Seeking Alpha

Don't believe all the hype - we needed those bailouts! Becky Quick says we've already forgotten...

Don't believe all the hype - we needed those bailouts! Becky Quick says we've already forgotten about the fall 2008 fear and why the government had to step in, and "the armchair-quarterback lawmakers and candidates who are now second-guessing these moves are dangerous."
Comments (50)
  • DaJoker
    , contributor
    Comments (106) | Send Message
     
    'We'? I didn't get a damn bailout... got laid-off though...
    16 Jul 2010, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (4595) | Send Message
     
    thank goodness for someone who remembers and understands.
    thanks for stating the fact.
    16 Jul 2010, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    What was done was done. Whether it could have been done better will be discussed for decades, just like the great depression. But 10% unemployment juxtaposed with hugh bonuses to recipients of bailouts raises the question of whether the bailout was the best method of rescuing(?) the system. And a bailed out GE subsidiary anchor may not be as objective in her analysis as others.
    16 Jul 2010, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Give us your solution. And don't tell me the regional bank can rebuild the system after the New York banks. Not going to happen ...
    16 Jul 2010, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • mikebrah
    , contributor
    Comments (253) | Send Message
     
    Why are you so quick to dismiss the idea of smaller, leaner competitors stepping up to fill the void?

     

    Would there be a bumpy transitional period? I'm sure there would be, but assets are assets. Anything of value on the TBTF balance sheets would have been quickly consumed by the thousands of smaller banks in this country and all the crap left over would have been flushed out to sea in the same garbage bag as the memories of the TBTF.

     

    It's not like we avoided panic by the route we took. People still collectively crapped their pants. And we got a crappy "resolution" to boot.

     

    We chose the status quo over the integrity of the dollar and that is a choice that is going to haunt this nation for a significant period of time.
    17 Jul 2010, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • mannettino
    , contributor
    Comments (1065) | Send Message
     
    she's the dumbest bimbo on tv, even for cnBS. why would anyone care what she says...re, I mean, reads off the teleprompter?
    16 Jul 2010, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    I think she is probably brighter than you. At least her comments are relevant.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • mannettino
    , contributor
    Comments (1065) | Send Message
     
    oh, i remember you. Card carrying member of the 30% club you are!
    An "American in Paris", eh?
    Do us all a great big favor: STAY THERE !!!

     

    hee hee hee.....what a maroon. quick, someone pass me a carrot...I crack myself up!
    16 Jul 2010, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (963) | Send Message
     
    She certainly brightens up my mornings. I don't really care what she's talking about.
    16 Jul 2010, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • MarketGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (3983) | Send Message
     
    Dear American in Paris:

     

    You said, "I think..."

     

    That was obviously incorrect.
    16 Jul 2010, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    The US survived quite nicely a number of times through just as severe appearing problems in the latter half of the 19th century and a couple of small ones (which were rumoured to be Morgan inspired) in the early 20th century.

     

    Recovery, historically, proceeded much more quickly on those occasions before FDR and his grand set of "experiments" which only frightened the business community and delayed recovery (planned as such or not) - as this administration is doing.

     

    The major difference is that different players would have survived - and that may not be politically acceptable in this age of "the best government money can buy", sorry.

     

    In the early 19th century, the anti-Hamilton forces rallied against taking up British style mercantilism - who is going to rally against US style corporatism in the 21st century? Certainly not anyone in a government decision making position, eh?

     

    So, what can we do about it? Zippo, zilch, nada, nichts - so in the long run, it doesn't matter as long as you are happy with your place in the regime, right?
    16 Jul 2010, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Now that is rewriting history. What is your source for that claim?

     

    The 1907 crisis was so bad that it almost toppled the money center banks and it forced Congress.

     

    You're making up history to serve your right wing political ideology.

     

    When FDR became President the unemployment rate was already 25%. The money centre banks were on the verge of collapse.

     

    Please spare us the nonsense next time ...
    16 Jul 2010, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Green
    , contributor
    Comments (457) | Send Message
     
    in 1907 JPMorgan locked up the bankers with a box of cigars at his house until they came up with something. We should have done that this time around. Bear shouldn't have been bailed out, because then Fuld would have accepted an injection from the Koreans and not waited out on Paulson. That way, at least there would have been no surprise if/when Lehman went down, too.
    17 Jul 2010, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    When you can state facts prior to your ideology, get back to us, sonny.
    17 Jul 2010, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    If the financial system needed support - fine. Then the government should have allowed those banks that were insolvent to fail and announce that they would provide capital to stronger banks at cheap interest rates to allow them to buy the assets from those in BK and increase their capital reserves. Why the government decided to protect the very firms responsible for the crisis is beyond me.

     

    Why in the world would you give more money to bad managers? And the first poster sums up the feeling around this perfectly. We as a country got to watch millions lose their jobs through no fault of their own - but those at fault continued to receive million dollar compensation. Somehow they were the "talented" ones and the guy on the assembly line in Des Moines were the "expendable" ones.

     

    There were a lot of different ways the government could act to ensure the entire system didn't fail. I'm sure there was no perfect solution. But I'm also sure that those with access to the Treasury secretary thought only of those on Wall Street - and not those on Main Street. To them Wall Street is the world and that is what they set out to "save". And the result is millions more in the pocket of millionaires and a lost generation of dreams on Main Street.

     

    Not exactly what i would say is or was "needed".
    16 Jul 2010, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    It doesn't matter what you 'needed'. If the banks collapse, our collective ass is history.

     

    Allow the insolvent banks to go Chapter 11 would mean their business customers would lose their lines of credit. Without those lines of credit, Kaput to the American economy.

     

    Just imagine Bank of America and Citibank going under. Those banks do business with almost all major US banks. So virtually every large bank that lent money or invested in assets at B of A and Citibank would also have taken a hit.

     

    That is how banking works. Every bank is lending and borrowing with other banks.

     

    The fact is the US government should have completely nationalized the zombie banks in order to completely purge the bad assets. Sweden did this in the 90s and was able to successfully rebuild their domestic banking industry.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • TraderMark
    , contributor
    Comments (2422) | Send Message
     
    Why were the bank bond holders protected and the auto (bailed out) firms bond holders crushed? It was a complete sham.

     

    You could of backstopped the deposits and said to hell with the banks... and their bond holders who did not assess risk properly. These "shells" that are the firms need not exist, only their function. If the bond holders were crushed it would of sucked but guess what... the future we'd have a far more stable system as bond holders would actually care and manage their investments rather than bowing to a system of CEOs and their crony boards. Did anyone read the stories on WHO was on the board at Lehman? It's a joke.

     

    That;'s how the system is supposed to work - the monied interest (shareholders of equity and bonds) are supposed to be final owners, and the board is supposed to serve them. If the bond holders got the "lesson" they would be far more careful in the future and we would not have out of control systems, nor the need for 2300 page FINREG that no one knows what is inside (and trust me, whatever the lobbyists inserted won't be discovered for at least 3-5 years in full)

     

    So you tell America every penny, not $100K, not $250K is backstopped by federal government until we clean up this mess. In the meantime the banks "the market" has deemed as losers go under, and the government will take over said banks TEMPORARILY. We don't like doing this, in fact we hate it. But it's a short term necessity - I want to punt these banks back to the private sector as soon as possible, but in smaller sizes so as not to be TOO BIG TO FAIL. They will act like boring utilities in their new form, facilitating capital like the "old days". They won't be de facto hedge funds backstopped by you the taxpayer. Pay packages will drop in the banks and our best and brightest won't all go into jobs trying to scam the middle class out of money with "financial innovation" or as one of our oligarch's says "God's work". We're done with that. When Rush L cries NATIONALIZATION, you say ... STFU Rush. Instead of bowing to left right politics which have destroyed this country.

     

    You tell America in a national address - our system broke down. We have massive lack of checks and balances due to our crony "capitalist" system aka corporate socialism. We - the politicos - are bought and paid for and after decades of this building up, this is what happens. We're sorry.

     

    Now we have to start over in the financial area... our oligarchs are unhappy but this is "capitalism" at work, believe it or not. Those who fail are destroyed...those who managed well get rewarded. Not vice versa like those policians backstopped backstopped by our oligarchs shrill. When push comes to shove our monied interests don't want the bad parts of capitalism, only the good. Heads they win, tails they still win. Then capitalism is "great".

