Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama doesn't really answer woman's interest rate Q. Believes banks 'too big to fail.' Explains why

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:04 AM
Original message
Obama doesn't really answer woman's interest rate Q. Believes banks 'too big to fail.' Explains why
Q. Since American taxpayers have had to bail out a lot of large banks -- Citibank, et cetera -- and they don't feel they've gotten any benefit for themselves, do you support caps on interest rates that the same companies we have bailed out with our money can charge regular consumers on credit cards? Because it's up to 30 and 40 percent. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: It's a great question. It's a great question. It's a great question. This was a really good question. First of all -- first of all, I generally support a credit card bill of rights, even -- setting aside the whole issue of TARP and who's been getting TARP and who hasn't been getting TARP. The truth of the matter is that the banking industry has used credit cards and pushed credit cards on consumers in ways that have been very damaging.

There's a woman named Elizabeth Warren who's a professor at Harvard who did a great deal of study around this. And she made a simple point. You know, if you bought a toaster, and the toaster blew up in your face, there would be a law, a consumer safety law, that would protect you from buying that toaster. But if you get a credit card that blows up in your face, that starts off at zero-percent interest, and once they kind of suck in the -- buying a bunch of stuff and suddenly it's 29 percent; and if you're late two days, suddenly, you know, you just paid another $30, and all kinds of fine print that a lot of folks didn't understand -- well, somehow that's okay.

So just putting aside the issue of TARP, I think generally having some consumer safety, some consumer protection around credit cards, is important. Now, all of us -- I think a lot of people have learned their lesson with credit cards. And credit cards can be an important convenience. But generally speaking, if you're just running up your credit card and you don't think that there's a bill to be paid, you've got problems. So all of us, I think, have to be more thoughtful about how we use them, and ultimately we've got to take responsibility if we are going on shopping sprees that we can't afford.

On the other hand, it's also important that we have consumer safety laws, and that's something that I want to promote and get done as President of the United States.



Now, let me talk about the larger issue of banks just for a second. Because a lot of people, I know, just are so frustrated -- and I am so frustrated with this banking situation, I just want to just briefly explain to you sort of what's happened.

These banks purchased a lot of what are securitized mortgage instruments. They took a lot of these subprime loans and they bundled them up, so they weren't just holding a mortgage, they were holding a whole bundle of mortgages that were made into a security, a stock. And they were sliced up, and so you could buy different pieces of these mortgages. And unfortunately what ended up happening was a bunch of these mortgages -- and this was certainly true in California, it was true all across the country -- a bunch of these mortgages were based on people who never had the income to buy the house, nobody tried to verify whether or not they could actually afford it. It was based on these complicated mathematical formulas.

And then what happened -- and this is where AIG and some other companies come in -- what happened was since the banks knew that there might be some risk around having these financial instruments, they bought these things called credit default swaps that were supposed to be guarantees or insurance on these instruments -- on these securities, these mortgage-backed securities.

The problem was, companies like AIG, they'd sell, like, 50 policies without having the money to cover the possibility that they would all go belly-up. So they were way over-leveraged, overextended, just as the banks were way over-leveraged and overextended. And in some cases they'd take a dollar worth of assets and they'd loan or use $30 off that one dollar just to make bigger and bigger bets and take bigger and bigger risks out in the financial system. And these started getting into trillions of dollars.

And as long as nobody was checking to see if anybody was going to be able to pay back these mortgages, and as long as housing prices were appreciating and this housing bubble was continuing, everybody was making a lot of money. So nobody wanted to check and there was no serious regulation to say, hold on, stop a minute, you guys are getting way overextended; you're putting the entire financial system at risk.

So when the economy started slowing down, and in some markets like Miami and here in California, the housing market starts really weakening, and suddenly some of these subprime loans start defaulting, this whole house of cards just began to collapse.

Now, a lot of people say, well, why not just let the banks fail? Right? See, somebody is clapping. Why not just, you know -- they were making all these bad bets; why don't we just let them fail, let them go bankrupt? What's the problem?

Well, here's the problem. If you've just got one small bank -- I mean, unfortunately -- let's take the community bank -- what's the name of your community bank? Fullerton Community Bank. All right, now, let's just say this. If Fullerton Community Bank fails, heaven forbid, we've got something called the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that would take it over, it would guarantee all the deposits so you don't have to worry about your deposits; they're not at risk. And it would be able to kind of sort things out and then resell the bank fairly quickly, and it doesn't threaten the whole system as a whole.

When you've got big banks, Citicorp or Bank of America or, you know, Wells Fargo, that controls 70 percent of the banking system, and all of them are weakening, you can't afford to have all those banks all at once start going under. Even though the deposits might be guaranteed, you've got the entire economy resting on that credit. We've got to get that credit lending, because they can take down businesses large and small alike if we don't make sure that they are still providing loans.

And so we had to step in. And it was the right thing to do -- even though it's infuriating, even though it makes you angry, because you're thinking, I was responsible, and these folks are irresponsible, and somehow I'm paying for them -- it was the right thing to do to step in.

The same is true with AIG. It was the right thing to do to step in. Here's the problem. It's almost like they've got -- they got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up, but you got to kind of talk them -- ease that finger off the trigger.

We've got to, over the next several months, come up with a plan that separates out the bad assets, the loans that shouldn't have been made, these credit default swaps, et cetera. We got to separate out some of those from the good assets, because there are a lot of very healthy banks, the vast majority of banks are healthy. We've got to figure out how to raise their capital -- the point that you were making earlier so that they can start lending again.

This is a very complicated, difficult task. It's not easy. We're talking about a huge system that's not just national, but international.

And so we're not going to unwind this all in a day, but what I do have confidence in is that with the plans that we're putting forward, slowly you're starting to see the system stabilize,you're starting to see more loan activity taking place, some of the security markets are coming back. And if we continue to provide some guarantees and help depositors and help strengthen some of the banks that are weakened, then my expectation is, is that we're going to be able to work our way out of this problem, and we are going to be able to get back to a point where banks are lending, businesses are investing, jobs are being created, and the economy gets back on its feet.

And when that happens, we should get a bunch of the money that has been lent to these banks back. Now, we're not going to get all of it. I just -- you know, we're not going to get 100 percent of it back in some cases. In some cases we may get 100 percent back; in some cases we might even make a profit.

I don't want to pretend that this is going to be cheap. But the point is that instead of looking backwards, the main thing we've got to do is look forwards and say, how do we make sure that we get out of this mess, but also prevent this mess from ever happening again. And that requires the kind of financial regulation that's going to be so important for our long-term future. (Applause.)

http://thepage.time.com/full-remarks-of-obama-at-costa-mesa-town-hall/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GentryDixon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. You are correct. He did not.
I said the same thing after listening to his response.

Fail on his part. He needs to answer the questions concisely. He gets so long winded I fear most tune him out after the first one or two minutes of his answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. It must have been a mental link as
I mumbled the same thing - he didn't answer her question. I guess we all noticed because we are all getting screwed by usury rates on credit cards w/ no regard to payment history. I bank on-line so I know my payments are not late and have not been for a couple of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. One thing that will bring in a lot of public support
is a credit card bill of rights--laws designed to stop abuse by credit card companies. For example, I had a credit card to use in emergencies. But I haven't had an emergency in 5 years, so guess what? The company ditched my credit card. I shouldn't have trouble if I need another one, but I can't help but wondering if I will.

Another example: DUers here tell of paying off their balance every month and STILL having their rates increased to ridiculous amounts. That isn't right at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. A credit card Bill of Rights is needed, but so is a usury law to limit maximum allowable rate of 15%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Agree, no rates over 15%. Credit Card companies can't bluff Congress by saying
they won't give out any more cards and collapse the economy like they have in the past. If they give out less cards it would be a good thing anyway. Would be a huge win with the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Agree with the usury law, but think 15% is too high.
I would like to see a limit tied to what interest rate they're willing to pay depositors plus a point or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. That's because people that pay off their entire balances each month don't make money
Edited on Thu Mar-19-09 12:48 PM by 4lbs
for the credit card company.

That ~$60 annual fee won't cut it in their eyes. They actually need to make money from a person's use of the card.

So, instead of paying off the entire balance each month, pay off just half of it each month or enough to keeping a significant running tab.

Then they can charge their interest on that balance carried over and make money off the user. Otherwise, they'll raise interest rates.


For example, a CC user charges $1000 in a month on a card with a $5000 limit.

The bill comes due. Pay just $500 of that $1000, and carry over $500 into the next month. The next month, let's say the user charges another $1000. That's a total of ~$1500 balance (a little interest is added) for the next month when the bill comes due. Pay off enough of that ~$1500 leave a $500 balance. Then charge another $1000 the 3rd month. Pay off however much to leave a $500 balance. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. I disagree with the second half of his answer that propping up CitiGroup etc.
...with endless billions is better than letting it go bankrupt.

He says we couldn't let it happen because we need CitiGroup to makes loans.

I disagree, since other banks could have made those loans, and so the federal government could have started making business and consumer loans directly instead of propping up banks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. If 70% of all banks fail (which is Citigroup, B of A, and Wells Fargo represent), then
there is NO WAY the 30% left can extend that kind of credit. Furthermore, I would explain it this way:

Big financial institutions failing (like we saw with Lehman Bros.) led directly to a total freeze in the credit markets. NOBODY lent to ANYONE. That is what happened, with catastrophic consequences to our economy.

We cannot afford another Lehman Brothers. Sorry, if the Left and Right don't like it, but that is why the Bailout Regime should and will stay in place. It is the worst form of policy, except the alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The Lehman Brothers failure caused a temporary freeze in commercial paper.
Edited on Thu Mar-19-09 12:36 PM by Eric J in MN
It didn't cause catasrophe to our economy.

The Treasury Dept can lend commercial paper, but didn't do so until after the Bailout Bill passed to keep the public in the dark about that alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Cool beans! Next time I need a business loan I'll just walk down to the corner Treasury Dept and...

... wait a second. There *isn't* a corner Treasury Dept. Does this mean I have to fly to Washington DC just to get a loan?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. He stated a corporatist philosophy . Sounds like Rubin or Summers or Goldman Sachs exec. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. Not a great answer
Particularly for those who think smaller, regional banks are potentially more useful for re-starting the lending market rather than big banks who are just using the money to rebuild their balance sheets (and their stock price).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yes, the small banks would have had a surge in customers...
...if the big banks had been left to declare bankruptcy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. I watched the whole thing..
it was great! I love Q&A.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. How can he answer? They're all clueless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC