|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 16, 2012 6:07:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Montezuma on Jul 16, 2012 6:45:51 GMT -8
Your boy Obama saved them and wants to do it again. Maybe you should ask him to resign.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 16, 2012 7:33:02 GMT -8
Your boy Obama saved them and wants to do it again. Maybe you should ask him to resign. Do you agree with me or not? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 16, 2012 9:51:58 GMT -8
Your boy Obama saved them and wants to do it again. Maybe you should ask him to resign. Do you agree with me or not? I'm not an expert here and feel uncomfortable stating what the government should do in this area. The Glass/Steagal act might be a good idea. Breaking up the banks might be a good idea, too. I just don't know. I do know this. The Obama administration supposedly fixed all this with new legislation. In truth, the Dems are in over their heads just as much as anyone. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 16, 2012 14:08:33 GMT -8
I have been saying this for a time. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 26, 2012 14:54:20 GMT -8
How did the banks become "too big to fail" (if there's even such a thing)? The biggest problem with the repeal of Glass-Steagal is that the taxpayers are on the hook for the banks' recklessness.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 26, 2012 19:39:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztucho on Jul 26, 2012 20:47:58 GMT -8
How did the banks become "too big to fail" (if there's even such a thing)? The biggest problem with the repeal of Glass-Steagal is that the taxpayers are on the hook for the banks' recklessness. If we didnt bail them out, most of our 401ks would have been wiped out. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 26, 2012 22:03:30 GMT -8
How did the banks become "too big to fail" (if there's even such a thing)? The biggest problem with the repeal of Glass-Steagal is that the taxpayers are on the hook for the banks' recklessness. If we didnt bail them out, most of our 401ks would have been wiped out. Do you really think the banks are in good shape now? The $#!+ will hit the fan when interest rates go up. Now I know if you had let them fail things would have gotten pretty bad, but that's part of the point, you purge out the bad now instead of pushing it down the line and hoping it doesn't end up happening anyways (banks failing). It's been 5 years now and the economy is still struggling with no signs of light at the end of the tunnel. Or if you really didn't want people to suffer you could have done what Iceland did. They let their 3 largest banks fail but ensured that the depositors got their money and gave debt relief to homeowners and businesses facing bankruptcy. The problem with this scenario is the price tag but it would have been a lot better than what we actually did (I'm not sure if it would have cost more than Tarp and the stimulus combined). |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jul 31, 2012 11:25:11 GMT -8
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act also needs to be gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 31, 2012 14:02:31 GMT -8
If we didnt bail them out, most of our 401ks would have been wiped out. Do you really think the banks are in good shape now? The $#!+ will hit the fan when interest rates go up. Now I know if you had let them fail things would have gotten pretty bad, but that's part of the point, you purge out the bad now instead of pushing it down the line and hoping it doesn't end up happening anyways (banks failing). It's been 5 years now and the economy is still struggling with no signs of light at the end of the tunnel. Or if you really didn't want people to suffer you could have done what Iceland did. They let their 3 largest banks fail but ensured that the depositors got their money and gave debt relief to homeowners and businesses facing bankruptcy. The problem with this scenario is the price tag but it would have been a lot better than what we actually did (I'm not sure if it would have cost more than Tarp and the stimulus combined). Are sure the depositors all got their money back? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 31, 2012 21:52:40 GMT -8
Do you really think the banks are in good shape now? The $#!+ will hit the fan when interest rates go up. Now I know if you had let them fail things would have gotten pretty bad, but that's part of the point, you purge out the bad now instead of pushing it down the line and hoping it doesn't end up happening anyways (banks failing). It's been 5 years now and the economy is still struggling with no signs of light at the end of the tunnel. Or if you really didn't want people to suffer you could have done what Iceland did. They let their 3 largest banks fail but ensured that the depositors got their money and gave debt relief to homeowners and businesses facing bankruptcy. The problem with this scenario is the price tag but it would have been a lot better than what we actually did (I'm not sure if it would have cost more than Tarp and the stimulus combined). Are sure the depositors all got their money back? I believe there was an issue with foreign deposits but I'm pretty sure that was resolved. Did a quick search and found this article on the dispute: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/8738517/Icesave-liquidators-find-money-to-compensate-UK-savers.html |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 1, 2012 10:39:31 GMT -8
How did the banks become "too big to fail" (if there's even such a thing)? The biggest problem with the repeal of Glass-Steagal is that the taxpayers are on the hook for the banks' recklessness. If we didnt bail them out, most of our 401ks would have been wiped out. Care to expand that thought? I hope no one has their 401K in some kind of uninsured passbook savings or the like. |
|
