Post Claims Paulson Misled Bush on Bailout
According to the Washington Post, after the initial defeat of the bailout package in the House last Monday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went to see President Bush in the White House. The Post reports that President Bush asked Paulson about "Plan B." According to the Washington Post, Paulson told Bush "there is no Plan B."
Of course this was not true. Paulson could have easily designed a bailout plan that was centered on the direct infusion of capital in the banking system, as was suggested by George Soros in a Financial Times column later in the week. Virtually every economist who has written on the bailout argued that a direct infusion of capital is a far more effective approach to dealing with the financial crisis than the approach outlined by Paulson.
Clearly Paulson had not invested a great deal of time in crafting the initial proposal he submitted to Congress since it was just three pages and few of the details of the plan had yet been decided. This means that Paulson easily could have switched gears and developed a plan along the lines advocated by economists.
This alternative approach almost certainly would have passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress since it could easily be structured in a way that ensured that the banks were not being rewarded for their incompetence at the taxpayers' expense. This was a major factor behind the public's outrage over the bailout.
If the Post accurately described the meeting between Paulson and Bush (there is no source given for this account), then Secretary Paulson badly misled President Bush on the most important economic decision of his presidency.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
October 5, 2008
The US Secretary of the Treasury has informed the China Development Bank that the US has shipped $800 Billion of a new currency called the Amero, which is to be based upon the merging of the economies of The United States, Mexico and Canada into what is termed as The North American Union.
This scraped from Break-the-Matrix news - Is this what the Bailout was all along. I posted on my blog that somewhere it had something to do with China. What if this was what it was about. I first heard about this on Friday evening on drive time talk radio WZTK.
The current American debt obligation to China, currently based on the US Dollar, is now estimated to be the staggering sum of $2.5 Trillion, and which this new Amero will be exchanged for $400 Billion of this debt as the current American currency is set to be devalued by 50 percent before the end of the year.
Virtually unknown to the American people is that their current leader of the US Department of Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., has been tasked by President Bush to lead the efforts to join the economies of the US, Canada and Mexico and is also the head of the North American Development Bank.
Would not be surprised at all if the debt to China and other foreign investment entities were a big part of this consideration.
Zakaria's interview with the Chinese premier two Sunday's ago suggested that they are not too pleased, at all, with the prospect of having invested in bad US mortgage security debt that is now worthless.
Source? Link?
Just Google Ameros to China and The North American Union and read and follow the links and decide.
Is anyone surprised that Paulson chose someone from Goldman Sachs to be in charge? Now a GS employee is going to decide which banks, including GS, get $700 billion from us. And nobody in congress cares or thinks that is a conflict-o
"The administration has selected a former Goldman Sachs executive to be the interim head of its $700 billion rescue effort for financial institutions.
Neel Kashkari, the Treasury's assistant secretary for international affairs, was selected Monday to be the interim head of Treasury's new Office of Financial Stability.
The designation was made by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was the CEO of Goldman Sachs before he joined the Bush administration in 2006. Kashkari, 35, will head the office created by the emergency legislation enacted Friday to fund the largest government bailout in history."
Surprised? Not in the least.
Just further proof that we need, and hopefully we will get, a clean sweep on Nov. 5. I hope that Obama and a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress will re-visit the bailout ASAP before all the money is spent, and convert the rest of the money to homeowner work-outs, direct recapitalization, etc.
Yes, it is hoped that Obama's admin would be able to open the books on everything we have staring us in the face, all the wrong set-ups that exist and reform them pronto.
The infection is spread so deep into our congress that barely a soul hasn't a PAC to be bribed by. The hell with naming things other names and muddying the waters.
Just as this melt down is "regulatory", it really means there were NO RULES. Please.
Just like the "unitary executive" as a DICTATOR is above the law.
While we allow PACs to openly accept money, our money bought us nothing.
It bought us a ticket to give to a chosen one to go to Washington and feed at the trough and fatten his wallet.
Every couple of years we send another one...like sheep to the slaughter we are.
Why they chose this particular plan is abundently clear: it offered the greatest latitude for fleecing the public. I think at this point the ruling class only makes gestures. And this bailout was to alert us that they would do whatever they damn well please, and the hell with the people who have to pay for it. I'm always amused at studies of ancient history, when everyone shakes their heads and says how sad it is that the people existed almost entirely to benefit their rulers. Well, that's what's happening to us right now, right in front of our faces. Our rulers had their flunkies steal hundreds of billions from us and hand it over to them. Then'll they take more, and then more, and then more still. And we'll keep voting their flunkies back in office. Because, you see: it's our duty to vote. Then why isn't it also our duty to withhold our vote if we're no longer being represented? This bailout gave take breaks galore to business in addition to the bailout itself. And the last paragraph vaguely hints at amending the IRS Code "to extend certain expiring provisions
My sentiments exactly. When will the people wake up and begin to realize that this is only history repeating itself. It makes me sad that I would like to do someting but can't think of where to begin to do anything that would really matter. Vote them out of office? that would be wonderful, but as long as there are people who allow their prejudice to blind them i.e., racism, classism, homophobia, etc., nothing will ever get done. Divide and conquer , I don't know who came up with that strategy, but whoever it was must have been the most intelligent person that has walked this earth. When will America unite and defeat the ruling class? There are more of us than them. Don't wait too long, because they are already forming thier private armies. They are trainning in Iraq and Afghanistan as I write. Case in point, the take over of New Orleans during Katrina, a slight preview which will only escalate and grow if we don't nip it in the bud.
