the ticket. When you talk about a flip flopper make sure you include BO with his gay marriage flip flop. Something he would never had said until Uncle Joe opened his mouth and put him on the spot.

Cody Covey
08-16-2012, 07:22 PM
Being an advocate for states rights doesn't make you unreasonable, trying to defend Romney for flip-flopping on the mandate would, your smarter than that.

It's not a flip flop, it is a position held by many that believe in states rights. Just because something was implemented on a statewide level doesn't mean it is something that is proper for a nationwide scale. While I don't agree with the state mandate any more than the national one, I am not voting for a state position but a federal one and he has pledged that, like many states rights activists, it is not something meant for the federal government to implement.

Franco
08-16-2012, 08:19 PM
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Francohttp://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=999473#post999473)Sambo, I would say that they have you fooled. Just like the Debt Ceiling scare tactics they use to raise the Debt Ceiling.

In case you missed it, most of the smaller community banks were solvent during the bailouts. It was the big banks run by greed that caused the problems. Those with good credit could walk into any community bank and get a loan during that time. I know, because I did!
Franco and I in perfect alignment......on the FACTS!!!!!


I do think scare tactics are a huge part of the tail wagging the dog. The politicians use it TOO often. .
I do not think our world would be turned upside down if GM were allowed to fail. Perhaps the UAWs world, but not the entire world.

The banks may have been a different story, but I know I make a lot of money off of a few of those banks.... and I'm kinda glad they didn't go away. Although, I'm pretty sure there would have been another bank ready to step in and take the wheel.

I see the bailouts a lot like the war.... tons of money spent on what we now know were not WMDs.... but who would have done it differently? The nation was screaming for revenge after 9/11....and both sides of the aisle were anxious to provide it. Then, the cry came out to help the banks, the cars, the insurers..... both sides of the aisle seemed ready to help. Now, looking back, letting a few fail and a few make it? ... well, who gets to play God in that scenario?

Scare tactics are the oldest form of population manipulation. Scaring the plebs is a huge tool used by politicians and preachers;)

In a truly Free Marketplace, yes there would have been other banks to replace the banks that were criminally run. Same for the auto industry. As much as our Federal Reserve has tried to destroy community banks, it has been the conservative practices of the community bank that didn't allow them to make bad investments.

The 15 TRILLION bailout of foreign banks in 09 is proof that not only is our currency and monetary policy controlled internationally, they look down their crooked noses at our community banks. Because most of those community banks aren't run by old money elite or Harvard MBAs. Yet those same community banks proved they had the better business model!

And, when the government does get to play God, their attempt at picking winners and losers is dismal and unConstitutional!

Sadley, the prognosis of the health of our future is not good and neither the Dems or the Repubs will change anything.

Franco
08-16-2012, 10:28 PM
Anyway, this thread is about Paul Ryan. With this history, is there any hope that he has reformed his big government/spending philosphy? Or, is he a closet Dem?

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/542313_10151104485532726_1520792377_n.jpg

M&K's Retrievers
08-16-2012, 10:28 PM
Scare tactics are the oldest form of population manipulation. Scaring the plebs is a huge tool used by politicians and preachers;)

In a truly Free Marketplace, yes there would have been other banks to replace the banks that were criminally run. Same for the auto industry. As much as our Federal Reserve has tried to destroy community banks, it has been the conservative practices of the community bank that didn't allow them to make bad investments.

The 15 TRILLION bailout of foreign banks in 09 is proof that not only is our currency and monetary policy controlled internationally, they look down their crooked noses at our community banks. Because most of those community banks aren't run by old money elite or Harvard MBAs. Yet those same community banks proved they had the better business model!

And, when the government does get to play God, their attempt at picking winners and losers is dismal and unConstitutional!

Sadley, the prognosis of the health of our future is not good and neither the Dems or the Repubs will change anything.

Franco, why don't you just go ahead and end it all? Without things going your way, we are doomed. Instead of trying to fix a problem, you just sit around and moan about it.

Franco
08-16-2012, 10:34 PM
Franco, why don't you just go ahead and end it all? Without things going your way, we are doomed. Instead of trying to fix a problem, you just sit around and moan about it.

