mr_genius

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 11:03 AM) No, I don't think that JP Morgan Chase would have gone under. My second thought is that we need to eliminate "too big to fail" in the long-term, and break up these gigantic financial institutions who have gotten even bigger (3-5x bigger) over the past 10-15 years. I agree. But the thing is, the bailout was actually designed to have banks merge. There was pressure on certain banks to take over some of the failures, and they were paid to do so. See Bank of America taking Merrill Lynch. So the bailout, in it's nature, made this problem worse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:41 AM) The idea that Iraq will cost less than the bailout is just manifestly false, no matter what your feelings are on either one. you are wrong, there is no way around it. i'm against both, but unless you add together everything for Iraq (like buildings destroyed), not the cost to the US, you will not hit the bailout total sums.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 07:28 PM) I always go back to the same story... First Chicago Bank was a big bank. 10th largest in the US back in the Now the biggest problem going forward is that these financial institutions are too big. "too big to fail". At some point, and I hope its during the next 4-5 years, we force these banks to break up into multiple smaller ones. (like AT&T back in the day) early 90's. They merge with Bank of Detroit (18th largest) to create the 7th largest bank in the US. Then First Chicago NBD merges with Banc One. Then the new Banc One acquires Louisiana First Commerce Corp (size unknown). Banc One becomes Bank One. Bank One is acquired by JP Morgan Chase in 2004. (which is a combination of Chase Manhattan buying JP Morgan.. Chase by the way, also merged with Chemical Bank in 1996.) Then, in 2008 JP Morgan Chase acquires Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual (6th largest in 2008) Big enough for you? so you think Chase was going under? really? they didn't even use the bailout loot to give out loans, they used it to buy more banks. so the bailout actually made that problem, of super mega banks, worse.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 07:28 PM) i'm calling you on this. I know for absoute certainty that some of the banks, would have gone under. no s***. no one is denying that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:39 PM) They didn't go under because the Fed stepped in as well and because we've allowed them to pretend that the assets they're holding are worth more. It's certainly plausible that the fed actions could have been enough. But I'm 100% convinced that BofA and Citi and the others would have been in FDIC hands somehow had the Feds (including the federal reserve here) not stepped in. Especially when you consider the amount of paper the Federal Reserve has bought. (This, btw, is a great argument for why we need to support the bill in Congress calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve). http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2017082

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) They gave it back because they were able to raise private capital to plug the holes in their balance sheet. They were able to do that because the new investors new that their money wouldn't be lost; the bank wasn't going to be allowed to go belly up. The money that the banks raised to pay back the bailouts was done with an implicit government guarantee that the money would not be lost. Had it not been for the bailout, the banks wouldn't have been able to pay back the bailout money (How's that for bizarre?) bulls***. without the bailout, those banks DO NOT go under. if it was a GOP president, you would not have agreed with ANYTHING you just posted.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) They've been a terribly designed policy, they made a bunch of very rich bankers even richer. But the weird thing is...they also saved the banking system. It's been an enormous waste of money but it did its job; it allowed the credit markets to unfreeze because they understood that the government had basically given BofA, Citi, etc., the ability to back their loans with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. It's a disaster in implementation and half the money has been wasted because we needed to make sure the bankers got their bonuses. It did have the intended effect though. So I'm just not sure how to look at that thing right now. I'm not going to sit here and insist that the credit markets are still frozen like they were last year, and that their unfreezing hasn't been a positive thing. it didn't work. the economy and banking system would have been better without the bailouts; creative destruction. s***, a bunch of the banks just gave the money back because they didn't want the strings attached to the money. it was an epic failure. i'll tell you exactly where we go from here. in 10 - 20 years there will be a more massive bailout given. there is no penalty for taking insane risks. the bailouts destroyed the entire schema of our economy. this is a socialist country, with billionaire bankers on a platinum welfare plan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) How many times on this site have I been told that Toxic assets do not have zero value? how am i supposed to know? i stopped reading pro-banker bailout bonus posts long ago. anyways, you were against the bank bailouts, then Obama wins and you totally change your tune. i would imagine you all of a sudden agree with the majority of the pro-bailout posts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:49 PM) The Fed has also received assets of some unknown value in exchange for much of it. those assets are f***ing toxic. but, if obama tells you they are good, you will blindly believe. unreal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:49 PM) $1.6 trillion by 2009 = $2 to $3 trillion by the time it's done. That one is easy as can be. Your link proves my number is correct. no it doesn't, actually. you are predicting a ramp up or the Iraq war? that article was from 2007 and they were saying 1.6 trillion by 2009, I updated it with a recent one. from the NY Times article: so you are predicting a major ramp up and a tripling of cost. no way, you're wrong. it's not going to happen. the numbers, the math, and basic statistics prove you incorrect. balta, there is interest on the money we are borrowing from China. your numbers are wrong, and you keep adding things as I said Iraq. Admit it, you were way off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:36 PM) Not if you do the math, actually. The $2-$3 trillion price tag for Iraq is still less than the $800 billion stimulus and $700 billion bank bailout and even the other things like AMT reform, SChip expansion, etc. put together. 700 billion bank bailout? they have already paid out like3 trillion. And your numbers about Iraq are suspect http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html Bank bailout? terrible idea Iraq war? terrible move Bailout cost more. that is a fact.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) Now we just need the John Edwards picture... "abortions... Covered." haha

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) fancy wars would be more affordable. those fancy wars are cheap compared to the complete blowout of spending we've seen in the past 2 years.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) So they should be covered. Far be it from me to prohibit insurance companies to choose what non basic procedures they would cover. "breast augmentation? covered." "breast reduction? ....... not covered"

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 09:01 AM) Who develops pictures anymore? people that deserve to go to jail! END OF STORY!!!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) You could build it yourself. f*** that, i'm not building anything for free, dude.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 09:21 PM) Every cent spent on missile defense is a cent not spent on this. i didn't know that. i kinda feel bad now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) Here's $20 billion/year and the governorship of Alaska well thank you very much. all my hard work has finally paid off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 03:16 PM) Tex, this one's for you.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 06:17 PM) Yes against missiles that actually exist. i have developed a system, which has saved or created, over 1,000,000 successful strikes against non-existent missiles. true story

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 09:46 PM) I don't know if I've ever seen a 33/11 time of possession ratio in a tie game. wow and the colts win

congrats!

Iron my shirt!

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 20, 2009 -> 05:59 PM) anyone wanna bet we dont get the first down or in FG range here? QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 20, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) mmmm love me some p**** s*** playcalling by the bears when it gets to crunch time QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 20, 2009 -> 06:07 PM) Time for a squib kick, a sideline pass and a game tying FG nope