FRIDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2008
Wall Street Execs Get $61.2 Billion in Bailout Pay & Bonuses
CNN reports that top Wall Street firms have doled out more than $61 billion in salary and bonuses for the financial third quarter. Congressman Dennis Kucinich tells CNN this “goes beyond unfair. This is an outrage.”

FRIDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2008
Wall Street Execs Get $61.2 Billion in Bailout Pay & Bonuses
CNN reports that top Wall Street firms have doled out more than $61 billion in salary and bonuses for the financial third quarter. Congressman Dennis Kucinich tells CNN this “goes beyond unfair. This is an outrage.”

today I got an offer in the mail to borrow $50,000 from BoA, and 2 credit card offers with limits to $25,000- oh, and I'm "pre-qualified" for all 3, hell no, I shouldn't be qualifed for any of these...

FRIDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2008
Wall Street Execs Get $61.2 Billion in Bailout Pay & Bonuses
CNN reports that top Wall Street firms have doled out more than $61 billion in salary and bonuses for the financial third quarter

this IS outrageous! The government should just take over all the corporations! How DARE they decide on their own how to compensate their executives! After all, the government is better than private industry at doing everything! /sarcasm off

Correction: Federal Budget story
WASHINGTON – In an Oct. 14 story on the record federal budget deficit for 2008, The Associated Press incorrectly quoted Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad as saying the national debt had climbed by more than $1 trillion while President Bush was in office. Conrad said the national debt had climbed more than $1 trillion in the 2008 budget year. The national debt has risen by $4.6 trillion since Bush took office.

here we go again, are you saying that $61 billion is not excessive

my point is that they don't need to be soliciting people for loans or credit cards now- WTF, haven't they done enough damage to main street with offers like these already

Oh I get it now.. the government should take over businesses so no one can be paid more than you think is fair, and credit card companies should stop doing business because SOME people caused a problem?

Does your opinion or mine about it's "excessiveness" matter one bit?

And oh, by the way, just what credit cards have to do with this anyway?

"some people caused a problem"
and the deregulation of banks...

maybe yours doesn't, but I think mine does~

you mean those magical plastic cards which help people get deeper in debt-
oh they have NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown-

Can you cite a single news article saying that credit cards have contributed?

Only a fool would doubt that unwise spending through credit cards has not contributed to this financial crisis we are in.

This didn't happen because a lack of government regulation, it happened because of government insistence that such risky loans be made.

Can you cite a single news article saying that credit cards have contributed?

We're not in a financial crisis because people are carrying too much debt.

When borrowers default on mortgages, the stream of payments available to holders of mortgage-backed securities declines.

Can you cite a single news article saying that credit cards have contributed?

The average amount of credit card debt per U.S. household was $9,840 in 2007, up 25% since 2000, reports CardTrak.com, a research company in Naples, Fla. Overall, Americans today carry $2.6 trillion in all kinds of consumer debt, up 24% from just 2003, according to the Federal Reserve. At the same time, Americans don't save like they used to: The nation's savings rate, which was 7.2% of disposable income in 1950, stood at 0.6% in 2007, says the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Increasing debt and decreasing savings--coupled with an economy making headlines for all the wrong reasons--spell trouble for many of those in hock. Delinquencies for credit cards are on the rise. During the first quarter of 2008, according to the American Bankers Association (ABA), bank-card delinquencies jumped 13 basis points to 4.51%. That is now above the five-year average delinquency rate of 4.4%.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/credit-card-debt-pf-ii-in_jl_0911creditcards_inl.html

Imports from low-wage countries such as China are resold in the United States at a greater profit margin for US importers than that enjoyed by Chinese exporters. Thus a $2 toy leaving a US-owned factory in China is a $3 shipment arriving at San Diego. By the time a US consumer buys it for $10 at Wal-Mart, the US economy registers $10 in final sales, less $3 import cost, for a $7 addition to the US GDP. This yields a ratio of GDP gain to import value of two-and-a-third.

Only a fool would doubt that unwise spending through credit cards has not contributed to this financial crisis we are in.


I would offer that only a fool would assume that they have. After all, it is just an assumption.

We're not in a financial crisis because people are carrying too much debt.