I've been working hard to fix the problem by supporting the only candidate with a realistic grasp of our monetray and foreign problems. YOU are the one supporting the status quo and a part of the problem! Your hatred for Obama has blinded you to the point where you are willing to accept anything!

My candidate msy have lost the beauty contest but his message goes on.

M&K's Retrievers
08-16-2012, 11:51 PM
I've been working hard to fix the problem by supporting the only candidate with a realistic grasp of our monetray and foreign problems. YOU are the one supporting the status quo and a part of the problem! Your hatred for Obama has blinded you to the point where you are willing to accept anything!

My candidate msy have lost the beauty contest but his message goes on.

I am not willing to accept the status quo. The status quo is Obama and the Dems. I don't hate Obama. I hate what he stands for. I am willing to accept almost anything but Obama's crap.

Jason Glavich
08-17-2012, 08:20 AM
I always like hearing that the bailout was the right thing to do. To me that is because people thought some businesses were too big to fail, In the 80's Chrysler was in the same situation as they were a few years ago and even are today, but they solved it. The Titanic wouldn't sink either.

Businesses fail that is a simple fact.

Sambo you said the only one with funding was the gov, they have no money, they still have no money. The banks like BofA failed due to dumb practices, it is their fault not the taxpayer. If I start a business then run it into the gorund with dumb decisions it is not the Gov who should save me, either I get creative and fix it or my business goes away. Oh then we have the cry me a river about all the employees would be out of jobs, well it happens everyday and most of them do not have a union that has made sure they will get paid for a year even if they don't have ajob. Also there have been better car companies in America but the big 3 have done everything they can to run them out of business. People who are way more innovative than those idiots. Why do you think people prefer foreign cars now, they are more dependable, they have better quality, they have better technology. There have been American car companies that had things in their vehicles 40years before the others and yet they failed. Maybe we should have bailed all of them out as well.

Everyone needs to realize that saving businesses with poor businesses models will result in failing business again. Chevy failed got bailed out, failed on a huge scale with the volt even with Tax rebates out the wazoo, and they will fail again. Do we bail them out again? Do we bail out the banks for loaning out money to people on Unemployment again? While we are at it why don't we bail out pay day loan places I am sure they have taken a hit as well.

Let's just save the trouble have the gov run all the businesses. They seem to be very good at balancing the books and coming up with a budget.

But since this post is about Ryan, i will try to make it about him. Here is my new catch phrase.

"Paul Ryan, no matter what you say, At least he isn't Biden."

menmon
08-17-2012, 11:15 AM
Let me spell this out for you. To begin with the debt ceiling and banks have nothing in common....is this some comparison Rush or Beck are using because the two things have absolutly nothing in common.

Ok let Bank of America and JPMorgan/Chase fail. What happens? AT&T, Exxon, Haliburten, Duke Energy, GE, Apple, Bowing, Continental Airlines, etc. have no cash to pay payroll, in fact they have no liquidity at all to pay anything. You go to use your debt card to buy gas and doesn't work. Do you need more examples. I realize this is hard to comprehend but that is what happens when a bank loses their liquidity. It can't honor its liabilities (deposits) because it has no cash.

Now to the redneck banker who keeps pretending he is an expert. What do you think people would have done to your little solvent bank. They would have run as fast as they could to take their money out, creating the inability for your bank to honor the request of it depositors thus causing it to fail.

Now thank god good decisions were made or we would have all been F>>ked.

Bailing out the banks was not a political decision, albeit many have tried to make hay with it. It had to be done, and it is real easy after the fact to say we didn't need the capital, but they did.

huntinman
08-17-2012, 11:34 AM
Let me spell this out for you. To begin with the debt ceiling and banks have nothing in common....is this some comparison Rush or Beck are using because the two things have absolutly nothing in common.

Ok let Bank of America and JPMorgan/Chase fail. What happens? AT&T, Exxon, Haliburten, Duke Energy, GE, Apple, Bowing, Continental Airlines, etc. have no cash to pay payroll, in fact they have no liquidity at all to pay anything. You go to use your debt card to buy gas and doesn't work. Do you need more examples. I realize this is hard to comprehend but that is what happens when a bank loses their liquidity. It can't honor its liabilities (deposits) because it has no cash.

Now to the redneck banker who keeps pretending he is an expert. What do you think people would have done to your little solvent bank. They would have run as fast as they could to take their money out, creating the inability for your bank to honor the request of it depositors thus causing it to fail.

Now thank god good decisions were made or we would have all been F>>ked.

Bailing out the banks was not a political decision, albeit many have tried to make hay with it. It had to be done, and it is real easy after the fact to say we didn't need the capital, but they did.



What we ever do without Sambo here to explain things to us poor little bumpkins?

menmon
08-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Obviously from your statements...someone needs to:rolleyes:

Franco
08-17-2012, 11:39 AM
Let me spell this out for you. To begin with the debt ceiling and banks have nothing in common....(who said anything about the two being related?)is this some comparison Rush or Beck(I never pay attention to those two wealthy idiots) are using because the two things have absolutly nothing in common.

Ok let Bank of America and JPMorgan/Chase fail. What happens? AT&T, Exxon, Haliburten, Duke Energy, GE, Apple, Bowing, Continental Airlines, etc. have no cash to pay payroll, in fact they have no liquidity at all to pay anything.(so, they learn a lesson about being careful about where they deposit their money and which bank they choose to do buisness with all the while, too big to fail has never been addressed, If anything, the big banks were rewarded for criminal banking practices because they got to write the laws that allowed them to legally steal from tax payers) You go to use your debt card to buy gas and doesn't work. Do you need more examples. I realize this is hard to comprehend but that is what happens when a bank loses their liquidity. It can't honor its liabilities (deposits) because it has no cash.

Now to the redneck banker who keeps pretending he is an expert. What do you think people would have done to your little solvent bank. They would have run as fast as they could to take their money out, creating the inability for your bank to honor the request of it depositors thus causing it to fail.(speculation on your part and the community banks have grown since consumers just don't trust the mega-banks)

Now thank god good decisions were made or we would have all been F>>ked. We were f>>ked and didn't even get kissed.

Bailing out the banks was not a political decision,(the banking lobby got the politicians to write bad laws that allowed this to happen so, don't say it wasn't political) albeit many have tried to make hay with it. It had to be done, and it is real easy after the fact to say we didn't need the capital, but they did.

My responces are in red.

mngundog
08-17-2012, 11:44 AM
Let me spell this out for you. To begin with the debt ceiling and banks have nothing in common....is this some comparison Rush or Beck are using because the two things have absolutly nothing in common.

Ok let Bank of America and JPMorgan/Chase fail. What happens? AT&T, Exxon, Haliburten, Duke Energy, GE, Apple, Bowing, Continental Airlines, etc. have no cash to pay payroll, in fact they have no liquidity at all to pay anything. You go to use your debt card to buy gas and doesn't work. Do you need more examples. I realize this is hard to comprehend but that is what happens when a bank loses their liquidity. It can't honor its liabilities (deposits) because it has no cash.

Now to the redneck banker who keeps pretending he is an expert. What do you think people would have done to your little solvent bank. They would have run as fast as they could to take their money out, creating the inability for your bank to honor the request of it depositors thus causing it to fail.

Now thank god good decisions were made or we would have all been F>>ked.

Bailing out the banks was not a political decision, albeit many have tried to make hay with it. It had to be done, and it is real easy after the fact to say we didn't need the capital, but they did.
Sambo, are you seriously saying that Apple couldn't find one bank outside of the US who would give them a loan? Goldman Sachs payed 953 bankers/traders bonus of over $1 million dollar each, can you seriously say that was money well spent? Bush and his buddies gave away Billions of dollars to his buddies with absolutely no conditions placed on it, dumb, dumb and dumb.

menmon
08-17-2012, 12:18 PM
I'm not saying any of this was smart and we should have never removed the regulations that allowed banks to be too big to fail. And that is why the bailout happened....because the price of failure was too big. And Franco you are right, they are still too big to fail, and that still needs to be addressed.

Now if my little bank got in trouble, they would let it fail.

