CNN poll: 61% oppose releasing second half of TARP money
posted at 2:57 pm on January 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Too late now but a useful data point nonetheless, especially on a day when Bank of America became, literally, the bank of America. Hey, remember after the surge began how the left would point to polls on Iraq and remind us that Bush was defying popular will by continuing to pursue his exorbitantly expensive boondoggle (which, after almost six years, is still $75 billion less exorbitantly expensive than TARP)?
As with the propriety of the word “un-American,” not to mention certain other subjects, Hope has brought much Change.
Sixty-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday oppose providing more government money in the financial bailout. There are some supporters, however — 38 percent said the government should provide more assistance to ailing banks and other financial institutions…
“Barack Obama may have something to do with the vote,” said Holland. “Democratic leaders in the Senate may not have been eager for a showdown with the president-elect. The public would have been squarely on Obama’s side. Sixty-two percent in the poll say they trust Obama more than Democratic Congressional leaders.”…
The poll also suggests that 50 percent of those questioned believe Republicans are more responsible for the economic problems facing the country right now. Less than a quarter of the respondents said Democrats are more to blame, and one in five said both parties are equally at fault.
If you missed the NYT’s piece on nationalization this morning in Headlines, read it now. Dirty little secret: The government already owns Citigroup, more or less. Exit question: Would things be significantly different if the GOP controlled Congress? The pricetags might be lower but this piece at the American Thinker about the incentives pols face at a moment of crisis rings true. Unless you’re a hardcore ideologue like Ron Paul, it’s exceptionally hard to do the principled thing in this case — that is, to do nothing. If you act and fail, at least you tried; if you don’t act and fail, you’re negligent. What’s a career politician worried about reelection to do?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Textbook example of the utter failure that is the US education system.
blue13326 on January 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Maybe he can get down on his knees again.
Firebird on January 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I find it hard to believe the number is that low.
Vashta.Nerada on January 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The first half of the TARP money has kept the banks from going bust in the short term. Citi is in the process of failing but after Lehman the government understands that the markets are not robust enough to operate when a big institution collapses overnight.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Isn’t the last line the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Wethal on January 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM
“What’s a career politician worried about reelection to do?”
Spend, spend, spend..apparently.
artist on January 16, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Zombie Guy Fawkes to the rescue!
LimeyGeek on January 16, 2009 at 3:05 PM
So, how about trying to cut the corporate income tax down from %35? And Lowering or better yet eliminating the Capital Gains tax?
See what that does…
kirkill on January 16, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Plus you can always lie about how things would “totally be worse if we didn’t do anything.”
What the hell is the point of having principles if they don’t help you in a time of crisis? “Oh, yeah, sure, I support free markets, but NOT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG.” That’s what the principles are there for. If you truly believe the economy is best served by the free market, you will believe that through thick and thin.
There hasn’t been an empire in the history of the world that’s been destroyed from the outside. Always the inside. I’d rather have a nut on foreign policy and somebody who knows what he’s doing when it comes to the economy.
jimmy the notable on January 16, 2009 at 3:06 PM
I had an epiphany a couple of days ago…
Our politicians, and parties, no longer have philosophies… they now have Positions.
Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives, UNLESS they take that “position” in order to gain political points against the Dems. Pro Free Market Bush, presides over the Socialist takeover of the Banking system…
Dems, on the environment… one second pro energy, next anti energy… one second pro Electric car, but then anti generating the electricity to power them…
Positions… which are not realistic or coherent… and both sides do it.
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Oh, goody!! CAN we buy another bank, Daddy? CAN WE?!?!?!
tree hugging sister on January 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I thought principles showed you what to do when you didn’t know what to do. Of course, if your principle is “Re-election at any cost…”
Wethal on January 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Any lawyer will tell you that if you act and fail, you’re also negligent. Indeed, it’s often easier to show negligence in those cases. But in a crisis, people buy political claptrap to the contrary.
