>No, not even close. Dead wrong.
Do you not remember what was happening to bank stocks at that time? I certainly do -- I was using an ETF to short them, and then hung on too long after the bailouts and basically lost my entire portfolio because of them. But I still don't think they were entirely the wrong move. I WISH that the status of the big banks didn't mean so much to the economy, but that's the way it is until we dismantle them.
>No, you ain't dodging that one either. She oversaw the money being passed out under her watch, she should have blown the whistle because the money was not being spent as defined in the legislation passed in the house and senate. She is as guilty of fraud as Paulson was, spending allocated taxpayer monies for anything outside it's intended purpose. Lot of local politicians are in jail for spending money from budgets on stuff not authorized.
Uh, it was authorized by the President of the United States, and administered by Treasury. She did not have authority to actually make the decisions of how the money was allocated. Her panel could issue reports about it, and she did blow the whistle about it almost immediately -- she was appointed in mid-November of 2008 and by mid-January she was already saying that she didn't like how the money was being spent.
The new report by Ms. Warren's panel, the second released since Congress created TARP in October, illustrates the controversial nature of the program. She said Treasury has still not adequately explained how it is selecting banks for its $250 billion program to inject capital directly into the financial system.
"The panel's initial concerns about the TARP have only grown, exacerbated by the shifting explanations of its purposes and the tools used by Treasury," the report said. It said Treasury had "not yet explained its strategy" for stabilizing the financial markets.
The report said long and short-term credit spreads suggest Treasury has effectively forestalled a financial collapse by injecting billions of dollars into the financial system. Still, the panel suggested that the efforts have "not affected liquidity in credit markets or reassured the capital markets that large financial institutions are strong credits."
"Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending," the document goes on to say.
The report faulted Treasury on a variety of fronts, saying it has: no ability to ensure banks lend the money they've received from the government; no standards for measuring the success of the program; and that it ignored or offered incomplete answers to panel questions.
These shortcomings, the report suggests, could undermine the goal of various programs. "For Treasury to advance funds to these institutions without requiring more transparency further erodes the very confidence Treasury seeks to restore," the report said.
The bipartisan panel reserved its most strident criticism for Treasury's approach to dealing with the foreclosure crisis at the root of the ongoing economic turmoil.
online.wsj.com
Now, you may not agree with what she recommended -- I do -- but she certainly didn't just go along with what Treasury was doing.
Also, at least according to her panel, which was bipartisan, Treasury could change what it was doing with the money:
"The bailout money doesn't require a specific approach," Ms. Warren said. "It entrusts Treasury with developing an approach, and that's what Treasury should be doing."
According to that, what Treasury did wasn't illegal, but Warren's problem with it was the same problem that I have -- it stopped the bleeding for a while, but it didn't really heal the wound. That thing's going to open up again. When, I don't know. But look at the LIBOR scandal we're learning about now. The banks are really, really corrupt institutions.
>>How many times have I seen you defend said bonuses?
>Many times. Corporate bonuses are not illegal. Companies can pay thier employees whatever they want. Politicians funding them with taxpayer money is embezzlement in my book.
It was an inevitable result of the method used. But money NEEDED to go to the banks. Do you remember the Dow approaching 6000 just 3 1/2 years ago? However, the same people were left in charge of the banks -- which was what Paulson, and Geithner, and Bernanke, and Summers, and Rubin... all of the banksters, many of which were in both the Bush and Obama administrations. Geithner was on the short list for his job in both Obama and McCain's plans.
You're right; the whole thing was corrupt from the start. But that doesn't mean it didn't do its job for a while. I'd rather save the world economy and have the banksters get paid than have it collapse. Those shouldn't have been the only two choices, but apparently a better solution couldn't pass Congress.
Obama was right for calling the bank execs out on the bonuses, but he didn't take them away. I think he should've, you think he shouldn't have. But he was probably powerless in the situation; the horse had already left the barn.
>Solyndra ring a bell?
Solyndra is a very different story. Stick to the banks for now.
-Z |
