« The case for keeping "single payer health care" off the table | SleepinJeezus's Blog | "Stop the Bleeding!" First a Cure, then Recovery for Health Care System »
Paulson's Economic Recovery Plan is an Unqualified Success!
At the time we experienced the economic meltdown during the death throes of the Bush Administration, I was alarmed to hear the names that were suggested as the economic "experts" who would save us from this impending disaster. Paulson, Geithner, Rubin, and Bernanke could all be seen as the elite who held major sway over Wall Street during the run-up to the meltdown caused in large part by the deregulation of our financial industry. On top of it all, these men were a fairly incestuous group overall with ties to a mere handful of the most powerful among the largest of Wall Street "Investment Banks," particularly Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and AIG (as their "insurer").
The sense of alarm I felt was intensified greatly when the very first recommendation to resolve this crisis was to hand over upwards of $800 BILLION dollars to former Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO and then Treasury Secretary Paulson to buy up troubled assets ("toxic assets") from GS and the other Wall Street firms. Most incredibly, these funds were to be distributed solely at Paulson's discretion without Congressional or Judicial oversight and without any assignment of ownership equity to the taxpayer in exchange for this massive infusion of cash into these "private" firms.
This arrangement was not a problem of an appearance of a conflict of interest. No, the conflict of interest here was irrefutable. Yet, to my astonishment, the blank checks were written and the U.S. taxpayers mortgaged our future to underwrite the effort of these "experts" to save our economy.
How ironic is it that we never actually engaged in the purchase of toxic assets, even though this was a supposed key component of the recovery plan as proposed at the time we forked over billions of dollars for the Paulson Recovery Program?
How ironic is it that there was never any effort made to forestall homeowner foreclosures, even though the rising number of such foreclosures was identified as the key threat to our economy?
How ironic is it that Lehman Brothers - among the greatest competitors to GS - was allowed to fail into bankruptcy at great cost to the taxpayers less than a year before GS claimed almost record profits?
How ironic is it that we hear increased pressure for U.S. Corporations to ship jobs offshore and reduce employee wages and benefits as a means of becoming more "competitive" even though the recession is reportedly caused primarily by the lack of "consumer confidence" and the lack of consumer spending by these same domestic employees?
How ironic is it that we now learn that Citigroup (among others) are now trying to repackage their toxic assets (or, ahem, "legacy assets" fer chrissakes!) into new instruments that can be awarded AAA status?
How ironic is it that GS and Citigroup are among those business interests that are now leading the way in the fight against increased regulation of the financial industry?
There really is no irony to any of this at all. The "experts" we put in place certainly identified from the start that the fiscal health of Wall Street was really all that mattered in terms of an "economic recovery," and Wall Street has recovered quite well, thank you very much!
And so, quite simply, those of us who suffer under this jobless recovery and who face the same, ongoing yet deepening threats presented by increased home foreclosures and unemployment are seemingly invited to go out and get our own recovery plan. Paulson, et. al., are finished with theirs, and the champaign flows on Wall Street and plans are underway to determine just how the spoils of their success will be distributed in bonuses to be handed out.
Don't be surprised if the taxpayers are not invited to the parties underway on Wall Street to celebrate its success. If you go, however, be sure to pick up the condom at the doorway reserved for you to wear as a party hat for a dickhead. After all, we the taxpayers have been afforded no more consideration in any of this than that, and we are left with little choice here but to resign ourselves to playing the role that has been assigned to us by the "experts" who have saved this economy.
The sense of alarm I felt was intensified greatly when the very first recommendation to resolve this crisis was to hand over upwards of $800 BILLION dollars to former Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO and then Treasury Secretary Paulson to buy up troubled assets ("toxic assets") from GS and the other Wall Street firms. Most incredibly, these funds were to be distributed solely at Paulson's discretion without Congressional or Judicial oversight and without any assignment of ownership equity to the taxpayer in exchange for this massive infusion of cash into these "private" firms.
This arrangement was not a problem of an appearance of a conflict of interest. No, the conflict of interest here was irrefutable. Yet, to my astonishment, the blank checks were written and the U.S. taxpayers mortgaged our future to underwrite the effort of these "experts" to save our economy.
How ironic is it that we never actually engaged in the purchase of toxic assets, even though this was a supposed key component of the recovery plan as proposed at the time we forked over billions of dollars for the Paulson Recovery Program?
How ironic is it that there was never any effort made to forestall homeowner foreclosures, even though the rising number of such foreclosures was identified as the key threat to our economy?
How ironic is it that Lehman Brothers - among the greatest competitors to GS - was allowed to fail into bankruptcy at great cost to the taxpayers less than a year before GS claimed almost record profits?
