Bernanke warns of possible recession

[kwame k]

Whenever The Federal Reserve comes out and says:
“that the economy may shrink over the first half of this year and that "a recession is possible." What he really means is. We’re screwed!

By JEANNINE AVERSA,
AP Economics Writer
11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress on Wednesday that the economy may shrink over the first half of this year and that "a recession is possible." Yet, he didn't offer any assurances of further interest rate cuts.
Bernanke's testimony to the Joint Economic Committee was a much more pessistic assessment of the economy's immediate prospects amid a trio of crises — housing, credit and financial.
It now appears likely that gross domestic product (GDP) will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008 and could even contract slightly," Bernanke told lawmakers. GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is the best barometer of the United States's economic health. Under one rule, six straight months of declining GDP, would constitute a recession.
Still, Bernanke said that he expects more economic growth in the second half of this year and into 2009, helped by the government's $168 billion stimulus package of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses as well as the Fed's aggressive reductions to a key interest rate. Nevertheless, the chairman acknowledged uncertainty about the Fed's next steps, notwithstanding the mounting economic woes.
"Much necessary economic and financial adjustment has already taken place, and monetary and fiscal policies are in train that should support a return to growth in the second half of this year and next year," Bernanke said.
To try to limit the damage, the Federal Reserve has aggressively cut a key interest rate, now at 2.25 percent, to spur buying and investing by individuals and businesses. At the Fed's last meeting in March, however, two members dissented from the Fed's decision to sharply cut rates, showing a rare division in the often unified front the Fed shows the public. The dissenting officials, who had reputations for being extra concerned about inflation, favored a smaller reduction. Although Bernanke said he hopes inflation will moderate in coming quarters, he acknowledged that high energy prices have clouded the inflation outlook.
Many economists had predicted the Fed might drop it key that rate again when it next meets April 29-30, although Bernanke's remarks cast some doubt on that scenario.
On Wall Street, stocks initially dropped after the Fed chief's remarks but later turned slightly positive.
Housing, credit and financial woes are threatening to push the country into a deep recession. The situation has emerged as a top concern for presidential contenders and a hot-button issue for Congress. It has thrust the White House and the Fed in crisis-management mode.
Faced with mounting home foreclosures and job losses, Bernanke has been under immense political and public pressure to provide relief and help turn around a faltering economy.
Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., peppered Bernanke with questions about the Fed's moves to aid once mighty Wall Street firm Bears Stearns and then juxtaposed that with — what he believed was a lack of help — to millions of people at risk of losing their homes.
"I hope that you will use your position to jawbone this administration to get behind the housing relief effort before Congress." Schumer said. "Addressing the housing crisis head-on will do as much to instill confidence in the markets as lowering interest rates or bolstering regulatory oversight of wayward mortgage lenders and financial institutions. We need to do all of it."
"Wall Street has been helped. Now it's time to help Main Street," added Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.
Many private analysts believe the economy contracted in the first three months of this year, signaling the start of a recession. The government releases first-quarter results later this month. The economy lost jobs in January and February, with many economists bracing for more losses when the report for March is released on Friday. Bernanke said he expected unemployment to move "somewhat higher in coming months."
"Clearly, the U.S. economy is going through a very difficult period," he told lawmakers, adding that all the problems have weighed heavily on consumers whose spending is indispensable to economic vitality.
The Fed also has taken a series of extraordinary steps in recent weeks and months to prop up the nation's financial system, which has been in state of high jeopardy.
In a controversial move, the Fed backed a $29 billion lifeline as part of JP Morgan's deal to take over the troubled Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth largest investment house, which was on the brink of bankruptcy. Bear Stearns had invested heavily in risky mortgage-backed securities that eventually soured with the collapse of the housing market.
Bernanke defended the move. "With financial conditions fragile, the sudden failure of Bear Stearns likely would have led to a chaotic unwinding of positions in those markets and could have severely shaken confidence," he said. "The damage caused by a default by Bear Stearns could have been severe and extremely difficult to contain."
Although the taxpayers are on the hook for the $29 billion, Bernanke said he was "reasonably confident we'll be able to recover the full amount." He also said that Bear Stearns' investments that the Fed took control of "are entirely investment grade."
In addition, the Fed — in the broadest use of its credit authority since the 1930s — agreed to temporarily let big investment firms obtain emergency financing from the Fed, a privilege that previously had been granted only to commercial banks.
Those actions have prompted criticism from Democrats and others who contend that the Fed is bailing out Wall Street and putting billions of taxpayers' dollars at potential risk. Bernanke and the Bush administration argued that the actions were warranted to avert a potential meltdown in the entire financial system, something that would have devastating consequences for the overall economy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_bi_ge/bernanke_congress;_ylt=AtbS1ycq_uIVEkP7CcsVCVbv5rE F

[Nitro Express]

The Federal Reserve should know. It was them who caused the housing bubble to get out of control because Alan Greenspan wouldn't raise the interest rates to slow it down.

Instead they just kept injecting cheap dollars into the market and the lenders went ape shit. Now it's crashed and they are bailing out the crooked lenders with our tax money ruining the value of the US dollar in the process.

We'll end up like Japan with interest rates stuck around 0% with a devalued stock market not going anywhere.

I would have been better to have juse let Bear Stearns fail.

[Nitro Express]

I say let the bad investment banks fail. The corrupt managers lose their bonuses. The market gets rid of these poor performers. Sadly, some investors lose but fools and their money are soon parted. Hard lessons are learned all around.

The end result is the free market cleans itself up because nobody gets bailed out and only the well managed firms survive.

The prices of equities fall and what's left is the stong firms allowing investors to buy good companies at a good price and the market rallies again over time.

Bailing out the losers never gets rid of the bad companies. Nobody learns a lesson. The taxpayer bails out corrupt investment bankers and the stock market stagnates and the value of our money goes to shit.

It's better to let a few investment banks hit the skids and fail than it is to ruin the US Dollar bailing the fuckers out.

[kwame k]

I agree Nitro,

The problem I have now are the sub-prime borrowers get left out to rot.

The government is doing what you are suggesting but they are doing it to the tax payers.

Many people borrowed way beyond their means or ability to pay back the money they borrowed.

Many did not. When you re-finance your home, you borrow a percentage of the appraised value. I know people who had appraisals in say the 150's and they borrowed $120,000.00 leaving 20% equity in their homes as everyone says you should. Now their homes are worth $100,000.00, on a short sale there is a difference of $20,000.00 that the seller or the mortgage company is going to have to eat. Or the seller seeing he can not sell his home for what it is worth, walks away.

Did this home owner do anything wrong? He went by a licensed appraiser's "opinion" of value. The bank lent money, based on this appraiser’s "opinion of value". He made the decision based on trained professional's advice.

I know there are people who borrowed 110% of Loan to Value. No Doc, Stated, Adjustable Mortgages have ballooned and people can not afford what was once a cheap payment. Knowing it was going to inflate and not doing anything about it.

It still comes back to the Lenders are getting bailed out and the Tax Payer/borrower is getting screwed.

Certain people are taking up the plight of the borrowers but, are they just saying what people want to hear and doing nothing about it?

I agree the banks should fail let the market readjust and send a message that these practices are not going to be rewarded. Too bad it's too late for that. We would fall into economic chaos but we went 70+ years without a depression, we are due.

These are band-aids not long term fixes.

[Nitro Express]

There has to be a certain amount of consumer responsibility. Don't sign anything unless you understand the contract. Most of these homeowners got excited about the new house and never read what they signed. If your mortgage broker pressures you to lie about your income so you can get a bigger loan, remember he/she gets a bigger commission and you still have to pay that bigger loan off.

Professional advice? You mean like companies like AM Best rating bonds full of these junk mortgages as AAA rated bonds?

This is all the tip of the iceberg. We are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out the investment banks. What about the bad auto loans? What about the credit card companies when they are next? Hell, there's $5 Trillion in the derivatives market ready to go kaput.

Japan bailed their banks out and they have a prime rate of 0% and their stock marktet is 80% down still after 18 years!

We can kill the US Dollar as a currency by bailing everyone out or we can let these bad banks fail and save the US Dollar from disaster.

Our broken Federal Govt., the war in Iraq, and a major currency crisis could very be the long-term end of the United States. Nobody is going to want to align itself with a broke Federal Govt. that can't function. You are going to see regions of the country want to break off as soon as the Federal money becomes worthless and the taxes to pay for the war and all the bailouts go through the roof.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
You are going to see regions of the country want to break off as soon as the Federal money becomes worthless and the taxes to pay for the war and all the bailouts go through the roof.

I don’t see it getting that bad that we’ll have another Succession State rebellion. Everything else I agree with.

Our money does back the oil. Oil is traded in US currency. The Fiat Money System road we have embarked down is only held up by an illusion or perception of strength.

When Nixon took us off the last shred of the gold standard on August 15, 1971 we set ourselves up for a total collapse of our monetary system. The way our financial markets are currently doing business is not only reckless, it has helped to create The Bubbles we have and the eventual Burst of The Bubble. Hurting only the Tax Payer and never the people responsible.

The greed is so absolute at the Higher Echelons of our Government, Banks and Corporations that we have no one protecting The Tax Payers.

The ironic thing to me has always been……….We American’s take it, we may bitch but we keep electing the same crooks. We must be too fucking lazy to shake up our Government and take back this Country.

Now if they taxed our Remote Controls or made American Idol pay per view then the masses would rise up.

Sad…..

[DLR'sCock]

Well, I worked as a broker, and the people that could end up losing are the people who thought they were going to make the quick buck by flipping the home. If they simply hold onto the home, eventually the value of the home(s) will work itself out.


Also, I cannot understand how people would allow their fixed period of their loan to expire and become adjustable, knowing that it was a mtter of time. I would constantly tell people that it's time to get out of that, but everyone thinks they know better, but hey you reap what you sew. I would constantly give free advice on how to fix their credit in a short period so they could get into a fixed 30 or whatever fixed, and would they do what I told to do....? No..... I cannot speak for other brokers, and know so many of them are shady and lie to customers, and I really despise that, but at the same time when yo uare honest with your client, they don't want to thear it.

I would never advise someone to get into a financial situation they couldn't handle myself, and would be truthful abotu what they could afford. Of course there are plenty of brokers willing to lie for money, and plenty of consumers who go into a situation with blinders on.



I and I am sure many others saw this coming, it was only a matter of time, people get too greedy and lose a realistic vision of what is occuring.


But hey, there are alot of fuckers who made money....

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by kwame k

The problem I have now are the sub-prime borrowers get left out to rot.

The government is doing what you are suggesting but they are doing it to the tax payers.

Many people borrowed way beyond their means or ability to pay back the money they borrowed.


These are people who were stupid enough to get variable rate loans and greedy enough to borrow more than they should have.

It's not for the government to reward irresponsible behavior. In fact, it's not the "government" who would help them: you're asking that responsible taxpayers pay for the irresponsible taxpayers.

Fuck them and the greedy banks that gave them loans.

And fuck you, too, while we're at it.

:fucku:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
T...

Fuck them and the greedy banks that gave them loans.

And fuck you, too, while we're at it.

:fucku:

You're such a little pussy-bitch...

[Blackflag]

So true. And yet, that's the best you can do to put me in my place...so I'm not sure what that makes you.

In fact, you're probably getting all pissy because you're losing your house. Am I right? Admit it.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a123/Buttpuke/douchebag2.jpg

[binnie]

There is a recession coming, no doubt. How bad it will be is another matter.

The problem is that this thing will snowball. The banking crisis in the US has already had knock-on effects in the UK and who knows where it could go from there.

I wouldn't wish negative equity on any home owner. Whilst it is very difficult to get on the housing market here (I should know, I still haven't managed it yet) I won't wish bad luck on anyone. Over-lending just plays into people's greed, and a lot of people are two stupid to realize that borrowing five times your annual income will make you a life-long slave to the interest rate.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Blackflag
These are people who were stupid enough to get variable rate loans and greedy enough to borrow more than they should have.

It's not for the government to reward irresponsible behavior. In fact, it's not the "government" who would help them: you're asking that responsible taxpayers pay for the irresponsible taxpayers.

Fuck them and the greedy banks that gave them loans.

And fuck you, too, while we're at it.

:fucku:

So it's alright for Bear Stearns to get bailed out and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to absorb 400 to 500 billion of the bad loans that the companies underwrote?

You're right fuck the people......Save the Big Corporations.....

Oh, wait...you're all about fuck everyone.....

You're such a stoopid fucking tool!

Ignorant fucks like you keep The Corporate Machine Lubed, must of got your opinion Spoon-Fed to ya, there spankie!

[Blackflag]

That's what Lounge likes to call a "strawman argument." Defend giving irresponsible borrowers assistance from responsible taxpayers - if you can.

But even you want to drag the banks into it - what did I say? Fuck them, too.

The free market punishes irresponsible behavior by all players. If you're going to reward it, and say there are no adverse repercussions to your actions - I wonder what that will do to the market?

Oh yeah...and fuck off. :fucku:

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Blackflag
That's what Lounge likes to call a "strawman argument." Defend giving irresponsible borrowers assistance from responsible taxpayers - if you can.

But even you want to drag the banks into it - what did I say? Fuck them, too.

The free market punishes irresponsible behavior by all players. If you're going to reward it, and say there are no adverse repercussions to your actions - I wonder what that will do to the market?

Oh yeah...and fuck off. :fucku:

Straw man argument? Read the other posts, asshole...I'm as pissed as anyone that they bailed out the Big Corps..

Since they have and will do so again, why not help the taxpayers too, it‘s their money bailing out the Big Corps.

Oh yeah, your solution fuck everyone. That makes sense!!

But then again all you ever post is bile..... Pick one thing out of a thread and spit your rhetoric.

Why not bring something to the table…..Doesn’t it get old posting your hate and anger or is it therapeutic?

God, it’s boring even replying to you.

You're a fucking Cliché..

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag


It's not for the government to reward irresponsible behavior.

Unless, of course you're Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater, or The Pentagon....


It's no coincidence these types of things happen under REPUBLICAN adminstrations.

Deregulation of industries that can take advantage of the system, and thus consumers, and adversely affect the economy on this scale should not be tolerated.

In this country, we protect the citizens from themselves every fucking day.

We don't have a true "Free Market" system, so dont pretend we do.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by kwame k
Straw man argument? Read the other posts, asshole...I'm as pissed as anyone that they bailed out the Big Corps..

Since they have and will do so again, why not help the taxpayers too, it‘s their money bailing out the Big Corps.

Oh yeah, your solution fuck everyone. That makes sense!!

But then again all you ever post is bile..... Pick one thing out of a thread and spit your rhetoric.

Why not bring something to the table…..Doesn’t it get old posting your hate and anger or is it therapeutic?

God, it’s boring even replying to you.

You're a fucking Cliché..

That's his shtick....

EVERYONE in here is a fucking dolt, and doesnt understand anything....

HE knows everything, yet never submits what his solution[s] would be...

Only that everyone else is wrong.

:rolleyes:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

EVERYONE in here is a fucking dolt, and doesnt understand anything....

HE knows everything, yet never submits what his solution[s] would be...



It's not just everyone "in here"...it's everyone - period. So don't take it so personally. :)

With regard to this situation, I wish I could propose some complicated, elegant solution...but the solution here is simple - fuck everybody. Fuck Bear Stearns, fuck countrywide, fuck the borrowers. Let the markets take its medicine, and let's move on.

Do you honestly disagree with that, Lounge?


Originally posted by LoungeMachine

Unless, of course you're Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater, or The Pentagon....

Another strawman. You know that has fuck all to do with the mortgage issue.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Blackflag
It's not just everyone "in here"...it's everyone - period. So don't take it so personally. :)

With regard to this situation, I wish I could propose some complicated, elegant solution...but the solution here is simple - fuck everybody. Fuck Bear Stearns, fuck countrywide, fuck the borrowers. Let the markets take its medicine, and let's move on.

Do you honestly disagree with that, Lounge?



Another strawman. You know that has fuck all to do with the mortgage issue.

:sleepy:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by kwame k
I'm as pissed as anyone that they bailed out the Big Corps..

Since they have and will do so again, why not help the taxpayers too,

So your argument is: I've been fucked out of $10 to give to an irresponsible company...so I should demand I get fucked out of another $20 to give to an irresponsible individual, too.

That makes sense. What are you, Rainman? It has to be even, even if it means getting fucked twice?

:fu:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
So true. And yet, that's the best you can do to put me in my place...so I'm not sure what that makes you.

In fact, you're probably getting all pissy because you're losing your house. Am I right? Admit it.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a123/Buttpuke/douchebag2.jpg

Um no, I'm not losing my house. And I don't need to "put you in your place" as you never left it: How is Self-Nullifying, Ignorant Asshole Land™ LLC , anyways?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/funny-5.jpg

P.S.: You can stop being such a little confrontational poll-smoker now, Pugsley.

As usual, you add nothing to the conversation...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

P.S.: You can stop being such a little confrontational poll-smoker now, Pugsley.


I think you meant "pole," unless you're talking about rolling papers, or something.

But come on man...enough with making fun of retards. You're better than that. I'm an asshole by choice, but a retarded kid doesn't have a choice. What is wrong with you?

:mad2:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
That's what Lounge likes to call a "strawman argument." Defend giving irresponsible borrowers assistance from responsible taxpayers - if you can....

Orelly? Who knew my little super-fucking-genius. The problem with your typical hardline, internally inconsistent bullshit spew is that the gov't has been busy bailing out large financial institutions with tax payer money, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/business/main3991713.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3991713) while they piss down the backs of everyday Joe struggling to keep in the middle class amongst stagnant wages THAT EFFECTIVELY HAVE NOT GONE UP DESPITE INCREASING, and often RECORD CORPORATE PROFIT$ $INCE 1979!!

Such a paradigm is not sustainable...

For many of those people nearing retirement, that equity was all they had. Soon they'll be a drain on public resources and still not contribute to our economy of consumption by purchasing goods and services from the companies that in many cases outsources their jobs...

