• AP Via Fox:Tentative Deal Reached on Future of Big Bank Failures
    64 replies, posted
[quote= Ap via Fox News]In a concession, Senate Democrats agreed Tuesday to jettison a $50 billion fund that Republicans attacked repeatedly as a perpetual Wall Street bailout-in-waiting, according to officials in both parties, clearing one of the key obstacles to approval of tougher federal controls over the financial industry. While a formal announcement was held up pending a review by key lawmakers and the Obama administration, the emerging agreement was designed to assure that any future taxpayer costs arising from the liquidation of big firms in the future would be temporary and on a case-by-case basis. The agreement marked a retreat by Democrats, who had protested bitterly in recent days that Republicans were inaccurate with claims that the multi-billion-dollar fund would serve as a source for future bailouts. Democrats said they hoped for votes on proposed changes to the bill during the day, but there were none, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. accused Republicans of blocking them as part of a strategy of "stalling on everything we do." President Barack Obama has made an election-year priority of congressional passage of legislation to prevent future economic calamaties like the one that plunged the country into a deep recession 18 months ago. Opinion polls suggest strong support for additional federal regulations, even though numerous surveys also report high levels of public distrust of government's abilities to solve problems. Obama, speaking to a business organization, said there would be "legitimate differences on the details of what is a complicated piece of legislation" in the coming days. At the same time, he said, "We cannot allow these reforms to be watered down. And for those of you in the financial industry whose companies may be employing lobbyists seeking to weaken this bill, I want to urge you, as I said on Wall Street a couple of weeks ago, to join us rather than to fight us." The tentative compromise was struck by Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the parties' two seniors members of the Senate Banking Committee. While the fund would be gone, taxpayers could wind up fronting billions of dollars to help cover the costs of taking down a failed firm, money that would take the forms of loans from the Treasury to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Additionally, the Treasury would be required to recover those costs over time from the sale of a firm's assets and from its creditors. As a last resort if not enough money could be raised, the government would assess a fee on other large financial institutions. The emerging agreement left at least two unresolved major issues on the legislation, which is designed largely as a response to the near economic collapse of 2008. As drafted, the Democratic-backed bill calls for an independent consumer protection agency with authority to police lending, credit cards and other, similar transactions. Republicans say the provision is so broad that it could adversely affect car dealers and even dentists whose patients pay their bills over time -- criticisms that Democrats dispute. Additionally, Democrats hope to use the legislation to create federal controls on complex investments known as derivatives, which many experts blame for the near-collapse of the economy in 2008. The issue has exposed splits among Democrats, and between Senate liberals and the White House, as much as partisan disagreement with the Republicans. Banks, car dealers and other interests have deployed legions of lobbyists to try and shape the bill to their liking, and White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer issued a list of "The 10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes" that he said special interests were seeking. But for political maneuvering, nothing could match the political competition as Democrats and Republicans vied for the prize of staunchest opponents of future taxpayer-financed bailouts. Sen Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sought a vote on an amendment that specified there would be no taxpayer losses as the result of any large bank failure of the future, a proposal that even some Democrats said privately was partially designed to shore up her support in an unexpectedly difficult re-election campaign. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., was more blunt, calling it pure political cover. "The Boxer vote is totally, absolutely window dressing," he said. "It has nothing to do with substance at all. Nothing, zero." There is no timetable for completing the bill, and the Democratic and Republican leaders pointedly disagreed during the day on prospects for a final vote. "I must tell you, I don't think this is a couple of weeks bill," said the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "It's not that we don't want to pass it, but we do want to cover the subject." Moments later, Reid said he intended to finish the legislation "next week or sooner." With 41 seats, Republicans have the votes to prevent a final vote as long as they remain united. The House has cleared its version of the measure. Separately, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress he is open to including Obama's proposed tax on large banks in the measure, but added he would defer to congressional leaders.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/04/tentative-deal-reached-future-big-bank-failures/[/url] Knowing how long it took to shove health care through, and the stance of the Republicans, chances are that this won't get done before November.
Congratulations, Republicans, you managed to get rid of something that would have PREVENTED future bailouts and wouldn't have cost a taxpayer a single dime. Also shut the fuck up Glaber, nobody likes you.
The Republicans have already said they'll monolithically oppose whatever the Democrats propose. Go for broke, you pansy Democrats.
The way republicans act is so fucking stupid, "LOLOL THAT'S THEIR IDEA WE DON'T LIKE IT FUCK THEM LOLOLOL" it's like they're 5. I don't think liberals are any better, but still.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;21744952]Congratulations, Republicans, you managed to get rid of something that would have PREVENTED future bailouts and wouldn't have cost a taxpayer a single dime. Also shut the fuck up Glaber, nobody likes you.[/QUOTE] How can you be so sure it won't cost us tax payers a single dime?
