Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs - Page 149

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-09-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If the Dems have any sense (note: feckless idiots, so obv. counter-factual), they'd propose and push thru in the lame duck session a statutory ban on earmarks. Read into the record *exactly* Limbaugh's explanation for why it will work and avoid any temptation to add in statements about needing to restrain the next Congress. Fast track it, do everything to get it enacted, even give credit to the Rs, if necessary. Just end the conversation about it *now*, so that they can force the Rs to move onto their next deficit reduction proposal--which is ... nothing.

Speaking of feckless, I cannot believe how badly they screwed up the "Bush tax cuts" thing.

Cletus Miller · 11-09-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Next thing they should do is tie any extension of the Bush tax cuts (any of them, for anyone) to an extension of the debt ceiling to accomodate the cuts. Any other approach is irresponsible.

Not enough. Need to tie it to a specific bond issue in a defined amount. Call them "Bush Bonds" and publicize the amount of interest payable every year for the length of the term. Require the Bush Bonds to be sold for every year of the continuing tax cuts. Make it clear that the annual cost makes no dent in the principal owed--that they are like the Interest Only mortgages that were so common in the last few years, and the whole amount of the borrowing will be due at the end of the bond term.

Obviously, this would go nowhere (for good and bad reasons; mostly good), but the House should propose it during the lame duck, if the Ds are interested in having anything to say about the Rs message.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-09-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Not enough. Need to tie it to a specific bond issue in a defined amount. Call them "Bush Bonds" and publicize the amount of interest payable every year for the length of the term. Require the Bush Bonds to be sold for every year of the continuing tax cuts. Make it clear that the annual cost makes no dent in the principal owed--that they are like the Interest Only mortgages that were so common in the last few years, and the whole amount of the borrowing will be due at the end of the bond term.

Obviously, this would go nowhere (for good and bad reasons; mostly good), but the House should propose it during the lame duck, if the Ds are interested in having anything to say about the Rs message.

Well, I may just have to start referring to "Bush Bonds" anyways.

ThurgreedMarshall · 11-09-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Pricing, sure, but dropping covenants is stupid.

Agreed! It's what got us into this mess in the first place.

TM

Cletus Miller · 11-09-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Agreed! It's what got us into this mess in the first place.

TM

Are the decisions being made by bankers hoping to have a backstop job with the PE/HF borrowers? Or are the borrowers companies that don't pay 8-figure bonuses?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-09-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Agreed! It's what got us into this mess in the first place.

TM

I don't know, I don't really think covenants save you when you make residential loans based on a 120% loan:value ratio.

Cletus Miller · 11-09-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know, I don't really think covenants save you when you make residential loans based on a 120% loan:value ratio.

TM is a residential mortgage broker? I did not know that.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 11-09-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

TM is a residential mortgage broker? I did not know that.

Maybe I'm off here, but I don't think the kind of loans TM does were really at the core of the melt-down anyways. Some mix of the bigger, strangely structured stuff and the smaller but securitized sorts.

Cletus Miller · 11-09-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Maybe I'm off here, but I don't think the kind of loans TM does were really at the core of the melt-down anyways. Some mix of the bigger, strangely structured stuff and the smaller but securitized sorts.

Part and parcel of the mess. One of Citi's biggest problems in '08 was the un-saleable Bell Canada loan.

ThurgreedMarshall · 11-09-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Are the decisions being made by bankers hoping to have a backstop job with the PE/HF borrowers? Or are the borrowers companies that don't pay 8-figure bonuses?

Decisions are being made by Sponsors who put pressure on the banks competing for their business. Banks need good credits on their books so they're willing to bend a little lately.

But the fact that banks aren't lending right now is partly due to the covenant-free approach taken from '04-'07 by so many banks. Banks were competing for every loan they could get (presumably because of bonuses, but that's hardly news) and cutting their own throats to get it. When things went to hell, banks had no control over Borrowers who should have been in default a thousand different ways and they couldn't sell portfolios of loans because (i) the deals (read: covenant light) were so bad* and (ii) no one (besides hedge funds) wanted more debt anyway.

That stopped when everything crashed. Banks stopped lending first, altogether and later would lend only to companies that could meet some pretty old-school, stringent covenant standards. Hopefully we're on our way to a level-headed standard for everybody.

TM

*Per your follow-up comment to GGG above.

Penske 2.0 · 11-09-2010, 05:35 PM

I can readily admit that I think Hillary is doing a decent job as SoS, no complaints, but, come on, can't she affourd to buy a mirror for her dressing room.......

eta: and that's not a phottoshoppe. at least not as far as I know.

Hank Chinaski · 11-09-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I can readily admit that I think Hillary is doing a decent job as SoS, no complaints, but, come on, can't she affourd to buy a mirror for her dressing room.......

eta: and that's not a phottoshoppe. at least not as far as I know.

maybe she's wearing orange as a nod to the Hindu during the Indian visit.

Penske 2.0 · 11-09-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

maybe she's wearing orange as a nod to the Hindu during the Indian visit.

do you think the colour is the only issue?

Hank Chinaski · 11-09-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

do you think the colour is the only issue?

everything besides is organic. what else can she change if she looked in a mirror?

ThurgreedMarshall · 11-09-2010, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I can readily admit that I think Hillary is doing a decent job as SoS, no complaints, but, come on, can't she affourd to buy a mirror for her dressing room.......

That's the way the woman looks. There really isn't much to work with. But why does it matter so much to you, especially when you just admitted you have no complaints about her job performance?*

TM

*And I should just let this whole thing go as a reward to you for admitting that at all, but what can you do?