How ironic is it that we hear increased pressure for U.S. Corporations to ship jobs offshore and reduce employee wages and benefits as a means of becoming more "competitive" even though the recession is reportedly caused primarily by the lack of "consumer confidence" and the lack of consumer spending by these same domestic employees?
How ironic is it that we now learn that Citigroup (among others) are now trying to repackage their toxic assets (or, ahem, "legacy assets" fer chrissakes!) into new instruments that can be awarded AAA status?
How ironic is it that GS and Citigroup are among those business interests that are now leading the way in the fight against increased regulation of the financial industry?
There really is no irony to any of this at all. The "experts" we put in place certainly identified from the start that the fiscal health of Wall Street was really all that mattered in terms of an "economic recovery," and Wall Street has recovered quite well, thank you very much!
And so, quite simply, those of us who suffer under this jobless recovery and who face the same, ongoing yet deepening threats presented by increased home foreclosures and unemployment are seemingly invited to go out and get our own recovery plan. Paulson, et. al., are finished with theirs, and the champaign flows on Wall Street and plans are underway to determine just how the spoils of their success will be distributed in bonuses to be handed out.
Don't be surprised if the taxpayers are not invited to the parties underway on Wall Street to celebrate its success. If you go, however, be sure to pick up the condom at the doorway reserved for you to wear as a party hat for a dickhead. After all, we the taxpayers have been afforded no more consideration in any of this than that, and we are left with little choice here but to resign ourselves to playing the role that has been assigned to us by the "experts" who have saved this economy.
Advertisement













There is no irony about Lehman failing. That company took incredibly risky positions in mortgages that ended up burning them. There was no reason for the government to try to save Lehman, and the bankruptcy process while painful went pretty smoothly.
As for Paulson's supposed conflict of interest, I don't believe there's a conflict as long as he has sold all of his economic interest in Goldman Sachs. I don't see why an ex-banker can't hold a position in Treasury. Paulson did not profit from the TARP investment in the banks.
July 19, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many ways in which you would have to put on significant blinders to excuse the conflict of interest in this way, MCB. (Indeed, it could be sufficient material for a whole other blog post.) But I would expect you to use every obfuscation available as a consistent apologist for those who rape and plunder the commoners in this economy.
For these purposes, however, suffice to say the conflict of interest isn't all about personal monies directly received by the likes of Paulson and associates, particularly after they have previously bled stakeholders for kajillions in compensation (or call it "earnings" if you are in a real joking mood) packages. After all, how much money can one family actually use?
No, it becomes more a matter of looking out for everyone else who was responsible for getting you the "earnings" in the first place (i.e. the relevant corporate board of directors.) As "team players" it becomes Paulson & Co's "moral responsibility" to perpetrate this incestuous rape of taxpayers when the opportunity presents itself - in much the same way they promote the bamboozling of corporate stakeholders (who realistically have no meaningful control over boards of directors) to gain the "earnings" packages for one another in the first place. The "honorable" exec in these circumstances would be expected to serve his class. It's what keeps this cesspool organically active so it can well serve the elites.
As for the rest of us? Paulson and company satisfy any sense of a requirement for personal fairness and equity in the economy by magnanimously supporting Charity Balls for the rest of us.
I will anticipate your next complaint by saying "Class Warfare?"
And I respond by saying "Yup! And we are losing!"
Still.
July 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Paulson shouldn't have been allowed to be in the Treasury?
July 19, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you would find it acceptable to put, say, Ollie North in charge of the Pentagon with little or no oversight. The track record should be cause for concern to begin with. To allow unfettered access to control policy is foolish.
In both cases, someone interested in actually serving the public good would be A far preferable choice.
July 19, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
After thinking more about it, I can offer a more precise analogy:
it is appropriate for the gov't (i.e. FBI and other law enforcement agencies) to retain services of thieves, robbers, and other felons for purpose of consulting about ways to best thwart thieves, robbers and other felons from victimizing the public in the future. But they don't hand Willie Sutton the keys to the joint and tell him "Here! Keep the bank secure."
We have alot to learn from Paulson about how we got into this mess. But Paulson and his comrades should be kept as far away from any control of our nation's economic policy or access to our Treasury as possible.
Obviously!
July 19, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paulson is interested in serving the public good. That's why he went into public office. He certainly didn't do it for the money - he already had more than he knew what to do with.
If you're opposed to TARP and bailing out banks, that is one thing. People can certainly be critical of the policies. But throwing around terms like "thieves" is unfair.
July 19, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not dispute that Paulson is interested in serving the public good. My complaint with Paulson and his peers is that they define the "public" quite narrowly to include only those who own this government - and then narrow that even further to include only the winners in the competitive games among those owners. And so not only are we the people screwed, but it sucks as well to be Lehman Bros, WaPo, and other firms who are overwhelmed by the powerful juggernaut of Wall Street "winners."
