Posted on 04/27/2009 4:45:47 AM PDT by libstripper
The cavalier use of brute government force has become routine, but the emerging story of how Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke forced CEO Ken Lewis to blow up Bank of America is still shocking. It's a case study in the ways that panicky regulators have so often botched the bailout and made the financial crisis worse.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
He reached across the aisle, McCain style.
100 days and The cavalier use of brute government force has become routine.
1. Our president? Speak for yourself.
2. End of the administration? Pretty much started the first year, if you will recall his education deal with Teddy Kennedy, steel tariffs, etc.
Another corrollary to Rahm's first law, is 0's postulate: If a mild crisis is good for some of your agenda, ratchet the crisis up a few notches to get even more.
Since most of us here voted for him and supported him, sometimes with misgivings, calling him our president is appropriate and an excellent way to show how disgusted we are with the squalid way he ended his presidency.
Good post
This was done under GWB/Paulson:
"In the name of containing "systemic risk," our regulators spread it. In order to keep Mr. Lewis quiet, they all but ordered him to deceive his own shareholders. And in the name of restoring financial confidence, they have so mistreated Bank of America that bank executives everywhere have concluded that neither Treasury nor the Federal Reserve can be trusted...Mr. Paulson told Mr. Lewis that the government would provide cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help BofA swallow Merrill. But since the government didn't want to reveal this new federal investment until after the merger closed, Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke rejected Mr. Lewis's request to get their commitment in writing. "We do not want a disclosable event," Mr. Lewis says Mr. Paulson told him. "We do not want a public disclosure." Imagine what would happen to a CEO who said that.
You've got it. Although Bush proposed legislative solutions to the regulatory mess Clinton created with the CRA policies that started the financial meltdown, Bush never had the courage to take the policy and regulatory actions he could have to reverse Clinton's regulatory and policy actions to prevent the disaster. Thus, in addition to Clinton, Obama, Frank, Dodd, and Schumer, Bush also deserves a lot of blame.
Yep, according to people my brother (formerly worked at Citi), Congress was told enact TARP or we will enact Marshall Law. I think I read this somewhere also.In general, I blame both parties for the economic fiasco...but this BOA thing was Pres. Bush...Paulson was his guy.
You assume Pres. Bush wanted to change these policies...I doubt it.
Int he meantime, if I were a BoA shareholder, I'd be mighty, MIGHTY pissed right now, and would be making an appointment with my lawyer.
RE :”Congress was told enact TARP or we will enact Marshall Law. I think I read this somewhere also.In general, “
Someone pinged me on that a while back. That would have been better than this. I dont buy it. Those republicans who voted for TARP were bought with lost of pork (and beat on by media, to be fair).
This shows the moral bankruptcy of a Republican party that sold Bush (and then McCain) as economic freedom, when he really was huge government/big business. GWB didnt raise taxes directly, he borrowed and devalued for all his spending, Big deal. Also GWB protected the Clintons, you can see how far that got him, and us.
Yeah, no doubt you are correct. The whole thing stinks to high heaven...we elect people, but you have to wonder if the banks are running the country when you look at the sweet deal they continue to receive at taxpayer expense.
I agree with you actually (surprised?)
BUMP for later reading...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.