You all are welcome to take your marching orders from think progress, however, I don’t see the big problem here. Things put up for collateral WILL most likely depreciate, especially now. Besides, how is this any kind of bailout for the banks?
LLS
Disgusting headline. If it weren’t for the Tea Party, I’d be in bed in a fetal position.
Why don’t you attend a Tea Party rally and see what it’s really about..cuz obviously you know nothing of the patriotic folks who are trying to save this country.
Thanks for this thread.
You know that we have touched their hot button when they pull out their “buckets of pus” card!
We must be doing something RIGHT!
_____________
Wooooooooo - - - - , Karl Denninger, you seem to be a tad upset when we oppose the linchpin of the 2008 to 2012 Bolshevik Movement against Banks.
Yep, I’m writing about Hank “hair-on-fire” Paulson’s TARP.
You, Karl write: “ - - - highlighting their opposition to bank bailouts like the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and criticizing Washington - - -. “
We then counter by sending in the “fighting fifteen!”
It is a chess game Karl, a chess game about money.
It is ALL about the money Karl, YOUR grandchildren’s descendants money.
BTW Karl, the banks were told to cave-in to Paulson in a 45 minute Gestapo-style meeting. Private Banks versus the US Federal Government Treasury Department, guess who told who will be publicly declared “to big to fail?”
Volcker, you clever old Socialist. You make have invented the concept of “to big to fail,” but Obama’s 5 TRILLION Dollar failure has proven that your idea is “to stupid to succeed.”
So Karl Denninger, what is it going to be: 1.) sh_tcan the Obamanation of the last 4 years, and oppose the Obamarule of the next 4 years; or 2.) Continue to kick America’s “can” into the Bolshevik Abyss?
Your grandchildren’s descendants will remember your choice when they visit your gravesite in the far distant future.
The zot from FR should come your way. Take your kooky crap somewhere else.
“...even though Denninger had voted for Obama.[3] The blog-post took issue with the bank bailouts, the US national debt and “the fraud and abuse in our banking and financial system” which included the predatory lending practices at the center of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis.[4]”
You take the word of this moron who voted for Obama?
Do you really think Freepers are stupid enough to fall for the screeching of this “progressive” idiot?
I’ll take the Tea Party over him and you everyday.
The TP is more than 15 freshman representatives.
The TP is best summed up here:
http://video.answers.com/condoleezza-rice-on-tea-party-racism-516897990
So now we should take advice from Neo-Marxist Obama shills?
In the business dictionary online it says a non-accrual loan is one in which the interest is overdue. In other words the borrower missed a payment. All this bill seems to say is that you have to actually be behind in payments before the loan is declared to be a sour loan.
I’m not sure why Denninger and Soros think a loan is non-accruing solely because the value of the pledged asset declines. All car loans work this way... the value of the asset depreciates but the loan is supposed to be small enough in relation to the value that it continues to accrue... the car owner continues to pay. If I pledge assets to a lender that are larger than the amount of the loan, then why should it matter that the asset depreciates, so long as I don’t miss payments?
The key word in the bill is “solely”. If a borrower is financially solid and making the payments, or the value of the collateral is high, a mere decline in the value of the collateral shouldn’t automatically trigger it being tossed into the “non-accruing” bin.
In the business dictionary online it says a non-accrual loan is one in which the interest is overdue. In other words the borrower missed a payment. All this bill seems to say is that you have to actually be behind in payments before the loan is declared to be a sour loan.
I’m not sure why Denninger and Soros think a loan is non-accruing solely because the value of the pledged asset declines. All car loans work this way... the value of the asset depreciates but the loan is supposed to be small enough in relation to the value that it continues to accrue... the car owner continues to pay. If I pledge assets to a lender that are larger than the amount of the loan, then why should it matter that the asset depreciates, so long as I don’t miss payments?
The key word in the bill is “solely”. If a borrower is financially solid and making the payments, or the value of the collateral is high, a mere decline in the value of the collateral shouldn’t automatically trigger it being tossed into the “non-accruing” bin.
I am calling BS on this article and the entire Think Progress web site.
The site is a Left Wing, rabidly anti-Conservative, anti-Republican cesspool, and is best ignored.