Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

The CEO's should have no bonuses. Then let them eat French Toast.

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 6:25pm.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

By Michael Collins

I have a question.   It emerged after reading the two paragraphs below while waiting for French Toast "deluxe" in a diner.  There was nothing else to do but read the Washington Post  (Apr. 4, 2009):

"The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

"Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package."

So here's my question, when did it become necessary to persuade people to accept a bailout?

Isn't a bailout, by definition, the rescue of these firms to avoid their financial collapse?

After all, we hear that the financial and industrial giants will sink into oblivion unless  we keep the trillions flowing.  But this adds a new wrinkle.  Maybe they don't need the money?  Maybe this is like that season of "Dallas" that ended up being nothing more than a dream.  Maybe we're being scammed.

The political stupidity of this move is simply stunning.  There isn't a faction left, other than the principals, who have any sympathy for the Wall Street geniuses who were so totally incompetent that they've nearly ruined the nation's economy.

The incompetence was transferred to the White House, apparently, in the form of Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner.  In January, this wonder worker of the New York Federal Reserve introduced himself by defending banks in front of his boss.   He is, no doubt, one of the key movers behind this.  But why wouldn't he ask the same question I asked if he's so smart?

The article has a fascinating conjecture provoking sequence deeper into the article  See if it jumps out at you:

"The federal watchdog agency overseeing the bailout is looking into the matter, trying to determine whether the Treasury's actions are legal.

"Of the two major restrictions imposed by Congress in the bailout legislation, the limit on executive pay has been the most politically explosive issue.

"Obama himself has called for these limits. "We've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street," he said earlier this year."But officials at the Treasury and the Fed said they worry harsh pay limits will undermine critical bailout programs by discouraging financial firms from participating. Although many of these companies could survive without government help, they might lack money to ramp up lending, which officials consider critical to turning the economy around."  Washington Post (Apr 4, 2009)

So now we've got two questions.  Since it's Treasury mentioned above,  we know what we already knew, it's Geithner.  But now we have to wonder, who's on first?   Obama's against it.   Geithner's for it.  Is this the policy difference and political faux pas that gets Geithner fired or will he survive yet another day.

But forget all that bonus business.

How can people who really need  a "bailout" turn it down, unless they get their $20 million dollar bonus for incompetency at everything (except selecting members of their board of directors)?

The CEO's should have no bonuses.   Then let them eat French Toast.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

Instilling Public Confidence

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 9:20am.
That "lazy and greedy" Dick Kovacevich, you know the Chairman of Wells Fargo. The guy that told Paulson we don't want your stinkin' TARP. Don't look now boys and girls but one bank is leading the market higher this morning. That one bank is fueling optimism on Wall Street which by the way is a leading indicator on the economy. I won't hold my breath for a main page "quip" on Buzzflash however.
»

Strongly disagree

Submitted by msedano on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 4:21pm.
with this statement: "There isn't a faction left, other than the principals, who have any sympathy for the Wall Street geniuses who were so totally incompetent that they've nearly ruined the nation's economy." Those genie asses ruined the economy. Nothing nearly about it. Otherwise, right on, Collins, even though I do not eat bread. mvs -- Read! Raza. Read! Gente. ..-. / - / .-
»

With all due respect

Submitted by anagitator on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 12:33pm.
Do we know where all the money went, and where or how it will be spent and the terms of the outlay? These TRILLIONS in funds are a potential liability to every taxpayer, but the taxpayers are not being informed by either the Treasury or the Federal Reserve exactly where and with specifics and total transparency.

Do you trust Geithner, Bernanke, Obama and Congress to hold the financial oligarchs who caused the crisis with their greed, mismanagement and malfeasance accountable.....to defend and protect the taxpayers? I don't.

»

I trust none of them

Submitted by Michael Collins on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 1:26pm.

And I have no faith that they'll change their ways. We are witnessing the greatest financial heist in history, the ultimate in socialism for the rich and survival of the fittest for the rest of us.

I found the latest WH intrigue interesting for two reasons. It shows how politically inept Treasury is. What are they thinking about, preserving perks and bonuses. Also, I was interested in the Geithner versus Obama comments listed in the short piece.

But that's secondary. The real issue is the "us' versus "them" format - Wall Street gets trillions and citizens, to date, not much more than a trickle and a smile. It's got to change.

Here are some of my more serious comments on all of this: The Money Party.

