Forum Post: Headline: Banks "AGREE" to take big loss on debt
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 26, 2011, 11:22 p.m. EST by wanker
(4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Does this kind of article NOT drive you insane?! Like one has a CHOICE whether to take on debts when they THEMSELVES made bad bets on lending?? How come bankers get to keep winnings when they win, but not take on losses when they lose??? The rest of us sure follow different sets of rules. Bankers are the scum of the earth, not the exception to the rule of law.
I seriously don't understand it...I don't, can someone tell me what is going on? If I lend money to someone and they don't repay me or if I make a purchase and the value goes down, do I have a choice to NOT take on that loss?? This is absolutely crazy LaLaLand stuff!!
Enough of this blackmailing the public, bail outs, and zero-risk gambling on bankers part! We should focus 100% of our resources on going after the BANKS, just their elites have enough in their accounts of stolen money to get us out of the debts THEY schemed us into.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45055736/ns/business-world_business/
I agree - and I don't understand why we don't take them on, to pay for damages caused by the mortgage bubble.
A loss in equity and national wealth need to be refunded. Every home owner lost an average 40-60% in Equity. (About 22 Trillion $)
This are the values that need to be refunded! A least a class action law suit for violation against consumer protection laws, resulting in massive losses in equity.
There is no to big to fail! There are only large rotten structures that need to fail, making space for a new beginning.
They are just getting started. Wait till the g20 meeting.
Just to clarify and not make personal attacks (you misread what I wrote), I don't mean debt as in ME in debt (I'm not); I'm talking about banks getting themselves into debt or making bad decisions, then forcefully having us, THE TAX PAYERS dig them out. Why not make their execs and managers pay it off, their combined undeserved bonuses alone would be in the tens of billions. There is a humongous liability loophole here that needs to be revised, the Feds need to ask themselves who they really work for.
I know this is like beating a dead fish, but using tax dollars to bail out banks after they recklessly gamble away other people's money has become so REGULAR, so everyday; are we the people are supposed to accept it as the "natural order of things"?? Let's just be fair, let them pay back their OWN damn debts from here on, revise their employment contracts and regulations, they want fat bonuses, EARN IT and take on risk like everyone else or pay the price!!
Any comments on this?
February 15, 2010
Goldman Sachs arranged swaps that effectively allowed Greece to borrow 1 billion Euros without adding to its official public debt. While it arranged the swaps, Goldman also sought to buy insurance on Greek debt and engage in other trades to protect itself against the risk of a default on those swaps. Eventually, Goldman sold the swaps to the national bank of Greece.
Despite its role in creating swaps that may have allowed the Greek government to mask its growing debts, Goldman has no net exposure to a default on Greek debt, a person familiar with the matter says.
I'll tell you what. I am so sick of hearing about how Goldman Sachs has screwed every single thing they've put their greasy little fingers on, I'm ready to organize a full-blown lynch mob and string up everyone of those m---erfu---ers and burn their houses and offices to the ground. They are by and large the single worst entity of all the businesses we've been discussing. BoA and all the rest pale in comparison to these . . . these . . .hell, I'm so pissed I can't even finish my damn sentence.
They turned me into a newt.
I got better.
They can "choose" to take on debt. They didn't lend bad money, you borrowed money with a bad deal. You still own the money back to them so thei idea they they would be willing to take a hit is good news for you.