Some 600K people a month lose jobs. Why is Obama's Economic Policy

[truedelphi]

Related so totally to the people from the Wall Street failure?

Geithner, now the Treasury Secretary, has pushed most of the same plans
that Paulson would have foisted on us had McCain won the election.

Conservative estimates consider the dreadful reality that the losses from AIG's exposure could edge toward the 50 Trillion dollar mark.
Since our nation only has a GDP of thirteen trillion even in good years, trying to accommodate AIG in their overall loss "portfolio" is simply not conceivable.

And the matter of Geithner not seeing a way out of paying the bonuses shows you who and what is buttering his bread. defintitely, it is not the small business person, or the average American he is working for - it is the Mega Corporations.

In terms of our current economic crisis, it is not hard to have the right policies in place - after all, this nation suffered from the Huge S & L scandal of the eighties. Back then, Receiverships were used to take over what was left of various S & L's across the country. By putting a company in receivership, you void the contracts that are so harmful to the public's interest.

How is it tht Kucinich can see this? And Issa can see this? And Robert Reich and Spitzer? And others. But the President doesn't seem to get it.

Maybe it is time for his "transition" team to transition OUT!

[MarjorieG]

1. So much is unknown about the supposed $50 trillion leverage o AIG globally.

If we knew more about the effects of our actions with these gisnt companies, easier to finesse. I think his budgets address us nicely, now only if Congress agrees.

[truedelphi]

3. We know a great deal about the effects of these mega Corporations.

They Destroyed our Economy!
Period!
Not one dime more.

The financial institutions turned themselves into casinos, they allowed for ruinous level of "bets" to be placed. They lost, and we can recover only by placing them into receivership, and thus giving our government the legal right to ignore their claims of "Corporate person hood."

How is it that the BailOut plan under Obama is exactly the same bailout plan as fashioned by PAulson. At the point of planning it out, Tim geithner acted as Paulson's accomplice.

If you have followed the history of what is transpiring, you would know that Edward Liddy, the government installed executive of AIG who has been so busy defending the AIG bonus plan, this monster was brought to the company from Goldman Sach's. And who is so deeply associatied with Goldman Sachs? Hank Paulson of course.

[Thrill]

2. I think if we knew everything AIG was tied to. It would scare you

How many companies will go under if AIG does? How many jobs is that going to be. The fact that the Fed and two completely different administrations think they have to be saved, tells me they insure some big time companies and industries

[truedelphi]

8. Pls see the remarks at Post number 7 - their assesment seems more astute

The fact that two separate Administrations both act like Corporatists, totally willing to
bankrupt Main Street to save Wall Street does not surprise me that much.

It saddens me yes, but hardly surprises me.

[rurallib]

4. Bush had policies that left his successor with two choices, both of which are bad

In nearly every case the choices each have bad consequences. They must have determined that this course is least disastrous. No doubt they are thinking globally here, because whatever we do will be felt worldwide.

[truedelphi]

5. Your reply reminds me of Lewis Black & his view of government

"So the Republicans get in and they don't have the foggiest idea of what to do, so they all step forward and collectively take a crap.

"And this makes way for the possibility of the Democrats finally getting in office, wherein they spend the next four years re-arranging that pile of crap!"

[masuki bance]

6. I see, Kucinich is the one true leader.

[truedelphi]

7. Here's what a blogger on SLATE has to say:

Strangest "Solution" in American History
by Urgelt
03/17/2009, 10:10 PM #
+2 Reply
Mr. Spitzer hit the target with his article, "The Real AIG Scandal." But he didn't hit the center ring.

He's pointed out that AIG's counterparties are being bailed out *twice.* No wonder they're suddenly reporting profits. Guess where those profits came from? Us.

But there is more to the story.

Turning junk debt into AAA-rated securities was a scam. Banks did it deliberately and knew it was a scam. There are criminal laws against misleading buyers of securities; why are they not being enforced?

AIG issued "insurance" with no reserves to back it up, in violation of statutes covering insurance. No, renaming insurance "credit swaps" does not make it legal. Why is no-one being prosecuted?

Why did the banks see a need for insurance? Because they knew what they were doing was risky, and the whole game that was being played was to stick someone else with the risk and take home the profit.

When Wall Street staggered into the realization that toxic debt and fake insurance had ensnared virtually the entire system, and that it could all come tumbling down, leaving no-one with profit and everyone with losses, they panicked and ran to the Government. Help!

The help we should have given was the help defined by statutes already on the books. Underwater banks? Seize them. Fire the executives. Cancel the stock issues. Reorganize them. Strip assets. Sell off chunks or stand up a healthy bank.

The help we should have given AIG was to put it into bankruptcy court. It has a negative net worth. At that point the Government could go to the court and offer to buy it for a dollar. In a bankruptcy the court will decide which contracts to honor or void. Guess which category executive bonuses falls into.

Being enlightened, I would have liked to see us, the taxpayer owning AIG, refund all the counterparties, both foreign and domestic, exactly what they paid for fake insurance. That's fair; it leaves those banks in exactly the shape they put themselves in before paying out for the fake insurance. If they are then healthy enough to survive, good. If they are not, seize them.

The rescue of foreign banks should be up to their own taxpayers. It should not be our responsibility to rescue them from their own toxic assets.

Nor should stock owners of failed corporations be rescued. There is no economic theory which can justify such a rescue. Yet that is exactly what has happened under Geithner, Bernanke and their ilk. That's subsidization of the rich, folks. Reverse socialism.

Independent economists are appalled; only Wall Street mouthpieces are cheering for what is happening. (And only Wall Street mouthpieces were ever allowed to testify before Congress before the bailout was passed.)

So now all the illegal scamming has a new victim. You. Me. Every taxpayer. And Wall Street is showing a profit. The scam paid off after all.

Change you can believe in, huh? If only.

[jeanpalmer]

9. That's it

That's the problem a lot of people are having with Obama, Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and the bailouts. The whole thing was a fraud. But these people are acting like everything was legit. That's the PR they work on us. They won't acknowledge the scam. And so they take our money and shovel it to the fraudsters. And hide all the details. They don't share anything with us, as little information as possible. We're supposed to let a couple of Wall Street bureaucrats funnel trillions of our dollars to a bunch of scammers.

I'm really disappointed in Obama. His lack of a moral compass is really starting to show here. He doesn't seem to have any real outrage at what has happened. And when you combine that with all the campaign money he took from Wall Street, I ask WTF's going on with him? You don't need 8 weeks in office to develop a conscience.