Senate grills Goldman execs on meltdown role

Please point me to the facts.

Did Glass-Steagall increase or decrease Wall Street Regulation?

Did the Commodity Future Modernization Act of 2000, increase or decrease Wall Street Regulation?

When the SEC relaxed capital requirements in 2004, did that increase or decrease Wall Street Regulation?

And this is what you need to know about TARP:
Of the $700 billion in TARP funding authorized by Congress in October 2008, the Treasury has planned for $545.1 billion in investments, committed $489.8 billion and disbursed $380.3 billion as of March 31. Institutions had repaid $180.8 billion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aVHMZwNcj2B0&;

furthermore..when you say ‘All general market principles are the same’..you are wrong. We are not operating anymore on ‘general market principles’..we are not operating in a true free market either. THAT IS THE PROBLEM! The government has caused most of the problems in the market by not setting consistent borrowing limits, creating taxpayer funded ‘securitization’ in the first place( Ginnie Mae... then Fannie and Freddie plus The Community Re-Investment Act).

You sound like you are simply repeating progressive talking points here and have no room in your opinions to examine the issues without bias.

I don’t have time to play your game. Whatever could be found to ‘answer’ your questions, would not produce ‘facts’...only opinions.

If you are demanding fixing “Too big to fail” you are asking somebody to keep financial institutions artificially small.

Look at it this way, we have 20 widget making companies, everybody needs one for everyday life.

And they all have about the same market share, nobody with more than 10%. So if one widget maker goes down, there’s a disruption in the marketplace but it evens out pretty quickly.

Now let’s assume WorldWideWidgets has great management, and take 12% of the market through superior widgets, marketing, distribution. Flushed with cash, they look around for opportunities, they decide to stick with what they know and buy a few smaller Widget makers. With the acquisitions they grow to 25% of the market.

These moves don’t go unnoticed by their rivals. GlobalWidgets & U.S. Widgets realize they have to do something, so they merge and take 20% of the Market.

This freaks out the National Widget Company and makes a move of buying up whoever is left, leveraging themselves to the hilt. National ends up with 25% of the market as well.

Has any company done anything wrong? No. National has the most risk, but sometimes in business you need to take a risk to succeed.

So now let’s assume, a perfect storm, Both National & WorldWide screw the pooch and go belly up fast, like announce they’ll be shutting down within two months. 50% of the suppliers vanish. For the remaining companies to increase production to meet those needs will take about a year. Without the widgets, there will be rioting in the streets. There will be panic.

Should the government step in now to keep the companies afloat until the widget production can be stabilized?

Or would it have been better for the government to say no to WorldWide initial attempts to dominate the market through acquisitions? And force WorldWide to either invest in other sectors or return their profits to their shareholders. Or do we limit the amount of Debt that US Widgets can take on?

Or are you willing to take your chances in the great Widget Panic of 2010?

Look, I agree with Nicole Gelinas. How do you reduce the size of banks? You saw her video, tell me what she said. She wants to go revisit the deregulation fad of the last 30 years and find out where we went too far and go back to re-regulation. I want that as well.

The goal for any new regulation needs to accomplish the following.
1) More Financial institutions
2) Smaller Financial institutions
How do we accomplish that? What has worked in the past was government regulation.

Fannie & Freddie has existed for 40 years in their current form.
The Community Re-Investment Act has existed for 30 years.

If Fannie, Freddie & the CRA is as toxic as you claim, this meltdown would have happened during one of the half-dozen or so recessions we’ve had in the last 30 years.

Thanks for pointing me back to opensecrets, it's been awhile

And then we have this from the Wall Street Journal

A Wall Street Journal analysis of 12 large financial services companies, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shows that they have collectively made $1.4 million in political donations, with 52% going to Republicans so far this year. That’s a reversal from last year, according to the most recent round of fund-raising reports covering January, February and March.

Last year, J.P. Morgan’s political action committee gave about 60% of its $100,000 in donations to Democratic candidates. But in the first three months of 2010, the company’s PAC has reversed that trend, sending about 60% of its donations to Republicans.

Morgan Stanley has also reversed course. Last year, the company’s PAC gave $77,500 to Democratic candidates and $63,500 to Republicans. Through the first months of this year, Republicans have received 80% of its $40,000 in donations, according to the analysis.

But campaign records show that even Goldman Sachs has given more – 52% — of its PAC donations to Republicans in the first three months of the year. Few companies have been more reliable supporters of the Democratic Party than Goldman Sachs. Since 1989, there has never been an election in which Goldman gave more to Republicans than Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. In fact, employees of Goldman were the No. 2 source of campaign cash for President Barack Obama, giving his 2008 presidential campaign nearly $1 million.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street firms have also begun writing large checks to the Republican Party, while stiffing the Democratic Party. Goldman, KPMG, and FMR Corp. (the owner of Fidelity Investments) each gave $15,000 to the Republican Party in March.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/27/wall-street-rules-help-gop-fill-campaign-coffers/

Oh just come out of the closet.

Your every post is either a rant about Conservatives "wanting to turn the clock back 1900s era laws" or a mindless chant of every Progressive talking point about "evil greedy Wall Street".

John McCain is more of a Conservative then you.

I never advocated ‘no regulation’ and neither do most conservatives that I know. What we don’t want is more progressive,keynesian,Krugman,big government solutions that have never worked, have made things worse and never will work in the future. We certainly don’t want another 2500 page bill, written in the dark of night, by the same progressives that have destroyed our economy and set us on the path to a fascist fiscal future. And we certainly don’t want it rammed down our throats with no real debate the way Obama and the dems did with the health care bill.

Celinas aruges(if I understand her right)that sensible borrowing limits will take care of the leverage problem in and of itself and that her other solutions, if implemented across the board, will tend to dampen down the need for excessive anti-trust regulations or the need to break up big banks. The banks will never become too big to fail in the first place nor pose a systemic risk to the entire economy if they do fail. They will downsize to fit the new market realities,capital requirements and lending restrictions. What Obama wants to do is beyond even FDR’s wildest progressive dreams.....LOL. Obama’s plan is true crony capitalism and fascism.

Wait, let me get this straight.

I claim Wall Street will buy whoever they want.
You claim Wall Street gave more money to Dems than to Republicans. (which I agree with, that’s a fact).
I show how Wall Street has radically switched it’s giving from the Dims to the GOP.

And all you have to answer to that is I’m not a conservative?
Really? The Dems took power because “Conservatives” turned a blind eye to the Republican’s spending from 2001 to 2006. And now you want to stick you head in the sand when they are going back to the exact same patterns of behavior.

Spare us the faux Conservative bluster. There is nothing even remotely conservative in your world view. Just come out of the closet of political denial.

Do You Have Any Reforms in Size XL? [Bank Reform Won't End Taxpayer Bailouts]

Monday, April 26, 2010 11:20:11 AM · 19 of 20 maddogconservative to raybbr

You know, if you really believe that Fannie & Freddie is responsible for this whole mess, there’s an easy way to make a grand.

But what are you willing to cut? Interest on the Debt + Social Security + Medicare + Defense is equal to 2,225 Billion (give or take).

All other budget items is equal to 1,465 Billion.

Our Federal deficit is 1,267 Billion

So to budget the deficit with spending cuts only would mean the end of to shut down all Veteran’s Benefits, NASA, Medicaid, Welfare, Farm Subsidies, Pell Grants, FDA, etc...

Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status

Monday, April 26, 2010 1:21:28 PM · 16 of 171 maddogconservative to reaganaut1

Hush up, they won’t ask us for our papers, we look like Americans.

Just wait until the price of childcare, cleaning, construction, restaurants and lawn care goes through the roof.

Panel says U.S. can't grow its way out of deficits Monday, April 26, 2010 5:38:39 PM · 68 of 87 maddogconservative to Jack Hydrazine

So, let me get this straight, You want to raise college tuition to about 30-40K a year. Close down all national parks. Return to the social safety net and food security of the 1900’s (and encouraging women to have abortions). Do away with the two most popular programs of the the most solidly republican voting block (seniors).

And mind you, you are still about 200 Billion short. And that’s not including you reducing the tax revenues by getting rid of the IRS (really are people going to pay their taxes if there are no cops?).

And I won’t even go into the nightmare you propose to have the government print their own money. If you think spending is out of control now...

Etc etc etc etc etc

You are misreading Celinas. She is proposing really radical reforms and strong forceful government regulation. She’s just not admitting that it’s strong forceful government regulation.

I checked out her article from the Motley Fool,
she suggests the following:
1) should similarly force financial firms — from commercial banks to hedge funds — to hold a consistent percentage of hefty capital behind all securitized debt, rather than giving some firms a break on AAA-rated securities and some firms a pass completely.

She is proposing increasing regulation on Banks, hedge funds, etc, to an unprecedented level. (This is a repeal of the SEC’s 2004 deregulation).

2) A second necessary measure is consistent rules on trading and clearing. If AIG had had to put down $10 billion up front on a $100 billion derivatives liability, for example, and place the cash on reserve at a clearinghouse that had collected other counterparties’ monies for the same purpose, markets would have known that some money existed to absorb losses.

This is once again, another increase in government regulation. This is a repeal of the 2000 bill I mentioned earlier.

3) A third necessary rule is a capital charge for short-term borrowing
This is a major accounting change, which we really don’t know what the results would be.

But Celinas doesn’t account for Bank Mergers, partnerships and consolidation. So Wall Street could still wind up with a too big to fail bank. Also she keeps small depositors at risk, if you allow a Investment bank (Goldman) to buy Commercial Banks (where you keep your money), the Investment Bank can use your insured deposit as part of their collateral. She reduces the opportunity of a Too Big To Fail bank, but she doesn’t account for Wall Street Creativity. I want somebody to come in there and say “Oh heck no.”

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/gelinas.htm

Do you claim that illegal immigrants don’t keep the price of labor down? Do you claim that Americans don’t like the cheap labor of illegal? Or are Non-Americans hiring illegals?

Are you claiming that Debt+Social+security+Medicare+Defense isn’t responsible for 2.2 Trillion Dollars of our Budget? Or all other budget items is 1.5 Trillion? Or is our deficit not 1.2 Trillion? Is there a trillion I misplaced?

Jack Hydrazine wanted to repeal every social program since the New Deal, not me.

Do you honestly think if you gave Obama the keys to the printing press he would flood the US with cheap money to pay for his social programs?

Spare us the hypocritical bluster.

On this thread you bitch and moan about Crony Capitalism and Wall street fat cats.

On the Immigration thread you bitch and moan about how enforcing the immigration laws will make your fellow crony capitalist fat cats have to raise prices on everything.

On the budget threads you bluster about how any cutting of anything in the Federal Budget returns us to "1900 era levels of protection".

The only consistency in your posting, aside for simply making up facts to fit your political biases, is a mindless echo of the latest Obama regime talking points on any given subject.

There is nothing remotely Conservative about you at all.

It not your politics I object to. It is your fundamental lack of even the least sense of intellectual honesty or factual accuracy in your postings.

If I had a single fact wrong you would point it out and show me the correct link to it. The fact that you’ve done no such thing speaks volumes.

Did Jack write “The only thing the government should be involved in are currency protection, national defense, and other things proscribed by the Constitution.” If you remove all the New Deal & “Great” Society programs aren’t you reducing government to 1900 levels?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2500597/posts?page=62#62

Are you claiming that when we deport all the illegals, US Citizens will work in those same jobs for the same pay? Did Windflier write: “You want to talk about the costs of construction? The wages for tradesmen in construction have been badly depressed by illegal alien labor for 20 years or more, now. It’s gotten so bad, that you can’t find young Americans who are even willing to learn the trades any longer, because they don’t pay for squat any more.” Is Windflier a liberal?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2500811/posts?page=82#82

You know, your post has to be one of the most excessively STUPID posting every posted here.

In a board with such a long rich history, that is a MAJOR accomplishment.

Your post is ultra, completely mega stupid. We will have to come up with a whole new classification of stupid to adequately address your level of idiocy. World Record Stupid! Rock hard dehydrated stupid! Lifetime Achievement Stupid! So stupid it MUST be a lost fragment of the primordial soup from with all imbeciles since have sprung. It sets a whole new standard by which stupidity will be judged from now on!

Quick, call the Nobel Committee. We have to establish a whole new Nobel Prize for World Record Stupidity just so MaddogLeftist here can be award it!!!

I applaud your courage. Most people attempt to hide their moronic natures but not YOU. NO, you FLAUNT your morondom. You proudly cruise the Internet squealing “I AM THE WORLDS LARGEST IDIOT”.

I must say I have NEVER seen anyone so willing to make peace with a painful personal truth as you have embraced your imbecility. Well done brave soul!

That later line you posted to him, “I must say I have NEVER seen anyone so willing to make peace with a painful personal truth as you have embraced your imbecility” is terrifyingly well crafted. I may have to steal it.

I will, of course, give attribution to you the first two times I use it, but AFTER THAT, its mine.

You still can’t find a fact that’s wrong.

But he still hasn’t provided any proof that I’m wrong.

Still waiting for you to try and explaining what is even remotely "conservative" about these statement.

Try actually responding to the point for once instead of rather just posting more ignorant childish bluster in response.

Sorry but your demonstrated lack of even the most basic respect for factual accuracy combined with your total lack of the slightest hint of intellectual honesty in your posts renders your continued phony posturing as an "intellectual" here absurd

Recent comments posted by "Maddogconservative"