Throwing around terms like "thieves" is perhaps unfair - to self-respecting thieves, I would imagine. According to the rules of the game played by these Titans of the economy, they are entitled to all the wealth they can amass for themselves and their peers. They take only what is rightfully theirs, and it is all rightfully theirs if they so choose. That's the rules of the game in what they see as "civil society" expressed in their "free market economy."
July 20, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
SleepinJeezuz, I've dealt with MiddleClassBill before - there's more "Banking Class", specifically, "Goldman Sacks Class" than "Middle Class" in his thinking, I assure you. I do appreciate his attempt at irony when picking his avatar name.
Here's a BRILLIANT expose by Eliot Spitzer - he who offended too many powerful people - to explain the fugazi we're in with Goldman Sacks without the hyperbole, pitchforks and colorful metaphor, and how the current policies are ALL WRONG. Really worth 10 minutes of your viewing, believe me:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/eliot-spitzer-matt-taibbi-and-goldman-sachs#comment-10186
July 20, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link to the article qwerty. I look forward to reading it shortly.
Curiously,I had not read - nor was I even aware of - the Rolling Stone article until it was mentioned here by Middle Class Bill and DDay. Interesting to learn I am in synch with what others find to be a troubling, incestuous relationship between certain Wall Street "banks" and our government in Washington. I will be reading this article as well.
I, too, have sensed irony in Middle Class Bill's choice of a nom de plume. If he is truly of the middle class, I find his attitudes and allegiances to be more in accord with an earlier era; one in which he might have been known as "Obsequious Serf Bill." The degree to which he and others fawn over their feudal lords as their rightful betters - even their benefactors in some crazy "trickle-down" scheme - is reminiscent more of the middle ages than any other period in our economic history.
I, as you may have noticed, tend a bit more toward the jacobinic belief that I serve no lords and masters and will be inclined to hang anyone posing as such long before bowing down in deference to them. Like the good chicken, bwakfat, I stand at the ready with my pitchfork in hand. And in the words of another rebellious gang, I confess that "We are obscene, lawless, hideous, dangerous, dirty, violent" (albeit, alas, not so much "young" any longer!)
Yes, populism is growing in response to the increasingly audacious grab for power by the ruling class. And to Wall Street, I suggest it is soon becoming time for us would-be serfs to consider joining forces to "Tear down the Wall..." As more and more lose their homes, their jobs, their futures, and their health to support this parasitic elite, they will be forgiven if they determine that they simply have nothing left to lose.
July 20, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I listened to the Bloomberg interview with Spitzer. Great insight! dare I say I believe he'd be a better Sec'y of Treasury than the last few we've had?
I also read the Taiibi article in Rolling Stone regarding Goldman Sachs. It's even worse than I could have imagined. Definitely recommended reading for anyone wondering what went wrong, why we have spent so much tax dollars with no good result on Main Street, and just how incestuous our government and GS (in particular) is.
Man, what a nightmare!
Thanks, qwerty! I think? ;O)
July 20, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sleepinjeezus, connect the dots and decide for yourself if it is a "conspiracy" like our MiddleClassFriend proclaims.... Also, this gem from Jesse Ventura:
JESSE VENTURA: So, you know, to me, it's a case of, really, I think, in many ways, federal politics is very much like pro-wrestling. In front of us, the public, they pretend they're angry with each other and they pretend to not like each other. But in the back rooms, they're all buddies and cutting deals. And I think that's what the two parties do today at the federal level.
LARRY KING: So that's why you think the public...
VENTURA: It's very much like wrestling.
KING: And do you think the public is aware of that?
VENTURA: No. I think the public believes it, just like they did for wrestling, you know, that they really don't like each other, that they're really against each other, when the reality of it is that both parties are bought and sold by the same lobbyists.
If you go to both national conventions, you'll see the same lobbyists at each one, where they're buying their influence right there. So it really doesn't matter fully to them who wins and who loses, because they have their base covered.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/14/lkl.01.html
July 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I a fan of the bailouts? No. But I think it's absurd to create a conspiracy theory about how Goldman Sachs somehow controls the government. Or that Paulson makes decisions that play favorites with Goldman.
July 20, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I would not like to see anyone who makes over 500 grand a year hold any office in government.
There simply is no way they would get that kind of money legally/morally/ethically.
C
July 19, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so
July 19, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Bill Gates can't hold public office?
July 20, 2009 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
A prejudice is an implicitly held belief, often about a group of people. Race, economic class, gender or sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and religion are other common subjects of prejudice.
July 20, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't be surprised if the taxpayers are not invited to the parties underway on Wall Street to celebrate its success. If you go, however, be sure to pick up the condom at the doorway reserved for you to wear as a party hat for a dickhead. After all, we the taxpayers have been afforded no more consideration in any of this than that, and we are left with little choice here but to resign ourselves to playing the role that has been assigned to us by the "experts" who have saved this economy."
I carry with me toooooooo many sentiments like this Sleepin.
INCEST is not a term of art here at all. I have written on blog on the Rolling Stone article at the urging of a friend, but i was going to do another.
A very thoughtful and insightful Post!!!!!!!!
July 19, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't stop me now, DDay! I'm on a roll! Just take a look at my comments added within this thread to see what I mean.
As you see here, I share your anger - to the point that I cannot help but stray toward hyperbole just in expressing the depth of my contempt for the owners of this government in Washington.
Hyperbole or not, something's gotta give before we are all relegated to little more than serfs scrambling for the crumbs left over from the well-appointed tables of our lords and masters.
See? There I go again! ;O)
July 20, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! And one more thing!
Remember "Too Big To Fail?"
That was the excuse we received for much of the need to pump public tax dollars into this "free market" economic system. It seems that too many of these firms had grown so large that the system would never be able to absorb their failure.
And where are we today?
Many small firms have failed in bankruptcy.
The largest firms are showing record profits.
The list of "Too Big To Fail" firms is pretty nigh stable at status quo ante levels, and these firms are getting bigger.
And Wall Street is hardly inclined to allow any anti-trust meddling from "socialists" in the government, and Paulson, Behrnanke, Rubin and Geithner can hardly be expected to lead the charge to pursue this required reform.
I mean, what the hell. If those receiving bonuses and dividends on Wall Street tell you it ain't broke, why should we fix it?
July 19, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, they call the programs what they actually are. Brazen, huh? If you're not big, you are left to fail, but if you are one of the big boys and a friend of theirs, well, then you're "too big to fail" just like they said.
July 19, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of those odd moments in life, when I find myself agreeing with Middleclassbill, (at least with his opening statement). There is no irony here. Only obscenity. Rec'd.
July 20, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
...I was alarmed to hear the names that were suggested as the economic "experts" who would save us from this impending disaster.
That's why I say that this latest round of profits is really a paycheck from the US Government to the people who are really running it.
Next time we fill out a W-4 form, let's all add Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan as our dependents.
July 20, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of claiming the dependents. It would be a great strategy in a protest movement.
And isn't it incredible how impossible it is to find any solutions to any of the many problems we face for so long as we keep putting off significant campaign finance reform?
July 20, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That's why I say that this latest round of profits is really a paycheck from the US Government to the people who are really running it."
The point of the TARP, PPIP, TALF, TLGP, etc were all to get the banks lending again. Unfortunately, it was decided that even the healthy banks (JPMorgan, Goldman, plus some smaller ones like Northern Trust) were forced/allowed to participate. Combine that with the disappearance of Bear, Lehman, Wachovia, WaMu, et al and you have the surviving banks gaining market share and pricing power.
To accuse Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner and team of favoring certain banks for personal reasons is very disingenuous. It sells lots of copies of Rolling Stone, but that's about as much as the conspiracy theory is worth.
July 20, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy utopia, but please note that with the exception of Lehman, the others did not just disappear. They were swallowed by bigger fish, with help from the biggest big fish, FedWhale.
July 20, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree each was a unique situation - but what's your point?
July 20, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could the point be that the bigger fish were simply "too big to fail" in the effort to devour the littler fish?
And as a result, they are now even "too bigger to fail" than they were previously?
Weren't we going to fix that problem? Wot happened? We got sidetracked somehow? By whom?
These are all rhetorical questions.
July 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone is only too big to fail if the gov't decides to rescue them. If the banks left think they will be rescued, that is a bad thing. But the administration's new proposals are designing special treatment for banks it views as too big to fail. So it is signaling that it will take care of the larger banks. I think that's a mistake because it will encourage the larger banks to take too much risk because they will think that if they get in trouble they will get bailed out. I'm glad the government decided not to rescue CIT.
July 20, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is kidding who here? All of these guys are born and bred of Wall Street. You have to be a damn fool to not know where their loyalties lay.
Not to mention they are all persons who were or have been in government and were party to the regulatory failures and necessarily closed their eyes to the malfeasance. Not only should they not be in their present jobs but in fact should be in jail for criminal negligence.
July 20, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
All due respect, SJ, you are more than a little late to the table. People in the banking industry were making those observations (about Lehman and GS) and were rather pissed about the government taking sides back in September 2008. Individuals not in GS (but in more financially sound institutions such as Morgan Stanley) were especially miffed and among conservative circles (and certainly Wall Street) the GS favoritism was not lost. Conversations I heard included lines like "but what did you expect, they [GS] have been running the government for years now..."
And remember, this is from conservatives and wealthy bankers!
July 20, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink