You Nazi!

[sallylou]

Jazzberry, the Fed brought the toxic/worthless mortgage backed securities from the banks/brokerage firm (they are one and the same under deregulation). The fed gave the banks far more money than the investments were worth. That meant that the shareholders did not take a loss. The taxpayers are the ones who will pay for that loss.

It's also confusing because the Federal Reserve is not federal. It is a bureaucracy run by an appointed Board of Governors (read: bankers). So U.S. gov't gives money to the Fed to give money to banks in exchange for worthless paper. Isn't that confusing? Now, the Fed holds the toxic paper and it is on their balance sheet. The government does not want this to be transparent (easy to understand).

Basically, a corporate entity sold shit to a privately run bureaucracy who received money from the federal government. In other words, you tax money went to corporations that made bad investments so that the CEOs and shareholders lost nothing or very little. Now, taxpayers have to make up for this loss by paying more taxes and giving up services.

 

[sallylou]

TxGolfer, you aren't a typical person. Not everyone reads the finanical section.

 

[VacationGuy234]

Wirelessly posted (droid)

The ethnicity of the 1% holding political power and continually bailing themselves out is irrelevant to me. I just want it to stop. The Fed has been quietly buying more mortgage-backed securities from banks. Quietly because the 5 corporations running the media don't report it. This news is always buried in the financial section.

It's no secret, the government has been buying up toxic assets and that has been the plan all along. They are doing it because the banks can't afford to pay on the securities. This isn't some secret plan so much as what has to happen.

 

[sallylou]

No, that doesn't have to happen. I worked in commercial litigation after the S&L Crisis. That was still going on in the 1990's. The receivers came in and the shareholders took the losses. The RTC handled everything. The books were relied upon. That was it.

 

[DeafCaroline]

It's no secret, the government has been buying up toxic assets and that has been the plan all along. They are doing it because the banks can't afford to pay on the securities. This isn't some secret plan so much as what has to happen.

I believe sallylou was talking about the Federal Reserve Bank - it's privately owned by multiple banks. It's not government-owned therefore it's not the government buying the toxic assets.

 

[Jazzberry]

Jazzberry, the Fed brought the toxic/worthless mortgage backed securities from the banks/brokerage firm (they are one and the same under deregulation). The fed gave the banks far more money than the investments were worth. That meant that the shareholders did not take a loss. The taxpayers are the ones who will pay for that loss.

It's also confusing because the Federal Reserve is not federal. It is a bureaucracy run by an appointed Board of Governors (read: bankers). So U.S. gov't gives money to the Fed to give money to banks in exchange for worthless paper. Isn't that confusing? Now, the Fed holds the toxic paper and it is on their balance sheet. The government does not want this to be transparent (easy to understand).

Basically, a corporate entity sold shit to a privately run bureaucracy who received money from the federal government. In other words, you tax money went to corporations that made bad investments so that the CEOs and shareholders lost nothing or very little. Now, taxpayers have to make up for this loss by paying more taxes and giving up services.

Sallylou, thanks for the explanantion. Its very depressing.

So it seems that for the larger banks if they make money, they keep it. If they loose money, the taxpayers takes the loss. There should be a way to make this illegal.

 

[VacationGuy234]

No, that doesn't have to happen. I worked in commercial litigation after the S&L Crisis. That was still going on in the 1990's. The receivers came in and the shareholders took the losses. The RTC handled everything. The books were relied upon. That was it.

I cannot speak intelligently of the Savings and Load Crisis, but, as I understand it, it cannot be compared to the current crisis. From Wikipedia, "savings and loan or "thrift" is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members". Based on this, the financial product's incoming revenue was from savings accounts not mortgages, this is not the same thing. In principle, it is money coming and being packaged, but, in the S&L case, there was no legal mechanism forcing people to put money into savings as in the case of a mortgage, correct me if I am wrong. Furthermore, the bonds in the S&L case were repackaged as government backed bonds, correct? And, this was done as a solution to the crisis instead of an actual cause, the failure of the loans? The money being made was through fees much like the Bernard Madoff case.

However, the people with the savings deposits were federally insured while the people who owe mortgages are not.

My point is: Did the S&L scandal arise because of S&L repackaging savings money into a backed security, basically, a savings-backed-security?

 

[VacationGuy234]

You studied Economics yet cited Wiki???

