What are San Franciscans thinking?

[RVonse]

Huh? Trump threatened to kill the homeless?

No, Californians. We're to receive no more disaster assistance. You were wondering why we hate the asshole.

It's adorable how he picks and chooses which Americans he serves. Didn't know the president can do that.

Oh yea, they do that all the time. Like when Bush and Obama decided to help out the Wall Street bankers instead of the middle class.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's adorable how he picks and chooses which Americans he serves. Didn't know the president can do that.

Oh yea, they do that all the time. Like when Bush and Obama decided to help out the Wall Street bankers instead of the middle class.

Technically speaking, had TARP not been passed and signed, the middle class would have had nothing as capital credit froze in place. Companies wouldn't have been able to pay workers.

 

[RVonse]

It's adorable how he picks and chooses which Americans he serves. Didn't know the president can do that.

Oh yea, they do that all the time. Like when Bush and Obama decided to help out the Wall Street bankers instead of the middle class.

Technically speaking, had TARP not been passed and signed, the middle class would have had nothing as capital credit froze in place. Companies wouldn't have been able to pay workers.

You can spin it that way if you like. But like it or not, TARP was the beginnings of both the tea party and Occupy Wall Street movements. They could have bailed out the homeowners but our executive branch and congress chose to bail out Wall Street.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Technically speaking, had TARP not been passed and signed, the middle class would have had nothing as capital credit froze in place. Companies wouldn't have been able to pay workers.

You can spin it that way if you like.

It's not spin. TARP happened because the large monopoly banks no longer trusted each other and would only lend from the government. This was the Ted Spread spike. It was heading to a point where money wasn't going to be changing hands and if it isn't changing hands, it is frozen. Many companies don't have much cash or assets and their business is based on a revolving credit limit established by their incoming receipts. Without access to the credit any more in a cash freeze, they can't pay anyone.

But like it or not, TARP was the beginnings of both the tea party and Occupy Wall Street movements.

The Tea Party movement was born via a Democrat getting elected as President.

They could have bailed out the homeowners but our executive branch and congress chose to bail out Wall Street.

There are regrettable results from 2008 with home ownership, such as huge swaths of properties being bought up real cheap by private equity firms. And there are questions as to why Treasury wanted to act only once Goldman Sach's ass was hanging out in the wind with the AIG failure looming.

Big picture-wise, how does bailing out the homeowners deal with the capital deficits the major banks were dealing with? How quickly can that be done? TARP was the only real immediate solution to a major problem the Government and Fed helped create. And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

 

[RVonse]

And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

That's the only thing I agree with.

There were many other possible solutions but they could have:

1. Let the too big to fail banks fail
2. Abolished the fed
3. nationalized banking like Andrew Jackson did
4. Inject liquidity only where it was needed
5. Provide relief for distressed homeowners

And probably have done this a lot cheaper as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

That's the only thing I agree with.

There were many other possible solutions but they could have:

1. Let the too big to fail banks fail

Tens to hundreds of trillions in assets... goes where?

2. Abolished the fed

That doesn't address the credit freeze.

3. nationalized banking like Andrew Jackson did

The GOP wanted to boycott TARP. No way the Government gets the votes to nationalize the banks.

4. Inject liquidity only where it was needed

That's kind of what they did.

5. Provide relief for distressed homeowners

This sounds wonderful... in theory. How in the heck do we manage it in reality? We are talking about providing relief to people in homes they can't afford... which is why they can't afford the mortgage. It required a fucked up short-term loan set up to make it possible in the first place.

And probably have done this a lot cheaper as well.

There was no cheap way out of the '08 crash.

 

[RVonse]

Tens to hundreds of trillions in assets... goes where?

2. Abolished the fed

That doesn't address the credit freeze.

3. nationalized banking like Andrew Jackson did

The GOP wanted to boycott TARP. No way the Government gets the votes to nationalize the banks.

4. Inject liquidity only where it was needed

That's kind of what they did.

5. Provide relief for distressed homeowners

This sounds wonderful... in theory. How in the heck do we manage it in reality? We are talking about providing relief to people in homes they can't afford... which is why they can't afford the mortgage. It required a fucked up short-term loan set up to make it possible in the first place.

And probably have done this a lot cheaper as well.

There was no cheap way out of the '08 crash.

Or they could have done nothing at all and let the bank panic unfold as it did in the 1930's. It is very likely that another depression was not avoided anyway but we shall see.

There are many learned people including Peter Schiff who believe another depression can not be prevented artificially and is still on the way. As we speak the fed is attempting to prevent a similar credit freeze from taking place between some of the main banksters. That certainly does not sound very healthy to me. And negative interest rates will be arriving shortly.

Im definitely not convinced TARP was the best solution and there are many others who agree with that.