[QUOTE=Glaber;21757794]How can you be so sure it won't cost us tax payers a single dime?[/QUOTE] You really like hypothetical situations, don't you?
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21758020]You really like hypothetical situations, don't you?[/QUOTE] Not as much as I do chives. But seriously, where would the government even get the money to even fund these hypothetical bail outs?
[QUOTE=Glaber;21760054]Not as much as I do chives. But seriously, where would the government even get the money to even fund these hypothetical bail outs?[/QUOTE] You're acting like there's no money available.
Are you saying we have a money tree somewhere? If the government prints out tons of money to fund the hypothetical bail outs, it devalues the dollar as if it did grow on trees like leaves. Then we'd have games costing as much as they do in Europe, or even more expensive.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21760707]Are you saying we have a money tree somewhere?[/quote] First of all, if you cut defense spending and end the drug war, money wouldn't be a problem. and second, no, I never said that. I was saying the US still has fucking money. [quote]If the government prints out tons of money to fund the hypothetical bail outs, it devalues the dollar as if it did grow on trees like leaves.[/quote] when the FUCK did I say this? what is with you fuck nuts conservatives and bringing up printing money. No one has ever suggested this. shut up about it. [quote]Then we'd have games costing as much as they do in Europe, or even more expensive.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.game.co.uk/Games/Xbox-360/Stealth/Tom-Clancys-Splinter-Cell-Conviction/~r331358/[/url] not really and why did you point out games specifically?
First off, How do we end the drug war? If we cut defense, the Drug lords win and we loose. If we can't fight and they can, what do you think will happen? Second. Yes we still have money, but it's getting to the point where we're running out. There is a reason why we bring up the printing of money. When people can't, don't, or won't pay taxes, or the Government just want's to Spend like an irresponsible kid with their Parent's credit card, and they are the ones to issue the currency, what do you think they would do? Why did I point out games specifically? Because I like not having to pay $80 for a video game. The link you posted. I just did the conversion and it came out as $57.38 rounded up to the nearest penny. [url]http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=37.99&From=GBP&To=USD&image.x=49&image.y=8&image=Submit[/url] The original price came out to about $75 when converted. [url]http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=49.99&From=GBP&To=USD&x=67&y=8[/url]
:downs: i suppose./
[QUOTE=Glaber;21761327]First off, How do we end the drug war? If we cut defense, the Drug lords win and we loose. If we can't fight and they can, what do you think will happen? Second. Yes we still have money, but it's getting to the point where we're running out. There is a reason why we bring up the printing of money. When people can't, don't, or won't pay taxes, or the Government just want's to Spend like an irresponsible kid with their Parent's credit card, and they are the ones to issue the currency, what do you think they would do? Why did I point out games specifically? Because I like not having to pay $80 for a video game. The link you posted. I just did the conversion and it came out as $57.38 rounded up to the nearest penny. [url]http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=37.99&From=GBP&To=USD&image.x=49&image.y=8&image=Submit[/url] The original price came out to about $75 when converted. [url]http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=49.99&From=GBP&To=USD&x=67&y=8[/url][/QUOTE] Oh noes! not the drug lords!!!1 you realize we spend $18.4 billion a year on this 'war' right?
[QUOTE=Glaber;21757794]How can you be so sure it won't cost us tax payers a single dime?[/QUOTE] Because it's paid for entirely by the banks that the funds would ultimately benefit. Do you have any brain cells not under the direct control of Fox News?
[QUOTE=Glaber;21761327]First off, How do we end the drug war?[/quote] Legalize drugs. [quote]If we cut defense, the Drug lords win and we loose.[/quote] you don't know what you're talking about [quote]If we can't fight and they can, what do you think will happen?[/quote] Drug lords are making millions off the criminalisation of drugs. they've already won [quote]Second. Yes we still have money, but it's getting to the point where we're running out.[/quote] tax dollars don't run out btw. [quote]There is a reason why we bring up the printing of money. When people can't, don't, or won't pay taxes, or the Government just want's to Spend like an irresponsible kid with their Parent's credit card, and they are the ones to issue the currency, what do you think they would do?[/quote] Send the IRS to your house to get you to pay your taxes? what's your point? [quote]Why did I point out games specifically? Because I like not having to pay $80 for a video game.[/quote] you don't and currency in the UK is worth a lot more then the US. and people there actually get more. it's not as simple as converting the sums. [quote]The link you posted. I just did the conversion and it came out as $57.38 rounded up to the nearest penny. [url]http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=37.99&From=GBP&To=USD&image.x=49&image.y=8&image=Submit[/url] The original price came out to about $75 when converted. [url]http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=49.99&From=GBP&To=USD&x=67&y=8[/url][/QUOTE] it's 5-10$ extra? so the world is going to end?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21762788] tax dollars don't run out btw. Send the IRS to your house to get you to pay your taxes? what's your point? you don't and currency in the UK is worth a lot more then the US. and people there actually get more. it's not as simple as converting the sums. it's 5-10$ extra? so the world is going to end?[/QUOTE] Skipping the Drug war. How do tax dollars not run out? Whey do they come from if they don't run out? The IRS can deal with those who Can't (and have a home) and those who won't pay. But for those who don't. Think about why they don't. In some cases it's because they get back more in returns than they pay. As for the higher prices, no, the world won't end. The game studio just won't get as much money because people spend their money on cheaper stuff. Happened before when Play Station hit and again when the Wii came around. Also, how in the world is the UK currency worth more? if that was the case, shouldn't it take more US dollars to equal the value of a UK Pound instead of the other way around?
The feds don't need "tougher control over the financial industry". Watch them, yes. But not "control". "Government" and "control" are two words that should never go together.
So why not the original AP article?
[QUOTE=BmB;21764487]So why not the original AP article?[/QUOTE] It's virtually the same article. Fox, in this case, is more of a "messenger" than creating their own story for it.
[QUOTE=BmB;21764487]So why not the original AP article?[/QUOTE] Because Glaber is hoping you'll read the article, then decide to browse around a bit.
Actually, I don't care if you do that or not. The reason I used the fox link was because I discovered the article on Fox. Sort of like using your local news paper as a source instead of the AP's site for a high school or college paper.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21764452]The feds don't need "tougher control over the financial industry". Watch them, yes. But not "control". "Government" and "control" are two words that should never go together.[/QUOTE] yeah, god forbid a system that works is used. [QUOTE=Glaber;21763939]Skipping the Drug war. How do tax dollars not run out? Whey do they come from if they don't run out?[/quote] it's called basic economics. Jesus you're brainless. [quote]The IRS can deal with those who Can't (and have a home) and those who won't pay. But for those who don't. Think about why they don't. In some cases it's because they get back more in returns than they pay.[/quote] What are you even talking about? It's illegal to refuse to pay your taxes. [quote]As for the higher prices, no, the world won't end. The game studio just won't get as much money because people spend their money on cheaper stuff. Happened before when Play Station hit and again when the Wii came around.[/quote] If I want to buy a fucking game, I'll pay the extra fiver if I really want it. [quote]Also, how in the world is the UK currency worth more? if that was the case, shouldn't it take more US dollars to equal the value of a UK Pound instead of the other way around?[/QUOTE] a pound is 1.20$ in usd
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21765070]yeah, god forbid a system that works is used.[/quote] Corruption isn't very workable. More control just gives more things to corrupt. [QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21765070]it's called basic economics. Jesus you're brainless. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that's a nice argument ya got there.
[quote=Geithner] Separately, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress he is open to including Obama's proposed tax on large banks in the measure, but added he would defer to congressional leaders. [/quote] Damn right you will you son of a bitch. Go ahead and try to make a law; see if it works. Also, shove your taxes up your ass. Anywany, I'm not sure what this bill does, but I'm sure it's not what I'd support. If it lets large banks go bankrupt when they screw up, then I'm all for it. Anything else is a retarded idea.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21765136]Corruption isn't very workable. More control just gives more things to corrupt. Yeah, that's a nice argument ya got there.[/QUOTE] and the private sector isn't corrupt? He doesn't know what taxes are, not my problem.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21765070] What are you even talking about? It's illegal to refuse to pay your taxes. [/QUOTE] Tell that to Tim Geithner [QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21765070]If I want to buy a fucking game, I'll pay the extra fiver if I really want it. [/QUOTE] Whatever. Your money. [QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21765070]a pound is 1.20$ in usd[/QUOTE] I just took a look at my conversion again. and I some how got my wires crossed on what currency was worth more.. Still makes games more expensive though [QUOTE=ilikecorn;21765092]Games are a shitty example, if you can't afford a game, you don't buy it. They are a luxury, and people need to get that through their skulls. now.. FOOD on the otherhand.. is not.[/QUOTE] Sorry, first thing that popped into mind.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21767404]and the private sector isn't corrupt? He doesn't know what taxes are, not my problem.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, because the private sector being corrupt is a perfect excuse for the government to be corrupt. If it's not your problem, what are you posting in this thread for? Why bother responding to him?
I'm currently have a 96% in my college level economics class and I can offically state that Glaber has some vary flawed views about how the world works. I suppose he's just living in rational ignorance, but seriously Glaber. Go a head and take the Redpill. The small opportunity cost of your personal time is worth the enlightenment.
Well without this fund taxpayers will have to pay for any future bailouts directly. Am I reading this wrong?
Getting rid of this fund is a terrible idea, it's a good way to help keep the costs of potential future bailouts from hurting the taxpayers. The Republicans have to start doing what's best for the country and stop blindly opposing everything Democrats do out of spite.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.