Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Taxpayers should be outraged… I mean they hired Chicago? What were they thinking? And can we please leave Barney Frank out of this. Nobody wants to hear from this guy.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
# 30 Dallas said, “The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the Speaker. ”
No, it doesn’t. It spells out the roll of the House. The Speaker controls whether the leg comes to vote there.
I really don’t have time for a full civics lesson for you. If you’d like we can do it on Go to Meeting. I charge $200.00/hour.
We all to need to think about this:
Why are we so concerned about the bank spending money?
We should be concerned about the money being given away in the first place.
Let’s not lose sight of the problem here.
Maybe Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire, and Sheryl Crow should think about who they’re willing to work for.
#29, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Leading Troll Extraordinare,
Easy. Pelosi was in charge of the spending bill..
And this from a pretend Constitutional Scholar.
The Administration is responsible for the day to day activities. The bailout bill contained a provision that the Secretary of the Treasury was to report to Congress on all provisions of the TARP. Only the Bush Administration, in its dieing days, wouldn’t even tell Congress who was getting the money let alone what conditions were attached.
Isn’t it funny how your little mind doesn’t grasp reality too well.
#31 Understood.
I was merely following up on your specific assertions – that unsurprisingly proved to be false. Lesson learned.
# 34 Mr. Fusion said, “The bailout bill contained a provision that the Secretary of the Treasury was to report to Congress on all provisions of the TARP.”
Which is totally separate from having a provision in the bill that dictates HOW the money can and cannot be spent by the recipients. Amazing how you missed that point. Well, not amazing…
ROFL
#34, The Fed chairman and Treasury Secretary would not approve the money without that provision.
Who is STILL the Fed chairman?
If the President really did want to *change* things, he would appoint a new Fed chairman. He changed the Treasury Secretary, why hasn’t he picked a new Fed chairman?
Obama is too nieve to think anybody in Wall Street or in our financial sector is not crooked. A lot of them probably will not take any money with strings attatched for fear they will be found out.
http://foxbusiness.com/story/markets/fox-business-wins-foia-lawsuit-treasury/
The Obama Treasury Sec wouldn’t release data on the bailout. Bush’s Treas Sec wouldn’t either. Now a Judge is ordering the Obama Admin to comply. “Change” we can believe in. LOL!
[kindly drop the www in your links until problem is fixed – ed.]
The ownership of Dallas & Fusion is now complete. Will they renounce the Dark Side? Only time will tell.
#37, Loser,
why hasn’t he picked a new Fed chairman?
Ask that ultimate authority, Cow-Paddy.
# 41 Mr. Fusion said, “Ask that ultimate authority,”
I’m glad you have finally have realized… That’s the first step.
#42, Cow-Patty,
Only you wouldn’t know sarcasm if it bit your butt.
#41, Poison Twin,
It’s easy to play “witty” when you don’t know the answer.
Now, back on subject. I really want to know why Obama hasn’t picked a new Fed chairman? Hmmm?
#39, I am shocked the republican propaganda channel decided to play hardball in this. Somebody certainly pissed in their cheerios.
Obama spent over $150 million of taxpayer money on his party last month.
Any complaints from you class warriors?
Do you believe the government has a right to dictate expenditures whenever someone gets a handout? Expecting some stimulus? Ready to cancel your vacation on Obama’s demand since you are receiving government funds?
# 45 LibertyLover said, “#39, I am shocked the republican propaganda channel decided to play hardball in this. Somebody certainly pissed in their cheerios.”
The real reason?
O’Reilly is pissed at the Bush Admin for not giving him the heads up on the financial crisis last year. He now wants blood from both parties.
If by the government you mean me….HELL YES!!!!!
Yawn. We’re all doomed – why sweat the small stuff?
Well, Mr. Fusion, your online war with Cow-Paddy seems to be working. He still doesn’t know to drop the “www” in links, even after the hundred or so messages by the editors to all posters that plead the case.
I’m not getting into the middle of this one. My standpoint — using taxpayer’s money to throw a party (and it appears they did) just isn’t right.
These people did not ask for the money. They did not need the money.
Congress and the Fed gave them the mony anyway so whose fault is it that they used the money to throw a party?
I’d say it was the fault of the people throwing money away like there was no tomorrow. That to me would be Congress and the Fed.
Despite the fascinating question of how a bank is “forced” to accept a billion and a half dollars in unwanted bail out funds and despite the nuanced conversation between fusion and cow paddy there remains one more, perhaps ultimate, question:
How does Earth, Wind and Fire command $300,000 for a one night stand??????????????????? (please note the absence of www. in my string of question marks)
>Will they renounce the Dark Side? Only time will tell.
Why should they renounce the Dark Side? They offer better health care.
Obama hasn’t named a Fed head because he can’t. The Federal Reserve is not part of the administration. Fed chief’s are nominated by the president, approved by the senate and serve 4 year terms. Ben’s first term isn’t up for another two years.
The last chief, Greenspan, was appointed by Reagan, reappointed by Bush 41, reappointed by Clinton twice and by Bush 43 once.
Obama can appoint someone else if he wishes, but not until 2010.
#44, Loser,
Now, back on subject. I really want to know why Obama hasn’t picked a new Fed chairman? Hmmm?
Well, I just got back here and was ready to answer when I see someone else already has. I wasn’t going to add the detail but “peachie” is correct.
I believe the Fed Chairman, as most of the quasi-judicial boards (SEC, FCC, FTC, etc.) may only be removed for cause (impeachment) by the Congress.
I’d like to make a donation to this site. Force Dvorak to take it, then dictate how he spends his time in shameless promotion of it.
Come ON! The bank was as close to FORCED to take the cash as it could be. The Fed insisted. That event tab wasn’t paid from the bailout cash ledger, it was paid from their ongoing PR coffers.
Does this mean that any monetary benefit from new legislation that accrues to me carries with it the edict that I behave in some special new way?
Get real, Barney.
It goes to show you that they were only celebrating their theft at how “smart” they were in orchestrating their big time theft.
They knew exactly what they were doing and celebrating how smart they were.
What a bunch of crooks and low lifes
#55, Poison Twin,
Well, I just got back here and was ready to answer when I see someone else already has. I wasn’t going to add the detail but “peachie” is correct.
I believe the Fed Chairman, as most of the quasi-judicial boards (SEC, FCC, FTC, etc.) may only be removed for cause (impeachment) by the Congress.
So, what you are saying is that Congress doesn’t consider what the current Fed chairman did with the Bush admin to be cause?
This guy is responsible for setting monetary policy in this country and Congress considers the current monetary policy to be ok? Just like the last Congress?
Something sounds fishy here.
#55, Loser,
I can’t answer for what Obama thinks of Ben Bernanke or how much he is cooperating with the President. HOWEVER, it is not the Federal Reserve that gave out the TARP funds. It was the Treasury Department. That Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, has been driven off into the sunset in his limo.
We don’t know who got the money or what conditions were attached. Contrary to the bill’s intent and wording, the Treasury, under Bush, insisted upon secrecy with the banks. Maybe you will recall how the Congressional Oversight Committee was upset (just before Christmas) they couldn’t get any information. This though, was typical of the Bush Administration.
The TARP money was broken in two halves. The first half was released last fall. To access the second half, the Treasury had to come before Congress and ask for it. In January the second half was released to the Obama Administration with more oversight and stronger conditions. I believe much of the second half of the TARP was folded into the Obama Stimulus Package.
Why don’t we know or can’t find out what happened to the first half of the bank bailout money? I don’t know. They won’t tell me either other than the banks want privacy. And yes, that part of it sucks.
Fusion–I find your posts very refreshing. Logical, linked, thoughtful. Even when you and I disagree, I find your viewpoint valuable. Don’t let the retards dissuade you from knowing that many readers of this blog who don’t even post gain a lot from your expertise.