Texsox Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 You have to. I also blame him for the demise of the local video store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 09:04 PM) Reagan has created a new entitlement class. His banker buddies. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 20, 2012 -> 07:23 AM) fixed fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 20, 2012 -> 07:23 AM) fixed That was pretty lame, especially for you. Must have been busy chasing Cookie and Buttercup or Bambi or whatever their names were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 20, 2012 -> 07:35 PM) That was pretty lame, especially for you. Must have been busy chasing Cookie and Buttercup or Bambi or whatever their names were. Lol. My cats? Girls named them, don't blame me for that, Anyway any way you want to look at it the banking corruption started in the early 80s, Reagan couldn't stand Volcker so he put in Greenspan... That's when the ball got rolling. Everything traces back to this era. The idea that corruption in finance started with Obama is kind of hilarious, it took decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I blamed Bush for high gas prices so I would have to blame Obama. But when was the last time we had $5/gallon? 2008? We always hear that it could get back up there and it has really never been close to $4, if I recall. I'll believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 01:49 AM) Lol. My cats? Girls named them, don't blame me for that, Anyway any way you want to look at it the banking corruption started in the early 80s, Reagan couldn't stand Volcker so he put in Greenspan... That's when the ball got rolling. Everything traces back to this era. The idea that corruption in finance started with Obama is kind of hilarious, it took decades. at least people went to jail for the s&l stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 01:49 AM) Lol. My cats? Girls named them, don't blame me for that, Anyway any way you want to look at it the banking corruption started in the early 80s, Reagan couldn't stand Volcker so he put in Greenspan... That's when the ball got rolling. Everything traces back to this era. The idea that corruption in finance started with Obama is kind of hilarious, it took decades. It didn't start with Obama or Ronnie. You can go back to the organization of the Fed Bank itself if you really want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) It didn't start with Obama or Ronnie. You can go back to the organization of the Fed Bank itself if you really want to. Just look at the $10 bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I don't see how the settlement against the banks here can leverage the HAMP monies in that way, I don't think that is legally valid. I also think we should wait to see how the supposed clause is actually written. That said, I am glad this is being discussed, on the off chance it really is that ridiculous of a hole. And if it is that ridiculous, not only is it bad for all the obvious reasons, I'd suspect there will be court challenges as well as a lot of political vitriol well-deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) I don't see how the settlement against the banks here can leverage the HAMP monies in that way, I don't think that is legally valid. I also think we should wait to see how the supposed clause is actually written. That said, I am glad this is being discussed, on the off chance it really is that ridiculous of a hole. And if it is that ridiculous, not only is it bad for all the obvious reasons, I'd suspect there will be court challenges as well as a lot of political vitriol well-deserved. How can there be legal challenges to a settlement agreed to by the US and 49 attorneys general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) How can there be legal challenges to a settlement agreed to by the US and 49 attorneys general? Because it wasn't agreed to by the US. But HAMP was. That is the whole point. The settlement was entered with monies going to the federal government. If that money is then re-spent, without Congressional approval and using a Congressionally approved measure, I am not sure that can really stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 http://freebeacon.com/obama-super-pac-lean...hicago-machine/ The sole major contributor to Obama’s Priorities USA PAC for the month of January is a longtime ally of the president with ties to the Illinois political machine, including convicted fraudster Tony Rezko and disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Priorities USA raised a mere $59,000 in January, according to the Federal Election Commission. Almost all of it came from Obama fundraiser John W. Rogers, who donated $50,000. Rogers is the CEO of Ariel Investments, the largest minority-run mutual fund firm in the U.S. He raised more than $500,000 for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign as a bundler. Rogers and his Chicago-based firm’s ties to the president go back to Obama’s time as an Illinois State Senator. In 2000 and 2001, Obama urged Illinois pension funds to give more business to black-owned investment firms, such as Ariel. The year after Obama’s pitch, the Illinois teacher retirement system reported an 18 percent increase in assets managed by minority-owned firms. By 2005, Ariel was managing $578 million in state pension funds and had become a supporter of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s re-election campaign. Ariel Investments and its executives donated $117,500 to Blagojevich, making it the second largest contributor with ties to the Illinois state pension business. Rogers told the Chicago Sun-Times the donations reflected a close philosophical alignment with Blagojevich. Also in 2005, then-U.S. Senator Obama took 23 private aircraft flights—before he decided to institute an office-wide ban on gifts and privately funded travel—often to attend and headline fundraisers he headlined. One plane was controlled by Rogers. In 2006, Tony Rezko was indicted in a federal investigation and charged with attempting to extort million of dollars in kickbacks from money managements firms seeking to do business with the Illinois Teachers Retirement System. When news of the investigation became public, the teacher pension board dropped its relationship with Ariel. Rezko was sentenced to more than a decade in prison in 2011 after being convicted on 16 counts of corruption and fraud. Court documents from Rezko’s case show Rezko raised $22,500 for Blagojevich through Rogers. Blagojevich was arrested in December of 2008 on federal corruption charges, including trying to sell President Obama’s vacant Senate seat. Priorities USA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) Because it wasn't agreed to by the US. How is that even possible when the Dept. of Justice was a major negotiating party in the creation of this settlement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) How is that even possible when the Dept. of Justice was a major negotiating party in the creation of this settlement? If you read the entire thing I posted instead of that one line, it would make sense. The "US", as meaning a party to a suit, agreed to a settlement. But that is not the same legal authority as the "US" that passed HAMP, because of the key difference about purse strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:38 AM) If you read the entire thing I posted instead of that one line, it would make sense. The "US", as meaning a party to a suit, agreed to a settlement. But that is not the same legal authority as the "US" that passed HAMP, because of the key difference about purse strings. Did the "US" actually pass HAMP or was that TARP money (I like alphabet soup). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) Did the "US" actually pass HAMP or was that TARP money (I like alphabet soup). Here is the key difference you keep dancing around... HAMP was money approved by Congress to be spent in a specific way. Regardless of whether it was part of TARP or not, Congress approved the spending. Money coming from this legal settlement is a Revenue item to the US government. The executive branch, in my view, cannot simply spend money as it comes in, without Congressional approval. Does that make it more clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) Here is the key difference you keep dancing around... HAMP was money approved by Congress to be spent in a specific way. Regardless of whether it was part of TARP or not, Congress approved the spending. Money coming from this legal settlement is a Revenue item to the US government. The executive branch, in my view, cannot simply spend money as it comes in, without Congressional approval. Does that make it more clear? No, because HAMP was never approved by Congress. The treasury department received approval to spend $700 billion under TARP as it saw fit, with the guidelines that it was spent for these goals: "(1) protecting home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings, (2) preserving homeownership, (3) promoting jobs and economic growth, and (4) protecting the interests of taxpayers. ". Congress effectively approved the Treasury department spending TARP funds however it wanted in the housing market. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence anywhere that the Treasury Department is taking in any income through this settlement (show me where I'm wrong). The 2 parts of it i can see are payments to the states and mortgage writedowns (financed by the HAMP program as I've noted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) No, because HAMP was never approved by Congress. The treasury department received approval to spend $700 billion under TARP as it saw fit, with the guidelines that it was spent for these goals: "(1) protecting home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings, (2) preserving homeownership, (3) promoting jobs and economic growth, and (4) protecting the interests of taxpayers. ". Congress effectively approved the Treasury department spending TARP funds however it wanted in the housing market. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence anywhere that the Treasury Department is taking in any income through this settlement (show me where I'm wrong). The 2 parts of it i can see are payments to the states and mortgage writedowns (financed by the HAMP program as I've noted). Congress DID approve the MONEY for HAMP, and the spending within HAMP falls within the confines of what Congress set out. How can you not see that? And it doesn't matter what agency the revenue from the settlement is accounted to. It is a revenue item somewhere, and the only way any agency can spend it is if their legal charter establishes in law such spending. For example, the Department of State takes in revenue for passports, and it can obviously use that money, within certain parameters. Does Treasury have a Congressionally-approved mandate to be able to re-spend money it receives via legal settlements as it sees fit? Maybe, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) Congress DID approve the MONEY for HAMP, and the spending within HAMP falls within the confines of what Congress set out. How can you not see that? And it doesn't matter what agency the revenue from the settlement is accounted to. It is a revenue item somewhere, and the only way any agency can spend it is if their legal charter establishes in law such spending. For example, the Department of State takes in revenue for passports, and it can obviously use that money, within certain parameters. Does Treasury have a Congressionally-approved mandate to be able to re-spend money it receives via legal settlements as it sees fit? Maybe, but I doubt it. Where is the Treasury department taking any revenue in here? Where is the federal government taking in any revenue? If the settlement is structured such that there are 2 parts...payouts to the states so that the states go away, and then writedowns of private mortgages, with additional HAMP funding going to the banks to grease the wheels, there is no money taken in to the Feds that Congress needs to disperse other than previously allocated TARP funds. This is probably why they wrote the settlement that way anyway, so that there would be nothing for Congress to approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) Where is the Treasury department taking any revenue in here? Where is the federal government taking in any revenue? If the settlement is structured such that there are 2 parts...payouts to the states so that the states go away, and then writedowns of private mortgages, with additional HAMP funding going to the banks to grease the wheels, there is no money taken in to the Feds that Congress needs to disperse other than previously allocated TARP funds. This is probably why they wrote the settlement that way anyway, so that there would be nothing for Congress to approve. Hm, perhaps revenue was the wrong word to use. Let's break this down. The whole argument being made in some of these articles is that the money from the settlement, or some big chunk, essentially goes away because it is already covered in HAMP.... Money to the states is gone, agreed, so that isn't an issue. Take that money out of the settlement. Nothing there being double-used. Penalty paid directly to the government is small, I think it was $50M or something, enough to cover expenses of the legal proceedings etc. This is indeed a revenue item, and it needs to be used within the confines of Treasury's mandates. So it can't be double-used either. That leaves the mortgage write-downs. Congress approved money to go towards write-downs and adjustments to existing mortgage balances. That is spending by the US government, legislatively approved. If the settlement allows for HAMP write-downs to count towards the settlement, that is in essence re-routing the money from the HAMP program to other uses. In this case, there IS the possibility, if the settlement allows for it, that the settlement obligations could be met in this way. And now that I look at it, for this portion of the settlement, I think you are right - it is possible. TARP had very broad, almost blank check-level restrictions on it. HAMP narrowed that for part of the money. But even in HAMP, this does appear to fall within those rules. So, regarding the write-down portion of this, I stand corrected. It is possible to have this happen. Though I sincerely hope it does not, as that would be truly bogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) But even in HAMP, this does appear to fall within those rules. Ok, then in no longer trying to be argumentative, genuine question...when did Congress ever explicitly approve HAMP? My impression is that it was just something that the Treasury created itself under its existing TARP authority, in which case they can just change the rules however they would want. Is there explicit legislative rules here? Your post makes it sound like there are, and that contradicts my current understanding of that program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) Ok, then in no longer trying to be argumentative, genuine question...when did Congress ever explicitly approve HAMP? My impression is that it was just something that the Treasury created itself under its existing TARP authority, in which case they can just change the rules however they would want. Is there explicit legislative rules here? Your post makes it sound like there are, and that contradicts my current understanding of that program. I am not aware if they did or not - my point was (and this is still true) that Congress allocated monies for a broad but specific purpose in TARP. If that money is essentially re-used or redistributed, that causes a conflict. Treasury or any other executive agency cannot simply spend money it takes in as it likes, they all have rules for that, and any spending outside those specified purposes requires Congressional action, as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 TPM - What’s Behind Obama’s New Push For Corporate Tax Reform A new Obama administration framework for reforming the business income tax code is touching off a brand new election-year policy debate in Washington. But this time around there’s a great deal of consensus between the parties over the ideal nature of reform. And that means there will be two main obstacles to success. The first issue will be political concerns — should Republicans hand President Obama a substantive victory with control of the White House on the line? The second will be the parochial concerns of powerful interest who stand to lose tremendous subsidies as a result of the reforms. In a briefing with reporters Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner laid out the five principles underlying the proposed reforms. Any corporate tax reform should eliminate scores of loopholes and subsidies and use the savings to lower rates — specifically from a current top rate of 35 percent down to 25 percent. (full article at the link above) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) I am not aware if they did or not - my point was (and this is still true) that Congress allocated monies for a broad but specific purpose in TARP. If that money is essentially re-used or redistributed, that causes a conflict. Treasury or any other executive agency cannot simply spend money it takes in as it likes, they all have rules for that, and any spending outside those specified purposes requires Congressional action, as I understand it. But if the broad mandate in Tarp covers "supporting the housing market", then pretty much anything under the auspices of HAMP would count, even a program like the original HAMP which just pushed people into foreclosure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts