ну хорошо, и к чему эта справедливость приведет? народ и так обозленный до предела. *i'm all about going by the rules... but trusting politicians is a bit of misnomer, don't you agree? *i love this country, but i have a feeling, something is not right in the system of checks and balances.

narod raduetsa chto u nih otnjali $$$ ... uzhe horosho :-D ...
u have 2 understand that ppl dont like crooks ...
except of "russian republicans" ... no vy rebjata v menshinstve ... (v)... i dont think checks and balances ot etogo postradali ... and majority of americans share this with me ... (Y)

"this act of congress is one time only ... and only against sertain group of ppl "
This is in fact unconstitutional. Whether most people agree with it or not. This is either a country of laws (as oppose to popular centiment) or it isn't!
I sencerely hope this law (if it passes) gets challenged in courts. It is unconstitutional on at least two counts:
1. You can not change the law retroactively (ex post facto)
2. You can not change a law so that it applies only to a certain group of people - it violates "equal protection" clause.
Again, I am just as upset about these bonuses as the next guy. But in this case the "cure" is worse than the "desease".

The Congress, in its true form, is trying to cover up their own screw-up, when they gave AIG billions without actually reading what was in the agreement. Worse then that. Chris Dodd (D-CT) actually inserted the language exempting these bonuses. And now they have a nerve to complain????

And BTW, I take back what I said yesterday about current AIG CIO, Edward Liddy. As oppose to the guy who was removed last September, who is a dirtbag, here is a guy, who came out of retirement, at the request of the Treasury department and took this thankless job for a huge annual salary of $1. On top of that he goes to the Capitol Hill and has to listen to the likes of Barney Frank bloviating about the problems that this moron helped to create in the first place. How rich is that?

Between AIG, Treasury department, Federal Reserve and various banking committees on the Hill, Liddy appears to be the only guy with any credibility and integrity left.

natan u r doing "mnogo shuma iz nichego" ...
constitution menjalas uzhe stolko raz! ... ant law can be changed! ...
nobody is equal ... dont worry ... take it easy ... nobody's going to take your $$$ ... u r not a crook ... r u? :-) (fr) :-D

Natan - so, what would you do in there place? everyone screwed up big time. the choice are: throw everything in the trash and start brand new, or try to fix things. as fun as it sounds, the first option is not very realistic.

Liddy appears to be the only guy with any credibility and integrity left.
znachit pravilno congress sdelal? ...

В Коннектикуте организовывают автобусные экскурсии для "рабочего класса" к домам где живут AIG executives с заездом в Вилимантик, где у них headquarter. Это по вашему нормально? Что за witch hunt? Кто доказал кто из них виноват и в чём конкретно?
8oI

Андрей,
You're missing the point. "constitution menjalas uzhe stolko raz".
To write a law that is unconstitutional is NOT the same as to actually change the Constitution. If Congress wants to change the Constituion - it should in fact initiate a very well defined process to do so.
And we are not talking here about a particular case - there are important constitutional principles at stake here. And simply trivializing what has taken place in Congress and saying "don't worry, be happy" is very misguided.
"nobody is going to take your money". I wish I had your confidence. But I don't.
"The government big enough to give you anything you want is the government big enough to take away everything you have" -- Gerald Ford, 1975.

"The government big enough to give you anything you want is the government big enough to take away everything you have" -- Gerald Ford, 1975.
(Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y)

Зоя
This is what SHOULD be done, which will never happen.
1. Congress appoints an independent panel (or a special prossecutor) to investigate how, when and by whom a special provision was written into the AIG takeover agreement last fall. My bet is that Chris Dodd would on the top of that list.
2. Congress, if so desires, writes a law to affect any FUTURE (not past) bonuses for companies that received taxpayer's $$.
3. Relatively speaking $165M is a drop in a bucket compared with billions that have went into sinkholes called AIG, CITI, BOA and others. How about revieing all of those agreements?
And BTW, people are outraged at $165M? Why aren't they outraged that at least $58B of our money went over to foreign banks, such as Barclay's and UBS to cover credit default swaps issued by AIG???

And you know why this will never happen? Because this investigation will undoubtedly reveal that the people sitting on the Banking and Financial Services Committees (both republicans and democrats) - are in fact responsible for this debacle. And they certainly do not deserve to sit in judgement of others. More appropriatly, it should be them who should be sitting in the other, opposite chairs and answering questions.

Natan,

i agree, but that's is normal. there are not that many people that can be impartial and have no personal interests. it is unwise of us to think otherwise.

That's part of the problem, Зоя. We, for the sake of this country and our children, should not allow ourselves to think that this is "normal". It is NOT normal. When people on Wall street rob you blind and people in Congress scream bloody murder and then turn around and rob you many times over - it is not "normal"
THROW THE BUMS OUT !!!!!

I am sorry, if I come across angry. I am not angry at you. But I am mad as hell at these goniffs.

Natan - agree... playing devil's advocate for a minute, and how many people do we have that are going to apply for those jobs? you? me? unlikely.....

I agree with you. Integrity, honesty, decency, responsibility is in short supply in our government these days. Maybe what we need is term limits for Congress. For example, how can anyone justify someone like Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the Senate? The guy is 94 years old. There are plenty of other examples. There should be at least a mandatory retirement age, around 75 - most corporations have it for their top management. But Congress wants to live by different rules.
I am ashamed to say, but our Senate reminds me of the Soviet Politbureau. 8oI 8oI 8oI 8oI

Natan - the principals upon this country was built are still here. Greed is universal.

The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA."

" University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. "

"Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley"

"
"
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market."

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt"

"upwards of 35% of all subprime lending went to housing speculators. Speculators who expected rising values to continue indefinitely. Once again not the purview of the Community Reinvestment Act, more the purview of greedy house traders."

This is in fact unconstitutional.
I sencerely hope this law (if it passes) gets challenged in courts. It is unconstitutional on at least two counts:
1. You can not change the law retroactively (ex post facto)

"A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons,[4] but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject."

Banks were given 100s of billions of $$$ without questions asked. Automaker's CEOs were "grilled" in the Senat and still didn't get any $$$. Why not "grill" Bank's CEOs? ... Why not make them accountable? ... Why not appoint "Bank's Czar" to look after them? ...
Why different aproach to these 2 branches of economy? ...
Will anyone ever go to jail for issuing "bad mortgages"? ...
Any thoughts? ...
I wrote this dec 15th ... since then nobody could answer this topic ...
any thoughts, my Republican friends? :-) (fr)

Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.

Лина, а где я сказал что сегоднешний кризис это результат CRA???
Пример с CRA был приведен в ответ Андрею на то что государство не влияет на банковскую систему.

Андрей, многих в тюрьму сажать придется, начиная с Wall Street. Всёравно ничего конкретно не докажите. Все будут друг на друга стрелки переводить. Wall Street скажeт что у нас никогда проблем с mortgage-backed securities небыло и поэтому мы не знали. Bank CEOs скажут что underwriters виноваты, те в свою очередь свалят на брокеров, брокеры на reals estate agents, и т.д.
В итоге, виноват будет тот, кто с доходом $5000/мес. берет $4000/мес. mortgage

i'm sorry, i don't have time to read all of this, but i see that everyone is still arguing. what's the problem now?

Slavik, that was more of an FYI... just in case I didn't make it clear, I was quoting an article...

Slava, nu ... eto ne otvet :-) ... "otpiska" ... isn't it consider to be a fraud - to issue morgtage to a person who cant afford it? ... without proper investigation of his income ... isn't it a fraud to push borrowers into signing these mortgages ...
we have Dep-t of Justice ... they didn't do their job then - why don't they do it now?? ... i komu nado raskoljatsa :-) ... Americans vse "sdajut" drug druga :-) ... tak chto eto budet legche chem Vy eto sebe predstvljaete :-) ... (v)

Андрей, опять же таки - многих садить придется.

without proper investigation of his income - Define proper? Here in America we trust each other. ;-)
isn't it a fraud to push borrowers into signing these mortgages - Who says they were PUSHED? Every single one of them left bank happy. They couldn't wait to move into their new house
:-)
Being a devils advocate here.
Upset? U should be, we paying for it now.

of course they were pushed ... they were deceived ... it's a fraud ...
criminal offence ...
nobody is going to trust you when you apply for mortgage ... the problem is - underwriters knew that borrowers couldn't afford loans ... but told them to sign anyway ...
the problem - those "deals" were never properly investigated ...

So should we jail all underwriters?
Andrei, what about those people (borrowers) that signed? Was a meaning of 3 year ARM not explained to them? Or maybe some of them lied about income, used fake paystubs, s.s. #'s, etc. Should they go to jail? There was a good epsiode about them on Dateline NBC with Chris Hansen this weekend
What about Barney Franks and Chris Dodd? Wasn't it their job to monitor?
Like I said before, too many people to investigate

hwy Mr Madoff got investigated? ... the same law should apply to ANYONE ... dont u agree? ... or u think if its small crime - lets just look another way? ...
there's no big or small crimes ...
crime is crime ...
we have dep-t of justice to take care of that ...

Hmm... outside of Madoff vs Mortgage crisis I think I already answered your question. It might not be an answer you want to hear but......
Maybe someone else can shrae their opinions.

Олег, спасибо за инфо. Полезно и коротко. Андрей, я понимаю что в Вашем понимании все банкиры нелюди, но Мэдофф крал деньги у людей, здесь речь идет об ошибочной стратегии, почему за это должны расчитываться наши дети - мне не понять. Представьте что Вы одолжили у тещи 25 тысяч на открытие кафе, все правильно расчитали рай он хороший, офисное здание напротив, вдруг - кризис, всех увольняют, к вам в кафе больше никто не заходит, бизнес прогорел. Вам нечем расплатиться с тещей. Она потеряла деньги, вы вор после этого?

Олег, если после того как мой бизнесс прогорел я приду к теще и скажу ей что мне нужно еше 25 000, чтобы поднять мой бизнесс, и вместо того чтобы этим заниматьса заплачу себе бонус, съезжу в отпуск, потрачу там тещины $$$ ... и вдобавок куплю себе личный самолет (без которого мог бы запросто обойтись) - то кто я после этого? ... самый настоящий ВОР ... спасибо за удачный пример ... именно так поступили CEOs of AIG, Lehman Bro, Citi Bank, etc ... Список можно продолжить ... Все компании которые попросили $$$ у "тещи" (государство) - продолжают тратить направо и налево ... как будто ничего не случилось ... как будто люди не потеряли работу ... как будто это не они привели свои компании к банкротству ...
В етом случае нормальная "теща" начала бы расследование ... К сожалению Democrats don't have guts for that ... *8oI

"Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman did a 5 part series of on the subprime mortgage crisis chronicling the Wall Street cowboys creation of subprime mortgage derivatives."
"The new standardized contracts they created would allow firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgages, enable speculators to bet against the U.S. housing market, and help meet demand from institutional investors for the high yields of loans to homeowners with poor credit."
"The tools also magnified losses so much that a small number of defaulting subprime borrowers could devastate securities held by banks and pension funds globally, freeze corporate lending and bring the world's credit markets to a standstill."