Partially why we did not get a legislation passed that would break these banks up is that they did not what to hinder the flow of capital given the extent of the recession. I only hope that this get further address as the economy gets healthy again.

And yes money drives what our politians do. So what is good for Goldman or Exxon is not necessarily good for us as individuals

ARay11
08-17-2012, 12:25 PM
Let me spell this out for you. To begin with the debt ceiling and banks have nothing in common....is this some comparison Rush or Beck are using because the two things have absolutly nothing in common.

Ok let Bank of America and JPMorgan/Chase fail. What happens? AT&T, Exxon, Haliburten, Duke Energy, GE, Apple, Bowing, Continental Airlines, etc. have no cash to pay payroll, in fact they have no liquidity at all to pay anything. You go to use your debt card to buy gas and doesn't work. Do you need more examples. I realize this is hard to comprehend but that is what happens when a bank loses their liquidity. It can't honor its liabilities (deposits) because it has no cash.

Now to the redneck banker who keeps pretending he is an expert. What do you think people would have done to your little solvent bank. They would have run as fast as they could to take their money out, creating the inability for your bank to honor the request of it depositors thus causing it to fail.

Now thank god good decisions were made or we would have all been F>>ked.

Bailing out the banks was not a political decision, albeit many have tried to make hay with it. It had to be done, and it is real easy after the fact to say we didn't need the capital, but they did.

Sambo, you and I rarely agree on anything...but....

I do think the general public has very little concept in regards to banking systems. That being said.... If the headlines were to read "Bank Of America Fails, Customers Lose Millions".... that would have caused A MASSIVE run on all banks. Every bank, large and small, would have customers standing in lines for miles waiting to withdraw what money they *assumed* the bank could cash out to them.

Cody Covey
08-17-2012, 12:52 PM
Sambo, you and I rarely agree on anything...but....

I do think the general public has very little concept in regards to banking systems. That being said.... If the headlines were to read "Bank Of America Fails, Customers Lose Millions".... that would have caused A MASSIVE run on all banks. Every bank, large and small, would have customers standing in lines for miles waiting to withdraw what money they *assumed* the bank could cash out to them.
Simply not true....at least not with the evidence at hand. People are currently lining up for miles to open accounts with the smaller banks to get away from the bailed out banks. To say people would have done this to all banks is speculation at best and contrary to current evidence!

I haven't seen the debt ceiling referenced in this thread but I skimmed some of the posts. But to say that spending trillions to bail out banks has nothing to do with the debt ceiling is a little ridiculous don't you think?

Franco
08-17-2012, 12:59 PM
What about the 15 TRILLION that was loaned to foreign banks? In my book, that was not only unConstitutional but treason by our Treasury and Federal Reserve!

cpj
08-17-2012, 01:04 PM
Thanks for the compliment sambo. I imagine a bank Holliday would be declared before an all out run could occur.

cpj
08-17-2012, 01:07 PM
I insulted someone once and got suspended for a week. But that was years ago I guess the rules have changed. Then I was basically begged to come back because I believe the mod didn't care for the person I insulted.

ARay11
08-17-2012, 01:10 PM
Simply not true....at least not with the evidence at hand. People are currently lining up for miles to open accounts with the smaller banks to get away from the bailed out banks. To say people would have done this to all banks is speculation at best and contrary to current evidence!

I haven't seen the debt ceiling referenced in this thread but I skimmed some of the posts. But to say that spending trillions to bail out banks has nothing to do with the debt ceiling is a little ridiculous don't you think?

You REALLY dont think that if the headlines were reading "Bank Of America Fails" "JPMorgan Goes Bust" "Capital One Out Of Capital" "American Losing Millions By The Minute, No Cash to Cash Out"

You HONESTLY believe this would not have incited pure panic???? There would have been a run on banking like never before. And our media would have fed the beast like crazy

Like I said.... I never agree with Sambo, But you have to really have your blinders on to not see this point.

