COMMENTS: 142
Pissed Off at the Corporate Banking Industry? Here's an Easy Way You Can Hurt Them
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
It's a bit like asking ExxonMobil to run the Environmental Protection Agency, or appointing Charles Keating to head the General Accounting Office.
The strange thing is that others in the administration, particularly those tasked with straightening out the auto industry, are taking the opposite -- and correct -- tact. They fired the head of GM and cleaned out GM's board of directors for good measure.
That's how you begin fixing stuff that's broke -- first you get rid of the folks who broke it. What you don't do is hand them billions of free bucks, a hearty slap on the back and a rousing "Now, go get 'em tiger!" (Because they will.)
But that's precisely what the administration is doing for America's failed money center banks. The nation's largest banks are often referred to as money market banks or money center banks.
In addition to the traditional markets, to be a money center bank today means to have a global presence as well as heavy involvement in wholesale banking with clients including many retail banks and large corporations. Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America fit this description. Here's a list of America's leading money center banks.
So, it appears we will have to take matters into our own hands. By "we" I mean anyone with a checking account, savings account or certificates of deposit. That, my friends, would be you. You are up at bat, and we're counting on you.
What we need to do is force the administration to do to these tumorlike institutions -- currently hiding behind the myth they are "too big to fail" -- what they just did to GM. Tell them that, since taxpayers are now major stakeholders, they must fire their senior management and either clean up the mess they made or face immediate seizure and liquidation.
And just how are you going to force such a change? It's just this simple:
1) If you bank with any of these money center banks, withdraw your funds immediately2) Go to this site and find an independent community bank in your area and deposit your funds there instead. (Credit unions are another excellent and safe alternative to banking a money center bank.)
That's it. That's the whole enchilada. The outflow of what bankers call "retail funds," if large enough, will become the final straw that breaks the backs of these bulls in our fiscal china shop.
But, you ask, will my money be safe in a small, community bank?
Of course it will be safe, just as safe, maybe safer, than it was at Citibank or BofA. First, community banks are covered by exactly the same deposit insurance as money center banks. But beyond that, community bankers are community bankers. They live in the communities they serve. They know their towns. And, most importantly, they know their borrowers.
Community banks are, for the most part, the last remaining healthy sector of American banking. If they are hurting at all, it's because their customers are losing their jobs, not because they lent a godzillion dollars to some fly-by-night schemer or invested in anything with an AIG logo on it.
A good community banker's definition of a toxic asset is more along the lines of Farmer Jones' wrecked pickup on which the bank holds the paper.
So, if you are customer of one of those money center banks, institutions currently hoarding hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout funds, walk right in, sit right down and tell them you want the dough that still has your name on it, and you want it now.
Otherwise these tumor-banks will survive Geithner's weak-kneed chemo treatments to emerge intact to pillage another day.
I don't know if what I am suggesting is legal or not. I remember back in 1983, when I wrote my first story about how a savings and loan was using deregulation to put taxpayers at risk. The thrift's lawyers contacted me at the paper and warned me that they were going monitor withdrawals and, if there were a lot of customers withdrawing their money, they ask that I be arrested and charge with breaking a federal law -- still on the books -- that made it illegal to spark a run on a bank.
I took my chances then, and was proved right. I'll take my chances again. So, run baby. Run.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: watergrl69 on Apr 1, 2009 1:22 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something else you can do. Amen!
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Something else you can do. Amen!
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» I don't bother with stock markets myself and thank God I'm free from them.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Something else you can do
Posted by: mr. joshua
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davidhhahn on Apr 1, 2009 1:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» he ain't gettin' snookered...he's in on it.
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Sure, Obama is just some poor naive guy getting snookered.
Posted by: EHarold
» Thanks for waking up. Unfortunately, you and I have a lot more to wake up around here.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Apr 1, 2009 2:39 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: emaho44
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: ellie
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2thepoint on Apr 1, 2009 2:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is dragging this nation down at a rapid rate and it will take years for a moderate to undo all the damage he's setting in place!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So he's dragging Bush's America down, eh?
Posted by: Beck
» There is no such thing as Bush's America. It is now Obama who is allowing dragging down
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: There is no such thing as Bush's America. It is now Obama who is allowing dragging down
Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: There is no such thing as Bush's America. It is now Obama who is allowing dragging down
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Obama didn't create it
Posted by: truthlover
» I believe that's what LMI and 2TP are trying to make clear.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» I didn't vote for him but I pray that he doesn't turn out to be President Doofus !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» How much more moderate do you need? Herbert Hoover?
Posted by: sausage
» RE: POINTY. Did you forget the chart from yesterday that showed........
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Bailout money
Posted by: truthlover
» BINGO ! DING DING DING !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: POINTY. Did you forget the chart from yesterday that showed........
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: POINTY. Did you forget the chart from yesterday that showed........
Posted by: Quannah
» This is some weak stuff
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: This is some weak stuff
Posted by: Spot
» RE: This is some weak stuff
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: This is some weak stuff
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Interesting, LMNOP and Beck have always been on the same team.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Is this a taunt? Oh no!
Posted by: LMNOP
» "liberal" ? I don't see any liberals here. Just barbarians.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» I don't see any WMDs. Who took those WMDs?
Posted by: LMNOP
» Hey LMNOP...
Posted by: Quannah
» Hey Quannah
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Hey Quannah
Posted by: Quannah
» Wow, Beck
Posted by: LMNOP
» So what's your definition of "liberal" to be honest?
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» You'll intuit my definition with time
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Phew!
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Play nice !
Posted by: fracuss
» Mr. Pointy Head...
Posted by: Quannah
» LOL
Posted by: LMNOP
» Actually.........
Posted by: 2thepoint
» Only the banksters
Posted by: truthlover
» RE: Play nice ! Ironic coming from a RWA troll....
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 1, 2009 4:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'll give the author credit for mentioning local banks and credit unions as the real solution.
Posted by: Karlh
» JenniferBedingfield and Karlh, great points but
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» And get in his van, too. He's got puppies.
Posted by: LMNOP
» And LMNOP and Quannah are busy kissing each other ! OOOOOO ! LOL !!
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Well, do you like her or like-like her?
Posted by: LMNOP
» Jennifer and Karlh...
Posted by: Quannah
» Quannah, what's wrong with you? You may have disagreements but you've gone too far.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Yeah, Quannah. Way too far.
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Yeah, Quannah. Way too far.
Posted by: Quannah
» No offense but sadly Quannah is a perfect example of why liberals lose in the long run.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: No offense but sadly Quannah is a perfect example of why liberals lose in the long run.
Posted by: Quannah
» What a true liberal would do
Posted by: LMNOP
» Whoa Quannah, telling people not to procreate is crossing the limits.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Uh-oh
Posted by: LMNOP
» Read my descriptive post above and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Jennifer and Karlh...
Posted by: 2thepoint
» What was the alternative?
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» no, the mistakes were already made by the election...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» undrgrndgirl, very well spoken and congrats but like jennifer and karlh,
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» stop resorting to the Big Lie and name the said "Obama worshipers" and give examples
Posted by: Suzon
» And you're a perfect example. And I thought I was a doofus.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Suzon = Quannah
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: Suzon = Quannah
Posted by: Quannah
» Never mind. Ooops. Sorry. Dag nabbit !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» "Step right up"
Posted by: LMNOP
» Is this what being "liberal" means?
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Well, I do want to be a true liberal
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: "Step right up"
Posted by: Quannah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nicnic on Apr 1, 2009 4:18 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Great reminder to those who forgot.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Apr 1, 2009 4:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One article lists the ratio of FDIC holdings as compared to total bank holdings at 1/101th of one cent for every dollar "insured."
From 9/15/08:
There’s been some concern today about WaMu and the money the FDIC sets aside to insure accounts in case of bank failures. From the Financial Times:
“Attention has focused on the danger presented by the failure of Lehman Brothers. But the failure of a commercial bank such as Washington Mutual can have systemic consequences if it threatens a run on other weak banks. The failure of a bank its size would test the strength of the US deposit insurance system and its ability to maintain the confidence of the nation’s savers….
“The FDIC is respected for its operational effectiveness. But its $45 [billion] deposit insurance fund is underfunded according to its own guidelines, at 1.01 per cent of insured deposits….
“[A]nalysts fear it may have to draw on its $70 [billion] Treasury credit lines. Alan Avery, a partner at Arnold and Porter, said a single failure - if big enough - ‘would cause the FDIC to immediately draw on the Treasury credit’.
“Washington Mutual had $143 [billion] in insured deposits on June 30 - about three times the size of the deposit insurance fund, but less than half of its $307 [billion] assets.”
I can’t image that the U.S. government wouldn’t somehow cover all the insured losses were WaMu to fail. The government isn’t going to allow another Depression-era run on banks; they need consumers to be secure in the U.S. banking system. But I did want to bring this to our readers’ attention.
The AlterNet article says put your money in credit unions, but the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is insured by the same Federal Government.
So, who are you going to believe, the Feds or an AlterNet author who claims "Of course it will be safe, just as safe, maybe safer, than it was at Citibank or BofA. First, community banks are covered by exactly the same deposit insurance as money center banks. But beyond that, community bankers are community bankers. They live in the communities they serve. They know their towns. And, most importantly, they know their borrowers." It doesn't matter whether your bank is the first, or last, to fail, there's not enough money in the FDIC/NCUA, and if the Treasury has to insure every account, what value will our money be then?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Think you missed the main point.
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» I think you made my point, main or otherwise.
Posted by: Overburdened Planet
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Apr 1, 2009 4:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To wit, Full Faith and Credit of U.S. Government Behind the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund
FDIC-87-36
November 9, 1987
Alan J. Kaplan, Counsel
Your October 7, 1987 letter asks whether the full faith and credit of the United States Government stands behind the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and its deposit insurance fund. You noted that in my earlier letter to you, dated August 26, 1985, I stated that a joint resolution of Congress (H.R. Con. Res. 290) adopted in March 1982, which reaffirmed that the United States pledges its full faith and credit behind the federal deposit insurance funds, may have served as a moral pledge on the part of Congress to support the deposit insurance funds should they ever need it, but, because of its status as a non-binding resolution, did not serve to create any legal liability on the part of the United States Government to support the funds. You now ask whether Congress has passed a statute that makes the United States Government legally liable for any and all obligations of the FDIC.
Title IX of the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 ("CEBA"), signed into law by President Reagan on August 10, 1987, provides:
TITLE IX–FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS / SEC. 901. REAFFIRMATION OF SECURITY OF FUNDS DEPOSITED
IN FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds and declares that-- 1) since the 1930's, the American people have relied upon Federal Deposit insurance to ensure the safety and security of their funds in federally insured depository institutions; and
2) the safety security [sic] of such funds is an essential element of the American financial system.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--In view of the findings and declarations contained in subsection (a), it is the sense of the Congress that it should reaffirm that deposits up to the statutorily prescribed amount in federally insured depository institutions are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
{{4-28-89 p.4278}}
While any final conclusion on this matter rests with the Attorney General of the United States and ultimately with the courts, it is our opinion that Title IX of CEBA merely represents an expression of the intent of Congress to support the FDIC's deposit insurance fund should the need arise. Title IX does not change any existing underlying law. It does not amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, nor does it or any other provision of CEBA alter the method by which the FDIC is funded. The FDIC continues to receive no government appropriations, and its funding continues to consist entirely of its income obtained from insurance assessments and from the return on investments made in government securities. In addition, the FDIC's statutory authority to borrow up to $3.0 billion from the Treasury remains unchanged.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Apr 1, 2009 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While any final conclusion on this matter rests with the Attorney General of the United States and ultimately with the courts, it is our opinion that Title IX of CEBA merely represents an expression of the intent of Congress to support the FDIC's deposit insurance fund should the need arise. Title IX does not change any existing underlying law. It does not amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, nor does it or any other provision of CEBA alter the method by which the FDIC is funded. The FDIC continues to receive no government appropriations, and its funding continues to consist entirely of its income obtained from insurance assessments and from the return on investments made in government securities. In addition, the FDIC's statutory authority to borrow up to $3.0 billion from the Treasury remains unchanged.
BASICALLY IT SAYS SCREW YOU.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: linecrosser on Apr 1, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ron Paul? Oh yeah !
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» No
Posted by: sausage
» linecrosser writes, "Ron Paul's looking pretty good now eh. "
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Ron Paul's a wingnut for what? Opposing the war in Iraq, drug war, bailouts to W$, etc ...?
