RandomGuy
03-20-2009, 04:46 PM
Bush's administration, in a stroke of characteristic hubris, insisted that other countries submit themselves to the IMF for audits about the openness and/or transparency of the country's banking systems, but absolutely refused to allow for the same thing to happen in the US.
That is until the IMF agreed on ONE condition.
That condition?
That it not start until the last year of the Bush presidency, AND that it not be concluded until AFTER he left the White House.
http://www.gata.org/node/6399
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/
(I can provide a few more links if needed)
All of this leaves a rather cogent question:
What would have happened had that study been done in, say, 2004-2005 and the weaknesses of our banking system been brought to light a few years earlier?
Ooops.
This one can't be blamed on any bad ol' Democrat in congress, and can arguably be chalked up to a Republican administration playing politics.
I cannot know what the Bush administration's motives were for delaying the study, and making sure that it only come out AFTER Bush was out of office, but it is probably not too hard to guess that they wanted to delay any potentially embarassing points until after the election.
Our financial future sacrificed on the altar of Republican politicking.
(original source article at the German magazine der Spiegel)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562291,00.html
For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.
I remember reading this and posting the article at one point, but now it seems to be a bit more of an important, doesn't it?
That is until the IMF agreed on ONE condition.
That condition?
That it not start until the last year of the Bush presidency, AND that it not be concluded until AFTER he left the White House.
http://www.gata.org/node/6399
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/
(I can provide a few more links if needed)
All of this leaves a rather cogent question:
What would have happened had that study been done in, say, 2004-2005 and the weaknesses of our banking system been brought to light a few years earlier?
Ooops.
This one can't be blamed on any bad ol' Democrat in congress, and can arguably be chalked up to a Republican administration playing politics.
I cannot know what the Bush administration's motives were for delaying the study, and making sure that it only come out AFTER Bush was out of office, but it is probably not too hard to guess that they wanted to delay any potentially embarassing points until after the election.
Our financial future sacrificed on the altar of Republican politicking.
(original source article at the German magazine der Spiegel)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562291,00.html
For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.
I remember reading this and posting the article at one point, but now it seems to be a bit more of an important, doesn't it?