Politics

[Black Irish]

and would also bankrupt the social security system.

You can't bankrupt a system that isn't holding any real money in the first place.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I can not understand why the Senate republicans filibustered the American Jobs Act?

Government programs don't create private sector jobs. If they did, the first stimulus would've worked. It failed.

 

[Black Irish]

Government programs don't create private sector jobs. If they did, the first stimulus would've worked. It failed.

Sure they do. The tax code and legal system are so ridiculously complicated that we have to hire attorneys and accountants to handle that stuff so we don't wind up in jail.

 

[chicago51]

Government programs don't create private sector jobs. If they did, the first stimulus would've worked. It failed.

In the months prior to the stimulus we were losing 750k jobs a month. Since it kicked we have been gaining 100k-200k jobs a month. Those are facts if you want to argue the jobs growth is happening in spite of the stimulus ok but the evidence says otherwise.

Government spending got country out of the great depression.

The cash for clunkers program really help bring back the auto industry. The stimulus focused a bit too much construction oriented that's my only complaint. I wish there was more green energy stuff in the stimulus.

If you want to say the stimulus failed you are just wrong. Could it have been more successful yes it could have but it didn't fail it stopped the rapid job loss.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Is this David Koch? It is time the wealthy start paying their fair share like what they did pre Reagan.

Btw tax breaks on the rich does not create jobs. Taxes on the wealthy don't hinder the economy. The stock market has soared since the obama tax hike on the wealthy. Dow just hit a five year high.

Easy killer. Thats not totally true.

If i wasnt in line at Chipotle, id throw a big heaping pile of education on you right now.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Btw tax breaks on the rich does not create jobs. Taxes on the wealthy don't hinder the economy. The stock market has soared since the obama tax hike on the wealthy. Dow just hit a five year high.

The stock market measures the success of the massive multinational corporations that are in just about every market worldwide that is worth being in. You think they represent the health of the economy? Come on man.

I'll be the first to argue that raising taxes on the "super-wealthy" will not hurt the economy at all. If the CEO if Apple, Ford, or whatever has their taxes raised, it won't hurt his ability to manage the corporation and certainly isn't impacting job expansion in said corporation.

But, what about small business owners? You don't think letting business owners keep their money increases the likelihood of them expanding? Even if they don't hire per se, they're more likely to buy X,Y,Z and that creates jobs.

Furthermore, if a small business expands, it creates job in the US, not Mexico/China. The expansion of MNCs isn't helping American jobs to the fullest extent.

Government programs don't create private sector jobs. If they did, the first stimulus would've worked. It failed.

This is just silly.

 

[Buster Bluth]

In the months prior to the stimulus we were losing 750k jobs a month. Since it kicked we have been gaining 100k-200k jobs a month. Those are facts if you want to argue the jobs growth is happening in spite of the stimulus ok but the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence tends to point out that the recovery has been horribly slow. If you're shedding jobs so quickly, you should be able to make them up faster. And that doesn't point out that the only expansion happening is because of the artificially-low interest rates.

If you think the economy is coming along nicely, you're in the definite minority.

Government spending got country out of the great depression.

Adolf Hitler had more to do with it than any government program.

The cash for clunkers program really help bring back the auto industry.

What. Like seriously...WHAT? Cash For Clunkers is one of the best examples of how messed up and in bed with the corporations our government is.

The government tells us that they want to be environmentally responsible, so let's get these old cars off the road. "Yay!" says everyone. So you turn in your 1999 Ford Taurus and buy a brand new 2009 Ford Focus. Mmmmm. Everyone wins right? Business for the failing auto companies, fewer gas emissions.

That's certainly one way to look at it. You could also see it as a corporation (that is partially owned by the government to the tune of -$25,000,000,000 for the US citizens (right? look that one up for me)) getting a handout that they shouldn't be getting, and only get because the UAW votes 99% Democrat.

Do you think this helped poor people? You know, the ones who can't afford new cars? You just took millions of used cars off the road and destroyed them. We didn't break 'em down for parts, or resell them to the poor, we simply destroyed them. The effect? Well the used car market was hampered significantly (GM smiled though, now you'll be more likely to buy a new car); used cars are more expensive and the poor were priced right out of the market. Good work, government.

Environmentally responsible, is it? Let's see you took an old car and destroyed it, and had to make a brand new car (read: damage the environment).....you know that's a net environmental loss right? In architecture, we like to say the greenest thing you can do isn't to build a new LEED-certified building, but to find a new use for an old building. In the auto industry, the greenest thing you can do is make your car last as long as possible so don't have to build a new one. OOPS! F*cked that one up didn't we...

The stimulus focused a bit too much construction oriented that's my only complaint. I wish there was more green energy stuff in the stimulus.

The entire thing was a handout to unions. How can there be any debate on that? It plugged the failing balance sheets of local governments and allowed them to continue being irresponsible with their spending.

If you want to say the stimulus failed you are just wrong. Could it have been more successful yes it could have but it didn't fail it stopped the rapid job loss.

Immensely debatable. You'd have to compare the MASSIVE amount of spending for the permanent jobs created. I've never seen an analyst I can take seriously or regard as even remotely objective say it was a success.

Of course, a good way to look at it is if the stimulus did what the writers said it would do:

It didn't. So even by their own criteria, it failed.

You cannot say that it stopped the job losses, because everything hits bottom eventually, there's not a shred of evidence you can point to that says it stopped it from being worse. TARP may have done that, but not the stimulus.

 

[chicago51]

I agree that local and state governments limit the effectiveness of the stimulus as they used it for savings not additional spending. I'm not saying the economy is great it is not but I disagree with the Herbert Hoover do nothing method.

By mentioning Hitler you referring to ww2 I assume. So you agree government spending got us out of the depression. WW2 after all was the biggest stimulus of all time.

 

[Buster Bluth]

By mentioning Hitler you referring to ww2 I assume. So you agree government spending got us out of the depression. WW2 after all was the biggest stimulus of all time.

 

[Downinthebend]

I agree that local and state governments limit the effectiveness of the stimulus as they used it for savings not additional spending. I'm not saying the economy is great it is not but I disagree with the Herbert Hoover do nothing method.

By mentioning Hitler you referring to ww2 I assume. So you agree government spending got us out of the depression. WW2 after all was the biggest stimulus of all time.

It also helped that the rest of the developed world was essentially economically destroyed.

The results of WW2 certainly created a favorable economic situation for ourselves, however I do not see the relevancy to point at that example, unless one is willing to accept the means that brought that result (instead this time we'd be the instigator).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I agree that local and state governments limit the effectiveness of the stimulus as they used it for savings not additional spending. I'm not saying the economy is great it is not but I disagree with the Herbert Hoover do nothing method.

By mentioning Hitler you referring to ww2 I assume. So you agree government spending got us out of the depression. WW2 after all was the biggest stimulus of all time.

Many realized post WWII that had the government not gotten involved in the economy and the private sector matters, the recovery would have come much faster with or without that war. Government spending is good for short term construction projects and local municipalities and unions. How many private sector companies came out of this recession saying, "Man, thank God we got that stimulus. We're in great shape now"?? None.

We were told the stimulus would bring unemployment under 6%. Nowhere close to that, even higher than the reported 7.8% is in the mid teens area if you account for all those who stopped looking for work.

We had government spending (stimulus and obamacare) shoved down our throats in 2009 when we needed what Reagan did in 1981 and led to a real recovery. We got the opposite and we're only beginning to realize how much trouble we're in short term and long term.

We had to hear the propaganda about the "recovery summer" and "shovel ready jobs" that never came.

It was an $878 billion failure.

 

[chicago51]

Many realized post WWII that had the government not gotten involved in the economy and the private sector matters, the recovery would have come much faster with or without that war. Government spending is good for short term construction projects and local municipalities and unions. How many private sector companies came out of this recession saying, "Man, thank God we got that stimulus. We're in great shape now"?? None.

We were told the stimulus would bring unemployment under 6%. Nowhere close to that, even higher than the reported 7.8% is in the mid teens area if you account for all those who stopped looking for work.

We had government spending (stimulus and obamacare) shoved down our throats in 2009 when we needed what Reagan did in 1981 and led to a real recovery. We got the opposite and we're only beginning to realize how much trouble we're in short term and long term.

We had to hear the propaganda about the "recovery summer" and "shovel ready jobs" that never came.

It was an $878 billion failure.

I don't think the American auto industry thought it was a failure.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I don't think the American auto industry thought it was a failure.

If your company needs the government to come in and save you, you aren't a well run company and should be let go into bankruptcy.

 

[chicago51]

If your company needs the government to come in and save you, you aren't a well run company and should be let go into bankruptcy.

Then you folks would really be complaining that we need more jobs. Its bad enough as it is.

I think criticisms of the stimulus are fair. I don't agree though with the notion that doing nothing is better for the economy. Doing nothing with no oversight got us into this recession.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't think the American auto industry thought it was a failure.

As a commercial banker, I'm in the same boat as well.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Then you folks would really be complaining that we need more jobs. Its bad enough as it is.

Do you think GM and Chrysler wouldn't exist if the government didn't bail them out? I'm honestly intrigued.

I think criticisms of the stimulus are fair. I don't agree though with the notion that doing nothing is better for the economy. Doing nothing with no oversight got us into this recession.

No, corporatism got us into the recession. The fusion of banks and politicians got us into the recession. You insinuate that the world was a laissez-faire clusterfack until Obama arrived.

Are you saying that the federal government wasn't clearly in the business of giving every person a home so that they can "live the American Dream?"

Are you saying that the large banks don't control a larger market share now than they did before the politicians "fixed the problem."

 

[woolybug25]

No, corporatism got us into the recession. The fusion of banks and politicians got us into the recession. You insinuate that the world was a laissez-faire clusterfack until Obama arrived.

Are you saying that the federal government wasn't clearly in the business of giving every person a home so that they can "live the American Dream?"

Are you saying that the large banks don't control a larger market share now than they did before the politicians "fixed the problem."

Ahh... the Buster I know and love is back. It thought things were getting weird, but now everything is back to normal.

First of all, as a long time banker, I can assure you that the banking world (especially residential mortgage) was indeed a laissez-faire orgy. We were bundling residential mortgage portfolios and selling them as secured portfolios completely on the legit. Think of that... we were selling portfolios stacked with variable rate mortgages as securities backed with tangible assets. These same assets were sinking well below their residual value as we were doing it and we knew it. We were selling grenades dressed up as securities backed with tangible assets weren't worth their weight in hay, and we were doing it completely on the up and up. This was only available because of the regulations at the time. This is a practice that is well beyond the regulations of today.

As far as the comment about "large banks controlling larger market share now" issue, what are you trying to say exactly? That we were better off with a ridiculously saturated market with every tom-dick and harry creating his own low budget credit shop selling big bank's money? That's what the average Joe doesn't get, more "small banks" only means that there are more people moving the "big banks" money. A bank consisting of 100 branches simply doesn't have the deposits necessary to lend it at a cost of funds low enough to be competitive (not even remotely). They need to borrow money from large banks to be able to offer low enough rates to compete. We can all pretend that large banks are screwing over small banks, but the reality is that if even one "large bank" exists, than almost no small market banks can exist without using that big bank's money. It's the nature of lending. Which is the heart and soul of America's banking system.

 

[Buster Bluth]

First of all, as a long time banker, I can assure you that the banking world (especially residential mortgage) was indeed a laissez-faire orgy. We were bundling residential mortgage portfolios and selling them as secured portfolios completely on the legit. Think of that... we were selling portfolios stacked with variable rate mortgages as securities backed with tangible assets. These same assets were sinking well below their residual value as we were doing it and we knew it. We were selling grenades dressed up as securities backed with tangible assets weren't worth their weight in hay, and we were doing it completely on the up and up. This was only available because of the regulations at the time. This is a practice that is well beyond the regulations of today.

You haven't spoken to the role of government pre-recession. I'm interested in your thoughts. How much fault should the government get?

What are your thoughts on this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iW5qKYfqALE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm of the opinion that there were two pilots flying us into the proverbial mountainside, greedy banks and greedy politicians.

As far as the comment about "large banks controlling larger market share now" issue, what are you trying to say exactly? That we were better off with a ridiculously saturated market with every tom-dick and harry creating his own low budget credit shop selling big bank's money? That's what the average Joe doesn't get, more "small banks" only means that there are more people moving the "big banks" money. A bank consisting of 100 branches simply doesn't have the deposits necessary to lend it at a cost of funds low enough to be competitive (not even remotely). They need to borrow money from large banks to be able to offer low enough rates to compete. We can all pretend that large banks are screwing over small banks, but the reality is that if even one "large bank" exists, than almost no small market banks can exist without using that big bank's money. It's the nature of lending. Which is the heart and soul of America's banking system.

I'm saying that if you're "too big too fail" then you should be "too big to exist."

 

[chicago51]

You haven't spoken to the role of government pre-recession. I'm interested in your thoughts. How much fault should the government get?

What are your thoughts on this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iW5qKYfqALE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm of the opinion that there were two pilots flying us into the proverbial mountainside, greedy banks and greedy politicians.



I'm saying that if you're "too big too fail" then you should be "too big to exist."

What exactly was the resolution? Barney Frank seemed to be talking about making easier for more people to own home hence deregulation. Deregulation was the problem. People need to be saved from themselves.

You seem to support a Teddy Roosevelt presidency. TR would be a liberal dem today with his anti trust stance and his conservation of the environment.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

As a commercial banker, I'm in the same boat as well.

I have relatives who are in your same industry and completely disagree with you.

 

[enrico514]

Ahh... the Buster I know and love is back. It thought things were getting weird, but now everything is back to normal.

First of all, as a long time banker, I can assure you that the banking world (especially residential mortgage) was indeed a laissez-faire orgy. We were bundling residential mortgage portfolios and selling them as secured portfolios completely on the legit. Think of that... we were selling portfolios stacked with variable rate mortgages as securities backed with tangible assets. These same assets were sinking well below their residual value as we were doing it and we knew it. We were selling grenades dressed up as securities backed with tangible assets weren't worth their weight in hay, and we were doing it completely on the up and up. This was only available because of the regulations at the time. This is a practice that is well beyond the regulations of today.

As far as the comment about "large banks controlling larger market share now" issue, what are you trying to say exactly? That we were better off with a ridiculously saturated market with every tom-dick and harry creating his own low budget credit shop selling big bank's money? That's what the average Joe doesn't get, more "small banks" only means that there are more people moving the "big banks" money. A bank consisting of 100 branches simply doesn't have the deposits necessary to lend it at a cost of funds low enough to be competitive (not even remotely). They need to borrow money from large banks to be able to offer low enough rates to compete. We can all pretend that large banks are screwing over small banks, but the reality is that if even one "large bank" exists, than almost no small market banks can exist without using that big bank's money. It's the nature of lending. Which is the heart and soul of America's banking system.

The top 10-15 banks in the US are simply too big and represent a huge risk to the system. Big is definitely not beautiful in the case of US banks! The TBTF fail bank are relatively bigger today than they were before the crisis and many would argue that their behaviour has only worsened. Heads banksters win and tails the US taxpayers lose.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

What exactly was the resolution? Barney Frank seemed to be talking about making easier for more people to own home hence deregulation. Deregulation was the problem. People need to be saved from themselves.

You seem to support a Teddy Roosevelt presidency. TR would be a liberal dem today with his anti trust stance and his conservation of the environment.

It wasn't deregulation. It was government forcing banks to make BAD loans, and insuring against BAD loans. Why do you think banks were so okay with writing such risky loans? High risk=high reward as well as the government INSURING those loans.

People need to be saved from government not the other way around.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

The top 10-15 banks in the US are simply too big and represent a huge risk to the system. Big is definitely not beautiful in the case of US banks! The TBTF fail bank are relatively bigger today than they were before the crisis and many would argue that their behaviour has only worsened. Heads banksters win and tails the US taxpayers lose.

Look at all the new regulations and crap they are throwing on banks now, they HAVE to get bigger to deal with all the government red tape. My community bank I deal with has only been hiring COMPLIANCE employees. The big banks love added regulation and all that crap, know why? It raises barriers to entry into the market and drives out the smaller banks who cannot handle all the increases in cost to do business.

Big banks and big government go together.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Look at all the new regulations and crap they are throwing on banks now, they HAVE to get bigger to deal with all the government red tape. My community bank I deal with has only been hiring COMPLIANCE employees. The big banks love added regulation and all that crap, know why? It raises barriers to entry into the market and drives out the smaller banks who cannot handle all the increases in cost to do business.

Big banks and big government go together.

These are generally my thoughts as well.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You seem to support a Teddy Roosevelt presidency. TR would be a liberal dem today with his anti trust stance and his conservation of the environment.

Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't stand for the inefficiencies in today's government either.