Karl on January 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Yeah, that’s “trying something.” Why not supply alternate theories for these jerks rather than apologize for them when they abandon everything you believe in.
jimmy the notable on January 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Heck, I remember the hypocritical spastic marionette James Carville yapping and sputtering that Ken Starr’s investigation of Carville’s hero, Clinton, was costing $40 million. Mere pocket change for Democrats who like to spend other people’s money.
whitetop on January 16, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Really? Proof?
TARP, as advertised, was supposed to buy up toxic mortgage debt, in order to get it off the books. Even as they sold that idea to Congress, they were planning on buying equity in banks with that money. So, instead of addressing the root cause of the problem, they instead used it for the Fed/Treasury take over of the banking industry…
How has that done? oh… now they need MORE MONEY? Because those bad debts are still on the books?
You cannot change BAD BEHAVIOUR by REWARDING it!
And, investors will NOT invest in the stock market, when the Government is choosing winners and lossers, apparently at random (or by who they know…).
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Would you trust a guy with your money that has more hair on his eyebrows than on his head?
Kini on January 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Isn’t one of the Medical Proffesions Mantras..
First, do no harm…
To bad our politicians don’t know this…
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:15 PM
kiss our country good=bye!
SDarchitect on January 16, 2009 at 3:16 PM
The question really is do you trust anyone with more money that brains?
grapeknutz on January 16, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Integrity: your willingness to stick to your principles when it will cost you dearly.
Politician: unprincipled parasite, unable to produce anything but greater future poverty.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 3:16 PM
OMG….We are so porked! There are no words.
milwife88 on January 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Most people I talk to say they have now figured out that the emergency bailout was a hoax. It had to get really cold before most figured out global warming was a hoax. So it’s progress of sorts.
tarpon on January 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM
It does not make a flying flit what the taxpayers want to the dc bunch, d and r, just keep working and sending in money so they can give it to who ever they want.
L
letget on January 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM
I realize that given what our 401K’s and IRA’s look like right now this is going to sound kind of dumb but I’m going for it. Does anyone remember when it was suggested that the American taxpayer be allowed to take a small percentage of their social security “contribution” and invest it on their own? I seem to remember the Dem’s going nuts. It was even suggested that maybe the Government could invest in the market but again, no go, because the Government can’t decide winners or losers or take that kind of chance. Now we practically own whole companies and billions of dollars are involved. Answers anyone?
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
Read a bit about how Davy Crocket felt… principal above all.
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Future generations are going to be rightly pissed at us for the debt we’re handing them.
rbj on January 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Its a position… it has nothing to do with a political philosophy…
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM
CNN is run by liberals for liberals. So why care?
Travis1 on January 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM
GEE i wonder why???
Could it be that
Obama and the dems are so frigging insane that
they
Put in charge of the vault a guy who didnt pay his taxes
Who doesnt follow the immigrations laws..
Gave him the keys to turn on ther printing press
and on top of al of that..
DOESNT KNOW where they spent the FIRST HALF of the Money..
Are all of the liberals this frigging insane?
or this STUPID..?
jcila on January 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Well done, MSM. Your wrong-headed “the free-market and deregulation are to blame” meme paid off and once again, your lies benefit the DemocRATS.
Rae on January 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM
This entire country has gone insane and now our wonderful congress is sending their head flim-flam man (Obama) out with a big bucket of your money to pacify the nervous, frightened masses. Isn’t it somewhat unsettling to know that the people who screwed this up so badly are the same ones struggling to fix it?
rplat on January 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM
61% oppose releasing second half of TARP money
And it doesn’t matter a bit, because the idiot electorate keeps sending the same assholes back to DC time and again.
Shame on you people.
RWLA on January 16, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Some proof of the need to inject the equity directly into the banks came out this morning with BAC and C announcing their “earnings”. C’s $8B (really $12B) loss would have pushed them close to insolvency without the TARP funds. Right now C is essentially in a managed liquidation.
Most investors know to avoid the equity in banks since they will be subordinate to additional dilution in most cases–and that’s for the banks that survive.
The TARP and other rescue measures aren’t about rewarding or punishing behavior, instead they are meant to deal with the systemic risk that can harm good institutions along with bad.
I hope bad behavior is punished. Clawbacks on compensation for executives like Stan O’Neal, Dick Fuld, and Chuck Prince would be appropriate given that they were compensated with tens of millions of dollars for making a short-term profit on risk that eventually sank their companies and destroyed their shareholders.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I’m sorry, but who runs Congress again? Which party was it that was pushing TARP down our throats?
I realize a vast majority of Obama voters had no idea the Dems were in charge of Congress the last two years, but this is pathetic. What truly frightens me is that even with a Democrat in the White House and overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, a sizable portion of the electorate will still somehow find the GOP to blame for this country’s ills come 2010 and 2012.
Doughboy on January 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Not only is the ongoing war costing less than the bail out, it was also a constitutional act, unlike the bail out.
Oleta on January 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM
A major problem with Government (especially here in the California Legislature)is that they feel that they “have to do something“. Democrats are the worst, but as we learned in 2006 going forward, a great many republicans are at least as bad. The reason we spend so much, is because elected officials have to justify their existence and continued salaries somehow, and to achieve that they must demonstrate that they’ve done something.
How ’bout you just get out of the way, and stop trying to change the system, and just let things work? Sure, fix the urgent things that need fixing, but leave well enough alone.
juanito on January 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Um, hate to tell ya… but the Treasury Dept. answers to the PRESIDENT first.
President appoints the Fed Res Bank Chairman.
Plenty of blame to go around, but Bush was asleep at the switch, and the administrations “Fix” has, IMO, done more harm than good as the Admin has drasticly changed the rules of the game, and the investor has no idea how those same rules will continue to change…
Tell me… would you go to Vegas and bet on a game, where you did not know the rules? Or one in which the House could change the rules AFTER you placed your bet?
IMO its the lack of stability which is now killing the markets… as the Fed Res Bank and Treasury continue to throw money at the problem, continue to “change” plans, and continue to pick winners and lossers.
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I don’t disagree that the MSM works hard to pin the tail on anyone but the donkey, but…
Republicans stopped being fiscal conservatives long ago. They might have had hearings and Bush might have requested some things, but they had no stomach for the principled fight, and they certainly don’t now. A principled handful? Sure. The party? Not even close. And Bush leads that “to hell with your grandkids” parade. So Republicans get what they deserve. Democrats – not yet, but that day is coming.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Are you sure? You might be right and I am reading more into it but it seemed to me another instance of the left making sure that we have less control of our money but have no problem spending OUR money. A swipe at the individual for the good of the group.
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 3:37 PM
OK… what the H*LL is wromg with this D*MN picture?
What about “the will of the people?
They just WILL NOT LISTEN…HUH?
CynicalOptimist on January 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Uh, are not the losses to financial institutions primarily steming from losses in the Mortgage Market, and losses in the Stock Market?
They have not dealt with the toxic debt of the mortgage market, as TARP was supposed to do… and so have not solved one of the drags on their balance sheets… they are just sitting on the TARP money, surviving (or buying up other banks). In other words, is not the TARP money simply being used as a bandaid, and not the tourniquet it was supposed to be?
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Oh I know, I know.
I’m with the 1 in 5 crowd who believe the Republicrats are to blame.
Rae on January 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Sorry, I still don’t believe in this crap. I am the new truther who believes this is a media driven farce and that the vast number of people are paying their mortgages and considering how often they say these bad debts have been sold shouldn’t that have diluted the impact on the institutions that hold them. And at the very worst the mortgage holders would have been better off treating the ARMS as financed down payments, converted the mortgages to 30 year fixed at current rates and taken a small loss instead of the stupid stuff they have done. According to Clark Howard it costs $80K in legal fees to foreclose on a house, hard to believe there isn’t a smarter and cheaper way to handle this mess. No, never mind, let’s let the taxpayers do it.