ARay11
08-17-2012, 01:25 PM
Thanks for the compliment sambo. I imagine a bank Holliday would be declared before an all out run could occur.

roflmao.... yea, declare a bank holiday or shut em down for a day ....that'd surely calm everyone down.

mngundog
08-17-2012, 02:18 PM
roflmao.... yea, declare a bank holiday or shut em down for a day ....that'd surely calm everyone down.
You are so right Bush saved us from the apocalypse the same way Gore saved us from Global warming. ROTFSHMSFOAIDMT

ARay11
08-17-2012, 03:01 PM
You are so right Bush saved us from the apocalypse the same way Gore saved us from Global warming. ROTFSHMSFOAIDMT

how in the heck did you get THAT ^^^^ out of my post??????? or any of my posts?????????

menmon
08-17-2012, 03:05 PM
It is a global market. US and foriegn banks are counterparties in countless trades totaling in the trillions.

Because every body would have tried to withdraw at once the banks would have not had the cash to honor the request.

Just download one of the large banks 10Ks and see how many 100s of billions in deposits they have.

The fed stepped up this time inserting massive liquidity into the market and the treasury made loans to these banks to keep them from running out of liquidity as the value of their assets were marked to market thus providing less to borrow against while the liqidity to borrow was drying up. They did this too late when the market crashed in the 20s thus causing a run on banks...they learned from history.

gmhr1
08-17-2012, 08:40 PM
obama says his plan is working, unemployment is up in 44 states what plan is that the plan to destroy America Hes doing a great job. A fiend of ours was laid off from his his job today because his employer can't afford health care so like so many business's he has to let people go This is Obamacare. Wake up America It was a mistake to ever put B.O. In the WH but its a mistake that can be corrected before its to late

M&K's Retrievers
08-18-2012, 12:38 AM
It is a global market. US and foriegn banks are counterparties in countless trades totaling in the trillions.

Because every body would have tried to withdraw at once the banks would have not had the cash to honor the request.

Just download one of the large banks 10Ks and see how many 100s of billions in deposits they have.

The fed stepped up this time inserting massive liquidity into the market and the treasury made loans to these banks to keep them from running out of liquidity as the value of their assets were marked to market thus providing less to borrow against while the liqidity to borrow was drying up. They did this too late when the market crashed in the 20s thus causing a run on banks...they learned from history.

Troll troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream.

menmon
08-18-2012, 10:40 AM
Troll troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream.

Merrily, Merrily, Merrily, Merrily life is but a dream

menmon
08-18-2012, 10:43 AM
Thanks for the compliment sambo. I imagine a bank Holliday would be declared before an all out run could occur.

So give them a day to find out just how broke they were....I would have been camped out on their door step waiting for the doors to open again.

cpj
08-18-2012, 11:08 AM
Where is it written that a bank Holliday has to last a day? Somewhere in Europe recently, can't remember which broke country it was, ATM network was down for I believe 10-14 days due to a "computer glitch". Makes getting your cash a little harder and slows down significantly the outflow of cash.

caryalsobrook
08-18-2012, 11:11 AM
So give them a day to find out just how broke they were....I would have been camped out on their door step waiting for the doors to open again.

Even if you are right and there was a bank run, have you ever heard of the FDIC?

ARay11
08-18-2012, 12:05 PM
Where is it written that a bank Holliday has to last a day? Somewhere in Europe recently, can't remember which broke country it was, ATM network was down for I believe 10-14 days due to a "computer glitch". Makes getting your cash a little harder and slows down significantly the outflow of cash.

so if you called your bank on monday morning and they said. "I'm sorry we're closed and your money will not be available to you until we decide to reopen"

That'd be okay?

ARay11
08-18-2012, 12:10 PM
Even if you are right and there was a bank run, have you ever heard of the FDIC?


and the fdic is solvent? and if they were, when all banks failed, how long would it take to pay everyone's claims? years years years.

I do not advocate the WAY the banking bailout happened.... banks were given free money and free reign with what to do with it.....

BUT... I certainly would not have wanted to have to wait on the FDIC to pay my insured claim in order to put gas in my tank or get groceries. how much cash do you keep on hand?? couple year's worth of grocery/gas money?

caryalsobrook
08-18-2012, 12:23 PM
and the fdic is solvent? and if they were, when all banks failed, how long would it take to pay everyone's claims? years years years.

I do not advocate the WAY the banking bailout happened.... banks were given free money and free reign with what to do with it.....

