If you have "no place to go," come here!

Bite me, Nance. You too, Larry

7772So-Where-s-My-Fucking-Pony-PostNaked Capitalist has a terrific post on the latest TARP maneuvering showing, essentially, that the only institutional* difference between Village Republicans and Village Demorats is the Dems use lube:

The Administration has evidently launched a campaign to warn the American public that the black hole banking industry will need more in the way of recapitalization funding than is currently on offer.... [T]hrowing money at sick banks with no plan as to how to shrink and rationalize the industry** does not strike us as a sound way to proceed (and the TARP II notion of buying bad assets at certain to be inflated prices is a cosmeticized equity infusion and not a real solution).

Perhaps as important, the public is sufficiently outraged over TARP I that something quite different (as in more punitive to incumbent management, stockholders, and in some cases, bondholders) is required to muster Congressional support. I don't have the sense that Team Obama fully appreciates that.

No, but then why would they? Team Obama's priority -- as Obama was quite explicit about in his inaugural speech -- is imposing "sharedMR SUBLIMINAL [cough] sacrifice"; that is, not less pain, but more. As we shall see, they're quite open about it.

Naked Capitalist continues:

From the Financial Times:
Lawrence Summers, head of the White House National Economic Council, said the administration would use the $350bn remaining of the $700bn that Congress provided to start tackling the financial crisis. He suggested, however, that it would later have to assess whether that amount was sufficient to stabilise the financial system.

“We can make important progress and get started with the support that has been provided . . . What ultimately will be necessary is something that will play out over time,” Mr Summers told NBC television.

Speaking to ABC television, Mrs Pelosi said she was “open to resolving the financial crisis”,


explaining that there might be a need for “some increased dumping of our money into an enormous holeinvestment” to shore up the banks. But she stressed that any future funding for the banks would have to be dispersed ["disbursed," surely. Or not] with more transparency.

What the fuck does "more" transparency mean? Since the original bill -- also passed by Leader Nance, with Obama whipping the CBC, and Reid, Bush, and Paulson all doing their bit -- had zero transparency, it won't take much to get more, now will it?

“Whatever we have to do will have to be clearly explained to Congress and to the American people as to what the purpose of the money is, why it’s urgent, and then accountability for it as it is distributed,” said Mrs Pelosi...

future_referenceWhere the fuck were you when the original TARP bill was passed NOW NOW NOW NOW, Nance? Did you find the bill under a cabbage leaf? Was it left under your pillow by the TARP fairy? Was it passed in some alternate universe by somebody who looked exactly like Nancy Pelosi, but wasn't Nancy Pelosi? Why are "clear" explanations and "accountability" such good things now that the money's gone and not then? A question that may, perhaps, answer itself....

Asked whether the best way to shore up the financial system was to nationalise* US banks, Mrs Pelosi said any future relief programmes should be structured to allow the American taxpayer to benefit from “some [why not all?] of the upside” [if any] that arises from the strengthening US banks.

She stressed that she was “not talking about total ownership” [why not?] for the government but added that the “taxpayer should have equity”.

[Yves remarks:] The last notion is a crock. The scale of the infusions relative to market values of equity DOES put the taxpayer in a control position in any of the seriously flagging banks. And the taxpayer is not getting commensurate rewards for the risk. Given that most banks would be insolvent if there assets were valued realistically (off balance sheet exposures consolidated, tougher marks on Level 2 and 3 assets), Uncle Sam would rightfully own these banks. But no one in power is willing to be honest about what is going on here.

Say it isn't so! No one? Not one? Not anyone?

Vice President Joe Biden [D-Bankruptcy Bill] told the CBS program “Face the Nation” that “it’s worse, quite frankly [haw], than everyone thought it was.”

Nobody could have predicted...

Yves here. Everyone? Please. "Everyone" clearly is limited to those within the Beltway. He is obviously omitting Nouriel Roubini and George Soros (people like Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Benoit Mandelbrot, Marc Faber, and Jim Rogers don't even register in Summer's universe).

Back to the piece:

“It’s getting worse every day,” Biden [D-MBNA] said today. “There’s been no good news, and there’s no good news [for whom?] on the immediate horizon.”....

“The next few months are, no question, going to be very, very difficult [for whom?] and it may be longer than that,” said Summers..

Exactly as planned. CD called her shot. More pain. The tip-off is the priorities. The "stimulus package," already partially neutered by Obama fluffing the lunatic Republicans on tax cuts, won't kick in until when? Who knows... Meanwhile, people are losing shelter NOW NOW NOW, and going without health care NOW NOW NOW, and HOLC, let alone single payer, aren't on the adminstration's radar screen at all. I'm shocked.

"Shared sacrficice," I love it. Why, my goodness, Tim Geithner might not be able to send the kids to sleep-away camp any more...

NOTE * There are individual Democrats who are reasonably honorable. But they're not the ones, er, in the saddle.

NOTE ** Why not turn the banks into regulated public utilities like the gas company and the electric company?

No votes yet


gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

and ostracized by Dem leadership. Can't have a HOLC champion undermining the Administration or Dem leaders on this (and health care). That would make the job of the Obama-Biden mind police so much harder.

When does Al Franken get to start?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told ABC's This Week that spending, historically, does more to stimulate the economy than tax cuts.

"Economists have told us from right to left there is more bang for the buck — the term they use — by investing in food stamps and unemployment insurance than in tax cuts. Nonetheless, we are committed to the tax cuts."

otherlisa's picture
Submitted by otherlisa on

I can't even begin to parse that statement. Is it "even though we know it doesn't work as well as other things we could be doing if we weren't cutting taxes, we're going to cut taxes anyway"?

I mean, is that the translation?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Deep Thought

I wonder how much money we'll light on fire this week.

I think he spoke for many of us.