BOA,Capital One,Chase,wells fargo,citigroup Durbin and Frank Dodd had their meeting about the bailout on October 1, 2008 - 10 days before the Lehman bankruptcy. They didn't do a damn thing. All a lot of good that did you! The banks you say you want to investigate are bigger than the country. The Federal Government has to be able to borrow money too and if they didn't have Wall Street to pawn it off onto then we would have some of that money back to address real issues. "It's worse than we thought," said Steve Liesman, a CNBC contributor and financial services analyst. "This [bailout] was the deal that changed everything." Yes, because before it all you had were credit cards and bank loans. Now you are going to be forced to use the money to pay back some of that credit card and loan debt and not be able to repay that debt. "This was a watershed moment," he said. "The biggest thing it showed is that we will not let banks fail." No, you just won't let them fail fast enough to save the economy. The Obama administration is now under immense pressure to show more vigor in dealing with banks that are failing or in danger of failing. As the Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson said in May, "We will be very focused on systemic risk because that is what, frankly, is most important to the American people." I don't understand what is so hard about that statement? Why can't you just say we are going to try and limit the damage to the economy? "Do the taxpayers know we have this big problem? Or are they going to just find out when it's too late?" said Bill Archer, a partner at law firm Reed Smith in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Then this is not just happening on a local level but on a global one. So we as a species are actually destroying the global economy? "It is hard to see how banks can get back to growth without some resolution of the capital issues that are out there," he said. No it isn't because this has been going on and you just didn't care enough to act on it. No I will never be a fan of the credit card companies but this is getting ridiculous. If you want to see what a truly screwed up financial system is check out this article. The system is designed to be a Ponzi scheme. Some how we have made it work without all of the players going bankrupt yet. A system has to fail for a new system to exist. Is anyone out there truly willing to destroy the current financial system in order for a new one to be built on new principles? No this isn't something we should be allowed to solve just on our own. We need government regulations that encourage banks to not take excessive risk. It's very hard to argue with that statement considering how we are still in this mess. One of the key factors in the crisis is the growth of private debt and risk-taking by financial institutions, and that has been encouraged by many developments in recent years. How so? For one thing, there are fewer regulators than there used to be, and they do not pay as close attention to how the financial system operates. I will agree that this is partly true. However if you think that is going to keep you safe then you really are in denial. There have been people involved in the market for far to long and did far too little to make sure the public was protected. It was as if they expected to be bailed out. It was as if they expected to be bailed out. You mean that they thought the government would pay the debt and then not let the banks fail? "In addition, there is a shortage of quality private companies that could serve as a backstop to financial institutions that are having difficulties." You mean that there is a shortage of people who want to invest money into a financial institution that has the potential to fail at any moment? I'm still not sure how this is our problem. "And financial regulators themselves have gotten sloppy. As a result, some of the new financial instruments they were created to supervise are creating risks that were not foreseen," Schimel said. Can't argue with that statement either but it was all created out of fear of regulation and lack of knowledge. "The problem, Mr. Schimel said, is the result of a market that is too permissive and poorly regulated, not too restrictive." No we do not need to go as far as China or Cuba and kill everyone's savings bank accounts to force changes in the financial industry but we do need tighter regulations. We need to keep the government as close to banks as possible to make sure the government is there to help the banks instead of being there to bail them out when they do stupid things. But the government is going to take their money away. The last time someone pulled that back they ended up in a position like this. "I have never been so worried about our economic future as I am today," said Frank Ahrens, president of the American Bankers Association. "It is obvious to me that the U.S. government needs to restore confidence in our financial system and I strongly believe that Congress can and must do this." Yes this does give me the impression that this is just all a lot of talk. "We will do it when you get us reelected in 2012." "There is no doubt that the financial system will be much stronger in the years ahead, but the damage to the economy, to people's jobs and to their savings is going to be enormous. And Congress will have to bear much of the responsibility," said Schumer. As if what you are saying is not enough to destroy faith in our political system I would add "Well at least you gave it lip service." No not enough was done because the bank lobbyists had their way. They were given enough money from the taxpayer to cover up their problems. So what the hell were you expecting, an outright apology? I think some more regulation and oversight is required but that is not going to happen anytime soon. It's not a Democrat or Republican thing. It has been a business as usual and nothing to do with our interests since you all got here. Thursday, September 24, 2009 This is a letter from Joe Gagnon. It is about the New York Times. In the past I have said that the New York Times is so corrupt that the paper itself will be its own nemesis. Look at how many times they have fucked up over the past few years. When they make a mistake, I don't think people believe they are just reporting it. "I sent a letter, in the comments section of the article, to The Times reporter, Steven Greenhouse, and to Bob Herbert, the opinion writer who wrote the piece. A copy of that letter follows:" A review of the recent article in the NYT entitled ""The Real Reason Why You’re Hurting: It’s Not Your Bad Luck," says something very dangerous. The article describes the financial distress of the U.S. economy on the heels of the sub-prime mortgages. However, the article uses "blaming the poor" as the reason for the economic crisis. The article also does this by quoting experts such as William Julius Wilson who argue that the reason poor people are poor is because they don't have enough education to be able to pull themselves out of poverty, or because they lack work ethics and are lazy. Thus, the blame is taken from the bankers, who caused the problem. But the people are not to blame for the economic crisis. Rather, we are a product of the economy's failure to properly provide for working people. That is, when there are unpayable loans to be repaid by people who can't afford it, and when banks refuse to modify loans without huge losses, this is not the fault of working people and their inability to afford housing. The fault lies in failing to regulate banks so that they don't refuse loans to people who can't afford to pay for them. Instead, it is the fault of unaccountable international banks and their lobbyists who, through political and economic lobbying, caused the federal and state legislators to pass laws which deregulated the financial industry. Of course, Mr. Wilson has nothing to say about the impact of capitalism or the capitalist elite on the people who aren't to blame for the mess the people are in. You can see where this is going. As capitalism is practiced today by the 1%, it results in an increasing concentration of wealth at the top of society. Those at the top will use their control over the wealth to pay as little as possible for everything, thus causing goods to be produced at such low prices that everyone in the society will be unable to afford them, yet have no access to cheaper goods. But then again the capitalist economy isn't actually about capitalism at all. It's just