|
|
Post by twinegarden on Feb 13, 2009 11:11:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 13, 2009 11:29:34 GMT -6
Best part of the article:
Second, on the retroactive issue. As one of our listeners pointed out, if a bank makes an error and deposits some money into your account that isn't yours and you spend it, you know what happens to you? You get arrested! We have covered numerous stories like this on the show. The bank accidentally puts in an extra $100,000 in someone's account. They spend it and they go to jail.
Here we have accidentally put too much into the bankers' accounts. I know it's too much because they took $18 billion of it home in bonuses instead of spending it on the problem at hand. If they spend it after we notify them of the error, they get arrested. They have to give the money back. It's what they do to their customers all the time.
Now, that's my solution. But that's not even in the bill. We should get that $18 billion back. But instead all we're asking for is that they not pay their executives more than $400,000 a year for being the worst businessmen in the country. Here's what I know as a fact -- that is not too much to ask for.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 13, 2009 11:29:54 GMT -6
Can we drop the "liberal" or "conservative" fucktardary and focus on "truth?" For once?
Labeling is a shortcut for people who are afraid to think.
Oooohhh...that's a "liberal" idea. Aaahhh...that's a "conservative" prescription.
Fuck it. Is it true, or at least rational, or is it not? Rush Limpdick, for example, isn't a "conservative" commentator. He's a fucking liar and defamer. I don't loathe him because he has a point of view. I loathe him because he lies with impunity. If you lie, then fuck you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 13, 2009 11:31:32 GMT -6
Plus, Limpdick is a hypocritical drug abuser
|
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 13, 2009 11:34:24 GMT -6
Can we drop the "liberal" or "conservative" fucktardary and focus on "truth?" For once? Labeling is a shortcut for people who are afraid to think. Oooohhh...that's a "liberal" idea. Aaahhh...that's a "conservative" prescription. f**k it. Is it true, or at least rational, or is it not? Rush Limpdick, for example, isn't a "conservative" commentator. He's a fucking liar and defamer. I don't loathe him because he has a point of view. I loathe him because he lies with impunity. If you lie, then f**k you. I completely agree with you...but your quote is somewhat contradictory. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 13, 2009 11:36:04 GMT -6
Plus, Limpdick is a hypocritical drug abuser Bad example. Too easy of a target. My favorite new lie is the FDR revisionism. These cumholes truly believe that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will magically become truth. Ain't happening. Go look at a fucking GDP graph for the time period. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 13, 2009 11:46:05 GMT -6
Can we drop the "liberal" or "conservative" fucktardary and focus on "truth?" For once? Labeling is a shortcut for people who are afraid to think. Oooohhh...that's a "liberal" idea. Aaahhh...that's a "conservative" prescription. f**k it. Is it true, or at least rational, or is it not? Rush Limpdick, for example, isn't a "conservative" commentator. He's a fucking liar and defamer. I don't loathe him because he has a point of view. I loathe him because he lies with impunity. If you lie, then f**k you. I completely agree with you...but your quote is somewhat contradictory. Limpdick was the most public and egregious example. Most of the radical revisionism (read: lies) in the news today is coming from the far right. I've got no use for the far left PCnazis either, but they didn't brazenly fuck up America over the past 8 years with no remedy but to double down. The absolute lying coming from the far right in this nation is appalling. I was at the gym yesterday, a couple of douchebags started ripping on "liberals" and talking about how they only watch FOXnews and how great Hannity is sans Colmes...of course I had to pipe in, asking them if grown men their age should really be so naive as to believe anything Hannity is selling after the past 8 years. I then informed them that perhaps bashing "liberals" in less than hushed tones might not be a wise tack given current conditions. And with that bid them good day. No reply. Either I stumped them or they were intimidated. I'm pretty fucking strong. Not exactly their preconceived image of a "pussy lib (aka "anyone who isn't a frothing wingnut.") But I fucking digress. OK, here's a left-wing shill I can't stand, who's truth-optional: Rhandi Rhodes. Fuck her. Bottom line: If you fucking lie to me, you're going to piss me off. |
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Feb 13, 2009 12:15:16 GMT -6
I think that by having people place blame on the "liberals/Dems" and "conservatives(yeah right)/republicans" people are looking at both sides of the issue rather than the issue itself and it is easier to pull bullshit over on the eyes of the public. Especially the people who are to focused on defending their positions rather than taking whatever issue for what it really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 13, 2009 13:38:27 GMT -6
I think that by having people place blame on the "liberals/Dems" and "conservatives(yeah right)/republicans" people are looking at both sides of the issue rather than the issue itself and it is easier to pull bullshit over on the eyes of the public. Especially the people who are to focused on defending their positions rather than taking whatever issue for what it really is. Well, to quote myself, the truth is often not fair, and does not need to be balanced. I hate the fucking cable "news" channels and their bickering dolts. Either something is true or at least rationally defensible, or it's not. These fuckstains never argue fact, it's always ideology. It's contributing to the ignorance of this nation. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 13, 2009 13:45:11 GMT -6
Killing the proposal mentioned in the WaPo article is the right move. I understand the emotional appeal of "If they're getting our money, we set the rules." I get it.
Everybody needs to chill the fuck out. There is a highly developed body of caselaw on the constitutionality of retroactively changing the law. IIRC, several cases state that retroactive changes that adversely impact a settled property or contract right violate the Due Process Clause. It's the same concept as ex post facto criminal laws.
Next, you have to think about the way the TARP was instituted. Paulson essentially told several institutions that were solvent that they had to take the money. If they didn't, it would send a message to the market and cause a run on the banks that got government money. I hate to throw the word "fair" out there, but if you're a proprietary trader on the oil desk at Goldman and you generated $100 million in profit for the firm, for which you were paid a base salary of $100k, with the expectation that if you kicked ass, you'd be taken care of, is it fair that just because Paulson insisted your employer take money to prevent a run on Citibank you can't profit from your price gouging, err, prowess in trading oil futures?
Additionally, with respect to the structuring, if the government wanted control or a say in management, it should have negotiated for it up front. It did not. It bought non-voting preferred shares. Initially, the banks were told they had to hold the shares for at least 3 years, but now the government may back down on that. No investor has the right to control a business if all it owns are warrants and non-voting shares. I love how the author says "They have to give the money back." Guess what pal, they will. They got a fucking preferred investment that is essentially a loan. It has to be paid back. It was not a gift to the corporations.
The nationalization argument is kind of bogus, too. The problem if you nationalize a substantial majority of the banks is the state action doctrine. If the banks are nationalized and are then deemed to be state actors, the Constitution applies to everything they do. Citibank fires someone, now in addition to the general claims that displaced employees always make, you get a new set of Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment claims stacked on top. Citibank denies a loan - 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. GMAFB.
However, the biggest problem I have with these MSM articles that are clearly designed to stoke the populist flames is that the guys writing them have no clue what is going on or what is material. $18 billion ain't material to the shitstorm we're in. Citibank has a $1.2 trillion balance sheet. BAC has a $2.7 trillion balance sheet. JPM has a $2.2 trillion balance sheet. WFC has a $1.3 trillion balance sheet. Loan values have dropped. The fact of the matter is that it does not take a huge drop in loan values for a trillion dollar portfolio to drop by a large fucking amount. Saying $18 billion in bonuses is material to a problem given the size of the shitstorm we're looking into is a fucking joke, it's like taking a piss in the Colorado River and thinking it will have an impact on the Grand fucking Canyon. Additionally, it doesn't matter if the banks lend as much as they did two years ago. The banks are key in creating money and getting credit flowing, but they are far from the only players. There were tons of players in the asset backed securities space in 2006. I called a buddy who did asset backed securities legal work, he told me he hasn't closed one of those deals since August 2007. Without buyers for credit card receivalbes, bundled mortgages, car loans, etc., our credit market will only be a shell of what it was 2 years ago no matter how hard the banks try to lend and no matter how reckless they get.
The bigger story here is our government's attempt to solve a debt bubble by blowing it back up.
|
|
