The Seven Most Disturbing Moments So Far in Barack Obama's Presidency

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:26:59 PM · by Typical_Whitey · 6 replies - townhall.com | 4/17/2012 | John Hawkins – h/t to MJ

Picking out the most disturbing moments of Barack Obama's presidency is kind of like trying to choose the wettest parts of the ocean. Other than his "Even a blind squirrel sometimes gets a nut" moment where he said "yes" when the SEALS asked if they were allowed to kill Osama Bin Laden, his entire presidency has been one long, slow motion bamboo shoot sliding under the country's fingernails. So, everyone reading will probably be able to think of a few national nightmares that aren't included.

7) Obama bows to a Saudi King: Had Obama spent his childhood entirely in the United States, he probably would have known that real Americans don't bow. Unfortunately, since that's a lesson Obama hasn't learned, Americans have had to endure their President humiliating himself and by extension, the rest of the country, by servilely bowing to foreign leaders. Perhaps the worst of these was the tyrannical, fanatical Saudi king. As Newt Gingrich has said, "I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to the Saudi king." No American President should have ever bowed to him in the first place.

6) Obama sides with a foreign leader against an American state: It's bad enough that Obama has been persecuting Arizona for enforcing illegal immigration laws when his administration won't do the job. However, in a despicable display Barack Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with Mexican President Felipe Calderon that featured both of them criticizing Arizona's immigration law. If only there had been someone there to represent America at that event.

5) Obama shoves through history's single most wasteful spending bill. The very first thing Barack Obama did after he was elected was push through the largest and most wasteful spending bill in human history. Most calculations of the cost of the bill came in somewhere between 800 billion and 1.2 trillion dollars. The whole purpose of the bill was supposed to be to create jobs and the Obama Administration claimed the bill would keep unemployment below 8%. Conservatives almost universally said the bill wouldn't work and it received no GOP votes in the House along with only 3 in the Senate (Snowe, Collins, and Specter -- before he changed parties). So, who turned out to be right about a bill that cost more than FDR’s New Deal AND the war in Vietnam combined in today's dollars? Not Obama. We've now had 38 straight months of above 8% unemployment, the longest streak since the Great Depression.

4) The manned space program comes to an end: Putting a man on the moon is one of America's greatest accomplishments and the catalyst for a wide range of scientific achievements. Under Obama, America's Space Shuttle program was ended and in a twist so bizarre you wouldn't buy it if you saw it in a movie, NASA's mission has been changed to getting children excited about math and science, expanding international relationships, and doing Muslim outreach.  As former Astronaut said yesterday, “Discovery’s Final Flight “Tugged on My Heartstrings”as it did for many people.

3) Paul Ryan alerts Tim Geithner that the economy ends in 2027: In one of the most amazing exchanges in the history of American government, after Tim Geithner presented the Obama Administration's stratospherically high long-term budget projections, Ryan showed off a chart created by the CBO estimating that America's economy will shut down in 2027 because of out-of-control government spending. In other words, in 15 years life as you know it in America is over because of the Obama Administration's spending and Obama has absolutely no intention of doing anything about it.

2) Obamacare passes: Never before in American history has one party been arrogant and paternalistic enough to push through a massive entitlement program that was wildly unpopular with the American people and had zero votes from the opposing party. If it isn't stopped, Obamacare will destroy America's health care system by dramatically driving up the cost of care, rationing care, instituting death panels, driving tens of millions of Americans off their health care policies, adding trillions to the debt, and dramatically reducing the number of doctors available to treat patients. Of course the future of medicine in this country could be worse....well, that is if any of those zombie movies turn out to be right. (Even retiring Progressive Barney Frank, who was very much part of the ObamaCare cram down, now admits it was a mistake… just not for the right reasons, but little by little everyone who understands what is in the Affordable Care Act bill and the consequences thereof realizes if it is not over turned it will be the death nail for America.)

1) America loses its AAA rating: Despite the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner assured Americans that there was "no risk" America would lose its AAA credit rating, America did indeed lose its rating for the first time since 1917 because of Barack Obama's adamant refusal to cut spending. It's worth noting that another credit rating company, Egan-Jones, downgraded the United States AGAIN just a couple of weeks ago from AA+ to AA. Unless something changes, historians will point to the Obama downgrade as the very moment when America started to come down like the Hindenburg.

Super Congress: Echoes of Tyranny Rising

And now for something completely the same… In the “those who won’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it” department, I give you a quote from the National Center for Constitutional Studies:

America’s Founders had just declared themselves free of a tyrannical government. They were determined that such tyranny would never be repeated in this land. Their new charter of government – the Constitution – carefully defined the powers delegated to government. The Founders were determined to bind down the administrators of the federal government with Constitutional chains so that abuse of power in any of its branches would be prevented. The revolutionary idea of separation of powers, although unpopular at first, became a means by which this was to be accomplished.

John Adams, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, stated: “I call you to witness that I was the first member of Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my ‘Thoughts on Government,’ …in favor of a government with three branches, and an independent judiciary…” By the time the Constitution was adopted, the idea was supported by all of the members of the Convention. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, devoted five Federalist Papers (47-51) to an explanation of how the Executive, Legislative, and judicial branches were to be wholly independent of each other, yet bound together through an intricate system of checks and balances. Madison believed that keeping the three branches separated was fundamental to the preservation of liberty. He wrote:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, reminded Americans of the need to preserve the Founders’ system. He spoke of the “love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart” and warned of the “necessity of reciprocal checks of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian … against invasions by the others.” Of such checks and balances through the separation of powers be concluded, “To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

And from Harry Truman:

There is nothing in the world except the history you do not know.

As well as, Alexis deTocqueville:

History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies.