In summary, my assessment of the situation is:

"But the truth will emerge - the country is broke and not because we don't work hard enough, make good products, and provide quality services. We're broke because the greediest people in the world couldn't contain their greed and there was nobody watching them who wasn't benefiting. Now the watchers are desperately trying to make it all go away." Cascade of Ruin, Sept. 22, 2006

Here's a solution from the same article:

There needs to be an accounting and a correction - and not by the usual suspects.

Here's one way to start with derivatives crisis in major institutions:

"If all the top 25 financial institutions were put into receivership, and (big if) if they all could be liquidated under an agreed legal framework, many of these risky contracts could be allowed to offset each other, and much of the risk eliminated." Private correspondence, Numerian, The Agonist, Sept. 21, 2008

Enough of these folks. Time for a new deal.

»

An Inbred incestuous club

Submitted by anagitator on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 8:24pm.
Wall Street, Fed Reserve, US Treasury, SEC, CFTC,and Financial News Channels all represent one big inbred and incestuous club (or tribe.....call it what you wish) that has self interest for the club as their overriding mission rather than the greater good of the USA.

I was hoping and praying that Barrack Obama whom I voted for would represent change for the better with a common sense of ethics that every American would clearly recognize. When he sacrificed political capital for the tax cheat, Tim Geithner, an obvious Wall St. insider representing the problem not the solution, the effect was immediate and similar to puncturing a balloon with a pin.

It appears we have seen pure glib at work but not true change. I haven't written him off totally but the clock is ticking away. We need Wall Street heads to roll and we need an "America First" party because what we currently have, and have had, are anything but, unless you are consider a tiny minority of RICH as representing America first.

»

Time to Move On

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 9:35am.
This "Guest Contributor" is guilty of not knowing what he is talking about, although he is not alone in his misconceptions. Most Buzzflashers are about at Mr. Collins' level of comprehension. Let's answer his primary question, "when did it become necessary to persuade people to accept a bailout" The question is awkwardky posed in the first place since "people", in this instance, does not pertain to the "taxpayer", it is used instead for the term Bank CEO's. Secondly, it is necessary to seperate AIG from the banking sector. AIG is an insurance company that was not subject to the same level of regulation that banks are. Thirdly, the term "bailout" is a misnomer when it comes to the banking sector. When former Secretary of the Treasury Paulson approached banks, his strategy was to instill public confidence in the entire banking system. The country had just barely averted a total meltdown of "money-markets" and there was concern that a Thirties-style run on banks could occur. Many bank Chairmen and CEO's did not want or feel that their own firms needed any TARP monies, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo come to mind, two extremely well run institutions. Paulson insisted since he did not want the public to be able to discern which banks actually needed additional capital and which did not. Buzzflashers will laugh but the management of banks that accepted TARP funds reluctantly, put country before their own businesses. Let's now address the term "bailout". There seems to be some common misconception that the Treasury poured a whole lot of taxpayer money into banks which was then used to buy jets and go on junkets and pay outrageous bonuses.That is the way the MSM has played it from the start and although Buzzflashers should know better, they have basically bought into it. Each bank that was injected with TARP funds was required to issue a special series of prefered stock to the Treasury with a par value of the injection amount. These prefereds pay a quarterly dividend to the Treasury at a much higher than current market rate of interest. The truth is the American taxpayer is receiving billions of dollars in dividends from banks that received TARP funds annually. Does this arrangement meet the definition of "bailout"? Now why would bankers not only resist accepting more funds but be in the process of making arrangements to pay the original TARP monies back to the Treasury? TARP has become a stigma allowing "short-sellers" in the "market" to spread all kinds of rumors involving a banks ultimate solvency resulting in the destruction of share prices. After the fact, the Treasury has subjected banks to absurdly long term stress-tests which fuels less confidence in banks thus abetting the "shorts". Again, after the fact, bank management does not appreciate the Government meddling in pay structure which culminated in the House hysterically passing an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder and the AG of New York threatening to throw legally compensated individuals to the mob. The neo-populist crowd can rant and rave against the "banks" all they want but President Obama and his administration realize they are the necessary foundation to a recovering economy. Once the country is prosperous again, will the neo-populists wanna throw their bank CEO in jail when they wanna borrow for that new house or car? I kinda doubt it.
»

Wall Street spin

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 4:58pm.
That whirring sound you're hearing is Wall Street spin.

Unlike in the UK, US taxpayers hugely overpaid for preferred stock so we're already shafted. For example, US taxpayers keep investing more and more billions in AIG but our ownership stake stays fixed at 79.9%. Also, once out of the limelight, preferred stock has been demoted to common stock and interest paid back to the Treasury has been drastically cut. But we're not really bailing out AIG - AIG is just a Wall Street money laundry - one of many.

One of the biggest scams is that money is being laundered via AIG and various newly created corporations. The disposable paper corporations will supposedly have the duty to repay taxpayers, but they will all be bankrupt after handing the money over to Goldman and friends via "unwinding at non-market rates". Basically, AIG is undoing earlier deals with Goldman and friends, and paying hugely inflated prices (with taxpayer money) in so doing. The money laundries also protect Goldman and friends from executive compensation limits.

What we have here is massive insider dealing on a scale hundreds of times larger than ever before in history. More than ten trillion dollars transferred to Wall Street from Y'all Street.

There are only two possible outcomes:

1) The Kleptocrats use a few percent of their new found trillions to maintain control of Congress and the White House and the Judiciary for generations. Our children and grandchildren spend their entire lives working like dogs in a deliberately futile attempt to repay to Wall Street gamblers the trillions that Bush-Obama borrowed from Wall Street gamblers to give to Wall Street gamblers. The US economy will continue to decline, and living conditions here will approach third-world levels for all but the plantation owners. This is by far the most likely outcome.

2) Congress impeaches Obama. (Unfortunately, it's too late to impeach Bush and Cheney.) The AG prosecutes most of the senior staff at the White House, Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Goldman Sachs. Congress enacts 100% windfall taxes on the stolen trillions. The US economy slowly recovers. This is highly unlikely - honest members of Congress now number under 10%.

»

The financial elite are total failures - fire them

Submitted by Michael Collins on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 12:40pm.

You ask, "will the neo-populists wanna throw their bank CEO in jail when they wanna borrow for that new house or car? I kinda doubt it."

We should immediately fall to our knees in gratitude that these most incompetent people give us the privilege to live under decent shelter. Of course, their real estate scam, subprime derivatives, is the vehicle that sparked this financial crisis and killed the housing market. What will you say next, 'We had to ruin this housing market to save it."

Where was the suggestion for jail? I simply offered a pleasant meal in view of the fact these poor folks won't get exorbitant bonuses. But thanks for raising jail as an option. That would require investigations and trials first, a good plan for the immediate future.

You said that BuzzFlash regulars, including me, don't know what we're talking about. Ironically, the pyramid of knowledge is inverted with the majority of citizens exceeding the financial elite in knowledge and business sense. We know the following: 1) this crisis emerged form a housing bubble created by the financial institutions with the help of Alan Greenspan, who in 2004 encouraged people to get ARMs, cash out, and jump in the stock market(http://tinyurl.com/coa2p8); 2) the crisis is predicated on what was known to be a flawed financial scam called subprimes; and 3) that no matter how bad it looks now, there is much worse news ahead given the deliberate misinformation that riddles the financial industry and markets favoring only the few.

But thanks for the comments. It's nice to see such an unvarnished defense of Paulson and the failed financial institution. Your exceptions, Goldman and Wells Fargo are noted since they prove the points many are making. Goldman's CEO sat in at a special NY Fed meeting run by Paulson, Goldman's former CEO. The Goldman CEO was the only representative of a bank/investment bank present. What happened? (http://tinyurl.com/dxjwsl) AIG got $20 billion dollars, which was vital to Goldman's financial health. If getting insider treatment to handle a spectacularly bad financial investment is your measure of financial skill, they've got it. Wells Fargo, your other exemplar, has a major achievement lately. They were the beneficiaries of an illegally drafted change in the tax code that gave them a major part of a $140 billion tax benefit. Members of Congress were afraid of upsetting the banking community by even investigating this blatant heist.

One final note, you said separate AIG from the banks in looking at this situation. Of course you said that, apologists for the financial elite have to say that. Why? Because AIG provided the $441 billion in insurance protecting the banks against, among other things, their risky and disastrous subprime adventure (http://tinyurl.com/dbzwjk). You can't ever afford to allow the linkage between AIG and the banks because it will immediately show that the money going to AIG simiply pays off the banks for their failure.

