• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judicial Watch Forces Release of Bank Bailout Documents

C

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Judicial Watch Forces Release of Bank Bailout Documents | Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it forced the Obama administration to release documents about the October 13, 2008, Treasury Department meeting that coerced major banks to allow the government to take $250 billion equity stakes. Among the other news, the documents confirm former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told the CEOs of nine major banks that they had no choice but to allow the government to take equity stakes in their institutions. The documents show Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke co-hosted the meeting with Paulson.
Click to expand...
Everyone needs to read this. Everyone needs to read the PDFs of the documents linked to this. Everyone needs to write their Senators and Congressmen and tell them to read this.

Whatever doubts, dislikes, misgivings, and bad vibes I have had about TARP pale in comparison to what these documents show. Hank Paulson, in collusion with Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Sheila Blair, ambushed and coerced the 9 largest banking institutions in the US to accept TARP funds. There was no negotiating; the CEOs of the banks had to even hand write the name of the bank they represented and the amount of preferred capital stock they were forking over to the government.

This is NOT how government is supposed to work. Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Sheila Blair need to be hauled before Congress to explain themselves under oath. All four need to be investigated; it's hard to fathom how their TARP tactics could be legal.

Politico also has an article summarizing this:

New documents shed light on TARP action - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com
 
I already know they're corrupt, but I ain't gonna waste my time writing about them to other corrupt officials.

Instead, I'm gonna listen to some AC/DC and watch a bit of South Park ..a far more productive use of my time :mrgreen:
 
I hate to burst your bubble Celtic, but Manny Ramirez may very well see more of congressional hearings than these guys.
 
Just another reason to Audit the Federal Reserve. HR 1207.

A BILLCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

(a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after ‘shall audit an agency’ and inserting a period.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) REPORT-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

6
‘(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.’.
Click to expand...
 
celticlord said:
Judicial Watch Forces Release of Bank Bailout Documents | Judicial Watch

Everyone needs to read this. Everyone needs to read the PDFs of the documents linked to this. Everyone needs to write their Senators and Congressmen and tell them to read this.

Whatever doubts, dislikes, misgivings, and bad vibes I have had about TARP pale in comparison to what these documents show. Hank Paulson, in collusion with Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Sheila Blair, ambushed and coerced the 9 largest banking institutions in the US to accept TARP funds. There was no negotiating; the CEOs of the banks had to even hand write the name of the bank they represented and the amount of preferred capital stock they were forking over to the government.

This is NOT how government is supposed to work. Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Sheila Blair need to be hauled before Congress to explain themselves under oath. All four need to be investigated; it's hard to fathom how their TARP tactics could be legal.

Politico also has an article summarizing this:

New documents shed light on TARP action - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

To early to call for their resignation?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
To early to call for their resignation?
Click to expand...
Not in my view. Overdue, if anything.

Perhaps too early to call for summary execution....but give it time, we'll get there.
 
Simply reprehensible

3caxx.png


Furthermore, both Obama and McCain were fully aware of what was going on, and neither obviously objected. When the current president and both candidates are all on board to strong-arm banks into a program that the public was against, something is seriously wrong with the way in which this nation elects politicians
 
I read quite a bit of that, tedious. I felt like I was at work, email headers and all...

Anyway, what's your gripe Celticlord? I don't get what's wrong here.

Did you want them to go public with like 7-8 of the 9 big banks having failed? What kind of craziness would that be? They don't even announce small banks failures until after they transfer ownership (done super-efficiently over 2-3 weekend/holidays typically). Let alone the largest financial institutions in the nation, during the collapse of part of the economy.

I think maybe you're assuming these are 9 healthy, private firms that are being forced to do something. I don't think that's the case at all (based on very little research).

I think it was 9 companies some of which (most?) were probably already considered failed or imminent.

These guys had a choice, fail, or take the money.

But they couldn't do this with 3/9 banks, or even 7/9 of them. if they did, everyone knows those specific banks are doomed, bank panic, they then are assured to fail. They are smarter than that. They take all 9, treat all 9 identically, some needed it, some did not, and once all or most recover, they can sell/hand back, little worse for the wear. We can't tell who's failed and who's healthy. This isn't like one bank failing where there is an entire healthy industry ready to shoulder the burden. Everyone was reduced to relative poverty, the options playbook is different in that scenario. Business failure = good, natural. Market failure = WTF.

Isn't this commonly considered best practice, given the history of how the other option, panic, is extraordinarily stupid to incite?

I don't know what would have happened had they nationalized them either, I would really like to see the pro/con worksheet on that one, we do have examples from other nations and historically what effect that has, maybe it was deemed demonstrably a bad choice.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
I read quite a bit of that, tedious. I felt like I was at work, email headers and all...

Anyway, what's your gripe Celticlord? I don't get what's wrong here.
Click to expand...
Call it the Borg-ing of American Finance.

Four government types sat 9 corporate CEOs down and said "you will sell the government parts of your company at X price. Resistance is futile."

If the banks were insolvent, the FDIC had (and has) the legal obligation to take appropriate steps.

If the banks were not insolvent, the government has no right to coerce such exactions.

Further, on what authority did Hank Paulson act? The original TARP funding was to purchase toxic assets and "cleanse" bank balance sheets. Since when did company preferred stock count as a toxic asset.

Finally, most if not all of these 9 banks want to give the money BACK. They assert (rightly or wrongly) that they are solvent and that no such assistance is needed, and certainly is not desirable--and that effort is being met with resistance.

What is wrong? Nothing more than a grotesque over-reach of authority by 4 individuals, without oversight (curiously, it is not even clear the White House under President Bush was aware of this meeting, which would put Paulson totally off the reservation), without disclosure, and, apparently, without accountability.

The structure of the federal government is designed with checks and balances for a reason--to prevent abuse of power by any one portion. Those checks and balances seem to have failed in this instance, and that failure disturbingly crosses from one Administration into another (and from one political party to another).
 
Mach said:
I read quite a bit of that, tedious. I felt like I was at work, email headers and all...

Anyway, what's your gripe Celticlord? I don't get what's wrong here.

Did you want them to go public with like 7-8 of the 9 big banks having failed? What kind of craziness would that be? They don't even announce small banks failures until after they transfer ownership (done super-efficiently over 2-3 weekend/holidays typically). Let alone the largest financial institutions in the nation, during the collapse of part of the economy.

I think maybe you're assuming these are 9 healthy, private firms that are being forced to do something. I don't think that's the case at all (based on very little research).

I think it was 9 companies some of which (most?) were probably already considered failed or imminent.

These guys had a choice, fail, or take the money.

But they couldn't do this with 3/9 banks, or even 7/9 of them. if they did, everyone knows those specific banks are doomed, bank panic, they then are assured to fail. They are smarter than that. They take all 9, treat all 9 identically, some needed it, some did not, and once all or most recover, they can sell/hand back, little worse for the wear. We can't tell who's failed and who's healthy. This isn't like one bank failing where there is an entire healthy industry ready to shoulder the burden. Everyone was reduced to relative poverty, the options playbook is different in that scenario. Business failure = good, natural. Market failure = WTF.

Isn't this commonly considered best practice, given the history of how the other option, panic, is extraordinarily stupid to incite?

I don't know what would have happened had they nationalized them either, I would really like to see the pro/con worksheet on that one, we do have examples from other nations and historically what effect that has, maybe it was deemed demonstrably a bad choice.
Click to expand...
No Bank is too big to fail. So yea, I'd rather paulson not have given them the money, and let the economy it's natural growth and contraction. Otherwise, if you bailout everyone, it might work for a while, but it will fail worse in the long term.

C'mon, we all know all these banks are full of corrupt people, why do you want them to have any money?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
To early to call for their resignation?
Click to expand...


And you want hank paulson to resign which position exactly?:doh

Was Sheila Blair mentioned?

Ben Bernanke was there as a matter of protocol.

We already know Tim Geithner was one of the architects.

The only new news here is maybe that the execs were snuck in a back door. Big deal.:spin:

What are you so upset about--how this was all handled? Or the specific agreements?

And what is your background in economics?:twocents:
 
DarkWizard12 said:
No Bank is too big to fail.
Click to expand...
How do you know his? It's not "a bank". it's the financial sector, on the backdrop of a recession of historic proportions.

So yea, I'd rather paulson not have given them the money, and let the economy it's natural growth and contraction. Otherwise, if you bailout everyone, it might work for a while, but it will fail worse in the long term.
Click to expand...
Natural? The entire market is created by, and driven by, government. Suggesting it's some natural being that is utopia, is silly. The markets exist at our whim.

C'mon, we all know all these banks are full of corrupt people, why do you want them to have any money?
Click to expand...
I know of no human instutution of significant size, where power is concerned, that does not include corruption. Why pick on the banks?

And part of me really gets close to a berserker-rage when I continue to read and hear more of all the spending going on, and the all the nonsense, it's nauseating. And where is my MF handout to help preserve my employees?

And at the same time, I know that's an emotional reaction, to a very limited perspective on an issue that is far larger than a bank failing. Banks fail all the time and they get them re-fitted and sold in like 2-3 days. They do this so fast and efficiently it's absurd. Why don't they just do that now? Because it's not "a bank failing".
 
Mach said:
How do you know his? It's not "a bank". it's the financial sector, on the backdrop of a recession of historic proportions.
Click to expand...
I said, banks. Let them fail as hard as they need to. The strongest will survive, and new ones will take the place of the old/
Natural? The entire market is created by, and driven by, government. Suggesting it's some natural being that is utopia, is silly. The markets exist at our whim.
Click to expand...
No, the market is driven by supply and demand. That is a fundamental. That is no "Utopia dream", it's fact. If people don't want something, people are not going to buy it, period. The government CAN fit in that, but it doesn't have to, and it shouldn't.
I know of no human instutution of significant size, where power is concerned, that does not include corruption. Why pick on the banks?
Click to expand...
So you would rather have the government, where, let's face it there is a LOT of corruption, provide EVERYTHING in this economy? Or even just one or very few banks? And you find NO FLAWS in that whatsoever?

You see, corruption is relative in a free-market economy. Every organization has corruption, some are significantly corrupt, and some aren't. When an organization is found out to be very corrupt, people will leave that organization to fail, and go to another one.
And part of me really gets close to a berserker-rage when I continue to read and hear more of all the spending going on, and the all the nonsense, it's nauseating. And where is my MF handout to help preserve my employees?

And at the same time, I know that's an emotional reaction, to a very limited perspective on an issue that is far larger than a bank failing. Banks fail all the time and they get them re-fitted and sold in like 2-3 days. They do this so fast and efficiently it's absurd. Why don't they just do that now? Because it's not "a bank failing".
Click to expand...
I don't even know what this means.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
And you want hank paulson to resign which position exactly?:doh

Was Sheila Blair mentioned?

Ben Bernanke was there as a matter of protocol.

We already know Tim Geithner was one of the architects.

The only new news here is maybe that the execs were snuck in a back door. Big deal.:spin:

What are you so upset about--how this was all handled? Or the specific agreements?

And what is your background in economics?:twocents:
Click to expand...

Why do I need a background in economics?

Please don't take anymore positions on anything unless you can prove to me that you have some sort of professional training in that specific field.
 
Who here actually thought these bailouts were going to be legit?

Who here was dumb enough to think throwing money at failing institutions would work?
 
128shot said:
Who here actually thought these bailouts were going to be legit?

Who here was dumb enough to think throwing money at failing institutions would work?
Click to expand...

Most people didn't believe it would work, but they hoped it would. :) You see, hoping something will happen is now a good enough reason to move forward. That's the new spirit of hope our government was looking for from its dependents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom