minny…

Hey Admin , Extremely nice blog , if you need backlinks to your website I provide upto 10,000 high quality SEO backlinks for only $5. Check it out here :http://bit.ly/msweL2...

fotkividiki…

gruzchiki spb…

If you do an FDIC type liquidation(I believe TARP legislation allows the Treasury Secretary to liquidate a Goldman Sachs under Section 103) you end the payout on the part of the taxpayer. The shareholders and bond holders lose everything as opposed to a continued sucking on the taxpayers teat through TARP. Assets(insurance companies and brokerage houses) are sold to recoup some of the losses. The deposits are passed to solvent banks allowing them to increase loans; the goal of the program. The taxpayer owns the rest. The taxpayer can hold until they recover and sell to private hands for a profit. Or the taxpayer can liquidate the assets immediately taking the loss but putting them in private hands. But its over no more coming to the taxpayer for money.

The problem is that your line of argument is not supported by the facts. What you are asserting in fact is that the wreckage of the global economy was caused by people who work for wages. This is a preposterous position.

Main Street will have to place its trust in the administration and Congress to responsibly partner with Wall Street.

I am merely pointing out how some poster refuse to acknowledge the role our government (Republicans and Democrats) played.

“Packaging and reselling bad assets — even at huge losses — is the market's way of dealing with bad investments. Geithner, then, is to some extent finally allowing markets to dispose of these bad debts. Geithner seems to recognize, that markets, better than bureaucrats, can assign a fair value to the assets and at last take them off the books.

On the negative side, Geithner's plan is likely to be very expensive.
Second, the plan's success lies in part in describing these troubled assets accurately enough to create a legitimate market for them. Unfortunately, no one knows how well these assets can be packaged and resold. If, in fact, they can be packaged and resold profitably, then buyers will now need additional assurance that they won't be taxed 90 percent on any gains from toxic assets.”

Will taxpayers want to pay?

There may also be a problem with the implementation of the plan if Congress insists on salary caps and punitive taxation.

Under Geithner's plan, private investors stand to make a lot of money, and all it takes is a few high-profile stories about lavish compensation to bring out the pitchforks.

Why would any investor want to be a sitting duck for populist ire?

What Congress did to AIG CEO Ed Liddy serves as a cautionary tale.

“Here’s a guy who came in at the government’s request, after AIG had been nationalized,” said California Rep. John Campbell (R). “He’s taking no salary, no bonus, no stock options. He’s got no financial stake in this. He’s truly a volunteer trying to help his country. And he gets dragged before a congressional committee and, by a large number of the committee members, just gets ripped over the issue of these bonuses.”

When did it become clear to the Republicans who controlled the House and Senate that reforms were necessary? What reforms did they propose? And why do you believe that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whatever their faults were, are responsible for the housing bubble?

If you do an FDIC type liquidation(I believe TARP legislation allows the Treasury Secretary to liquidate a Goldman Sachs under Section 103) you end the payout on the part of the taxpayer. The shareholders and bond holders lose everything as opposed to a continued sucking on the taxpayers teat through TARP. Assets(insurance companies and brokerage houses) are sold to recoup some of the losses. The deposits are passed to solvent banks allowing them to increase loans; the goal of the program. The taxpayer owns the rest. The taxpayer can hold until they recover and sell to private hands for a profit. Or the taxpayer can liquidate the assets immediately taking the loss but putting them in private hands. But its over no more coming to the taxpayer for money.

The problem is that your line of argument is not supported by the facts. What you are asserting in fact is that the wreckage of the global economy was caused by people who work for wages. This is a preposterous position.

Main Street will have to place its trust in the administration and Congress to responsibly partner with Wall Street.

I am merely pointing out how some poster refuse to acknowledge the role our government (Republicans and Democrats) played.

“Packaging and reselling bad assets — even at huge losses — is the market's way of dealing with bad investments. Geithner, then, is to some extent finally allowing markets to dispose of these bad debts. Geithner seems to recognize, that markets, better than bureaucrats, can assign a fair value to the assets and at last take them off the books.

On the negative side, Geithner's plan is likely to be very expensive. Will taxpayers want to play?

Second, the plan's success lies in part in describing these troubled assets accurately enough to create a legitimate market for them. Unfortunately, no one knows how well these assets can be packaged and resold. If, in fact, they can be packaged and resold profitably, then buyers will now need additional assurance that they won't be taxed 90 percent on any gains from toxic assets.”

There may also be a problem with the implementation of the plan if Congress insists on salary caps and punitive taxation.

Under Geithner's plan, private investors stand to make a lot of money, and all it takes is a few high-profile stories about lavish compensation to bring out the pitchforks.

Why would any investor want to be a sitting duck for populist ire?

What Congress did to AIG CEO Ed Liddy serves as a cautionary tale.

“Here’s a guy who came in at the government’s request, after AIG had been nationalized,” said California Rep. John Campbell (R). “He’s taking no salary, no bonus, no stock options. He’s got no financial stake in this. He’s truly a volunteer trying to help his country. And he gets dragged before a congressional committee and, by a large number of the committee members, just gets ripped over the issue of these bonuses.”