Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

[St. Clown]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

And they can handle it with the public debt as it is now?

Not really, which is all the more reason to not add more burden to it.

[Priceless]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

We can't bail out people - that would tank the economy.
But we can bail out banks because that will create jobs!

And just look at all the jobs that have been created. Why, between a decade of tax cuts and those corporate bailouts, we have more jobs than people!

[Handyman]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

We can't bail out people - that would tank the economy.
But we can bail out banks because that will create jobs!

And just look at all the jobs that have been created. Why, between a decade of tax cuts and those corporate bailouts, we have more jobs than people!

Oh you must have moved to India

[St. Clown]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

We can't bail out people - that would tank the economy.
But we can bail out banks because that will create jobs!

And just look at all the jobs that have been created. Why, between a decade of tax cuts and those corporate bailouts, we have more jobs than people!

We shouldn't have bailed out the banks. It was a mistake. The government should have allowed the weak banks to fail and the responsible banks to survive - you know, the market's way of punishing mal-investment and maleficence.

The other part to that is the banks are paying back their bail outs. Many (perhaps all now) of the larger banks have already repaid their loans in full. In fact, a number of those larger banks tried to refuse the bailout money, but the Federal government forced them to accept it in an effort to stave off a run on the half-dozen or so banks that truly did need the money. In fact, my employer was among those that were not permitted to refuse bailout money.

[Handyman]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

You work for Wells Fargo?

Once they made their dumb decision to bail everyone out they had to cover up which banks needed it. If people knew Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BoA and a few others were basically insolvent the entire system collapses.

[St. Clown]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

You work for Wells Fargo?

Once they made their dumb decision to bail everyone out they had to cover up which banks needed it. If people knew Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BoA and a few others were basically insolvent the entire system collapses.

A number of large banks have a presence here. All large banks with a presence here were forced to take money they didn't need except for one, which did need it (B of A has a small presence in this market, mostly ATMs and mortgage sites).

[Handyman]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

By here do you mean Minnesota? Otherwise I dont follow you.

[pirate]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

It died a long time ago. Plus the people cant be trusted to make decisions anymore because the people are uneducated buffoons. These are the people who had minimum wage jobs and got $100k houses and wonder why they cant make their payments.

But lets not pretend this is just on the people...the banks made a ton of idiotic decisions and they were bailed out as were many other businesses. Since supposedly the banks and corporations are people too, shouldnt everyone have the right to be bailed out just like them? (my guess is this question will **** of Lynah)

The government should have bailed out the people not the banks. People are dumb they would have spent the money right away which would have at least caused a blip in the economy. The banks are just sitting on the money happy to never lend out a dollar.

(and no I dont believe in the OWS protest so please dont lump me in with them)

edit to add: I am in a really bad mood my post is darker than intended but my point stands.

I don't know how many people worked for those banks at that time but i suspect it wouldn't have helped a whole lot to have our financial structure collapse (not the economy alone) and have several hundred thousand more people out of work too. BAC had over 200k people at that time I believe...so maybe we're talking 5-600 thousand above average jobs with above average benefits.

When people say we should have just let it collapse I can't tell if they really mean that and have thought through all of the implications or if it is just the phrase of the month/quarter.

Would it be nice to get 15 people in a room and beat them with a sock full of nails?...always a fun time, but having that anger/spite flow to we should have let most/all of our banking system collapse and possibly be swept up by China or other foreign banks makes me think that frustration is getting the better of people's intellect.

[Priceless]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

We shouldn't have bailed out the banks. It was a mistake. The government should have allowed the weak banks to fail and the responsible banks to survive - you know, the market's way of punishing mal-investment and maleficence.

The other part to that is the banks are paying back their bail outs. Many (perhaps all now) of the larger banks have already repaid their loans in full. In fact, a number of those larger banks tried to refuse the bailout money, but the Federal government forced them to accept it in an effort to stave off a run on the half-dozen or so banks that truly did need the money. In fact, my employer was among those that were not permitted to refuse bailout money.

Right. So we can bail out the banks but can't give any actual human beings money because that would be Socialism! Funny that people say it was wrong to bail the banks out and somehow use that as reasoning that we can't bail out people. I suppose an individual isn't "too big to fail" but the American people as whole...are they too big to fail?

And if banks are repaying the bailout money now that they're back on their feet, who is to say individuals won't once they're back on their feet?

[Handyman]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

I don't know how many people worked for those banks at that time but i suspect it wouldn't have helped a whole lot to have our financial structure collapse (not the economy alone) and have several hundred thousand more people out of work too. BAC had over 200k people at that time I believe...so maybe we're talking 5-600 thousand above average jobs with above average benefits.

When people say we should have just let it collapse I can't tell if they really mean that and have thought through all of the implications or if it is just the phrase of the month/quarter.

Would it be nice to get 15 people in a room and beat them with a sock full of nails?...always a fun time, but having that anger/spite flow to we should have let most/all of our banking system collapse and possibly be swept up by China or other foreign banks makes me think that frustration is getting the better of people's intellect.

I thought it through...I know what would have happened. It would have been worth it. What we have now is fraudulent and is the worst of all worlds. At least if the entire thing collapsed we could start over.

[St. Clown]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

By here do you mean Minnesota? Otherwise I dont follow you.