BUT... I certainly would not have wanted to have to wait on the FDIC to pay my insured claim in order to put gas in my tank or get groceries. how much cash do you keep on hand?? couple year's worth of grocery/gas money?

the FED printed the money to bail out the banks. Don't you think that they could print it to to keep the FDIC solvent????

menmon
08-18-2012, 01:17 PM
Even if you are right and there was a bank run, have you ever heard of the FDIC?

I have....have you ever tried to collect....they pay but they negotiate it down....if you were around in the 80s when the banks were failing..you would remember that.

But this was too big.....paying out trillions is insurance claims is not as good of a solution as loaning money to keep these banks doors open and let them earn their way out of the problem as all of them are doing now. Look up the 10ks on the major banks and see just how low their teir 1 capital is and even their total risk based capital, and see just how thin of ice they still are on. Check a few of the community banks too while you are at it...you can pull their call reports from the FDIC's website. Pay close attention to the provision for bad debt expense....look at the percentage of non-accrual loans against total loans too. The guy that spoke about $600MM is assets....I'd be curious what percentage of those asset are critisized and how much teir 1 capital they have.

ARay11
08-18-2012, 02:03 PM
the FED printed the money to bail out the banks. Don't you think that they could print it to to keep the FDIC solvent????

do i think they "could"...yes... do I think they "would" ... not fast enough. Just how much time would it take to reimburse every citizen.... every company.... every kid with a savings account?? and who gets paid first? people or companies?? And what would be the ripple effect ?

how fast do you think the entire country would go down hill if average citizens did not have access to money for even one week?

Your employer cannot pay you. Your money is locked up and you only have $500 bucks in your pocket. Now then.... think about those folks who don't have $500, they don't have $50 in their pockets....many don't even have $5

Folks have what fuel is in their cars...and maybe a bit extra depending on how much cash they had on hand when it all went wrong.... After a week or two, no one can get to work (no fuel and no way to purchase more).... That same time period would see mass rioting in the streets.....you think katrina was bad in new orleans??? Imagine folks who cant get money for groceries.... or get paid to get money for groceries....

Think there wouldnt be mass panic?

caryalsobrook
08-18-2012, 03:34 PM
do i think they "could"...yes... do I think they "would" ... not fast enough. Just how much time would it take to reimburse every citizen.... every company.... every kid with a savings account?? and who gets paid first? people or companies?? And what would be the ripple effect ?

how fast do you think the entire country would go down hill if average citizens did not have access to money for even one week?

Your employer cannot pay you. Your money is locked up and you only have $500 bucks in your pocket. Now then.... think about those folks who don't have $500, they don't have $50 in their pockets....many don't even have $5

Folks have what fuel is in their cars...and maybe a bit extra depending on how much cash they had on hand when it all went wrong.... After a week or two, no one can get to work (no fuel and no way to purchase more).... That same time period would see mass rioting in the streets.....you think katrina was bad in new orleans??? Imagine folks who cant get money for groceries.... or get paid to get money for groceries....

Think there wouldnt be mass panic?

Economists will be argueing what the result would have been had there been no tarp. The arguement was that the banks were to big to let fail but we don't even know which banks would have failed, certainly not all of them. Today they are bigger than in 2008, so do you believe the situation is any better today than in 2008? Many banks were made to take money even though they did not want it. the interesting thing is that almost all was paid back in less than 3 years, with interest. Evidently they recovered in whirlwind speed.

gmhr1
08-18-2012, 07:20 PM
Well Paul Ryan did a good job in Fl no one threw eggs at him and looks like the polls agree.

cpj
08-18-2012, 10:22 PM
Does anyone here believe a financial crisis/crash is in our near future? FDIC is under funded. Taxpayers will foot any bills that FDIC can't. Recently the citizens of Iceland were allowed to vote on whether to bail out their banks or not and they chose to let tem fail. They are now seeing economic prosperity. I had an account at a Failed S&L in the 80's. I believe it took a few days to get my money.

Buzz
08-18-2012, 11:58 PM
Does anyone here believe a financial crisis/crash is in our near future? FDIC is under funded. Taxpayers will foot any bills that FDIC can't. Recently the citizens of Iceland were allowed to vote on whether to bail out their banks or not and they chose to let tem fail. They are now seeing economic prosperity. I had an account at a Failed S&L in the 80's. I believe it took a few days to get my money.


It must feel odd agreeing with Paul Krugman.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Iceland-provides-lessons-for-dealing-with-slumps-2241646.php

cpj
08-19-2012, 08:34 AM
Doesn't sound like Krugman agrees with me. Krugman collects printers as a hobby.

menmon
08-19-2012, 11:36 AM
Economists will be argueing what the result would have been had there been no tarp. The arguement was that the banks were to big to let fail but we don't even know which banks would have failed, certainly not all of them. Today they are bigger than in 2008, so do you believe the situation is any better today than in 2008? Many banks were made to take money even though they did not want it. the interesting thing is that almost all was paid back in less than 3 years, with interest. Evidently they recovered in whirlwind speed.

That is what some banks told the public so they could appear better....all the major banks needed it. Just look at their balance sheets now 4 years later...a little better but still not out of the woods completely.

caryalsobrook
08-19-2012, 03:41 PM
That is what some banks told the public so they could appear better....all the major banks needed it. Just look at their balance sheets now 4 years later...a little better but still not out of the woods completely.

They said they didn't want it. they paid it back early with interest, and you say those are still in trouble. You must be a regulator that keeps them straight. Maybe you were regulating JP morgan when they lost over 2 billion this year. GOOD JOB!! Regulators are so much smarter than the banks.:razz:

menmon
08-20-2012, 11:22 AM
They paid it back after the waters settled down and they could sell stock. Again if you can read pull up BofA and JPM 10K and lets have a discussion about what all those numbers mean.

M&K's Retrievers
08-20-2012, 12:03 PM
They paid it back after the waters settled down and they could sell stock. Again if you can read pull up BofA and JPM 10K and lets have a discussion about what all those numbers mean.

Having a bad day are we , Sambo, or do you always act like a jerk will attempting to make a point? Come to think of it you do.

ARay11
08-20-2012, 01:07 PM
Economists will be argueing what the result would have been had there been no tarp. The arguement was that the banks were to big to let fail but we don't even know which banks would have failed, certainly not all of them. Today they are bigger than in 2008, so do you believe the situation is any better today than in 2008? Many banks were made to take money even though they did not want it. the interesting thing is that almost all was paid back in less than 3 years, with interest. Evidently they recovered in whirlwind speed.

Economists can argue all day long. Whether or not/ which ones/ how bad was it, etc.
My point is: If any of the big boys would have failed.... reality would no longer matter.... The only thing that would matter would be the public's perception.
And, that perception would have caused mass public panic. That panic would have caused huge problems for every bank.

Is the situation better today? Absolutely not.
Public perception still reigns supreme, and the media frenzy wags the dog.

menmon
08-20-2012, 02:08 PM
ARAY we agree....

I'm not having a bad day....I just was tired of being argued with about something I know.

ARay11
08-20-2012, 02:37 PM
ARAY we agree....

I'm not having a bad day....I just was tired of being argued with about something I know.

SHHHHH!!!! :razz:

gmhr1
08-20-2012, 03:03 PM
Do you think those three cities in Ca are going to be the only ones that are bankrupt? If Obama gets 4 more years the entire country will fail.

menmon
08-20-2012, 03:22 PM
Come on...you know that is not true...but I'm sure you will get to see that your prediction is not going to come true

gmhr1
08-20-2012, 03:29 PM
Did anyone think we would see 3 cities for bust or Pa having to pay its all its state employees min wage? this is what Obama did and he has plenty more up his sleeve.

caryalsobrook
08-20-2012, 03:34 PM
They paid it back after the waters settled down and they could sell stock. Again if you can read pull up BofA and JPM 10K and lets have a discussion about what all those numbers mean.