Thanks for the weak McCain talking points that effectively mirrors this typical double standard though. Or were those Herbert Hoover's talking points..

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
I think you meant "pole," unless you're talking about rolling papers, or something.

Oh, you really got me with that one. Was that a bonus pot joke thrown in? Kudos! Should I point out the numerous errors in your inane dribble?


But come on man...enough with making fun of retards. You're better than that. I'm an asshole by choice, but a retarded kid doesn't have a choice. What is wrong with you?

:mad2:

LOL Is fucking douche bag that thinks it's funny that people get thrown out of their houses lecturing me now?

Go fuck a duck...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Orelly? Who knew my little super-fucking-genius. The problem with your typical hardline, internally inconsistent bullshit spew is that the gov't has been busy bailing out large financial institutions with tax payer money, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/business/main3991713.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3991713) while they piss down the backs of everyday Joe struggling to keep in the middle class amongst stagnant wages THAT EFFECTIVELY HAVE NOT GONE UP DESPITE INCREASING, and often RECORD CORPORATE PROFIT$ $INCE 1979!!

Such a paradigm is not sustainable...

For many of those people nearing retirement, that equity was all they had. Soon they'll be a drain on public resources and still not contribute to our economy of consumption by purchasing goods and services from the companies that in many cases outsources their jobs...

Thanks for the weak McCain talking points that effectively mirrors this typical double standard though. Or were those Herbert Hoover's talking points..

I don't understand the lack of reading comprehension.

I agree with everything you've said here. I've said as much. It's not the government's business.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


LOL Is fucking douche bag that thinks it's funny that people get thrown out of their houses lecturing me now?



When did I say it was funny?

I don't think it's funny, I think it's sad and pathetic. But don't expect me to pay for it.

I'm an asshole, you're an asshole, these homeowners are assholes... but is a retarded kid an asshole?

Find something new to laugh about, you repugnant pile of shit.

[Nickdfresh]

You're not smart enough to agree, but your the typical loudmouth jackoff that has no clue of what, nor to what extent, your gov't actually enables. Then you blame the little guy for being "irresponsible." The truth is that some of those people could refinance that mortgages if they didn't have the sub-prime lender shit allowed in their mortgages...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're not smart enough to agree, but your the typical loudmouth jackoff that has no clue of what, nor to what extent, your gov't actually enables. Then you blame the little guy for being "irresponsible." The truth is that some of those people could refinance that mortgages if they didn't have the sub-prime lender shit allowed in their mortgages...

You're right. They have no responsibility here. It's not their fault they borrowed too much, borrowed at unfavorable rates, or got variable rate loans. Individuals shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

In fact, I think we need new regulations in place. We should make it law that anytime somebody gets a loan, they have to take a government employee with them to make sure they don't do anything stupid. We should also make a new government agency to go around and make sure people don't run with scissors.

Typical irrsponsible, welfare 'it's not my fault!' mentality.

[Nickdfresh]

The real question is not having less gov't, it's about having more gov't regulation in these areas to prevent "housing bubbles" to begin with...

(aside: Jesus Christ, it took me no less that 10 minutes to get that posted.) :rolleyes:

This board may be on the verge of a complete breakdown/crash...

[thome]

I blame Bush Co. only he has the power and foresight to instigate a recession.

Not this Burankee chump.

Pussy MF couldn't engineer SH!T!

It isn't easy, but it can be done hopefully, how much of a recession is determined by the growth that needs to be temporarily halted... YOU STUPID CANDY ASSED RETARDED ONE DIMENSIONAL PUSSIES!

EAT IT UP ,MSNBC CLONES!!

YEAH!!! THAT"S IT, GIVE NOW, FOOD FOR THE DEAF!



:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
You're right. They have no responsibility here. It's not their fault they borrowed too much, borrowed at unfavorable rates, or got variable rate loans. Individuals shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

In fact, I think we need new regulations in place. We should make it law that anytime somebody gets a loan, they have to take a government employee with them to make sure they don't do anything stupid. We should also make a new government agency to go around and make sure people don't run with scissors.

Typical irrsponsible, welfare 'it's not my fault!' mentality.

That's not what I am saying, nor has anyone said such a thing! And in fact, you'll perhaps draw some satisfaction that most of the lower echelon of these people have already lost their homes, effectively wiping out what little equity they had...

The point is that predatory lenders have taken advantage of people's desperation, and that this economy exposes people with fragile income-to savings-ratios. The very agreements signed did little for the people and may have been stupid for them to sign, but what the fuck have the banks gotten now? Dozens of repoed homes? How the fuck is that good for anybody when they wouldn't allow people to attempt to refinance?

When they lose their houses to the extent that it is happening, everybody loses.

And it's a big fucking difference in preventing at least some people from going into foreclosure and having desolate cityscapes with blocks of bank, or auctioneer, owned housing that will only lead to more urban blight and yes, welfare.

There are in fact many city and class action lawsuits targeting lenders that have had effectively two lending policies, one for white and the other for black. Just giving fucking tax breaks to corp's that already benefit immensely from corporate welfare isn't going to cut it..

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

The point is that predatory lenders have taken advantage of people's desperation,

Desperate? Desperate for what? To own the biggest house possible? Desperate to get an adjustable rate loan while the rates are at their lowest?

Desperation is not being able to pay your rent on time. Losing your house because your interest rate went up is not desperation - it's stupidity.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh

When they lose their houses to the extent that it is happening, everybody loses.


Agreed. The greedy lenders lose, the stupid borrowers lose. Hopefully neither will do this again in the future.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh

one for white and the other for black.


Strawman.



Let me tell you an "expose" I saw on the local news.

They had a hidden camera with some low-income lady, and she went into a BMW dealer to buy a new 5 series.

She lied about her income, got approved for a loan, and got her new car. Then she wasn't able to make the payments on it, and they were taking the car back.

The point of the story was - look at this poor lady and how they took advantage of her. Damn that mean dealership. She should get to keep the car.


And I'm thinking, "are you fucking serious?" It's her fault for getting a car she couldn't afford. I don't drive a new 5-series...but she should, even though she can't afford it?? What the fuck logic is that??

(And, of course, they seized on the fact that she was black, like that changes the logic at all.)

Fuck the BMW dealer, fuck the greedy lady.

Translates perfectly to: fuck the lender, fuck the homowner.

It's not my problem, and I don't want to pay for any of it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Desperate? Desperate for what? To own the biggest house possible? Desperate to get an adjustable rate loan while the rates are at their lowest?

...For the houses available in their area...

Yeah, they were all acting like fatcats in those inner city duplexes and 1940s vinatge homes...


Desperation is not being able to pay your rent on time. Losing your house because your interest rate went up is not desperation - it's stupidity.

Oh, like they were supposed to have envisioned all of that during the good times...


Agreed. The greedy lenders lose, the stupid borrowers lose. Hopefully neither will do this again in the future.

We won't have either...


Strawman.


Callous dummy!



Let me tell you an "expose" I saw on the local news.

They had a hidden camera with some low-income lady, and she went into a BMW dealer to buy a new 5 series.

She lied about her income, got approved for a loan, and got her new car. Then she wasn't able to make the payments on it, and they were taking the car back.

Oh! Well lets just round the poor up and throw them in murder showers because one fucking lady committed fraud (and I have news for ya,' a lot of dealerships will look the other way because they just want the car sold)...

Strawman indeed...


The point of the story was - look at this poor lady and how they took advantage of her. Damn that mean dealership. She should get to keep the car.

Yeah, that's right! Fuck those low class hoes that might have been able to refinance if the banks were such fucking pricks...



And I'm thinking, "are you fucking serious?" It's her fault for getting a car she couldn't afford. I don't drive a new 5-series...but she should, even though she can't afford it?? What the fuck logic is that??

Where the fuck are you coming with this?

The banks would verify income on a housing loan, unlike some dealerships. And many of these people lost their jobs in the shitty performing economy...


(And, of course, they seized on the fact that she was black, like that changes the logic at all.)

Fuck the BMW dealer, fuck the greedy lady.

WTF does that have to do with "subprime?" She committed fraud. But I guess for a man-cunt like yourself, you need to criminalize all of the working class so you can justify it when they get shit on....

It's like someone saying, "did I tell you I knew this girl that looked hot in a miniskirt. And some guy raped her. What a whore for showing that leg!"


Translates perfectly to: fuck the lender, fuck the homowner.

It's not my problem, and I don't want to pay for any of it.

But the only ones really getting fucked are pretty much the (ex)"homowners"...

And you will pay for it, one way or another...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Oh! Well lets just round the poor up and throw them in murder showers because one fucking lady committed fraud

Yeah, that's right! Fuck those low class hoes that might have been able to refinance if the banks were such fucking pricks...


Uh...yeah. That's a good argument. Let's murder them. (?)

We don't have to "murder" them. (?) But we don't have to pay for their stupidity, either.

Moreover, nothing prevented these stupid assholes from refinancing.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh

The banks would verify income on a housing loan, unlike some dealerships. And many of these people lost their jobs in the shitty performing economy...


