The New Bailout

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Hell, we should have let Iraqi contractors be in charge.

We did. And then enrich Halliburtion for it. We even murdered American soldiers - electrocuted in showers - by paying Halliburton to let Iraqi contractors be in charge.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by tw

We did. And then enrich Halliburtion for it. We even murdered American soldiers - electrocuted in showers - by paying Halliburton to let Iraqi contractors be in charge.

From what I've heard in the news, it wasn't Iraqi contractors who did the sloppy work. It was an American contractor. An American contractor who has changed their name and now has another contract to do work in Afghanistan. So how is it you are blaming the Iraqis?

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

From what I've heard in the news, it wasn't Iraqi contractors who did the sloppy work. It was an American contractor.

Iraqi contractors (or American hired Iraqis) are not being blamed and were not a solution. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Murder of American soldiers in showers is directly traceable to top management - even if the work is done by Iraqi contractors (paid by the job) or Iraqi employees (paid by the hour).

First task was call it an accident. Therefore blame does not go to the source.

And so the joke - let Iraqi contractors do the work. Iraqis could not have done it any worse. In essense, Americans got paid to let their Iraqi employees do it without training and oversight. And then we blame the Iraqis. Or call it an accident - same thing.

[classicman]

There has been corruption up and down the chain of command in the Iraq reconstruction program funded with US $$$. (Remember how the Iraqis would pay for their own reconstruction with oil revenue?)

The latest report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SGIR) has a list of 20 arrests, 19 indictments, 14 convictions, and more than $17 million in fines, forfeitures, recoveries, and restitutions to date.

Convictions (pdf)

Jan 09 Full Report

Just the tip of the iceberg...with more than $50 billion of US taxpayer dollars unaccounted for.

Fortunately, the Democrats were able to keep the SIGIR in place when they took control of Congress in '07.

The Republicans had voted to shut it down.

[TheMercenary]

Yea, and we are still paying for it. Throw the bums into Gitmo.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Throw the bums into Gitmo.

Or subject them to severe oversight and regulation. That would be even worse. After these last ten years, that would be extremely painful for them.

[classicman]

A Pick to Oversee Stimulus Spending

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama is expected to appoint a former Secret Service agent who helped expose lobbyists’ corruption at the Interior Department to oversee spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, an administration official said Sunday.

Mr. Obama is set to announce his selection of the former agent, Earl Devaney, on Monday at a meeting with governors at the White House. Mr. Devaney will serve as the chairman of the new Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board and, along with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., will coordinate oversight of stimulus spending.

Mr. Devaney, the inspector general of the Interior Department, helped turn up dealings at the department involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Mr. Devaney was a senior official with the Secret Service before retiring in 1991. He then worked as the chief of criminal enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Obama has said the recovery board will be an at-large body that will oversee the spending of billions of dollars allocated to help the economy. With dozens of agencies and departments involved, the president wanted an independent central group to monitor where the money was going.

I'm loving this.

Originally Posted by classicman

A Pick to Oversee Stimulus Spending

I'm loving this.

transparency and accountability provided by a qualified appointee, rather than a political hack.

How refreshing from previous IG type picks

[Kaliayev]

It could just be me, but I find the bailouts quite refreshing. Its not every day your suspicions about incipient banana republicanism are proved true, after all.

For example

AIG renegotiation

The Treasury banking stress tests were fixed

White House again refuses calls to nationalize the banks, maintaining what is essentially a pretty fiction

Structural reform of the banking system is essentially nil

And these are just a few stories from the last week.

Now, that's not to say bailouts in theory are a bad idea. With the right structural reforms, proper analysis and adequate punishment for the fools in government, regulation and finance, bailouts could work. There are plenty of good bankers and financial analysts out there who did not jump on the subprime mortgage bandwagon, and have raised concerns about overreliance on credit before now.