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: olympia43 on Apr 1, 2009 6:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had BofA credit cards and they recently reduced my credit line to one tenth of what it had been. No warning but it let them charge me overlimit fees and thus to increase my interest rate. It also damaged my credit rating by reducing my assets. Needless to say, these will be paid off and not used again.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robertmc on Apr 1, 2009 6:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2) In addition to using financial services beholding to the community you live in, I would recommend that you hold a small portion of wealth in gold or silver as a backup plan should the SHTF. Also, you should have about a month's worth of cash on hand.
3) You're not encouraging a "run on the bank" because you haven't targeted a specific bank.
4) As far as FDIC insurance goes, it is backed by the full faith of the government. IF the FDIC runs low, they will back it up. Why? Because that is what stands between relative order and full blown chaos. The government is not going to risk a revolution over some money that they can easily print up. We are a well armed, short tempered nation that would go absolutely hog wild with violence should the people not have access to what little money they have.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh thank you ! And everyone used to laugh at me for being a lifelong credit union member !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: Why does anyone have money in the banks?
Posted by: Birdland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itelecom on Apr 1, 2009 6:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Below is an overview of Obama's top 14 selections to date. When considering their
collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things change
under Obama, the more they stay the same..
1.. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO
of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of policy development for IMF, member Group of Thirty (G30), employed at Kissinger & Associates, architect of the recent 2008 financial bailouts, mentored by Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin..
2.. PAUL VOLCKER – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ADVISORY BOARD
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral
Commission, Federal Reserve chairman during Carter and Reagan administrations, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, G30 member, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, key figure in the collapse of the gold standard during the Nixon administration, longtime associate of the Rockefeller family..
3.. RAHM EMANUEL – CHIEF OF STAFF
Member of Israeli Defense Force, staunch Zionist, senator, Board of Directors for
Freddie Mac, member of Bill Clinton's finance campaign committee, made $16.2 million during 2.5 years as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun terrorist group..
4.. LAWRENCE SUMMERS – NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, treasury secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, former president of Harvard University, Brookings Institute board member, huge proponent of globalization while working for the IMF, prot?g? of David Rockefeller, mentored by Robert Rubin..
5.. DAVID AXELROD – SENIOR ADVISOR
Political consultant whose past clients include Sens. Hillary Clinton, John
Edwards and Christopher Dodd; main Obama fixer in the William Ayers and Reverend Wright scandals..
6.. HILLARY CLINTON – SECRETARY OF STATE
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, clandestine CIA
asset used to infiltrate the anti-war movement at Yale University and the Watergate hearings, senior partner at the Rose Law Firm, key figure in the Mena drug trafficking affair, architect of the Waco disaster, implicated in the murder/cover-up of Vince Foster, and many other deaths..
7.. JOSEPH BIDEN – VICE PRESIDENT
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator since 1972, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, current chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strong Zionist sympathizer who recently told Rabbi Mark S. Golub of Shalom TV, "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.."
8.. BILL RICHARDSON – COMMERCE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. congressman, chairman of the
Democratic National Convention in 2004, employee of Kissinger Associates, UN
ambassador, governor of New Mexico, energy secretary, major player in the Monica
Lewinsky cover-up with Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan..
9.. ROBERT GATES – DEFENSE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director, defense secretary
under President Bush, co-chaired CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski, knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, named in a 1999 class action lawsuit pertaining to the Mena drug trafficking affair..
10.. TOM DASCHLE – HEALTH SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former Senate majority leader, Citibank
lackey, mentored by Robert Rubin..
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Tin foil hat a little tight this morning?
Posted by: sausage
» LOL!
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» This information is in the public domain
Posted by: truthlover
» Exactly except one more thing.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: Tin foil hat a little tight this morning?
Posted by: PhreedomPhan
» The ruling elites
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Apr 1, 2009 6:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 8 steps to dig out
Posted by: ellie
» RE: Here's A Way You Can Hurt Them
Posted by: medusa
» a lot of people simply can't do this...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Except that--
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: snax on Apr 1, 2009 7:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to stick it to the banks, default on your mortgage if you have significant negative equity. They've already been bailed out for their theft. YOU are going to making up for it in taxes and inflation. The only way now for those of us left with these sucker loans and negative equity to get bailed out as well is to let the big banks take their just deserts.
I feel absolutely screwed. Not because we took a mortgage out on our house that is now 30% higher than market value, but because it was a condition that the banks created by lending money they did not actually have, which could only ultimately result in the crash we are seeing now.
SCREW THEM!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bailing Out 30 Years of Theft
Posted by: fracuss
» bankruptcy not a bad idea
Posted by: deborama
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Apr 1, 2009 8:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh thank you Tim ! People laughed at me for being a lifelong credit union member.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Apr 1, 2009 8:53 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is impossible to "force" an administration to do anything as, the sneaking bastards in governemt~~ALL CLONED FROM THE SAME CHARLATAN GENES~have all the mechanisms of power in place to crush REAL American citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "We need to force the administration to"
Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: "We need to force the administration to"
Posted by: Birdland
» Since we can't get the administration to ...
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Apr 1, 2009 8:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . . .
Well, we've seen how well detox works for self-centered, out-of-control actors and actresses (Lindsay Lohan has a monogrammed coffee cup with her name on it at her rehab center), so I doubt that these self-centered, greedy money managers can be detoxed either. Besides, handing them billions of dollars of taxpayer money is not detox and it sure-as-hell is not "hosing them off"– WE, the taxpayers, are the only ones who are getting hosed. What Obama and Little Timmy Geithner are doing is supporting their habit, just like handing a case of whiskey to an alcoholic.
I think the best therapy for these guys would be to send them to skid row, by law through confiscation of profits from fraud, if necessary, and/or cage them in prison for their crimes so that they can't do any more harm (or kill any more people; folks who have life-threatening illnesses but have lost their jobs and thus their health insurance are in jeopardy of dying, and some will.)
Obama is doing exactly the wrong thing by enabeling the drunken pirates of Wall Street. Here's to hoping that at the G-20 meeting this week, he gets his ears pinned back by European leaders, who seem to be less the drooling groupies of the financial industry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fracuss on Apr 1, 2009 9:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since we now have an ownership share in many of these banks, why should we want them to do less well?