It looks like it's you who doesn't understand the situation. The same criticisms are being made of the mortgage lenders: either 1) allowed income "as stated," and not verified or 2) allowed stupidly low income to debt ratios.

Shouldn't you factor in the possibility of losing your job? Not really unforeseeable, is it? Or should the taxpayers just pay off somebody's mortgage anytime he loses their job now?





Originally posted by Nickdfresh

And you will pay for it, one way or another...

Oh, I know I will. My tax dollars will go to both the banks and the "homeowners." Because we live in a welfare state where nobody takes responsibility for their actions. But don't expect me to smile while I'm being fucked.




By the way... I remember a long time ago, the first time I bought a house.

I remember being paranoid, and thinking I was going to get fucked and lose my money... and I read all the fine print, and got all my questions answered, and got offers from a few different banks...

And at the end of the day, I realized that I way underestimated how much I could afford. I was way too cautious.


And that's exactly how it should be. I don't need the government to make me be responsible. I don't need them to tell me not to send money to Nigerians, either. The day I need the incompetent federal government to look out for my wellbeing, just shoot me.

p.s. You're a douche.


:alien:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Uh...yeah. That's a good argument. Let's murder them. (?)

We don't have to "murder" them. (?) But we don't have to pay for their stupidity, either.

Moreover, nothing prevented these stupid assholes from refinancing.


Refinancing? How could they when the housing values are plummeting? Which is the root cause of all this...


It looks like it's you who doesn't understand the situation. The same criticisms are being made of the mortgage lenders: either 1) allowed income "as stated," and not verified or 2) allowed stupidly low income to debt ratios.

Um, it's not that simple. Housing values have fallen, causing tides of negative equity...

It's not being contained to sub-prime loans but is spreading to middle class people that had good credit...


Shouldn't you factor in the possibility of losing your job? Not really unforeseeable, is it? Or should the taxpayers just pay off somebody's mortgage anytime he loses their job now?

Of course. But one should be able to factor in that they can weather a few months of bad times.

Apparently, the economy isn't so forgiving...



Oh, I know I will. My tax dollars will go to both the banks and the "homeowners." Because we live in a welfare state where nobody takes responsibility for their actions. But don't expect me to smile while I'm being fucked.

No one expects you smile, the welfare state in necessary, and the "welfare" going to the little people is a drop in the lakes of corporate profits that have swelled as wages remain stagnant, which of course means polarization of wealth. This is poisonous to democracy...



By the way... I remember a long time ago, the first time I bought a house.

I remember being paranoid, and thinking I was going to get fucked and lose my money... and I read all the fine print, and got all my questions answered, and got offers from a few different banks...

And at the end of the day, I realized that I way underestimated how much I could afford. I was way too cautious.


And that's exactly how it should be. I don't need the government to make me be responsible. I don't need them to tell me not to send money to Nigerians, either. The day I need the incompetent federal government to look out for my wellbeing, just shoot me.

p.s. You're a douche.


:alien:

No one is asking the Federal Gov't to "look out for you." They're just asking them to regulate lenders and enforce the basic laws...

And I hate to tell you this, but what do you think the gov't is for? What, are you going to take on corporations all by yourself?

P.S. At least I rinse a good place, enema breath...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


No one is asking the Federal Gov't to "look out for you." They're just asking them to regulate lenders and enforce the basic laws...



What law states that if you sign a contract for a variable rate loan, then get in over your head, that the taxpayers should bail you out?

And if you think "no one is asking" for government intervention, take a look at the proposals from the president and the congress.

We need more laws, more regulation, less flexibility in lending...all to protect the idiots in the world from harming themselves.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
What law states that if you sign a contract for a variable rate loan, then get in over your head, that the taxpayers should bail you out?

Who said there was a "law?" It's a periodic judgement call made when it seems to be happening to so many at once, it's threatening economic security of the nation. Which is what the gov't is to protect...


And if you think "no one is asking" for government intervention, take a look at the proposals from the president and the congress.


I don't recall saying that -- to to keep my quotes in context, pookey...

Nobody went into those mortgages thinking they gov't was going to bail them out as many people have been foreclosed on. Everyone is made aware of that consequence. The problem is that it is currently a crisis overwhelming communities and it's potentially harming the economy, so something has to be done to restore confidence...


We need more laws, more regulation, less flexibility in lending...all to protect the idiots in the world from harming themselves.

Oh, yeah. Fuck regulation. Let companies like Enron do whatever they want then...

[kwame k]

Most people are under the False impression that The Federal Reserve is a Government Entity. Guess what it is and it isn’t. There, is that clear. Maybe this will help and you can see how The Federal Reserve, Sub-Prime Meltdown, oil traded in US Currency and The Stock Market Bubble are all related.

"Dedicated to the independent study of monetary history, theory, and reform
Saturday, July 8, 2006

Is the Federal Reserve System a Governmental or a Privately controlled organization?

Students of our monetary system quickly encounter this important question, normally phrased as whether the Federal Reserve System is part of the U.S. Government or is a private organization. The importance people are placing on the answer is indicated by the over 36,000 web sites the question raises on internet search engines.
We’ll examine evidence in the Federal Reserve legislation; in how the Fed operates; from Congressional testimony; from statements from the Federal Reserve’s publications; in statements by former Chairmen of the House Banking Committee; and in official rulings by US courts, to show why we conclude that although there are some elements of ambiguity, the Federal Reserve system is essentially dominated and controlled by private financiers, not our government; and to the extent that there is ownership of it, it is entirely private. Therefore despite the ambiguity – and confusion - the Fed is more accurately seen as a private, not a governmental institution, though with substantial governmental ties.
The ambiguity arises from a combination of misleading appearances; the fact that our President appoints (with consent of the Senate) the Chairman of the Fed to four year terms, and the 5 member Board in Washington to 14 year terms; the fact that the Fed is supposed to promote governmental fiscal policy; and the fact that the system was originally set up in law by Congress in 1913 and can be altered, nationalized or even dismantled by Congress.
Most Americans understand that the Fed controls our money system, but they believe its part of our government, as would be expected of any organization holding that much power over the destiny of our country. Americans also erroneously believe the banking business consists of accepting deposits from clients and then re-loaning them to borrowers at a higher rate of interest. Though the number is definitely growing, most Americans have no idea that money (or more accurately interest bearing bank credits - purchasing media which serves as money) is created by the banking system when loans are made, through the fractional reserve provisions. This is understood by few novices, and often economists and even bankers fail to comprehend that they function as part of a money creation system, when they issue credits, and deposit them into their client’s accounts when loans are extended.
Therefore most Americans would be surprised to learn that almost all of what we use for money is not issued by our government, but by private banks. They have been “allowed” to form erroneous assumptions about our money and banking system that are far from reality and that serves to shield from closer scrutiny, whether the Fed is truly operating in the public interest or advancing more private agendas, either on purpose or by default.
Organization And Ownership:
The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size. The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend..
Thus the stories that the Federal Reserve is “owned” by foreign bankers (the Rothschild’s and other prominent banker names usually come up) are not accurate and these types of rumors have mainly served to discredit wholesome criticism of the banking system. While it is true that our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States, upon dissolution in 1811 was found to be three quarters owned by British and Dutch interests, that bank was structured simply as a private share company on the Bank of England model.* The control of the Federal Reserve System is more difficult to untangle and is not just a matter of counting shareholder votes. While foreign bankers might indirectly own shares of the regional Federal Reserve Banks through ownership of American Banking companies, such ownership would be reported to the SEC if any entity held more than 5% of the American corporation. This however does not exclude strong, potentially undue foreign influence, for example through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) as detailed below.
A “Non-Profit” Organization?
The Federal Reserve System puts itself forward as a non-profit organization that turns over its operating profits to the U.S. Treasury, after all expenses, including the 6% dividend to member banks. However this misses the point on several scores. First, the banking profits coming through the privileged money creation process mainly occurs at the member bank level of operation, and those profits are not turned over to the Treasury. That is the net earnings from the member banks seigniorage privilege are not turned over to our government but kept by the private member banks. For England this amount has been estimated at 41 Billion Pounds per year. For the US we think it’s between $100-200 billion per year; but we need to know the amount more precisely from the Fed itself.
This money creation which is put into the system when the banks extend loans, eventually becomes a source of funding when our government’s bonds are sold to the public. Here is how Wright Patman, former House Banking and Currency Committee Chairman for 16 years criticized that process:
“I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money....I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with the Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.”
We think the time has come.
Secondly, how extravagant are the FED’s operating expenses? Reputedly quite high, but in order to determine that for sure a proper audit would be necessary. Just where did the extensive real assets of the Fed come from if all the earnings are turned over to the Treasury? (Fed capital as of June 28, 2006 was $29.462 billion) Perhaps some part of it comes from member bank subscriptions to the regional Fed shares. Another question for the audit to address. (If memory serves correctly, the Fed used to turn over 90% not all, of its earnings over to the Treasury; but now its 100%.
Control:
Private ownership does not guarantee private control - they can be two different things. Although ownership of the fed is admittedly private in a restricted way, it is control which is the more important factor in regarding the Fed as private, not governmental. Remember the question is whether the control rests more in private or governmental hands, not whether it rests directly in shareholders hands.
It will be clear from the following points that the Fed is definitely not part of the US Government:
* The Fed is not organized within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of our government.
* Who pays the Fed’s bills and determines its budget? Not any part of our government. The Fed gets its funding from its own specially privileged operations. The Fed Board determines Fed budgets.
* Who monitors and oversees Fed activities? Again the Fed itself. While some important elements of proper auditing have taken place, there has not yet been a comprehensive independent audit, by the Government Accountability Office as proposed in a recent letter from Ralph Nader to new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, calling for greater monetary transparency.
* Federal Reserve Employees are not part of the US Civil Service System and are not covered by government employees’ health insurance or pension programs. Who does the hiring and firing? Except for the highly publicized Chairman and 7 member Washington Board, this is in private, unelected hands.
* Federal Reserve Banks are not listed as government organizations by the telephone companies, a small but telling fact.

Here is how the Fed describes the Control situation, in the FAQ’s on its website:
“As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."
We’d suggest the phrase “independent within the government” is much too ambiguous and has the effect of conveying great power while avoiding responsibility.
The Fed’s FAQ’s continue regarding control:
“The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.
“To ensure financial accountability, the financial statements of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors are audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the General Accounting Office, as well as the Board's Office of Inspector General, can audit Federal Reserve activities.”

We agree with Mr. Nader that it is time for the General Accountability Office to carry out this full audit of the Federal Reserve System. We take at face value the Fed’s statement that the only way for our government to exert necessary societal controls on the Fed is through legislation altering the Federal Reserve Act.

The Federal Reserve Act
Reading the Act with the question of control in mind, what one finds are primarily an enumeration and description of vast powers over our monetary system being ceded to the non - governmental Federal Reserve. Primary among these are the powers necessary to administer a fractional reserve banking system in which the creation of money - what we use for purchasing media – is in private hands.
One is struck by the general absence of governmental controls over Fed activity, and lack of requirements toward our elected representatives.
One is struck by the lack of accountability of the Fed to our governmental officials or bodies.
One is struck by the lack of any specified penalties should the system be found to not be promoting governmental public policy at all.
One is struck by the lack of formal oversight procedures to determine whether that is happening or not.
The Act requires the Chairman to appear before Congress and Congressional committees four times a year, and requires the Board to submit two written reports to Congress annually. To understand that this is not sufficient oversight, one need only read Congressman Bernie Sanders questioning of Chairman Greenspan, from the Congressman’s website. When tough questions were put to the Chairman, as Congressman Sanders did, forms of stalling non-answers came back until the announcement, “Your time is up Mr. Congressman.”
While the act specifies that the Comptroller of the Currency has the power to directly examine any member bank in the system, he is not empowered to examine Federal Reserve Regional banks – that is in the hands of the Washington Board. 14 year appointments – a one time event for them – places them outside the influence of our elected officials, in other words outside the democratic process.
Probably this “independence” was sold as a good thing! From the time of Adam Smith, there has been a growing attack against government, as being incapable of managing the monetary system. Despite the evidence that government has a far better record controlling money than private bankers have*; despite the fact that government is the only organizational form with ability to stand between the people and the “Enrons” of the world. It is time to rethink this “independence” question and examine the actual evidence, rather than to continue relying on free market ideology – really a form of elitist propaganda. It would be smarter to examine mankind’s actual experience with government controlled money systems – especially in America. For what reason did the Federal Reserve Act envision that it would be saints serving on the Fed Board?

Some Conclusions from Court Cases
Several legal proceedings further illuminate the private aspects of the Fed. This case refers to several of those cases.
1) JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.
(No. 80-5905, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT
680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002; March 2, 1982, Submitted; April 19, 1982, Decided)
[Lewis had been injured by a car owned by the San Francisco Fed and sued the US Government for damages. Note that this ruling particularly applies to the regional Federal Reserve Banks, not necessarily the Federal Reserve Board. Thus even more ambiguity!]
Excerpts from the ruling:
The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction….
"Federal agency" is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.
There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act (28 U.S.C. § 2671), but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity…. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation…, whether the government is involved in the entity's finances…. and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States… Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 [**5] 361….
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks: It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so…. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine…[Note: neither the Act, nor this court explained how that is done] the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, … a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. … Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. …The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes….The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation…. The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function….Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions…. Brink's Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F. Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. … For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court. [end of excerpts]
Is the Fed Operating in the Public Interest and Promoting Governmental Policy?
Short answer: No.
Some Details:
Macroeconomic policy goals are generally agreed to include: full employment, stable prices, satisfactory balance of payments; and sustainable economic growth.

A) The Full Employment Laws
Last April at a Levi Institute April conference (Bard College), Fed Governor Donald L. Kohn gave his luncheon talk, and nobody had a question for him (economists seem afraid of Fed officials) so I stood up and asked “Whatever happened to the Fed’s full employment directive?” (Well that got a rise out of Jamie Galbraith, who was sitting at the next table!) Gov. Kohn’s answer (paraphrasing) was “Yes we consider that, but we also consider price stability.”
Price stability is the economists mantra for tight money policies, that put a special strain on the barely employed. The important employment question especially indicates how the Fed does not implement Governmental policy. Two laws were passed by Congress on this and both are being effectively ignored by the Fed:
The 1946 Employment Act directed policy makers to pursue policies promoting full employment. This apparently was not enough. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act had to be passed in 1978 requiring monetary policymakers to pursue full employment and non-inflationary economic growth.
And what has been the result? Games are played with the unemployment statistics. Unemployment is grossly underestimated by ignoring those whose unemployment benefits have run out; by not counting those who have given up looking, or who have accepted jobs requiring only a small part of their qualifications at low wages, or who have accepted part time work in desperation. The Fed has done little or nothing to gain and publicize an accurate estimate of unemployment in America.
A case could probably be made that the Fed Board is flaunting the Humphrey-Hawkins Law.
There have been unsuccessful attempts through former Senator Mack of Florida and Congressman Saxton of New Jersey to promote legislation which would render the employment question moot, by making “price stability” the Fed’s priority. That the “full employment” language is considered an annoyance is indicative of the Fed’s political bias against middle class Americans.
Several additional societal/governmental problems with direct connection to monetary policy follow below. Taken individually, they might leave room for question, or even be characterized as “anecdotal,” Greenspan’s favorite description for inconvenient facts; but when seen in their entirety they demonstrate to reasonable minds that the Fed has not been operating in the public interest, except incidentally. The Fed has been promoting, or at least supporting plutocracy – the rule by wealth. (The connection between the Fed’s monetary policy, and governments funding abilities should be fairly clear, but just in case, we are writing a longer explanation that does connect those dots.)
When a long string of events and factors evinces a particular design or motivation behind them, we should draw the proper inference, just as the American Declaration of Independence did. In the Fed’s case we infer that a form of class warfare has been an inextricable part of its make up from its beginning. It’s not really hidden now. Billionaire speculator Warren Buffet recently remarked “If there is a class war, my class has won.” Buffet was being facetious. He would not characterize the destruction of the most vulnerable among us and their children, as “winning.” He would probably join with me in calling it cannibalism, and predicting that indigestion is sure to follow.
This warfare is not all the Fed’s fault, a large part of the warfare is inherent in the present day make up, definitions and assumptions of economics itself. But the single most decisive factor in that wealth concentrating “victory” has been the privately controlled monetary system.

B) The appalling condition of America’s crucial infrastructure
The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our infrastructure an overall “D” rating, and predicts it will fall to D- soon. They tell us it will cost $1.6 trillion to bring it up to safe levels. The education sector already receives a failing F grade! This represents an unanswerable indictment of the present monetary system as either unwilling or unable to handle these crucial pillars of our society.

C) The growing concentration of wealth
Under 1% of the population is claiming ownership to almost 50% of the wealth. This spells disaster for our democracy unless quickly corrected. Private control of the money system is the most powerful engine continuing this destructive concentration process. It has become the primary tool of class warfare. I’ve only heard from one Fed official, the President of one of the regional Federal Reserve banks, who seemed to care; but in a private conversation. Yet hearing that from her was the one human signal I’ve encountered from the Fed in all the years I’ve watched it.

D) The previous Chairman, media darling Alan Greenspan Promoted Warfare and Bad Tax Cuts
Greenspan promoted the dual disasters of de-funding government through tax cuts to the super-rich, and paving the road to war in Iraq. Who can defend these “errors?” In effect they became “Fed policy” for our country.

E) Health care and education
Some figures say 45 million of us are without health insurance. Other estimates place it much higher. Then there are all those who think they are insured, but will find out otherwise when a health problem does strike. Regarding education, just the physical plant is graded F (failing) by our engineers. Is that American public policy? Or is it a financial system gone amuk?

F) The Real Estate Bubble
This is a double negative for the Fed. Counter to their professed price stability goal, they created massive inflation in housing costs, since about 70% of all Fed money creation goes into real estate loans. Then they look at soaring house prices and say “Aren’t we wise – the collateral we loaned on is worth much more than we allowed” – instead of saying “look at what our loans are doing to the real estate market – putting it further out of reach for too many.”

G) Stock market bubbles
Past pandering of Greenspan’s Fed to the financial sectors led to stock market bubbles, still being unwound. Exclamations of “irrational exuberance” was just talk, when he had the power to act on margin requirements, for example, but did nothing.

H) Attempts to Remove the Estate Tax on the Super Wealthy
Predictably, we heard nothing from Fed officials on why this would be one of the worst fiscal acts to take against America.

I) Worker Earnings Dropping since 1973
Since when is it U.S. public policy to pressurize workers incomes? In effect the Fed has placed the working sector into a form of deflation, while at the same time running a grand inflation in property values.

J) Child mortality
Believe it or not, the U.S. ties for the worst ranking among all “developed” nations, by recent U.N. Figures.

K) And We Haven’t Looked at New Orleans Yet
Instead of our government being able to spend the $12 billion to repair levees and protect a key port city, we’re going to spend at least $400 billion to repair the damage. This too should be laid at the Fed’s doorstep, including the thousands of unnecessary deaths of our people. The Fed facilitated that well publicized maniac who wants to make our government small enough so that he can drown it in a bathtub.

L) Nuclear Weapons face off
We continue to be in an ever more dangerous face off with the Russians involving potentially thousands of nuclear detonations on our land. Just a few of these would end our civilization. When one examines the control of the monetary system, it’s not just about money. It is about the mis-direction of humanity. Money plays such a large role in that process that this nuclear stalemate too must be laid in part at the Feds door. Not entirely, because the Soviet Union had a hand in it too.

M) The Balance of Payments Fiasco
Shipping American jobs overseas has led to an imbalance of payments that has benefited financiers, but devastated working people. Where has the Fed ever issued a warning about this process?

N) And Now the Inflation
These misdirected monetary policies are finally taking a toll on inflation. The CRB Price Index has reached 409 decisively surpassing its former all time high of 338 reached in 1980, a year of surging metals prices, and a 20% prime rate! But with much of the work force experiencing deflation in their earnings, it is a nightmare that they are now facing real inflation in their daily expenditures, for example for fuel and electricity.
O) More to come!
P) etc
Q) etc
R) etc

Foreign Influence Through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
We’ll examine this important question in a continuation of the discussion in the coming weeks.

The Effect of Ambiguity
Ambiguity of control has resulted in the monetary power being misused. It has allowed great power to be wielded without responsibility. No amount of false PR will change that.

Conclusions and Solution:
The money power vested in Congress by the Constitution has been improperly delegated to private interests without sufficient public interest benefit, if any. Congress must resume the power vested in it. Had such delegation of power been shown to work in the public interest, one could consider maintaining or adjusting the present system. But look what it has done. This calls for a major shifting of how our money system operates and is controlled. Anything less, with minor benefits that merely alleviate the problems temporarily, will allow the destructive process to eventually resume.
The ambiguity must cease.
The American Monetary Institute has been working on comprehensive legislation called The American Monetary Act, to remedy this problem at its root, summarized in our brief statement, The Need for Monetary Reform and presented in full at our web site http://www.monetary.org
This Act puts into legal terminology the reform proposal put forward in Chapter 24 of The Lost Science of Money (a copy is in your Washington office). Chapters 1 thru 23 give the historical background and case studies on which the reforms are based.
We realize that this Act has its best chance of passage under emergency conditions. The idea is to have it ready and to inform enough citizens and lawmakers around the country about it.
At the same time, it is necessary to begin action now and there is a “small step” called the Monetary Transparency Act, attached below. It starts the process of making the Fed more accountable to the Congress, by requiring the compilation of certain statistics which are otherwise difficult to get. These are numbers which almost automatically point the way toward better public policy decisions.
Please be assured of our desire to provide whatever assistance we can in helping create a monetary system for America that is in harmony with our best possibilities as a nation. That’s an explicit part of our 501c3 mission statement.
Sincerely,
Stephen Zarlenga
http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who said there was a "law?"

"They're just asking them to regulate lenders and enforce the basic laws..."



Originally posted by Nickdfresh

I don't recall saying that -- to to keep my quotes in context, pookey...


"No one is asking the Federal Gov't to "look out for you." "


Originally posted by Nickdfresh

The problem is that it is currently a crisis overwhelming communities and it's potentially harming the economy, so something has to be done to restore confidence...


What communities are being "overwhelmed?" Bear Stearns and Countrywide are being overwhelmed. That's what they're worried about.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Oh, yeah. Fuck regulation. Let companies like Enron do whatever they want then...

Another strawman. I think you know how well your argument is going when you have to keep relying on these strawman arguments and the moronic "pookie" comments.

This has nothing to do with Enron. You don't even understand Enron well enough to comment on it. There were laws in place. Enron paid, those responible paid and went to jail. Putting regulation on top of law on top of regulation would not have prevented Enron.

And there are currently laws regulating lenders. What is your point? You still have given no good reason why responsible taxpayers should have to compensate ireesponsible people for their bad decisions. You still haven't said what the effect will be on the market for the government saying that they'll compensate irresponsible people who make bad decisions.

But throw out another strawman, pookie. That's impressive.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
[B



There were laws in place. Enron paid, those responible paid and went to jail. . [/B]

Bullshit.

And even if they had, no government imposed "fine' would have come close to paying back those who LOST THEIR LIFE SAVINGS due to the THEFT and FRAUD commited at ENDRUN

http://www.enronmovie.com/

GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS keep us from being poisoned by industries....

They keep our food safe...

They SHOULD keep our ports safe [another thread for another time]

When you hear GOVERNMENTAL anything, think WE THE PEOPLE.

Not some idiotic beureaucrat. [sp?]

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Bullshit.


Don't be so easily distracted by shiny objects, "pookie." Irrelevant to this thread - start a new thread on Enron, if you like.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
"They're just asking them to regulate lenders and enforce the basic laws..."

"No one is asking the Federal Gov't to "look out for you." "


Enforcing laws on the books and preventing the wholesale rollback and deregulation that the Bush Admin has allowed are two different things, pookey.

Again, you're projecting your semantic dullness here...



What communities are being "overwhelmed?" Bear Stearns and Countrywide are being overwhelmed. That's what they're worried about.

Baltimore, MD, Cleveland, OH, and Buffalo, NY just to name three...

These foreclosures can add to the already ever present urban blight and it effects more than just the families turned out...



Another strawman. I think you know how well your argument is going when you have to keep relying on these strawman arguments and the moronic "pookie" comments.

Asshole that posts gay, almost teen-girl-level smilies while making supposed political rants says what?

Feel free to look up what an actual "strawman argument" is.


This has nothing to do with Enron. You don't even understand Enron well enough to comment on it.

I didn't say they were the same issue. They are related as they are seperate symptoms of what is the same problem, lack of monitoring.


There were laws in place. Enron paid, those responible paid and went to jail. Putting regulation on top of law on top of regulation would not have prevented Enron.

There was no one watching them and the Bush admin has castrated a whole host of corporate governance legislation and agencies from the EPA to the FTC.

Read a newspaper once in a while and stop masking your opinion as fact...


And there are currently laws regulating lenders. What is your point? You still have given no good reason why responsible taxpayers should have to compensate ireesponsible people for their bad decisions. You still haven't said what the effect will be on the market for the government saying that they'll compensate irresponsible people who make bad decisions.

But throw out another strawman, pookie. That's impressive.

I never said there weren't "laws." But a lot of the law has to do with the emphasis on enforcing it...

And of course I haven't said what the "effect on the market" will be, since the gov't hasn't done shit thus far except to bail out some "ireesponsible" lenders...

For instance, is a hypothetical, temporary moratorium on foreclosures really gonna cost us anything?

Or allowing people to refinance according to the values of their houses necessarily gonna cost anything? Especially when taxpayers have bailed out the lenders already...

Nothing in the following article sounds outrageous to me:


April 9, 2008
White House Offers New Housing Plan
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration on Wednesday proposed a new effort to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure by loosening the eligibility criteria for new mortgages insured by the federal government. The program seemed designed, at least in part, to pre-empt legislation sought by Congressional Democrats for a much broader expansion of federally insured loans.

The commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, Brian D. Montgomery, announced the new proposal at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. He said the expansion of an existing loan insurance program, called FHA Secure, would help as many as 100,000 additional homeowners by the end of 2008.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the financial services committee, has put forward a more expansive plan that he has said could help as many as 1.5 million troubled borrowers.

Both the plan sought by Democrats and the administration’s plan seek to stabilize the battered housing market by allowing homeowners, many of whom owe more than their homes are now worth, to refinance expensive, adjustable rate mortgages with a more stable and affordable 30-year loan backed by the federal government.

In his testimony, Mr. Montgomery said the housing agency would relax its underwriting rules to allow borrowers who have had up to two late mortgage payments within the last year qualify for a new federally insured loan, at the traditional maximum of 97 percent of the home’s current value. Mr. Montgomery said that applicants with three months of delinquency on their current mortgage would potentially qualify for a loan of up to 90 percent of their home’s value.

Borrowers with F.H.A.-backed loans must also pay insurance premiums to protect the government and taxpayers in the event of defaults. Mr. Montgomery said that the administration plans to change its insurance fees, now charged at a flat rate, to allow more flexible pricing and more expensive premiums for borrowers whose credit scores and other financial history identifies them as a greater risk.

Mr. Montgomery said the administration’s plan “is appropriately tailored to reach homeowners who have demonstrated their commitment to making on-time payments, even during times of financial distress.” He said that the administration would encourage lenders to voluntarily reduce the principal balances of troubled mortgages, a step that would make it easier for owners to refinance. And he said that the administration would allow lenders to maintain a secondary lien on the property, entitling them to a share of future profits should home prices rise.

But Mr. Montgomery criticized the proposal by House Democrats to require such write-downs for homeowners to access the new federally insured loans. “The mandatory write-downs,” he said, “would severely restrict the number of lenders and borrowers who would participate.”

Mr. Frank, who opened Wednesday’s proceedings sarcastically noting the “coincidence” between his hearing and the administration’s announcement, immediately sought to use the new proposal to blunt criticism from Congressional Republicans who just moments earlier had argued against additional government help for troubled borrowers.

The opening statements by lawmakers, as well as the testimony and questioning of witnesses, underscored the philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats over how to best address the problems in the mortgage and housing markets.

President Bush and other Republicans have urged restraint, saying that government intervention in the markets could cause more harm than good, and they say that taxpayer money should not be put at risk for any programs that could simply provide a bailout to irresponsible or speculative borrowers and reckless lenders. Generally speaking, the Republicans also believe that market forces have a better chance of setting things right than any government program.

Mr. Frank and other Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, have urged more aggressive help for homeowners, suggesting that the wider economy faces even more serious damage if a wave of foreclosures were to occur as some experts are predicting later this year.

Mr. Montgomery, in his testimony, stressed the administration’s aversion to any sort of bailout for speculators. “I want to emphasize that we believe that it is critically important to focus on those homeowners who are working hard to fulfill their obligations,” he said.

Mr. Frank, too, has sought to focus government assistance by making his proposal available only to homeowners seeking to remain in their primary residence.


NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/washington/09cnd-housing.html?hp)

And BTW, the gov't actually took over homeloans and became the lender during The Great Depression, something that actually turned a modest profit while preventing a total loss of the middle class...

[kwame k]

The reality is the Government is bailing out the Banks and Wall Street. More to the point, they are allowing the Government to increase our National Debt to payoff these failed business ventures.

I agree that some people got greedy and mortgaged their homes way beyond their ability to pay. ARM Mortgages used to qualify people for more then their Income to Debt Ratio is a significant problem. 110% loan to value, Interest only loans and Reverse Equity Loans are decimating The American Dream of Homeownership. The point is some people did not get risky loans and there is way more to the equation than that. Every Mortgage is underwritten so someone signed off on a Risky Loan. There is supposed to be Checks and Balances and Guidelines for lending practices, these practices were bent or superseded. Why not! Write Billions in bad loans and the only consequence is a Government Bail Out!

Fair Housing dictates how Property is Bought, Sold, Leased or Rented. Government controlled and regulated. How you advertise a property, who you can do business with, how you do business with them, and mandates that you have to do business with people, whether you want to sell, rent, lease or buy from certain people, based on criteria set by The Government. Why not Regulate The Federal Reserve?

Furthermore, The Government is absorbing close to 1 trillion dollars in bad debt. Unchecked by our government and unregulated by our government. No One in The Banking Industry or The Brokerage Firms who made policy is harmed by their decisions.

The housing bubble has been going on for 15+ years now. Lower interest rates mean higher home values. When the housing market was growing at a pace that had been unseen in 40 years and interest rates were at historic lows, people were not concerned about Purchase Price. The economy of the mid-90’s was rocking, in Southern Michigan. Multiple offers on a property, more qualified Buyers than Listings, and Historically Low Interest Rates, inflated Home Values. Buyers were concerned with, “How much will it cost me a month.” Some areas in Metro Detroit were appreciating at a rate of 14% yearly.
Property Values in some areas were doubling and tripling in a matter of a couple of years. Now the bubble has blown up and you can not sell your house for what you bought it for 10 years ago.

People losing their Homes around here Are Not on variable rate mortgages, they have 30 year fixed rates. Appraised Values are now depreciating at a rate that was on par with appreciation rates during the mid/late 1990’s. People can not down size or consolidate debt, when the value of their homes have dropped below what is owed on them. These are not Refinancing loans or current loans. These were not greedy people, these were people who bought Homes based on Appraised Value. When most people want to ride out the storm and wait for the economy to get better, they can not. If you were qualified based on a job you lost due to factors beyond your control, how is this the Fucking Buyers fault?
Welfare, bail out, people only wanting bigger homes and were greedy! That’s bullshit. Owning a home and providing for yourself or your family is The American Dream. Now it’s an illusion. What I see happening is we are going to a Landlord system. Home Ownership for The Middle Class is dying. 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth.

A Feudal System is not a fucking fantasy, it’s slowly becoming a reality. I’m glad there are people out there not struggling, yet.

I Thank God I’m not effected by The Recession, yet. It’s easy to have no social conscience when things are going good in your life. Fuck the Little Guy, I got mine, you were too Stupid to get yours. Well, you’re next if things keep going the way they are. Then let’s see who’s bitching about Social Inequality.

All of this shit is interconnected. Outsourcing, Corporate Greed, Stock Market/Housing Bubbles, The War, Oil, and Our Currency. Unchecked and Unregulated. I used to buy into the Republican Mentality of When Business Succeeds, Everyone Succeeds. Low Taxation for Business stimulates the economy. I fucking bought that shit Hook, Line, and Sinker……I’ve been fucking lied to and I’m pissed.

[kwame k]

Fed to auction more Treasury securities

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
Wed Apr 9, 1:23 PM ET



WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it will auction an additional $50 billion in super-safe Treasury securities to big investment firms, part of an effort to ease problems in credit markets.

The auction — the third of its kind — will be held on Thursday.

In exchange for the 28-day loan of Treasury securities, bidding firms can put up more risky investments, including certain shunned mortgage-backed securities, as collateral.

In the two auctions held so far, the Fed has provided $100 billion worth of Treasury securities to squeezed financial firms.

The auction program is intended to help financial institutions and the troubled mortgage market. The Fed said it would make as much as $200 billion worth of Treasuries available through weekly auctions.

The goal is to make investment houses more inclined to lend to each other. It also is aimed at providing relief to the distressed market for mortgage-linked securities. Questions about their value and dumping of these securities have driven up mortgage rates, aggravating the housing crisis.

The lending program is one of many unconventional steps the Fed has taken recently to help squeezed financial companies overcome any credit crunches and prevent a meltdown of the entire financial system, which would have dire implications for the overall economy.

In the broadest use of its lending authority since the 1930s, the Fed last month agreed to temporarily let investment firms obtain emergency financing from the Fed, a privilege that previously had been granted only to commercial banks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080409/ap_on_go_ot/fed_credit_crisis;_ylt=AnbMS3kymQZWbB_nVJiSmqgNJ_w E

[Blackflag]

We can go around and around like this forever...because you're not arguing - you're just making up strawmen and bullshit that sounds good but has no basis in fact or reason. That's neither persuasive nor impressive, it's just typical internet bullshit.

So as my final point, I'll ask this:


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
the Bush admin has castrated a whole host of corporate governance legislation


Give me a specific example of a corporate governance law that the Bush administration "castrated."


:fucku2:

[kwame k]

Hey, do we just have to stay Corporate or can we go Constitutionally??

This one does both Corporate and Constitutional!!!

Remember that pesky little thing about States being able to regulate or Govern themselves?

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/31/paulsons-rescue-plan-rearranging-deck-chairs-on-the-titanic/#more-1860

[kwame k]

This nifty little handbook is to help Government Employees sort out if, in doing their jobs, they may have a conflict of interest.

"CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT



WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

As an executive branch employee, you have the opportunity to use
your talent and expertise to do work that benefits the public.
Sometimes, though, your Government work may benefit you or your
family personally, or may affect individuals or organizations that
you have some connection with outside your Government job. In
these circumstances, the public could be concerned that you will be
motivated by considerations other than your desire to do what is
best for the public as a whole."

"Of course, the public is likely to consider some circumstances more
troublesome than others. Recognizing this, Congress passed a
criminal conflict of interest law, 18 U.S.C. § 208, which prohibits
you from working on an assignment in some situations - even if you
know you can be objective and even if your supervisor wants you to
work on it. Specifically, this law says that you may not work on
an assignment that you know will affect your own financial
interests or the financial interests of your spouse or your minor
child. The prohibition also applies if you know the assignment
will affect the financial interests of your general partner, or of
an organization that you serve as an officer, director, employee,
general partner, or trustee. And it even applies when you know the
matter will affect the financial interests of someone with whom you
have an arrangement for employment, or with whom you are
negotiating for employment."
http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/pamphlets/phconflict_02.txt
You think this may apply to Bush's daddy? Know what board of directors Poppy sits on??

http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/pamphlets/phconflict_02.txt

"Some examples of war profiteering by Neocons working in or connected with the Bush administration

Donald Rumsfeld
Among holdings representing conflicts of interest that Donald Rumsfeld refused to divest himself of when he became Secretary of Defense in 2001 was $8 million to $39 million worth of stock in Gilead Sciences, a company that Rumsfeld previously chaired and which held the patent on an influenza vaccine known as Tamiflu. A Senate ethics committee tried to get Rumsfeld to comply with the rules, but he refused.

George Bush’s “War on Terror”, as well as the accompanying Iraq War, which Rumsfeld so aggressively promoted, contributed greatly to a rise in the value of Gilead stock. So did the July 2005 purchase by Rumsfeld’s Pentagon of $58 million worth of Tamiflu and the purchase of $1 billion worth of Tamiflu by the Department of Health and Human Services shortly thereafter. As a result of all these things, by the time Rumsfeld left office his millions of dollars worth of holdings in Gilead stock had increased by 807 %, providing him with a profit of millions or tens of millions of dollars.

Dick Cheney
When Dick Cheney became Vice President in 2001 he refused to let go of 189,000 shares of Halliburton stock, though he repeatedly proclaimed that he had done so.

With the onset of war in Iraq, which Cheney had lobbied for constantly for two and a half years, Halliburton received billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts. That made the Iraq War the single most profitable event in Halliburton’s history. Due largely to those no-bid contracts, the value of Halliburton stock has risen by more than 300 % during Cheney’s time in office so far.

Furthermore, Halliburton was found guilty of over-billing our government $1.5 billion, and several billions of dollars allocated to the reconstruction of Iraq went missing. Yet, no meaningful investigation has ever been conducted by the Bush administration to hold the perpetrators accountable.

James Baker III
James Baker, the man who headed George W. Bush’s theft of the 2000 election, was appointed by Bush as special envoy with respect to Iraq’s debt. That meant that Baker was responsible for persuading numerous governments to forgive Iraq’s crushing foreign debt.

At the time that Baker received this assignment he was a partner in the Carlyle Group (which also received billions of dollars as a result of the Iraq War). Though Baker never mentioned this publicly, Naomi Klein obtained a confidential memo that demonstrated a serious conflict of interest for Baker with respect to his new government assignment and his partnership in the Carlyle group. At the same time that he was supposed to be convincing governments to forgive Iraq’s debt, the Carlyle group was involved in an effort on behalf of their client, the nation of Kuwait, to collect several billion dollars in debt from Iraq.

And not only that. The memo that Klein obtained indicated that Baker played a key role in collecting the debt from Iraq. Furthermore, to secure the contract with Kuwait, the Carlyle group emphasized the influence that Baker had with the Bush administration, and required Kuwait to invest $1 billion with them.

After Klein exposed the deal in The Nation, the Carlyle Group backed out of it. But the damage was already done because they had already been successful in forcing Iraq to pay $2.59 billion to Kuwait, money that was desperately needed to ease Iraq’s humanitarian crisis and help rebuild their country. In addition, Baker was completely unsuccessful in his “efforts” to ease Iraq’s debt burden, the job that the Bush administration paid him to do.

George Schultz and the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq”
George Schultz was a former Secretary of State in the Reagan administration. In 2002 he headed the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq” at the request of the Bush administration. In that capacity he wrote editorials such as “Act Now: The danger is immediate – Saddam Hussein must be removed”, to whip up enthusiasm for the invasion of Iraq.

At the same time, though he never disclosed this to his readers, Schultz was a member of the board of directors at Bechtel, which stood to gain huge profits from a war with Iraq. And indeed, less than a month after the start of the war, Bechtel was awarded a $680 million contract for the reconstruction of Iraq. They ended up making $2.3 billion on Iraq reconstruction, even though they never came close to finishing the job they were hired to do.

Also of note is that Lockheed Martin was intimately involved in creating and running the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. And they too made huge profits on the Iraq War.

Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor for the Nixon administration, was probably more intimately involved with the Bush administration than any other outside advisor, meeting regularly with both Bush and Cheney.

After September 11, 2001, Bush picked him to head the 9-11 Commission, to investigate the circumstances of the 9-11 attacks on our country. When the families of 9-11 victims asked Kissinger to produce a list of his corporate clients, in order to ascertain if he had conflicts of interest with respect to his new position, he refused. Rather than produce the list he stepped down as the chair of the Commission, though Bush did not ask him to step down or to produce the list of his corporate clients.

Richard Perle
Richard Perle was tasked by Donald Rumsfeld to chair the Defense Policy Board for the Bush administration.

Two months after the 9-11 attacks Perle created a private defense and security company called Trireme Partners. He used his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board to argue for a preemptive attack on Iraq – a role that previous chairmen of the DPD had probably never done. At the same time, he used his title to solicit investments in his new company, according to an investigation by Seymour Hersh.

Perle also convinced Boeing to invest $20 million in his new company. In return, he used his influence to procure a $17 billion tanker deal for Boeing. The tanker deal itself eventually became one of the biggest scandals in Pentagon history. Donald Rumsfeld later claimed that he couldn’t recall any of the details of his role in the $17 billion contract.

Perle’s profiteering eventually caught up with him, and he was pressured into resigning as chairman of the DPD."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2841292

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
We can go around and around like this forever...because you're not arguing - you're just making up strawmen and bullshit that sounds good but has no basis in fact or reason. That's neither persuasive nor impressive, it's just typical internet bullshit.

Oh fuck you. Any opinion that you don't share is a "strawman argument." The problem here is your historical ignorance of the necessity of gov't interaction in the economy for the greater good, or your libertarian extremist views that the gov't should never, ever be used to mitigate economic disasters. One either believes that the gov't has a role in the economy or they don't, but spare your "strawman" bullshit. You've clearly shown with past statements that you have little grasp overall of economic issues (i.e your statements to the effect that American autoworkers don't make good money)..


So as my final point, I'll ask this:


Give me a specific example of a corporate governance law that the Bush administration "castrated."


:fucku2:

Here's where pertains to this issue, the Bush Admin enabling predatory lenders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502323.html

A long list of environmental regulations to placate their lobbyists, including overruling scientists with politicized pseudoscience:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/bush_record_print.asp

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/rollbacksinx.asp

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/gas_too_expensi_1.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1107/p03s01-uspo.html

Corporations:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0629-01.htm

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601024_robert_scheer_enrons_enablers/

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/helping_the_housing_bubble_alo.php

http://www.brianbeutler.com/2008/01/talk_of_the_rec/

[Blackflag]

What a surprise - more bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic. Camouflage for your ignorance.

Try to stay on topic.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
the Bush admin has castrated a whole host of corporate governance legislation

I asked for one specific corporate governance law that the "the Bush admin has castrated."

Cite the law. Put up or shut up, pooky.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Blackflag
So as my final point, I'll ask this:




Give me a specific example of a corporate governance law that the Bush administration "castrated."
:fucku2:

"Coal operators in America are literally getting away with murder, not to mention the maiming of hundreds of miners each year who fall victim to increased demands for productivity and corporate cost cutting. Over the last several years MSHA has sharply reduced the size of fines imposed for violating long-standing safety standards and has allowed hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines to go uncollected.

In addition, the Bush administration has stacked MSHA with former coal managers who have unashamedly tailored the agency’s policies to meet the profit needs of the operators. All the while the number of mine inspectors in the field has been cut, those considered too aggressive have been punished and proposals to improve mine safety have been repeatedly delayed or scuttled altogether."



"One of the rule changes MSHA imposed was to allow top MSHA officials to override local inspectors. After a major accident or death, before the local office is ready to impose fines, all materials, including inspector’s notes, are sent to MSHA headquarters for review.

MSHA inspectors were also disciplined if they were considered too aggressive in enforcing safety standards. In several documented cases, Lauriski personally had inspectors reassigned to different jobs after coal operators complained to Lauriski that they were being too tough."

"One of Lauriski’s first acts upon assuming his post at MSHA was to remove and delay proposed regulation changes affecting miners’ safety. In all, he withdrew 16 proposed regulation changes affecting miners’ safety and postponed implementation of two other regulations. These included proposals to require the distribution of additional oxygen respirators throughout the mine and better training in the use of these devices, also known as Self-Contained Self-Rescuers or SCSRs. He also scuttled proposals to lower the levels of coal dust and other airborne particles such as lead and cyanide that miners are exposed to, and to increase the number of hours for training on many more vital safety regulations.

In 11 of the 16 regulations withdrawn, MSHA gave the exact same reason: “MSHA is withdrawing this entry from the Agenda in light of resource constraints and changing safety and health regulatory priorities.” Whose “constraints” was the agency concerned with? It is obvious MSHA was speaking for the coal operators, who largely consider outlays for safety as an illegitimate tax on their bottom line. What were the “changing safety and health regulatory priorities?” MSHA was referring to the priorities of the coal operators, not the miners."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/mine-m21.shtml

[Little Texan]

The funny thing is, we had already been in a recession for 5 months when he announced that there could possibly be a recession!