Bank Bailouts, what does the term mean to you?

[BenRaines]

I have read and listened to many who are so angry about the bank "bailouts". Without doing a Google search to define it please share from what you have heard, read in the past that has developed your opinion about what the "bank bailouts" was all about.

Ben Raines

[NeuroTypical]

From what I understand, it's an infusion of money from the government into the various banks, sufficiently large to either prevent a bank from going bankrupt, or to make a macroeconomic impact. I'm certainly not an economist, and things quickly get too complex for me to follow. I have questions that seem to have as many answers as there are answerers.

Like "Where did the govt get the money, and if they just created it, isn't that bad?"

And "Isn't it better to give the market a free hand and let things that have failed, fail?"

[Guest gopecon]

Virtually all bank deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC up to $200,000 (the number might be off, but you get the idea). This protects depositors in the event that a bank goes under. All banks pay into this fund, so theoretically there should be few if any tax dollars used for it. I don't think this is the type of bailout that is being decried so often these days.

The bailouts we here questioned were a result of the mortgage meltdown that started a few years ago. Tax dollars were used to prop up large financial institutions with loans or capital injections. Much of this was funded by the TARP bill that was several hundred billion dollars. While this was clearly a case of the government choosing winners and losers, and meddling in the market, I would argue that it was actually a fairly successful program. I believe that the vast majority of the money has been repaid with interest, so the cost to the Treasury was minimal. By helping these companies to stay afloat a worse economic crisis than we had was probably averted.

[AGStacker]

Virtually all bank deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC up to $200,000 (the number might be off, but you get the idea). This protects depositors in the event that a bank goes under. All banks pay into this fund, so theoretically there should be few if any tax dollars used for it. I don't think this is the type of bailout that is being decried so often these days.

The bailouts we here questioned were a result of the mortgage meltdown that started a few years ago. Tax dollars were used to prop up large financial institutions with loans or capital injections. Much of this was funded by the TARP bill that was several hundred billion dollars. While this was clearly a case of the government choosing winners and losers, and meddling in the market, I would argue that it was actually a fairly successful program. I believe that the vast majority of the money has been repaid with interest, so the cost to the Treasury was minimal. By helping these companies to stay afloat a worse economic crisis than we had was probably averted.

But the underlying problem has not been fixed. The banks were essentially in a bubble just like the tech stocks but the government intervened. Expect more bank failures, big named banks because 100s have been failing since 09, in the near future.

I am of the opinion that one of the greatest economic crisis will occur within 1-2 years.

[Spartan117]

A government bailout is not exclusive to banks, but a bailout is simply tax dollars made available by the federal government. In some instances the govt loans the money, in some instances it is given with no requirement of reimbursement, and in some cases it is given under specific conditions of how the money is to be used and subject to over site and accountability. The terms of each bailout are determined on a case by case basis. The only bailouts I'm pretty familiar with (without google) are the ones that AIG got.

I remember the news coverage of the resort vacations that the people at AIG went on. I remember President Obama publicly denouncing AIG and I remember talks of taxing their bonuses, demanding the bailout money back, I remember how confused I was that you can lose billions of dollars and get a bonus. I remember how Dodd lied about factoring the bonus money into the bailout too. Then I remember the press release that said they didn't have to give back any of the money, and that they got to keep their bonus. Then after all that, I remember more new stories about the good ole' boys at AIG taking more vacations, and getting another bailout despite the bonus scandal, and the vacation controversy. And those are just the things they got caught doing.

[miztrniceguy]

Since I work for 1 of the banks that received a TARP LOAN from the government, I get an earful from customers who are unhappy with their rates. "WE bailed you out with OUR money" etc. like it was a grant that didn't get paid back with millions in interest. The government made a bundle in interest so it helped both sides.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, if I remember right TARP was pretty much all loans that have been or are being repaid. The remaining issues are a) whether the federal government is paying more interests on the loans it had to take out to finance this thing, than it is receiving; and b) the fact that it isolated the banks from effects of a liquidity crisis of their own making, thus allowing big inefficient corporations to retain their dominance rather than allow the rise of newer, smarter companies as would happen in a true free-market economy.

The golden parachutes were revolting, but practical under the circumstances: The guys had contracts, and the legal battles with some of these jokers would have cost more than the contracts were worth. If the guys were breaking laws, than Holder's DOJ should be going after them for restitution. The fact that it isn't is probably a major factor in the Occupy protests, though the some of the protestors may not fully understand that at this point.

[Saldrin]

I have read and listened to many who are so angry about the bank "bailouts". Without doing a Google search to define it please share from what you have heard, read in the past that has developed your opinion about what the "bank bailouts" was all about.

Ben Raines

Its fine to be mad about the bank bailouts, but people have used it as an excuse for class warfare. The politicians through their policy, and if you say I'm favoring one side or another on this and if you do your plain dishonest, set up the climate where banks were failing. Banks were pressured by politicians and private activist groups to give out loans they normally wouldn't have, then when they got in trouble, the banks buddies the politicians came and bailed them out when they should have been allowed to fail. I believe that the fallout from this was way overstated.

Now people are mad that the banks got bailed out, but they are attacking anyone who is "Rich"? how does that work? Bill gates didn't bail out the banks, Steve Jobs didn't bail out the banks, Jon Huntsman Sr. didn't bail out the banks, Warren Buffet didn't bail out the banks, but its their fault and they have to be taxed more,(i know warren says he wants to be taxed more hes free to hand over more of his money to the tyrants in Washington) it was the GOVERNMENT be mad at them. Attacking the rich in class warfare does no good, and no matter how much you object to it the fact is they are the job creators.

[FunkyTown]

Its fine to be mad about the bank bailouts, but people have used it as an excuse for class warfare. The politicians through their policy, and if you say I'm favoring one side or another on this and if you do your plain dishonest, set up the climate where banks were failing. Banks were pressured by politicians and private activist groups to give out loans they normally wouldn't have, then when they got in trouble, the banks buddies the politicians came and bailed them out when they should have been allowed to fail. I believe that the fallout from this was way overstated.

Now people are mad that the banks got bailed out, but they are attacking anyone who is "Rich"? how does that work? Bill gates didn't bail out the banks, Steve Jobs didn't bail out the banks, Jon Huntsman Sr. didn't bail out the banks, Warren Buffet didn't bail out the banks, but its their fault and they have to be taxed more,(i know warren says he wants to be taxed more hes free to hand over more of his money to the tyrants in Washington) it was the GOVERNMENT be mad at them. Attacking the rich in class warfare does no good, and no matter how much you object to it the fact is they are the job creators.

Sal? Can you describe how the Occupy Wall Street movement are attacking the rich?

Please give specific examples. Other than frustration with Wall Street(Hence the name of the movement), no specific demands have been made and, as far as I'm aware, they didn't give Steve Jobs cancer nor did they physically assault Microsoft Bill.

Some individuals may have, but if you're tarring the majority with the acts of a few individuals, I will point to the extreme examples in the Tea Party protests and ask if you apply the same rules to movements that you like.

[Guest gopecon]

Sal? Can you describe how the Occupy Wall Street movement are attacking the rich?

Please give specific examples. Other than frustration with Wall Street(Hence the name of the movement), no specific demands have been made and, as far as I'm aware, they didn't give Steve Jobs cancer nor did they physically assault Microsoft Bill.

Some individuals may have, but if you're tarring the majority with the acts of a few individuals, I will point to the extreme examples in the Tea Party protests and ask if you apply the same rules to movements that you like.

Funky - are you seriously questioning whether the OWS crowd is attacking the rich? Not with real violence (yet), but that is why they chose Wall St. to start their protest, it's a symbol of the wealthy investment class in America. The "we are the 99" slogan is an attempt to pit the 99% of "poorer" Americans against the top 1%. While their demands are numerous and varied, cranking up the taxes on the 1% seems to be a common solution to finding the funds to pay for their ideas.

P.S. I'd put the behavior of the Tea Partiers up against the OWS crowd any day of the week. Just look at the arrest numbers to start...

Edited October 14, 2011 by gopecon

[FunkyTown]

Funky - are you seriously questioning whether the OWS crowd is attacking the rich? Not with real violence (yet), but that is why they chose Wall St. to start their protest, it's a symbol of the wealthy investment class in America. The "we are the 99" slogan is an attempt to pit the 99% of "poorer" Americans against the top 1%. While their demands are numerous and varied, cranking up the taxes on the 1% seems to be a common solution to finding the funds to pay for their ideas.

