Geithner’s Spazzy White Guy Gift Card

Yes, you are correct.

Meanwhile the derivatives market is still worth several times the world’s GDP. I’m about sick of “too big to fail,” is this not why the government has anti-trust powers?I was hoping that the economy would get bad enough for a major restructuring of our daily lives as Americans. Now it seems even Obama thinks the boom times can last forever.The upcoming resource crisis is going to hit us like a truck.

Yep. Now you know why the market went all crazy-happy at the announcement. They just found out that Dad’s not going to ground them for almost destroying the fucking world.

After reading Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stones and seeing Wall Street throwing block parties yesterday after Goofy Geithner’s unveiling of the “plan”, I’m a lil nervous. There are a few articles floating around that Axelrod ain’t a big fan of Timmy G’s either. Axelrod makes me feel safe, warm and fuzzy inside. I trust his killer instincts. I thought Mr. President did too. Geithner reminds me of my cracked out uncle. He still gets invited to all the family events but we’re all hiding out purses and wallets in case he “tweaks.”I’m usually not one to jump on the “Oh Noes! Obama’s gonna fail this time” bandwagon. I totally live by the “Chill the Fuck Out. I Got This” philosophy, but right now I’m far from chill and I’m starting to wonder, who really does, “Got This?”

Did you see the IRS’ excuse for the drop in audits of millionaires?”uh, we were too busy getting out stimulus checks”We really are screwed. Beware the corporation, for they will sacrifice your human life for their bottom line without a second thought.Adding, Geithner is failing hard in front of Congress.

My conspiracy theory friend told me that Obama was just another part of that great Cabal that controls everything and sucks everybody dry while grossly enriching themselves. I’d really hate to admit that he was right, but this shit gives me no credible argument against this.Same shit. Different boss.

Bob,I am envisioning a super capital gains tax in the SWGILM’s future. Something like 30%. That should pay for roads, bridges, smart grid, high speed rail, health care, social security.I am not a chess player but I think President Obama is setting up his pieces(HA) for a check mate on the SWGILM. Moreover, I would like to see where the fuck the TARP funds actually went. What did I hear last night? 53% of TARP went overseas.Just a reminder to the GOP/Libertarian friendly trolls. President Obama is not responsible for this Trillion that has left the US, AGAIN! President Obama is spending his Trillions here in the US. Just a friendly reminder.

No wonder the stock market jumped so high yesterday. Damn.

So, if the SWGILM make money off our tax dollars we get to tax their success, paid for by our taxes. I like the idea of gambling with taxes more than everyone’s 401K. But, that hasn’t stopped yet.For more info on this matter. Go read Matt Taibbi’s article in the latest Rolling Stone. It is also on the HUFFPO. You will need a giant cup of java because it is a long read.

More….I figure now is the time to put this out. The stock jumped 40% in 1933, the heart of the Great Depression. It had many more years of 20%-30% gains during that time period. The S&P is up 20% for the month of March. You do the math.WHY DOES OBAMA HATE WALL STREET?

Bob-I was under the impression that the government, i.e. taxpayers, are providing a low-interest loan to the investors for 85% of the cost of the toxic assets. If the assets increase in value when the economy recovers (less foreclosures means increased value of these bundled mortgages?) then the private investors pay back the government loan when the asset is sold at a profit. Wouldn’t this give the government back its initial investment with a tiny profit on interest? That being in addition to increasing credit (thus preventing further economic decline) after the banks have healthier balance sheets to lend from when the toxic assets are no longer on their books? Isn’t this how its supposed to work? If it works out, I believe the government does reap a benefit, although small compared to SWGILM profits. The question is: will it work out?I hope GItheJOE is right, and I don’t buy the conspiracy theorists who claim Obama is same shit, different name. Anyone who has read Dreams From My Father cannot believe that.

This is from the Washington Post… I think the last few lines are most important…”Treasury officials made changes to the plan in recent days in a way that makes it more favorable to private investors, according to government and industry sources. For instance, on Saturday, the draft plan called for the Treasury to put in four times as much equity as private investors, which would give taxpayers a greater windfall if the banking system recovers and the investments become profitable. But Treasury officials surrendered some of those potential gains after listening to the concerns of hedge funds and private-equity funds on Sunday, industry officials said.The Treasury increased private investors’ share of potential profits from 20 percent to 50 percent. A senior official at the department said it was not because the Treasury wanted to make the deal better for the investors but because it wanted to send a consistent message that the government would take the same stake as the private sector across all rescue programs. A smaller Treasury stake also means less risk for taxpayers, the official said.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032300572_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009032300759

GItheJoe,It took the stock market until 1954 to recoup everything it had lost in 1929. That’s twenty-five years, Joe.

michelle bachman just got thoroughly disciplined by barney frank for going over her time limit while questioning geithner.it was fucking beautiful.she must have been fed her questions from glenn beck.she actually asked geithner and bernacke if they would say that thay absolutely oppose a “global currency”.beck was just “theorizing” about this the other day.its really terrifying that this woman gets a vote on anything.

For his entire Presidential career including the campaign, people have second-guessed Obama and told him what he should be doing. I do not presume to understand the complexities of what they face and neitherr can any lay American; we do not possess all the facts. But with his op-ed, we see a new approach and a new political language that transcends mere policy decisions. I still have faith in him unless he shopws me different.A time for global actionBy Barack ObamaMonday, March 23, 2009WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up — already we’ve seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.All of our financial institutions — on Wall Street and around the globe — need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

AIG could NOT be allowed to fail. They insure our 401k’s, but even MORE bailouts? Whew…President Obama will be spending a big chunk of his political capital, and he knows it.I guess my question is: What’s the alternative? We know the problems, and we even know the problems with Geithner’s plan, but when do the Republicans plan on putting forth a coherent alternative? I know that stirring up fear and hatred is what they do best, but this is getting totally ridiculous.

bob…everything youre saying is essentially true.however,i think what most people continue to overlook in this overall discussion about bailouts and these banks is the fact that,the goal,what we’re attempting to achieve is the recovery of our economy.and i think we all agree that the most important aspect,or at least ONE OF the most important aspects in that recovery is the recovery of these banks.in other words,we need to do whatever possible,even when it means rewarding bad behavior at times,to make it so these banks are successful again.in order for a business to be successful,they need to do things like advertise(yes,even on baseball stadiums) and treat their best customers exfeptionally well(having concerts featuring sheryl crow).and as painful and unfair as it seems(especially to someone like me who is borderline poor),i think the government needs to do anything possible(within reason) to give them an advantage in becoming profitable again.obviously these companies arent financially capable of becoming profitable on their own.even WITH huge dvantages provided by gov’t,they still may not be able to recover.but the only chance we,as taxpayers have of being paid back,and rebuilding our economy(which unfortunately is largely based upon the success/failure of these greedy,incompetent motherfuckers)is if these banks become successful.i dont like it,not one bit,but i dont see any other way.

Remember that the foreclosure crisis is expected to recover somewhat by the end of 2009, and even more so during the first quarter of 2010.

OT… Sarah Palin… just got hit with another Ethics violation.. big one this time..http://divasblueoasis.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=478

Yes, the schooling of Michelle ( crazy lady ) Bachmann was a thing of beauty.. her questions were just as crazy.. where in the constitution does it give you the authority to do what you did..Was that a Beck or a Hannity question??? LOL

PPP,Have you ever made 30% interest on anything you have ever purchased? My statement had the intent of BUYING SHIT NOW! Not buying when the DOW was 14000. I am sorry for you loss but you should try some finance classes at a local community college.

One other thing.I know it’s vogue to complain about the profit that spazzy white guys MIGHT make from this deal. That’s sort of like being pissed at me because I GUESSED right on an IPO and hit the jackpot. There is REAL risk to these investors, and I am telling all of my clients that if they want in, they need to understand that the money they invest should be money they can afford to lose, and that profits can be substantial, but the risk is substantial as well.Look, this is basically a gigantic hedge fund, and real hedge fund managers are being hired to manage it, along with being told that if they want to manage it, they have to put $30 billion of their own money into it, to ensure that they do not take undue risks with these investments.Usually, a hedger gets paid 2% of the total capital up front. These hedgers are PAYING 3% up front. That’s one difference. The second difference is that hedgers usually receive 20% of year-over-year profits, plus 2% of capital. The maximum these guys are being allowed to make is 9% of profits (zero if this is a fail) and no percent of the capital (way less than they would normally make)…the rest is going to taxpayers. In essence, we will get 80% of the equity profits.Can anyone say ka-ching? If we earmarked the profits from this plan to go totally to Social Security, we could turn this Repression into gold. Of course, none of our politicians are smart enough to do that. Nope. The one thing we can be certain of is that our politicians will waste this money as though we never had it in the first place.That’s the plan is layman’s terms.

GItheJoe,I wasn’t complaining, just giving you the facts. My portfolio is up about fifty percent since October, but I got lucky for some parts of that. I do finance for a living, Joe.I can give you some advice. Don’t buy stocks without naming your profit. In other words, pick a sell price, and stick to it. Otherwise, you are completely dependent upon market timing.Most of America’s retirement plans were in the market at 14000, Joe. That’s because EVERYONE acted as though this would last forever. Real people (just like you) lost a lot of money, and many of them are within ten years of retirement.We’ve had 18 bear markets since 1929. That’s one every 4.44 years. The average bear loses 38%. Even if people recouped their losses in the next five years, they still have to watch out for the next bear. We all know the market has returned about 8% since the crash, but for real people (like you), it’s much less than that, due to ill-timed bears. You can take every finance class at your local college, Joe, and none of them will help you predict when to get out.Diversify. Look at some guaranteed products along with your investments. Whole Life Insurance run by Mutual companies can average as much as eight percent returns over twenty-five years, and the money is guaranteed to never go backward. Stay away from stock owned insurance companies, like AIG, etc. Don’t buy Variable Annuities, no matter how good the guarantee looks. If you want an annuity, by a fixed annuity, at a guaranteed rate of return. Variable Annuities only enrich the people selling them.If you buy stocks, capture your profits, and protect them in cash. That way, your initial investment is the only thing still exposed to market implosion.Here’s my biggest tip to you. The wealthiest people in the world own gobs of guaranteed products, like whole life insurance and fixed annuities. The goal is always to be increasing your net worth every year regardless of what the markets do. That’s how the wealthy get richer while the market would make it seem like no one could increase their net worth.Playing the market is fun, but it is gambling, and wealthy people only gamble with what they can afford to lose.

Anybody figure out what We The Poeple get in return? Don’t we get complete ownership of our houses? Isn’t the US government (WTP) in effect buying these sub-prime mortgaged houses and moving them off the Investment Banks’ books to our book?If so, then don’t we wind up owning it outright?What bothers me the most is that these losses have already been written off the books, and yet homeowners are still on the hook.

Re: Palin ethics complaint re: Arctic Whadafuk sponsorship for her husband and wearing snow gear in the winter in Alaska.Going nowhere.Read the statute. Pay attention to the language (which is what lawyers do, as opposed to normal people who, when they find out that she wore a jacket in winter in public with a logo on it and her husband, like, totally gets money from the snowmobile company!!! OMGLULZ shez fucked now!!!)…Look for the word INTENTIONALLY (and do try to keep in mind the niggling little detail that this is now, due to the language of the statute, an element of the violation that must be proven).Not saying the Palins aren’t dumb enough to have sent an email saying “If you give us the money, the governor will wear your gear at media events,” just that this huge, obvious ethics violation ferreted out and filed by a blogger who calls herself Celtic Diva (really? Celtic Diva? Sheesh!) isn’t so huge, nor anything much like obvious.

Don’t discount what you don’t know.. please.. Cousinavi… Linda… the one you are making fun of with your Sheesh.. Celtic Diva.. is a very well known lady in Alaska Politics.. I am not sure why you are putting it down so… it is a big deal and it does have merits…I am sorry I wasted your time bringing it forward.

@ AnnetteNo problem bringing it up. I suffer from POD (Palin Obsessive Disorder), so…And snarking at someone because of their Lord of Ringy nom be blog is a little beneath me (okay…it’s not beneath me, but I take your point…)Nevertheless, on the scale of fuckwittery of which the Palins are capable and/or deeply engaged, wearing a winter coat in Alaska that has a skidoo logo on it – the logo of the team that sponsors your husbands racing operation…Let’s just say that it’s a long driveway to shovel before you’re standing on Ethics Violation Rd, especially with the plain language of the statute driving back and forth in a giant plow piling up snow banks on the sidewalk.I ain’t sayin’ she’s ethical. I ain’t sayin’ she even appears ethical.I AM sayin’ that PROVING she’s unethical (in this particular set of facts, pursuant to this particular bit of legislation) is going to require one helluva lot more than:Todd took money – She wore a coat with a logo while being governor – Ethics Violation QED./that passive aggressive “sorry for bring it forward” stuff will only be tolerated once (and then only because I earned it).

Not being a financial whiz, I’m confused by the term “toxic assets.”If such investments are “toxic,” why are they called “assets?”To me, classifying something as an “asset” implies it has value.Am I missing something here?

In my opinion the most terrible thing about this plan is that the “private investors” are probably who? Yep, you guessed it. The same Wall Street firms and big business bozo’s we’re all too familiar with.To Politicalpartypooper”Real risk to these investors?” How can that be if the taxpayers cover any potential loss? Sounds like zero risk to me.

Packy,No, you’re not missing anything. Assets are assets regardless of their value. It’s accounting terminology.That being said, they should be liabilities since they don’t perform as an asset anymore. But there are fundamental accounting rules for transferring an asset to a liability, namely s sale the asset in which you wind up owing someone for it.

Packy-The assets have value, but the value is way less than what they were acquired for. In street lingo, they ain’t worth a shit. Hence the toxic label. Paid $500,000 for an asset, declines in value to $100,000, shows a net loss of $400,000 on the books. Still has value of $100,000, still an “asset”, but that $400,000 loss in value is the “toxic” part on the books.Simple explanation, but should make the point. Hope that helps a little.

Here’s Krugman on this subject…”“It’s very unlikely to produce enough gain in the prices of these assets to make the banks viable again,” said Krugman, a professor at Princeton University. “It’s a pretty bad deal for the taxpayer.”Great

edzeppelin-I felt the same way about Obama when I read Dreams From My Father in 2007 and nothing has happened to change how I feel so far.As many books as were sold I have come across few who have read it. I think anyone who did would be glad. Even if you didn’t have an interest in Obama, it is just a very good book.