Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I was speaking about bank bailouts

Posted By: sbMT on 2009-02-15
In Reply to: What you are proposing is not the same. - SM

not the stimulus. Two different things.

Since the banks are crying that they are losing money because of people not paying mortgages, etc., would it not make sense to boost them back up by providing the money THEY ARE GOING TO GET ANYWAYS to the homeowners first and therefore killing two birds with one stone?

Or no, lets just throw more money at them with no stipulations and no rules and bend over and continue to take it while they go on another vacation and laugh all the way to the bank. That definitely makes more sense.

Since people who rent aren't involved with the mortgage/bank crisis, no they would be left out of this one. But like Zville posted, they could be covered under the stimulus side of this "economic relief" that's being proposed.

How does it not tick you off that all the businesses are getting a bailout and "infusion" of cash but the average citizen is still going to suffer for the next two or three years?




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

bailouts
It is not the American citizens' responsibility to bail out private organizations. As with any private business, if it is run poorly, it was go under; there is no difference here. The top administration has been handing out loans, BAD loans, for a while now to anyone and everything that moves, knowing full well they cann't repay the loan, even giving loans to those without a job!!! Now, that is corrupt, while at the same time top CEOs walking away with millions? Any other private business, even in your town, if run poorly or hits hard times, what happens, it goes under, simple as that. Thousands of people losing their jobs because of corrupt business practices. This country cannot afford and is not responsible to bailout corrupt businesses.

There should be no Federal Reserve. This country leans too heavily on this group of individuals to loan them money to the tune of billions and who do you think pays that back? The US citizen, not the government. Federal Reserve is not government affiliated, just unfortunately who our government and so many other foreign governments look to to make monetary decisions for their countries, which we definitely should not be doing. Federal Reserve says raise interest rates, don't raise interest rates......that is ridiculous. They decide monetary policies for this country.....they should not be doing that at all. Want to know why you should be very concerned about this latest situation and who is really behind the downfall, not just the CEOs but mainly the Federal Reserve is to blame.....period!! We as citizens really need to understand our economics and history policies...

Many didn't like Ron Paul but he has been preaching this day for a looooonnnng time. He understands it.

Watch this video and hopefully better understand

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553

I believe that bailouts......... sm
have to stop. I think the banking bailout was a HUGE mistake, regardless of who voted for it. Would we have crashed into a great depression had the bailout not been enacted? Probably so, and it would have been extremely hard and painful, but America did recover after the Great Depression and, in fact, enjoyed a relatively good prosperity for a number of years. Of course, I guess after the depression, anything looked like prosperity by comparison, LOL.

I think bailouts are just another example of how America wants things fixed and fixed NOW rather that working through the pain to find a solution. With that said, however, I don't know what the solution is and I don't think anyone else does either. I think we have become so programmed into our selfish, greedy, wasteful consumer mindset that we may never find what that solution is.
I am against the bailouts.
All of them. I understand why they want it blocked. There is nowhere to stop. It all started with helping the banks and AIG. Next comes the car industry. Then maybe timber--people are not building as many houses as they used to and there are a lot of loggers--it will destroy the Pacific Northwest to let that industry go down--then what? It is a slippery slope that we have already started sliding down and someone needs to stop it. Just my opinion. I don't think anything should have been bailed out, honestly.
History of bailouts

Instead of trying to blame for the bail outs I want to know how all this came about and I found an interesting site that gives a little history of different government bailouts in the past.  Thought it might be interesting for some to read - just a little history (wish I liked reading about history this much when I was in high school).


http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-brief-history-of-government-bailouts/


 


I think the problem with the bailouts...
is that there are no strings.  That's why we see all the bonuses going out.  They basically just gave Paulson (who obviously doesn't have a clue what to do) a blank check.  I think they need to get rid of Paulson and put somebody in there who can actually make that money work.  If they can't get rid of Paulson, put a freeze on him spending any more of it until they can get someone in there who knows what to do.  If we freeze that money, then at least when we hit rock bottom we have SOMETHING to work with.
RNC is finally saying something about the bailouts. sm
RNC Draft Rips Bush's Bailouts.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/
Calculate your family's costs for the bailouts. sm
Bailout Calculator

http://www.right.org/welcome
I posted the illegal bailouts and I'm independent
Are you just lazy or what? The bailout information has already been distributed to the groups (mortgage modifiers) that Obama has determined will help the poor folks who couldn't afford their home but got it anyway and of course, the illegals who shouldn't be here in the first place.........