P.S. I'd put the behavior of the Tea Partiers up against the OWS crowd any day of the week. Just look at the arrest numbers to start...

It's a symbol of the banking establishment. The same banking establishment, by the way, that many tea partiers are fighting to reform.

Why is it when someone in Austin protests corruption in financial circuits, they're patriots fighting to reduce corruption, but when someone in New York does it, they're engaging in class warfare against the wealthy investment class?

And by the way. You still haven't answered my question. I'll quote it again in case you missed it:

Can you describe how the Occupy Wall Street movement are attacking the rich?

Please give specific examples. Other than frustration with Wall Street(Hence the name of the movement), no specific demands have been made and, as far as I'm aware, they didn't give Steve Jobs cancer nor did they physically assault Microsoft Bill.

As far as I can tell, the difference between the Tea Party and Occupy is that Occupy began in New York and the Tea Party began in traditional Republican powerbases.

[Guest gopecon]

The tea party rose up in frustration over a government that was spending and running up debt at a ridiculous pace. Part of that was the bailouts of the banks, AIG, and GM. The focus was government interference, not the bankers themselves. Tea partiers, many of whom were small business owners, generally understood that a bigger government means less freedom. Less freedom means less opportunity for the small businesses to grow into bigger, more successful ones. While the movements may agree that "crony capitalism" is a bad thing, the solutions they discuss are quite different. Tea partiers tend to support enhanced freedom and less government, including allowing large businesses to face consequences for their bad decisions. OWS protesters (to the extent that there is a coherent message) tend to support a governmental solution to every ill - except for the drugs they want legalized. Free higher education, housing, and healthcare to be paid for by taxing the snot out of the 1%, along with signs for a variety of other left wing causes are what you see and hear at these protests.

The reaction to them has nothing to do with their beginnings in New York instead of Austin, they have trashed the area that they are occupying. Dozens of the OWS folks have been arrested for various forms of disorderly conduct. What type of examples do you want to show they are "attacking" the rich? If there is a theme out there, it's that the greedy rich have too much and the government needs to take a lot more of what they make. I've heard some of them holding out the possibility of violent revolution if enough changes are not made. No, they haven't stormed Goldman Sachs and beheaded anyone yet, but I think attacking the rich is a pretty apt description of what they are about.

[FunkyTown]

Oh, no! You're right. I looked it up and see that the Tea Party have gotten violent, too!

Tea Party Getting Violent? 10 House Dems Report Threats, Vandalism - Crimesider - CBS News

Dawn Teo: Tea Party Protest Turns Violent (VIDEO)

Montana TEA Party Leaders Call for Violence Against Political Opponents Montana Cowgirl Blog

And the Occupy protesters cleaned up their area in Manhattan:

NYC "Occupy" showdown averted; Cleanup put off - CBS News

There! Now that I've shown that the Tea Party have threatened full on violent revolution(Some suggested shooting party leaders) and that Occupy actively cleaned up the area they had made a mess in, I'm certain you'll either retract your statement or say that the Tea Party is just as bad, right?

'Cause you're not just against a group because they started in a traditional Blue state, right? I'm not right about that, so now you obviously either hate the Tea Party or you're okay with Occupy. Right?

That was clearly said with the desire to provoke a reaction. I obviously know you aren't going to.

Instead, I want you to stop and think: Why do you hate a group who ostensibly haven't made ANY suggestions on how to improve things and have instead made their anger known towards the same institution that many Tea Partiers want changed(Specifically: Banking and the Federal Reserve).

Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to support, guide and teach this newly angry bunch rather than demonize them? Open up a dialogue?

If you don't, someone else will. Like those people currently pushing for things you hate. Don't you see that you're using the exact same tactics the left used to try to Demonize Tea Partiers? Painting the protesters as ignorant and violent?

I could point you to interviews with white supremacists and crazy survivalist tea partiers, but I know it wouldn't change your mind.

Instead, I want you to think very carefully: If these people are angry at the same institutions you do and haven't yet formed a consensus of opinion on what to do about those institutions, wouldn't it be better served if you reached out and supported them and attempted to teach them how to make effective and proper change rather than making the exact same claims about them that were made against the Tea Partiers?

The tea party rose up in frustration over a government that was spending and running up debt at a ridiculous pace. Part of that was the bailouts of the banks, AIG, and GM. The focus was government interference, not the bankers themselves. Tea partiers, many of whom were small business owners, generally understood that a bigger government means less freedom. Less freedom means less opportunity for the small businesses to grow into bigger, more successful ones. While the movements may agree that "crony capitalism" is a bad thing, the solutions they discuss are quite different. Tea partiers tend to support enhanced freedom and less government, including allowing large businesses to face consequences for their bad decisions. OWS protesters (to the extent that there is a coherent message) tend to support a governmental solution to every ill - except for the drugs they want legalized. Free higher education, housing, and healthcare to be paid for by taxing the snot out of the 1%, along with signs for a variety of other left wing causes are what you see and hear at these protests.

The reaction to them has nothing to do with their beginnings in New York instead of Austin, they have trashed the area that they are occupying. Dozens of the OWS folks have been arrested for various forms of disorderly conduct. What type of examples do you want to show they are "attacking" the rich? If there is a theme out there, it's that the greedy rich have too much and the government needs to take a lot more of what they make. I've heard some of them holding out the possibility of violent revolution if enough changes are not made. No, they haven't stormed Goldman Sachs and beheaded anyone yet, but I think attacking the rich is a pretty apt description of what they are about.

[skalenfehl]

To me, bank bailouts is crony capitalism/monopolyism--Gadiantonism plain and simple.

As for the Tea Party and the OWS movement, this may interest you:

An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement. : occupywallstreet

[FunkyTown]

To me, bank bailouts is crony capitalism/monopolyism--Gadiantonism plain and simple.

As for the Tea Party and the OWS movement, this may interest you:

An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement. : occupywallstreet

That's what I like to see, Ska! That's great advice.

[Guest gopecon]

1) They cleaned up NY only after a threat of being forcibly removed so the huge mess there could be cleaned up. When Glenn Beck had his rally in DC with hundreds of thousands of people, the mall was reportedly left spotless.

2) How many arrests were ever made at tea party protests? I don't remember hearing of any. Certainly not the dozens that are coming from the OWS gang. I willingly condemn the actions of anyone who is throwing bricks through windows or giving death threats to congressional representatives. Random examples of possible tea party supporters (these were not at organized protests) do not prove a movement is violent. The OWS crowd is comprised of much of the same people who trash the cities where G8 and IMF meetings are held. The recent protests have not gone that far, but their have been clashes with law enforcement. The whole idea of "occupying" for weeks at a time moves beyond protest and into trespass.

3) Violent rhetoric - I'll grant you that some on the tea party got carried away with over the top quotes like "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants". There are crazies that attach to any political movement. You seemed to be playing dumb about the OWS folks attacking the rich since they hadn't shot any billionaires. One of the few coherent messages from this group is the 99 vs. the 1%.

Now to what seemed to be your larger point: that we should all work together - tea partier and OWS occupier. Maybe the problem is that you are in the UK and aren't that up on American politics. The OWS is calling for an overthrow of our economic system (capitalism) in favor of something far worse (communism). Maybe they all don't feel exactly this way, but this message is getting out there. The tea party is in favor of more capitalism and freedom, believing that the growth of government and out of control spending is the source of many of our problems. There's not a lot of common ground that we can work from here to have a constructive dialogue.

[skippy740]

Banking Bailout:

1. The government's answer to fixing a problem that they helped to create in the first place.

2. Non-discriminately giving away tax-payer dollars to all kinds of various financial institutions, so they won't be seen as a czar choosing which institutions will survive... and which ones won't.

3. Interferance by the government in the (supposedly) free marketplace by interfering and injecting cash in a particular sector of the economy.

4. Government trying to satisfy wall street & the stock market by spending money it doesn't have... and will need to be paid back someday (through retirement plan withdrawals that are fully taxable)... so the Government saving 'wall street' is really saving it's own 401(k) and tax plan success when it also raises the income tax brackets just as the majority of baby boomers are planning their retirement within the next 5-10 years.

[FunkyTown]

Now to what seemed to be your larger point: that we should all work together - tea partier and OWS occupier. Maybe the problem is that you are in the UK and aren't that up on American politics. The OWS is calling for an overthrow of our economic system (capitalism) in favor of something far worse (communism). Maybe they all don't feel exactly this way, but this message is getting out there. The tea party is in favor of more capitalism and freedom, believing that the growth of government and out of control spending is the source of many of our problems. There's not a lot of common ground that we can work from here to have a constructive dialogue.

Great! Perfect! You've pointed out why they're devils and horrible people.

Now please quote source. I'm calling you out on this, Gop. Please. Show. Me. Where. They. Said. They. Want. To. Make. The. USA. Communist.

Please. Show me where they, as a group(And not some individual crazy) have said they want to make the US in to communists. I have given you chance after chance to prove your point and you've never taken it. You've made outrageous claims, and I am now calling on you to prove it.

If you can not, feel free to say either "I was mistaken. I apologize." or "I am a liar. I actively lied to you and am not sorry at all because -" and then insert your reasoning.

[slamjet]

Bank Bailouts = The powerful protecting each other at the expense of the common person.

[Tyler90AZ]

1) They cleaned up NY only after a threat of being forcibly removed so the huge mess there could be cleaned up. When Glenn Beck had his rally in DC with hundreds of thousands of people, the mall was reportedly left spotless.

2) How many arrests were ever made at tea party protests? I don't remember hearing of any. Certainly not the dozens that are coming from the OWS gang. I willingly condemn the actions of anyone who is throwing bricks through windows or giving death threats to congressional representatives. Random examples of possible tea party supporters (these were not at organized protests) do not prove a movement is violent. The OWS crowd is comprised of much of the same people who trash the cities where G8 and IMF meetings are held. The recent protests have not gone that far, but their have been clashes with law enforcement. The whole idea of "occupying" for weeks at a time moves beyond protest and into trespass.

3) Violent rhetoric - I'll grant you that some on the tea party got carried away with over the top quotes like "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants". There are crazies that attach to any political movement. You seemed to be playing dumb about the OWS folks attacking the rich since they hadn't shot any billionaires. One of the few coherent messages from this group is the 99 vs. the 1%.

Now to what seemed to be your larger point: that we should all work together - tea partier and OWS occupier. Maybe the problem is that you are in the UK and aren't that up on American politics. The OWS is calling for an overthrow of our economic system (capitalism) in favor of something far worse (communism). Maybe they all don't feel exactly this way, but this message is getting out there. The tea party is in favor of more capitalism and freedom, believing that the growth of government and out of control spending is the source of many of our problems. There's not a lot of common ground that we can work from here to have a constructive dialogue.

Everything you have said sounds like excactly what Glenn Beck wants you to say. The examples you gave are just rhetoric coming from those that oppose us. Read both sides of the storie, not just inhale one side.

[Guest gopecon]

Bill Maher to 'Occupy' Mob: It Might Be Time to Get Violent - Guy Benson

More Occupiers Arrested in Boston - Katie Pavlich

Video: 'Occupy Atlanta' Silences Rep. John Lewis Via Jazz Hands - Guy Benson

I was wrong Funky, there have been HUNDREDS of arrests of the OWSers, not dozens. To be fair, I could not find a specific call for Communism from the protesters. The last link contains a document calling for wage caps, free healthcare, full retirement, and full free education. They may not openly use the word Communism (although I'm sure I've heard a quote or two somewhere from them), but their ideas sure sound like they came from Marx, Lenin and the gang.

[FunkyTown]

Maddening, Gopecon, that we're going in circles.

Bill Maher does not represent the Occupy Movement.

I provided every bit as much evidence of the Tea Parties violence as you provided of Occupy's violence.

And you're still saying what they're preaching 'Sounds like' Communism, but you don't refer to anything that openly shows 'Occupy' teaching anything. If you'd like, I can do a search and find one of the crazy White Supremacist groups that tangentially touched the Tea Party, or a crazy survivalist group that tangentially touched the Tea Party and I can make absurd claims about the Tea Party.

But I'll let you do my argument for me. Once you know why the links I provided had nothing to do with the Tea Party movement in general, you'll know why nothing you're providing has something to do with the Occupy movement.

Bill Maher to 'Occupy' Mob: It Might Be Time to Get Violent - Guy Benson

More Occupiers Arrested in Boston - Katie Pavlich

Video: 'Occupy Atlanta' Silences Rep. John Lewis Via Jazz Hands - Guy Benson

I was wrong Funky, there have been HUNDREDS of arrests of the OWSers, not dozens. To be fair, I could not find a specific call for Communism from the protesters. The last link contains a document calling for wage caps, free healthcare, full retirement, and full free education. They may not openly use the word Communism (although I'm sure I've heard a quote or two somewhere from them), but their ideas sure sound like they came from Marx, Lenin and the gang.

[LittleWyvern]

To me, bank bailouts are a decision between cost to the economy of a bank run/bank failure vs. cost to the economy of propping up a bank so it doesn't violently crash. Both options cost a whole lot of money, so it's just a question of what costs less. In my opinion, a bank problem should have been solved long before a bailout is considered, but if it gets to that point I guess it might be necessary.

@gopecon: So, protests are only patriotic/pro-american if there are no arrests and nobody gets violent? Man, this changes everything I learned in American History.

[Saldrin]

Tea Party Getting Violent? 10 House Dems Report Threats, Vandalism - Crimesider - CBS News

these have been proven as dishonest and exaggeration they said they "may have heard" something said. of course they are going to say their political opponents are threatening them, its a lie but they will say it.

Dawn Teo: Tea Party Protest Turns Violent (VIDEO)

um you should vet your sources before you use them. from the artical

"As the Tea Partiers reach the end of the ANSWER group, one of the Tea Partiers can be seen having an argument with one of the ANSWER counter-protesters when that counter-protester pummels him with his sign."

Tea party didn't start that

Montana TEA Party Leaders Call for Violence Against Political Opponents Montana Cowgirl Blog

one persons mistake does not discredit the aims of the tea party.

And the Occupy protesters cleaned up their area in Manhattan:

NYC "Occupy" showdown averted; Cleanup put off - CBS News

Sorry Bloomberg was pissed because it was Elected officials called up and leaned on the private company that owns that park, and got them to back of by threatening them.

better luck next time, sorry.

[BenRaines]

Thanks for all your responses. Remember guys this is about the concept of "bank bailouts" not Occupy Wall Street. I think that is another forum.

Here is my understanding and take on the whole thing.

Banks have to have collateral to make loans. Banks are given very favorable lending ratios. At one time I believe it was 10 to 1. For every one dollar they held they could loan 10. During the real estate boom years those ratios were raised in some cases to over 50 to 1. Keep in mind this went on during a period of almost 30 years. Congress encouraged and then legislated that banks/lenders allow less and less creditworthy borrowers to borrow money for real estate purchases.

Congress wanted everyone to be able to own a house. There were requirements put in place that 30 and near the end up to 50% of all loans must be in disadvantaged or lower income areas. The standards were lowered time and time again for who could qualify and how they could qualify for a mortgage. This was not the big banks setting these standards it was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Government guarantees on loans.

After making the loans the banks, with the help of Wall Street were bundling the loans in to CMOs, collateralized mortgage obligations, and selling them to investors for their yields. Banks also held many of them on their books as assets so that they could lend additional dollars. See earlier comment on loan ratios.

During the decade of 2000 new accounting rules were put in to place that for non-liquid assets had to show a value of 0, yes zero. If there is no market to sell it then it is worth nothing.

Along comes the real estate bubble burst. For some insight on bubbles bursting check this out The Dutch Tulip Bubble of 1637 • Damn Interesting

As real estate values dropped the securities that backed the loans dropped in value with the risk of the loan going in default. Soon many of the assets on the banks books were worthless. Not only banks held these assets but insurance companies, brokerage firms, pension plans, your retirement and mine.

Along comes TARP, government loans that guaranteed the balance sheets of the major banks and brokerages. The loans came with the requirement that borrower give the government warrants, options to buy stock in the borrower at a fixed price. If the loan worked then the government was repaid with stock at a lower than market price plus interest.

In most of the cases I have seen the government earned between 14 and 18 percent on the money they loaned the government.

Those who were bailed out were not the banks and other financial institutions. Those who were bailed out were the auto companies. A couple of them took their loans and then filed bankruptcy. Chrysler for one. Ford can be proud that they made it on their own. While I have never owned a Ford vehicle they will be the next one I consider.

In response to a comment about AIG. Those who were going on the retreat trip were sales people who earned the trip as part of their compensation package for a certain level of sales.

Sorry to be so long winded. I am not an expert by any means but have been in the financial industry for over 30 years and have a little knowledge and understanding how it works but by no means do I know it all.

Ben Raines