I hate that you're correct in this assessment.
Bush's handlers (aka advisors) have been spoon-feeding him right wingnut baby food for eight years.
Why should this topic be any different?
Are you serious? Do you really think Bush had to be mislead? I'm surprised that Bush has been able to continue to fool some of us with that backward texas style good ole boy idiotic disguise. Bush is not as stupid as he looks, Bush, Bernanke, Paulson, and a host of others knew about this crisis long before it occurred. Do you really think Bush had to wait for a public meeting with Paulson to hear the economic plan they had pre-arranged. I think the only thing that surprised or confused Bush is the fact that the congress decided they would sweeten the pot and put a few constraints on Paulson so that after Bush is gone and the next guy gets in, they can change it to something that will better enrich themselves and their buddies rather than Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke's buddies.
Sounds like Paulson really didn't have to do much mislead Bush at all.......
Even if Paulson meant no other plan existed, not just "I don't have another plan" (which appears to be true), would it have mattered to the President? Bush has said, "Every war plan looks good on paper," which really means he can't tell the difference between a good war plan and a bad war plan. I suspect he'd approach economic plans the same way.
The question is whether there is any other competent person to replace Paulson. Why Oneil and Snow were replaced? Probably, this may throw some light in the working of Treasury Department in the Bush administration.
.
The more interesting question is why did the legislation take this form.
.
Caqpital infusion would have been cleaner.
.
Creating new banks would have been even cleaner than capital infusion.
.
For .7 trillion, 20 hefty clean sheet banks could have been created. Given their reserve requirements , that would translate into alnost 7 trillion of lending capacity. The stock could have been sold to the public in 5 years so that the Feds could recoup the cost.
.
I doubt Paulson is doing interviews with Woodward or Bernstein. We will probably never know.
.
Bingo.
No Banker Left Behind vs. NEW bankers. Easy choice for Paulson.
.
Heh!.
.
That is funny.
.
.
It may well be that Paulson genuinely thinks that this plan is the best.
.
He is a top Wall Street guy. His whole point of view consideres the great Wall Street institutions to be permanent fixtures of financial reality. Such a viewpoint would naturally seek to preserve those institutions.
.
Conformity is one of the hallmarks of those who rise to the top of large organizations.
.
It is human nature for many people to want to think the worst - and it is easy to do for almost anything. Paulson should be given the benefit of the doubt.
.
Historical judgement will accrue to Bush.
.
Sob, SOB, SOB. Thanks Dean. Good work. I can only cry.
They are just making sure someone else will fall on the sword instead of Bush when this so-called plan fails and everyone sees it was just a way to buy Congress and more power.
"Misled" W? You'd think a Harvard MBA would know enough to get a second opinion.
But my question is: why did Paulson structure the bailout the way he did in the first place? Of all the possible options, his proposal was almost surely the worst. One can only conclude that Paulson's agenda was other than the stated.
I thought he was a Yalie. Anyway, he's too stupid to figure out anything by himself. As for Paulson, maybe he's still working for Goldman Sachs.
And you'd be right, BillyMae. Paulson will make out like the bandit he is on this deal.
http://www
Shortly after divesting itself of its toxic mortgage portfolio late last year, Goldman Sachs purchased Litton, a "loan servicing" firm. GS is now perfectly positioned to take full advantage of any government funds devoted to straightening out the sub prime "crisis".
Meaning Hank's "blind trust" (~snicker~) will continue to grow in value.
Wadda scam.
Yale undergrad, Harvard MBA, both presumably via affirmative action for rich white sons of important men.
And he still didn't have enough curiosity or knowledge to either ask more pointed questions or take an active part in formulating the plan that was presented. He obviously could care less.
Apres moi, le deluge.
Apres moi, le deluge.
Which was used by a Greek to express selfishness, as I recall from my reading.
The Republican Party is only interested in one thing -- Power. They do not and never have cared about the middle to lower class American. The only thing the Rep did during the last eight years is work on re-districting, tax breaks for the wealthy, lining there own pockets, etc. Never, no never, did they consider the average citizens. They think they can continue wining with (as Rush says) Babies and Guns. I hope and pray that America is done with these thugs.
9/11 they were warned. Who could have known? Iraq without plans. We don't need no stinking plans. Katrina after NO Picayune's reportage on levies. No one could have predicted. After months of warnings from economists, the meltdown. Once again, who could have known? Certainly the Republican party has been clueless for the past 8 years. Should we vote them into office again? Who could know they would be such a nonstop, end to end disaster. Fool us once (not really, but ,,,). Twice? Three times?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
