Glass-Steagal Lite

What kind of free market asshole are you that argues that to (sic) big to fail is a good thing? Because wtf you are arguing is that you need to become so large...that the taxpayers will not let you fail. Originally Posted by WTF

What are you talking about, dickhead? I never once said TBTF is "a good thing". You're making it up because you are so desperate and stupidly unable to concede a point when you are cornered so you deflect. Sheesh, I could take your side of any debate and argue it far better than you.

So you oppose all government bailouts, right? And your definition of "bailout" includes all govt purchases - from tanks to army boots to dams to schools to highways to streetlamps. There's no difference between a bailout loan and any govt procurement, right? Ok, great! When does WTFuglyass start following his own playbook? No more bailouts for anyone! No more govt purchases, period! Cut all that spending to zero! Stop the bailouts! Stop the spending now! Drown government in the bathtub! Let's see you preach it, WTFagboy. Be consistent.

Oh wait, cough cough, shuffle shuffle, maybe that's not what I meant... lemme check the libtard agenda and get back to you on that... cough, cough.

What are you talking about, dickhead? I never once said TBTF is "a good thing".

. Originally Posted by lustylad

That is exactly WTF you did right here!

I know all about it, fuckhead. Letting a reckless leveraged player like Lehman go under is a good lesson in moral hazard. Letting everyone including the healthy collapse in a systemic panic is not good for anyone.
? Originally Posted by lustylad

Who decides that Lehman is reckless and Goldman is 'healthy'? So you have the government picking winners and losers. Is that wtf you are telling me you support? What you just argued (and are to stupid to realize) is that Lehman's was not big/connected enough. Had they been....the government could/would have prevented a run on them.

So you oppose all government bailouts, right? And your definition of "bailout" includes all govt purchases - from tanks to army boots to dams to schools to highways to streetlamps. There's no difference between a bailout loan and any govt procurement, right?
. Originally Posted by lustylad

[

Yes there is a huge difference if you are buying tanks you need instead of buying tanks the DoD says it does not need. That is buying votes....just like giving the investment banks money is buying votes and just like giving the auto's was buying votes.

Here is a thought...WTF should be done is to break up banks into smaller pieces so that when they fuck up...they fail! Originally Posted by WTF

How about we start with Fannie Mae? It's far bigger than any US bank and (unlike the private banks) incredibly under-capitalized. At the end of last year, it had total assets of $3.22 trillion supported by a tiny sliver of shareholders equity ($7.2 billion). How leveraged is that? Almost 450 times!

Fannie Mae is the elephant in the room. It was more complicit than anyone else in the 2008 crash. Dodd Frank cracks down on credit cards and "conflict minerals" and does nothing about Fannie Mae. How reassuring. Our libtard legislators sure know how to fix things, don't they?

How about we start with Fannie Mae? It's far bigger than any US bank and (unlike the private banks) incredibly under-capitalized. At the end of last year, it had total assets of $3.22 trillion supported by a tiny sliver of shareholders equity ($7.2 billion). How leveraged is that? Almost 450 times!

? Originally Posted by lustylad

You get no argument from me here.

Fannie Mae is the elephant in the room. It was more complicit than anyone else in the 2008 crash. Dodd Frank cracks down on credit cards and "conflict minerals" and does nothing about Fannie Mae. How reassuring. Our libtard legislators sure know how to fix things, don't they? Originally Posted by lustylad

That was the point of this thread.

btw, you discount the GOP legislators who protected the banks tooth and nail.

Who decides that Lehman is reckless and Goldman is 'healthy'? So you have the government picking winners and losers. Is that wtf you are telling me you support? What you just argued (and are to stupid to realize) is that Lehman's was not big/connected enough. Had they been....the government could/would have prevented a run on them. Originally Posted by WTF

No limpdick, preventing a systemic collapse is NOT an endorsement of TBTF. And you're the only idiot anywhere who thinks Lehman was “not big/connected enough”. It was the 4th largest US investment bank with $639 billion in assets when it filed for bankruptcy in 2008. It bought and sold securities with everyone on the Street and around the globe. Does that sound like “not big or connected enough”, maggothead? Can you be any stupider? Allowing a big player like Lehman to fail is a REPUDIATION of TBTF. It tells the other biggies out there they can't count on a govt-led bailout if they get into trouble.

Btw, do you even have a clue what actually happened during the 2008 meltdown? Hank Paulson locked the CEOs of the nine biggest banks in a room in Oct. 2008 and stiff-armed ALL of them into accepting TARP money even though only one (Citigroup) needed it at the time. He did this precisely to AVOID the appearance of “picking winners and losers”.

And another thing, dickhead - If you're so keen on moral hazard why do you defend all those so-called “unsuspecting investors” who were too stupid and lazy to do any due diligence before they pigged out on mortgage bonds? You blame everything on the bankers. You want them to go to jail so those lazy, dumbfuck investors can sue and be made whole. What message does that send to your pension fund managers? Don't worry – if you fuck up, we'll just sue the banks (or whoever sold you the stuff) and bail you out. Is that how moral hazard works?

Yes there is a huge difference if you are buying tanks you need instead of buying tanks the DoD says it does not need. That is buying votes....just like giving the investment banks money is buying votes and just like giving the auto's was buying votes. Originally Posted by WTF

So now you call ANY govt spending that sways voters a bailout too? Wow, I thought you only opposed the procurement stuff. Now you go even further and oppose all of it. Every time the govt spends money it is buying votes. Food stamps buy poor votes. Unemployment comp buys jobless votes. Social Security buys elderly votes....

And WTF opposes ALL of it! No more bailouts, folks! You heard it here first. WTF is now officially a member of the Tea Party! He doesn't just want to cut back some government, he wants to eliminate ALL of it!

WTFagboy has joined the Tea Party! He's finally out of the closet! Hooray!