I wonder if it is you that can't read-read with comprehension, that is. I did not say ALL. I did not say BOA AND JP MORGAN-CHASE(didn't JP Morgan buy chase during that time period? I'm not sure.) I SAID SOME!!! There are now a little over 6000 banks. there used to be over 14000 banks. You think all of them were in finantial trouble?? Not hardly were they all in trouble. some were even smart enough to IGNORE the regulators. Tennessee Bankshares, a holding company that I am familiar, ignored the regulators who complained that they had to high a percentage of farm loans and not enough construction loans. Its stock has gone from $120/share to over $300/share since 2000. THEY NEVER NEEDED TARP MONEY BUT WERE COMPELLED TO TAKE IT.

I will offer you just a little tidbit for your future. THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "THEMSELFS" You might try the word "themselves" next time. I don't think that was a spelling error. Eighth grade vocabulary??

menmon
08-20-2012, 03:57 PM
JPM and Chase merged in the 90s. 8000 banks have not failed. The point is that had TARP not have been made available....the financial system would have melted down and Tenn Bankshares would have melted with them no matter how strong they were. Lots of innocent folks got hurt and not because of the current president.

caryalsobrook
08-20-2012, 05:03 PM
JPM and Chase merged in the 90s. 8000 banks have not failed. The point is that had TARP not have been made available....the financial system would have melted down and Tenn Bankshares would have melted with them no matter how strong they were. Lots of innocent folks got hurt and not because of the current president.

It never dawned on me that you would think that I was saying that 8000 banks had failed. I was talking about the banks that have been bought up and consolidated. I has amazed me that one bank would pay such a high price for another bank. then it dawned on me that the Gov. has made it almost impossible to start a new bank. I have believed that if the Gov. made it easier to start a new bank then fewer would be bought up and fewer called "to big to fail". that was my point. It appears to me that you think those banks that did not want to take the TARP money were in your opinion were stupid and had they spoiled the TARP plan they would have caused their bank to fail also. I'm sure you remember that the arguement for making all banks take the TARP money was to hide those that were in distress and thereby reduce the chanches of a run on them. Otherwise, it was argued, TARP WOULD FAIL. So I guess you think those that wanted to refuse the money, in effect wanted to self distruct. Good logic, the successful banks were dumb and those in trouble were the smart ones,along with the gov.:rolleyes:

Just for informtion purposes, Bank of Halls depositors NEVER lost a dime during the depression and furthermore, it took over the only other bank in town and made their depositors whole also. How stupid could they be. I guess you could just ask you or the government.

menmon
08-20-2012, 05:15 PM
Ok...when I get time I will pull the 2008 10K on Tenn Bankshares. One bank in Texas did not take TARP it was Prosperity Bank. I'm sure a capital test was done and they failed. Anyway TARP was cheap equity for any bank at a cost of 5%, so why would you not want it anyway?

So they paid it back...it did not hurt them based on their growth in market cap since then. Nobody else is boosting those numbers

caryalsobrook
08-20-2012, 05:28 PM
Ok...when I get time I will pull the 2008 10K on Tenn Bankshares. One bank in Texas did not take TARP it was Prosperity Bank. I'm sure a capital test was done and they failed. Anyway TARP was cheap equity for any bank at a cost of 5%, so why would you not want it anyway?

So they paid it back...it did not hurt them based on their growth in market cap since then. Nobody else is boosting those numbers

The reason I know what the appreciation of the stock was is because my aunt died in 2000 and left me a little stock in it. It always paid a 1% dividend and I had not paid attention to its value. $129.0/share was the basis when she died and a little over $300/share this year. It paid about 3-4% dividend this year and about 8% dividend last year. Reason they said for the special dividend was they had too much money. I don't think anyone has to worry about buying any of it because noone is selling. there are less that 200 stockholders. Oops, dividends paid year before last and last year.

menmon
08-20-2012, 05:47 PM
It is not publicly traded then....Go to the FDIC's website and pull the latest call report. Look for percentages of Tier 1 equity you want it greater than 10% and look at how much they expensed for provisions and if they showed a good profit with good equity hang on to it. Send me a private message if you would like for me to look at it but from what you said I would hang onto it until some big bank buys it.

Franco
08-21-2012, 11:17 AM
If only sanity had prevailed during the 2008 banking crisis!

http://capitalism.aynrand.org/yaron-answers-what-should-the-government-have-done-during-the-2008-financial-crisis/