Obama Administration Sending Draft Legislation to Hill to Give Treasury More Power
EmailTreasury Secretary Tim Geithner hopes to today send draft legislation of a bill to Capitol Hill that will give him more power to take over large financial institutions in serious trouble. The government currently has this authority with banks, but not with other financial institutions such as bank and thrift holding companies, or with holding companies that control insurance companies, futures commission merchants, and broker-dealers.
The draft legislation will — likely later today — be sent to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chair of the Senate Banking Committee and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chair of the House Financial Services Committee.
As written, the bill would give the Treasury Department what’s called "resolution authority," granting the U.S. government the authority to put a big financial company into receivership or conservatorship. With that authority, the government can either reorganize or shut down the company — renegotiating or reneging on contracts (such as retention bonuses for AIG executives), transferring the company’s assets and liabilities, and dealing with any derivatives portfolio.
One possible sticking point: President Obama and Secretary Geithner are seeking sole authority be given to the executive branch to put these companies into conservatorship or receivership. The legislation as written would give the decision making power to the Treasury Secretary and the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), though the decision would be "informed" by the advice of the chair of the Federal Reserve Board and any other relevant regulatory agency.
"Why do you think the public should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take over companies?" asked the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven last night at President Obama’s second presidential press conference.
"It’S precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse," President Obama said. "Understand that AIG is not a bank, it’s an insurance company. If it were a bank and it had effectively collapsed, then the FDIC could step in, as it does with a whole host of banks, as it did with IndyMac, and in a structured way, renegotiate contracts, get rid of bad assets, strengthen capital requirements, resell it on the private marketplace."
Noting that the government currently doesn’t "have that same capacity with an institution like AIG," the president asserted that’s "part of the reason why it has proved so problematic."
Mr. Obama said that when Americans ask questions about the handling of the AIG issue — "if we’re putting all this money in there, and if it’s such a big systemic risk to allow AIG to liquidate, why is it that we can’t restructure some of these contracts?" he characterized. "Why can’t we do some of the things that need to be done in a more orderly way?" — they need to know that in his view the answer is "because we have not obtained this authority."
Loven followed up: "Why should the public trust the government to handle that authority well?"
"If you look at how the FDIC has handled a situation like IndyBank (sic), for example, it actually does these kinds of resolutions effectively when it’s got the tools to do it," President Obama said. "We don’t have the tools right now."
The Treasury Department says that as of right now when a massive non-bank financial company is in crisis, there are only two options: to file for bankruptcy (as happened, to ill effect, with Lehman Brothers), or to secure capital from other companies or from the taxpayer (as happened, to ill effect, with AIG.)
"Had the government possessed the authorities contained in the proposed legislation, it could have resolved AIG in an orderly manner that shared losses among equity and debt holders in a way that maintained confidence in the institution’s ability to fulfill its obligations to insurance policyholders and other systemically important customers," the Treasury Department said in a press release today.
– jpt
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back? 
Possible Contraception Compromise in D.C.
Who in our executive branch knows how to run any company, let alone an insurance company?
Posted by: MayBee | March 25, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am
I pledge allegiance to the re-designed HOPE and CHANGE flag
Of the United States of Obama
And to the Socialist state for which it stands,
One Nation under One Supreme Generic Being,
Indivisible until Barack or ACORN decide otherwise,
With your neighbor’s property and economic justice for all deadbeats.
Posted by: Carrie | March 25, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
When the president was campaigning he was against the notion of too much power in the hands of the executive branch. In fact, he told Rick Warren he voted against confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts for that reason.
Guess the president has changed his mind.
Posted by: mad | March 25, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
I’ll bet Obama liked the way IndyMac was resolved because the government ended up selling it to his benefactor, George Soros.
Posted by: MayBee | March 25, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Maybee: Who in our executive branch knows how to run any company, let alone an insurance company?
=======================================
Well, Rahm Emanuel left government for a couple of years and made millions in the investment world.
Posted by: mad | March 25, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am
“Who in our executive branch knows how to run any company, let alone an insurance company?”
The Republicans let corporate America run this country for the last 8 years and most Americans have had it with that. We favor expert advice, but we do not want big businessmen making the final decisions.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 10:40 am 10:40 am
mad:Well, Rahm Emanuel left government for a couple of years and made millions in the investment world.
=========
Oh that’s right. He also learned how to get a good bonus from sitting on the board of Freddy Mac during their accounting scandals, too.
What could go wrong?
Posted by: MayBee | March 25, 2009, 10:41 am 10:41 am
Ya did a good job last night Jake.
Posted by: Clint | March 25, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
skip: but we do not want big businessmen making the final decisions.
=========
So you want the executive branch making big business’s decisions for them?
Do you think government should run business?
Posted by: MayBee | March 25, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
Who in our executive branch knows how to run any company.
Who at AIG knows how to run a company?
Posted by: Paul Dirks | March 25, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am
“but we do not want big businessmen making the final decisions.”
Ah corrupt self serving politicians are such a better choice.
You know what the difference is? One of takes money out of your check every week by force, guess which one?
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
carrie: since you eschew loyalty to the United States of America, perhaps you should consider leaving the country. No doubt you’d be happier. And so would we.
Posted by: William J. LePetomane | March 25, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
“Do you think government should run business?”
No, just maintain oversight. We should definitely have some big players advising the administration, but the final decisions should be made by a real representative of the people.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
“”but we do not want big businessmen making the final decisions.”
Actually lets elaborate on corrupt self serving politicians who appoint cronies to the highest positions of the executive branch.
Government should absolutely stay out of this mess, they aren’t the right people to fix it. They care more about your vote than making business work.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
If you trash and loot a few electronics stores in Watts, you get the Riot Police.
When you trash and loot Wall Street, you get a bonus.
Posted by: Generation Dubya | March 25, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
“but the final decisions should be made by a real representative of the people.”
Disagree, final decisions should be made by the people, not the government.
Search “Dear A.I.G., I Quit!” and read from someone inside AIG and see how politics has ruins business and careers.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
Congress will make sure to grab some of the power in this. This won’t be left solely to the White House and Geithner.
Posted by: matt | March 25, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
Maybee: Who in our executive branch knows how to run any company, let alone an insurance company?
=======================================
Richard Holbrooke, the president’s special envoy, was a board member of AIG during the years the financial products division ran wild.
Posted by: mad | March 25, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
Obama said he was against big government. Another blatant lie.
Posted by: sammy | March 25, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
“Disagree, final decisions should be made by the people, not the government.”
I’m hearing ‘Libertarian’.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
“I’m hearing ‘Libertarian’.”
You’ll hear what you want to hear.
Look, regulations were put in place after crisis to prevent it from happening again. The credit swap thing will be regulated from now on.
I flew in the military and the vast majority of safety notices in the instructions are as a result of an accident or loss of life, so procedures are put in place to prevent it from happening again. That should be the governments role, not taking control of institutions that the executive branch deems, by their own opinion, necessary. Any idea how dangerous this is? This would give carte blanch power to the executive branch to take whatever they see fit as a “hurting” financial institution, putting almost the entire financial market in the hands of politicians, who own some of the blame in this whole mess because they care about votes. Giving these jokers more power is senseless and ignorant.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 11:08 am 11:08 am
I’m curious about whether congress has the constitutional authority to grant Geithner what he wants. Anybody looked into this?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 25, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Geithner, as President of the New York Federal Reserve, has already demonstrated his mad oversight skillz with his oversight of Citigroup.
Posted by: MayBee | March 25, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
“I’m hearing ‘Libertarian’.”
“-You’ll hear what you want to hear.”
You ARE a Libertarian aren’t you? It’s alright, I don’t have anything against Libertarians except that their ideas are hopelessly impractical. We’ve got to prevent the Republicans from turning control of the country back over to big business, after that we can argue about the role of government.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
One thing the gov. doesn’t need is more power over the economy. They don’t understand sound business principles, and thereby allowed Fannie/Freddie to gestate into a larger problem that turned into the systemic disaster we see today.
The last people that are qualified and competent to judge an at-risk economic entity is Congress or the Executive branch. Most of these people have never worked outside of government, run a profitable business, made a payroll, or understand market forces. As for regulation, there are enough laws on the books, they just have to be enforced.
Republicans were agitating for more regulation that would have prevented the Fan/Fred debacle in 2005. Yet today, they’re blamed for “deregulating” everything. Democrats were the ones opposing regulation at the time, but they can get away with this “narrative” because the media trots along behind them and validates it.
Nice job on your questioning, JT, but Ed Henry should have taken a follow up to his question. Obama didn’t wait to opine on the AIG bonuses because he “likes to know what he’s talking about before he speaks.”
He waited to see which way the wind would blow, and where his various allies and foes were lining up. It was political positioning that made him wait, not looking for more information.
Posted by: a free man | March 25, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
AP: “The president of the European Union on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as ‘a road to hell.’”
The more the “Obama” organization reveals itself as a fascist force, the better the mere capitalism of the Mexican “gangs” looks.
Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 25, 2009, 11:34 am 11:34 am
“You ARE a Libertarian aren’t you? It’s alright, I don’t have anything against Libertarians except that their ideas are hopelessly impractical. We’ve got to prevent the Republicans from turning control of the country back over to big business, after that we can argue about the role of government.”
Actually I do not define myself neatly in any one box. If there is a box for limited government, I’m for that. I believe the government is to perform specific roles, national defense, basic needs and services, etc. As far as economy, the government should be as far out of it as possible, only be in the realm of sensible regulations. The government should not own or control corporations. The purpose of corporations are to make money, that’s what they do. Demonizing them for making money is economically suicidal. When they lose money or start to fail, there is a process already in place to handle it, it’s called bankruptcy. It hurts, people get hurt, investors get hurt, that’s the life of investing. The American people cannot guarantee the losses of investments. This bailout echos of the very problem that started this crisis in insuring losses (insurance on bad loans). Invest in something, it goes wrong, and the government bails you out. Invest and it goes right, you win. Problem is the government uses OUR money as insurance. That is wrong.
Now they want the power to just take over these firms at their whim?
There is absolutely no reasonable argument for this. You may trust this government now, but would you have trusted this much power with Bush? My guess is no. Well Obama won’t be President forever, eventually a politician you do not trust will have that power. Putting our financial system into the storms of political winds is economically stupid.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 11:34 am 11:34 am
“Ed Henry should have taken a follow up to his question.”
Let’s hope for a ROBUST and relentless follow-up, followed by The CHANGEling’s resignation and relocation to Argentina or wherever.
–> What the heck has David Axelrod done to his EYEBROWS?! On television last night, it looked like he had a couple of Groucho mustaches painted above his eyes.
Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 25, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am
Facist Hyena: I’m curious about whether congress has the constitutional authority to grant Geithner what he wants. Anybody looked into this?
=======================================
I’m sure it is absolutely constitutional because the president taught constitutional law.
Posted by: mad | March 25, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
” … whether congress has the constitutional authority to grant Geithner what he wants.”
Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to acquiesce to gifts of public funds, but it has done so.
Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to pass legislation it hasn’t read, but it has done so — first for the Patriot Act, now for the “Obama” organization.
If they go along with much more of this fascist adventure, either 1. someone will come forward to recall every one of them, and to replace them with actual representatives who aren’t installed by the corporations, or 2. a less disciplined revolution will materialize.
Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 25, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
“When they lose money or start to fail, there is a process already in place to handle it, it’s called bankruptcy”
Some of these firms are so big that we can’t let them go into bankruptcy. Even Bush and Paulson agreed that there was no way they could let AIG go down -and they wanted free markets. So we get bailouts.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
wait – does he have the tools or not? if he had the tools to fix indymac then he must have the tools to fix AIG
but more importantly what exactly can the govt do, and do better, that AIG can’t do itself?
AIG can renegotiate any contract it wants without the socialist govt of Barack Hussein Obama interfering
Posted by: Vic | March 25, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am
“Some of these firms are so big that we can’t let them go into bankruptcy.”
In the immortal words of Tonto — the Lone Ranger’s running buddy — “whaddya mean ‘we’”?
Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 25, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
If this passes Capitalism will
be dead and Big Brother will have
Arrived.
What’s needed are better regulations
and more oversight not total control!
We don’t need Big Brother looking over
our shoulders 24/7!
The next thing you know the
President and his merry band of
socialists will be installing
video cameras in our homes so
Obama can speak directly to us and
see what we’re doing!
This garbage needs to Stop Now before
it’s too late!
Posted by: reaganfan | March 25, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
So,it pays to be a TAX CHEAT,get an olive branch,get a job,like Sec.of the TREASURY,and call it a day…Nice.It’s goo to be the king!
Posted by: amstaffbru | March 25, 2009, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
“Who in our executive branch knows how to run any company, let alone an insurance company?”
—————————————-
The Republicans let corporate America run this country for the last 8 years and most Americans have had it with that. We favor expert advice, but we do not want big businessmen making the final decisions.
Posted by: Skip | Mar
—————————————-
The Republicans let corporate American run this country, but now the Democrats are paying them back with billions of taxpayer dollars!
Posted by: Global Fraud! | March 25, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
“The next thing you know the
President and his merry band of
socialists will be installing
video cameras in our homes so
Obama can speak directly to us and
see what we’re doing!”
You’re forgetting that total domestic surveillance the Congress was good enough to enact without reading the Patriot Act?
The only “socialists” the Obama organization resembles are the German National Socialists who caused so much global trouble, beginning in the 1930s and 40s.
Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 25, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
“Some of these firms are so big that we can’t let them go into bankruptcy. Even Bush and Paulson…”
I disagreed with them both. These corporations would have been broken up and sold off by the bankruptcy courts, assets bought on the cheap by healthier corporations, and the massive loss of value absorbed. It’s the process that we have relied on for years. Bush and Paulson opened a dangerous door and this bill is the result of it.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
“The Republicans let corporate American run this country, but now the Democrats are paying them back with billions of taxpayer dollars!”
But the really amazing thing to me is that these executives are actually accepting the money -they’re receiving corporate welfare on a massive scale. I hope I don’t have to listen to right-wingers complain about welfare anymore after this.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
skip- doing work for government money isn’t generally considered welfare. If it was, every person in the government, every government contractor, teachers, and soldiers would be on “welfare”.
Posted by: MayBee | March 25, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
We favor expert advice, but we do not want big businessmen making the final decisions.
~~~~
So are you going on the record saying you want government to run business? Or does the “we’ somehow exclude you?
Posted by: Plumber | March 25, 2009, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
Believe PB0. He knows what he is doing – he will end the class war:
According to Engels, socialism was not “an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historico-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict.”
Posted by: two cats | March 25, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
The point being that if someone had allowed AIG to go through bankruptcy then there wouldn’t be a need to create new legislation of any sort. The dots were and are already in place – they have never been connected. The bailout is a total disconnect because they need to separate out the profitable parts of the company from the unprofitable core.
The corporation/conglomerate has to be allowed/required to go through bankruptcy in order for a bailout to work successfully.
Posted by: aray | March 25, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
I think that government should restrict how much risk really huge firms are allowed to take, but not actually run them, and I think most Americans agree with me, or I with them.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
“but not actually run them…”
So you are against this legislation in this form. We come to an agreement. Lets hope someone with a backbone stands up and forces it into re-write or stops it.
I think we both agree that they should work on the regulations needed to prevent this from happening again, not power grabbing.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
A second order effect of this bailout, government saving mess is how it affects investors. Think about smaller financial firms. If something is “too big to fail” that the government will swoop in and save it, then I want my entire 401k investing in those firms. The risk is gone. Smaller financial firms? Buzz off, government isnt going to save you. I’ll put my money in the big boys.
This will ruin the investment markets. And who is to say the government will stop there? Energy is next.
Posted by: KR | March 25, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
This will not end with financial institutions..This will only create a precedence for all of Corporate America. For one man to have the power to shut down a major corporation at will is truly an example of abusive government powers..AIG is an INTERNATIONAL corporation yes based in America but offices and investments all over the world..For one man to have the ability to shut down this and other firms at is unbelievable..Obama, why are you trying to discourage free market?? Have faith in public outcry, AIG executives feeling the pressure from the people and giving back bonues…Obama..shut down irresponsibility in our Congressmen and Senators who VOTED FOR TARP WITHOUT READING IT….Don’t take over our jobs..
Posted by: Parallax View | March 25, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
Pretty soon Obama’s picture will show up on buildings in every city–probably a few statues too.
As he gets bolder and grabs more power the USA will start to resemble BO’s idea of eutopia–Cuba, North Korea.
A place where he/government has total control.
Posted by: sammy | March 25, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
Obama is wrong. AIG got worse when government got involved. Bankruptcy could have peeled off the toxic assets quickly, and even cancelled the retention bonuses (though such bonuses are pretty normal in a bankruptcy situation).
AIG got worse STILL when government feigned outrage over legal transactions (the bonuses) that they’d known about since December, if not before. There were numerous occasions where Congress asked questions about the bonuses, the news reported on them, and AIG reported them.
AIG got EVEN worse, because at least two groups appointed to oversee the financial crisis haven’t met since Obama took office. One was created by Congress specifically to keep tabs on TARP. It last met on Feb. 19.
Posted by: WSLS-Webguy | March 25, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
New authority?
The U.S. govt. owns 80% of AIG, what new authority does it need?
Posted by: Will Stanton | March 25, 2009, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Give Walmart a contract to run the entire government. They know how to make things work effectively, efficiently and economically.
Posted by: Sigmond | March 25, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
First it is the banks.
Now its the insurance companies.
Next its the manufacturers.
Then its the Government controlling consumers telling them how much they can earn and what they can do and buy and eat.
Can we overthrow these Obama ideas?
Obama is a sham.
Could Obama be the worst thing that has happened to the world? Will Obama do more financial damage and ruin to the world than Hitler?
Posted by: Wilma H. | March 25, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
The Politburo is certainly staying busy these days.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 25, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Posted by: mad | Mar 25, 2009 11:42:06 AM………Did Obama’s knowledge of constitutional law reference Article 1, Section 9?
Posted by: deanbob | March 25, 2009, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm
Does Obama even have the knowledge to evaluate whether or not this is a good idea? He just reads the teleprompter. This is scary.
Posted by: Joan | March 25, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
deanbob:………Did Obama’s knowledge of constitutional law reference Article 1, Section 9?
=======================================
One can only hope.
Posted by: mad | March 25, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
“Will Obama do more financial damage and ruin to the world than Hitler?”
Probably: Hitler lacked the internet, the “secure” Blackberry, and the online pressure cult.
Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 25, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
Well, we all know the old saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It’s a cliche, but it’s one we should all keep in mind these days.
Posted by: Miss M | March 25, 2009, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
This is a great idea. After the government has taken over all the banking and financial institutions, it should be no trouble to nationalize the oil companies (even though that strategy didn’t work out so well in Venezuela).
I think the government should next set its sights on pharmaceuticals, because even though Wal-Mart helped to get prescription drug costs down to pretty good levels – all prescriptions should be free. Come to think of it, Wal-Mart has become a bit too powerful (I mean too big to fail), we should probably take them over too. Their distribution system sure would come in handy if it were under government control.
Posted by: Citizen 85905 | March 25, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
“So you are against this legislation in this form. We come to an agreement. Lets hope someone with a backbone stands up and forces it into re-write or stops it.
I think we both agree that they should work on the regulations needed to prevent this from happening again, not power grabbing.”
Now hold on there, I didn’t say I was against this legislation. It seems to me that you are trying to call this legislation ‘government running business’ when all I see is the government stepping in once these firms are in serious trouble, not making day to day investment decisions for them. What’s wrong with the FDIC? You don’t like them either? Did the FDIC ruin banking?
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
Hansel and Gretel story we all know and the witch in that story appears to be the Secretary of Treasury. Oh yes the story line is the same, come little ones I will feed you more than you need or want amd make you fat from my action. Then I will throw you into the oven for my dinner. And, oh yes – I fed you so much we will also need to eat your children and grandchildren
Posted by: Ralph | March 25, 2009, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
Skip, The Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation is designed to protect depositors – not the banking institution. It’s to assure people that their money is safe in the bank. If a bank goes under and fails, FDIC steps in and pays the depositor the funds they had in the bank. They don’t step in and save the bank or run the bank — the bank still fails.
Geithner’s suggestion is not to set up an independent insurance company for struggling companies – he’s talking about the federal government stepping in to keep the company from failing.
Failure is a good thing in a capitalist system – it’s incentive for others to do better. People and companies bounce back from failure and setbacks all the time and chalk it up to learning experience. The government should play no role in that.
Posted by: Mel | March 25, 2009, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
“Failure is a good thing in a capitalist system…”
It’s not a good thing when the company that fails is so big that it drags the whole economy down with it, like economists on both sides of the aisle were afraid was going to happen if AIG were allowed to go into bankruptcy for example. I’m just reminding you guys that the American public doesn’t care about economic philosophy. They want protection from catastrophic economic collapse.
Posted by: Skip | March 25, 2009, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
Skip, there were plenty of economists who thought the company should be allowed to fail. The economy wouldn’t have collapsed – that’s just the story Bush sold to the taxpayers. Would the economy have suffered a significant blow? Yes, but it did anyway, and the recovery is much longer and more expensive.
Posted by: Mel | March 25, 2009, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
Good grief, this President doesn’t have any money to do anything, so he’s going to force our children and grandchildren to pay for his programs that he thinks will make everything better. The poor soul is so confused he has to have a monster sized televsion screen so he can speak to the public. Apparently, he only allows people who are fielded by the President and they get to give a question. The poor smuck should do what other Presidents do. Don’t be taking up our quality time to talk with you. We want it to be very clear to the President that we don’t want to talk you three of four times a month. Sit down in you freaking desk and do some work. Better still, read some books on economics.
Posted by: elainekramer | March 25, 2009, 9:00 pm 9:00 pm
I suppose if Geithner has more power, he can make the stock market go up every time he opens his mouth instead of down.
Sounds like a plan!
Posted by: RR GOP | March 25, 2009, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm
Why aren’t people afraid of what is happening. This is UNREAL to allow the government to be our saviors!!!!
This is so wrong in every way, our country has completely gone to haites!!!
Posted by: Sue | March 25, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
U.S. watchdog says billions of U.S. aid wasted in Iraq!
Where’s the outrage on that? If you supported this war, YOU are part of the problem.
Posted by: JV | March 25, 2009, 11:20 pm 11:20 pm
Bend over, you idiots that bought the
campaign rhetoric…and STILL love
this phony “community organizer”.
He wants to do a sigmoidoscopy on
you….without anesthesia. He’ll
soon tell you how much you WILL take
in this orifice…..because he CAN!
Posted by: Trajan | March 25, 2009, 11:26 pm 11:26 pm
Why not use the anti-trust law to break up AIG years ago before it ran into big mess, as was done three decades ago for AT&T ? Remember during the Clinton administration, Microsoft was considered to be too big.
Posted by: austin | March 25, 2009, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm
doing work for government money isn’t generally considered welfare. If it was, every person in the government, every government contractor, teachers, and soldiers would be on “welfare”.
Posted by: MayBee | Mar 25, 2009 12:44:44 PM
*************************************
True, but in the case of elected officials (like say, Senators and Presidents, sitting or ex), I would say TAXPAYER money (the government has NO money) IS indeed welfare.
They basically sit around doing nothing and get all kinds of perks and benefits. How is that NOT welfare?
Posted by: Ummmm | March 26, 2009, 1:54 am 1:54 am
As for AIG and it’s size and regulation, or lack thereof,
A columnist on msn Money wrote an article recently about how the FEDERAL government contributed to the lack of oversight of AIG as a result of various laws and regulations. If true, it doesn’t absolve AIG of its responsibility, but it certainly makes the government a guilty party.
No surprise here.
Posted by: whatever | March 26, 2009, 1:57 am 1:57 am
Congress will make sure to grab some of the power in this. This won’t be left solely to the White House and Geithner.
Posted by: matt | Mar 25, 2009 10:58:12 AM
****************************************
Well maybe if they are all busy squabbling like children over how to share the power (didn’t Animal Farm have a scene like this with the pigs?), they will be too busy to do anything that will in all likelihood damage this country further.
If they keep it up long enough, perhaps we will find ourselves in 2010 (at the earliest) and vote in some new people. Some good Libertarians and independents to start, as they may be even too busy to notice it’s a mid-term election year.
I doubt it, but it’s good to HOPE for CHANGE, no?
Posted by: fed up | March 26, 2009, 2:02 am 2:02 am
Just what we all need. More moronic oversight from those who got us in this mess in the first place. Strap on your seat belts AmeriKa!
Posted by: TxBoB | March 26, 2009, 7:37 am 7:37 am
I thought we were switching to solar and wind power. Can’t Tim G. just get a Volt car?
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 26, 2009, 9:15 am 9:15 am
you blogers claim to have some knowledge concerning big problems of this still “free america”????? If any of you really knew the “TRUTH” you’d all run for your silly lives. We haven’t breathed a free day in hundreds of years being under the rule of all your gods and its god SATAN! Now figure out whom he rules?
Posted by: itsme | March 26, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah | April 14, 2009, 10:20 pm 10:20 pm