posted April 25, 2010 08:16 PM         

• 42 line 17 and 19
  
• 48
  
• 50
  
• 59
  
• 79
  
• 88

posted April 25, 2010 09:24 PM         

quote:

---

Still too lazy to look up the cited sections and go read them for yourself...eh acoustic?

---

Frankly, yes. I can pretty well trust you to get things quite wrong, and there's no reason to believe that this is any exception.

quote:

---

Your arguments are off point. No one, not even leftists agree with your position.

---

What's that? My opinion is not born of leftists? I always told you that. However, my argument that the 50 billion dollars is coming from large banks is contained in several articles about the bill.

quote:

---

This legislation clearly provides for bailouts for institutions, including banks AND their creditors...at US taxpayer expense.

---

You haven't proven this to be true. You've been repeatedly challenged on this very idea, and you've never once proved it would be at taxpayer's expense.

quote:

---

Even the $50 billion fund created by taxes on institutions will be borne by taxpayers as these institutions pass their costs through to consumers.

---

Some more Jwhop logic. You can't prove what I've asked you to prove, so you attempt to justify your point via another means. I suppose I can accept the plausibility of this. Banks are adept at creatively moving funds, so sure they might be able to bilk some more out of consumers. It wouldn't be all consumers (as in all taxpayers), though, and nor would it necessarily come from domestic consumers.

A cursory reading of just the table of contents of the Bill Node linked to suggests exactly what I said was true in my last post: this bill is far bigger than the single issue of bailouts.

Let's examine some of the sections YOU posted:

Section 204 Orderly Liquidation

(a) PURPOSE OF ORDERLY LIQUIDATION AUTHORITY.—It is the purpose of this title to provide the necessary authority to liquidate failing financial companies that pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States in a manner that mitigates such risk and minimizes moral hazard. The authority provided in this title shall be exercised in the manner that best fulfills such purpose, with the strong presumption that—

(1) creditors and shareholders will bear the losses of the financial company;
(2) management responsible for the condition of the financial company will not be retained; and
(3) the Corporation and other appropriate agencies will take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all parties, including management and third parties, having responsibility for the condition of the financial company bear losses consistent with their responsibility, including actions for damages, restitution, and recoupment of compensation and other gains not compatible with such responsibility.

(b) CORPORATION AS RECEIVER.—Upon the appointment of the Corporation under section 202, the Corporation shall act as the receiver for the covered financial company, with all of the rights and obligations set forth in this title.

(c) CONSULTATION.—The Corporation, as receiver—

(1) shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency or agencies of the covered financial company and its covered subsidiaries for purposes of ensuring an orderly liquidation of the covered financial company;

(2) may consult with, or under subsection
20 (a)(1)(B)(v) or (a)(1)(L) of section 210, acquire the services of, any outside experts, as appropriate to inform and aid the Corporation in the orderly liquidation process;

(3) shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency or agencies of any subsidiaries of the covered financial company that are not covered subsidiaries, and coordinate with such regulators regarding the treatment of such solvent subsidiaries and the separate resolution of any such insolvent subsidiaries under other governmental authority, as appropriate; and

(4) shall consult with the Commission and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation in the case of any covered financial company for which the Corporation has been appointed as receiver that is a
broker or dealer registered with the Commission under section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)) and is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, for the purpose of determining whether to transfer to a bridge financial company organized by the Corporation as receiver, without consent of any customer, customer accounts of the covered financial company.

(d) FUNDING FOR ORDERLY LIQUIDATION.—Upon
its appointment as receiver for a covered financial company, and thereafter as the Corporation may, in its discretion, determine to be necessary or appropriate, the Corporation may make available to the receivership, subject to the conditions set forth in section 206 and subject to the plan described in section 210(n)(13), funds for the orderly liquidation of the covered financial company.

________________

You may think at this point that the last paragraph proves what you said, but understand the title of the paragraph: FUNDING FOR ORDERLY LIQUIDATION. Liquidation is the key word here. Bailouts result in the receiver maintaining their business. Liquidation does not.
________________

SEC. 206. MANDATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ALL ORDERLY LIQUIDATION ACTIONS.

In taking action under this title, the Corporation shall—

(1) determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company;

(2) ensure that the shareholders of a covered fnancial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid;

(3) ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210;

quote:

---

Section 204
Gives the FDIC authority to tap the US treasury for funding to bail out institutions creditors. This is a permanent bail out authority of the FDIC to buy the debts of institutions. it not only bails out institutions but their creditors as well and permits institutions to enter an orderly bankruptcy process in which they could emerge debt free...thanks to the federal government and US taxpayers.

