The second bailout...

[TTUBatfan2008]

So Obama wants the second $350 billion bailout to be passed by Congress. I've got a problem with this. We still have no idea where the hell the first $350 billion went and I've got a feeling the same kind of thing is going to happen with the second bailout. Anyone else feel like our tax dollars are being thrown down the drain in the form of corporate welfare for irresponsible business practices that we had nothing to do with? It fucking sucks. I am still trying to understand why Obama supports it. Can someone PLEASE explain why in the hell the first bailout and now the second bailout is a good idea?

[FrenchieCat]

1. There's a 2 week waiting period......for the 2nd half (this is the same bail out)

On the issue of the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, Mr. Obama wants to subject financial institutions to greater accountability, and direct more money to help American families and businesses.

Lawmaker displayed their determination to require new conditions in a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

The House has scheduled a Thursday vote on legislation authored by Democrat Barney Frank that would mandate tighter controls on recipients of government money and require spending to reduce home mortgage foreclosures.

"Having given $350 billion to the Bush administration, I believe it is reasonable to make it now available to the Obama administration, but with much more in the way of restriction," said Barney Frank.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-13-voa76.cfm

[avaistheone1]

2. A bailout run by those got us in

Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Why rush to throw another $350 billion of taxpayer money at the Wall Street bandits and their political cronies who created the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression? And why should we taxpayers be expected to double our debt exposure when the 10 still-secret bailout contracts made in the first round are being kept from the public?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the openness and accountability that Obama promised? Why not pause for a few weeks for congressional hearings on how to spend the new money? We don't even know where the last batch went. On Monday, the Treasury Department finally agreed, only after a subpoena threat, to turn over to Sen. Carl Levin and his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations the 10 secret contracts that it had signed with top Wall Street firms in the first round of the bailout. Unfortunately, an aide to Levin was quoted in the New York Times as saying the subcommittee has no plans to make those contracts public.

That is outrageous. This is our money we're talking about. Why don't we get to read the fine print in what will end up being trillions of dollars in our future obligations? Because we are suckers, that's why, and the folks who swindled us into this disaster can

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/EDBL159HQ4.D


To give Paulsen and the banks more money when we have no idea where the first $350 billion dollars went is an outrage and totally and completely S-T-U-P-I-D.

[TTUBatfan2008]

3. The whole thing sucks...

I don't know who in their right mind would support this kind of wasteful spending. This is the type of stuff that could make the economy worse than it already is.

[avaistheone1]

4. The head of Congressional Budget Office said the bailouts could well make things worse.

Of course, Congress ignored him. Things haven't gotten better. They have gotten worse.

[avaistheone1]

5. Where Did The Bailout Billions Really Go?

CBS) When Congress passed the $700 billion dollar bailout, the whole idea was to buy failed mortgage assets.

But once the bill became law on October 3, Henry Paulson's Treasury Department moved quickly on an entirely different front: Give bailout money to select banks to help them buy competitors. It was largely under the public radar, with only anonymous government officials acknowledging the strategy, CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

During the hearing on Nov. 13, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., called it "confounding to me."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said it "breaks with congressional intent."

But CBS News has learned the banking industry was clued-in from the start.

Listen to what BB&T Bank's chief executive told analysts in a conference call shortly after the bailout passed. He's not talking about using bailout funds to help with mortgages or consumer credit - but to buy other banks.

"This is a relatively inexpensive way to raise capital for acquisition opportunities," said John Allison, CEO of BB&T.

A month later, they got $3 billion in bailout money.

Just look at all the banks we found that have gotten taxpayer bailout funds, and are gobbling up the competition:
• Bank of America received $15 billion dollars and bought Merrill Lynch, which got $10 billion even as it was up for sale.
• Morgan Stanley, the recipient of $10 billion, is buying Chinatrust Bank.
• A half dozen more - including M&T, Capitol One, U.S. Bancorp, Hampton Roads Bankshares and PNC - got bailout money and are buying other banks.

Nobody from the Treasury Department would respond to CBS News' questions. But some analysts say the idea is to strengthen the banking industry by giving strong banks the means to take over weak ones.

It's not necessarily working out that way.

Some banks judged by federal regulators as "strong," like Merrill Lynch and Provident Bancshares, are the very ones getting bought out.

And some in Congress are upset that the Treasury Secretary is hand-picking winners and losers.

In a November 14 hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said: "Hank Paulson gets to decide who lives and who dies? Who buys whom?"

Take PNC Bank and National City. Both wanted bailout money but only PNC got it: Then, it bought National City.

Rep. Kucinich is from Cleveland, where National City was based. He grilled the Treasury official in charge of the bailout, Neel Kashkari, saying in the Nov. 14 hearing: "You picked a winner, PNC, and you picked a loser, National City Bank."

Kashkari responded: "With deep respect, it is not appropriate for me to speak about an individual institution, but I can talk generally about …"

"Well, with deep respect, you know, you put 4,000 people out of work in the city of Cleveland," Kucinich said. "You're, you know … are you taking a Fifth Amendment here?"

"No, sir," Kashkari said. "I don't think it's a good use of taxpayer money to put taxpayer capital into a financial institution that's going to fail."

"Boy, you know that statement that you just made you will hear about for the rest of your career," Kucinich said.

With billions going to banks and so far not helping with the mortgage crisis, congressional leaders this week said no further bailout money will be given to Treasury without much stricter conditions.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/12/eveningnews/main4717298.shtml

[Norrin Radd]

6. kr