Yes, we call them politicians.

Liars, carpetbaggers and murderers.

And they have destroyed my country.

This is not a knock on Hank Paulson.

And that would be out of bounds?

Hank gives out 350 Billion and wants to call a Mulligan.

The whole Bush cabal should resign, Now..

OK fine,

but lets not forget, a bunch of these conmen need to be locked up before there's any hope of fixing a rigged system.

Bush? Do anything remotely competent? HA!

"You don't know me, but I have to tell you that you shouldn't be here. You should be saving your money. You should be home eating tuna fish. This financial crisis is so far from over. We are just at the end of the beginning. Please, wrap up that steak in a doggy bag and go home."

Yea! We are in a recession and you should not go out. Go home and count your pennies. Look around you. All these big businesses are failing. Have you no scruples? You should be screaming, not enjoying yourselves!

but lets not forget, a bunch of these conmen need to be locked up before there's any hope of fixing a rigged system.
#3 | Posted by nutcase

Yes, remove the former head of Goldman-Sachs and replace him with the head of the New York Federal Reserve bank and former IMF hack.

Do people actually read this shit? Do you really think anything is needed to facilitate this transition more than changing the nameplates?

A Democrat and a relative unknown outside the world of high finance, Geithner has worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. to devise responses to the most critical events of the market turmoil, including the bailouts of the investment bank Bear Stearns and the insurance giant American International Group. Like Paulson, Geithner believes that the Treasury should be given vast powers to develop experimental strategies for responding to the crisis and the flexibility to abandon them if they don't work.

Hello? This guy IS Paulson. He's in lockstep with the current treasury to financially ruin us on behalf of the banking elite. The guy has worked for the IMF. He has worked under Robert Rubin, who was the former head of Goldman Sachs. This guy is pure banking elite scum.

Is this a travesty to anyone? "Bush is wrong on the economy, yet lets nominate the perfect logical successor to the treasury department, assuming status quo is the desired result." Anyone care to address what is actually going on here? Or do we ignore reality and all past history here and put this in the evergrowing "In Obama We Trust" free pass category?

This just might be the positive part of Bush's legacy, that he had the good sense and decency to get out of the way when it was necessary.

"Hello? This guy IS Paulson. He's in lockstep with the current treasury to financially ruin us on behalf of the banking elite. The guy has worked for the IMF. He has worked under Robert Rubin, who was the former head of Goldman Sachs. This guy is pure banking elite scum.

Is this a travesty to anyone?"

Yes, to me it is. You are absolutely right. And Friedman is a worthless fucking tool.

Call him (Geithner) an, "insider" because he knows how the system works, but just because one knows how it works doesn't mean they know how to get it to work WELL-- because frankly, it CAN'T work well. These critical issues must be met on the battlefield head-on by a radical offensive-- it must be destroyed by liquidating debt, which no one on either side of the aisle is remotely prepared to do. All Geithner is is another crutch for a paralysed policy, trying to manage an wholly unmanageable system.

Ron Paul would be te best choice for SOTT because he is willing to take a radical approach-- that, is, do the SENSIBLE thing, which, believe me, is a RADICAL approach to anything in Washington.

I'm a firm believer that the dollar and ultimately, American sovereignty is being attacked by terrorists-- these terrorists do not fly airplanes into buildings-- they use numbers and careful wording as their weapons.

The dollar is being systematically attacked and will come down faster and with more of an impact than the WTCs.

Then, what will we have left to stand on? Not much, seeing that our global credibility has already been shot to pieces and our manufacturing base has caved in.

And that is where the real invasion of America will occur. It won't be with guns and marching, but rather it will come in the soft patter of accountant's fingers on keyboards, the silent distribution of phantom monies to silence the masses, the destruction of the dollar and the crowning of pure Keynesian theory-- which desires a purely centralized springboard at its heart, leading us further down the road to our special version of collectivism I would call "passive totalitarianism".

Here is my suggestion. The naked short derivative positions taken by traders against the large banks should be declared null and void as 'gambling'. The banks should be forced to pay out on policies where the underlying mortgages are owned, but 'insuance' taken out on a mortgage that you don't own is gambling. As such, I would require the banks to pay back the premium paid for the contract and simply unwind them that way. This would instantly relieve the strain on the banks balance sheets (they would not have to pay off the bad bets) and the bailout money could go to the area where it is actually needed - actual mortgages that are defaulting. I don't want my taxpayer money funding gambling debts which should have been illegal. There would be some pissed off hedge funds, but this would cost the least and restore the economy the fastest. $700B would pay off all mortgage losses even if default rates crept past 15%.

There would be some pissed off hedge funds, but this would cost the least and restore the economy the fastest. $700B would pay off all mortgage losses even if default rates crept past 15%.

The hedge funds are already buzzing like a nest of nagry hornets, but no one knows the true extent of their failure becasue they are so unregulated and kept under the radar-- but the air is certainly abuzz. Perhaps there are still a bunch that are waiting past their lock-up periods before redemption occurs. I would expect a large majority of these are going to collapse pretty soon, and all of those are those who jumped on the Hedge Fund bandwagon too late, now they'll pay the price.

The hedge funds are already buzzing like a nest of nagry hornets, but no one knows the true extent of their failure becasue they are so unregulated and kept under the radar

My point is slightly different. If the banks lost their asses writing CDS (they more or less wrote insurance policies whether the person buying it actually held the mortgage or not), then someone is "winning" while the banks are "losing". If the policies were only written for the actual holders of the mortgages, then $700B would be more than enough to pay off all defualts today and even have enough left over to pay off the defaults if they rose to 15% or more. Obviously, there is someone "winning" these bets (Michael Lewis wrote an article about one such fund a few days back). My proposal would simply stop payment on all of these bets from this point forward as they should have been illegal (unless you owned the underlying mortgage). I would require the banks to return whatever premium was paid for the insurance and then simply declare the contracts null and void.

Friedman should shut the fuck up...

If the policies were only written for the actual holders of the mortgages, then $700B would be more than enough to pay off all defualts today and even have enough left over to pay off the defaults if they rose to 15% or more.

Apparently you didn't get the memo...it's already past 3 trillion and on it's way past 7 trillion.

Real_story, fill me in here-- what would be the legal ramifications of taking such an approach?

Certainly I am one who contends that a contract is a contract and to declare certain ones null and void would set up a potential slippery-slope situation and further undermine the responsibility factor by banks to make sure that the asset and liability sides of derivatives are accurately measured to cover their own asses when they make deals, or else they are wholly responsible for being fucked.

Real_story, fill me in here-- what would be the legal ramifications of taking such an approach?

Potentially, there would be zero legal ramifications if the government concluded that the contracts were not valid. Remember, these were structured the way they were to act as insurance on the bonds but they could not use the term insurance (else they would be regulated and loss reserves required) so they called them CDS.

Just like I can not take out an insurance policy out on Obama, I should not be able to take an insurance policy out on an asset that I did not own. My plan would pay off the mortgages as they blow up (entire mortgage markets is only like $10T, so a 15% loss rate and 50% asset recovery via foreclosure would cost $750B).

My plan would immediately strengthen the balance sheets of the banks and they could continue lending. Bailing out the banks without cancelling these bets only ensures that the money we put in will be paid out to hedge funds that took the opposite side of the bet. My bet is that Paulson has friends on both sides of the transactions which is why he will not unwind them. Basically, he pays his hedge fund friends' winning bets with tax payer money while his other friends at Goldman, Citi, etc keep control of their companies and even expand through acquisitions.

Sorry Real_Story your proposition sounds reasoned but I do not want the government involved in invalidating contracts, even between two idiots that don't know any better.

Also, it might just futher the existence of the real problem and call for more government oversight and again undermine what's really needed in our financial system-- institutional and individual responsibility.

Excellent post for Iraq #7

Freidman should shut up--he must be drinking or something.

The new guy is just like the old guy.

How can we see this and not him?

The new guy is just like the old guy.

How can we see this and not him?

Because he is no different than most of the other left leaning hacks avoiding this thread like the plague. There is zero interest in what is right and what is wrong. The only important factor is "Did our guy do it, or did their guy do it?" It's a much easier question to worry about because you don't have to address actual substance (which is that you lose either way, because they both are in bed with bankers).

Furthermore, when Geithner takes the exact same approach that Paulsen took months earlier, it will be praised as wonderful and forward thinking. We will still be getting raped, except by a different rapist, and the pseudo-left will march along in lockstep.

The key to REALLY changing anything in this country is, unfortunately no longer in the democratic system, because you see a major problem coming into fruition at this very moment--that is, two majr parties-- 2 administrations, one outgoing and republican, one incoming and democrat and the focus is on making the transition as seamless as possible-- that seamless transition is truly likely because **SURPRISE** they are one in the same. Here you have Tommy Friedman actively lobbying for this blur in the transfer of power, which in essence reflects the blur we witness between the two parties themselves-- they are both interested in endless interventionism, bigger government, and perpetuating their own elitism, so they are essentially, at their core, one in the same.

Anyway, the key is to re-create the *interruption* of power as a political tool for the people to again take control of the government. You will notice that everything the govt. now does is to ensure continuity-- it has emergency contingencies for everything. The *interrpution* is the most powerful tool the people have in checking power at it comes in many forms.

Forms of interruption:

A strike or boycott that goes beyond the local level and reaches a regional or nationwide scope. This would have to involve something that would eventually effect the economy on a nationwide scale-- for instance, boycotting Starbucks will do nothing, but boycotting banks would.

An armed movement that is at least statewide. This may or may not involve secessionist tactics that are used as a tool for forced change-- NOT to form an anti-American, anti-Constitution independent splinter state.

Control of a internet-based sensible non-sensationalist media portal (i.e. a libertarian version of Drudge Report) that is careful not to give in to the familiar trappings of some "conspiracy theorist" sites. so far all those that have had a chance have either become discredited or sucked into mainstream. one that still has a chance based on subject matter and the relative low-key, non-conspiracy theorist approach is the libertarian-leaning "antiwar.com" but it has a very bad name.

Step one: Someone get that faux cowboy out of the White House FIRST.

Friedman is in full panic mode like a lot of other knuckleheads. I've got a better idea: Have Congress recess until next summer so they can't do any more harm. While they are out get rid of the energy, commerce, and education departments by executive order.

"Furthermore, when Geithner takes the exact same approach that Paulsen took months earlier, it will be praised as wonderful and forward thinking. We will still be getting raped, except by a different rapist, and the pseudo-left will march along in lockstep."

So by your logic, everyone you have ever worked with had the same fucked opinion as you?

Or is it possible that Geithner got picked for the reasons given when he was announced - he's aware of what's not working, what might, and what definitely won't. Just becase he has some work experience does not mean he thinks just like everyone he works with.

Until the O-team starts actually working, you all need to take some deep breathes and stop freaking out. I mean really, we all know Obama is just a terrorist plant anyways, so none of this will matter when he suicide bombs the f-ing White House, right?

While we get rid of shit in gov't --let's get rid of the IRS.

While we get rid of shit in gov't --let's get rid of the IRS.

#24 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-24 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

yEAH! that'll help the economy...nimrod.

Bush? Do anything remotely competent? HA!

#4 | Posted by Snark_Needleton at 2008

actually if you read something instead of playing with yourself all day you would know that the bush administration is cooperating with the transition team in UNPRECEDENTED ways

article JUST TODAY in houston chronicle talks about how the bush and obama teams are working together on the econmy but its not broadcast all over the paper like a liberal would be doing
media doesnt WANT you to be educated in this type of issue, so its not your fault

appointing him might not be a bad idea, but there is , as I said...'UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION' is the way it was put

ALSO I would think that barrys camp wouldnt WANT bush to appoint him or even help
that might limit their ability to blame all of thier bullshit on bush for the next 8 years which is their plan anyway

EXAMPLE>>..bush tax cuts for the rich that they bitched and whined and moaned about now being talked about letting them go on.........

because bush fucked up the economy so bad dont you know

because bush fucked up the economy so bad dont you know

#27 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-11-25 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

It sure was shit in the 90's wasn't it? lol