Implementation of Obamacare

Alan Greenspan was wrong in thinking that the market would regulate itself; and he admitted that he was wrong in his testimony before Congress. The congressional response was Dodd-Frank incorporating the Volcker Rule against proprietary trading by banking entities; which was violated by JP Morgan Chase Bank before the ink was dry on the "remedial" legislation. (How many billions were lost? Does anyone know?) Dodd-Frank was too little to late; and it was immediately attacked by the banking and securities lobbyists that have succeeded in getting the few restrictions on trading financial derivative contracts "relaxed" to the point that it is back to "business as usual". In this, I fault President Obama's leadership; for although he did not create the problem, he failed to take decisive action to correct it. When he had the bankers by the balls and called them on the carpet at the White House, instead of bringing these rogues to heel, he let them off the leash. The gleeful bankers held a press conference to announce that the President had agreed to "work with them". You can rest assured that what happened before will happen again - and soon. And you and I - and everyone not responsible - will end up paying for it; and for a very, very long time to come.
 
Werbung:
Want really happened Mr. Lagboltz was a failure of the government to exercise proper regulatory control over mortgage banking and securities. Between 2004 and 2006, banks and mortgage lenders made millions of high-risk, subprime loans (i.e., 100% "piggyback" loans with adjustable interest rates "ARMs", etc.) to borrowers that were unqualified for conventional financing and without due-diligence requirements for collateralization on the assumption that the real estate market could only go up and no one could lose. These loans were then packaged and sold as debt securities on the financial markets worldwide.

Then, predictably, things took a downturn. The interest rates on these loans went up, and borrowers started defaulting on their loans, precipitating a rash of foreclosures across the country. By August 2007, Countrywide Home Loans, the largest mortgage lender on the planet, was on the verge of bankruptcy; but was bought out by Bank of America in an effort to prevent its own equity position in the company from being extinguished. (Not a good move as it turned out, for in taking over Countrywide, it had to assume a large portfolio of very bad loans.) The disintegration, however, continued with millions of defaults followed by foreclosures as real estate values plummeted. This in turn precipitated bank failures, including Indymac Bank (the largest since the crash of 1929), which was followed by the collapse of some of the biggest investment firms like Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanley, and Lehman Brothers (the biggest bankruptcy in history), the federal "conservatorship" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and finally the outright takeover of AIG. It had a cascading effect necessitating a government bailout with taxpayer funds just to stabilize the financial markets and prevent widespread, systemic economic chaos.

It was the fault of deregulation. The FDIC, FSLIC, HUD and FTC failed in regulating the banks and mortgage lenders, and the SEC had failed to exercise proper oversight of the sale of mortgage-backed securities. (Even Alan Greenspan was forced to admit that he was wrong in thinking that the market could be left to its own devices.) And, it will happen again because the Congress lacks the political will to establish regulatory control over banking and financial markets. Dodd-Frank - which the banking lobby is working night and day to have Congress repeal - is not the answer. Regulation must be measured, but effective; and not so heavy-handed as to stifle economic growth. To work, there must at least be a level playing field, which requires more transparency that will promote value over speculation. Also, there needs to be accountability: if there are no penalties for failure - if executives are rewarded for running their companies aground - there is no incentive to exercise restraint over irresponsible action.

It was not the fault of deregulation. No industry in the US is more regulated than the financial industry. The problem is Wall Street and the government are one. They protect each other and enrich each other, at the expense of the rest of us.

All the illegal and questionable activities that lead up to the crisis of 2008 by government and Wall Street resulted in both being even more wealthy and powerful today. Look at Goldman Sacks...it is a revolving door for government and industry...and no one goes to jail or is punished in any way...in fact, they are enriched and empowered.

IMHO what big business and government did and continue to do, is no different than what Bernie Madoff did. All should be in prison with Bernie.
 
No, it was due to the lack of federal regulation. The policy change was the enactment of safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 that exempt derivative contracts from bankruptcy. This, together with the prior repeal of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, enabled banks and their parent holding companies to trade in derivatives (viz. mortgage-backed securities) on the financial markets with immunity. It was the sale of these securitized mortgages, and subsequent default on the repurchase agreements, that triggered the bank failures, the stock market crash, and subsequent recession. President Bush had no choice but to take over the failed banks, and move to stabilize the financial markets to prevent catastrophic economic collapse; however by then it was too late as the damage to the economy had been done. The fallout was unprecedented, the bailout unresolved, and the legal issues, for the most part, unsatisfactory. There are a few cases that have held the flip clauses in a collateralized debt obligation to be an invalid ipso facto clause that are unenforceable despite the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code; however the consensus of opinion is that these decisions will not stand up on appeal. See Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. BNY Corporate Tr. Servs. Ltd. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.) 422 B.R. 407 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010); and Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Ltd. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.) 452 B.R. 31 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011). This is why the safe harbor provisions for derivative contracts should be repealed, and trading in these high-risk securities by bank entities disallowed. Dodd-Frank (which the banks say goes too far) doesn’t go far enough as it fails to address the derivatives problem effectively; and it will be up to Congress to enact remedial legislation to curb this undisclosed speculation (i.e., "shadow banking"), or, as I said in my previous posts, what happened before will surely happen again.
 
No, it was due to the lack of federal regulation. The policy change was the enactment of safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 that exempt derivative contracts from bankruptcy. This, together with the prior repeal of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, enabled banks and their parent holding companies to trade in derivatives (viz. mortgage-backed securities) on the financial markets with immunity. It was the sale of these securitized mortgages, and subsequent default on the repurchase agreements, that triggered the bank failures, the stock market crash, and subsequent recession. President Bush had no choice but to take over the failed banks, and move to stabilize the financial markets to prevent catastrophic economic collapse; however by then it was too late as the damage to the economy had been done. The fallout was unprecedented, the bailout unresolved, and the legal issues, for the most part, unsatisfactory. There are a few cases that have held the flip clauses in a collateralized debt obligation to be an invalid ipso facto clause that are unenforceable despite the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code; however the consensus of opinion is that these decisions will not stand up on appeal. See Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. BNY Corporate Tr. Servs. Ltd. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.) 422 B.R. 407 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010); and Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Ltd. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.) 452 B.R. 31 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011). This is why the safe harbor provisions for derivative contracts should be repealed, and trading in these high-risk securities by bank entities disallowed. Dodd-Frank (which the banks say goes too far) doesn’t go far enough as it fails to address the derivatives problem effectively; and it will be up to Congress to enact remedial legislation to curb this undisclosed speculation (i.e., "shadow banking"), or, as I said in my previous posts, what happened before will surely happen again.

What you are not getting is the regulations exist and have existed for decadeds, but the regulators are owned by industry. Some say America is an economy based on soft Fascism. That certainly has a ring of truth to it. Crony Capitalism also describes what we have today.

Yes, repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was done by Goldman Sachs and the Clinton administration, holds much of the blame. This is yet another example of industry and government working together to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of most Americans. Dodd-Frank is also an example of industry controlling government. It was proposed by two of the most corrupt politicians in our nation's history...both claimed that Fannie and Freddie were doing great just before they fell, while both were recieving huge sums of campaign dollars from Wall Street.

Regulations imposed by a corrupt government...only further corrupts. This is America today. To Big To Fail is a perfect example of this.

And it does not matter if the POTUS is a D or an R. Both parties are purchased and owned by Wall Street and big corps.
 
Interestingly enough a junior senator from Illinois was the 2nd most favored recipient of Fannie leading up to the collapse. Tell me again who Wall St loves most ?
How many white collar crimes has Holder's DOJ prosecuted on Wall Street? ZERO!!

Holder's DOJ ain't worried about white collar crime on Wall Street .... they're more concerned about white folks on main street!
 
Georgia business weighs paying ObamaCare fine, instead of coverage

Debbie and Larry Underkoffler launched a boutique staffing agency in what they call the worst economy ever, doing anything they could to stand out to potential clients.


This is an interesting story of temporary employment agency that already offers great benefits to it's 18 full-time employees and how laws within the ACA will force them to cover their 200+ temporary employees as well.

The writing is clearly on the wall. Less jobs and less insurance coverage for us all thanks to Obamacare!
 
I'm confident that there will be some major criminal prosecutions, rather than just the ones pending now of the (not-news-worthy) "low-hanging fruit". The Wall Street criminals are not out of the woods - and they know it.
 
I'm confident that there will be some major criminal prosecutions, rather than just the ones pending now of the (not-news-worthy) "low-hanging fruit". The Wall Street criminals are not out of the woods - and they know it.

Well you are much more believing than me. We are five years since the crisis and no one is being charged. Not even the criminal Jon Corzine is being charged...and yet you think these guys, who are no different than Mafia Dons, will recieve justice.

If justice were to really be served, not only would the Wall Street criminals would be presecuted, but nearly everyone in government would too.
 
I'm confident that there will be some major criminal prosecutions, rather than just the ones pending now of the (not-news-worthy) "low-hanging fruit". The Wall Street criminals are not out of the woods - and they know it.
Really ....

Five years into the Obama regime's reign and not the first white collar crime prosecuted on Wall Street by Eric Holder. You sure are pretty optimistic about the messiah there Mr. Savage!

 
Werbung:
perhaps under a new doj but unlikely

Even that is much too optimistic. I think there is NO chance...no matter who is running the DOJ....

The government is owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street....way too much campaign cash and sweet heart deals, for politicians and bureaucrats to ever change.

Our government is now so corrupt and so powerful that unless it is destroyed, it will never change.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top