Obama and his Economic Team are a Band of Theives

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Why rush to throw another $350 billion of taxpayer money at the Wall Street bandits and their political cronies who created the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression? And why should we taxpayers be expected to double our debt exposure when the ten still-secret bailout contracts made in the first round are being kept from the public?

Why the Rush on TARP 2?

Why rush to throw another $350 billion of taxpayer money at the Wall Street bandits and their political cronies who created the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression?

We don't have time, President-elect Barack Obama's key economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, insisted in a letter to Congress on Monday, promising that the new infusion would not be squandered as was the first installment. But given that Summers is personally as responsible for this meltdown as anyone, why should we trust him on this? Yes, it sounds wonderfully bipartisan that Obama is backing President Bush's request for spending the money now, short-circuiting congressional inquiry, but it was just that sort of bipartisan politics that created this nightmare.

How insulting that we must now accept Summers' assurance that the Obama administration will "move quickly to reform a weak and outdated regulatory system to better protect consumers, investors and businesses." This from the guy who, as President Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, pushed the deregulation legislation making the subsequent financial crimes of Wall Street legal. The "toxic derivatives" that we taxpayers are now forced to purchase from the Wall Street hustlers were deliberately shielded from all government regulation, thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Summers got Congress to pass in the closing days of the Clinton administration with the same urgency that he now pushes for the new Wall Street handout.

Back then, Summers was a disciple of Robert Rubin, who just last week resigned from his director's position at Citigroup, the financial conglomerate that grew to unmanageable and corrupt proportions thanks to the empowering legislation that Rubin initiated when he was Clinton's first treasury secretary. Rubin has been paid more than $115 million plus stock options at Citigroup, and despite his horrid record is a close Obama adviser. It is one of the great swindles of US financial history that Citigroup was bailed out with $45 billion in a deal that could eventually cost taxpayers an additional $269 billion to guarantee those toxic assets that would have been illegal if not for the legislation backed by Rubin and Summers.

How did Obama allow himself to become ensnared with the very same folks who are the most culpable? His treasury secretary nominee, Timothy Geithner, is another Rubin protegé, who, as head of the New York Fed, worked tirelessly with Rubin to concoct the Citigroup bailout. When candidate Obama gave his major economic address back on March 27, he couldn't have been clearer in condemning the deregulation that Rubin and Summers had engineered:

"Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one--aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so, we encouraged a winner-take-all, anything-goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy."

He was referring to the deregulation legislation that Summers hailed on the day that Clinton signed it into law as "a major step forward to the 21st century." Now Obama is relying on Summers to reverse a disaster of his own creation. It's like returning to the same surgeon who almost killed the patient in the first operation to once again cut open the body to repair the damage.

What we need is a second opinion.

Where is the openness and accountability that Obama promised? Why not pause for a few weeks for congressional hearings on how to spend the new money? We don't even know where the last batch went. On Monday, the Treasury Department finally agreed, and only after a subpoena threat, to turn over to Sen. Carl Levin and his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations the ten secret contracts that it signed with top Wall Street firms in the first round of the bailout. Unfortunately, the subcommittee has no plans to make those contracts public, according to a Levin aide quoted in The New York Times.

That is outrageous. This is our money we're talking about. Why don't we get to read the fine print in what will end up being trillions of dollars in taxpayer obligations? Because we are suckers, that's why, and the folks who swindled us into this disaster can count on it.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/scheer?rel=hp_picks

When Obama spoke of "change", he was obviously talking about what's going to be left in the US Treasury after he and his band of thieves get done giving away all the dollars to the rich.
 
It must be intoxicating hanging out with the rich turbo-libs like the Kennedy's with the NIMBY mutha fucka attitude. Yes, we must give a trillion to bail out the Hampton's bankers. After all, Teddy can't sail alone, he needs other tools that have million dollar boats. WE CAN'T have the free market crush those thieve's their liberal.
Screw the carpenter in Kansas, and the data entry clerk at Office Depot (azzhat).
 
It must be intoxicating hanging out with the rich turbo-libs like the Kennedy's with the NIMBY mutha fucka attitude. Yes, we must give a trillion to bail out the Hampton's bankers. After all, Teddy can't sail alone, he needs other tools that have million dollar boats. WE CAN'T have the free market crush those thieve's their liberal.
Screw the carpenter in Kansas, and the data entry clerk at Office Depot (azzhat).

"Liberal" ???
 
Can anyone remember any GOOD legislation that happened when it was rushed?

I am worried for our country and it's good you are providing a check on Obama in power, BAC. It almost seems that because Bush was so bad, a huge amount of people are prepared to let Obama do whatever he wants.
 
Can anyone remember any GOOD legislation that happened when it was rushed?

I am worried for our country and it's good you are providing a check on Obama in power, BAC. It almost seems that because Bush was so bad, a huge amount of people are prepared to let Obama do whatever he wants.

That's dangerous and you do well to worry my brother.

Every time we're being led to slaughter it's always done in a rush. There was a rush to get the first 350 out, now there's a rush to get the next 350 out .. circumventing congressional oversight.

Let's not wait on the inspectors to do their job, let's go bomb Iraq now and we'll find the WMD ourselves. Can't wait .. mushroom clouds in 45 days.

Is it just me or didn't Obama promise transparency, not trust me?

I'm no defender of George Bush, but here is something that would be relevent if the name was Bush .. where do you think most of that bounty of money came from during the campaign for Obama? .. Small donors? Obama got about the same amount of money from small donors as George Bush did in 2004. It came from financial institutions.

I know .. for me to even mention that means I hate all black people .. at least that's what some black people tell me. :)
 
Just so I understand correctly, Obama spending money that the Congress already authorized the president to spend means that Obama and his administration are . . . thieves? Is that the story?

Interesting.
 
I still have hope Bac.

It hasnt happened yet.

When and if it does Ill join you.

Im not going to condem the new admin yet.

These picks may have a different impact if they are designed for a different purpose than you are surmising.

Im going to continue to hope these people were picked to help change what was done that caused these problems. It may be a thin hope but I still chose to hope. Im going to wait until I see what they actually do. I dont think Clinton would have been any better and we all know how bad a McCain win would have been.
 
Just so I understand correctly, Obama spending money that the Congress already authorized the president to spend means that Obama and his administration are . . . thieves? Is that the story?

Interesting.

No that's not the story.

Obama and his band of thieves are trying to circumvent congressional oversight .. that's the story.

The bailout money was divided in half to get the financial institutions quickly .. as Congress was told it was needed quickly .. but the 2nd half was delayed to allow Congress to ascertain if the first half was spent wisely.

Now the Obama thieves .. the same thieves who got America into this mess .. want to get the money in their hands quickly without Congress having the opportunity to review what happened to the first chunk .. and to force more restrictions and oversight into the 2nd chunk.

You voted for him, please explain how that makes sense.
 
It will make sense if they actually do it right. Hell I gave Bush one last chance to get it right and supported the bailout ...well until they used it to just pay their buddies some parting money.
 
No that's not the story.

Obama and his band of thieves are trying to circumvent congressional oversight .. that's the story.

The bailout money was divided in half to get the financial institutions quickly .. as Congress was told it was needed quickly .. but the 2nd half was delayed to allow Congress to ascertain if the first half was spent wisely.

Now the Obama thieves .. the same thieves who got America into this mess .. want to get the money in their hands quickly without Congress having the opportunity to review what happened to the first chunk .. and to force more restrictions and oversight into the 2nd chunk.

You voted for him, please explain how that makes sense.


I stand corrected.

It doesn't make sense for Congress to release the funds but it makes sense for the request to be made now. Now Obama needs to defend how he intends to spend it before (and if) it gets authorized and he's already getting push-back from the Democrats in Congress, just like he did with his stimulus proposal.

This is how government is supposed to work.
 
I still have hope Bac.

It hasnt happened yet.

When and if it does Ill join you.

Im not going to condem the new admin yet.

These picks may have a different impact if they are designed for a different purpose than you are surmising.

Im going to continue to hope these people were picked to help change what was done that caused these problems. It may be a thin hope but I still chose to hope. Im going to wait until I see what they actually do. I dont think Clinton would have been any better and we all know how bad a McCain win would have been.

Given the precarious state this country is in, I hope for the best along with you .. but I do not trust that it's going to happen without fierce input from the American people. We cannot continue to simply hope for the best.

This is our country, not any politician or political party. Picking the same people who got us into this mess doesn't make sense on any level .. nor does circumventing congressional oversight when Obama promised transparency.

You're right, Clinton wouldn't have been any better and neither would McCain because they all work for the same puppetmasters and Americans continue to allow them to rape this nation dry.
 
I stand corrected.

It doesn't make sense for Congress to release the funds but it makes sense for the request to be made now. Now Obama needs to defend how he intends to spend it before (and if) it gets authorized and he's already getting push-back from the Democrats in Congress, just like he did with his stimulus proposal.

This is how government is supposed to work.

Correct my brother .. it is how this government is supposed to work and no one should want a Congress that is simply there to rubber-stamp what a president wants. Haven't we had enough of that?
 
Honest question ...

Did youi consider that when you voted for him?

Seriously, did you consider that you were voting for a thief?

Honest answer:

Yes I did I voted as usual for what I considered the lesser of the evils.
If you think me a worshipper of any politician you are badly mistaken.
I have no heroes.
 
CALL THEIR FREAKIN BLUFF. No more Bailouts, it's ruining the incentive structure that's needed for long term economic health...
 
Honest answer:

Yes I did I voted as usual for what I considered the lesser of the evils.
If you think me a worshipper of any politician you are badly mistaken.
I have no heroes.

I don't think you a worshipper of politicians. I also understand the lessor of two evils argument .. I just don't buy it.

Obama is what we've got, I accept that. What I do not accept is that he shouldn't be viewed through the same critical eye that all presidents should be viewed through.
 
I don't think you a worshipper of politicians. I also understand the lessor of two evils argument .. I just don't buy it.

Obama is what we've got, I accept that. What I do not accept is that he shouldn't be viewed through the same critical eye that all presidents should be viewed through.

And given time I think he will be. You've heard about the "new wearing off?" The new will wear off and he will be scrutinized, I think. I have said before and still say that I am going to withold judgment and see how he does. I didn't vote for him either but I still want to be fair before I jump to conclusions about him. I agree with you that it seems that there is something up with this bailout but I don't know for sure.....yet.
 
I don't think you a worshipper of politicians. I also understand the lessor of two evils argument .. I just don't buy it.

Obama is what we've got, I accept that. What I do not accept is that he shouldn't be viewed through the same critical eye that all presidents should be viewed through.

I understand the lessor of two evils argument as well but as in citizen's case (and he's far from alone myself included) when you vote for the same party election after election claiming them to be the lesser of two evils aren't you just being part of the 'sheeple' we all like to mock?
 
And given time I think he will be. You've heard about the "new wearing off?" The new will wear off and he will be scrutinized, I think. I have said before and still say that I am going to withold judgment and see how he does. I didn't vote for him either but I still want to be fair before I jump to conclusions about him. I agree with you that it seems that there is something up with this bailout but I don't know for sure.....yet.

When you consider that Wall Street was not only Obama's biggest contributer during the campaign, but they also contribute heavily his for his inauguration, one has to ask if this is really the change they voted for.

Bailed-Out Banks Donating To Obama's Inauguration

Citibank executives, who are expected to ask for another billion-dollar federal bailout on top of the $45 billion in rescue funds they received in November, are trying to buy the goodwill of Barack Obama -- or they just want to help the president-elect throw the best inauguration party in history.

Of the hundreds of banks and firms which have received bailout money, Citibank
employees have contributed the most to Obama's inauguration fund -- at least $113,000 as of Wednesday.

Among those contributions is $50,000 from Ray McGuire, Citi's co-head of global investment banking, and $50,000 from Louis Susman, the recently-retired vice chairman of Citigroup.

In recent weeks, Obama has vowed changes to the much-criticized $700 billion bailout program, demanding that the second installment should focus on helping families at risk of losing their homes and small businesses, and echoing Democratic criticisms of banks giving lavish bonuses to their senior executives.

Yet, as the New York Times recently reported, many of the banks, including Citigroup, need more bailout money and have been fiercely lobbying behind the scenes for a major piece of the $350 billion second installment.

Citigroup senior counselor and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was close to Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. But he recently resigned from the firm after months of criticism of his performance and his admitted failure to foresee the credit crisis.

In addition, Citigroup employees were Obama's 7th-biggest contributor, giving $586,866 to the candidate during the 2008 election cycle.

Other bailed-out banks, which have contributed to the inauguration fund, include Goldman Sachs ($44,500), JPMorgan Chase ($30,600), and Wells Fargo ($2,450).

Goldman Sachs employees were Obama's second-biggest contributor, giving $884,907 to the candidate. JP Morgan Chase employees were Obama's sixth-biggest contributor ($600,210). Morgan Stanley employees contributed $425,502 to the candidate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/14/bailed-out-banks-donating_n_157960.html?view=screen
 
Back
Top