But none of those things are happening. Its the "in practice" part of this which is the problem, as per usual. This is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom. But then, when the bucket contributed several million in campaign related funds, and those who the money is being taken from contributed, uh, significantly less, you shouldn't really be surprised when the result is systemized looting from the former to the latter.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

It could just be me, but I find the bailouts quite refreshing. Its not every day your suspicions about incipient banana republicanism are proved true, after all.

For example

AIG renegotiation

The Treasury banking stress tests were fixed

White House again refuses calls to nationalize the banks, maintaining what is essentially a pretty fiction

Structural reform of the banking system is essentially nil

And these are just a few stories from the last week.

Now, that's not to say bailouts in theory are a bad idea. With the right structural reforms, proper analysis and adequate punishment for the fools in government, regulation and finance, bailouts could work. There are plenty of good bankers and financial analysts out there who did not jump on the subprime mortgage bandwagon, and have raised concerns about overreliance on credit before now.

But none of those things are happening. Its the "in practice" part of this which is the problem, as per usual. This is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom. But then, when the bucket contributed several million in campaign related funds, and those who the money is being taken from contributed, uh, significantly less, you shouldn't really be surprised when the result is systemized looting from the former to the latter.

I never agreed with the bank bailouts. I DO agree with the stimulus. AIG just makes me see red. I think they should just go down, along with some big banks. In fact, I think too many corporations have gotten too big. They should be broken up.

[sugarpop]

btw, what about all the info about Northern Trust today?

[Kaliayev]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I never agreed with the bank bailouts. I DO agree with the stimulus. AIG just makes me see red. I think they should just go down, along with some big banks. In fact, I think too many corporations have gotten too big. They should be broken up.

A few could do with being shaken down, its true. I would tend to think that any single corporate or banking entity large enough to pose a threat to the economy should a run on them happen (like with Citigroup, for example) is probably too much power in the hands of too few. I'm not entirely sure the benfits outweight the particular costs when it comes to the investment giants, at least those who play it fast and loose with everyone's money.

But apparently such companies are "too big to fail" and we should not worry ourselves about such things. Or so I was told when I asked about the potential risk, a few years back.

[classicman]

Fed chief Bernanke: recession could end in '09

WASHINGTON – America's recession "probably" will end this year if the government succeeds in bolstering the banking system, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Sunday in a rare television interview.

Bernanke stressed — as he did to Congress last month — that the prospects for the recession ending this year and a recovery taking root next year hinge on a difficult task: getting banks to lend more freely again and getting the financial markets to work more normally.

"We've seen some progress in the financial markets, absolutely," Bernanke said. "But until we get that stabilized and working normally, we're not going to see recovery.

"But we do have a plan. We're working on it. And, I do think that we will get it stabilized, and we'll see the recession coming to an end probably this year."

Even if the recession, which began in December 2007, ends this year, the unemployment rate will keep climbing past the current quarter-century high of 8.1 percent, Bernanke said.

A growing number of economists think the jobless rate will hit 10 percent by the end of this year.
Asked about the biggest potential dangers now, Bernanke suggested a lack of "political will" to solve the financial crisis.
He said, though, that the United States has averted the risk of plunging into a depression.
"I think we've gotten past that," he said.

It's rare for a sitting Fed chief to grant an interview, whether for broadcast or print. Bernanke said he chose to do so because it's an "extraordinary time" for the country, and it gave him a chance to speak directly to the American public. (A transcript of the interview was provided in advance of the broadcast.)

Bernanke spoke at a time of rising public anger over financial bailouts using taxpayer money. Battling the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, the government has put hundreds of billions of those dollars at risk to prop up troubled institutions and stabilize the banking system.

Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned the effectiveness of the rescue efforts and have demanded more information about how taxpayers' money is being used.

Bernanke's TV interview seemed to be part of a government public relations offensive.

So we are facing a catastrophe or things will be better this year? Which is it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

He didn't say things will get better this year.