Azazello1313 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 at least when we own the banks we take on the bad assets but WE get any upside, the way it works now is that we take on the bad assets and stand a very good chance of getting almost no upside. I don't know about that. the problem with the bad assets, as far as I understand it, is not that they have no value, but that noone can accurately pin a value on them in the current climate....and the uncertainty over what they are worth is what lies at the center of this whole mess. the treasury buying them sort of quarantines that toxic uncertainty, then if the housing market starts rebounding and much of the uncertainty is removed, I would think there is significant upside in the value of these securities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) It is scary that we have a congress that is so out of touch with their responsibilities and constitutional boundaries. Even if the senate passes this law, it sounds like Obama will rightfully veto it. I think it would be overturned in court if it actually were passed into law. It would be the first time in our Nation's history, if they do. I did a bunch of research on this last week based on one of Beaumont's posts. As crazy as it sounds, retroactive taxation is perfectly constitutional. Absent presidential veto or a Constitutional amendment, there is nothing preventing Congress from enacting such a law. Of course, the other solution is to QUICK GIVING THESE A$$HOLES ANY MORE MONEY. It's way too easy to pay massive bonuses when you can do so with other peoples money. You don't keep feeding a parasite and just hope it'll change it's nature. Edited March 23, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 If anyone votes for their same Congressperson, I'd like to know exactly why....besides you're a gawd-danged fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 It would be the first time in our Nation's history, if they do. I did a bunch of research on this last week based on one of Beaumont's posts. As crazy as it sounds, retroactive taxation is perfectly constitutional. Absent presidential veto or a Constitutional amendment, there is nothing preventing Congress from enacting such a law. Of course, the other solution is to QUICK GIVING THESE A$$HOLES ANY MORE MONEY. It's way too easy to pay massive bonuses when you can do so with other peoples money. You don't just keep feeding a parasite and just hope it'll change it's nature. Interesting. I've heard/read a number of pieces this week arguing just the opposite. They've been touting different reasons like constitutionality, taxing a specific group of individuals, taxing for punitive reasons - heck, I don't know. It appears that the ass clowns on the Hill are trying to fix a problem they caused in the first place and using populace rhetoric to enact bad legislation. Obama recently said that we should not govern in anger - I think he's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) If anyone votes for their same Congressperson, I'd like to know exactly why....besides you're a gawd-danged fool. I emailed my House representative before the first bailout and told her if she voted for it I'd never vote for her again. The email response I got from her said "thank you for your support." Edited March 23, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Interesting. I've heard/read a number of pieces this week arguing just the opposite. They've been touting different reasons like constitutionality, taxing a specific group of individuals, taxing for punitive reasons - heck, I don't know. It appears that the ass clowns on the Hill are trying to fix a problem they caused in the first place and using populace rhetoric to enact bad legislation. Obama recently said that we should not govern in anger - I think he's right. There is some language in a few Supreme Court cases that say certain taxation, in theory, could be unconstitutional. But it would have to rise to the level of: (1) targeting a protected class (i.e., race, religion, national orgin, age, etc); or (2) would have to amount to a "taking" of property without due process such that it would fall under eminent domain jurisprudence. But a century of US Supreme Court case law states unambiguously that taxation may be retroactive. Congress doesn't "like" to do that because its unpopular; but make no mistake, they have that power and everyone who has ever fought against it in court has lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 TimG Nobel Prize winning economist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Obama recently said that we should not govern in anger - I think he's right. He is indeed. Knee jerk legislation is nearly always crap in the longer term. Obama might support the Senate version but he has all but said the House version is heading for a veto. I do think the vilification of these people has served to let them understand that what they do really does affect the little people (as they think of us), there's a heck of a lot of us and the Hamptons isn't a closed universe. It's kinda healthy to have these people understand the depth of rage in the general public. It's also kinda nice to see the general public get off it's docile ass for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 He is indeed. Knee jerk legislation is nearly always crap in the longer term. Obama might support the Senate version but he has all but said the House version is heading for a veto. I do think the vilification of these people has served to let them understand that what they do really does affect the little people (as they think of us), there's a heck of a lot of us and the Hamptons isn't a closed universe. It's kinda healthy to have these people understand the depth of rage in the general public. It's also kinda nice to see the general public get off it's docile ass for a change. i agree. but id rather see the general public pick up a shovel and work instead of a pitchfork and protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Why would anyone want to do any business in this country? I was outraged at the bonuses, but understood why they were offered and why they were paid. I'm a lot more outraged by this tax on the bonuses. It just scares the crap out of me that our government would act in such a manner. What is to keep them from retroactively taxing something else in the future because it is politically expedient to do so, and might change the subject off of how much money they are spending? The tax system is bad enough as is, before you start throwing punitive retroactive taxes around. Who is next? Are you looking over your shoulder? Agree 100%. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 There is some language in a few Supreme Court cases that say certain taxation, in theory, could be unconstitutional. But it would have to rise to the level of: (1) targeting a protected class (i.e., race, religion, national orgin, age, etc); or (2) would have to amount to a "taking" of property without due process such that it would fall under eminent domain jurisprudence. But a century of US Supreme Court case law states unambiguously that taxation may be retroactive. Congress doesn't "like" to do that because its unpopular; but make no mistake, they have that power and everyone who has ever fought against it in court has lost. Good to know - thanks. TimG Nobel Prize winning economist Yikes - Krugman doesn't like it either. I think he's exactly right when he says that the Bush team and Obama team are too closely tied to Wall Street to be objective about solutions to the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm requesting that my employer pay me only in doubloons from now on. No more direct deposit, but at least I'll be stylin in 18th century Spain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 that was before the usg decided to print dollars at the rate they are. the us dollar will be worthless. Can you send me all your $ then? I'll p.m. you my address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 The tax system is bad enough as is, before you start throwing punitive retroactive taxes around. Who is next? Are you looking over your shoulder? Thankfully, everyone loves attorneys and contractors. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 i agree. but id rather see the general public pick up a shovel and work instead of a pitchfork and protest. Many of those same people would love to pick up a shovel and work. They could use the shovel to bury the Masters of the Universe first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Can you send me all your $ then? I'll p.m. you my address. im saving it to use on my hairy arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Many of those same people would love to pick up a shovel and work. They could use the shovel to bury the Masters of the Universe first. but shouldnt those people be spending their resources and time working or looking for a job instead of protesting about inequalities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 but shouldnt those people be spending their resources and time working or looking for a job instead of protesting about inequalities? It was Saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 but shouldnt those people be spending their resources and time working or looking for a job instead of protesting about inequalities? I think it should be okay for someone to take a little time out from job hunting (a brutal endeavor in today's market) in order to exercise their right to free speech. Don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 im saving it to use on my hairy arse. I'll send you back a lighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 It was Saturday. I think it should be okay for someone to take a little time out from job hunting (a brutal endeavor in today's market) in order to exercise their right to free speech. Don't you? people are free to do what they want. i just think if youre struggling, you should direct your efforts to correcting yourself and your problems. crying about someone else isnt that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I don't know about that. the problem with the bad assets, as far as I understand it, is not that they have no value, but that noone can accurately pin a value on them in the current climate....and the uncertainty over what they are worth is what lies at the center of this whole mess. the treasury buying them sort of quarantines that toxic uncertainty, then if the housing market starts rebounding and much of the uncertainty is removed, I would think there is significant upside in the value of these securities. Actually, there are very likely plenty of securities out there that have no value (and won't have value even if the housing market turns around because the assets are based on mortgages that have already defaulted).. But, even suppose that some do have some value, there is a very good likelihood that their real value is below what the banks would need for them to be at in order for the banks to remain solvent. Consider an asset with a face value of $1 that has a current market price of 20 cents, but is really worth 50 cents. Suppose the bank has needs for it to be worth at least 90 cents in order for the banks' assets to be above its liabilities, the only way that the government program will help save the banks is if the treasury pays at least 90 cents for the asset--which results in a direct transfer of 40 cents of wealth from taxpayers to the bank's stockholders. Again, to see how the taxpayers could get screwed under this new private/public partnership plan, go back and look at the 'consider this" example that I posted above twice. Edited March 23, 2009 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 i agree. but id rather see the general public pick up a shovel and work instead of a pitchfork and protest. I think EVERYONE would prefer to see that happen--please help facilitate this process by posting links to the 12,467,000 needed job openings for these shovel workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Consider an asset with a face value of $1 that has a current market price of 20 cents, but is really worth 50 cents. Suppose the bank has needs for it to be worth at least 90 cents in order for the banks' assets to be above its liabilities, the only way that the government program will help save the banks is if the treasury pays at least 90 cents for the asset--which results in a direct transfer of 40 cents of wealth from taxpayers to the bank's stockholders. Would they do this on a bank-by-bank basis? So if Bank A needs 90 cents in order for their assets to be above their liabilities, but Bank B only needs 80 cents for their assets to be above their liabilities, does the treasury pay different amounts to those bankes even if the real worth of the assets would have been the same? Or do they just pay them all basically the same based upon the worst common denominator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I think EVERYONE would prefer to see that happen--please help facilitate this process by posting links to the 12,467,000 needed job openings for these shovel workers. i have some weeds in my backyard..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.