If your tax dollars are there, you should hold your nose and support them, regardless of their SFB executives.
Wouldn't you like to see some of your money returned to the Treasury?
Who do you suggest we call in to run these bank, Einstein? George Bush? We should put strict controls on them, but do you want all tax dollars in, or would you rather see private dollars sharing the risk. Sure they could get a good deal, but I don't see that you have a better idea.
Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. What were the authors proposals to fix the problem?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ownership
Posted by: truthlover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fracuss on Apr 1, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to Conservative propaganda, WWII was not the primary force behind defeat of the Depression. The economy picked up dramatically before the war. FDR had unemployment down to single digits before the U.S. became actively involved in the war. Improvement only dipped in 1938 because Sec. Tr. Morganteau convinced FDR to back off on the stimulas. FDR turned the spigot back on after this had dramatically bad results, and the economy began to improve again. He did benefit from WWII, prior to our involvement, by anticipating our involvement, and diverting stimulus funds into munitions manufacturing. He used the argument that being strong would help us remain neutral, but he knew we would be in the thick of it. Sometimes a despicable and back stabbing pol, he knew what the hell he was doing was for the good of the country. A man despised by many for abandoning his economic and social "class"; he was truly a man of the people and a true patriot...when that word really stood for something.
In short, he was a pragmatist. Sometimes playing to the left, and sometimes to the right. He was a master politician, and no doubt the greatest President of the 20th Century. Sorry people on the right, that title will never fall to Ronnie. No matter how many schools, streets, bridges and buildings you got named after him.
Ideology is one thing. Facts and history are quite another.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» EXCELLENT analysis, fracuss!
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» Too bad Obama ain't FDR
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Two months into his first term
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Two months into his first term
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» No one expects perfection, instant or otherwise
Posted by: truthlover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthlover on Apr 1, 2009 10:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last time I looked, there was no law against withdrawing your OWN money and putting it somewhere else (or even throwing it into the wind from a skyscraper!).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Some folks never learn until it hits them really hard.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: debmcd on Apr 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Service
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Apr 1, 2009 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop fad buying!!! Forget about getting the hot new anything. Every product created is made for a 'created need' not actual needs. A long time ago business found out if they produced to meet real needs,they wouldn't have expansive growth. So they created needs for stuff that wasn't truly necessary. Ipods, video games, DVD, Hi-Def DVD, Blueray CD's,mini disc's, MP3's,MP4's gas guzzling SUV's all bullshit!!! A $600 telephone??!!?
Strip yourself down to just what your needs are,your real needs. You'll not only be saving a buttload of money but you life will be much simpler. You'll have money in your pocket from not paying for all those apps for you phone and you'll find something that's been missing in your life for a long time...Happiness.
This country's business model is grand over-producing. We make cars that are junk,right off the factory floor,waste gas, foul the air and are highly unsafe. When a kid on a tricycle can do $1000 damage by running into you,your car is an unsafe piece of shit and it cost you $25,000.
Buy an older car that you can own outright. Then the only expense will be gas and maintainance, no bank payments,no intrest payments,more money for you. Which is the idea. Put money where it's really needed. IN YOUR POCKET!! Not the banks. What did they do for you anyway, Charge you fees for writting a check,fees for not having enough in your checking acct,fees for a savings acct,fees for funds transfers,fees for walking through the door and a fee for closing your acct. Who needs it? Not me,not you,not anyone. They screwed all of us and how are these thieves taken care of...Trillion dollar bailouts for being a total fuckup!!
Or is that what you really want in a banking system?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» DO NOT go to WalMart
Posted by: westomoon
» Fine, except
Posted by: truthlover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Apr 1, 2009 2:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kedikat on Apr 1, 2009 3:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While there are still alternatives, they have to be taken and strengthened. Vote with your dollars, with your choices. You can vote every single day in many ways.
If wall street owns the representatives, it is possible to bankrupt that ownership in many ways. If the rotten core of the financial sector is gutted, they have no more influence. transfer that influence to where you want it with every dollar you spend, save or invest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 1, 2009 3:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: judyinwash on Apr 1, 2009 3:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Apr 1, 2009 9:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Apr 2, 2009 3:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelman on Apr 5, 2009 4:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much is $1 trillion? Consider this: A million seconds is 11.5 days. A billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion seconds is 32,000 years. We must strongly oppose the move to make ours a socialist country.
This reckless DEMOCRAT spending is a moral issue. We are passing on to our grandchildren a debt that we created. Every man, woman and child in the country already owes $35,000, and we are piling more debt on them. We are robbing them of their right to enjoy the American Dream.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: baldhawk on Apr 7, 2009 4:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may still work if (b) above is done. But chances are the big banks will use their huge reserves of TARP to buy out those banks to which depositors move their money. They've already done so, and will do so again.
We are at the point of no return:
1. Wall Street and the financial community ARE the government; they ask and they get what they want. They got TARP, and got bailout, holding now reserves far in excess of what's necessary to start lending. But lending has not been restored to any thing which can be called Normal.
2. TARP and ARRA are primarily distributed through the financial community; little of any is being given to companies or individuals.
3. We added more money to a system that didn't work, before fixing it. If a car doesn't run, filling the tank wont get it to run. We told Obama, "Fix the system first, then finance it." He doesn't hear people; when he can't any longer afford to ignore them, he laughs them off, like he did with the "Open for Questions" were changing the drug policy (marijuana) had received the highest number of votes in the whitehouse.gov site, an indication people wanted to get an answer from the President.
4. The Fed will buy trillions in US securities, thereby flooding the banks reserves (reason they give for doing so).
5. AIG Bonuses will still be paid. No legislation to tax it, nor to forbid it (Why forbid it? Geithner injected the loophole in ARRA in the first place at the 11th hour, when there was no time for public feedback, and the final version wasn't released until the day scheduled to be signed by the President). There will be others and we won't hear about; when we do, we'll make noise, and Obama will again express public outrage; the administration will ride out the wave of discontent, but nothing will be done.
6. Obama has backed off from most of his promises with regards to talking back to power... by legislation he said he would support. Others he simply didn't implement. ARRA are the very Bush plan with no real changes to economic policy. Obama will follow, as he has so far, the Reagan policies of trickling the wealth down.
7. Bush taxes have not been rescinded. Why? "Ah, well, they will trickle it down..."
People are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and bought into his "it will take time, and we'll have to make many hard choices." This is empty statements using "trust me" capital, to get people to back off from complaining or fighting his misguided direction.
The net has hundreds of economist and alternative proposals which have been utterly ignored. On health care, all polls show large majorities support a universal system, comparable to single payer system of Canada and other countries, but the topic didn't come up in Obama's health conference, and nobody from the "universal" system was invited to the conference.
To assume that we are in for a change in course is stupidity, and a fundamental lack of sense in recognizing that what has in fact happened is what was intended by the leaders in the first place. The Presidency has the power to make the kind of sweeping changes that can turn the real economy around in a matter of months. Yet he spends time telling us that the financial markets need to be fixed first. This is essentially FALSE.
.... comment size is limited; I will add the last portion to an a "reply" to this comment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The point of No Return
Posted by: baldhawk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: baldhawk on Apr 7, 2009 7:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went through the process you suggested, and located a "community bank." After browsing a while, I saw that Nevada Security Bank, has a number of branches, and it was owned by The Bank Holdings, who has recently made a public statement to participate in the Capital Purchase Program, under TARP.
(Details: The Bank Holdings Press Release)
This means that they will sell shares to the primary regulator and receive capital. Remember, TARP is "troubled assets relief program." Why would they apply, if there wasn't any trouble? Just to make raise money for potential future profit?
As I said earlier, it is likely that big TARP recipients have no obligation to distribute what they receive through loans to the public.
This adds up to that we the public, have been had.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: watergrl69 on Apr 1, 2009 1:22 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something else you can do. Amen!
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Something else you can do. Amen!
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» I don't bother with stock markets myself and thank God I'm free from them.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Something else you can do
Posted by: mr. joshua
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davidhhahn on Apr 1, 2009 1:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» he ain't gettin' snookered...he's in on it.
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Sure, Obama is just some poor naive guy getting snookered.
Posted by: EHarold
» Thanks for waking up. Unfortunately, you and I have a lot more to wake up around here.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Apr 1, 2009 2:39 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: emaho44
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: ellie
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Credit Unions...
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2thepoint on Apr 1, 2009 2:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is dragging this nation down at a rapid rate and it will take years for a moderate to undo all the damage he's setting in place!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So he's dragging Bush's America down, eh?
Posted by: Beck
» There is no such thing as Bush's America. It is now Obama who is allowing dragging down
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: There is no such thing as Bush's America. It is now Obama who is allowing dragging down
Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: There is no such thing as Bush's America. It is now Obama who is allowing dragging down
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Obama didn't create it
Posted by: truthlover
» I believe that's what LMI and 2TP are trying to make clear.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» I didn't vote for him but I pray that he doesn't turn out to be President Doofus !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» How much more moderate do you need? Herbert Hoover?
Posted by: sausage
» RE: POINTY. Did you forget the chart from yesterday that showed........
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Bailout money
Posted by: truthlover
» BINGO ! DING DING DING !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: POINTY. Did you forget the chart from yesterday that showed........
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: POINTY. Did you forget the chart from yesterday that showed........
Posted by: Quannah
» This is some weak stuff
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: This is some weak stuff
Posted by: Spot
» RE: This is some weak stuff
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: This is some weak stuff
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Interesting, LMNOP and Beck have always been on the same team.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Is this a taunt? Oh no!
Posted by: LMNOP
» "liberal" ? I don't see any liberals here. Just barbarians.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» I don't see any WMDs. Who took those WMDs?
Posted by: LMNOP
» Hey LMNOP...
Posted by: Quannah
» Hey Quannah
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Hey Quannah
Posted by: Quannah
» Wow, Beck
Posted by: LMNOP
» So what's your definition of "liberal" to be honest?
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» You'll intuit my definition with time
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Phew!
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Play nice !
Posted by: fracuss
» Mr. Pointy Head...
Posted by: Quannah
» LOL
Posted by: LMNOP
» Actually.........
Posted by: 2thepoint
» Only the banksters
Posted by: truthlover
» RE: Play nice ! Ironic coming from a RWA troll....
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 1, 2009 4:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'll give the author credit for mentioning local banks and credit unions as the real solution.
Posted by: Karlh
» JenniferBedingfield and Karlh, great points but
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» And get in his van, too. He's got puppies.
Posted by: LMNOP
» And LMNOP and Quannah are busy kissing each other ! OOOOOO ! LOL !!
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Well, do you like her or like-like her?
Posted by: LMNOP
» Jennifer and Karlh...
Posted by: Quannah
» Quannah, what's wrong with you? You may have disagreements but you've gone too far.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Yeah, Quannah. Way too far.
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Yeah, Quannah. Way too far.
Posted by: Quannah
» No offense but sadly Quannah is a perfect example of why liberals lose in the long run.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: No offense but sadly Quannah is a perfect example of why liberals lose in the long run.
Posted by: Quannah
» What a true liberal would do
Posted by: LMNOP
» Whoa Quannah, telling people not to procreate is crossing the limits.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Uh-oh
Posted by: LMNOP
» Read my descriptive post above and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Jennifer and Karlh...
Posted by: 2thepoint
» What was the alternative?
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» no, the mistakes were already made by the election...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» undrgrndgirl, very well spoken and congrats but like jennifer and karlh,
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» stop resorting to the Big Lie and name the said "Obama worshipers" and give examples
Posted by: Suzon
» And you're a perfect example. And I thought I was a doofus.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Suzon = Quannah
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: Suzon = Quannah
Posted by: Quannah
» Never mind. Ooops. Sorry. Dag nabbit !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» "Step right up"
Posted by: LMNOP
» Is this what being "liberal" means?
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» Well, I do want to be a true liberal
Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: "Step right up"
Posted by: Quannah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nicnic on Apr 1, 2009 4:18 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Great reminder to those who forgot.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Apr 1, 2009 4:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One article lists the ratio of FDIC holdings as compared to total bank holdings at 1/101th of one cent for every dollar "insured."
From 9/15/08:
There’s been some concern today about WaMu and the money the FDIC sets aside to insure accounts in case of bank failures. From the Financial Times:
“Attention has focused on the danger presented by the failure of Lehman Brothers. But the failure of a commercial bank such as Washington Mutual can have systemic consequences if it threatens a run on other weak banks. The failure of a bank its size would test the strength of the US deposit insurance system and its ability to maintain the confidence of the nation’s savers….
“The FDIC is respected for its operational effectiveness. But its $45 [billion] deposit insurance fund is underfunded according to its own guidelines, at 1.01 per cent of insured deposits….
“[A]nalysts fear it may have to draw on its $70 [billion] Treasury credit lines. Alan Avery, a partner at Arnold and Porter, said a single failure - if big enough - ‘would cause the FDIC to immediately draw on the Treasury credit’.
“Washington Mutual had $143 [billion] in insured deposits on June 30 - about three times the size of the deposit insurance fund, but less than half of its $307 [billion] assets.”
I can’t image that the U.S. government wouldn’t somehow cover all the insured losses were WaMu to fail. The government isn’t going to allow another Depression-era run on banks; they need consumers to be secure in the U.S. banking system. But I did want to bring this to our readers’ attention.
The AlterNet article says put your money in credit unions, but the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is insured by the same Federal Government.
So, who are you going to believe, the Feds or an AlterNet author who claims "Of course it will be safe, just as safe, maybe safer, than it was at Citibank or BofA. First, community banks are covered by exactly the same deposit insurance as money center banks. But beyond that, community bankers are community bankers. They live in the communities they serve. They know their towns. And, most importantly, they know their borrowers." It doesn't matter whether your bank is the first, or last, to fail, there's not enough money in the FDIC/NCUA, and if the Treasury has to insure every account, what value will our money be then?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Think you missed the main point.
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» I think you made my point, main or otherwise.
Posted by: Overburdened Planet
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Apr 1, 2009 4:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To wit, Full Faith and Credit of U.S. Government Behind the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund
FDIC-87-36
November 9, 1987
Alan J. Kaplan, Counsel
Your October 7, 1987 letter asks whether the full faith and credit of the United States Government stands behind the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and its deposit insurance fund. You noted that in my earlier letter to you, dated August 26, 1985, I stated that a joint resolution of Congress (H.R. Con. Res. 290) adopted in March 1982, which reaffirmed that the United States pledges its full faith and credit behind the federal deposit insurance funds, may have served as a moral pledge on the part of Congress to support the deposit insurance funds should they ever need it, but, because of its status as a non-binding resolution, did not serve to create any legal liability on the part of the United States Government to support the funds. You now ask whether Congress has passed a statute that makes the United States Government legally liable for any and all obligations of the FDIC.
Title IX of the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 ("CEBA"), signed into law by President Reagan on August 10, 1987, provides:
TITLE IX–FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS / SEC. 901. REAFFIRMATION OF SECURITY OF FUNDS DEPOSITED
IN FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds and declares that-- 1) since the 1930's, the American people have relied upon Federal Deposit insurance to ensure the safety and security of their funds in federally insured depository institutions; and
2) the safety security [sic] of such funds is an essential element of the American financial system.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--In view of the findings and declarations contained in subsection (a), it is the sense of the Congress that it should reaffirm that deposits up to the statutorily prescribed amount in federally insured depository institutions are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
{{4-28-89 p.4278}}
While any final conclusion on this matter rests with the Attorney General of the United States and ultimately with the courts, it is our opinion that Title IX of CEBA merely represents an expression of the intent of Congress to support the FDIC's deposit insurance fund should the need arise. Title IX does not change any existing underlying law. It does not amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, nor does it or any other provision of CEBA alter the method by which the FDIC is funded. The FDIC continues to receive no government appropriations, and its funding continues to consist entirely of its income obtained from insurance assessments and from the return on investments made in government securities. In addition, the FDIC's statutory authority to borrow up to $3.0 billion from the Treasury remains unchanged.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Apr 1, 2009 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While any final conclusion on this matter rests with the Attorney General of the United States and ultimately with the courts, it is our opinion that Title IX of CEBA merely represents an expression of the intent of Congress to support the FDIC's deposit insurance fund should the need arise. Title IX does not change any existing underlying law. It does not amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, nor does it or any other provision of CEBA alter the method by which the FDIC is funded. The FDIC continues to receive no government appropriations, and its funding continues to consist entirely of its income obtained from insurance assessments and from the return on investments made in government securities. In addition, the FDIC's statutory authority to borrow up to $3.0 billion from the Treasury remains unchanged.
BASICALLY IT SAYS SCREW YOU.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: linecrosser on Apr 1, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ron Paul? Oh yeah !
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» No
Posted by: sausage
» linecrosser writes, "Ron Paul's looking pretty good now eh. "
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Ron Paul's a wingnut for what? Opposing the war in Iraq, drug war, bailouts to W$, etc ...?
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: olympia43 on Apr 1, 2009 6:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had BofA credit cards and they recently reduced my credit line to one tenth of what it had been. No warning but it let them charge me overlimit fees and thus to increase my interest rate. It also damaged my credit rating by reducing my assets. Needless to say, these will be paid off and not used again.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robertmc on Apr 1, 2009 6:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2) In addition to using financial services beholding to the community you live in, I would recommend that you hold a small portion of wealth in gold or silver as a backup plan should the SHTF. Also, you should have about a month's worth of cash on hand.
3) You're not encouraging a "run on the bank" because you haven't targeted a specific bank.
4) As far as FDIC insurance goes, it is backed by the full faith of the government. IF the FDIC runs low, they will back it up. Why? Because that is what stands between relative order and full blown chaos. The government is not going to risk a revolution over some money that they can easily print up. We are a well armed, short tempered nation that would go absolutely hog wild with violence should the people not have access to what little money they have.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh thank you ! And everyone used to laugh at me for being a lifelong credit union member !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: Why does anyone have money in the banks?
Posted by: Birdland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itelecom on Apr 1, 2009 6:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Below is an overview of Obama's top 14 selections to date. When considering their
collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things change
under Obama, the more they stay the same..
1.. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO
of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of policy development for IMF, member Group of Thirty (G30), employed at Kissinger & Associates, architect of the recent 2008 financial bailouts, mentored by Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin..
2.. PAUL VOLCKER – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ADVISORY BOARD
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral
Commission, Federal Reserve chairman during Carter and Reagan administrations, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, G30 member, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, key figure in the collapse of the gold standard during the Nixon administration, longtime associate of the Rockefeller family..
3.. RAHM EMANUEL – CHIEF OF STAFF
Member of Israeli Defense Force, staunch Zionist, senator, Board of Directors for
Freddie Mac, member of Bill Clinton's finance campaign committee, made $16.2 million during 2.5 years as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun terrorist group..
4.. LAWRENCE SUMMERS – NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, treasury secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, former president of Harvard University, Brookings Institute board member, huge proponent of globalization while working for the IMF, prot?g? of David Rockefeller, mentored by Robert Rubin..
5.. DAVID AXELROD – SENIOR ADVISOR
Political consultant whose past clients include Sens. Hillary Clinton, John
Edwards and Christopher Dodd; main Obama fixer in the William Ayers and Reverend Wright scandals..
6.. HILLARY CLINTON – SECRETARY OF STATE
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, clandestine CIA
asset used to infiltrate the anti-war movement at Yale University and the Watergate hearings, senior partner at the Rose Law Firm, key figure in the Mena drug trafficking affair, architect of the Waco disaster, implicated in the murder/cover-up of Vince Foster, and many other deaths..
7.. JOSEPH BIDEN – VICE PRESIDENT
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator since 1972, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, current chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strong Zionist sympathizer who recently told Rabbi Mark S. Golub of Shalom TV, "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.."
8.. BILL RICHARDSON – COMMERCE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. congressman, chairman of the
Democratic National Convention in 2004, employee of Kissinger Associates, UN
ambassador, governor of New Mexico, energy secretary, major player in the Monica
Lewinsky cover-up with Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan..
9.. ROBERT GATES – DEFENSE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director, defense secretary
under President Bush, co-chaired CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski, knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, named in a 1999 class action lawsuit pertaining to the Mena drug trafficking affair..
10.. TOM DASCHLE – HEALTH SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former Senate majority leader, Citibank
lackey, mentored by Robert Rubin..
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Tin foil hat a little tight this morning?
Posted by: sausage
» LOL!
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» This information is in the public domain
Posted by: truthlover
» Exactly except one more thing.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: Tin foil hat a little tight this morning?
Posted by: PhreedomPhan
» The ruling elites
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Apr 1, 2009 6:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 8 steps to dig out
Posted by: ellie
» RE: Here's A Way You Can Hurt Them
Posted by: medusa
» a lot of people simply can't do this...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Except that--
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: snax on Apr 1, 2009 7:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to stick it to the banks, default on your mortgage if you have significant negative equity. They've already been bailed out for their theft. YOU are going to making up for it in taxes and inflation. The only way now for those of us left with these sucker loans and negative equity to get bailed out as well is to let the big banks take their just deserts.
I feel absolutely screwed. Not because we took a mortgage out on our house that is now 30% higher than market value, but because it was a condition that the banks created by lending money they did not actually have, which could only ultimately result in the crash we are seeing now.
SCREW THEM!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bailing Out 30 Years of Theft
Posted by: fracuss
» bankruptcy not a bad idea
Posted by: deborama
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Apr 1, 2009 8:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh thank you Tim ! People laughed at me for being a lifelong credit union member.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Apr 1, 2009 8:53 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is impossible to "force" an administration to do anything as, the sneaking bastards in governemt~~ALL CLONED FROM THE SAME CHARLATAN GENES~have all the mechanisms of power in place to crush REAL American citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "We need to force the administration to"
Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: "We need to force the administration to"
Posted by: Birdland
» Since we can't get the administration to ...
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Apr 1, 2009 8:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . . .
Well, we've seen how well detox works for self-centered, out-of-control actors and actresses (Lindsay Lohan has a monogrammed coffee cup with her name on it at her rehab center), so I doubt that these self-centered, greedy money managers can be detoxed either. Besides, handing them billions of dollars of taxpayer money is not detox and it sure-as-hell is not "hosing them off"– WE, the taxpayers, are the only ones who are getting hosed. What Obama and Little Timmy Geithner are doing is supporting their habit, just like handing a case of whiskey to an alcoholic.
I think the best therapy for these guys would be to send them to skid row, by law through confiscation of profits from fraud, if necessary, and/or cage them in prison for their crimes so that they can't do any more harm (or kill any more people; folks who have life-threatening illnesses but have lost their jobs and thus their health insurance are in jeopardy of dying, and some will.)
Obama is doing exactly the wrong thing by enabeling the drunken pirates of Wall Street. Here's to hoping that at the G-20 meeting this week, he gets his ears pinned back by European leaders, who seem to be less the drooling groupies of the financial industry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fracuss on Apr 1, 2009 9:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since we now have an ownership share in many of these banks, why should we want them to do less well?
If your tax dollars are there, you should hold your nose and support them, regardless of their SFB executives.
Wouldn't you like to see some of your money returned to the Treasury?
Who do you suggest we call in to run these bank, Einstein? George Bush? We should put strict controls on them, but do you want all tax dollars in, or would you rather see private dollars sharing the risk. Sure they could get a good deal, but I don't see that you have a better idea.
Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. What were the authors proposals to fix the problem?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ownership
Posted by: truthlover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fracuss on Apr 1, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to Conservative propaganda, WWII was not the primary force behind defeat of the Depression. The economy picked up dramatically before the war. FDR had unemployment down to single digits before the U.S. became actively involved in the war. Improvement only dipped in 1938 because Sec. Tr. Morganteau convinced FDR to back off on the stimulas. FDR turned the spigot back on after this had dramatically bad results, and the economy began to improve again. He did benefit from WWII, prior to our involvement, by anticipating our involvement, and diverting stimulus funds into munitions manufacturing. He used the argument that being strong would help us remain neutral, but he knew we would be in the thick of it. Sometimes a despicable and back stabbing pol, he knew what the hell he was doing was for the good of the country. A man despised by many for abandoning his economic and social "class"; he was truly a man of the people and a true patriot...when that word really stood for something.
In short, he was a pragmatist. Sometimes playing to the left, and sometimes to the right. He was a master politician, and no doubt the greatest President of the 20th Century. Sorry people on the right, that title will never fall to Ronnie. No matter how many schools, streets, bridges and buildings you got named after him.
Ideology is one thing. Facts and history are quite another.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» EXCELLENT analysis, fracuss!
Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» Too bad Obama ain't FDR
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» Two months into his first term
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Two months into his first term
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» No one expects perfection, instant or otherwise
Posted by: truthlover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthlover on Apr 1, 2009 10:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last time I looked, there was no law against withdrawing your OWN money and putting it somewhere else (or even throwing it into the wind from a skyscraper!).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Some folks never learn until it hits them really hard.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: debmcd on Apr 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Service
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Apr 1, 2009 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop fad buying!!! Forget about getting the hot new anything. Every product created is made for a 'created need' not actual needs. A long time ago business found out if they produced to meet real needs,they wouldn't have expansive growth. So they created needs for stuff that wasn't truly necessary. Ipods, video games, DVD, Hi-Def DVD, Blueray CD's,mini disc's, MP3's,MP4's gas guzzling SUV's all bullshit!!! A $600 telephone??!!?
Strip yourself down to just what your needs are,your real needs. You'll not only be saving a buttload of money but you life will be much simpler. You'll have money in your pocket from not paying for all those apps for you phone and you'll find something that's been missing in your life for a long time...Happiness.
This country's business model is grand over-producing. We make cars that are junk,right off the factory floor,waste gas, foul the air and are highly unsafe. When a kid on a tricycle can do $1000 damage by running into you,your car is an unsafe piece of shit and it cost you $25,000.
Buy an older car that you can own outright. Then the only expense will be gas and maintainance, no bank payments,no intrest payments,more money for you. Which is the idea. Put money where it's really needed. IN YOUR POCKET!! Not the banks. What did they do for you anyway, Charge you fees for writting a check,fees for not having enough in your checking acct,fees for a savings acct,fees for funds transfers,fees for walking through the door and a fee for closing your acct. Who needs it? Not me,not you,not anyone. They screwed all of us and how are these thieves taken care of...Trillion dollar bailouts for being a total fuckup!!
Or is that what you really want in a banking system?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» DO NOT go to WalMart
Posted by: westomoon
» Fine, except
Posted by: truthlover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Apr 1, 2009 2:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kedikat on Apr 1, 2009 3:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While there are still alternatives, they have to be taken and strengthened. Vote with your dollars, with your choices. You can vote every single day in many ways.
If wall street owns the representatives, it is possible to bankrupt that ownership in many ways. If the rotten core of the financial sector is gutted, they have no more influence. transfer that influence to where you want it with every dollar you spend, save or invest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 1, 2009 3:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: judyinwash on Apr 1, 2009 3:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Apr 1, 2009 9:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Apr 2, 2009 3:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelman on Apr 5, 2009 4:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much is $1 trillion? Consider this: A million seconds is 11.5 days. A billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion seconds is 32,000 years. We must strongly oppose the move to make ours a socialist country.
This reckless DEMOCRAT spending is a moral issue. We are passing on to our grandchildren a debt that we created. Every man, woman and child in the country already owes $35,000, and we are piling more debt on them. We are robbing them of their right to enjoy the American Dream.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: baldhawk on Apr 7, 2009 4:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may still work if (b) above is done. But chances are the big banks will use their huge reserves of TARP to buy out those banks to which depositors move their money. They've already done so, and will do so again.
We are at the point of no return:
1. Wall Street and the financial community ARE the government; they ask and they get what they want. They got TARP, and got bailout, holding now reserves far in excess of what's necessary to start lending. But lending has not been restored to any thing which can be called Normal.
2. TARP and ARRA are primarily distributed through the financial community; little of any is being given to companies or individuals.
3. We added more money to a system that didn't work, before fixing it. If a car doesn't run, filling the tank wont get it to run. We told Obama, "Fix the system first, then finance it." He doesn't hear people; when he can't any longer afford to ignore them, he laughs them off, like he did with the "Open for Questions" were changing the drug policy (marijuana) had received the highest number of votes in the whitehouse.gov site, an indication people wanted to get an answer from the President.
4. The Fed will buy trillions in US securities, thereby flooding the banks reserves (reason they give for doing so).
5. AIG Bonuses will still be paid. No legislation to tax it, nor to forbid it (Why forbid it? Geithner injected the loophole in ARRA in the first place at the 11th hour, when there was no time for public feedback, and the final version wasn't released until the day scheduled to be signed by the President). There will be others and we won't hear about; when we do, we'll make noise, and Obama will again express public outrage; the administration will ride out the wave of discontent, but nothing will be done.
6. Obama has backed off from most of his promises with regards to talking back to power... by legislation he said he would support. Others he simply didn't implement. ARRA are the very Bush plan with no real changes to economic policy. Obama will follow, as he has so far, the Reagan policies of trickling the wealth down.
7. Bush taxes have not been rescinded. Why? "Ah, well, they will trickle it down..."
People are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and bought into his "it will take time, and we'll have to make many hard choices." This is empty statements using "trust me" capital, to get people to back off from complaining or fighting his misguided direction.
The net has hundreds of economist and alternative proposals which have been utterly ignored. On health care, all polls show large majorities support a universal system, comparable to single payer system of Canada and other countries, but the topic didn't come up in Obama's health conference, and nobody from the "universal" system was invited to the conference.
To assume that we are in for a change in course is stupidity, and a fundamental lack of sense in recognizing that what has in fact happened is what was intended by the leaders in the first place. The Presidency has the power to make the kind of sweeping changes that can turn the real economy around in a matter of months. Yet he spends time telling us that the financial markets need to be fixed first. This is essentially FALSE.
.... comment size is limited; I will add the last portion to an a "reply" to this comment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The point of No Return
Posted by: baldhawk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: baldhawk on Apr 7, 2009 7:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went through the process you suggested, and located a "community bank." After browsing a while, I saw that Nevada Security Bank, has a number of branches, and it was owned by The Bank Holdings, who has recently made a public statement to participate in the Capital Purchase Program, under TARP.
(Details: The Bank Holdings Press Release)
This means that they will sell shares to the primary regulator and receive capital. Remember, TARP is "troubled assets relief program." Why would they apply, if there wasn't any trouble? Just to make raise money for potential future profit?
As I said earlier, it is likely that big TARP recipients have no obligation to distribute what they receive through loans to the public.
This adds up to that we the public, have been had.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Home Underwater? Walk Away from Geithner's Perverse 'Homeowner Relief' Plan
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign