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 3:57 PM
The market deteriorated more rapidly that Treasury anticipated. Unless they parked the TARP money on the balance sheet C would have been another Lehman. Treasury talked about working with the market to do price discovery on the assets, but probably quickly realized that the value of many assets was closer to zero than 50 cents.
I think the TARP is being used as a tourniquet, which protects the patient but risks the limb. In this case the broader economy is being protected from the bleeding limb of Citigroup whose shareholders will likely be wiped out and its quality businesses like Smith Barney sold.
There will be more failures like Citigroup if mortgage and credit card default rates continue to climb, which is why the government is trying to figure out how to get the stimulus into the economy as quickly as possible.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Zackly. People are justified in blaming the Bush Admin. first and foremost. Bush and his pick, Zippy Paulson, created the panic and created the ‘fix’ that worsened the problem. Don’t worry, the Dems will make things even worse and come in for their share of the blame, but right now Bush is blamed b/c he is in charge and he screwed things up. Then he admitted he abandoned the free market to save it. How do you go from there to blaming the ‘rats? Of course people blame Bush.
james23 on January 16, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Cindy,
The gateway to all of this was letting Fannie/Freddie, that government-spawned creation, exist as a quasi-private enterprise. Now more of our financial institutions and other enterprises are quasi-private enterprises. And as more companies “to big to fail” destabilize, more will get sucked into this void.
There is no way out of this with our current crop of politicians – Republican or Democrat – so it’s every libertarian for him or herself. Because without a vehicle to communicate and educate the masses, there won’t be a responsible crop of politicians any time soon.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I guess we’ll find out in 2010, when the results of the bailout will be in and the first round of bailout supporters are up for re-election.
BigD on January 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM
And vote for who? Because the replacements will care about their re-election just like the current crop. You realistically get two choices on the final election ballot, and they both love them some big government money. There is no difference.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Agreed but when you talk about percentages I still don’t understand how this happens. Obviously I am not an economist but I can balance my check book and I know not to buy stuff I can’t afford. At this point the threat of unemployment has stopped the spending but that has hurt the rest of the economy. And I bet it still hasn’t taught anybody anything.
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Uhm…don’t we have the military? It’s mostly our boys and girls running that show ya know? May be about time we had ourselves another Boston Tea Party. Hell, they had their party back in the day for less offenses.
I know, sounds crazy….but I am not creative enough to see another solution other than hanging all the crooks stealing all our money and our children’s money…
It’s like Rush said, if printing money and handing out to whomever worked, Cuba would be a world power by now.
javamartini on January 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Sure would be nice if the filthy bastard and the greedy Congress had a plan before spending all that money. There isn’t going to be a Democrat Congressional District that doesn’t provide gold-plated toilet seats for all the voters.
highhopes on January 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Dirty little secret: The government already owns Citigroup, more or less.
just effing great, does this now mean that if I’m late on a my mortgage I can expect to see gun toting IRS agents at my door??
mrfixit on January 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
What private enterprise – what investor – would buy a loan that pays only 3% or 4% or 5% annually on the principal balance? Invested money doesn’t make money on that. But Fannie/Freddie – the government entity – could do that, and with relatively no oversight, they cooked the books to make it seem like they were making big money.
Over time, they became the primary investor in banks’ loan portfolios. But banks weren’t making a whole lotta money on selling bundled loans to F/F at those low rates, so the banks worked themselves into a twisted knot trying to create non-prime products that would sell and that were acceptable to F/F. Once F/F signed off on a “creative” product, banks pushed these non-prime products at consumers big time. Thus, the aggressive housing bubble formed.
But once the bubble burst, no lender can refi a home that is not worth the loan sought, and so people upside-down on their mortgage defaulted under the weight of ARM-adjusted payments.
Then we learned that the primary purchasers of home loans in this country, F/F, were lying to us completely.
So who would buy a loan? Enter the credit crunch and the “need” for liquidity, hence the bailout and the weakening of industry after industry.
And here we are. If we don’t get productive real fast and generate revenue, the problem compounds.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Imagine what the poll would have indicated if it had been conducted by a legitamate news organization- 70-80% of American’s?
anniekc on January 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
How many of this 61% are lining up to support the trillions in taxpayer funded pork that Pelosi, Reid (and others) are peddling?
Buy Danish on January 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
This is a horse is already out to the barn question. When the financial institutions saw the rise of foreclosures start, why didn’t they start working on fixing it then instead of allowing the housing market to diminish to the point where people are upside down in their homes? If the number of $80K for legal fees in a foreclosure are true, that is a lot of juggling that could have been done before we get to our present situation. Is it just that institutions such as Fannie/Freddie had to cheat to make their books look good until they couldn’t hide any longer? I fail to understand why industries don’t do more to help themselves. Now it really doesn’t make any difference because you can be a full fledged total failure right out there in front of God and everybody and the government will come in and fix. Is there really an economist out there that says when your are broke and in debt the answer is to spend more money?
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Of course they own Citigroup! That’s why they want to bring the guy that helped drive them into government arms in as Treasury Secretary. When he is confirmed, incredibly flawed and wrong as he is, he’s basically just keeping his private sector job! And we see how good he did with that!
If you haven’t read the first book of the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, you should. Even if you don’t believe in the rapture and Christian tribulation, it’s scarily accurate to current events.
PastorJon on January 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Excuse me, but they “changed” the plan within hours of Congress passing the bill to give them the money.
I for one don’t believe that they ever had any serious intention of buying bad assets with it, as they told both Congress, and the American People (ie, they flat out lied to us).
So, the root cause of the meltdown… the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back… has yet to be addressed, nor is there even a PLAN to fix it… they are just pumping my money into a bunch of bankers pockets.
Investors KNOW that nothing is actualy being fixed, and so are taking their money out of the market… killing stock prices… which causes a further meltdown of balance sheets.
Remember the talk of Sarbains/Oxley and how mark to market could be changed? That that rule was part of the problem? As far as I know there has been NO changes to those rules…
Tell me, would you hire the Captain of the Exon Valdez to Captain YOUR ship after his little… problem?
We are trusting the very people who allowed the system meltdown with Trillions of dollars that THEY say they need to fix this…. why am I a bit scepitcal of the outcome… and want a bit more oversite of their actions?
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Because home values historically hadn’t diminished, but grown. Few saw that deflation one coming in as strong a terms as it did. Many thought that housing was in a bubble, but the scale of it surprised people. In hindsight, if you look at how housing values outran inflation in the late 90’s and in this decade, the scale of it was foreseeable.
Yes. The mortgage industry is about volume, the lower the bar to the secondary market (F/F), the greater the volume. The core problem is this: there is no real alternative today to government entities to purchase bundled home loans in volume. Which is why when F/F dried up, everyone turned to FHA again – more government.
This will sound like it’s trying to be cute, but it’s not – these industries are helping themselves. They’re helping themselves to our money, which comes cheaply from politicians that they buy off.
You just described not only industries, but almost all politicians as well. Does it matter that they fail so flagrantly in front of everyone? If you look at where Chris Dodd’s mortgage documents are (still in hiding) the answer is a resounding “no!”
Depends on how much you pay him or her. And how much they believe in redistributionist practices.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Thanks for the info. Everyone lives by their own personal knowledge, it is human nature. In 1997 it was a buyers market and we had a house to sell in Virginia Beach, old and in need of updating. We couldn’t sell at 80K. At the height of the madness a house of a neighbor here in Florida sold his house (purchase price $165K) for around $415K. And it has been downhill from there. I am lucky and I won’t complain but it is so annoying to watch.
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM
There are loads of people who opposed the TARP and UAW bailouts. They called their Congressmen and Senators, voted in polls, called into talk shows, etc…. and yet people went and voted for the same politicians who voted for these bailouts??!? WTF people. Don’t vote for a politician who is working AGAINST YOU. Period.
I will campaign actively against my Congressman who is a Democrat AND campaign actively against my Senator for the 2010 elections because they BOTH voted for this socialist BS. I’ll vote “Mickey Mouse” if I have to, but I am finished with voting for politicians who are hell bent on turning the US into a socialist country.
popularpeoplesfront on January 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM
You’re welcome, and for what it’s worth, I enjoy your comments and honesty here on HA. That’s a perfect anecdote, your story of the home in Florida. Likewise in California, etc.
Perhaps what we need is a group of citizens who run as independents and promise to do what’s necessary to clean up this mess and pull government out of the markets completely. Because it won’t come from either party. And it won’t make these people popular for re-election in the hard correction afterwards. But they would simply do it as one-term patriots determined to right the massive wrong of government intervention in the free markets. Until government is extracted, the problem only compounds. How do we do that? That’s my answer.
beatcanvas on January 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Hmmmm, apparently I’m a “hardcore ideologue like Ron Paul”. Who knew?
OneGyT on January 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I don’t know the answer either because if the rumor is true, then everyone is going to get their own little thousand dollar check to shut them up and I am sorry to say that it will probably be enough. Just like all the things the new president is going to do exactly like W but it will be accept because it is not W. I swear I live in an alternate universe.
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I was watching Fox news this morning and the newscaster was lamenting that Bank of America had huge losses. Was that not the same bank that was giving loans and credit cards to illegal aliens. They expect the loans to be repaid? They want us taxpayers to bail them out?
Johan Klaus on January 16, 2009 at 6:04 PM
LOL… yep…
One of the highest foreclosure rates in the Nation is Merced Country California… where I grew up and my Mom still lives…
It also happens to have a very high illegal population… and is in fact, right in the middle of a three way Ethnic Gang War…
Gee… what a coincidence!
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Many of the CEO’s who created the mess have been fired or their company’s equity crushed–Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns), Stan O’Neal (Merrill), Chuck Prince (Citi), Dick Fuld (Lehman).
The actions by the Fed have helped to narrow short-term credit spreads, which is essential to ongoing economic activity.
Did Paulson lie to congress? Maybe, but it is as likely that they were making things up as they went along.
The government needs banks to make loans to businesses. It is difficult to create one from scratch. It is possible to seize a bank and operate it, but so far the government has tried to avoid doing so–though that may change with a possible nationalization of Citi.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 6:21 PM
and yet they want to PROMOTE the guy who was in charge of the Fed Bank in New York… to be in charge of Treasury.
I expect Bankers to be crooks, and to game the system if they can, but I also expect those who work for the government to be looking over their shoulder… which apparently did not happen. Not a single Government person has taken the fall for this… or even any blame.
I’m in software development… if a program fails because I don’t know what I’m doing… which my clients EXPECT as I am hired for my expertise… then I’m fired, not given a promotion.
We hired these guys (FED, Treasury) to look out for the countrys interests… and they failed miserably. So now we just allow them to spend money with no apparent plan?
And on a side note… it would be interesting to see what the net worth of Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns), Stan O’Neal (Merrill), Chuck Prince (Citi), Dick Fuld (Lehman), these gentlemen is… I’m sure its enough to where they will never have to work again unless they wish to.
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Silent Cal Coolidge got through his recession without generating a depression by waiting it out. Hoover/Roosevelt had to try one thing after another and we got a great depression. Bush/Obama are on that track. Where is Milton Friedman when we need him?
burt on January 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Calvin Coolidge FTW!
Rae on January 16, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Certainly the world of software engineering has more accountability than does the world of government agencies. Yet, while it is clear to walk through a failed build and find lines of code that caused compile or link errors it is harder in a big project where code functions but doesn’t provide good usability. Maybe the program is slow or not intuitive enough. Perhaps it crashes when other programs are running. At that point the failure might be harder to isolate. Maybe it is a programmer error, or poorly written spec, or ambiguous requirements. Maybe that database guys didn’t anticipate the load that the middle tier would create. Often you get a conference room full of managers blaming each other.
Clearly the bank CEO’s are at fault. As you point out their net worth is higher than it deserves to be. There is talk of penalizing them (along with Hank Paulson) for the money they earned while jeopardizing the system. I hope they have to pay up, but I’m not holding my breath.
On the government side, the SEC is not capable of policing the street and needs to be restructured.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM
The world of software engineering has more accountability because it still follows free market principals, which the banking industry no longer does. You perform, or they go out and find someone who does.
Problem is that the Banking industry seems to have become an insular “Old boys club” of guys who revolve between the Fed Bank, Government, and Major Companies… and even when they fail BADLY, soon end up with an even better job…
Please explain to me how the guy who was in charge of overseeing all these companies for the last few years, the head of the Fed in New York, is getting a promotion?
I mean, were not the vast majority of institutions now taking MY money, under his oversite?
I just plain cannot figure out how all these folks are being given a pass, when it is apparent that this was an EPIC FAIL of the system they created, and administered.
Romeo13 on January 16, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Valid point about Geithner, though it might be hard to find somebody with relevant experience who wasn’t tainted by an association with the mess.
Banking followed free market principles in some ways too greatly. If the SEC hadn’t relaxed leverage ratios a few years ago, this wouldn’t have happened. If the credit agencies weren’t appeasing the banks that paid them by rubber stamping investment grade ratings on junk, this wouldn’t have happened.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t good policing of the market and there wasn’t sufficient transparency for investors–even institutional investors.
Yes the banks should be allowed to fail, but the government needs to make sure that a bank going down doesn’t disrupt the wider market. Kinda like a neighbor’s house being on fire. It needs to be put out before it spreads regardless of how the fire was started.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Not exactly. Making things much much worse is failing. They are setting a course for disaster.
Not exactly. Things would be would be better, faster if they just let the markets self-correct.
Tell the American people the truth, for once, and end this fraud now.
Rae on January 16, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Does it make sense to work with banks that don’t participate? We deal strictly with credit unions but I heard on the news that the fourth largest bank in N.Y. (sorry don’t remember the name) has decided not to take any of the bail out. If I lived there I would move my accounts (not big deal) to that bank. I have always been partial to Fords so buying them isn’t a big deal but I would love to buy some of their stock. Shouldn’t we try to reward the people who at least tried to play by the rules?
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM
You have FDIC insurance wherever your accounts are, though picking a company that didn’t have to take Fed money might be a good way to establish a commercial relationship–for autos or banks. If they were smart enough to avoid screwing up their business, maybe they are smart enough to provide you better service.
dedalus on January 16, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Taking a step back, the ‘bail-outs’ are debt-derived and therefore deferred taxation.
Why are they not referred to as such? This is not government money, it is our money, and it will need to be repaid by us.
And a larger question – why does no-one question the legitimacy of ‘government debt’ in the first place? Is it ethical in any sense? You wouldn’t let me run up your over-draft: why should you let the government?
I am seeing a blinking red light out of the corner of my eye – it’s indicating we’re out of personal responsibility.
Ares on January 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM
I didn’t like the first one, I don’t like this one. >:-(
mindhacker on January 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Thanks for that Denninger link Rae – good stuff.
rhodeymark on January 17, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Gee i cant imgaine WHY
After all
Barney frank and todd the dimwit along with the Congressional black causus FORCED ALL the banks
to lend money to anyone and i mean anyone who
Didnt have id
Didnt have a job
no proof of income
not even if they were all illegal aliens
then Lied on video stating how wonderful these assests were
and when it blew up
and everyone found out had badly franks has been SCREWING
both FANNY and FREDDIE (after all he is a homo)
And then for FUN franks IS RAPING the ENTIRE US ECONOMY
YOu liberals then not only re-elected the dumb bastard
you then blamed BUSH for trying to STOP these liberal MORONS from destroying our entire country..
And now your so surprised when
OVEr 60% of the country doesnt BELIEVE the Democratic controlled congress..
And your all surprised WHY?
MORONS..
jcila on January 17, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Comment pages: