Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GOP Lawmakers are meeting with lobbyists to make sure taxpayers get nothing in return, and that the people responsible for this don't have to feel any pain.
"House Republican staffers met with roughly 15 lobbyists Friday afternoon, whose message to lawmakers was clear: Don't load the legislation up with provisions not directly related to the crisis, or regulatory measures the industry has long opposed.
"We're opposed to adding provisions that will affect [or] undermine the deal substantively," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, whose members include the nation's largest banks, securities firms and insurers.
A deal killer for the group: a proposal that would grant bankruptcy judges new powers to lower the principal, interest rate or both on a mortgage as part of a bankruptcy proceeding."
It's to bailout the losers who can't pay their no interest, no documentation, no qualification loans. Such things happen when the lowest of the gene pool are given more than an allowance to work with
GOP Lawmakers are meeting with lobbyists to make sure taxpayers get nothing in return, and that the people responsible for this don't have to feel any pain.
"House Republican staffers met with roughly 15 lobbyists Friday afternoon, whose message to lawmakers was clear: Don't load the legislation up with provisions not directly related to the crisis, or regulatory measures the industry has long opposed.
"We're opposed to adding provisions that will affect [or] undermine the deal substantively," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, whose members include the nation's largest banks, securities firms and insurers.
A deal killer for the group: a proposal that would grant bankruptcy judges new powers to lower the principal, interest rate or both on a mortgage as part of a bankruptcy proceeding."
Who is paying for the million dollar houses and yachts for the rich - the middle class taxpayer. The fat cats in Washington and the corporations are really enjoying this 'bailout'.
Oh sure! It was the "poor people" who hired the lobbyists....LOL
"Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, whose members include the nation's largest banks, securities firms and insurers."
Old Scott was just there in his Gucci shoes and Armani suit back slapping his GOP buddies on behalf of the "poor people"...LOL
Oh please. More class warfare crap. Who do you thinks creates jobs, lends money, gives to charity and pay all the taxes? The poor?
You missed the entire point of the article. Don't you find it ridiculous that in the middle of all this they (Rep or Dem) are meeting with lobbyists? Now?
I heard this crazy proprosal fromm a guy on CNN last night that I mentioned a thread in the main part of this political section. They were doing a special most of the day on what was going on and what that meant for the people.
Anyway, this guy asked why instead of bailing out Wall Street that the taxpayers were going to have to pay for, why were we not instead just paying off the mortgages. The longer you think about it, after the initial balk passes it does make some sense.
Pay off said mortgages and the people are happy and then have money again. They then turn around and spend money like crazy. In turn Wall Street and the banks are happy because they not only have their money back, people are spending again. Stocks go back up, the ripple effect continues on.
The whole process is being done in too much haste. There are other options, we're being presented with the one that makes the most money for someone. The question is who? Here's some interesting options:
"Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don't do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don't want to signal weakness and they don't want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.
Meanwhile, Charles Calomiris of Columbia University and Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings Institution have offered versions of another idea. The government should help not by buying banks' bad loans but by buying equity stakes in the banks themselves. Whereas it's horribly complicated to value bad loans, banks have share prices you can look up in seconds, so government could inject capital into banks quickly and at a fair level. The share prices of banks that recovered would rise, compensating taxpayers for losses on their stakes in the banks that eventually went under." Source
Why haven't we considered these options? What's the hurry?
It's to bailout the losers who can't pay their no interest, no documentation, no qualification loans. Such things happen when the lowest of the gene pool are given more than an allowance to work with
Mortgages are one derivative, there are thousands.
The whole process is being done in too much haste. There are other options, we're being presented with the one that makes the most money for someone. The question is who? Here's some interesting options:
"Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don't do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don't want to signal weakness and they don't want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.
Meanwhile, Charles Calomiris of Columbia University and Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings Institution have offered versions of another idea. The government should help not by buying banks' bad loans but by buying equity stakes in the banks themselves. Whereas it's horribly complicated to value bad loans, banks have share prices you can look up in seconds, so government could inject capital into banks quickly and at a fair level. The share prices of banks that recovered would rise, compensating taxpayers for losses on their stakes in the banks that eventually went under." Source
Why haven't we considered these options? What's the hurry?
Remember, and this is what they know, the faster you unload this crap on people the less chance they have to stop it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