Yes, they are here in MN, specifically in the Twin Cities. We're the #14-15 market in the nation for overall size, these companies know that and want a slice of the pie, even if they're doing so in small ways at the moment.

Right. So we can bail out the banks but can't give any actual human beings money because that would be Socialism! Funny that people say it was wrong to bail the banks out and somehow use that as reasoning that we can't bail out people. I suppose an individual isn't "too big to fail" but the American people as whole...are they too big to fail?

And if banks are repaying the bailout money now that they're back on their feet, who is to say individuals won't once they're back on their feet?

Clearly we disagree. I wouldn't have bailed out the banks and I wouldn't wish to pay off everyone's first mortgages using the Federal government's funds (and yes, I have a mortgage to pay myself). It's not the role of the Federal government.

It's funny you keep throwing out the "Socialism" tag, as though tossing it out there will disarm its meaning. What you're proposing is a degree of socialism, as what has already been done. Point of fact, I would say with the corporations out there it's more like Corporatism. Just have the companies do what the government wants, and the government will either ensure a profit or bail out those companies it leads down the road to ruins. That seems to be the deal over the last 3-4 years (or going back further than that when thinking about the airlines and Chrysler). I don't support such policy. It makes for a system rife with fraud and corruption.

[unofan]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Too many posts to individually respond to them, but here's my basic thoughts.

The bank bailout was absolutely the correct move at the time. The credit market was not just frozen but in cryogenic stasis. The fear was that with banks unwilling to loan to anyone, that companies needing their revolving lines of credit and commercial paper to do things like make next week's payroll would get hurt hard, worsening any impact of bank failures well beyond the financial sector of the economy.

Where the government failed was in not taking measures to prevent history from repeating itself. If the banks were too big to fail, then the government should've made sure that, after saving them, they were either broken up ala Ma Bell/Standard Oil/etc. so that they were no longer too big to fail, or regulated the hell out of them so that they wouldn't need to be bailed out again. Instead, we got some token measures that did jack shiat, and we'll likely end up needing to bail them out again sometime in the not really distant future.

Essentially, I have no problems with the initial bailout. It's the follow-up, or lack thereof, where the rest of us got absolutely hosed. Socialize the losses, privatize the gains, indeed. But then, that's par for the course. I have no issues with Keynsian stimulii in times of economic malaise. The problems arise when the government forgets to pay that off (and/or save up for the next round) in the boom times.

[Priceless]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Clearly we disagree. I wouldn't have bailed out the banks and I wouldn't wish to pay off everyone's first mortgages using the Federal government's funds (and yes, I have a mortgage to pay myself). It's not the role of the Federal government.

I was against the bailout as well, I just find it odd that the banks got their money but individuals are left out on the street (literally). The role of the federal government was not to back an 18-wheeler up to the US Treasury and move the contents to Wall Street either, but that's what happened. Any wonder that the people now ask, "What about me?"

To quote the West Wing

Well, as long as there's a Congress, there are going to be multi-billion-dollar boondoggles. We'd just like to share in them a little bit, please.

It's funny you keep throwing out the "Socialism" tag, as though tossing it out there will disarm its meaning. What you're proposing is a degree of socialism, as what has already been done. Point of fact, I would say with the corporations out there it's more like Corporatism. Just have the companies do what the government wants, and the government will either ensure a profit or bail out those companies it leads down the road to ruins. That seems to be the deal over the last 3-4 years (or going back further than that when thinking about the airlines and Chrysler). I don't support such policy. It makes for a system rife with fraud and corruption.

The Socialism tag gets attached to anything the president proposes or any idea that might actually help the people instead of the top 1% or the corporations.

[goldy_331]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

By here do you mean Minnesota? Otherwise I dont follow you.

No, here on USCHO. It's the banks, they own everything!

[5mn_Major]

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Too many posts to individually respond to them, but here's my basic thoughts.

The bank bailout was absolutely the correct move at the time. The credit market was not just frozen but in cryogenic stasis. The fear was that with banks unwilling to loan to anyone, that companies needing their revolving lines of credit and commercial paper to do things like make next week's payroll would get hurt hard, worsening any impact of bank failures well beyond the financial sector of the economy.

Where the government failed was in not taking measures to prevent history from repeating itself. If the banks were too big to fail, then the government should've made sure that, after saving them, they were either broken up ala Ma Bell/Standard Oil/etc. so that they were no longer too big to fail, or regulated the hell out of them so that they wouldn't need to be bailed out again. Instead, we got some token measures that did jack shiat, and we'll likely end up needing to bail them out again sometime in the not really distant future.

Essentially, I have no problems with the initial bailout. It's the follow-up, or lack thereof, where the rest of us got absolutely hosed. Socialize the losses, privatize the gains, indeed. But then, that's par for the course. I have no issues with Keynsian stimulii in times of economic malaise. The problems arise when the government forgets to pay that off (and/or save up for the next round) in the boom times.

Yep. And much of the bank 'bailout' was in the form of stocks...and yes, we taxpayers did just fine on our investment. GM did cost taxpayers...but even there, what would have been the cost of the employees of GM and its suppliers being out on the streets. Its not the way this country should ever conduct business...except for when the country is at severe risk of our economy crashing.