You act as if you know what's going on but it's obvious you are clueless. This is a done deal and you, an Obama supporter, don't even know it's happened. Now, that is scary! You put the jerk in office. What exactly did you think they were talking about while Obama stood up there yammering on and on about helping the housing market? Didn't you expect him to do bailouts? If not, what exactly did you expect him to do? Let the chips fall where they may........that would have been the American way.




what exactly is a bank run?
x
Check your bank.........
A financial advisor on the Today Show this morning warned all Americans who have more than $100,000 in the bank, to shift their money to other banks that are FDIC insured. The FDIC only insures up to $100,000 per person. That does not mean different accounts within the same bank or different branches of the same bank. DIFFERENT insured banks. I, myself, do not have to worry about this as I don't even have a fraction of that, but I find the fact that this advisor felt the need to come on the air and spell it out very telling. She also said your bank will tell you that you just need to create more than one account within the same bank - NOT TRUE. She also said to watch the stocks of your bank - if stock prices continue to fall - get the he11 out!  BTW, greed is a sin, eh?
And our bank accounts are

in such wonderful shape today, right?


We now live in a fascist society where the Bush government is buying the banks.


Socialism would be a giant step forward.


Bank of Obama

 Because everyone deserves a bailout!


http://www.bankofobama.org/


Bank of America to cut 35,000 jobs.......sm
over the next 3 years.  Weren't they the ones who put money in your savings account every time you made a purchase? 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BA6ZD20081211?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
The feds should use the bank & Wall St.
Then put a lien on, and sell, their fancy mansions in upstate NY, their yachts, their Mercedes, etc.  Let their kids to go public school instead of fancy private ones.   They're the greedy ones who got us into this mess, let THEM pay for it, not us.
If it's a felony to incite a bank run, then
shouldn't these people on Wall Street be prosecuted?  After all, if they hadn't done what they did to the economy, then we wouldn't have to withdraw our money.
Yeah! Could I rob and bank and claim to be
nm
What is the bank bail-out if not socialism? s/m
Maybe you'd have better luck with your employees if you gave them a raise.  If you have a profit margin that allows you to give them a 25% bonus, surely a 10% raise wouldn't cause you to suffer too much.
Bank executives will be getting bonuses
and we are fighting over crumbs and religion.
"Central international bank" = sm
One-world currency. Interesting.
Who benefited from the bank bailout?

Wall Street, Citigroup, AIG, Fannie May/Freddie Mac, the car companies.


I don't want a check either but wouldn't be nice if they would give us the money instead of coming up with all these carppy bogged down packages?


What would you do if they would give us $30K or more?  That would probably cost less than what they are proposing and you know darn well, that money would go into the economy faster than their plan.


 


Wanda on the bank bailout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADr2KG5aso
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.

Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
No need to wonder...current mortgage bank crisis...
brought to you courtesy of greedy democrats on Congress and greedy Democrats at the top of Fannie Mae. The handwriting is on the wall. This one's on you. McCain saw it coming in 2005 and the dems shut him down. Well, we are reaping what they sowed. To quote Toby Keith...how do you like them now?
Bank Bailout Facts (2-min. video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JUWYEc0Fg&feature=related 
Bank Bail Out True Facts
 
Everyone and their mother withdraws their cash from the bank.
dd
No, not at all. But, leaves the bank with no money to loan.
dd
World Bank computer hacked
I don't believe for one minute the computers were hacked by some kids just trying to do it.  I find it very disturbing this originated in China.  Why haven't we been told about this before now, a year later?   This is China's government doing this.... When will we ever learn our lessons and stop doing business with communists countries.  We buy all their crap, because we are indebted to them to the tune of trillions of dollars, and they buy nothing from us.  Now there's fair trade at its best!!  Of course, what happens when you are indebted to someone/somthing?  You kiss their butts!!!!!!
Fed approves Chinese Bank CCB to open in US

Am I the only one who finds this scary?


Fed approves Chinese bank CCB to open office in US


Mon Dec 8, 5:15 pm ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) –– The US Federal Reserve said Monday it had authorized China Construction Bank, a leading Chinese state bank, to operate in the United States.


The proposed New York City branch of CCB "would engage in wholesale deposit-taking, lending, trade finance, and other banking services," the Fed said in a statement.


The US central bank recalled that China Construction Bank Corporation (CCB) is 57.0 percent owned by the Chinese state, 19.7 percent by US banking group Bank of America and 5.7 percent by Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Singapore. The remainder of the capital is publicly traded.


CCB is the second-largest bank in China, with total assets of approximately 1.1 trillion dollars, it noted.


The Fed said it had determined that CCB had adequate anti-money laundering safeguards and had committed to respect US laws on money laundering.


CCB's own funds exceed the minimum set by the 1998 Basel Capital Accord and "is considered equivalent to capital that would be required of a US banking organization," the US central bank said.


CCB would be the fourth mainland Chinese bank -- excluding banks in Hong Kong -- to open operations in the US, after the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China and the Bank of Communications.


The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China's top bank, also has asked the Fed for authorization to open a branch in New York.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081208/pl_afp/uschinabankregulatebankingcompanyccb


Ahem. The West Bank is not theirs. Neither is Gaza.
So just how does that justify illegal settlements and settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank?
GW started socialism with the bank bailout..
So go fry your baloney.
After seeing what happened when the last administration's bank bailout.....
There has to be some oversight somewhere! The banks can't/won't tell us what happened to the money...........
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization

by: Krishna Guha and Edward Luce, The Financial Times


photo
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)




    The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.


    In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.


    "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."


    Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.


    "We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."


    Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.


    The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."


    But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.


    "You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."


    Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.


    In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.


    "We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end."


Government prying into people's bank accounts nothing new.

And they're not just snooping on terrorists, as they claim.


http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06


Pay too much and you could raise the alarm


By BOB KERR
The Providence Journal
28-FEB-06



PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail.

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that everything changed after 9/11 thing.

But not Walter.

We're a product of the '60s, he said. We believe government should be way away from us in that regard.

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

When you mess with my money, I want to know why, he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

The more I'm on, the scarier it gets, he said. It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy.

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to others, he said.


(Bob Kerr is a columnist for The Providence Journal. E-mail bkerr@projo.com.)



(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.)


Let's riot and throw bricks through bank windows

So much for transparency. Treasury refuses to give bank bailout information.

This again from the McClatchy news group, which is not conservative by any means:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65195.html


 


you were speaking of yourself, right?

So patriotism is a mental illness.  Well, it probably is to you, so that does make sense.  Yes, mental illness is love of country, pride in the military and thanks for their sacrifices.  You don't have any of that, so you are fine.  No problem.  Glad we cleared that up.


Speaking only for myself....it is getting....
harder and harder to distinguish between liberals and leftists, as there are more and more posting calling themselves *liberals* but posting the way left stuff that only used to come from what I call leftists...the far left. In other words, the lines are becoming REAL blurry...also difficult to separate Democrats from leftists as the party slides farther and farther left....or at least it appears so, or the moderate and conservative Democrats have just gone silent in shock or apathy....I don't have the answer. You just don't hear from them anymore....at least I don't.
Was I speaking to you?
Can't resist the impulse to interrupt somebody else's conversation, I see. That's what Hannity does whenever he is losing his grip on his liberal guests. Transparent.
I was speaking of

reasoning voters.  Please excuse me for not clarifying that.