 

[J842P]

It's adorable how he picks and chooses which Americans he serves. Didn't know the president can do that.

Oh yea, they do that all the time. Like when Bush and Obama decided to help out the Wall Street bankers instead of the middle class.

Technically speaking, had TARP not been passed and signed, the middle class would have had nothing as capital credit froze in place. Companies wouldn't have been able to pay workers.

Yes, and the only possible way to prevent any of this was for the financial sector being bailed out by their buddy's in the Fed and the Treasury Department, maintaining the system that caused the whole disastrous situation in the first place. They couldn't think of any other possible way except giving the financial sector a large loan to keep them afloat. Nothing to see here folks...

 

[J842P]

Big picture-wise, how does bailing out the homeowners deal with the capital deficits the major banks were dealing with? How quickly can that be done? TARP was the only real immediate solution to a major problem the Government and Fed helped create. And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

Just print the money and give it to people. That's what the ended up doing after TARP anyway, just instead of giving it to people, they gave it to banks.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They have almost (and still might, after recounts and such) elected a son of two Weather Underground terrorists, who was raised by two other Weather Underground terrorists, for SF DA.
He also worked for the Hugo Chavez regime in the 2000s.
Too close to call: Suzy Loftus leads Chesa Boudin by 240 votes in SF district attorney race

I don't believe in blood libel, so whether nature or nurture matters more I will still evaluate him on his own merits. Not that he has many.

But then again, why should we expect better from the electorate in the city that has such a big problem with public defecation that they literally have an app for that.

Actually that is kind of irrelevant to the merits of this particular candidate.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Big picture-wise, how does bailing out the homeowners deal with the capital deficits the major banks were dealing with? How quickly can that be done? TARP was the only real immediate solution to a major problem the Government and Fed helped create. And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

Just print the money and give it to people. That's what the ended up doing after TARP anyway, just instead of giving it to people, they gave it to banks.

Where are you getting this? TARP money was essentially expensive equity that the banks paid back. It wasn't a gift.

 

[Harry Bosch]

And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

That's the only thing I agree with.

There were many other possible solutions but they could have:

1. Let the too big to fail banks fail
2. Abolished the fed
3. nationalized banking like Andrew Jackson did
4. Inject liquidity only where it was needed
5. Provide relief for distressed homeowners

And probably have done this a lot cheaper as well.

Bank of American might have failed without TARP, but all the other major banks would have survived. But their slow recovery would have hampered the economy. When a company is struggling, they call on their receivables to be paid quicker. For a bank, their receivables are their loans. So the troubled banks would have lent out less, and tried to collect their loans sooner. That wouldn't have helped the economy much.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

That's the only thing I agree with.

There were many other possible solutions but they could have:

1. Let the too big to fail banks fail
2. Abolished the fed
3. nationalized banking like Andrew Jackson did
4. Inject liquidity only where it was needed
5. Provide relief for distressed homeowners

And probably have done this a lot cheaper as well.

Bank of American might have failed without TARP, but all the other major banks would have survived. But their slow recovery would have hampered the economy. When a company is struggling, they call on their receivables to be paid quicker. For a bank, their receivables are their loans. So the troubled banks would have lent out less, and tried to collect their loans sooner. That wouldn't have helped the economy much.

One of the banks tried to refuse the TARP money ... the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government wouldn't allow them to.

 

[Politesse]

UPDATE: They've called it for Chesa, with a two thousand vote lead. You do wonder about democracy a tad when it comes that close. If voters are a valid sample of the population, presumably some 350,000 people are feeling some feeling in between disappointment and horror. In practice, a substantially smaller number of people cares in the slightest, because no one expects the DA to do anything worth talking about anyhow, and rely primarily on fraying friend and kinship networks for justice /survival.

 

[laughing dog]

Big picture-wise, how does bailing out the homeowners deal with the capital deficits the major banks were dealing with? How quickly can that be done? TARP was the only real immediate solution to a major problem the Government and Fed helped create. And there was an immediate need for an immediate solution.

Just print the money and give it to people. That's what the ended up doing after TARP anyway, just instead of giving it to people, they gave it to banks.

Where are you getting this? TARP money was essentially expensive equity that the banks paid back. It wasn't a gift.

Sure it was a gift - it could have gone to the borrowers.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Where are you getting this? TARP money was essentially expensive equity that the banks paid back. It wasn't a gift.

Sure it was a gift - it could have gone to the borrowers.

Fine with me if you want to call it a gift. I think that the stronger banks that got TARP might have been better off if no TARP had been given out, economy continued to slide, more of the weaker banks go down. Stronger banks increase market share. They didn't give TARP to the weaker banks (other than BofA). Regarding giving the money to the borrowers: what would that do? Where's the benefit. It would have been just another loan that they had to pay back. TARP was relatively expensive, 5% money. I think that TARP was the right thing to do to help the economy. A better way to have helped the borrowers who got into trouble would have been to make the short sale process easier and less damaging to personal credit.

 

[laughing dog]

Where are you getting this? TARP money was essentially expensive equity that the banks paid back. It wasn't a gift.

Sure it was a gift - it could have gone to the borrowers.

Fine with me if you want to call it a gift. I think that the stronger banks that got TARP might have been better off if no TARP had been given out, economy continued to slide, more of the weaker banks go down. Stronger banks increase market share. They didn't give TARP to the weaker banks (other than BofA). Regarding giving the money to the borrowers: what would that do? Where's the benefit. It would have been just another loan that they had to pay back. TARP was relatively expensive, 5% money. I think that TARP was the right thing to do to help the economy. A better way to have helped the borrowers who got into trouble would have been to make the short sale process easier and less damaging to personal credit.

Give the more to the borrowers so that they repay their loans. No damage to their credit and lenders get repaid. The big issue was the "moral hazard" posturing - if not the same argument applied to the lenders.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Fine with me if you want to call it a gift. I think that the stronger banks that got TARP might have been better off if no TARP had been given out, economy continued to slide, more of the weaker banks go down. Stronger banks increase market share. They didn't give TARP to the weaker banks (other than BofA). Regarding giving the money to the borrowers: what would that do? Where's the benefit. It would have been just another loan that they had to pay back. TARP was relatively expensive, 5% money. I think that TARP was the right thing to do to help the economy. A better way to have helped the borrowers who got into trouble would have been to make the short sale process easier and less damaging to personal credit.

Give the more to the borrowers so that they repay their loans. No damage to their credit and lenders get repaid. The big issue was the "moral hazard" posturing - if not the same argument applied to the lenders.

Well, Tarp was meant to be paid back. You are talking more about direct grants to be given to borrowers to help them out. That would have been a different program. I'm not saying that I would have been against it. But I'd be against giving "more" to speculators. IOW, people who bought homes that they couldn't afford (the monthly payments were greater than their monthly income) but they were intending to pay back the loan when reselling at higher price, shouldn't have been rewarded. I'm not against outlawing speculation. But speculators shouldn't be bailed out by government.

 

[RVonse]

Fine with me if you want to call it a gift. I think that the stronger banks that got TARP might have been better off if no TARP had been given out, economy continued to slide, more of the weaker banks go down. Stronger banks increase market share. They didn't give TARP to the weaker banks (other than BofA). Regarding giving the money to the borrowers: what would that do? Where's the benefit. It would have been just another loan that they had to pay back. TARP was relatively expensive, 5% money. I think that TARP was the right thing to do to help the economy. A better way to have helped the borrowers who got into trouble would have been to make the short sale process easier and less damaging to personal credit.

Give the more to the borrowers so that they repay their loans. No damage to their credit and lenders get repaid. The big issue was the "moral hazard" posturing - if not the same argument applied to the lenders.

Totally agree here. Furthermore, when there is quantitative easing they basically print money specifically meant for the banks and hedge funds with little or no thought for the average citizen. Yet the quantitative easing is inflating the monetary base which socializes and places the cost of this directly on the average citizen. And while we are at it, how come the interest I earn on my retirement savings in Bank of America returns maybe .005%. Yet if you happen to be a borrower, a pay loan or credit card loan can go as high as 2000%?

The social candidates (Warren) from the democrat party make a pretty good argument I believe. That money can and should be printed to pay for outstanding college loans. It seems to work just fine for the banks, why shouldn't the fed now print money for the benefit of the people themselves? For that matter, I very much wonder why we even have to pay federal taxes when you consider how popular monetary easing has become with no apparent negative consequence. Just print more with monetary easing! Rinse and repeat. Then the other central banks from all of the rest of the world follow suit and we are all at a new base line again. The bankers have figured out a perpetual money machine, and I for one think it should be socialized for the whole population and not just the elite investment bankers.

If its good enough for the bankers it should be good enough for the rest of us too.

 

[RVonse]

Fine with me if you want to call it a gift. I think that the stronger banks that got TARP might have been better off if no TARP had been given out, economy continued to slide, more of the weaker banks go down. Stronger banks increase market share. They didn't give TARP to the weaker banks (other than BofA). Regarding giving the money to the borrowers: what would that do? Where's the benefit. It would have been just another loan that they had to pay back. TARP was relatively expensive, 5% money. I think that TARP was the right thing to do to help the economy. A better way to have helped the borrowers who got into trouble would have been to make the short sale process easier and less damaging to personal credit.

Give the more to the borrowers so that they repay their loans. No damage to their credit and lenders get repaid. The big issue was the "moral hazard" posturing - if not the same argument applied to the lenders.

Well, Tarp was meant to be paid back.

So were the home loans.