yeow, scathing.

The politicians who approved the Paulson plan are also suffering from acute remorse. Barney Frank, one of the Democrats who shaped the bail-out plan, said: "I am deeply disappointed that a number of financial institutions are distorting the legislation that Congress passed at the President's request. Increased lending activity is the only legitimate purpose for taxpayer funding of these institutions."

Good Gawd!

submitter: Who would've thought?

Apparently nobody.
Except the millions of taxpayers footing the bill saying "no".

How cute?

ye gods, what a colossal clusterfark this is turning out to be.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

I'd say that some lending is occurring; I just bought a house and didn't have a problem getting a loan. On the other hand, my wife and I have awesome credit scores (new mortgage notwithstanding)...

As an employee of a super large financial institution that will be using the gub'ment bailout money for dividends and bonuses (mine included), I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

OK, not really. But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended? Why would they stop gaming the system now without anything or anyone forcing them to do so?

But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended?

Seriously? Yes! You're going to be the first up against the wall.

Keep your eyes on LOLWIGGER.com

I'm expecting images of Paulson wearing mad bling.

/kiss da rings biatch!

Hau Ruck: But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended? Why would they stop gaming the system now without anything or anyone forcing them to do so?

They're not without blame here, including in regard to the lax regulatory environment; it's not like they didn't employ lobbyists. Or some of the regulators before they were appointed.

Of course, this does not absolve our elected and appointed officials.

Zeiss_Ikon: submitter: Who would've thought?

Apparently nobody.
Except the millions of taxpayers footing the bill saying "no".

If only taxpayers had some way of ensuring those people would never get re-elected again.


/Rule #1: Once you get their money, you NEVER EVER give it back.

Solon Isonomia: I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

I'd say that some lending is occurring; I just bought a house and didn't have a problem getting a loan. On the other hand, my wife and I have awesome credit scores (new mortgage notwithstanding)...

I know a couple with absolute dogcrap for credit and they managed to buy a used truck with no money down. The trucks alright but I don't even like letting them borrow lunch money, so if they can get a used car loan on the first try, the credit crunch is at least over.

ricbach229: The trucks alright but I don't even like letting them borrow lunch money, so if they can get a used car loan on the first try, the credit crunch is at least over.

I also enjoy taking one isolated, anecdotal event and using to prove (or disprove) some vast claim of epic proportions.

ricbach229: Solon Isonomia: I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

I'd say that some lending is occurring; I just bought a house and didn't have a problem getting a loan. On the other hand, my wife and I have awesome credit scores (new mortgage notwithstanding)...

I know a couple with absolute dogcrap for credit and they managed to buy a used truck with no money down. The trucks alright but I don't even like letting them borrow lunch money, so if they can get a used car loan on the first try, the credit crunch is at least over.

Hurray for more poorly regulated loans?

Not only was Obama for that bailout, he is also for bailing out every other company that asks for a handout. Obama will bankrupt the country with his reckless spending.

ricbach229: I know a couple with absolute dogcrap for credit and they managed to buy a used truck with no money down. The trucks alright but I don't even like letting them borrow lunch money, so if they can get a used car loan on the first try, the credit crunch is at least over.

Trucks are easier to repo than houses are. The actual investment is usually much less, as well.

SquirrelWithLargeNuts: But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended?

Seriously? Yes! You're going to be the first up against the wall.

You'd be better off taking that up with congress and making them "the first up against the wall" since they wrote the crappy legislation with no requirements. You'd also be better off using entire quotes here for context, but it's not a requirement either.

Semi-Sane: Not only was Obama for that bailout, he is also for bailing out every other company that asks for a handout. Obama will bankrupt the country with his reckless spending.

You should move. You don't annaz live in a communist country do you?

Hau Ruck: SquirrelWithLargeNuts: But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended?

Seriously? Yes! You're going to be the first up against the wall.

You'd be better off taking that up with congress and making them "the first up against the wall" since they wrote the crappy legislation with no requirements. You'd also be better off using entire quotes here for context, but it's not a requirement either.

Nah... your attitude is more insufferable. I second the motion for you to go first.

MsInterpreted: Trucks are easier to repo than houses are. The actual investment is usually much less, as well.

Considering I just spent 10 times the amount I spent on my car for my house, I'd say that the actual investment for a vehicle is significantly lower.

Semi-Sane: Not only was Obama for that bailout, he is also for bailing out every other company that asks for a handout. Obama will bankrupt the country with his reckless spending.

He's going to have to really start spending from day one if he's going to eclipse the $10 trillion in debt the Republican party, you know the fiscally responsible ones, have left us with.

Hau Ruck: SquirrelWithLargeNuts: But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended?

Seriously? Yes! You're going to be the first up against the wall.

You'd be better off taking that up with congress and making them "the first up against the wall" since they wrote the crappy legislation with no requirements. You'd also be better off using entire quotes here for context, but it's not a requirement either.

So because there are no laws/regulations telling you/your company not to be corrupt farking idiots, it's okay?

That's like dumping nuclear waste into a river in the absence of environmental regulations, and going "Hey! You should blame congress for not regulating this while you die of heavy metal poisoning, not me!"fark you.

Zeiss_Ikon: submitter: Who would've thought?

Apparently nobody.
Except the millions of taxpayers footing the bill saying "no".

How loudly does the public have to scream NO NO NO STOP STOP STOP before the politicians hear us?

Or would they hear better if it was "Liberte! Fraternite! Egalite!" and we set up Madame Guillotine in the Rotunda?

Solon Isonomia: Hau Ruck: But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended? Why would they stop gaming the system now without anything or anyone forcing them to do so?

They're not without blame here, including in regard to the lax regulatory environment; it's not like they didn't employ lobbyists. Or some of the regulators before they were appointed.

Of course, this does not absolve our elected and appointed officials.

That was really my point, I guess I wasn't sarcastic enough. Our elected and appointed officials are mostly to blame here, they wrote the useless legislation with virtually no requirements that allowed companies like mine to do what they wanted.

Are companies like mine to blame here? Yes, but to a much lesser extent. They have armies of lawyers looking to exploit any available loophole in all written laws. In the case of the bailout legislation, they must have spent all of 10 minutes skimming it before realizing that there were no requirements for the use of the money they were receiving.

Peter von Nostrand: Semi-Sane: Not only was Obama for that bailout, he is also for bailing out every other company that asks for a handout. Obama will bankrupt the country with his reckless spending.

He's going to have to really start spending from day one if he's going to eclipse the $10 trillion in debt the Republican party, you know the fiscally responsible ones, have left us with.

lets be fair here the 10 trillion in debt goes back decades. it also grew greatly when we were building the great society and in fact and most of the coming debt is from the miss calculations of how much that would cost. now again for fairness the republicans did all they good to accelerate the growth of the debt.

The best thing the government can do is give the money to the public, pay off their loans, and then put some legislation down so this never farking happens again. Screw giving it to the fat cats, just pay off the loans themselves and be done with it. As a result, make the people who have their loans paid off take a credit hit or not be able for any more credit for seven years or such.fark giving it to corporations to be spent poorly.

beechpilot: Peter von Nostrand: Semi-Sane: Not only was Obama for that bailout, he is also for bailing out every other company that asks for a handout. Obama will bankrupt the country with his reckless spending.

He's going to have to really start spending from day one if he's going to eclipse the $10 trillion in debt the Republican party, you know the fiscally responsible ones, have left us with.

lets be fair here the 10 trillion in debt goes back decades. it also grew greatly when we were building the great society and in fact and most of the coming debt is from the miss calculations of how much that would cost. now again for fairness the republicans did all they good to accelerate the growth of the debt.

10 trillion dollar debt goes back decades? No.

Felgraf: Hau Ruck: SquirrelWithLargeNuts: But can you blame my employer (or similar banks / financial institutions) when there are no regulations or requirements in place that require them to use the money as congress intended?

Seriously? Yes! You're going to be the first up against the wall.

You'd be better off taking that up with congress and making them "the first up against the wall" since they wrote the crappy legislation with no requirements. You'd also be better off using entire quotes here for context, but it's not a requirement either.

So because there are no laws/regulations telling you/your company not to be corrupt farking idiots, it's okay?

That's like dumping nuclear waste into a river in the absence of environmental regulations, and going "Hey! You should blame congress for not regulating this while you die of heavy metal poisoning, not me!"fark you.

Breathe for a minute and read what I originally wrote. When congress doesn't put requirements into the legislation it passes, you somehow think that the companies / industries affected by new legislation aren't going to look for a way around whatever parts (or the whole piece of legislation) that they don't like?

In the case of the bailout legislation, there were very few requirements on how the money should be spent. And people are pissed at the banks / financial institutions that took bailout money and decided to stash the money, as mine did. This blame is completely misplaced, companies do not behave unless forced to by some external means (legislation).

beechpilot: lets be fair here the 10 trillion in debt goes back decades. it also grew greatly when we were building the great society and in fact and most of the coming debt is from the miss calculations of how much that would cost. now again for fairness the republicans did all they good to accelerate the growth of the debt.

From the right, the 6th year is 1980. Moving to the right from that point leads us to today. The area in the middle were the growth was slowed and the even slightly decreased, 1993 to 2001.



/you know it's hot

Gyrfalcon:
Or would they hear better if it was "Liberte! Fraternite! Egalite!" and we set up Madame Guillotine in the Rotunda?

We won't have none of those pussified FRENCH ways here in 'Merica!

/the noose is MUCH more 'traditional'.

Peter von Nostrand: From the right, the 6th year is 1980. Moving to the right from that point leads us to today. The area in the middle were the growth was slowed and the even slightly decreased, 1993 to 2001.

Uh, your graph is unreadable. The only point you successfully made is that you can post a thumbnail of something resembling something that might mean something.

FAIL.

bartink: Peter von Nostrand: From the right, the 6th year is 1980. Moving to the right from that point leads us to today. The area in the middle were the growth was slowed and the even slightly decreased, 1993 to 2001.

Uh, your graph is unreadable. The only point you successfully made is that you can post a thumbnail of something resembling something that might mean something.

FAIL.

The only fail is your lack of knowledge.

Bored Horde: bartink: Peter von Nostrand: From the right, the 6th year is 1980. Moving to the right from that point leads us to today. The area in the middle were the growth was slowed and the even slightly decreased, 1993 to 2001.

Uh, your graph is unreadable. The only point you successfully made is that you can post a thumbnail of something resembling something that might mean something.

FAIL.

The only fail is your lack of knowledge.

Actually, I can't read it either. It is too small. It could be pirates vs. global warming.

Congress's mistake was to believe Bush's promise to actually obey the law. (It's like Charlie Brown trying to kick the ball with Lucy.)

Here's the history:
1) Bush asks for a no-strings attached 700 billion.
2) Congress says no. Let's attach strings.
3) Republican Congressmen hold out for special bennies for their friens.
4) Pelosi, naturally, gives them. Hell, it's only money.
5) The money, with oversight strings, passes.

Now we're here, and the Bush administration is saying it's allowing Congress to have "oversight" without even answering their questions.

Go look at this TPM link (new window). About 45 seconds from the end, you can see Kucinich of all people laying into these thieves.

GaryPDX: The politicians who approved the Paulson plan are also suffering from acute remorse. Barney Frank, one of the Democrats who shaped the bail-out plan, said: "I am deeply disappointed that a number of financial institutions are distorting the legislation that Congress passed at the President's request. Increased lending activity is the only legitimate purpose for taxpayer funding of these institutions."

Good Gawd!

For even more Barney Frank goodness, here's his quote about a whether a $25 billion GM bailout is worth it.

"There's no downside to trying."

source

submitter,

Who would've thought?

*Raises hand*

I knew this shiat was going to happen. I wrote all the congresscritters I could, and I screamed it from the rooftops here on Fark.

My friends and I all agreed that this would turn into a huge clusterfark moneygrab that wouldn't fix a damn thing.

And, once again, I was right. Every time the government has wanted a shiatload of money, or some sweeping new power, I've argued against it. And, every time, I've been right.

And, every time, I wish I had been wrong.

Hau Ruck: And people are pissed at the banks / financial institutions that took bailout money and decided to stash the money, as mine did. This blame is completely misplaced, companies do not behave unless forced to by some external means (legislation).

Oh, seriously, just shut the fark up.

I don't excuse someone for doing the wrong thing simply because they found a loophole.

If you're being a greedy, thieving piece of shiat (as you are, you worthless coonts), I don't give a damn whether or not you're doing it legally.

SchlingFocker: submitter,

Who would've thought?

*Raises hand*

I knew this shiat was going to happen. I wrote all the congresscritters I could, and I screamed it from the rooftops here on Fark.

My friends and I all agreed that this would turn into a huge clusterfark moneygrab that wouldn't fix a damn thing.

And, once again, I was right. Every time the government has wanted a shiatload of money, or some sweeping new power, I've argued against it. And, every time, I've been right.

And, every time, I wish I had been wrong.

That's because we let the Bush Administration handle it.

Honestly, Congress should have set up an independent committee that was granted access to every bank who was a member of the Federal Reserve. We would go through their books, reduce executive salaries, demand repayment of select previous employees who gave companies root canals over credit swaps, etc...

At the end of the day we could have sorted this out, restructured a few banks, put a few executives in prison, in 3 years we could have broken up all the big national banks, instituted a law saying banks can't combine like they have been, and then we would have unnationalized them.

But NOOOOOOO the Republicans demanded "no free market intervention"

Mr.Insightful:
Go look at this TPM link (new window). About 45 seconds from the end, you can see Kucinich of all people laying into these thieves.

Kucinich has giant balls of steel. I watched that hearing live and it was something else.

SchlingFocker: If you're being a greedy, thieving piece of shiat (as you are, you worthless coonts), I don't give a damn whether or not you're doing it legally.

If his bank isn't greedy, they'll get beaten out by some other bank that is. You can get all moral and indignant about it, but it's just survival of the fittest. Pretty much any person in their position would do the same thing. Psychological tests confirm, despite what you may think about yourself, at the end of the day you're as greedy as the next guy.

If you don't like the banks doing this, get your congressperson to change the law.

Gerard makes several devastating points. The first is that the Treasury grossly overpaid for the stakes it has taken in these nine major banks. Twenty days before Paulson invested $10bn in Goldman Sachs, the investor Warren Buffett invested $5bn for a stake of equal value. Thus Paulson paid twice as much as he should have to his old employer.

This pattern, Gerard argues, was repeated across the board. Again and again the Treasury paid double what it should have, giving away half of its investment as a gift to shareholders.

As I understand it, that was by design. The theory was, if the feds drove too hard a bargain and got the assets at a low price, that would cause the value of the remaining assets to fall, causing a bank to drop below its required reserves and triggering forced sales. Forced sales would further decrease the value of remaining assets, more reserve problems, further forced sales, etc. The result might be a chain reaction that would end up destroying the bank, and in any case wouldn't leave the bank with any more money, so it still wouldn't have anything to lend.

Our representatives voted for 450 pages of "take all you want." And most were re-elected.

jjorsett: Gerard makes several devastating points. The first is that the Treasury grossly overpaid for the stakes it has taken in these nine major banks. Twenty days before Paulson invested $10bn in Goldman Sachs, the investor Warren Buffett invested $5bn for a stake of equal value. Thus Paulson paid twice as much as he should have to his old employer.

This pattern, Gerard argues, was repeated across the board. Again and again the Treasury paid double what it should have, giving away half of its investment as a gift to shareholders.

As I understand it, that was by design. The theory was, if the feds drove too hard a bargain and got the assets at a low price, that would cause the value of the remaining assets to fall, causing a bank to drop below its required reserves and triggering forced sales. Forced sales would further decrease the value of remaining assets, more reserve problems, further forced sales, etc. The result might be a chain reaction that would end up destroying the bank, and in any case wouldn't leave the bank with any more money, so it still wouldn't have anything to lend.

They didn't buy assets. They bought stock.

gtp123: If his bank isn't greedy, they'll get beaten out by some other bank that is. You can get all moral and indignant about it, but it's just survival of the fittest. Pretty much any person in their position would do the same thing. Psychological tests confirm, despite what you may think about yourself, at the end of the day you're as greedy as the next guy.

If you don't like the banks doing this, get your congressperson to change the law.

As I've said before, I don't excuse something that's wrong just because someone found a way to get away with it.

If someone looks to steal from me, and they find a loophole to steal my money and get away with it, I'm not just going to say, "Oh, it's not your responsibility. You weren't being shiat-sucking worthless farking thieves. It's the politician's fault for not making the law complex enough to keep you from stealing."

At least cockmonkey up there is getting a bonus out of this.

Why the fark are you putting the bankers' balls on your chin and defending this wholesale theft?? You think that they'll let you in their club if you just lick their taint enough?

acchief: Our representatives voted for 450 pages of "take all you want." And most were re-elected.

I voted against every incumbent this election.

SchlingFocker: acchief: Our representatives voted for 450 pages of "take all you want." And most were re-elected.

I voted against every incumbent this election.

So did I. When there was no opposition, I wrote in "none of the above."

Remove all Republicans: He's right. The upside is HUGE as well. Those thousands of employees at GM's job bank get to continue to stay on, ready at a moment's notice if GM needs them.

*snort*

SchlingFocker: At least cockmonkey up there is getting a bonus out of this.

Why the fark are you putting the bankers' balls on your chin and defending this wholesale theft?? You think that they'll let you in their club if you just lick their taint enough?

Nice try, but some another bank is paying me a nice bonus too.

And you can whine about the injustice of it all you want, but you just aren't addressing my point. People, business, life, etc fill all the cracks. It's just what happens. If JPM, MS, GS decide they're going to do what you want, some little middle market players will swoop in and do the same thing. If you want them to stop, you need to make it more worth while for them to do something else, or directly regulate. Cute 'shooting them against a wall' internet threats don't work, btw.

gtp123: And you can whine about the injustice of it all you want, but you just aren't addressing my point. People, business, life, etc fill all the cracks. It's just what happens. If JPM, MS, GS decide they're going to do what you want, some little middle market players will swoop in and do the same thing.

I'm sure that when you catch a crackhead rifling through your car because you left the door unlocked, you'll simply tell him to keep your stuff because you failed to lock the door.

A thief is a thief, no matter how you try to spin it. You and I both know it's wrong, but you're not going to admit that it's wrong because you're profiting from it.

Cute 'shooting them against a wall' internet threats don't work, btw.

Go ahead and find in the thread where I've advocated shooting anybody. Go ahead. Find it.

SchlingFocker:I'm sure that when you catch a crackhead rifling through your car because you left the door unlocked, you'll simply tell him to keep your stuff because you failed to lock the door.

When I catch a crackhead rifling through my car because I left the door unlocked, I'm going to call the police, because the crackhead is breaking the law.

Cute 'shooting them against a wall' internet threats don't work, btw.

Go ahead and find in the thread where I've advocated shooting anybody. Go ahead. Find it.

My bad - wasn't talking to you specifically, but a lot of that sentiment to be found on fark... was just heading off a random anticipated response.