Reply With Quote
Shouldn't be surprising. This administration has been in bed with banks and bankers, just as much or more than the last one.
Barofsky reveals lie of Obama Administration
Neil Barofsky’s new memoir Bailout, is not just a great read, it’s also a very important story about what happened after the financial crisis. Barofsky, who was the Special Inspector General for TARP, was in a vantage point to view the entirety of the Obama policy apparatus, from the use of TARP to pad bank balance sheets to Treasury’s PPIP program to the reorganization of the auto industry to the housing crisis.
Congress’s approval rating is in the toilet, and the legislature is used as a scapegoat for any number of problems. The public likes the President, broadly speaking, but thinks of Congress as immensely corrupt and inept. Barofsky’s book essentially says that the public has this story backwards – it was Treasury, he argues, who was uninterested in preserving taxpayer dollars from fraud. And it was Congress, figures like Barney Frank, Darryl Issa, Richard Shelby, and others, who were the major forces behind what little accountability there was towards the banks. Even more shockingly, Barofsky notes that actors in the Bush administration, from Hank Paulson to Neel Kashkari, were more honest and reliable than those in the Obama administration.Barofsky, a self-described Democrat, found this surprising.
Perhaps the most important revelation in the book is a meeting with Geithner that Barofsky recounts, where Geithner says that Treasury’s housing initiatives were successful, despite their inability to stem the tide of foreclosures. The programs were meant, Geithner says, to “foam the runway” for banks, spread out foreclosures since banks couldn’t take a hit all at once. The publicly stated rationale for administration housing initiatives, in other words, was simply a lie. The Obama administration didn’t try to prevent a foreclosure crisis, they just spaced it out to help the large banks. This is very important information, and it’s useful that it has come out now.
- more - >
Shouldn't be surprising. This administration has been in bed with banks and bankers, just as much or more than the last one.
Do you really think Repug Treasury under McLiar would have done anything differently?
Wall St OWNS and OPERATES the Treasury and their ATM, the Fed.
Yup...it's time to get rid of Obama. God bless
Somewhere, Chris Matthews just went from full wood to a semi.
And write in Ron Paul.... Ron bless
Waste of vote, brother. It's either mitt or Obama. God bless
Who said anything about being surprised?
Your adored, respected, venerated Wall St Banksters are giving to their 1%er gecko 5+ times more than they are giving to HUSSEIN.
Envy is one of the deadly sins, brother. And its pretty obvious you want to be apart of that 1 percent. God bless
When it comes to bankers, it doesn't matter who's the prez...
Perhaps, but that's no reason to be incurious and passive. Not ragging on you specifically, but the "why should you be surprised" response to just about any topic strikes me as incredibly lame. Which is why I guess it's the favorite of internet know-it-alls world-wide.
Did you hear, Joe's house burned down?
Why are you surprised, it's made of wood?
Ohh, off.
I'm definitely in the camp that thinks this stuff is serious and real... unfortunately, books like this guys' are, at most, hearsay, and aren't enough to jail any of these alleged crooks.
We need less books and more of these guys facing a court of law. The things is, the political system is so tilted right now towards these guys, it's just disheartening.
the old envy argument, GFY and god bless
iow, America is ed and un able.
There simply ain't no way the 99% is gonna be able to increase their wealth because the 1% is stealing so much of it, and using a tiny fraction of it to buy, via C-U, every ing politician at every level.
Well, if the 99% would stop electing people who give America's wealth away, things could change. Until then, blame the 99%.
bull . the "system" doesn't put forward (ie, support with $10Ms) candidates who put The Great American People first.
If Rove's $Bs buys the WH for Gecko, that will be proof that America is ed and irrecoverable.
So...
You are saying the 99% are too stupid to make wise choices then, right?
If Mitt invited you to the 1 percenters club you would be whistling dixie all the way to the land where money never sleeps pissing on anyone who dare mention more taxes. That's your envy. God bless
Sure. McCain probably would have kept Paulson instead of appointing Geitner who's been nothing but a wall street lap dog. McCain certainly wouldn't have appointed that incompetent buffoon Eric Holder who's done nothing but watch the statute of limitations on financial fraud expire without any notable convictions of banking executives.
RIF
I'm saying the 99% is presented with candidates that the 1% chooses and finances. eg, see how the Repugs have intimidated, targeted every moderate Repug while Kock Bros finance it all.
There were a lot of candidates in that clown car primary that were more conservative than Romney. Why didn't the Koch brothers pick them?
Paulson would have been different from Geithner? GMAFB
different yes, very probably a lot worse
Paulson was the guy whose 3-pager said
"give me $700B (a number later reported pulled out of his ass),
give it to me in 7 days max,
and put me and the $700B beyond the reach of the legislature and judicial"
... or else, Wall St crashes the economy.
Sure looks like Barofsky thinks Paulson would have been better. But what would he know about it?Paulson would have been different from Geithner? GMAFB
different yes, very probably a lot worse
Paulson was the guy whose 3-pager said
"give me $700B (a number later reported pulled out of his ass),
give it to me in 7 days max,
and put me and the $700B beyond the reach of the legislature and judicial"
... or else, Wall St crashes the economy.
And, since before the end of the last administration...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
