More power for the Tax Evader!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ULTRAMAN VH
    Commando
    • May 2004
    • 1480

    More power for the Tax Evader!

    U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
    Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

    By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01



    The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

    The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

    Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

    The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

    The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

    The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

    Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

    The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

    Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.

    The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.

    "We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.

    The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.

    washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
  • sadaist
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jul 2004
    • 11625

    #2
    Crap. Nevermind. I read the thread title wrong. I was thinking in his prime he didn't need any more power but at his current age could use a little extra BOOM!

    “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

    Comment

    • hideyoursheep
      ROTH ARMY ELITE
      • Jan 2007
      • 6351

      #3
      Hahaha!

      Comment

      • ULTRAMAN VH
        Commando
        • May 2004
        • 1480

        #4
        Originally posted by sadaist
        Crap. Nevermind. I read the thread title wrong. I was thinking in his prime he didn't need any more power but at his current age could use a little extra BOOM!

        That is funny, remember he did fight recently and lost a tough one to that big cat from Russia, if I'm not mistaken. Geithner is looking for some extra boom also. This is a huge Government power grab, and the current administration is picking up where the last administration left off. I am just having trouble visualizing where the Change is. Obama is clearly seeking to continue what Bush did, spend,spend,spend and expand the governments tentacles into every facet of America's infrastucture.

        Comment

        • Nickdfresh
          SUPER MODERATOR

          • Oct 2004
          • 49136

          #5
          This "government grab" is merely an update since the laws came down and allowed Wall Street firms and banks to coalesce...

          Many investment brokerages were essentially acting as banks causing this in part...

          Comment

          • Big Train
            Full Member Status

            • Apr 2004
            • 4011

            #6
            So why not just tighten the laws back up to their previous regulation.

            Why the need for this level of power?

            I feel like your turning into an Obama apologist. Have yet to see you disagree with a single thing.

            Comment

            • Nickdfresh
              SUPER MODERATOR

              • Oct 2004
              • 49136

              #7
              Originally posted by Big Train
              So why not just tighten the laws back up to their previous regulation.

              Why the need for this level of power?
              Because we're in a severe recession with a lot of variables...

              I actually hope for broader regulatory measures, but those will come in time and will only prevent the next recession from being such a bitch. Not this one...

              I feel like your turning into an Obama apologist. Have yet to see you disagree with a single thing.
              It's not Obama, it's Geitner...and what are your solutions? He has helped to stabilize Wall Street and there are still legions on both the left and right that feel it's not enough, too much, or that we should do nothing...

              Many have a point. But I think we should nationalize some of the banks, something the administration refuses to talk about, to fix the management fundamentals and then break them up so we get rid of the "we have to save them with tons of taxpayer cash because they're too big to fail."

              And you should talk! You're the classic Republi'pologist with your tired old "it's all the liberal Democrats/fair housing/taxes..." cliches...

              Comment

              • sadaist
                TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                • Jul 2004
                • 11625

                #8
                I am not educated on what all of the regulations are that we have now and I doubt that very many people do know or understand all of them. But I agree something needs to be done. Whether it's actually enforcing what is already in place or adding new ones. I just worry every time we do anything that gives the government more power. Since the founding of the country, that's the only road we have traveled. We never seem to go the other way and reduce governments power on anything.
                “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

                Comment

                • FORD
                  ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                  • Jan 2004
                  • 58754

                  #9
                  Roll everything back to where it was before the BCE fucked it up in 1980. Tax rates for the rich, regulations on Wall Street and the media, etc.
                  Eat Us And Smile

                  Cenk For America 2024!!

                  Justice Democrats


                  "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                  Comment

                  • WACF
                    Crazy Ass Mofo
                    • Jan 2004
                    • 2920

                    #10
                    Originally posted by FORD
                    Roll everything back to where it was before the BCE fucked it up in 1980. Tax rates for the rich, regulations on Wall Street and the media, etc.

                    This is probably the best approach.

                    You basically need to reset the clock...

                    Comment

                    • Nickdfresh
                      SUPER MODERATOR

                      • Oct 2004
                      • 49136

                      #11
                      It should be said that deregulation (of the banking system and the firewall of regulations between it and Wall St.) began under Carter actually, but was accelerated by Reagan...
                      Last edited by Nickdfresh; 03-26-2009, 10:19 PM.

                      Comment

                      • Guitar Shark
                        ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                        • Jan 2004
                        • 7576

                        #12
                        Originally posted by FORD
                        Roll everything back to where it was before the BCE fucked it up in 1980. Tax rates for the rich, regulations on Wall Street and the media, etc.
                        And gas lines, and hostage crises, and double digit inflation, and...
                        oh, wait.
                        ROTH ARMY MILITIA


                        Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
                        Sharky sometimes needs things spelled out for him in explicit, specific detail. I used to think it was a lawyer thing, but over time it became more and more evident that he's merely someone's idiot twin.

                        Comment

                        • Big Train
                          Full Member Status

                          • Apr 2004
                          • 4011

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                          Because we're in a severe recession with a lot of variables...

                          I actually hope for broader regulatory measures, but those will come in time and will only prevent the next recession from being such a bitch. Not this one...

                          So, if the response is clear cut (i.e. tighter regs), why not just put the old measures back in effect immediately. WTF is so hard about that? There is no justification for an expansion of powers here, none. If it were Cheney, you'd be livid.

                          It's not Obama, it's Geitner...and what are your solutions? He has helped to stabilize Wall Street and there are still legions on both the left and right that feel it's not enough, too much, or that we should do nothing...

                          Tighten regs if he feels he needs to, get a non tax cheat in who knows what the fuck to do and let the companies fail. Some of these fucking banks are already ready to give the money back as soon as next month! This is a pure power play. Simple solutions I'd say. Ones he could make before his coffee is cold in the morning..

                          Many have a point. But I think we should nationalize some of the banks, something the administration refuses to talk about, to fix the management fundamentals and then break them up so we get rid of the "we have to save them with tons of taxpayer cash because they're too big to fail."

                          If you wanted to break them up, maybe for the consumer side. But then you have to pump up the FDIC as the smaller banks will fail at a constant rate over time. And they will just reconsolidate anyway. The business side can figure itself out as they are proving to us now. They don't need saving and never did.

                          And you should talk! You're the classic Republi'pologist with your tired old "it's all the liberal Democrats/fair housing/taxes..." cliches...
                          I'm actually an independent conservative thank you, as I have been for the last 12 years. I'm critical of the "team" a lot, don't you worry. However I do see fault with a lot of liberal think. When you only have a two party system, you are always criticizing one horse in the race. I've spoken many times on the need for more parties, or ideally, no parties, but nobody really wants to hear. None of that though has to do with you being an Obama apologist.

                          Comment

                          • Big Train
                            Full Member Status

                            • Apr 2004
                            • 4011

                            #14
                            Obama seems to be suddenly finding conservative religion. It's now let them fail.

                            That tends to happen when you get what you want in the name of crisis and the rest becomes cleanup work. Making the numbers now that he has what he wants. Add rhetorical, "but what about Bush" comment here. As long as you admit Obama is no better or different.

                            Comment

                            Working...