 


speaking of ron .....

My hubs saw the "vote for Ron Paul" signs and asked me if it was a joke.  I said what do you mean, and he said, "isn't that the tranny?" 


Almost wrecked the car laughing so hard.  Had to explain to DH that the tranny is Rue Paul.  OMG LMAO!!!!


Speaking for myself,
there are not many born conservatives.  I think conservatism is something that ''grows on you,'' or something that you grow into.  I was a teenager in the sixties, with many of the attitudes that implies.  As I aged and became more responsible and and started to ''get it,'' got a real job and wanted promotions, began earning money and wanting to hold onto it, bought a house and cared about what happened to my neighborhood, etc., I became more conservative.  I dont think I am the only one to become more conservative as I've aged.  I suspect celebrities are the same.  You can only be a free spirit so long.  As the Nationwide commercials say:  Life comes at you fast.
Speaking of credibility...
You promised to grace us with your absence before, yet your posts are multiplying like bunnies all over this board.  So much for YOUR credibility.
It was obvious you were speaking for
.
Your illness speaking for you again?

My take on your mental illness has nothing whatever to do with your political persuasion.  But you have illustrated that you are too ill to understand that.  You are annoying and I will not pay any more attention to your childish and sick comments.


It's actually a woman speaking. sm
This is very significant because this was on Al-Jazeera TV and what she says is pretty chilling.  I clicked on it and it worked for me. I am sure you can find it somewhere else on the internet.  Just for the record, I am not so sure he is president material myself.  I dont doubt his leadership in the war on terror, but I am disappointed in other things.
I was speaking to Democrat, actually. sm
Since the story was copied and pasted here, I would like the specific source.  I am sure Democrat understands. 
I assume you are speaking of me.
First of all, for your information since you obviously cannot or will not read, I despise Bush.  Your intolerance tells the world (these boards are read by the world, after all) that the liberal left in the United States has become the party of intolerance, anti-Israel, anti-American.  You don't appreciate the freedoms you have and you live a world coloured by hopelessness and despair.  I really pity you.  Since I don't vote in the United States, I am neither left nor right.  But of course, it's easier to label and name call, as you seem so very good at.  The realisation may hit one day that you have a very narrow view of the world out there.
Plainly speaking.....
what difference does it make? But in an attempt to answer a loaded question, I thought these boards lent themselves more to ideologies than to politics. These boards are here even when elections are not. There is no "liberal party" and no "conservative party" that I am aware of. Do you only "Think Liberal" about politics? Do you build your life around politics? I thought liberalism (and conservatism for that matter) transcended politics. Pardon me if I gave too much credit.
Speaking of values

Golly how many times are you going to bring this up about Clinton like it is truly important in the problems our world faces?  It's like you are completely nutso about this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over......wow!


I think it is terrifying and heart-wrenchingly sad that with the genocide, starvation, astounding poverty globally PLUS this war we have created with how many hundreds of thousands of civilians killed including babies, pregnant women, children plus the US dead and countless with TBI and amputations....that the thing that you totally obsess over is Clinton and his sex and his lie to the court over something that should never have gone to court in the first place.  JFK would have been in deep you-know-what had he ever been brought to task for his philandering....and he probably would have covered things up, too.


How pathetic that this nation is more interested in sex scandals than the multitude of catastrophic problems facing our population on this planet.  It shows how shallow and value-less we can be.......impeaching someone over sex.....how about impeaching someone over the death of 1/2 a million people for dubious reasons and political gain.....   


Hey - just asking, Speaking from experience.
That's why I work at home.
Well then, speaking of unsupervised
If you're daughter is busy continuing her education with a toddler, and we know how much hard undivided work has to go into a master's, then your grandchild must be really unsupervised and no telling how she might turn out. And then, to have put so much time and effort into that degree, of course she would want to go for a really good job, demanding, time consuming, taking a lot of time away from her child. Would you dare tell your daughter your thoughts on that subject? Probably not!!!