---

If you read Sections 204, 206, and 210, the only funding mentioned is for liquidation of an entity. They aren't authorized to "buy the debts of institutions," and there's a whole structure of hoops claimants must go through to get their claim accepted. It specifically nails uninsured creditors associated with these institutions insisting that these creditors "bear losses." Stockholders and shareholders are also on the hook for bearing losses. There is no mention of allowing these institutions to enter into bankruptcy, or of the business ever emerging again. It's a liquidation of the company.

If you read these sections, the FDIC is permitted to transfer accounts to a bridge financial company as well.

posted April 25, 2010 10:02 PM         

quote:

---

Orderly Resolution Fund funded by taxes on institutions which will be passed on to customers, employees and investors in the institutions...AS ALL TAXES AND COST OF REGULATION ON CORPORATIONS ARE PASSED ON TO CUSTOMERS AND THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE CORPORATIONS ALL OF WHOM ARE TAXPAYERS.

---

In addition to what I've already deemed as flimsy in this argument, there is a difference between government funding and a corporation passing on expenses to cover it's costs. The consumer can opt out of the increased costs by doing business elsewhere. The taxpayer will find more difficulty in doing the same. That the definitive inequality of taxpayer help via the government versus taxpayer help via simple consumerism.

From Sec. 210. page 286:

(2) GRADUATED ASSESSMENT RATE.—The Corporation shall impose assessments on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets being assessed at a higher rate.
Link

posted April 26, 2010 10:23 AM         

I never have to read far into what you say to find the flaw in your reasoning...if what you do can even be called "reasoning".

Your time would have been better spent learning what words mean and developing a workable vocabulary.

Now acoustic, regarding this piece of crap O'Bomber is touting as Wall Street Reform; you should know, but apparently don't know, it was written by lawyers. Lawyers know what each word in a bill means. Take for instance the words...."strong presumption".

Lawyers know that if they wish to make a clause iron clad they use the word "SHALL" or "SHALL NOT". They also know what the word "Presumption" means.

The word "presumption" means "taking for granted"...i.e., "assuming".

The authority provided in this title shall be exercised in the manner that best fulfills such purpose, with the strong presumption that....

Later in your analysis you post this as a rebuttal that no one is going to be bailed out. Obviously, you didn't read this with understanding because there's a qualifier in the paragraph.

the Corporation and other appropriate agencies will take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all parties, including management and third parties, having responsibility for the condition of the financial company bear losses consistent with their responsibility.

Hahaha, creditors, vendors and bond holders bear no responsibility for the operation of businesses to whom they extend credit or provide products or services. They don't get a vote, they have no control over operations.

So, these people bearing no responsibility will be bailed out by the FDIC using the authority Congress is attempting to bestow on the FDIC.

Notice also, this paragraph uses the word "will" not "SHALL".

There's a reason Dodd and other attorneys who drafted this piece of crap didn't make a "to do list" and a "not to do" list prefaced by the words..."SHALL" AND "SHALL NOT".

That's enough but there's another phrase which leaves open the probability that congress is going to rely on the judgment of regulators..bureaucrats, to make decisions...in the absence of an iron clad words like "Shall" and "SHALL NOT".

That phrase is "consistent with". There could be and will be a broad range of opinion as to what is necessary to produce the assumed result Congress says they want to produce.

They could have and should have said "SHALL" or "SHALL NOT" upon each instance where they desired to have something done or not done.

They didn't.

They could have and should have eliminated all qualifiers and written simple declarative sentences.

These are attorneys and they didn't.

posted April 26, 2010 11:33 AM         

First off, I'm not the one with the issues of comprehension. That's always been you.

quote:

---

posted April 26, 2010 10:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acoustic, if you've spent any time on "this" at all, you've wasted your time.
I never have to read far into what you say to find the flaw in your reasoning...if what you do can even be called "reasoning".

Your time would have been better spent learning what words mean and developing a workable vocabulary.

Now acoustic, regarding this piece of crap O'Bomber is touting as Wall Street Reform; you should know, but apparently don't know, it was written by lawyers. Lawyers know what each word in a bill means. Take for instance the words...."strong presumption".

Lawyers know that if they wish to make a clause iron clad they use the word "SHALL" or "SHALL NOT". They also know what the word "Presumption" means.

The word "presumption" means "taking for granted"...i.e., "assuming".

The authority provided in this title shall be exercised in the manner that best fulfills such purpose, with the strong presumption that....

Later in your analysis you post this as a rebuttal that no one is going to be bailed out. Obviously, you didn't read this with understanding because there's a qualifier in the paragraph.

the Corporation and other appropriate agencies will take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all parties, including management and third parties, having responsibility for the condition of the financial company bear losses consistent with their responsibility.

Hahaha, creditors, vendors and bond holders bear no responsibility for the operation of businesses to whom they extend credit or provide products or services. They don't get a vote, they have no control over operations.

---

There's no lack of understanding there. Creditors and vendors can partner with banks to create failing situations, and if they do so, they'll be on the hook as much as the bank. So much for that theory.

quote:

---

So, these people bearing no responsibility will be bailed out by the FDIC using the authority Congress is attempting to bestow on the FDIC.

---

Nope. Those vendors or creditors with legitimate claims will be paid as the failing bank will attempt to pay all legitimate debt. Such debt payment is not to be considered a "bailout" if it comes out of the bank's own assets. It is possible some of it may come from this fund they're developing, but it's already well known that this fund is funded by the banks. That's a double no bailout as far as I'm concerned. Not only will the failed banks pay off legimate debt with their assets, but in the instance that they have to use the liquidation fund the money still doesn't come from taxpayers. It's a triple a no bailout situation if these vendors and creditors aren't in financial peril themselves. That's a pretty emphatic loss on the "bailout" argument.

quote:

---

They could have and should have eliminated all qualifiers and written simple declarative sentences.

These are attorneys and they didn't.

Buckle up for bail outs.

---

posted April 26, 2010 11:52 AM         

Vendors, creditors and bond holders have no decision making authority in any business..other than their own. Therefore, these persons or businesses can not bear any responsibility for mismanagement of institutional banks and Wall Street institutions...nor for malfeasance, misfeasance or illegality.

They are therefore innocent parties who are eligible for bailouts via the FDIC.

Stock holders do have a voice when they vote for corporate officers and they usually are last in line for any payout when businesses are liquidated for their asset value...or enter bankruptcy.

posted April 26, 2010 12:18 PM         

quote:

---

Vendors, creditors and bond holders have no decision making authority in any business..other than their own. Therefore, these persons or businesses can not bear any responsibility for mismanagement of institutional banks and Wall Street institutions...nor for malfeasance, misfeasance or illegality.

They are therefore innocent parties who are eligible for bailouts via the FDIC.

---

Number one, this isn't your primary contention. As such, it is just a remnant you're attempting to cling to in order to have an argument.

Number two, under this bill only financial institutions with assets over $50 billion are covered, and such coverage is NOT what any rational person would deem to be a "bailout". If these vendors and creditors do not meet this threshold of assets, they're not included in the covered banks. As such they would not be subject to liquidation under this bill.

Number three, it doesn't matter if vendors or creditors have no decision making authority in a business outside of their own. If a covered bank partners with an entity (vendor/creditor), and the situation contributes to the failing of the bank (and therefore a threat to the United State's financial system), then that partner will face losses. That's the way the bill is written. This likely refers to affiliates more than anything else. There would be no reason to "bailout" an affiliate that contributed to the bank's failure.
If they did not contribute, then (like any other situation) they are entitled to recover any debt owed to them, and the FDIC will make judgments regarding that process. This paying of debt/bills by the FDIC on the failing bank's behalf can hardly be considered a "bailout" of the vendor. There is no scenario where the payment of regular debt to, say, the landscapers would be considered a "bailout" of the landscapers. It's a simple payment of a regular debt owed to an entity that provided some legitimate service [a service which, of course, couldn't be responsible for the failing of the bank].

posted April 27, 2010 08:44 AM         

It's not the vendors and creditors who need to meet an asset threshold.

Further, it's sheer nonsense that vendors and creditors...who have no decision making authority in a bank or financial institutions operations would be able to contribute to their mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance or illegality. That's the job of CEOs, Comptrollers/CFOs, Board members, including the Chairman of the Board and other high level corporate managers.

The more you express yourself, the more I like it.

"If you're having trouble understanding the bill, consult a lawyer. You'll find that I'm right."

Now acoustic, as for the possibility an attorney would agree with you, this statement is one of the funniest things you've ever said here. In fact, it may well be the very most funny thing you've said; in as much as I've seen your legal brilliance on display here as you've mangled the law and the Constitution before.

Oh wait, I'm afraid an attorney agreeing with you will have to remain in 2nd place. I just remembered you saying..."Capricorns don't lie".

posted April 27, 2010 11:24 AM         

quote:

---

Further, it's sheer nonsense that vendors and creditors...who have no decision making authority in a bank or financial institutions operations would be able to contribute to their mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance or illegality. That's the job of CEOs, Comptrollers/CFOs, Board members, including the Chairman of the Board and other high level corporate managers.

---

Yes, a bank's affiliates could indeed contribute to the bank's failure. That's indisputable.

quote:

---

The more you express yourself, the more I like it.

"If you're having trouble understanding the bill, consult a lawyer. You'll find that I'm right."

Now acoustic, as for the possibility an attorney would agree with you, this statement is one of the funniest things you've ever said here. In fact, it may well be the very most funny thing you've said; in as much as I've seen your legal brilliance on display here as you've mangled the law and the Constitution before.

Oh wait, I'm afraid an attorney agreeing with you will have to remain in 2nd place. I just remembered you saying..."Capricorns don't lie".

Nevertheless, thanks for the chuckles.

---

Here we go again. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Anytime you use that broad smile you really are just talking shiit.

I get it. You can no longer recall your own argument, and you can't educate yourself, because you can't comprehend "lawyer talk." You need simple, declarative statements in order to make heads or tails of anything, so best just attempt another personality war. I get it.

posted April 27, 2010 11:44 AM         

What's telling acoustic is that you believe we're engaged in some kind of contest. The truth is I don't give a flying flip what you believe.

I only correct your nonsense as a public service and others can take out of the discussions whatever they wish.

The idea I'm attempting to sway anyone's opinion or vote is another dead bang loser.

Btw, Harry Reid lost a vote to bring the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill to the floor of the Senate for debate...yesterday.

Republicans want the weasel language, some of which I pointed out in the bill...tightened up to say there are no institutions too big to let fail...therefore, no more bailouts for any of them.

In that endeavor, Senate Republicans are lined up with the American people who are incensed at demoscats throwing their money at Wall Street...and others...to bail them out of the mess(es) they got themselves in.

posted April 27, 2010 12:08 PM         

quote:

---

What you don't get acoustic is that you're not in charge of my schedule. You get no vote in deciding when I will respond...or even if I will respond to your nonsense.

---

No, you're right. I don't. However, when you're here posting elsewhere, and take your time returning to this subject it's pretty clear you've got no argument on which to rest.

quote:

---

What's telling acoustic is that you believe we're engaged in some kind of contest. The truth is I don't give a flying flip what you believe.

---

That's an outright lie. Everyone can plainly see this.

quote:

---

I only correct your nonsense as a public service and others can take out of the discussions whatever they wish.

---

You DON'T correct my nonsense. I correct YOUR nonsense. I'm not the one posting things unsupported by the facts.

quote:

---

The idea I'm attempting to sway anyone's opinion or vote is another dead bang loser.

---

Another obvious lie.

quote:

---

Btw, Harry Reid lost a vote to bring the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill to the floor of the Senate for debate...yesterday.

---

Yes, I know this.

quote:

---

Republicans want the weasel language, some of which I pointed out in the bill...tightened up to say there are no institutions too big to let fail...therefore, no more bailouts for any of them.

---

posted April 27, 2010 12:16 PM         

The fact you can't understand the arguments speaks volumns about your inabilities.

The O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill is shot through with weasel language which can and will be interpretated by bureaucrats as authority to bail out whom ever they wish and whenever they wish.

posted April 27, 2010 12:52 PM         

quote:

---

My arguments are crystal clear, concise and to the point.

The fact you can't understand the arguments speaks volumns about your inabilities.

---

Your "arguments" if we can justify calling them that, are at best clouded. You continue to post that this is a bill about bailouts when it VERY CLEARLY isn't. You can't get any more wrong on that point.

quote:

---

The O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill is shot through with weasel language which can and will be interpretated by bureaucrats as authority to bail out whom ever they wish and whenever they wish.

Further, the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill confers authority to do so on the Executive Branch/FDIC...without any consultation, before or after or any further authorization from the Congress.

---

It's not a "bailout" as I've told you repeatedly, and which is true whether you choose to believe me or not. Beyond that, of course the FDIC should be able to LIQUIDATE a financial entity at it's discretion, because the money for doing so DOESN'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

posted April 27, 2010 01:37 PM         

what? Node going off the rails, off topic and thread starter? go figure....she always was a wackadoo.

So, AG I'm playing with search engines right? As I'm typing bailout the GOOGLE suggestions included: Bailout anger undermines Geithner.

Next I try Bing and in their suggestions it's Bailout Bill Details [2008] three pages of 2008 stuff

ASK.com is

• plan
• bill
• vote
• stimulant plan [that is not a typo]
• package
• application

what a difference a search provider makes

In answer to your question w/o being cute- I would say it is an exchange.
money for debt.

posted April 28, 2010 07:49 AM         

One demoscat Senator, Ben Nelson, Nebraska said he voted against bringing it up because a copy of the bill hadn't been furnished to his office.

More of the demoscat insanity of trying to get congressional members to vote on thousands of page bills without having read what they're voting for.

Suggested replacement bill for the 1400 page S.3217

S.3218

A Bill to prohibit the expenditure of federal taxpayer funds to finance the operation of businesses, guarantee their debt or pay off their creditors, investors or bondholders.

Full Text of S.3218

"No Federal Taxpayer money Shall be Budgeted For, Allocated To or Expended By any agency of the Federal government to grant Federal government assistance to any Business whether Domestic or Foreign. Nor Shall any Federal Taxpayer money be Budgeted For, Allocated To or Expended By any agency of the Federal government to Guarantee the debts of any Business, whether Domestic or Foreign, or pay losses of their Creditors, Investors or Bond Holders."

Exceptions:
1. Checking and Savings Deposit accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (FDIC), are exempted from provisions of this bill.

2. Brokerage Trading accounts insured by the Securities Investors Protection Corporation, (SIPC), are exempted from provisions of this bill.

There, a 1400 page bill Senators are incapable of reading and understanding cut down to ONE (1) page, devoid of all weasel words and phrases, devoid of contradictory language and which does everything demoscats SAY they want to do...but don't.

posted April 28, 2010 10:38 AM         

a 1400 pg bill really adds up to more like 500 pages when you see the margins either side of text are about a third of the page. when you eliminate certain other stylistic impediments even shorter.

anyone who WANTS to read the bill and not just parts that mention a particular issue or phrase would be advised to sit down with one other person and read aloud or listen to it read aloud...

[thanks node for the suggestion but i was trying to read the whole context not just specific parts. will have to come back to this in a few days!!]

posted April 28, 2010 11:56 AM         

US Bankruptcy Court...under the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary is the proper place and proper procedure to use for failed businesses...some of which shed liabilities, restructure and reemerge and some of which are liquidated with their assets converted to cash and distributed to creditors and bond holders.

Now, my substitute bill, S.3218, does everything demoscats yip and yap about...but don't really want to do. My bill also has the advantage of being so clear and concise that even brain dead leftist demoscats can understand the legislative language.

posted April 28, 2010 02:33 PM         

Further, you've made another losing argument as to the proper course of action for failing companies. The proper...and legal course of action is Bankruptcy Court...not a commission of federal bureaucrats.

I don't consider there's any contest and therefore, I'm not competing with you.

But just imagine what would happen if I decided to really bear down and let you have it with both barrels.

posted April 28, 2010 05:17 PM         

I listened to Mitch McConnell today which I am loath to do, as he is a braying ass. Listening to him dramatize how "Here is another bill the Majority doesn't want us to read"
Then his heartfelt recounting of the Health reform Bill passing in the dark of midnight, during a snowstorm. Now that was pretty funny. Violins should have been playing.

Not receiving a copy of the bill, not enough time to read the bill,..... they have readers called clerks and assistants that do that. They go over it with fine tooth combs and send the notes and highlights to the esteemed Senators. Anyway his point about making the language in the bill more specific, and "tightening" it up sounds good if you haven't been paying attention. I can recall many instances in the health legislation where the language was already specific. And after days, and amendments nothing was gained, but we lost time and money. It is BS as usual.

posted April 28, 2010 05:42 PM         

quote:

---

I've already proved you've made a losing argument which is not backed up by the weasle wording in the O'Bomber Financial Institutions Bail Out Bill.

---

Huh? You did no such thing. You haven't mustered even an impression of an argument. Are you drugged up right now?

quote:

---

Further, you've made another losing argument as to the proper course of action for failing companies. The proper...and legal course of action is Bankruptcy Court...not a commission of federal bureaucrats.

---

No...I indicated what the Democrats bill is to do with failing banks. I made no decision as to what the proper course of action to take it. If approved, the Democrat's bill would be the law, therefore the legal course of action would be for the FDIC to do it's thing in accordance with that bill.

quote:

---

I don't consider there's any contest and therefore, I'm not competing with you.

---

Well, I suppose that's good, because if you were, you'd be losing by a pretty good clip. I thought you brought the competing Republican bill to the table. I guess not.

quote:

---

But just imagine what would happen if I decided to really bear down and let you have it with both barrels.

---

Nothing of consequence I can assure you. You, on your best day, still loses to me on my worst.

quote:

---

My advice is to keep this on a non-competitive level.

---