You have no real ability to defend the current elite because they've failed beyond any imaginable expectation. They are the very worst executives, the most craven elite imaginable … and it's time that they move on.

»

Just the Facts

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 2:56pm.
Personally, I could give a rat's ass what you think of Bank CEO's or anybody else for that matter. You posed a question and I answered it. Regarding your analysis of the meltdown, two thoughts. Hindsight is always 20/20 and after re-reading your causes I see no mention of the homebuyers as part of the equation nor the voters that put in public office political hacks that sold them down the river. As far as the bad news that is hidden, one can only speculate what your feverish mind is concerned about. I am able to explain a fact that is in plain view. The recent 25% rally in the stock market is stating that swift action by Ben Bernanke at the Fed along with President Obama and Tim Geithner has avoided Great Depression II. Does that mean the economy is out of the woods, of course not. Unemployment will contine to rise and more pain will be felt but at least we have turned the corner. I seperated AIG because I am not defending the actions of AIG. And, I encourage AG Holder to look into any and all possibilities of criminal wrong-doing. That, along with reregulating the markets is absolutely essential to once again instill trust in the public regarding the system. Fact: Goldman Sachs purchased insurance policies from AIG for protection regarding speculative investments. AIG wrote more policies than they could cover in case of a meltdown. The Governemnt determined that AIG was too big to fail. That means that the crisis would have been worse if AIG had defaulted on their policies. Not just to Goldman, but the little old lady down the street with an annuity as well. How is it possible that you can claim that the tax-provision which enabled Wells Fargo to buy out a very troubled bank, Wachovia, is illegal? You made that up out of thin air which may I remind you is a favorite tactic of the loathsome right. Of course what you don't state is that the FDIC was gonna be on the hook for all the toxic assets at Wachovia. Instead, Wells Fargo raised 20 billion dollars from the private sector and took huge write downs on the Wachovia loan portfolio. Advantage taxpayer! One last point on your so called incompetent bank CEO's. It's earnings season pal. Watch as major bank after major bank report profitable first quarters. They are so frickin' dumb that they are showing profits for their shareholders (shareholders are Americans too by the way)in a very difficult business climate. We live in an age of personal irresponsibility. The masses need villians and scapegoats. The good news is that current generations will not suffer nearly as much as our grandparents did during the Great Depression. But then, they learned lessons the hard way, lessons that were all too quickly forgotten by their progeny.
»

No facts & personal attacks from the doctor

Submitted by Michael Collins on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 3:26am.

I appreciate open debate. That's why I like to reply to comments on my posts. When those comments get nasty and include personal insults, I'm left with two choices. Either the respondent is insincere and trying to bait me or he/she simply has bad form. Nevertheless, it is my pleasure to respond to your main points.

I'll start with the illegal change to the U.S. tax code comment

You said:

"How is it possible that you can claim that the tax-provision which enabled Wells Fargo to buy out a very troubled bank, Wachovia, is illegal? You made that up out of thin air which may I remind you is a favorite tactic of the loathsome right." You are wrong, period.

Had you researched this, and I presume that you didn't, you would have seen this from the Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2009: In Sept 2009 the "Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention." Someone there rewrote tax code to provide a $140 billion tax break for Wells Fargo and other banks. They changed the tax code in a major way, changed federal law, with out authorization from Congress. That's called illegal:

"Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks."

"More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story -- including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change -- said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice."

It is not a claim; it's a fact that the code was illegally changed. It's a fact that Wells and others benefit from this illegal change.

Homeowners not mentioned "in the equation." Well, why not do your homework again. Preliminary evidence shows fraud in the sale of these loans, subprimes and Alt-A's. One clue - 10,000 ex felons hired to sell loans in Florida. Why would a homeowner put real money down that they would surely lose, had the loans been explained. But this can't be investigated and publicized since it would be dooms day for the banks. I'd like to see such an investigation.

AIG: Did you know that AIG is issuing credit default swaps "driving GM into bankruptcy." We the people own just under 80% of AIG. What does that say about Geithner's ability to regulate? How much confidence will this inspire when it goes front page?

Stock Market up - Dumb Executives: The stock market is not near where it was but it's doing better. Great, it's low volume, hope it keeps going. Bank profits & dumb executives - they're being bailed out to the tune of $4.6 TRILLION dollars. We'd all show profits with that level of pure Wall Street welfare. The executives running these banks are miserable failures, no doubt about it. They're greedy and lazy too as indicated by any number of deals.

You're points are answered.

»

Excellent Rebuttal

Submitted by Mike5000 on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 5:23am.
I'd add just one small point.

Wall Street gamblers can buy GM CDS's without owning the underlying GM bonds. Ditto for any and all US corporations. It's much cheaper and more profitable than buying bonds. It's not insurance, it's high-stakes gambling. And it's crooked gambling.

Wall Street has bet across the board that US corporations will fail. Wall Street's bookie is AIG and Wall Street controls AIG. And Wall Street is crippling the US economy to ensure that US corporations fail and Wall Street wins.

Normally this wouldn't work. Wall Street's bookie would be bankrupt in a heartbeat.

So Wall Street bought Obama's election. And Obama allows Wall Street gamblers to run the Treasury. And so Wall Street steals hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury to give to Wall Street's bookie, which pays off Wall Street's crooked bets.

Supposedly AIG has to repay our hundreds of billions, but AIG is bankrupt and has been bankrupt for months. The bankruptcy won't be recognized for a while yet - not until a whole bunch of new disposable paper money laundries are up and running. Then we'll suddenly be told that our AIG billions won't be coming back. There will be much huffing and puffing in Congress and promises of new regulations, while behind the scenes even more trillions are being stolen via the new disposable paper money laundries.

»

Thanks!!!

Submitted by Michael Collins on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:00am.

You make an outstanding point: "Normally this wouldn't work. Wall Street's bookie would be bankrupt in a heartbeat." But we're now the bookie. Quite a risk we've been handed.

AIG is central to all of this. They're the great conduit to the European banks and the insurer of the subprime deerivativs. It will all come home to roost and blow our minds when the credit default swaps show up, 40 to 50 times the size of the subprime derivatives. But by then we'll be the world's banker in a virtual economy.

Chris White at e Pluribus Media had some provocative thoughts on all of this and our new role in the world. If I knew a little more, I'd be terrified;)

Bernake Fed Bail Out Restructures World Finance Credit

Too bad Bernake never askekd us about his excellent adventure. But that's what modern democracy is about -- ignoring the people for bigger interests tha they wouldn't understand.

»

No facts & personal attacks from the doctor

Submitted by Michael Collins on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 3:26am.

I appreciate open debate. That's why I like to reply to comments on my posts. When those comments get nasty and include personal insults, I'm left with two choices. Either the respondent is insincere and trying to bait me or he/she simply has bad form. Nevertheless, it is my pleasure to respond to your main points.

I'll start with the illegal change to the U.S. tax code comment

You said:

"How is it possible that you can claim that the tax-provision which enabled Wells Fargo to buy out a very troubled bank, Wachovia, is illegal? You made that up out of thin air which may I remind you is a favorite tactic of the loathsome right." You are wrong, period.

Had you researched this, and I presume that you didn't, you would have seen this from the Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2009: In Sept 2009 the "Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention." Someone there rewrote tax code to provide a $140 billion tax break for Wells Fargo and other banks. They changed the tax code in a major way, changed federal law, with out authorization from Congress. That's called illegal:

"Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks."

"More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story -- including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change -- said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice."

It is not a claim; it's a fact that the code was illegally changed. It's a fact that Wells and others benefit from this illegal change.

Homeowners not mentioned "in the equation." Well, why not do your homework again. Preliminary evidence shows fraud in the sale of these loans, subprimes and Alt-A's. One clue - 10,000 ex felons hired to sell loans in Florida. Why would a homeowner put real money down that they would surely lose, had the loans been explained. But this can't be investigated and publicized since it would be dooms day for the banks. I'd like to see such an investigation.

AIG: Did you know that AIG is issuing credit default swaps "driving GM into bankruptcy." We the people own just under 80% of AIG. What does that say about Geithner's ability to regulate? How much confidence will this inspire when it goes front page?

Stock Market up - Dumb Executives: The stock market is not near where it was but it's doing better. Great, it's low volume, hope it keeps going. Bank profits & dumb executives - they're being bailed out to the tune of $4.6 TRILLION dollars. We'd all show profits with that level of pure Wall Street welfare. The executives running these banks are miserable failures, no doubt about it. They're greedy and lazy too as indicated by any number of deals.

You're points are answered.

»

The Rest of the Story

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 9:08am.
Unlike yourself Mr.Collins, who has yet to acknowledge that any of the points I have made are truthful and valid, I will state that obviously you did not just make up your accusation of an illegal change in the tax law, you used selective quotations from an article entitled "A Quiet Windfall for U.S. Banks" Quoting from the same article...."Andrew C. DeSouza, a Treasury spokesman, said the administration had the legal authority to issue the notice as part of its power to interpret the tax code and provide legal guidance to companies. He described the Sept. 30 notice, which allows some banks to keep more money by lowering their taxes, as a way to help financial institutions during a time of economic crisis. "This is part of our overall effort to provide relief," he said. And....."But several aides (Congressional) said they were still torn between their belief that the change is illegal and fear of further destabilizing the economy."None of us wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great Depression," one said." I haven't heard a peep from Congress since on this issue, have you? Do Buzzflashers recall that just a few short months ago the Government was dealing with a panic in the financial system? A more impartial reading of the article would be that there is a question regarding the legality of what many refer to as an interpretation of the tax code as well as a commonly held idea even by those that are complaining of illegality that there very well may have been some over-arching public good that was derived from this ruling. I have already described in a previous post how this interpretation of the tax code allowed Wells Fargo to take over Wachovia by raising 20 billion dollars from the private sector as well as taking huge write downs on Wachovia's loan portfolio. The alternative was a joint venture between CitiGroup (a bank that the Government holds a majority stake in already) and the FDIC. So basically, for a 25 billion dollar tax break, Wells Fargo kept Wachovia's garbage in the private sector thus relieving the taxpayer from picking up the whole tab. You Mr. Collins, have so far failed to present the big picture. For the second time, I do not defend the actions of AIG management. I have also stated that I am in favor of prosecution of any illegalities that have taken place as well as reregulating the financial sector as was done during the New Deal. Once again you skirt the issue of personal responsibility. When over the course of thirty years, citizens consistently vote against their own economic interests and install laissez-faire loving trickle-down free-market hacks, is it any wonder that eventually the bill must be paid? And, no acknowledgement from you at all that citizens made poor decisions and bought houses they could not afford under terms they did not understand. Also, no acknowledgement from you or even questioning for that matter, that swift Keynesian economic prescriptions enacted by the Government has taken The Great Depression II off the table. Continuing with Wells Fargo as a case in point, Chairman Richard Kovacevich told Paulson he did not want nor did Wells Fargo need any TARP money. Paulson insisted and Wells got the $25 billion injection and issued the preferred stock and have made the first quarterly dividend payment of almost $400 million to the Treasury. Dick Kovacevich is a graduate of Stanford University and one of the most respected names in the banking community. Wells Fargo was recently named by "Global Affairs" as the safest bank in the USA and the 21st safest bank in the world. Wells Fargo is the largest private employer in San Francisco. Wells Fargo has not nor does not engage in predatory lending. Wells Fargo is consistently recognized as one of the very best corporations to work for in America. Wells Fargo donates liberally to progressive charitable causes. The Chairman of this American institution is a man that you label as "greedy and lazy as indicated by any number of deals" I regret any personal verbal abuse I have inflicted during these discussions since you are correct that good manners preclude such assaults.
»

America's problem

Submitted by anagitator on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 4:14pm.
is that the financial elites have been able to create their own corporate subsidiary known as the US government. That situation is exacerbated by powerful organized groups such as AIPAC that directly represent much of the wealth on Wall Street.

So what you have are powerful organizations who's mission is to keep Israel deep into America's pocket, but an even more important and second mission to keep their membership with $$$$$ and in control of our government. You wonder why financial sector has been bailed out with AIG on top so it could make Goldman Sachs whole on their investments gone wrong.....it isn't difficult to understand. The players have to be protected, and average Americans ain't in the club.

There was a recent article in Atlantic Monthly by Simon Johnson "The Quiet Coup", that explains how the American oligarchy works to the detriment of America. These financiers get paid on average 50-100x or more than the Americans who actually make real products. The financiers make smoke and mirrors that rob the world. Coincidentally Simon Johnson will be on CSPAN Washington Journal tomorrow at 8AM EDT.

Wall Street has created this false illusion of itself that the world can't run without it. The world could have run far better than the many trillions in lost wealth directly attributed to Wall Street. Now the banks get to make their own accounting rules and establish their asset valuations. Another example of those at the heart of this bending the rules for their own.

»