Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:20 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,164,267 times
Reputation: 6195

Advertisements

[Bank of America] has raised about $26 billion of the $33.9 billion in new capital that federal regulators say the bank needs.
***
Early this month, the federal government told BofA it needed to raise $33.9 billion in additional capital after the Federal Reserve conducted its “stress tests” on the 19 largest U.S. banks.

The government’s tests, officially called the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program, were designed to assess the banks’ ability to survive if economic conditions worsen more than expected during the next two years.

“We are quite pleased with the capital-raising effort and the progress toward completing the asset sales and establishment of the joint ventures,” said Joe Price, BofA chief financial officer. “The company hopes to use the majority of the proceeds from these initiatives to reduce reliance on government support for the company.”
BofA raises $26B for fed buffer - Business First of Louisville:

Wait a minute. Is this saying that the government told the banks to raise money in order to become...self-sufficient?

What kind of socialist plan is that?!

Comrade Obama, you're going about this all wrong!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:31 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,128,317 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
[Bank of America] has raised about $26 billion of the $33.9 billion in new capital that federal regulators say the bank needs.
***
Early this month, the federal government told BofA it needed to raise $33.9 billion in additional capital after the Federal Reserve conducted its “stress tests” on the 19 largest U.S. banks.

The government’s tests, officially called the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program, were designed to assess the banks’ ability to survive if economic conditions worsen more than expected during the next two years.

“We are quite pleased with the capital-raising effort and the progress toward completing the asset sales and establishment of the joint ventures,” said Joe Price, BofA chief financial officer. “The company hopes to use the majority of the proceeds from these initiatives to reduce reliance on government support for the company.”
BofA raises $26B for fed buffer - Business First of Louisville:

Wait a minute. Is this saying that the government told the banks to raise money in order to become...self-sufficient?

What kind of socialist plan is that?!

Comrade Obama, you're going about this all wrong!
And this is a prime example as to why no bailout was needed. Banks, car industries etc, ALL had the capability to raise capital, I've been saying it since day one. The bailout from the government was just about control, it was about trying to stabalize "unfounded fear" against the market, but it wasnt to give these companies funds these companies needed because they could have raised it in other methods..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:47 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,164,267 times
Reputation: 6195
But they werent raising the capital (for example), they had to be FORCED to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:54 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,164,267 times
Reputation: 6195
No bailout was needed, it absolutely was. The shock would have been too great for these businesses to just go under, and all in a period of a few months last fall/winter.

The Obama Admin was new on the job, too. They ran smack into this horrible crisis and did the right emergency thing - keep them afloat while trying to see what the hell was wrong and doing emergency repair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:57 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,128,317 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
But they werent raising the capital (for example), they had to be FORCED to.
It proves they COULD raise capital if needed to, the fact that they were "forced to", means that if they were "forced to" due to economics of business they could. Your "forced to", is an admission that a bailout was not needed..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:59 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,128,317 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
No bailout was needed, it absolutely was. The shock would have been too great for these businesses to just go under, and all in a period of a few months last fall/winter.

The Obama Admin was new on the job, too. They ran smack into this horrible crisis and did the right emergency thing - keep them afloat while trying to see what the hell was wrong and doing emergency repair.
Do you understand the difference between making a loan to a company until they can raise capital, and buying up of equity?

Hows that GM bailout working so far? I hear they are going to end up filing bankruptcy, after spending $20Billion to save them..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 10:01 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,128,317 times
Reputation: 9383
p.s. they STILL arent proposing to break up banks "too big to fail", there is a new blueprint coming out in June which will lsimply require more capital on banks. The current dispute, is who has the authority to decide how much capitals banks need, the Federal Reserve, or an independent commission made up by the SEC or the FDIC.

Too big to fail = to big.. break them up and be done with it..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 11:11 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,164,267 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
It proves they COULD raise capital if needed to, the fact that they were "forced to", means that if they were "forced to" due to economics of business they could. Your "forced to", is an admission that a bailout was not needed..
Not the same meaning of "forced" in their case. They were "forced" to face reality and start cleaning up their acts by the government. Left to their own devices they would have kept passing the responsibility for taking some responsibility on to each next successive wave of corporate "leadership" ad infinitum -- just what they had been doing up to about Feb 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2009, 01:04 PM
 
13 posts, read 36,960 times
Reputation: 12
Default Obama

For a president who has quadrupled the national deficit in less than a year in office...the prospect of national healthcare should scare any hard working, taxpaying American. Who is going to pay for this health care? Not the lazy people who are sitting at home looking for a handout. True Americans have lost jobs, but we're looking mostly at people who took jobs in unsecure industries to begin with. Maybe they should have pursued an education instead of being satisfied with being "Joe Six Pack". Or perhaps should have been smart about birth control. I was once out of work for a long time. I didn't cry about it. I didn't look for a handout. I got my butt out there and looked for a new job. It took a long time but I found one. But maybe that's the difference between a real American and someone who is just looking for the "American Dream". Problem is that today, that dream is no longer to get ahead by working hard, it's to get as much for free as you can by having to do absolutely NOTHING.
...but getting back on topic, I see no PROSPERITY in an age where doctors afford all the same luxuries and health care as the local gas station attendant. That is exactly where this country is headed if we let a national healthcare plan pass. It will be just another step toward Obama's socialist dream.

We're almost there with the bailout of American car manufacturers. Word is their bailout dept will be forgiven if they give control over to the federal govt. What about a FREE MARKET?? If the govt owns the car companies, the next step will be to over-tax or even BAN foreign cars from being owned. And you will have no choice but to own an American car. Hey, no big deal...because it is their value and reliability that kept them from needing a bailout in the first place, right?
Socialism may seem like a good idea, until you check the track record closely. Communism was built on socialism, and that didn't work for Russia. It would be a shame for the US to be like that country used to be - where a loaf of bread cost less than the wheat it took to make it? How does that work...with the govt having too much control and regulating EVERYTHING.
No need to debate this: a guy gets elected to presidency with only two years political experience, shady roots, and promises the lower class great things. How many promises has he kept so far? None (pulling troops out of Iraq within 90 days of taking office (bad idea to begin with - glad he didn't). Better yet, how many has he had to go back on?? And how many is he planning to go back on (proposing to raise taxes to pay off national debt)??

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2009, 01:17 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,164,267 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by riadkins View Post
For a president who has quadrupled the national deficit in less than a year in office...the prospect of national healthcare should scare any hard working, taxpaying American. Who is going to pay for this health care? Not the lazy people who are sitting at home looking for a handout. True Americans have lost jobs, but we're looking mostly at people who took jobs in unsecure industries to begin with. Maybe they should have pursued an education instead of being satisfied with being "Joe Six Pack". Or perhaps should have been smart about birth control. I was once out of work for a long time. I didn't cry about it. I didn't look for a handout. I got my butt out there and looked for a new job. It took a long time but I found one. But maybe that's the difference between a real American and someone who is just looking for the "American Dream". Problem is that today, that dream is no longer to get ahead by working hard, it's to get as much for free as you can by having to do absolutely NOTHING.
...but getting back on topic, I see no PROSPERITY in an age where doctors afford all the same luxuries and health care as the local gas station attendant. That is exactly where this country is headed if we let a national healthcare plan pass. It will be just another step toward Obama's socialist dream.

We're almost there with the bailout of American car manufacturers. Word is their bailout dept will be forgiven if they give control over to the federal govt. What about a FREE MARKET?? If the govt owns the car companies, the next step will be to over-tax or even BAN foreign cars from being owned. And you will have no choice but to own an American car. Hey, no big deal...because it is their value and reliability that kept them from needing a bailout in the first place, right?
Socialism may seem like a good idea, until you check the track record closely. Communism was built on socialism, and that didn't work for Russia. It would be a shame for the US to be like that country used to be - where a loaf of bread cost less than the wheat it took to make it? How does that work...with the govt having too much control and regulating EVERYTHING.
No need to debate this: a guy gets elected to presidency with only two years political experience, shady roots, and promises the lower class great things. How many promises has he kept so far? None (pulling troops out of Iraq within 90 days of taking office (bad idea to begin with - glad he didn't). Better yet, how many has he had to go back on?? And how many is he planning to go back on (proposing to raise taxes to pay off national debt)??
thanks for the input.

Could you give a link to Obama saying he'd pull the troops out in 90 days, please?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top