Posted on 12/03/2008 6:46:00 PM PST by randita
Some people think of Hank Paulson as our Treasury Secretary. I think of him as a 19 year veteran of Wall Street banking.
At every turn of this entire bailout he has specifically advantaged banks over taxpayers, banks over industry, banks over homeowners, and banks over the future health and prosperity of this country.
Is this surprising for a banking veteran? No, not really.
But the tactics he used certainly are. Consider this: [1]
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.) said yesterday that it was Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who personally told Congressmen that there would be martial law in America if they did not pass the bailout of the banks as demanded by the Bush Administration.
On Oct. 2, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said on the House floor that "Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple of thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."
Now, Senator Inhofe, speaking on KFAQ radio station in Tulsa, has confirmed who it was that issued this threat.
The interview host Pat Campbell asked Infhofe, "Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn't do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest. Who was feeding you guys this stuff?"
Inhofe replied, "That's Henry Paulson. We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think--a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been ... the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call and I guess there's no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said, he painted this picture you just described. He said, This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced."
I want you to consider that these threats of martial law were being bandied about in the final weeks before a national election. So the implied threat was that the elections themselves could have been jeopardized as a result. This is exceptionally serious. Paulson deserves to be brought up on charges of some sort.
Even leaving aside the implied election threats, such tactics were heavy-handed and unnecessary.This level of arm-twisting speaks of a certain desperation and I think the one hundred-to-one public opposition against the bailout was the impetus for raising the rhetorical stakes to such hysterical levels.
I'm just disappointed that our representatives were swayed by an administration that has proved itself over the years to be willing to use any and all methods to achieve its political aims, including lying and violating the public trust.
Speaking of which, yesterday Bush said this [2]:
As he leaves office, Bush said he felt responsible for the economic downturn because it's occurring on his watch, but he added: "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so" before he became president.
But, of course and as always, reality is a different beast. This next bit is also from an article printed yesterday [3]:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
“Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,” California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way. In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:
- Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
- Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
- Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn’t be crippling.
- Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
- Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president’s signature.
What we are experiencing now was not some random accident. Plenty of people, myself included, could clearly see where this was all headed. But the entrenched interests, primarily bankers and their bought and paid for representatives, did not want any limits on their obscene profits and they got everything they desired.
We can draw two conclusions:
Folks, there's really no kind way to put this. Not only have we been subjected to the greatest theft of our wealth ever seen, but that looting operation is continuing today.
What can be done about a banking industry that has so thoroughly violated and abused the public trust?
Links:
[1] http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4547/61/
[2] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCYtFu7zZc-ScV1AHeaf0uG-F7GAD94QC5R80
[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/
Depraved Paulson also wanted to exempt the bailout from any judicial, legislative, and regulatory review.
All of it pinpoints Paulson's overwhelming greed to get his hands on the bailout billions. First thing he did was station his own man---Neel Kashkari---to oversee the $700B bailout. Kashkari was Paulson's henchman at Goldman, and at Treasury.
US Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) said that Congress was not told the truth about the $700 billion blank bailout. "The American people don't know how much money Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has given away to anyone. IT COULD BE TO HIS FRIENDS. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.''
GOLDMAN SACHS SCREWS US AGAIN Secy Pavelson told Congress bailout billions would be used for one purpose then the foxy, wily Pavelson changes horses in midstream and decides to use the billions for something else. Typical Wall Street chicanery. The heck with Congress enacting the bailout law for one use. Pavelson personally decides he and the G/S guys will use it for "something else."
As US citizens line up at soup kitchens and sell apples on street corners, Pavelson, Kashkari, and the G/S frat boys are cashing in bigtime......numbered offshore bank accounts, "parking" money at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street entities; wire-transfers must be going 24/7.
The late economist John Kenneth Galbraith blamed Goldman Sachs for policies causing the Great Depression of '29. In his book, The Great Crash, 1929, Galbraith, a key figure in JFK's admin, an entire chapter titled “In Goldman, Sachs, We Trust,” details the “large-scale corporate thimblerigging” that Goldman and other Wall Streeters practiced in the 1920s.
G/S frat boys at the highest levels of govt are now pulling the levers of power. Watching them operate, we know Goldman types promote their own interests relentlessly...........the rest of us be damned.
G/S insiders are pocketing as fast as they can----making motions to bail out the crooks who contributed to the economy's meltdown is part of the exercise in greed.
King George III of England thought he could get away with a lot of crap about 232 years ago. How well did that work out for him?.............Just saying.
The "America", the spirit that lived in those early colonists, is on life support. Those of us who make a stand, when standing down is no longer an option for us to consider and still feel like free men, will be portrayed to an ignorant 0bama Generation as being whackjobs.
Don't kid yourself. They can and would do it.
I have no doubt that they can and would do it. It's them getting away with it, that will be their problem. It won't be a pretty thing, but there are still patriots in this country who will do what is necessary.
“Did Ya’ Ever See A Cajun When He Really Got MAD?!”...;0)
Not sure if you’ve seen this article but I found it very interesting:
It truly is a terrible and frightening thing to behold ;)
Paulson ain't nothing but a Bully,,,All Mouth/BS!!!
75-80,000,000 gun owners Trumps Martial Law...;0)
Hell, a Cajun only uses his gun after his knife gets dull ;)
That always seemed kind of impersonal to me ;)
I agree. My husband is a lobbyist. He tells me all the perks they get is ridiculous. They really feel above all of us. I think it’s past time to send most of them packing just to get some new blood up there.
~~William Cohan, "Does Goldman Sachs Really Rule the World?" October 2008
“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”
~~President Andrew Jackson, on the 2nd National Bank
See above.
Retirement as a billionaire to one of a dozen private ranches and mansions, with private jets for commuting between them.
Not defending Paulson's actions but I don't believe he said *HE* would impose martial law.
exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.