Bankers threaten to resign.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

The only thieves here are the ones that took my money and yours and loaned
it to idiots.

Ah, so you are talking about the bailout. I think you have to look to the reasons why the bailouts were necessary and what would have happened to the economy if the banks had been allowed to fail.

By the way, several banks have already repaid the money they got under the stimulus and several more are just about to.

When the we saved Chrysler all those years ago we wnded up making a tidy profit on the deal. Chrysler paid us back with interest.

John

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Chrysler paid us back with interest.

As are the banks

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Combwork

No I'm not making it up. After the government (who after bailing them out with taxpayers money own more than 50% of the bank) told Royal Bank of Scotland chiefs "no bonuses this year", the greedy bastards have threatened to resign. All of them.

.

Why is this a story?

If they leave they leave.

They will find out how good they had it.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

As are the banks

Paying interest? You know, I was wondering that when I was typing about Chrysler. I don't know. I think so but I'm not certain. Guess I ought to check.

[EDIT] Yes, they are but thee have been a few deadbeats so far.

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkl...nds-missed.jpg

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

The only thieves here are the ones that took my money and yours and loaned
it to idiots.

You said earlier that the bankers were against this yet Wells Fargo was onne of the biggest lenders of sub-prime mortgages which they promptly turned into derivatives and dumped.

So you seem to believe that a system that lets people approve people for mortgages which they immediately pass on is valid? They make money but take no risk, so why would they worry about the mortgagee's credit rating.

No other country has all the crap we have loaded onto mortgages, no title companies, no title insurance, no selling of the mortgage, you stay with the same lender for the life of the mortgage. We once found ourselves suddenly sold off to the bunch at Countrywide, could not get out of that fast enough.

However, I see you are bound to try and lay all of this at the Democrats door.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Paying interest? You know, I was wondering that when I was typing about Chrysler. I don't know. I think so but I'm not certain. Guess I ought to check.

[EDIT] Yes, they are but thee have been a few deadbeats so far.

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkl...nds-missed.jpg

John

The way it was structured, the banks were paying dividends to the government. Bank of America for example has paid $2.54 billion in TARP dividends.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

You said earlier that the bankers were against this yet Wells Fargo was onne of the biggest lenders of sub-prime mortgages which they promptly turned into derivatives and dumped.

So you seem to believe that a system that lets people approve people for mortgages which they immediately pass on is valid? They make money but take no risk, so why would they worry about the mortgagee's credit rating.

I started a long post about derivatives but I quit. Making a mortgage sausage and then selling off chunks of it to investors is just plain nuts. It allows mortgage companies to write bad loans, bundle them with good loans and then sell them off so that someone else assumed all the risk.

No other country has all the crap we have loaded onto mortgages, no title companies, no title insurance, no selling of the mortgage, you stay with the same lender for the life of the mortgage. We once found ourselves suddenly sold off to the bunch at Countrywide, could not get out of that fast enough.

No, but that didn't stop banks and investors in other countries from buying our derivatives. Glad you got out from under Countrywide. You know, B of A owns them now.

However, I see you are bound to try and lay all of this at the Democrats door.

Well, it's always the other guy's fault, right? In this case, however, there's plenty of blame to go around.

But I still think Jack sees only the bailout as the problem.

John

[HatchetJack]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Even if that happened - and it didn't - it wouldn't be socialism.

John

Well it did and it was and now they want to do the same
with the healthcare system.I assure you if that passes it will
meet the same fate as the housing industry. All socialism ultimately fails.
We are not communist here are we?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

Well it did and it was and now they want to do the same
with the healthcare system.I assure you if that passes it will
meet the same fate as the housing industry. All socialism ultimately fails.
We are not communist here are we?

The deregulation of the banking industry was something they lobbied for, not something that was forced down their throats by the government. Anyway, how can you say that less government control of business is socialism?

C'mon, Jack. Help me out here. Why is bailing out the financial industry socialism and why is it the same as health care reform?

By the way, there's difference between socialism and communism.

John

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

We are not communist here are we?

Hopefully, we are socially responsible. Right now we are a christan nation with not so Christan policies.