Obama IS the flim-flam man.
Let's put it this way: your irresponsible cousin is going out to Las Vegas to gamble ... he has $1,000 and asks you to lend him another $9,000 so he can play with The Big Boys in Vegas. The deal he offers is that if he wins, he gets to keep ALL the winnings ... BUT if he loses, he doesn't need to pay you back the $9,000 you loaned him. Would you accept that deal and loan him the money or would you run screaming from the room?
Well, we taxpayers are going to lend the high-rollers on Wall Street the money to buy up toxic assets at inflated prices and if the value goes up, the high-rollers get to keep the profits, but if the value of the toxic assets goes down, Mr. High Roller does NOT need to pay us back.
That's what I would call FLIM-FLAM.
It's what Obama calls The Geithner Plan !
-------------------------------------------------
- rentarainbow's blog
- Login to post comments
good to see you back and unchanged.
;)
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
I'm having a hard time understanding the Geithner plan, especially after seeing what Krugman said about it and what Geithner himself said on MTP Sunday morning. It'll either work or it won't and only time will tell.
Meanwhile, the stock market seems poised for another leg down, as they say. More bad economic news and then company earnings will smack the market down hard over the next few weeks. If any company announces surprisingly good earnings, it's stock will be richly rewarded but few such examples are expected.
One thing I find shocking is the fact that Obama has now become the board of directors of General Motors and has fired its CEO. GM chief Wagoner reportedly to resign at Obama's request - MarketWatch
The CEO of a company is answerable to the stockholders and the board of directors in a free society that has an economy based on capitalism. When the government steps in and dictates who shall run a company, that government becomes authoritarian and despotic.
I understand your point about Obama firing the GM CEO ... I just wonder why only that CEO? ... why not the whole top tier of executives at every one of the corporations getting the huge bailout money? They ARE the ones responsible for the bad judgment that ran their companies into disaster.
I just don't understand the hostility toward the auto companies but not toward the financial services companies.
The Obama team had NO trouble asking the auto giants to seek concessions from the auto workers, but the Obama team seems to think contracts at the troubled financial services companies are too iron clad to ask for give-backs from the execs there.
I see Obama has hostility toward blue collar people (you know, the "bitter" people) but a desire to be cozy with the rich executives.
Obama just had a secret meeting behind closed doors at the White House with the executives of the bailed out banks and investment firms to discuss who-knows-what. http://tinyurl.com/c3snk8
It looks like Obama wants to suck up to the rich guys and push around the ordinary people.
Incidentally, the auto workers DID grant concessions, so the concept of renegotiating contracts had a precedent Obama COULD have used to reduce the salaries and bonuses of the execs at the bank and financial services giants BEFORE their companies would get any bailout money.
Obama is the worst sort: loves to hang out with the rich while kicking the average American in the teeth.
the same question I asked:
"I just want to know what possible public explanation there could be as to why the White House would push auto company CEOs around while coddling banking CEOs?"
http://tinyurl.com/dddhas
I forget where i read it this weekend but the difference between autos and the financial industry is easy. Wall Street owns DC
Not just Dodd and Barney either. They own us and the money that fuels the government. Geitthner may have come from the Fed but he is a Wall Streeter and they own him too.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
You can read about the coup d'etat here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html
I don't understand why Obama has the right to fire the CEO of GM. Has Obama decided that he is now a dictator and has this right?
... Obama "fired" him as that Obama said GM wouldn't get any more bailout money unless the GM CEO left. Obama COULD do the same to the banking and financial services giants but won't because they gave Obama tons of money.
I disagree with the title of your linked article: "Obama's bank plan could rob the taxpayer". Specifically, I disagree with the tense of the verb. Obama's plan is robbing current taxpayers and will continue to rob the their progeny in the future.
This is just quid pro quo corporate state cronyism. I suspect that CEOs thought they could get $$$ with no strings attached if they donated enough $$$ to politicians' reelection campaigns. The only good thing about this firing is that it might cause other CEOs to pause before they go oinking their way to DC to stick their snouts in the taxpayer provided trough.
http://noliinsipientiuminiuriaspati.blogspot.com/
I hope you know I didn't write the article or create the title. Yes, I agree we're already being scre____.
I don't agree there have been any warnings to the greedy Wall Street psychopaths -- in fact, I think the message they are taking away from this is that if you pay enough into Obama's coffers (and the coffers of anyone in Congress), you can get away with just about everything.
U.S. autos task force rejects GM, Chrysler plans
They are much appreciated.
Hope you're doing well. This was a good post.