Americans labor under a failed government and a failed economy. High unemployment, soaring debt, want, need, desperation. Deja Vu comes knocking as our politicians are locked in a battle over our debt ceiling – a battle choreographed and planned for our benefit to accomplish some nefarious end, no doubt. It is the dance of history replaying itself in the fight between freedom and tyranny.

America is bankrupt and Democrats don’t want to cut spending at all. They want to keep spending in a Cloward and Piven frenzy guaranteed to destroy America once and for all. They insist on more revenue, i.e. taxes. Taxes on a suffering American public who can shoulder the burden of taxation no longer; who cannot even feed and clothe their families adequately or scrounge together the needed funds for gas to get to and from work. Does any one else feel like we are being played by both sides? These budget deals are not surpassingly awesome.

The Republicans claim they want to Cut, Cap and Balance the budget. And while I’ll concede there are a number of brave souls who wish to do that, primarily the Tea Party candidates in the House of Representatives, the remainder for the most part in the Senate are far too weak kneed to accomplish the vital objective of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. They now claim to have a two-step plan to come to a bi-partisan agreement with the Progressives on the Left and handle the debt ceiling. But notice, this plan is not on CSPAN. You won’t see it on Fox News. It’s not out in the open. Just vague innuendos from Boehner that we aren’t there yet and that there is a two-step plan based on Cut, Cap and Balance involving a ‘committee.’ It is being cobbled together behind closed doors and in the dark of night.

I would remind people of the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany. It is eerily similar to what is happening now. In short, with the Enabling Act, the parliament granted the German government additional powers and de facto legalized Hitler’s dictatorship.

And let’s not forget the Communist Party of Soviet Russia and the Politburo.

We are in a similar position. The “Super Congress,” however, is taking the power out of the people’s hands (as delegated to their “representatives”) and placing it into the hands of a few before giving it to an authoritarian.

And there are more and more of the whispers speaking of a Super Congress. Starting Saturday evening, a story came forth from the New York Times that a Super Congress was being touted as a solution to the debt ceiling impasse. Hardly the most reliable source, nevertheless it is being repeated in the Huffington Post and has now been picked up by NewsMax. I pray this is wrong, because it is so unconstitutional as to bring fear into this American’s heart of another revolution and to reverberate the echoes of tyranny rising throughout America.

I ask our politicians, where is the transparency? Since when do Americans get locked out of seeing your ‘plans?’ Plans that will effect each and every one of us in life changing ways. Why don’t you show us what you are proposing? Sunlight is the best disinfectant – bring these talks and plans into the open for all to see.

A Super Congress is not the answer. It is a Progressive/Marxist solution to a problem of their own making and will allow an elite cabal to rule over America with a dictator at the helm. Is this what we have come to? From the Huffington Post:

This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

The article goes on to claim that John Boehner is making the Super Congress a defining point in his new proposal to raise the debt ceiling. If true, shame on him and shame on McConnell. We’ve come to expect fascist maneuvering from the Progressives on the Left, but now it would seem the Progressives on the Right are rearing their unconstitutional heads.

The Tea Party and American patriots want and demand that our leaders cut spending and not raise taxes. Do not raise the debt ceiling any more. We don’t want a Super Congress and we don’t want to be a party to your gleeful destruction of the Constitution. Stop floating these Marxist ideas or Americans will surely see you are removed from office for good. Americans will not become subservient to an elite ruling class. We will fight you, you can be sure of that.

There is a good reason that Boehner has not pressed this plan publicly. He would be ripped to shreds by Conservatives over it and he knows it. If this story is true, we are indeed in real trouble folks. Why is this story not everywhere you look? And how much power and money was promised to those that would betray the Tea Party and Americans in general? Inquiring minds really need to know.

Whether this piece of insanity comes to fruition is yet to be seen. I don’t think it will come to pass because it would mean a revolt of the people. However, I still believe there is a very strong chance that Obama will use his Executive Order power using the 14th Amendment as cover to raise the debt ceiling. Looks like this week will be one wild ride…

If this effort to create a Super Congress to distill power into the hands of the few, the elite, the select succeeds, we will indeed have tyranny rising.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Source: NoisyRoom

Cross Posted at: Ask Marion

See:  The Original Argument  -  The Federalist Papers written in modern language.  Also check out: The Road to Serfdom

Related:

We Don’t Need No Steenking Constitution

Geithner Refuses to Tell Chris Wallace What Happens If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised  -  Despite persistent questioning from Chris Wallace, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to acknowledge what his plans were just in case the debt ceiling is not raised before August 2nd. Insisting that his plan was only to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling, Geithner seemed to demonstrate just how fearful he is of what might happen by hesitating to even discuss the possibility of any contingency plan. Continuing to sound the alarm, Geithner warned Wallace, “we do not have the ability, Chris, to protect the American people from the consequences of Congress not” raising the debt ceiling. And he reiterated...

Video:  SR 19 - U.S. Debt Limit‏ 

Article - tells what opinions were given on the morning talk shows
Geithner: Obama And Boehner Still Negotiating Grand Bargain 

Video: Ex- New World Order Banker Tells It All

Correction - Senator Kyl: GOP Agrees to Up to $200B in New Revenues - NOT

Yesterday evening, Newsmax, who is usually accurate an on top of things, reported that Senator Kyl said the GOP had caved before even getting to the so-called bi-partisan meeting this morning.  Seems that is not the case~  M~

WASHINGTON - One day before a crucial U.S. budget meeting between the White House and congressional leaders, a high-ranking senator said Republicans have agreed to including significant revenue increases in a deficit-reduction framework.

"If you add up all of the revenues that we Republicans have agreed to, it's between $150 billion and $200 billion," said Senator Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

Kyl said two possible ways to bring additional revenue to the government would be through sales of government property and additional fees for government services.

Meanwhile, House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor floated a possible tax compromise, saying Republicans could agree to closing some tax breaks in a budget deal as long as they were offset with tax cuts elsewhere.

"Any discussion about loopholes must be accompanied by offsetting tax cuts," Cantor said at a news conference.

Republicans had been adamant about tax increases not being included in a deficit-reduction deal that President Barack Obama hopes clears the way for also increasing U.S. borrowing authority.
In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Kyl talked about increased revenues from the sale of government assets or higher user fees.

He criticized, however, Democratic proposals to get rid of tax breaks on corporate jets or tossing an accounting method known as "last in first out" that eases business tax burdens.

Democrats say they have offered up a "menu" of revenue increases of as much as $400 billion in the deficit-reduction and debt limit talks.

If the limit on U.S. borrowing authority, now at $14.3 trillion, is not raised by the Treasury Department's August 2 deadline, there are fears the United States could either miss some debt repayments or be forced into cutting off major government benefits including Social Security checks.

Obama said such an outcome could push the United States economy into a second recession or worse.

(But there are many experts who say there is plenty of money to pay out debts and survive without increasing the debt ceiling and the cuts that would have to be made, will have to made for America to survive, at some point anyway.  So why increase the debt ceiling so Washington can just put us even further into debt before the inevitable?  Giving Obama and company an increase is like giving an alcoholic more booze, neither has the will power nor the will not to use it.)

On Thursday, Obama is scheduled to meet at 11:15 EDT with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders. Obama will push for a big agreement that could target as much as $4 trillion in savings -- double the size of what had been under discussion, according to Democratic officials. They provided no details on how they would reach that target.

© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Source: Newsmax.com

The Debt Ceiling Fiction

When asked why someone said something idiotic or some group is advocating something moronic, I am apt to wearily reply that there is no defense against stupidity.  There is a defense and it works over the long run. It is called the truth.

It is interesting to watch how “the truth will out” as they say in detective novels. In our society, so in thrall to the mainstream press and media, the truth circulates swiftly through that portion of the population that first suspects something is amiss and then outward to the general population that can no longer ignore it.

That long, slow process occurred with the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced President, Richard Nixon to resign in 1974. It began with a 1972 break-in at the Democrat headquarters in Washington, D.C. and then just unraveled a little bit each day. It enshrined two young reporters from The Washington Post in journalism’s pantheon of heroes and probably caused a goodly number of college kids to change their major to journalism.

The Founding Fathers who fashioned a federal government after the Articles of Confederacy proved a failure for the new nation not only knew history, they were an unusually brilliant collection of scholars; even if self-taught as was common at the time. What they knew well was human nature and they knew that men were inclined to criminality and stupidity. Thus, the Constitution deliberately divides the powers vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. It also deliberately slows down the legislative process.

The system largely worked until eleven southern slave states became so incensed over trade laws passed by northern states and the growing abolition movement that they decided to secede from the Union in 1860. Abraham Lincoln said no. Then he sent a huge army to back it up.

If they had had a crystal ball, all would have known that technology would replace slave labor in a remarkably short time. If they had any sense, they would have worked out a compromise, but the stupidity factor interfered. Even the Founding Fathers “four score and seven years” earlier knew that the issue of slavery would threaten the new republic.

Big problems and big issues cannot be ignored forever.

To give you an idea how big the problem is, a CNSnews story reported that “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner oversaw the largest increase in the national debt of any Treasury secretary in American history, presiding over a $3.7 trillion increase in debt… In fact, the debt accrued under Geithner is greater than all federal debt accrued in the first 204 years of the nation’s history.”

The United States now finds itself less than a month away from defaulting on its loans because, in just two and a half years, the current President has allowed the debt to increase to $14.2 trillion, an amount that equals the entire annual Gross Domestic Product. That’s not break even. That’s broke.

The Republicans have put forward a plan to solve the debt problem. The Democrats have not even produced a budget in more than 800 days.

That’s why this goes way beyond mere partisan politics. This is a nation that has managed, mostly due to government “entitlement” programs to bankrupt itself. The Democrats refuse to discuss modifying them in any way. Instead, they want to raise taxes on people (40% do not even pay taxes) who need that money to pay mortgages, auto loans, and all the other demands of life. Raising taxes during a Recession or a Depression is well known to be a very dumb idea.

Democrats keep insisting on it, claiming that squeezing more out of “millionaires and billionaires” will solve the nation’s problems. No, it won’t. And everyone knows this, but Democrats will not admit it. Their base is made up of union members and the usual disaffected people waiting for a handout.

Largely unmentioned is the way neither the current, nor former chairmen of the Federal Reserve had the slightest idea why all the things the government tried to do, nor their own ability to raise or lower interest rates, was having any affect on high unemployment and a stagnating economy. And that was their job!

In the July 4 edition of Business Week, Zachary Karabell, an author, historian, money manager, and economist asked a very important question, Does Government Matter? “Today, the ability of any state to govern and control its own domestic economy is severely constrained,” said Karabell.

“A global market of buyers and sellers sets interest rates, and short-term rates (which are all the Fed can directly control) are only one factor”, adding that “the ecosystem of global capital, in which trillions of dollars, goods, and services are traded daily, transcends the reach of any one government.”

The argument, an old one, is which is better, big government or small? Fiddling with the economy has usually done more harm than good. Government has an obligation to govern prudently and to encourage the free market to perform. Ponzi schemes like Social Security and Medicare invariably suffer the fate of Bernie Madoff, they collapse.

While the rest of us watch from the sidelines, the two major political parties posture and bluster over a “debt ceiling.” The nation has hit that ceiling and raised it many times.

There is no ceiling left. There’s just a trap door that leads to a failed economy. We’re tapped out. No one is going to want to purchase our treasury notes if we don’t change course. The debt ceiling financial fiction will be raised.

There are men and women in Congress who want to resolve the current crisis and there is a man in the White House who was never eligible to be president and would much rather blame everyone else, play golf, increase taxes, and raise money to run again.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

*The GOP… the Republicans seem to be willing to compromise again, way beyond what they would like to.  The Democrats, who have produced no budget in more than 800 days and no plans to attack the entitlement program issues or reducing the debt are headed to the big bipartisan meeting at the White House tomorrow empty handed.  Yet, because independents are so enamored with compromise and like to forget the facts when the immediate problem is settled. If the GOP does compromise, even if it is the right thing to do, their hard work will end up helping Obama and the Democrats because they will be able to say they engineered a compromise and averted a major crisis while the Republicans who made it possible will lose a major issue to campaign on.  Wake up independents… anything that happens between now and the 2012 Election is all manipulation and smoke and mirrors to win you over.  Then if Obama is re-elected, the day after, the hammer and sickle will fall.  For those too young to remember… the hammer and sickle were the emblems of the USSR…  Please pay attention this time and remember, the stakes are too high not to!!*

BREAKING NEWS - GOP Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Demands Spending 'Cuts of $Trillions!'

Cartoon By Clayton Liotta @DickMorris.Com  - Obviously There Is No Inflation

It looks like John Boehner is finally listening to the Tea Party/9.12 Project movement that put him in the office of the Speaker of the House!
In a stunning turn of events, the Ohio Republican has publicly called for "actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future."

Boehner has been under fire from Tea Party & 9.12 Project groups ever since he chose to compromise with the passage of multiple continuing resolutions, then a feeble compromise that cut an effective amount of LESS THAN A BILLION DOLLARS.

Has the Speaker of the House actually heard the grass roots activists who wish to restore America to greatness, or is this just more political rhetoric? Have the new GOP Constitutionalists made themselves heard, or is something else afoot?

Here's the story from Roll Call:
--------

Boehner: Spending Cuts Should Be in Trillions

By John Stanton | May 9, 2011, 6:50 p.m. | Updated: 7:57 p.m.

Speaker John Boehner warned Monday that he won’t agree to raising the debt ceiling unless Democrats and the White House accept spending cuts that exceed the increase in the nation’s debt level.

“Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given,” the Ohio Republican said in a speech at the Economic Club of New York.

“We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions,” he said. “They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.”

Boehner’s demand for such large cuts marks a sharp escalation in his rhetorical war with Democrats in advance of talks to increase the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner predicts that the nation will default in early August unless Congress acts.

Boehner also reiterated his opposition to increasing taxes to address the nation’s debt and remained adamant that entitlements stay on the table.

“With the exception of tax hikes, which will destroy jobs, everything is on the table,” Boehner said. “That includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare, because we all know, with millions of baby boomers beginning to retire, the status quo is unsustainable.”

Boehner’s speech could help blunt growing concerns among fiscal conservatives that he will cut a deal with the White House that does not include significant cuts.

He also hammered Democrats’ other economic policies, including the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul law, which he called “all wrong.”

“There was a financial meltdown in our country, and millions of Americans were hit hard. But Washington’s response was all wrong. We got a banking system that is less competitive, pitting the small community banks like the ones in my district against giant banks that the federal government deems ‘too big to fail,’” Boehner said.

“We got a consolidated banking system with a small number of large firms operating as public utilities,” he added. “We got a lot of new rules that make job creation and investment more difficult. And the government mortgage companies that triggered the whole meltdown went untouched.”

Video: Judge Napolitano on Economy in for GB on 05.09.11

Judge Andrew Napolitano once again fills in for Glenn again, who took a surprise trip to Israel and should return this week. The President’s popularity has soared in the wake of the killing of Osama (or Usama) Bin Laden. Yet behind all of the celebrations, America’s economy is still sputtering. Unemployment has ticked up back north of 9%. The national debt is pushing past 14.3 trillion dollars and the Federal Reserve shows no sign of ending its century long war on the dollar. But that didn’t stop the President from taking a victory lap last week. Now, he plans to ask Congress to borrow another 2.7 trillion dollars.

Glenn decided late last week to make a surprise trip to Israel, and is off radio and TV today to visit the country. He plans to broadcast his radio show tomorrow.

Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street

The White House Cabinet videos: Comedy gold

By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2010 02:13 PM

As part of the pre-State of the Union publicity blitz, the Obama White House had its cabinet members sit down for quickie videos to tell you how they all “got to work” and “took bold steps to rescue the country from a potential second Great Depression; to rebuild the economy for the long-term — so businesses can thrive, the middle class can grow and all our families can be more secure; and to restore America’s leadership in the world, as we wrestle with the global challenges of the 21st Century.”

I’m including a few of my favorites from corruptocrat Eric Holder, Janet Clownitano, and Turbo Tax Tim Geithner — all especially striking not for what they tell you, but for what they omit about their security-undermining, transparency-sabotaging tenures. It’s comedy gold. Well, bitter comedy gold.

You can watch all the videos here by scrolling your mouse over any individual in the group photo and clicking for the pop-up video (big hat tip: Mark S.).

Sadly, there is “no video available” for Rahm Emanuel. But I can tell you what message his video would convey if he had been allowed to make one: “$%^&!! F**king $&^@^!!!”

Other White House video series ideas I’d like to see implemented:

*Obama Czars: Our Year in Review
*Messages From Under the Bus: Withdrawn Nominees Speak!
*Michelle and Friends: How the First Lady and Her East Wing Cronies Spent Your Money

Related:

Your corrupt DOJ-gives-another-corrupt-Democrat-a-pass story of the day

A Comprehensive List of O’s Czars and a brief description of each

The United States of Wusses

Posted Dec 01, 2009 02:03pm EST by Henry Blodget

From The Business Insider, Dec. 1, 2009:

When Dubai wobbled last week, everyone rushed to the Internet to await confirmation of the imminent bailout.

And they saw what they wanted to see!

The airwaves (and pipes) were clogged by a steady stream of pundits declaring that there was no way Abu Dhabi would let Dubai go bust.

Why not?

Because if Dubai went bust, then... well... then the stock market might go down for a while! Then the idiots who loaned Dubai World money to build huge islands and buildings in the desert would have to pay for their stupidity! Then the buildings' ownership would change in a debt restructuring--the kind that happens every day in a normally functioning capitalist economy!

INCONCEIVABLE!!!

Remarkably, against this tidal wave of panic and entitlement, Abu Dhabi stood its ground, refusing to reward idiocy by throwing more good money after bad.

And lo and behold... the world's stock markets have stabilized and Dubai is having civilized conversations with its lenders, the same way folks who have had to restructure their debts have had since the dawn of time.

In the United States, meanwhile, Messrs. Bernanke and Geithner no longer have to assure us that they will never let a big bank fail--because we understand that this guarantee has basically been written into the United States constitution. The LESSON OF LEHMAN BROTHERS has been learned, and the lesson is this:

We have become a nation of mamma's boys.

Specifically, after 25 years of debt-fueled consumerism, we have become accustomed to instant gratification and instant fixes, led by politicians and regulators terrified of having to tell us the harsh truth:

We lost our discipline. Getting it back will make life tougher for a while. But it will make us stronger in the end.

It wasn't always this way. In fact, the era of prosperity that we've just enjoyed was made possible by a leader with a huge spine--one who, unlike our current financial and economic leaders, wasn't afraid to risk his job (and enormous public pressure and disapproval) to do the right thing.

Who was that leader?

Paul Volcker.

How much public hatred was Volcker willing to withstand to get us back on the right track?

Take a look at the chart below. The red bars are the Fed Funds rate (which Volcker directly controlled). The blue line is unemployment (which he indirectly controlled).

In 1980, with the country beset by chronic, runaway inflation, Paul Volcker decided to do something about it. Specifically, he hiked rates sharply, into a weak economy.

What happened?

He killed the economy.

Unemployment soared--spiking from 6% to well over 10%, the highest level since the Great Depression. The economy crashed back down into a double-dip recession. Millions of Americans were put out of work. The stock market plunged to 15 year lows.

But Paul Volcker held fast. And a few years later, inflation was all but dead, setting us up for two decades of prosperity (and one of letting ourselves go to pot).

Fast forward to today. Today, we are led by men like Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner. Men who are so afraid of the consequences of making people pay for their profligacy and stupidity that they have restarted the debt bubble (free money and bailouts for Wall Street, FHA, cash for clunkers) and made Too Big To Fail a national policy.

Take another look at that chart.

Do you think Ben Bernanke would be willing to withstand the heat that Paul Volcker took to get this country back on track? Tim Geithner? Larry Summers? Barack Obama? Do you think any of them would be willing to stand up and deliver the message this country--and Wall Street--desperately needs to hear?

We don't either.

But at some level, we can't say we blame them. Given our current national attitude, we would fire them instantly for even daring to suggest such a thing.

But we'd still be better off hearing it. And it would make us stronger and better in the end.

This is what we all should be like!!

More coverage from The Business Insider:

• 10 Amazingly Wasteful Stimulus Projects
• Paul Krugman's Emergency Jobs Program Will Never Work

'Not One Single Dime'? ... Yeah, Right!

Is Obama about to break a promise not to raise taxes on the middle class? Mike Huckabee sounds off to Greta.

While Candidate Obama repeatedly promised “NO” tax increases of any type for middle class Americans… for anyone making less than $250,000, both Geithner and Summers said it is too early to say… but they will do whatever it takes. Most Americans are saying, “How about stop spending, giving back the stimulus money that never made it to Main Street to fix the recession and no more huge expensive bills like Cap and Trade and ObamaCare…? which will only mean more debt and taxes.”

If you remember… Bush 41’s broken promise of “Read my lips, no new taxes” cost him re-election.

-------

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," August 3, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight: Will President Obama raise taxes on the middle class? Now, that depends on who you ask. President Obama says no.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year...

-- which includes a 98 percent of small-business owners, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime under my plan.

Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, no tax. We don't need to raise taxes on the middle class!

You will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat, not one single dime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, that was the president, and over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was far less concrete.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST, ABC'S "THIS WEEK": The president has said that taxes won't go up for any Americans earning under $250,000, but it doesn't appear he's going to be able to keep that promise if you're going to bring the deficit down.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER, TREASURY SECRETARY: George, again, we can't make these judgments yet about exactly what it's going to take and how we're going to get there. But the very important thing is -- and no one is going to care about this more than the president of the United States -- is for people to understand that we do not have a choice in the country...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: White House economic adviser Larry Summers was asked about Secretary Geithner's comment. Does Summers think a new round of taxes is coming for middle-class Americans?

LARRY SUMMERS, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: There's a lot that can happen over time, but the priority right now -- so its never a good idea to absolutely rule things -- rule things out, no matter what.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Today, press secretary Robert Gibbs tried to clear up the confusion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:Let me be precise. The president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: So is the middle class going to get a tax hike or not? Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joins us live. Good evening, Governor. And Governor, it seems that the president and his press secretary say no to taxes on the middle class, but then just yesterday, two of his cabinet secretaries are saying -- are suggesting something very different. So any idea what's going on?

MIKE HUCKABEE, HOST, "HUCKABEE": Well, Robert Gibbs had to dive on that grenade today because it was going off. And Summers and Geithner did the unthinkable. They spoke the truth. They said what everybody with a brain understands. You can't keep spending money like this and run up these deficits without at some point having to pay for it.

Tax revenues are down. The economy is hurting. People don't have jobs. When they don't have a job, they're not paying taxes. And at some point, the president is stuck with either having to do what he's been doing a lot lately, and that's breaking promises, or he's going to have to continue to tank the U.S. economy.

Now, what I think he ought to do is to start looking at ways, rather than buying everybody a car, is suspending the payroll tax for a particular period of time and putting that money into the hands of consumers so they can make the decision. That would make a lot more sense.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, the Associated Press is reporting that we are in the biggest tax revenue drop since 1932, that individual income tax receipts, how the government feeds itself, essentially down 22 percent. Corporate income taxes down 57 percent. And we're spending like drunken sailors. That's not a very good recipe.

HUCKABEE: Well, I think it's a real insult to the drunken sailors. They don't spend more than they have in their pocket. And they don't spend out to, you know, their next 20 paychecks. We're spending out into the next millennium. And even the health care proposal -- when you hear how much this is going to cost, what they're not telling you is that the real cost factors come in years 11 through 20, not years 1 through 10. So the deficits are piling up, and Barack Obama's answer to that is, Let's pull out our wallets and spend some more money (INAUDIBLE) let's pull out the wallets of American taxpayers and spend some more money.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you think the discussion's been in the last 24 hours here in Washington between the White House and Treasury secretary and Larry Summers?

HUCKABEE: My guess is that there was some woodshedding going on, just realizing that this really erupted in a very unpleasant way. All these members of Congress going home to recess, every time they show up at a town meeting, they're getting an earful. It's almost like they forgot who they worked for. They don't work for Nancy Pelosi. They don't work for Harry Reid. And they don't work for Barack Obama. They work for the American taxpayer, and the taxpayers are infuriated because they have enough sense to know that this spend-a-holism that we have seen is simply not working out. More Americans out of jobs. And Greta, at some point, if you're really strapped for cash, the first thing you do is you stop spending what you don't have.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what people don't realize, too, is that if we -- if we end up having to print more money, we're going to get a -- we're going to get an inflation. And some people think, Well, as long as I'm working, my wages are going to go up with the inflationary prices. The problem is, is that now that we're part of a global economy, is the rest of the world's not going to want to buy our prices at these -- buy our goods at these higher prices. So it's a much more serious problem, inflation, than even 25, 30 years ago when we had inflation.

HUCKABEE: It's a huge problem. You just mentioned that people don't want to buy our debts. We have pretty amazing things, the Chinese talking about a new monetary standard and not the U.S. dollar. These are unprecedented kinds of conversations taking place because people simply don't have confidence. Geithner went to Asia, tried to tell them that everything is fine, and they literally laughed at him when he tried to tell them that everything was just great with the American economy. That's a horrible situation for us.

VAN SUSTEREN: Governor, thank you. And don't forget to watch the governor every Saturday and Sunday night at 8:00 PM Eastern. And guess what the name of the show is? "Huckabee." I don't know how he got that name.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Culture of Corruption

Michelle Malkin Reveals How Obama's "Unprecedented" Presidency Breeds Corruption and Kills Change

When Barack Obama launched his presidency, he pledged to "build a more hopeful America." On the campaign trail he promised to do away with Washington politics as usual.

But in the first six months of his term, Obama has indulged in a breath-taking campaign of nepotism, self-dealing, back-scratching, corporate lobbying, government favors, entrenched incumbency, and hypocrisy.

Obama's government is not exactly the change people were hoping for.
In her devastating exposé, Culture of Corruption, bestselling author and investigative reporter Michelle Malkin cites example after example of Team Obama's corrupt dealings and abuses of power. Malkin shows how Obama has hand-picked a team that will do his dirty work for him and exposes dozens of corrupt dealings—all of which the liberal media would rather keep hidden.

From power broker Rahm Emanuel, to pay-to-play tainted Michelle Obama and Joe Biden, to ethically challenged Tim Geithner, to crime-coddling corporate lawyer Eric Holder, Obama's cabinet is all about increased government power and very little about helping Americans get ahead.

In Culture of Corruption you will learn:

• How the Obama White House has circumvented the pesky approval process by simply appointing unaccountable, unqualified, scandal-ridden "czars" to key posts—16 and counting
• How Obama asserted he "never organized with ACORN," but Federal Election Commission records show he paid more than $832,000 to CSI "ACORN's Campaign Services Entity" and then lied about it
• How Obama promises low-cost healthcare for everyone, yet his wife, First Crony-In-Chief, championed a University of Chicago healthcare program that was accused of "patient dumping" and "cherry picking" wealthy patients over poor
• How "Average Joe Biden" has benefited from the former credit card giant MBNA's wealth, enjoying sweetheart real estate deals and lining his lobbyist son's pockets

Culture of Corruption proves that this is the government of the crony, by the lobbyist, and for the well-heeled. Obama lacks the will to change Washington politics, and Culture of Corruption reveals what his agenda will mean for his presidency—and America.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Biden Acknowledges Administration 'Misread' The Economy

Vice President Biden acknowledged today that the administration underestimated the depth of the economic recession months ago as it prepared a recovery package that is only now beginning to take effect.

"We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package," Biden said on ABC's "This Week." "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having distributed the bulk of the money."

Figures released last week showed that the national unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent, and that the economy is still shedding nearly half a million jobs a month. In reality if you factor in all the people who have dropped off the unemployment roles but haven’t found work, the unemployment figure is actually at 16% and then their are two 4 other groups to factor in… people who have lost their jobs but got severance package so either haven’t hit the unemployment rolls yet or won’t qualify, people who lost their jobs over the past 3 to 4 years who gave up looking to replace their employment as the economy started its march downward, students who graduated this past year who have never found employment other than the part-time jobs they had in school, and the group which includes seniors and people who were previously out of the job market that have to go back to work because they’ve lost their investments that they counted on to supplement their incomes.

President Obama pushed through a $787 billion stimulus package within his first month in office to slow the economic slide by replacing retreating private-sector demand, in part, with government spending.

But criticism has been mounting from the left and right, albeit for different reasons, that the plan was misconceived.

Administration officials have argued for weeks that the economic projections made before Obama took office presented an overly optimistic view of the economy, a case Biden reiterated in blunt terms today.

Conservative critics have used the mounting job losses to argue that the stimulus package - a mix of government spending and tax cuts - should have been titled more toward the latter than it was.

Meanwhile, liberal economists such as Paul Krugman have argued for more public spending, just as the stimulus money begins trickling into the economy.

After acknowledging the economic "misreading," Biden said "the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in?"

"And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in," he said.

Asked if a second stimulus package is needed, Biden said it is "premature to make that judgment."

Instead, he said, the administration will monitor the effect of the government spending in the coming months, as the public-works projects financed by federal funds move from the planning stage to the hiring and construction phase.

"And so this is just starting," Biden said. "The pace of the ball is now going to increase."

By Scott Wilson

Wow… Is anyone surprised. Everyone I know could have told them this and come up with better and less intrusive solutions without all their experts, czars and Ivy League educations. The unemployment situation is much worse the administration’s figures show, the bank bailouts and stimulus plan is a failure with virtually no funds ever trickling down under Joe’s watch, nobody can get a loan and the next crisis is, created by this administrations and their unbridled spending in all areas is the next crisis. Ask Marion~

Yanina Manolova / AP

National Debt Clock... Tick Tock

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

• President Trump? What If?
• Economists Point to Rising Debt as Next Crisis
• Catastrophe or Catastrophe CD
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense

Banks to return $68 billion in bailout money

New York buildings are reflected in the window of a Capital One bank office window. The Treasury Department said Tuesday it will allow 10 of the nation's largest banks to repay $68 billion in government bailout money. (AP File)

Ten of the nation’s biggest financial companies got a green light Tuesday to return $68 billion in federal bailout money — freeing the banks from limits on executive pay and leaving the government with a small gain on the rescue cash.

While the paybacks could be a signal that the banking industry is stabilizing, analysts say it is far from a clean bill of health, and some said it was too soon to let the banks give back the money.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said the returned money would go “back into general revenue” and could even be used to bail out banks again. (And this seems to be the plan… Many banks have wanted to repay stimulus money before but were not allowed because they weren’t ready… per the administration. But now that people are starting to get fed up and money sources are drying up, they need the money, they will take the pay back and do it all again.

Still, the government has collected $1.8 billion from dividends on shares of preferred stock it received in exchange for bailout money, he said. And the government still holds warrants to buy shares of bank stock at cut-rate prices in the future.

The $68 billion in paybacks would be the largest since the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program took effect eight months ago at the peak of the financial crisis. Specifically, the money comes from a $250 billion slice of the $700 billion bailout package.

Other chunks of the $700 billion will be harder, if not impossible, to recover. Some of it, such as $70 billion funneled to failed insurer American International Group Inc., ended up in the pockets of healthier banks that did deals with AIG.

And even the banks getting out from under the TARP still rely on government support, including debt guarantees from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and credit lines from the Federal Reserve.

The banks chafed under restrictions on executive pay imposed by the government for banks that took bailout cash, arguing they were losing top talent to other firms. The administration is expected to roll out new executive pay rules Wednesday that would apply to banks that still have TARP money.

“It’s our obvious hope that additional money is not going to have to be used to stabilize banks,” Gibbs said. “I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.”

Indeed, banking experts stressed that the payments do not signal an end to the financial crisis. In fact, they say, most banks approved to pay the money back never needed it in the first place.

And three major banks that have not been approved by the government to pay the money back — Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. — could need federal help for years to come.

“When a troubled bank is capable of repaying, that would be significant,” said Barry Ritholtz, head of the financial research firm FusionIQ. “But we’re not going to see that anytime soon because they can’t afford it.”

Among the banks approved to pay back their bailout cash are eight that passed the government “stress test” earlier this year: JPMorgan Chase & Co., American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp. and BB&T Corp.

Those banks had to show they could raise private capital without federal guarantees before getting permission to pay back TARP money.

Morgan Stanley did not pass the test, but got approval to return its bailout money after quickly raising enough capital. And Northern Trust Corp. did not undergo the “stress test” but said it also had received permission to repay its bailout money.

President Barack Obama welcomed the news but said: “This is not a sign that our troubles are over — far from it.”

Indeed, the repayments carry risk. Some say it could create a banking system of winners and losers, with weaker banks stuck with federal restrictions and finding it harder to compete for customers and talent against rivals that operate more freely.

Others say the repayments could conceal problems in the banking industry. Smaller banks are still saddled with billions in risky commercial real estate loans. And large banks still hold the toxic mortgage-backed assets at the heart of the financial crisis.

Paying the government back leaves banks with less protection against future losses, said Christopher Whalen, managing director of the consulting firm Institutional Risk Analytics. And with less capital on hand, they may have to scale back lending.

Other critics said it was dangerous to allow the money to be paid back before the administration overhauls the regulatory framework that governs banks.

“The credit crisis made it clear that the banks acted in irrational and greedy ways. I don’t believe that enough changes have really happened yet,” said Donald Thomas, an independent research analyst.

Adding to the concerns, a report released Tuesday by the congressional panel overseeing the bailout said the hypothetical scenarios used in the “stress tests” might have been too rosy.

That raises the troubling possibility that even raising enough capital to satisfy the government won’t guarantee banks can withstand a deeper recession. And that means the banks might have to seek more federal aid.

Citi and Bank of America, two of the most troubled financial institutions, have taken $45 billion each in bailout money. Wells Fargo said it has not asked for permission to pay back $25 billion in TARP money.

Banking analyst Bert Ely said it could be years before those banks disentangle themselves from the government.

More than 600 banks have received a total of almost $200 billion from the TARP, and 22 smaller banks have already paid the money back. The $1.8 billion in dividend money includes stock the government owned in these smaller banks.

Besides the preferred-stock dividends, the banks that took bailout money issued warrants that give the government the right to buy bank stock at a fixed price later. Bank stocks have been battered but are expected to rise as the economy recovers, so the warrants could deliver substantial profits to taxpayers.

Or the government could sell the warrants back to the banks “at fair market value,” the Treasury Department said — presumably also locking in profits for the taxpayers.

Testifying before a Senate panel, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the value of the warrants for banks permitted to repay TARP funds are in the “several billion dollar range.”

But it sounds like Secretary Geithner’s understanding might not always be right on…~ Geithner said, after his visit to China that “the Chinese have justifiable confidence in our economy”. Yet other reports, including from Illinois Congressman Kirk, say that China is very uneasy and concerned about the U.S. economy. A telling moment was when a round of laughter broke out as Tim Geithner was speaking in China and said “your investments are secure”; the rudeness of laughing at someone virtually never happens in China. M~

By: Stevenson Jacobs and Daniel Wagner - Associated Press
06/09/09 7:44 PM EDT

This week we will be selling treasury bonds (T-bills). The question is who will buy them… Who wants to luck up their money our future for 30-years? Who buys those bills could make a huge difference in all our lives!

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

• Reagan Didn't Do It
• House Passes Cash For Clunkers Bill

White House Set to Appoint a ‘Pay’ Czar

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.

Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw payouts to 9/11 victims, will keep tabs on executive pay at companies in bailout.

Mr. Feinberg's appointment could be announced as early as next week, when the administration is expected to release executive-compensation guidelines for firms receiving aid from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Those companies, which include banks, insurers and auto makers, are subject to a host of compensation restrictions imposed by the Bush and Obama administrations and by Congress.

Wall Street has been anxiously awaiting more details on how the rules will be applied. "The law is confusing and a bit ambiguous, and so we're looking for certainty as to how to structure pay incentives," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade association.

The move comes amid a series of sometimes-overlapping efforts to curb pay at financial firms following perceived industry excesses that led to the lending boom and bust.

The Obama administration earlier this year issued guidelines that include limiting salary for top executives at some firms receiving TARP funds and requiring that additional pay be in the form of restricted stock, vesting only after the company repays its debt, with interest, to the government. Congress then chimed in with even tougher rules curbing bonuses for top earners at firms receiving TARP money. As part of that effort, lawmakers barred those firms from paying top earners bonuses that equal more than a third of their total compensation.

The White House has been wrestling with how to marry those two efforts, which in combination are more punitive than administration officials had intended.

The government is also pursuing a separate revamping of financial-sector rules that could change industry compensation practices more broadly. For instance, the Federal Reserve is considering rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank.

Mr. Feinberg is expected to focus on pay restrictions related to firms receiving TARP bailout funds, helping companies to interpret the rules and ensure that they are being followed.

For instance, companies have been confused about whether to pay 2008 bonuses, since restrictions on incentive pay didn't go into effect until early 2009. Some firms have made the payments while others have held off. Many firms are also unsure whether the "top earners" targeted by Congress include rank-and-file employees or just executives.

Comments - “Obama is establishing a new cabinet of officials who are accountable only to him. This is an unprecedented power grab.” — Kathryn Reagan

Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Feinberg, founder and managing partner of the law firm Feinberg Rozen LLP, spent several years overseeing payouts totaling more than $7 billion to victims of the 9/11 attacks. He personally reviewed every claim, approving or denying awards and allocating sums to be paid out of the Treasury.

By Deborah Solomon - contact at deborah.solomon@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A2

Source: Knowledge Creates Power

Posted: Marion’s Place

Rogers: Geithner and Summers Clueless

Investment superstar Jim Rogers blasted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plan to overhaul the financial system bailout.

Rogers told CNBC that the plan will push the U.S. debt higher and was created by the same people who failed to see the crisis coming.

Geithner, formerly president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and a Treasury official in the Clinton administration “has been dead wrong about everything for 15 years in a row,” Rogers says.

And the same is true of principal White House economic advisor Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Rogers maintains.

“If I were on your show 15 weeks in a row and was wrong, you'd probably never invite me back,” he says.

“These guys have been wrong year after year after year consistently, and here they are making the same mistakes again. This is not going to solve the problem. It's going to make it worse.”

Rogers did sound one note of optimism. Eventually the banking system will rebound, he says.

“This is not the first time banks have gone bankrupt,” he explains.

“At the same time, there are a lot of banks that got it right and who are waiting for this.”

The financial markets didn’t like Geithner’s plan either. Markets tanked as he spoke on Tuesday, falling several hundred points.

“The lack of clarity” on a public-private investment fund “has the market upset,” Joseph Keating, chief investment officer at RBC Private Asset Management, told Bloomberg.

“Nationalization could have been a better outcome for some banks.”

By: Dan Weil © 2009 Newsmax