We're in a financial crisis because a lot of risky mortgage loans were made, and securities were created based on those risky mortgages. When the risky loans were defaulted on, those mortgage based securities dropped considerably in value. Banks who held a lot of those mortgage-based securities in their investment portfolios lost a lot of money.

This didn't happen because a lack of government regulation, it happened because of government insistence that such risky loans be made.

the government pushed subprime loans with Greenspan's nod and the banks went crazy with deregulation-

What is the difference between over stated mortgages ..... a Bubble... and $3 TRILLION in unsecured credit?

Umm.. do you know what "unsecured" means? And what is the default rate on credit card debt?

During the first quarter of 2008, according to the American Bankers Association (ABA), bank-card delinquencies jumped 13 basis points to 4.51%. That is now above the five-year average delinquency rate of 4.4%.

http://www.allbusiness.com/finance/1075991-1.html


Federal agencies plan three-year review of regulatory burden
Publication: Community Banker
Date: Tuesday, July 1 2003
Subject: Banking industry
Location: United States

Wielding tree shears and a chainsaw, banking regulators and trade association officials took aim June 3 at a two-foot tall, 9,000-page stack of regulations that will be scrutinized as part of an interagency effort to cut red tape.

The act symbolically kicked off the once-a-decade review of federal regulations mandated by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996. The initiative was unveiled at a news conference hosted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and joined in by representatives of all five federal financial regulatory agencies plus industry trade associations

Poised for Pruning: America's Community Bankers second Vice Chairman Harry Doherty (center) joined forces with banking regulators and trade association executives at a news conference to kick off the regulatory relief effort. Also on hand were (left to right) Office of Thrift Supervision Director James Gilleran; James McLaughlin of the American Bankers Association; FDIC Vice Chairman John Reich; and Kenneth Guenther of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

The agencies-the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration-announced they have formed a joint task force to undertake a three-year review of 129 separate rules. The review will focus on finding more streamlined and less burdensome ways to regulate banks.

America's Community Bankers pledged its support for the effort. "Reducing the regulatory burden will free up funds for our institutions to invest in our communities and better serve our customers' financial needs," said Harry Doherty, ACBs second vice chairman, and chairman and chief executive officer of $6.9 billion-asset SI Bank & Trust, Staten Island, N.Y.

FDIC Vice Chairman John Reich, who was tapped by FDIC Chairman Donald E. Powell to spearhead the interagency push, said the extent of the regulatory burden is the No. 1 concern regulators hear about from bankers. "As a former community banker, I certainly understand this concern. I have lived it," Reich said.

"We are calling on bankers to help us determine how to improve and streamline the regulatory process," Reich continued. "We are serious about this effort, we are committed to it, and we intend to achieve results." he said the three-year time frame would allow sufficient time to solicit "substantial and significant" input from bankers as well as consumer groups and other interested parties.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


3 execs step down from SI Bank & Trust
by Staten Island Advance
Monday April 07, 2008, 9:45 PM

Three top executives of SI Bank & Trust, a division of Sovereign Bank, have resigned amid mounting pressure on all employees to generate product sales to combat stock losses....................

The top-level departures are a sign that regional banks -- not just Wall Street investment giants -- are feeling the pressure of the mortgage crisis. It's also an indicator that one of the borough's most provincial lenders, the 144-year-old SI Bank & Trust, may be losing its small-town touch. ................
One executive in particular, Frank Besignano, has been the public face of SI Bank & Trust ............
Forbes reported earlier this year that Sovereign wrote down $1.4 billion in value during the fourth quarter of 2007,

FDIC Vice Chairman John Reich, who was tapped by FDIC Chairman Donald E. Powell to spearhead the interagency push, said the extent of the regulatory burden is the No. 1 concern regulators hear about from bankers. "As a former community banker, I certainly understand this concern. I have lived it," Reich said.

Please be more specific.... what "deregulation" are you referring to? What "regulation" of banks was removed? That is what "deregulation" is.
Democrats in congress strong arming banks to make risky loans is not "deregulation", it is meddling.

the government pushed subprime loans with Greenspan's nod and the banks went crazy with deregulation-

the government and financial institutions are both guilty, how vocal were the banks' opposition?

you're arguing semantics when it comes to deregulation-

and only "democrats" strong armed the banks to make risky loans"
Clinton had a republican Congress when they "deregulated" the banks

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081026/BUSINESS01/810260400/1003/NEWS01