 

[enrico514]

Look at all the new regulations and crap they are throwing on banks now, they HAVE to get bigger to deal with all the government red tape. My community bank I deal with has only been hiring COMPLIANCE employees. The big banks love added regulation and all that crap, know why? It raises barriers to entry into the market and drives out the smaller banks who cannot handle all the increases in cost to do business.

Big banks and big government go together.

I hate to break it to you but there are several mid sized regional US banks that are doing fairly well. If the zombie banks were allowed to naturally decay... these high quality institutions would fill the void fairly quickly.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I hate to break it to you but there are several mid sized regional US banks that are doing fairly well. If the zombie banks were allowed to naturally decay... these high quality institutions would fill the void fairly quickly.

You mean if the government wasn't adding heaps of regulations and red tape they could expand on their own? Because they can do business better than the mega Wall Street banks? By naturally decay you mean not be aided by the government?

Welcome to a true free market system..

 

[enrico514]

You mean if the government wasn't adding heaps of regulations and red tape they could expand on their own? Because they can do business better than the mega Wall Street banks? By naturally decay you mean not be aided by the government?

Welcome to a true free market system..

Yes, by naturally decay I mean not aided/saved by taxpayers.

There are many mid sized banks banks that are properly managed and would have naturally filled the void in a free market. Unfortunately, as things stand, 0.2% of the banks hold 69% of industry assets (more than ever before). These institutions learned from the last 5 years... head we win and tails you lose... 0.07% (top 4) are responsible for more than 93% of all derivative exposure.

 

[woolybug25]

I have relatives who are in your same industry and completely disagree with you.

Really, please elaborate. If you don't actually have the ability to argue it, and are just going off of what you overheard in some conversation between bankers that you know, then you are simply talking about something that you have no understanding of.While they may not agree with the implementation of Dodd Frank, retail fees and the current oversight of regulatory compliances, the reality is that if they work for a major bank they owe their job to stimulus and tarp. Plain and simple. I urge you to prove me wrong on that.

You haven't spoken to the role of government pre-recession. I'm interested in your thoughts. How much fault should the government get?

What are your thoughts on this:

Interesting question. If you listen to the clip (btw, that speech is cutoff to focus on the beginning of it in order to vilify him. That same speech he talks in depth about the importance of not letting speculation get out of hand) he is talking about home values, not banks issuing mortgages without regard to whether a person could pay for it or not. At that time, before the mortgage collapse, we needed people to continue buying houses. We needed demand to rise as well as interest rates. His point wasn't so much with deregulation, but rather incentivizing home building and purchase. He wasn't, nor were really any politicians, suggesting that banks should start making bets their asses couldn't cash. Again, while i'm not in residential mortgages, I am a banker. We saw this coming but it was like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I'm saying that if you're "too big too fail" then you should be "too big to exist."

Again... that sounds good in theory, but it's not reality. Our entire economic system depends on companies being able to borrow on lines of credit, utilize lease lines, run their business on operating lines of credit securitized by profit. Without the cost of funds available through the large depositories of major banks, small lenders could not offer rates less than what companies could create in revenue on their own. For instance, most companies borrow money not because they don't have it, but rather because they are looking at the time value of money. The old adage of, "a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow". So instead of using their own money, they make the bet that they can create more long term profit by borrowing money to grow their business. This is simply not possible without the low cost of funds that major banks with billions of dollars of depositories provide. Why would a company borrow a $1MM to purchase equipment at a 14% rate (just tossing that rate out there) if they don't think that investment will create 14% more profit? Even if the purchase was absolutely necessary to the survival of their company, the prudent thing to do at that point would be to use cash on hand for the purchase. That is why major banks are "too big too fail", because if companies suddenly had to choose between extremely high rates (caused by high cost of funds) or using cash, growth would die and companies that needed lines of credit to survive would simply fail. Thus taking our economy behind the woodshed and beating it with bricks until it stopped breathing.

 

[woolybug25]

You mean if the government wasn't adding heaps of regulations and red tape they could expand on their own? Because they can do business better than the mega Wall Street banks? By naturally decay you mean not be aided by the government?

Welcome to a true free market system..

The more you say about our banking system, the more I realize that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not trying to be a jerk, but the things you are saying are the things that people that don't understand how banking works say. I realized after my last long response, that I really don't have a desire to try to teach you decades of banking understanding so you can simply have a logical opinion on the matter. So if you feel this way, go ahead my man. I'll continue actually being a commercial banker.