One year since the US bank bailout

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,810
Anyone who has read the excellent book "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein's will be aware of the central argument that ....."historically, while people were reeling from natural disasters, wars and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry leaders nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed during less muddled times.."

The disaster this time was financial and did this happen ?

You be the judge

"...The creation of TARP inaugurated the greatest plundering of the public treasury and transfer of wealth from the working class to the financial elite in history.

One year later, the analysis of the World Socialist Web Site that the bank bailout was part of a fundamental and permanent restructuring of American capitalism, whose central aim was the impoverishment of the working class, has been richly vindicated.

...

On September 7, the Bush administration announced the government takeover, at a cost of $200 billion, of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The following weekend, after round-the-clock meetings with Wall Street CEOs led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (now Treasury Secretary) Timothy Geithner, the government refused to provide emergency funds to Lehman Brothers, allowing the Wall Street icon to collapse.

No credible explanation for the decision to deny funds to Lehman while rescuing Merrill Lynch and the insurance giant American International Group (AIG) has ever been offered. It is now clear, however, that this move reflected the conclusion that nothing short of a massive diversion of public funds to cover the bad debts of the banks could protect the wealth of the financial oligarchy. To create the political conditions for such an unprecedented action it was necessary to deliberately stoke up an atmosphere of panic and fear.

Lehman, the smallest of the Wall Street investment firms, was sacrificed for the greater good of the financial aristocracy. Not coincidentally, the chief beneficiary of the disappearance of Lehman and Merrill Lynch was the largest investment bank, Goldman Sachs, which Paulson had headed prior to entering the Bush administration. As for the rescue of AIG, Goldman, its largest trading partner, stood to lose at least $20 billion if the world’s largest insurer of bank assets went down.

The following weekend, once again in talks conducted behind the backs of the American people, Paulson handed congressional leaders a four-page blueprint for a $700 billion bailout of the banking system and demanded that they immediately enact it into law. On the evening of September 24, Bush went on national television and, in apocalyptic terms, insisted that if Congress did not quickly pass Paulson’s plan “America would slip into a financial panic.”

The official line was that the bank bailout was being undertaken with the greatest reluctance and for the benefit of “Main Street,” not Wall Street. Barack Obama, then the Democratic presidential candidate, immediately declared his support for the bailout, and Democratic leaders in Congress were its most vociferous backers.

The eruption of the financial crisis and the rush to enact TARP coincided with a remarkable improvement in Obama’s electoral prospects. Prior to the crisis, Obama’s campaign was foundering. His lead in the polls over his Republican opponent, John McCain, had evaporated and his campaign was in visible disarray.

But with the events of early September came a sharp shift in the media in his favor. A political decision had been taken at the highest levels of the ruling elite that the implementation of a massive bailout of Wall Street combined with sharp attacks on workers’ jobs and wages and an offensive against basic social programs would be politically more difficult under a McCain administration than an Obama White House.

Obama’s relative youth, his ethnic background and his Democratic brand could be utilized to confuse and disorient a public that would overwhelmingly view a McCain administration as the continuation of the policies of the hated and despised Bush. A clear consensus emerged within the ruling class to push for the election of the tribune of “change you can believe in.”

more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o03.shtml

Comrade Stalin of Upagainsthewall Street. Mockba
 
Werbung:
No credible explanation for the decision to deny funds to Lehman while rescuing Merrill Lynch and the insurance giant American International Group (AIG) has ever been offered.
]

True.


Lehman, the smallest of the Wall Street investment firms, was sacrificed for the greater good of the financial aristocracy. Not coincidentally, the chief beneficiary of the disappearance of Lehman and Merrill Lynch was the largest investment bank, Goldman Sachs, which Paulson had headed prior to entering the Bush administration.

Yes, the corruption all leads back to Obamas also!
 
]

True.




Yes, the corruption all leads back to Obamas also!

Notice the dates here:

The New Trough

Posted Nov 13, 2008 11:22 AM


On October 13th, when the U.S. Treasury Department announced the team of "seasoned financial veterans" that will be handling the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, one name jumped out: Reuben Jeffery III, who was initially tapped to serve as chief investment officer for the massive new program.

On the surface, Jeffery looks like a classic Bush appointment. Like Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, he's an alum of Goldman Sachs, having worked on Wall Street for 18 years. And as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 2005 to 2007, he proudly advocated "flexibility" in regulation — a laissez-faire approach that failed to rein in the high-risk trading at the heart of the meltdown.

Bankers watching bankers, regulators who don't believe in regulating — that's all standard fare for the Bush crew. What's most striking about Jeffery's résumé, however, is an item omitted when his new job was announced: He served as executive director of Paul Bremer's infamous Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, during the early days of the Iraq War. Part of his job was to hire civilian staff, which made him an integral part of the partisan machine that filled the Green Zone with Young Republicans, investment bankers and Dick Cheney interns........

Or it may just show that the bidder who won the contract — Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — takes a more relaxed approach to conflicts than its colleagues. The law firm is a Wall Street heavy hitter, having brokered some of the biggest bank mergers in recent years. It also provided legal support to companies trading mortgage-backed securities — the "financial weapons of mass destruction," as Warren Buffett called them, that detonated the banking industry. More to the point, it was hired to provide legal services to the Treasury in its negotiations to spend $250 billion of the bailout money purchasing equity in America's banks. The first stage of the plan involves buying stakes in nine of the country's top banks. Incredibly, Simpson Thacher has represented seven of the nine: JPMorgan, Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch......


Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.

In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What's more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.


This was October-November 2008.....who was in the White House:eek::eek::eek:

Now, where exactly does that corruption lead back to??????????????
 
laughinatreps said:
This was October-November 2008.....who was in the White House:eek::eek::eek:

Now, where exactly does that corruption lead back to??????????????

pocketfullofshells said:
Lets all go look at a timeline of Events and figure out How Obama had anything to do with this...when Bush was the president....Who signed it....

Haven't you guys figured it out yet:confused: Asur & his ILK post just to waste bandwidth...the primary reason has nothing at all to do with facts/figures/truth...they are so overwrought with frustration from their followers 'NOT' showing up at the voting booths they retain all of that vile/vitriolic back up...they can't see beyond the ignorance of their 'HATE'!!!
 
I just love how easy it is to post a few facts that show them to be as full of sh%* as they sound, and then they run away like roaches when the light comes on and start new senseless posts...ROFLMAO!!!!

It's kind of like Whack-a-Mole, but instead it's

Smack-an-a$$hole....

:D:D:D:D
 
I just love how easy it is to post a few facts that show them to be as full of sh%* as they sound, and then they run away like roaches when the light comes on and start new senseless posts...ROFLMAO!!!!

It's kind of like Whack-a-Mole, but instead it's

Smack-an-a$$hole....

Yes, indeed that has it's merits as an entertainment...isn't it just to sad that we don't have the ability to send ~~shock waves/tazer~~ buzz's through the monitor screens :confused: Some of these 'self inflicted morons' sure could use the 'JOLT' to stimulate the brain juices...LMAO There should be an instant disclaimer with each and every post of theirs: *WARNING* BRAIN MATTER SHOWS NO LIFE LINE -----------FLAT LINED/DEAD AIR SPACE;)
 
Werbung:
Back
Top