posted
President-elect Barack Obama held a meeting with his top economic advisors today at the Presidential transition team office in Washington D.C.
“Not only do we need to act boldly, swiftly and with sufficient magnitude to make a difference, but we also have to do things in a new way,” President-elect Obama said.
In his meeting, President-elect Obama underscored the importance of his proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to create jobs and spur the type of lasting economic change that our country needs.
President-elect Obama also noted that he is “confident” that legislation dealing with his economic plan will maintain “unprecedented transparency.”
“Not only will Congress tell exactly what’s in the bill, but we’re exploring steps, for example, like putting on a website very detailed information about what kind of projects are taking place,” President-elect Obama said... http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/we_have_to_do_things_in_a_new_way/ ---------------------------------------------------------- That's Obama's plan... Now here's Bush's results... ----------------------------------------------------------
So far, the Treasury Department has injected more than $250 billion into the U.S. financial sector.
But precious little has come back out in the form of loans that were supposed to help get the economy going again.
In the meantime, banks have been anything but shy about using billions of dollars for other purposes, many of which seem to have little to do with getting the U.S. economy rolling. Top bailout recipients have spent billions on everything from purchases of foreign companies to extravagant spa retreats and from exorbitant golden parachutes and executive pay packages to CEO use of corporate jets for private trips.
None of this should come as a surprise. The Government Accountability Office this month reported that the Bush administration had failed to prevent shenanigans or even adequately monitor what's going on.
So we did a little monitoring ourselves, with the help of BailoutSleuth.com and other Web sites. Here's what we found.
1. Millionaire players on the New York Mets and the Manchester United soccer team should be slapping high-fives over the government bailouts. The reason: The money is helping to pay their salaries. Without $45 billion in government help and a $306 billion backstop on its portfolio of rotten mortgage-backed securities, Citigroup would likely have disappeared. If so, the bank would have reneged on a $400 million, 20-year deal to name the new Mets stadium "Citi Field." Now, one New York pol quipped, "Citi-Taxpayer Field" might be a better name. And thanks to $144 billion in bailout money, AIG can make good on the $47 million it had agreed to pay for the right to plaster its logo on Manchester United soccer jerseys for the next 18 months. Glory, glory, Man United. AIG says it won't renew the contract and has eliminated other sports sponsorships.
2. Many banks are playing "Let's Make a Deal" and building empires with bailout money, instead of using it to make loans that help the economy. Shortly after PNC Financial Services got a $7.7 billion cash injection, it announced a buyout of National City. BB&T and Zions Bancorporation have said they have the urge to merge -- now that they've collectively pocketed $4.5 billion in bailout funds. Bigger banks mean less competition and higher fees for the taxpayers who helped fund these deals. And the mergers have created more banks that are "too big to fail" -- so when they come back for more money, it'll be even harder to say no. BB&T says it would buy only "problem" banks, in the spirit of the bailout program.
3. Cleveland's National City bank was run so badly that it was virtually ruined, mainly by imprudent exposure to subprime mortgages. Management's reward for creating this colossal disaster: $200 million in golden parachutes. And taxpayers will get fleeced a second time. Because of a last-minute change in tax rules, PNC Financial Services, which bought National City, will get about $725 million in income-tax credits. Those credits stem from the $19.9 billion PNC expects to lose on bad loans made by National City
4. U.S. taxpayers were told the $700 billion financial-system bailout would create jobs by helping the economy. Instead, one of the banks getting the most bailout money is plowing tens of billions of dollars into foreign companies. Bank of America, which will get $25 billion in bailout loans, recently spent about $7 billion to double its stake in state-owned China Construction Bank. B of A, whose CEO is Kenneth Lewis (pictured above), says it would've spent the money even without a cash infusion from the feds.
5. While taxpayers were still absorbing the shock of having to foot an $85 billion bill (a tab that later grew to $144 billion) to bail out American International Group, executives at the insurer headed straight for the exclusive St. Regis resort in Southern California just days after their company got the money. The $440,000 tab for their eight-day stay at the Tuscan-style resort included $150,000 for meals, $23,000 in spa charges and $7,000 for golf outings. AIG says the event was held mainly to reward performance of independent insurance agents and brokers who were not company employees.
6. Peter Kraus joined Merrill Lynch in early September to head up its strategy team. But Bank of America, bolstered by $25 billion in bailout money, won shareholder approval this month to take over Merrill. The deal will trigger a golden-parachute clause in Kraus' contract, allowing him to pocket as much as $25 million for his two months on the job, according to The Wall Street Journal.
7. Should taxpayers pay to keep executives who steered a company into a ditch? American International Group thinks so. It recently agreed to pay retention bonuses to 130 executives, including $3 million for Jay Wintrob, who heads the division that sells annuities. Last year, he earned $2.5 million in salary, bonus, stock and options. Other AIG execs will get more than $500,000, or about 200% of their salaries, to stay through 2009, according to Bloomberg. The insurer had previously promised to forgo bonus payouts as part of the bailout plan. AIG says retention bonuses are needed to keep execs from leaving while it restructures and that departures could cause the company's reinsurers to cancel contracts.
8. As millions of Americans learn what it's like to make ends meet on unemployment insurance, executives at banks getting taxpayer bailouts will continue to live the high life. Capital One Financial CEO Richard Fairbanks (pictured above) got $73.1 million in pay last year, according to The Corporate Library. That's 1,456 times the median household income of $50,233 earned by taxpayers footing the bill for Capital One's $3.55 billion federal bailout. Bank of America chief Kenneth Lewis last year took home $23 million, or 458 times the income earned by taxpayers covering his bank's $25 billion bailout. Both CEOs also make way more than the median of $8.85 million for CEOs at S&P 500 companies. Despite having to lean on taxpayers with modest incomes for help, both CEOs will likely continue to earn stratospheric pay. Neither bank has indicated it plans to cut CEO pay.
9. While hard times are forcing many Americans to stretch another year out of the family jalopy, the CEOs at banks getting bailout money will continue to ride -- and fly -- high. John Mack (pictured right), who heads Morgan Stanley, which has taken $10 billion in bailout money so far, enjoyed $356,000 worth of personal use of a corporate jet last year. JPMorgan Chase has gotten $25 billion in bailout money. Its chief, James Dimon (pictured left), took $211 million worth of use of a company jet last year. He used company cars at an estimated cost of $68,000. So far, neither company has indicated it will cut back on CEOs' personal use of corporate jets as part of its acceptance of taxpayer bailout money.
10. Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase each spent around $5 million lobbying the federal government during the first nine months of 2008. Citigroup is getting $45 billion in bailout money, while the two others are getting $25 billion each. You can expect millions of dollars of that money to be spent on wining and dining Washington lawmakers; none of the banks has indicated it plans to cut back on lobbying... http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/the-10-worst-bailout -boondoggles.aspxPosts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After much delay the United States opened its new $700 million embassy in Iraq on Monday, inaugurating the largest — and most expensive — embassy ever built.
The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.
The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.
It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.
In a ceremony Monday attended by U.S. and Iraqi officials, the U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker ushered in a "new era" for both Iraq and for the Iraqi-U.S. relationship, although critics have said that the embassy's fortress-like design and immense size show a fundamental disconnect between the U.S. and conditions on the ground in Iraq.
“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006.
"The idea of an embassy this huge, this costly, and this isolated from events taking place outside its walls is not necessarily a cause for celebration," architectural historian Jane Loeffler wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2007.
"Traditionally, at least, embassies were designed to further interaction with the community in which they were built," she wrote. “Although the U.S. Government regularly proclaims confidence in Iraq’s democratic future, the U.S. has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future. Instead, the U.S. has built a fortress capable of sustaining a massive, long-term presence in the face of continued violence.”
The inauguration of the $700 million embassy compound in the heart of the Green Zone came just days after a security agreement between Iraq and the United States took effect, replacing a U.N. mandate that gave legal authority to the U.S. and other foreign troops to operate in Iraq.
"I think we have seen a tremendous amount of progress, even since September. But the development of this new Iraq is going to be a very long time in the making, and we need to be engaged here," Crocker said.
Crocker's remarks were an indirect appeal for the U.S. to stay engaged diplomatically and politically in Iraq, regardless of the eventual withdrawal of the approximately 146,000 troops stationed here. The veteran diplomat has served before in the Middle East, where a lack of U.S. resolve in places like Lebanon 20 years ago opened that country to meddling from Iran and Syria.