     

    Our oligarchs and monied interests will claim they need to be huge to compete globally. To which I say, you had your chance - you screwed up, and you die. That's how it works in small business in America... there is no lifeline or government bailout. Why should *you* get all the breaks (I know rhetorical question). Further who the hell are you competing with? A handful of banks in the UK which also needed a government handout? That tells me the Anglo Saxon model did not work? The french banks ? Who exactly? SocGen? 2-3 german banks? What phantom competition are we failing at? Or cannot compete with, at banks 1/3rd the size? The Canadians? So take your dogma and shut up.

     

    So we are taking over the oligarchs TEMPORARILY and then we will break them into smaller pieces and sell them off to new sets of investors. These investors won't be those who handed us the most money for our political campaigns... I know, I know - earth shattering.

     

    Instead of 4 banks running the U.S. desposits (while another 7996 exist, owning a fraction of the desposits) we'll go back to something called "competition". Another part of capitalism we have seemed to miss. In 3-4 years we are going to have a new system with many more medium sized banks rather than 4 megas (I am talking despoit banks, not Morgan and Goldman which is another problem) ... and your money will be backstopped the entire time so no need to go pull it out tomorrow. Let me repeat, YOUR MONEY will be backstopped, NOT the BANKS BONDHOLDERS and C-LEVEL EXECS. Big difference.

     

    So we'll be back to "capitalism" in a few years... until then we have to take bitter medicine and reconfigure as a nation. It's not permanent nationalization so don't get your panties in a bunch. It's the least worst option we have; not one we with for.

     

    At the end of this national address you will see a scroll on your screen with each member of Congress , as well as the White House and how much contributions we've received over the past 10 years from the financial oligarchs. Just for kicks. And that includes Fannie and Freddie. Feel free to call your local congressperson to discuss these facts after we go back to your normally scheduled program of Dancing with the Stars.

     

    Oh yeh - we're sorry. God Bless America.

     

    p.s Hank Paulson has resigned immediately to "spend more time with his family". His family at Goldman Sachs.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    American in Paris - you seem to think that the only way to save the system was to basically turn the henhouse over to the foxes.

     

    yes banks loan and trade with each other. And guess what the government could have stepped in just like they did in the S&L crisis and appointed an administer to sell off all the bank's assets. I'd even have been ok with the government providing some of the capital for these smaller banks to take over the assets (including loans). And yes, there were huge losses. By having a bank declare BK at least some of the losses would have been incurred by the equity holders and the bond holders. And MOST importantly the remaining assets would be in the hands of GOOD bank managers.

     

    How is it our national interest to protect the jobs of people responsible for the financial crisis? Why should taxpayers be paying bonuses to traders at firms that are insolvent? Why should taxpayers pay retention bonuses to fraudsters who wrote insurance against no assets? All the traders for Citi/Aig, etc, all the loan officers, all the risk managers, all the everyone should have lost their jobs..... many would later find other employment at some of the banks buying those assets - but many would not. And don't you think that would lead everyone within the industry to think twice before taking outsized risks?

     

    Instead we have literally stolen from our children to further enrich those most responsible for the crisis. Think of the principles that our founding father's believed in..... they were willing to give their lives for them....... and somehow our government tells us that we have to bail out crooks because we wouldn't be able to handle the short term pain that might have come about. Really sad.
    16 Jul 2010, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • dondon
    , contributor
    Comments (282) | Send Message
     
    "Allow the insolvent banks to go Chapter 11 would mean their business customers would lose their lines of credit. Without those lines of credit, Kaput to the American economy."

     

    A in P, business customers can't get lines of credit from these banks today which is why the American economy is Kaput.
    16 Jul 2010, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • dondon
    , contributor
    Comments (282) | Send Message
     
    Thank you TraderMark and davidbdc for explaining in the simplest of terms why our expat friend is dead wrong.
    16 Jul 2010, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • TraderMark
    , contributor
    Comments (2422) | Send Message
     
    Here it is in simple talk so anyone can understand.

     

    There is this guy, let's call him Lloyd. He has a 6 chamber pistol. He has 1 bullet in the pistol. He is a great guy who spreads magical pixie dust to "grease the financial system". He is a benevolent man who spreads said pixie dust year in and year out, in return he derives great wealth for this act.

     

    Lloyd has one drawback - he shoots his gun (sort of like a bazooka let's say) at the economy every 2 years. Year 2, Year 4, Year 6, Year 8, and Year 10 - he shoots and we all breath a collective sigh. We sort of got lucky until now, that this game of Russian Roulette worked out. But lady luck is gone ...the last chamber has the bullet. Sp we all have a problem in Year 12. Lloyd knows it. Turbo Timmie knows it. Hank (who used to be said pixie dust man before taking over as US Treasury knows it). Ben, Alan, Larry - the whole crew knows it. He has one more shot to go, and everyone knows the chamber is the one with the bullet in it.

     

    This growing fear makes the pixie dust have less effect as people see the writing on the wall. The economy starts to shudder. Lloyd makes his demand. I demand you give me a new gun. I shall not be replaced. I shall not be questioned. I want a new gun with the same arrangement... or this all ends in kaboom.

     

    Now what would any common sense person do? Hand Lloyd a new gun (along with multitudes of taxpayer money as thank you, including the demolishment of all American savers with a 0% fed funds rate)? No. But that's what America does...

     

    Anyone with sense would send in a SWAT team to take out the magical pixie man, since he has the country hostage.

     

    And then maybe they'd sit around, stare at each other and say... you know, we can do better than this.

     

    Thankfully, we did not do that. Because that would be too smart.
    16 Jul 2010, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • obamaphobe
    , contributor
    Comments (172) | Send Message
     
    American in Paris- Business customers did lose their lines of credit and continue to lose their lines of credit. The theory was to save to banks so that they start to lend again. We would have been better of if we allowed them to collapse. The equity holders should have taken their lumps on balance sheets that levered them 50 fold. That is our system. The rule of law was subverted. Banks are now just trading giants and fee generators. A total sham to protect the guilty.
    17 Jul 2010, 07:14 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3979) | Send Message
     
    There was a global crisis and it was acted on in concert by multiple governments.

     

    The efforts made by worldwide governments may not have been the most elegant - or may not have suited your personal individual interests - but they were necessary.

     

    Whether or not follow-on policy was correct, or the reform that global governments are attempting to undertake in terms of policy suits you - that we can debate.

     

    Some of the comments here remind me of how revisionist and self-interested people's memory of the past is. I recently asked a tenant in an investment property if she wanted certain minor repairs - that wouldn't cost me much - to her unit or a security system for the whole property which would benefit her as well as others. Guess which one she chose.....
    17 Jul 2010, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • lower98th
    , contributor
    Comments (1420) | Send Message
     
    Bailout Becky, enjoying her GE heavy, bailed-out, 401k.

     

    We needed a response. Measured, thoughtful, targeted. We got a Wall Street slops trough.....eat well, Becky.
    16 Jul 2010, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • SlingWing9
    , contributor
    Comments (473) | Send Message
     
    Leaving all the same people in place guarrantees more of the same. It will happen again except I would anticipate money will change hands in ways the public doesn't hear about so as to protect the government's image that they actually accomplished something greater than burdening the next five generations.
    16 Jul 2010, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • Leftfield
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    Just more of the "it would have been worse" justification. Keep giving those people and their apologists an unlimited credit card and they'll keep piling on the mistakes and BS until they finish the job of completely destroying the country.
    16 Jul 2010, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • Apacheleadership
    , contributor
    Comments (61) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, right. Keep drinking uncle Warren Buffett's Kool Aid and continue repeating those talking points provided by GE. Oh yeah, that's right, GE capital was saved by those bailouts. The article is about as meaningful as the pinheads in the CNBS Octobox arguing about Apple's IPhone fix... a new low.
    16 Jul 2010, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • BetTheHouse
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    We may have needed the initial bailout. But it's two years later and Uncle Sugar is still bailing out. And by the way, Becky, the water is still rising.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Harry Tuttle
    , contributor
    Comments (2221) | Send Message
     
    Who is "we" ?? CNBC? I agree.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • This Game is so Rigged
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
     
    "We needed those bailouts," she said; while wiping the Oracle of Omaha's Kool-aid from her chin.

     

    What she meant to say was, "all my friends at GE and Berkshire needed that bailout."
    16 Jul 2010, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • obamaphobe
    , contributor
    Comments (172) | Send Message
     
    I'm not so sure it is cool aid...
    17 Jul 2010, 07:18 AM Reply Like
  • kohalakid
    , contributor
    Comments (775) | Send Message
     
    Nobody bails me out when I make a bad trade.

     

    I think it's called "moral hazard" when those who take risks realize there is no downside to their losing. Heads they win--tails we ( the taxpayers) lose.

     

    I happen to think the Fed could have stabilized much of the crisis problem by issuing the following statement:

     

    "We notice disproportionate illiquidity in several bond markets, both for corporate and quasi-government instruments. We will be participating in these markets, buying and bidding for selected issues when we believe their market price does not represent the underlying fundamentals."

     

    That would have scared the crap out of the shorts and the government would have probably spent a lot less money and gotten better value for what they did spend.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • burkes66
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    She's no more than a shill for the company that employs her. Of course the company that employs her owes its continued existence to the government. Therefore. that makes her a shill for the government.

     

    She's an idiot. A damn sexy idiot, but still an idiot.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • ebworthen
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    "Look, I could have broken two legs instead of one for your wallet" said Guido, as the paid off cop snickered.

     

    "If I haddna' got your cash da boss a'd be all ohvah me, an I would'a hadda come back and had ya open da safe at home an' let me leer at ya Wife an' Daughta' - so be grateful."

     

    Thanks Guido (GS, Timmy, Ben, Hank, Bush, Obama, Congress, John Thain, Jamie Dimon, AIG, IMF, etc., etc.).

     

    Thanks also to Hottie Tottie Quick for reminding me I should be happy getting bent over for Wall Street and Washington's sake; you doing any bending Becky?

     

    What a steaming crock of bullshit.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • The_Hammer
    , contributor
    Comments (3806) | Send Message
     
    Becky the bimbo is clueless. It is time to REVOLT. I never recall in my short lifetime such a period of corruption and fraud. EVER!

     

    We want arrests and we want beatings NOW!

     

    The MISMANAGED GE needed the bailout. And still are levered to the scalp.
    DISGRACEFUL!
    16 Jul 2010, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    GE the world's greatest Blue Chip.

     

    moneycentral.msn.com/i...
    16 Jul 2010, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Sorry my reference to GE being great was sarcasm
    I showed the Chart vs UTX as reference.
    17 Jul 2010, 07:20 AM Reply Like
  • mgcolin
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Tone here is right..the bank bailouts were handled horribly. We should have nationalized the banks, wiped out all the equity and bond holders - not depositors, immediately shut down all the bonuses, fired all the bank executives. The government could have provided a far different kind of 'support' to the system that would have made the risk takers pay rather than the little guy.

     

    We chose the Japan solution rather than the Sweden solution and are now doomed to another decade plus of deflation and pain.
    16 Jul 2010, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (427) | Send Message
     
    While I agree that the bailouts in some form were necessary, we should have used the 'emergency' circumstances to reform the system at the time it was happening and made our banking system safe once and for all. The week Lehman failed should have also been the week the banks were forced to divest themselves of operations that have nothing to do with commercial or retail banking. They could have split each firm into 2 pieces and shareholders would have received a piece of each, one a bank and one a financial firm that specialized in whatever they wanted WITHOUT ACCESS to TAXPAYER Capital. The banks would of course have preferential access. If private investors wanted to fund the risky side of the business they could do so without issue except the knowledge there would be no free ride on the back of taxpayer for whatever nonsense they decided to get into.

     

    We instead went the opposite way and not only allowed these firms to keep the risky parts of the business which we are STILL on the hook for, they actually granted banking charters to firms such as Goldman, Prudential Financial, GE Capital, GMAC, etc. so we could permanently be on the hook for subsidizing their risk and outrageous bonuses.

     

    It's time to end the charade once and for all. The system we have allowed is less than a year away from busting us once and for all. There are troubling signs emerging. Stay tuned.
    16 Jul 2010, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Reeves
    , contributor
    Comments (114) | Send Message
     
    Not a bad idea... but divesting these giants into two pieces couldn't happen overnight. Their books were so muddled people could hardly decide whether they were bankrupt or not. I still vote that "too big to fail" firms should be forced to abide by a new "too big to exist" precedent.

     

    But why make tough decisions when you have all these taxpayers to prop you up?
    16 Jul 2010, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (427) | Send Message
     
    Then those maintaining books that could not be deciphered should have been arrested and prosecuted for fraud. The government had the right at the time because in acting for the taxpayer's interests, any firm that could not present a clear financial position should have been taken and dismantled, with CDS on their debt (which are illegal insurance contracts anyway if they do not have an insurable interest on the debt they cover) invalidated to minimize the impact on counterparties.

     

    There was a 30 day period when all of this would have been easy, but the incompetent boobs who we hired to run our 'business' were not up to the job. The same cadre of boobs, Geithner, Bernanke, etc are still there digging us a deeper and deeper hole to bury us.

     

    If Pres Obama wants to restore confidence in the system, I suggest he immediately fire Geithner and Bernanke in addition to his current economic advisory team and let America know he screwed up and is embarking on a new path for prosperity.
    17 Jul 2010, 07:48 AM Reply Like
  • mannettino
    , contributor
    Comments (1065) | Send Message
     
    Come on guys, lets not treat all "bailouts" equally. Try to remember the LIQUIDITY crisis that precipatated the original TARP (vs. the talking head BS of a "credit crisis"). When your gears are drying up and in danger of siezing, you apply oil. That was TARP "classic". I'm not crazy about it, but confidence had to be restored so that liquidity could flow. It worked.
    Then, the neo-socs, swept into office by the state-run media, went crazy and kept it going longer than needed and took it broader than needed (GM anyone?). And they haven't stopped spending since.....Thus we now have the growing debt bubble and a near complete absence of private sector confidence or growth (unemployment, anyone?), and growing dissatisfaction across the country.
    You would have to completely suspend every ounce of common sense in your body to believe that these Keynsian/Porkulus/neo-soc policies have worked to restart our economy such that it can stand on its own. Nope, other than a lot of newly paved roads the only thing we're getting from almost $1 TRILLION in spending is an economy dependent on big government like a dope addict is dependent on their pusher (plus a huge puff into the debt pipe). Come to think of it, thats exactly the approach these idiots take towards US citizens: they think people are too stupid to stand on their own, so they simply MUST be made dependent on the government. Yep, they're the only smart ones around, so everyone should listen to them. Remember, it's "recovery summer"; they've created or saved 3+ million jobs; health care reform is going to SAVE money; we don't need to secure our borders; there are no islamic extremist terrorists, etc, etc.
    Like I said, you simply must suspend every ounce of common sense to swallow this crap.
    16 Jul 2010, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • MarketGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (3983) | Send Message
     
    Becky (I'm not that) Quick?

     

    Wow, this many comments?

     

    Hello? It's CNBC...as in Cramer, Kneal, Liesman.

     

    If any of these clowns put in an original thought not within the GE mantra they'd be gone faster than you can say "green shoots".
    16 Jul 2010, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • RJMoran
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Read and reread TRADERMARK's comment till it sinks into your thick heads. America has been skull-fucked by the banking elite to the tune of TRILLIONS (not billions) of dollars of YOUR money! Had we gone the 'oh so dreaded' nationalization route, we would undoubtedly be out of the depression America faces by now... Along with going to Congress and basically asking for a blank cheque to the tune of nearly a Trillion dollars to bail his friends @ Goldman Sachs out, Hank Paulson asked for and GOT 'Immunity from Prosecution'! A basic 'Get out of Jail Free Card' since he KNEW what he was doing was criminal. He didn't want any future blow back from bending America over and making them take it up the ass! WAKE UP people! ...Oh, never mind. Go back to watching Dancing with the Stars and also watching your 401K dissolve into nothing...
    16 Jul 2010, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Ed, Jr.
    , contributor
    Comments (745) | Send Message
     
    How appropriately ironic that Ms. Quicks nonsense is spouted on what we have all come to know as "Bank Failure Friday".

     

    Every Friday, banks that fail are seized, assets sold to other banks....game over. The life's work of many gets wiped out over the weekend, assets sold to competitors. It may seem harsh, but the country's financial institutions must be managed carefully and responsibly. It is (was) our system. Indeed, it was the law in 2008.

     

    Yet, in 2008, some citizens were deemed to be too politically important to have the laws applied to them. Friends in high places arranged massive transfers of taxpayer money to bail them out.

     

    And from there, it got worse. The incoming administration turned established bankruptcy law on its head in dealing with bankrupt automakers, and used TARP funds to reward unions. There were protests by bondholders, but when sides were taken, there were mere citizens opposing the corruption on one side-- and all of the banks that received TARP funds on the other. What a coincidence. The ordinary citizens finally capitulated, knowing the jig was up.

     

    If only that were the end of it, it would have been bad enough. Repaid TARP funds were not returned to the U.S. Treasury, but were used to create a revolving slush fund that continued to be used for bailouts to the politically connected, or to advance political agendas.

     

    The same laws that determine what happens to failed institutions on "Bank Failure Friday" should have been applied, just as they are tonight. We would have survived it, and our nation would be so much the better, having applied equal justice under the law.
    17 Jul 2010, 01:46 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    The most powerful message you can send to Washington, is not letters, not emails, not phones calls, not protesting, not marching non of this works over the long term because DC doesn't care in the long term, they have there blinders on and their marching orders and are prepared to sacrifice those in their ranks that are most vulnerable for the greater good so they dont hear you or see you, If you want to leave a lasting impression come Nov vote out every incumbent up for re election, not just some of then, and not only the ones most corrupt, vote all out of office on both sides of the Isle, because both parties are culpable so VOTE ALL THE BUMS OUT! and then you will get remaining and most importantly the new DC politicians attention,

     

    Need a visual, how about the " deer in the headlights look"

     

    LADY LIBERTY NEEDS YOU TO EXERCISE YOUR POWER TO PROTECT AMERICA, VOTE ALL THE BUMS OUT!
    17 Jul 2010, 07:30 AM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (427) | Send Message
     
    I agree...but first we need to get the Judicial branch to enforce the constitution. As it stands now, the 2 parties manipulate the playing field so new parties/cadidates find it virtually impossible to gain ballot access. They submitted false petitions in nader's name for example that got him disqualified in several states...where is the justice ?

     

    Another area that needs the Supreme Court to act is concerning re-districting. The parties maintain their hold on Red States and Blue States by going to court and 'changing' the borders of the their districts when the demographics turn against them. If a DEM finds his district has been getting whiter and wealthier then he moves the boarder to ensure his re-election. If REPUB finds his home district getting more 'diverse' he files a suit to change the lines and again...you guessed it...get's relected.

     

    We are in deep @##$ friends.
    17 Jul 2010, 08:02 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (846) | Send Message
     
    I agree with the author on her point that a bailout was neccessary. I agree with many other commentators on this thread who are outraged at the egregiously unfair results experienced by ordinary people who lost their jobs and homes while fatcat bankers (who caused the problem) cried a few crocodile tears and retired to their mansions. I agree with the person who commented that what is done is done and we have to go forward from here. I hope in going forward we can redress some of the injustice.

     

    I hope that:

     

    1)Finra regulation will be used to channel capital from the Tarp takers to American business to create real economic growth, and most importantly jobs. Regulation will be used to insure that no other uses of FDIC insured funds, Tarp money, or tax benefits will be profitable for the banks.

     

    2) American large business will substantially increase subcontracting to small and medium size American business, not outsource to India and China. The small business as "engine of employment" calculation doesn't add up unless American big business subcontracts to American small business.

     

    3) I hope Obama signs favorable and non harmful trade agreements and support export jobs; but not at the cost of outsourcing American jobs.

     

    4) I hope Obama keeps the favorable dividend tax treatment and reinstate estate tax with 10 million dollar exemption and taxes high speed trading with a small transaction tax in millage. This might help redress some of the inequality, increase the value of dividend paying stocks, encourage holding of stocks, and create the wealth effect.

     

    5) And I hope both major parties, as well as ordinary Americans, endeavor to expose and expunge people in our government, media and religious community--both on the right and the left -- who are misanthropes and sociopaths, with extreme ideological positions, who are sowing social discord ,driving wedges and preventing our republic from functioning efficiently. We need civility and cooperation to return in the conduct of our national life if we are to regain the halcyon days of post war glory.
    6) Through lawsuits, taxes and criminal prosecutions, confiscate the ill gotten gains of the financial fraudsters and put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Use the proceeds to strengthen social security, since the fraudsters actions were most damaging to people who were saving for retirement and were counting on the value of their homes and 401Ks as part of that planning.
    17 Jul 2010, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Wishfull Thinking!
    17 Jul 2010, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3358) | Send Message
     
    Hopefully we can all agree on one thing. No matter your opinion about what comes out of Becky's mouth, she sure is easy on the eyes.
    17 Jul 2010, 10:10 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|