And you might want to study some more.

If you are saying Wiki is wrong, perhaps you could produce another source, an economics book? Something other than an article from Fox 25 news would suffice.

 

[TXgolfer]

Basically, a corporate entity sold shit to a privately run bureaucracy who received money from the federal government. In other words, you tax money went to corporations that made bad investments so that the CEOs and shareholders lost nothing or very little. Now, taxpayers have to make up for this loss by paying more taxes and giving up services.

I would say shareholders lost there ass. BofA alone is down roughly 60% just this year. But that is a minor deal

Now, what caused/allowed the banks to make this shitty loans?

 

[Beach girl]

TxGolfer, you aren't a typical person. Not everyone reads the finanical section.

Indeed. But if someone can't be bothered to read the financial section, whose fault is that?

 

[Jiro]

And that makes him more powerful and influential than the President of USA...oohhhhh, we have to watch out for this Jew...

honestly, this thread is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm really disappointed in you Jiro. I'm outta here.

Maybe in your world. I enjoy his movies but they have nothing to do with my perception or inspiration.

What life-changing action have you taken as the result of a Spielberg movie?

not me but for people... one example - Jaws. Many sharks were hunted because of it.

 

[Jiro]

If people think Jewish people are the blame for what happening to this country right now that would made me very a POWERFUL RICH person! And nothing could further from the truth! I would love to have that much power so I could bring peace to this world and STOP THE HATE, LIES AND Anti Semitic that being allowed to be post here! Jiro is Anti Semitic and he does not know it! I have seen people like him! I love it when they say "Why some of my best friends are Jewish!" I know what that mean! Does Jiro know the German made soap, lampshade, ashtrays , used their skulls for paperweight. Took the gold from their teeth and melted it down with all the gold wedding bands and other gold jewelry and hide the gold on banks in other country! Now do you think Hitler was right! I feel bad for for your Jewish friends as they do not know you're a fraud !

lol!

 

[Jiro]

I can't believe that you believe in that myth. How do we know that someone didn't saying that just to direct all our attentions on the jewish bankers so that someone will go and do something bad when we aren't looking at that someone???

myth? even a prominent Jewish person said that. see my previous post.

 

[dogmom]

Jiro, thanks for your compliment on my post -

Alex, no problem

like Caroline, I'm disturbed by what's going on here. But not surprised. I'm trying to think about what this means for me. How can I non-reactionary?
One of my thoughts was - how come mods let this go on? But then we have the Freedom of Speech issue. What I'm reading about here is a fearful thing - but how can I observe myself and think, what of this really personally has to do with me? So I'm challenged.

 

[Bottesini]

Jiro, thanks for your compliment on my post -

Alex, no problem

like Caroline, I'm disturbed by what's going on here. But not surprised. I'm trying to think about what this means for me. How can I non-reactionary?
One of my thoughts was - how come mods let this go on? But then we have the Freedom of Speech issue. What I'm reading about here is a fearful thing - but how can I observe myself and think, what of this really personally has to do with me? So I'm challenged.

My thoughts also agree with this. And so far I have just left it alone. I am ashamed to be part of a site where this is allowed.

 

[dogmom]

Agree Bott:|

 

[Deafguy25]

We need more doctors, engineers, mathematics, and scientists to compete globally. They need to go to school.

Not everyone who doesnt have a college degree is as lucky as you are. Most good paying jobs require degrees.

Can I click "love this" instead of just "like it"!

 

[TXgolfer]

Indeed. But if someone can't be bothered to read the financial section, whose fault is that?

Exactly..... Although the last week of the season I was checking the obits for Red Sox scores.

 

[AlleyCat]

Exactly..... Although the last week of the season I was checking the obits for Red Sox scores.

I was doing the same for the Vikings.

(Although today they managed to stay alive. )

 

[VacationGuy234]

My thoughts also agree with this. And so far I have just left it alone. I am ashamed to be part of a site where this is allowed.

I have to disagree (while I also disagree with argument of the post), if you do not have open dialog about real issues you will never overcome those issues. Sure, it would be more pleasant not to talk about things that upset us, but that really doesn't solve anything. I would also argue that even bad dialog, at least, shows us were people stand on the issues. Sometimes you can't know there is a problem until someone talks about it.

IMO (as painful as it is), not being able to discuss openly what people think causes real problems.