SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (621098)7/24/2011 2:06:57 PM
From: Sdgla1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1578430
 
Geitner is a crook.

Timothy Geithner: Guilty of Theft from the American Working Class

BY WICK
– JANUARY 1, 2011POSTED IN: GRAPHIC DESIGN, MY ARTWORK, SPEAK OUT
I will be working on a series of designs to help bring about awareness and understanding of who the major players are in this financial robbery from working and unemployed Middle Class Americans. This is a scandal of disgusting proportions, made in secret, by white collar criminals that pulled off the biggest heist in the worlds history… far worse than things that have caused other men in our countries history to be hung to death. It’s time to wake up people!
Number one in our collection of crook art, is Timothy Geithner!

It is now clear that those who were paid to protect the taxpayer were working for the crooks that cheated the taxpayers.
The head crook was Tim Geithner, who was the head of the New York Fed and is now the US Treasury Secretary. He was responsible to negotiate the purchase of toxic assets held by the insurance giant AIG that were purchased from Wall Street swindlers, Goldman Sachs and others.
The reports on how TARP funds were used stated the following:
The Geithner’s team paid; “an amount far above their market value at the time.”
“There is no question that the effect of Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s decisions — indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG — was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money (YOUR MONEY) was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG’s counterparts (Wall Street),” the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.
The cost to the taxpayers of this one bailout was well over $27 billion of American taxpayer money.
Why? Did they know what they were doing? Yes, they knew exactly what they were doing! This is another data point in the growing evidence that these Wall Street crooks had government insider help in stealing over $2 trillion from the American taxpayer.
Remember, while Timothy Geithner was the head of the New York Fed he stood by and watched while banks made liar loans, subprime loans, negative amortization loans and no income no asset loans; all of these should have been stopped as they were too risky, but he said nothing. He watched while Wall Street crooks bundled these bad loans, securitized them, and sold trillions of dollars worth of these bad loans as good investments and he said absolutely nothing.
Geithner along with Paulson, Goldman Sachs crook, Ben Bernanke, who is now the presiding Chairman of the Fed, did nothing to stop the fraud.
In fact they screwed us twice; once when they refused to enforce the financial regulations that would have stopped the bad loans from being made and then again when they helped the crooks get their money back from the working class taxpayers.
Some history on Timothy Geithner…
In 2002 he joined the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department. He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001–2003) at the International Monetary Fund.
In October 2003 at age 42, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FED). As President of the New York Fed, he served as Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty. In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.
In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns. In the same year, he played a supporting role to Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. Subsequently that decision contributed to worsening the global financial crisis.
During the 2008 Presidential election, Geithner was one of three people tipped to be nominated for Treasury Secretary regardless of whether John McCain or Barack Obama won. On November 24, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.
In November 2009, Neil Barofsky, the Treasury Department Inspector General responsible for oversight of TARP funds, issued a report critical of the use of $62.1 billion of government funds to redeem derivative contracts held by several large banks which AIG had insured against losses. The banks received face value for the contracts although their market value at the time was much lower. In the report, Barofsky said the payments “provided [the banks] with tens of billions of dollars they likely would have not otherwise received”. Terms for use of the funds had been negotiated with the New York Federal Reserve Bank while Geithner was president.
In January 2010, Rep. Darrell Issa released a series of e-mails between AIG and the New York Fed. In these e-mails, the Fed urged AIG not to disclose the full details of the payments publicly or in its SEC filings. Issa pushed for an investigation of the matter, and for records and e-mails from the Fed to be subpoenaed. Rep. Edolphus Towns, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, issued subpoenas for the records and scheduled hearings.
Geithner and his predecessor, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, both appeared before the Committee. Geithner defended the bailout of AIG and the payments to the banks, while reiterating previous denials of any involvement in efforts to withhold details of the transactions. His testimony was met with skepticism and angry disagreement by House members of both parties.
Who was the US Treasury Secretary who engineered this Ponzi Scheme Big Bank Bailout? It was Hank Paulson, who was the former head of Goldman Sachs. They ultimately ended up installing Ed Liddy as the CEO of AIG, and Ed Liddy, himself, is a former Goldman Sachs employee. Now the top aide to Timothy Geithner, Mark Patterson (Treasury Department Chief of Staff since Feb 2009), is a former Goldman Sachs executive. I mean, this whole situation is rife with Goldman Sachs employees. Is this intricate financial intertwining of the Fed, Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations just a coincidence? No Way!
It’s time for us to wake up people and realize that we are being robbed blind by people who only care about themselves, their egos and money. I’ve embedded a wonderful documentary below that I hope you will watch and share among your friends and the people you love. It really gives you something to think about…



To: Alighieri who wrote (621098)7/24/2011 2:27:27 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1578430
 
I am more and more believing this may be the only way out.

The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out

By ADAM LIPTAK Published: July 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — A few days ago, former President Bill Clinton identified a constitutional escape hatch should President Obama and Congress fail to come to terms on a deficit reduction plan before the government hits its borrowing ceiling.

He pointed to an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment, saying he would unilaterally invoke it “without hesitation” to raise the debt ceiling “and force the courts to stop me.”

On Friday, Mr. Obama rejected the idea, though not in categorical terms.

“I have talked to my lawyers,” Mr. Obama said. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”
Another element of uncertainty and possible court battles do not seem to appeal to the White House, and it is, in any event, not clear that the nation’s creditors would continue to lend it money were the president to take unilateral action.

The provision in question, Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them.

“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”

In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying that it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say that the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.

The words of the provision are in important ways quite vague. “Nobody would argue,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “that Section 4 is clear in its meaning, other than at the time everyone thought that the South, if they ever got back in control, would not pay Civil War debt.”

But Jack M. Balkin, a law professor at Yale, said it was possible to infer a broader principle.

“You’re not supposed to hold the validity of the public debt hostage to achieve political ends,” Mr. Balkin said. He added, though, that “Section 4 is a fail-safe that only comes into operation when everything else is exhausted.”

Mr. Obama’s statement largely dismissing the possibility of invoking the provision may have had a strategic element to it. A deficit-reduction deal would seem to be more likely, after all, if both sides think there is no alternative but economic chaos.

Mr. Obama’s reference to “a winning argument” suggested the likelihood that the courts would weigh in if he took unilateral action. But that is not certain.

“This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.”

Professor Balkin agreed. “This is largely a political question,” he said. “It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

Some law professors have put forward possible legal claims that might overcome threshold requirements for lawsuits, like the one in which plaintiffs show they have been directly injured and so have standing to sue. “It’s unthinkable,” Professor Tribe responded, “that the courts would allow a gimmicky lawsuit to proceed.”

The president, moreover, can move quickly, while court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.”

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor Tribe said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor Levinson was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

A third possible response is what some law professors call “popular constitutionalism.” The meaning of the Constitution, these professors say, is in the end what the public believes it to be. The president and members of Congress may thus pay a political price for taking stands at odds with what the public understands to be their constitutional obligations.

nytimes.com



To: Alighieri who wrote (621098)7/24/2011 6:37:20 PM
From: Taro  Respond to of 1578430
 
Alidante, please check your links before finally posting them...

/Taro