U.S. diplomats and military officials moved into the embassy on Dec. 31 after spending almost six years housed in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace, which they occupied when they captured Baghdad in April 2003.
The grandiose and gaudy palace, with its gold-plated bathroom fixtures, wall paintings of Scud missiles and enormous chandeliers, served as both headquarters for occupying forces and the hub for the Green Zone — the walled-off swath of central Baghdad that was formally turned over to the Iraqi government on New Year's Day.
The palace will now seat the Iraqi government and the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who did not attend the Monday's ceremony because he was traveling in Iran.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani praised President George W. Bush and the new embassy.
"The building of this site would not be possible without the courageous decision by President Bush to liberate Iraq," said Talabani. "This building is not only a compound for the embassy but a symbol of the deep friendship between the two peoples of Iraq and America."... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.htmlPosts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Iraqi embassy shows how unsafe it is over there no matter what anyone claims. It is a damn compound...its own city that is designed to survive cut off. I would never raise a family or bring a family there like they plan on doing for workers there.
What a Fn waste of 700 million dollars. Pretty much a billion, but hey whos counting anymore? What is a billion anyway when we are printing money like no tomorrow. What is 700 million compared to the coming TRILLION
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would sday that is a 700 million dollar joke on American people and a real warning for the people of Iraq. They are looking at there future when they look at that embassy
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
WASHINGTON - Senior Bush administration officials, consulting with the Obama transition team, have prepared a plan to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package despite intense opposition in Congress, sources familiar with the discussions said.
The initiative could create an unusual political scenario straddling the Bush and Obama administrations. If Congress were to vote down the measure, either President Bush or Obama would have to exercise a veto to get the money.
Obama officials would prefer that Bush exercise any veto rather than leave the new president with the unsavory task of rebuffing his fellow Democrats in Congress to advance a widely unpopular program, sources said. The White House has declined to say publicly whether Bush would be willing to issue the veto.
"There have been discussions between the administration and the transition team on how to proceed should the president-elect determine that he would like President Bush to notify Congress on his behalf of the intent to use the remaining $350 billion so that it will be available early in the new administration," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "No final decisions have been made."
But Democratic Senate aides were notified in a meeting yesterday afternoon that the request could come as soon as this weekend and that a vote could be held as early as next week, said congressional sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made.
Under the emergency rescue legislation approved by Congress in October, the administration must inform lawmakers that it wants access to the second installment of $350 billion. Unless Congress passes a resolution rejecting the request within 15 days, the Treasury can begin to tap the funds. If Congress turns down the request, the president could veto the resolution and then the Treasury could proceed. The money would be blocked only if Congress overrides the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
A congressional source said advocates of the plan are exploring whether there are enough votes in the Senate to sustain a veto. The first $350 billion has already been committed.
"There have been discussions between the administration and the transition about how to proceed should the president-elect determine that he wants to have those funds available on January 20," said Robert Gibbs, spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. "No final decisions have been made, but we want to be ready to act if needed."
Both Bush and Obama officials say gaining access to the balance of the rescue funds is crucial to turning the economy around. Without the money, it would be nearly impossible to offer significant help for homeowners facing foreclosure, stabilize the financial system or jump-start the credit markets so more consumers and companies can get loans. The latest sign of the economy's deep malaise was new jobless figures released yesterday showing that unemployment has soared to 7.2 percent, the highest rate in 15 years. (See story on page D1.)
Even as senior Bush and Obama officials consulted about how to access the rest of the money, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled a bill on Capitol Hill aimed at forcing the Treasury to use the money in accordance with lawmakers' wishes.
Many of the measure's provisions are being coordinated with Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner, who is planning to expand the scope of the rescue program well beyond the financial system to help ordinary consumers and homeowners, as well small businesses and municipalities. Frank said in a news conference yesterday that his bill might not be needed if the Obama administration promised to abide by its principles.
"It doesn't have to be enacted. It would be helpful if it was," Frank said. "We have smart and cooperative people in this [incoming] administration, I'm willing to accept their word that they will act as if it were the law."
Limits on executive compensation Frank's bill would mandate that the Treasury allocate at least $40 billion for foreclosure prevention. Banks and other institutions that receive funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, would be required to account for the use of the money. Clear limits on executive compensation would be imposed on all firms that take federal aid, including those that already received money.
The House is expected to vote on Frank's measure on Wednesday, congressional sources said. If the measure is approved, Frank has said that some lawmakers who would otherwise vote against releasing the next round of TARP funds might be persuaded to reconsider. Without Frank's bill, House leaders are convinced that lawmakers would block release of additional funds to the Treasury, which is widely viewed by lawmakers as having rushed the bailout through Congress and then badly mismanaged the program.
For Obama, using a veto runs the risk of souring his relationship with rank-and-file lawmakers, especially if it is one of his first official acts in the White House. It carries less risk for Bush, who is leaving office in a matter of days.
But the threat of a veto could assure distressed financial markets that more help is on the way.
In September, when Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. proposed the rescue to Congress, the House at first voted down the plan. Global stock markets plummeted immediately. The initiative eventually passed both chambers and was signed into law in October.
Bush officials committed nearly all of the first half of the rescue funds on aiding the financial system and bailing out individual firms. But their programs angered lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Some were steamed that no help was forthcoming for struggling homeowners. Others said the effort failed to stimulate lending.
A majority of lawmakers in both parties are strongly resistant to giving more money to continue the program, Democratic leaders say, adding that a request from either administration is likely to be rejected, making a veto almost unavoidable... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589265Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where the hell did all the bailout money go that Bush did that had to be authorized within 48 hours or else the economy will collapse?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Where the hell did all the bailout money go that Bush did that had to be authorized within 48 hours or else the economy will collapse?
it went into the banks to replace all the money they didn't have (and never did) that they said they did...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress clears way for second half of bailout.
Senate approves infusion of bailout cash and an $825 billion stimulus bill.
Congress laid the foundation for President-elect Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan on Thursday with remarkable speed, clearing the way for a new infusion of bailout cash for the financial industry while majority Democrats proposed spending increases and tax cuts totaling a whopping $825 billion... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679801Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a way to ring the new Presidency in a serious recession with a 170 million dollar inaugration. Bunch of crybaby liberals never did shut up about the Bush inaugurations and now look. This 170 million trumps any others.
If this was a McCain inauguration that spent 170 million the people on this board would be all over him like stink on shi*.
What kind of afterparties will be going on in Washington by owners of bailed out companies?
Remember, almost 60 million people did NOT vote for Obama. Remember, the Democrats are "for the working man" oops, did I say man? I meant person to be politically correct for some of you. The Democrats are for the poor and they show it by spending like there is no tomorrow! We will spend our way out of debt America!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taxpayers it looks like cover the whole cost of it.
Why is it ok for Obama to spend 170 million on this, but when Bush spent 40 million people were demonizing him? Such a double standard from the left as usual.
The small airports in the area are turning into plane parking lots for CEOs jets! You should see some of the stuff behind this ball.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, it doesn't all come out of treasury.. alot does, but McCain would have had the same costs for security...
i don't recall people demonising Bush for inauguration costs, i recall people being upset about the vote itself...
Who pays for Obama's inauguration?
U.S. President Barack Obama's inauguration team has disclosed the names of all donors who gave over $200 towards next week's festivities.
More than 5,000 individual donors contributed up to $50,000 each to sponsor the new president's swearing-in. As in his presidential campaign, Obama banned contributions from corporations, political action committees, registered lobbyists, foreigners and registered foreign agents. Click on the column header to sort donors.
Donors to the Presidential Inaugural Committee Donors are being limited to $50,000 and include liberal activist and hedge fund billionaire George Soros, as well as entertainment industry figures such as actors Sharon Stone, Halle Berry and Jamie Foxx.
posted
Bush spent 11.5 trillion over his great legacy... if Obama goes over that, then we got problems.
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only the cost of the swearing in is billed to the government. The rest, which is almost the total, comes from various doners. That doesn't mean that the cost to the treasury is tiny, but it isn't the enormous amounts cow wants to make us believe.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama: big Wall Street bonuses 'outrageous' Wall Street firms paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses to employees in 2008
President Barack Obama believes the multi-billion dollar bonuses that Wall Street banks awarded themselves for 2008 are "outrageous", White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Thursday.
The New York comptroller reported this week that Wall Street firms paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses to employees, despite receiving multi-billion dollar payouts from the government to save them from collapse in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades.
Gibbs told a news conference that Obama had a one-word reply when he heard of the reports: "outrageous"... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28916936Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass - I 100% agree and you should send that to Obama, all the networks -cause it is sickening to even have this talk- Some defend the bonuses in support of capitalism? I am for capitlism but they failed--- And, what we have - I dont know cause in C when you fail you pay the price but now we are to bail out those that fail, harm us and then use it further for thier greed?
And, bonuses? All bonuses s/b recalled for the last 5 years and these jerks put in jail ---
Why is it that a person that robs you can get jailtime but wall street can harm miillions and expect bonuses?
Posts: 864 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that a person that robs you can get jailtime but wall street can harm miillions and expect bonuses?
that has always escaped me tm.
the SEC charged Mario Pino with issuing forged certificates in a stock, found him guilty in civil court, and he has never even been arrested, yet he printed forged documents and forged somebody's signature.
none of it makes sense. at least a bank robber goes out into public and risks their life to steal, these crooks don't seem to risk anything but losing a small part of their illegit profits, and they still get bonuses
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Makes me sick to think about it for any lenght of time.
It sounds like these guys ,ceo's think that the public treasury is there money and we a the jerk weeds that fill it up for them to use.
It will be a great day when we tell them enough and take it from them instead of caving in every time they say if you don't help us the whole world is coming to an end
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: It's getting worst than Communism! They are abusing the system!
Nah they ain't. The system has always been set up so that them that's got the gold makes the rules.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, looks like we have b: and c: covered already... b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
com·mu·nism Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\ Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- A million unemployed comedians and you are trying to be funny, have you no shame? Posts: 128 | From: Here | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another one is supposed to pass by the end of the week, $900,000,000,000 and counting projected so far... can we beak a $1,000,000,000,000? DAMMMMMN... that's alot of f'n 0's.
That was pretty funny Cj... almost made me feel sorry for them s.o.b.'s.lol
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A$15,000 tax break for home buyers was just approved... don't tell Tom Daschle
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. republican narnia The magical land where Republicans come from and hope to return too. Common features include The Cold War, but against either Nazi's or the bad guys from Rocky and Bullwinkle, a Pleasantville environment, everyone gets along and there are no minorities, and Jesus who has returned and smites the unworthy. Those lost in Republican Narnia may remain there temporarily or permanatley, it is often completly treatable.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The front page of the WSJ was pretty interesting this morning. 'Obama lays out limits on executive pay'. Sounds a lot smarter than when Bush took the ball and ran with it...
Maximum annual pay, pay to be disclosed, bonuses can be clawed back, no golden parachutes, adopting policy on luxuries... hummmm
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:'Obama lays out limits on executive pay'. Sounds a lot smarter than when Bush took the ball and ran with it...
That doesn't sound smart to me. In fact, it sounds dumb. Top executives at failed companies do NOT deserve a $500,000 per year salary and unlimited restricted stock - they deserve to be out of business and unemployed. This is what happens when the socialist government (Bush and Obama) meddles in business. A business that should have failed is kept alive with MY MONEY and failures are rewarded with a nice salary and a bunch of stock.
What would be the REAL ramifications of some of these big banks going bust? The answer is that there wouldn't be any significant ramifications. The FDIC would take control and sell the parts of the banks to other (hopefully responsible) banks. Do you really believe that these banks can't be replaced? C'mon - of course they can. Any number of regional banks that have acted responsibly could take over chunks of these big banks and they could therefore become the new big banks. The reason that hasn't happened is that the people running the Treasury Department are connected with the people running the big banks. In other words, it's just a BIG SCAM and a sweet way for all those scumbags to make (steal) a TON OF MONEY! Under the guise of a crisis, these banks will end up taking hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of OUR MONEY! They will also eliminate a lot of their competition (for pennies on the dollar) - competition who isn't too big to fail!
It's all a big scam and you are being duped!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
