I do not know but it feels like the top again is getting theirs with no trickle down.
The middle looses and the low man will bear the wait of supporting empty promises.
Is this perspective of mine wrong? I am asking for simple answers. It again seems the taxpayers will be the losers;
unless Congress yells wait, stop, slowdown, where are the people of America being protected.
Corporate greed insanely looks like the winner.
Full Version: Is the bailout really a buy out?
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Job Market, Fiscal, and Economic Policies > Job Market, Fiscal, & Economic Issues Archive
QUOTE(cutecat @ Sep 21 2008, 09:28 AM) 
I do not know but it feels like the top again is getting theirs with no trickle down.
The middle looses and the low man will bear the wait of supporting empty promises.
Is this perspective of mine wrong? I am asking for simple answers. It again seems the taxpayers will be the losers;
unless Congress yells wait, stop, slowdown, where are the people of America being protected.
Corporate greed insanely looks like the winner.
The middle looses and the low man will bear the wait of supporting empty promises.
Is this perspective of mine wrong? I am asking for simple answers. It again seems the taxpayers will be the losers;
unless Congress yells wait, stop, slowdown, where are the people of America being protected.
Corporate greed insanely looks like the winner.
Rhetorical.
Of COURSE the top is getting theirs, and trickle-down doesn't trickle.
B of A got Merrill at 50 cents on the dollar.
Barclay's is in the process of buying Lehman's Manhattan Tower for 900 Million, far less than it's worth.
Goldman is cherry-picking the rest of the corpse.
This is the forest fire that was ignored by the "leadership" (and I am non-partisan on this one) in DC. And now heroic Ben is rushing in with his fire extinguisher.
I hope it is fully charged.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 21 2008, 10:16 AM)
GEORGE W.(orthless) BUSH IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL IDIOT ...
WHAT ARE THE RISKS TO OUR AMERICA OF TAKING HIS WORD FOR ANYTHING, GIVEN THAT THE MAN IS ALSO A LIAR?
And so ...
WHAT ARE THE RISKS TO OUR AMERICA OF TAKING HIS WORD FOR ANYTHING, GIVEN THAT THE MAN IS ALSO A LIAR?
And so ...
AND AS WE CONTINUE TO TRACK WHAT IS SHAPING UP TO BE THE WORLD'S GREATEST FLIM-FLAM INTENDED TO LOOT HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WE HAVE ....
"Many economists skeptical of bailout"
Avi Zenilman
Sun Sep 21, 8:58 AM ET
Many of the same economists and opinion-makers who'd provided a bipartisan sheen of consensus to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's previous moves have quickly begun casting doubts on the wisdom of a policy that would allow Treasury to purchase without oversight hundreds of billions of dollars of difficult-to-price assets from financial institutions.
Under the proposal, Paulson would not have to report to Congress until December, and the only safeguard for taxpayers was a provision that the “Secretary shall take into consideration means for — (1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and (2) protecting the taxpayer.”
Skepticism toward the plan reflected more than the predictable desires of the left to spread the wealth to Main Street or of the right to reject government bailouts, although those sentiments were also expressed.
"We need to take a bold move."
"In that sense I think Paulson is right," Luigi Zingales, a Professor at the University of Chicago School of Business who wrote a widely circulated short essay titled "Why Paulson is Wrong,” told Politico.
Zingales fears that the Treasury bailout would effectively turn the entire financial sector into a Government Sponsored Enterprise, complete with the same murkiness and moral hazard that sunk Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“It might achieve the final outcome, but it will do so at an enormous cost," he said.
"All the troubles we’ve seen with Fannie and Freddie would be seen again and again across the entire financial sector."
President Bush is “asking for a huge amount of power,” said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University who was among the first to predict the crisis.
“He's saying, ‘Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.'"
"This is not a monarchy.”
(Roubini told the New York Times that despite these concerns, he also thought the plan could help stave off a recession.)
Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and liberal columnist for The New York Times who had until now been cautiously supportive of Paulson's and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s efforts to prop up the system, wrote that the new plan would be a taxpayer rip-off.
“I hate to say this, but looking at the plan as leaked, I have to say no deal,” he wrote on his blog at 4:46 p.m. Saturday.
“Not unless Treasury explains, very clearly, why this is supposed to work, other than through having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets.”
Yves Smith, a longtime banker and contributor to the influential finance blog Naked Capitalism, published an angry post there titled, "Why You Should Hate The Treasury Bailout Proposal":
"Given that continuing to buy U.S. assets will come under increasingly harsh scrutiny overseas, the U.S. needs to bend over backwards to devise a plan that at least looks credible in terms of directing the funds that come from taxpayers and lenders to their highest and best uses and implementing reforms that will restore active and prudent oversight of financial firms," she wrote.
"The administration's demand for a free pass, even if Congress unwisely goes along, is likely to backfire with our foreign creditors."
Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard University and a former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers who was the economic guru for Mitt Romney's campaign, favorably linked to Smith's post under the headline "A Blank Check" and approvingly quoted a correspondent who wrote, "Has more money ever been given with fewer restrictions on how it is used?"
"Ever?"
Sebastian Mallaby, the center-right economic columnist for The Washington Post and scholar of the modern financial system, was equally dubious.
“The plan is being marketed under false pretenses," he wrote in his Sunday column, rejecting comparisons of the plan to the Resolution Trust Corporation, which the government formed in response to the savings and loan crisis to purchase and sell off the bad loans made by bankrupted thrifts.
“The administration proposes to buy up bad loans before the lenders go bust,” Mallaby noted, keeping the banks alive but doing little to solve the problem infecting the markets.
“Bad loans are weighing down the financial system precisely because private-sector experts can't determine their worth."
"The government would have no better handle on the problem.”
Justin Fox, Time magazine's top financial writer and columnist, also worried about the lack of an upside for the taxpayer.
"What I still can't figure out is how Treasury hopes to structure the bailout so there's at least a chance of getting a fair return on that risk-taking," he wrote on his blog.
"How on earth will these things be priced?"
Portfolio's Felix Salmon asked about the bad debt Paulson plans to purchase.
He also pointed out that Treasury would need to stock its office with bond-trading professionals.
"All we know so far is that it's going to be set up as a reverse auction, but that raises more questions than it answers."
One notable proponent of the plan was The Financial Times' unsigned Lex column, which acknowledged the lack of oversight but mostly praised the plan:
"This bailout is necessary and the bill should be pushed through quickly."
"… Nor is the package necessarily a disaster for the taxpayer or the U.S. dollar."
"If the Treasury buys assets well, and confidence is restored, there is [a] chance that Mr. Paulson could win fund manager of the year."
Zingales, though, writes in "Why Paulson Is Wrong" that "For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of a few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system."
"The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists."
"Why Paulson is Wrong"
Luigi Zingales, Robert C. Mc Cormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance
University of Chicago -GSB
When a profitable company is hit by a very large liability, as was the case in 1985 when Texaco lost a $12 billion court case against Pennzoil, the solution is not to have the government buy its assets at inflated prices: the solution is Chapter 11.
In Chapter 11, companies with a solid underlying business generally swap debt for equity: the old equity holders are wiped out and the old debt claims are transformed into equity claims in the new entity which continues operating with a new capital structure.
Alternatively, the debtholders can agree to cut down the face value of debt, in exchange for some warrants.
Even before Chapter 11, these procedures were the solutions adopted to deal with the large railroad bankruptcies at the turn of the twentieth century.
So why is this well established approach not used to solve the financial sectors current problems?
The obvious answer is that we do not have time; Chapter 11 procedures are generally long and complex, and the crisis has reached a point where time is of the essence.
If left to the negotiations of the parties involved this process will take months and we do not have this luxury.
However, we are in extraordinary times and the government has taken and is prepared to take unprecedented measures.
As if rescuing AIG and prohibiting all short-selling of financial stocks was not enough, now Treasury Secretary Paulson proposes a sort of Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) that will buy out (with taxpayers’ money) the distressed assets of the financial sector.
But, at what price?
If banks and financial institutions find it difficult to recapitalize (i.e., issue new equity) it is because the private sector is uncertain about the value of the assets they have in their portfolio and does not want to overpay.
Would the government be better in valuing those assets?
No.
In a negotiation between a government official and banker with a bonus at risk, who will have more clout in determining the price?
The Paulson RTC will buy toxic assets at inflated prices thereby creating a charitable institution that provides welfare to the rich—at the taxpayers’ expense.
If this subsidy is large enough, it will succeed in stopping the crisis.
But, again, at what price?
The answer: Billions of dollars in taxpayer money and, even worse, the violation of the fundamental capitalist principle that she who reaps the gains also bears the losses.
Remember that in the Savings and Loan crisis, the government had to bail out those institutions because the deposits were federally insured.
But in this case the government does not have do bail out the debtholders of Bear Sterns, AIG, or any of the other financial institutions that will benefit from the Paulson RTC.
Since we do not have time for a Chapter 11 and we do not want to bail out all the creditors, the lesser evil is to do what judges do in contentious and overextended bankruptcy processes: to cram down a restructuring plan on creditors, where part of the debt is forgiven in exchange for some equity or some warrants.
And there is a precedent for such a bold move.
During the Great Depression, many debt contracts were indexed to gold.
So when the dollar convertibility into gold was suspended, the value of that debt soared, threatening the survival of many institutions.
The Roosevelt Administration declared the clause invalid, de facto forcing debt forgiveness.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court maintained this decision.
My colleague and current Fed Governor Randall Koszner studied this episode and showed that not only stock prices, but bond prices as well, soared after the Supreme Court upheld the decision.
How is that possible?
As corporate finance experts have been saying for the last thirty years, there are real costs from having too much debt and too little equity in the capital structure, and a reduction in the face value of debt can benefit not only the equityholders, but also the debtholders.
If debt forgiveness benefits both equity and debtholders, why do debtholders not voluntarily agree to it?
First of all, there is a coordination problem.
Even if each individual debtholder benefits from a reduction in the face value of debt, she will benefit even more if everybody else cuts the face value of their debt and she does not.
Hence, everybody waits for the other to move first, creating obvious delay.
Secondly, from a debtholder point of view, a government bail-out is better.
Thus, any talk of a government bail-out reduces the debtholders’ incentives to act, making the government bail-out more necessary.
As during the Great Depression and in many debt restructurings, it makes sense in the current contingency to mandate a partial debt forgiveness or a debt-for-equity swap in the financial sector.
It has the benefit of being a well-tested strategy in the private sector and it leaves the taxpayers out of the picture.
But if it is so simple, why no expert has mentioned it?
The major players in the financial sector do not like it.
It is much more appealing for the financial industry to be bailed out at taxpayers’ expense than to bear their share of pain.
Forcing a debt-for-equity swap or a debt forgiveness would be no greater a violation of private property rights than a massive bailout, but it faces much stronger political opposition.
The appeal of the Paulson solution is that it taxes the many and benefits the few.
Since the many (we, the taxpayers) are dispersed, we cannot put up a good fight in Capitol Hill; while the financial industry is well represented at all the levels.
It is enough to say that for 6 of the last 13 years, the Secretary of Treasury was a Goldman Sachs alumnus.
But, as financial experts, this silence is also our responsibility.
Just as it is difficult to find a doctor willing to testify against another doctor in a malpractice suit, no matter how egregious the case, finance experts in both political parties are too friendly to the industry they study and work in.
The decisions that will be made this weekend matter not just to the prospects of the U.S. economy in the year to come; they will shape the type of capitalism we will live in for the next fifty years.
Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are socialized?
Where taxpayer money is used to prop up failed firms?
Or do we want to live in a system where people are held responsible for their decisions, where imprudent behavior is penalized and prudent behavior rewarded?
For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system.
The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingal...on_is_wrong.pdf
Luigi Zingales, Robert C. Mc Cormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance
University of Chicago -GSB
When a profitable company is hit by a very large liability, as was the case in 1985 when Texaco lost a $12 billion court case against Pennzoil, the solution is not to have the government buy its assets at inflated prices: the solution is Chapter 11.
In Chapter 11, companies with a solid underlying business generally swap debt for equity: the old equity holders are wiped out and the old debt claims are transformed into equity claims in the new entity which continues operating with a new capital structure.
Alternatively, the debtholders can agree to cut down the face value of debt, in exchange for some warrants.
Even before Chapter 11, these procedures were the solutions adopted to deal with the large railroad bankruptcies at the turn of the twentieth century.
So why is this well established approach not used to solve the financial sectors current problems?
The obvious answer is that we do not have time; Chapter 11 procedures are generally long and complex, and the crisis has reached a point where time is of the essence.
If left to the negotiations of the parties involved this process will take months and we do not have this luxury.
However, we are in extraordinary times and the government has taken and is prepared to take unprecedented measures.
As if rescuing AIG and prohibiting all short-selling of financial stocks was not enough, now Treasury Secretary Paulson proposes a sort of Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) that will buy out (with taxpayers’ money) the distressed assets of the financial sector.
But, at what price?
If banks and financial institutions find it difficult to recapitalize (i.e., issue new equity) it is because the private sector is uncertain about the value of the assets they have in their portfolio and does not want to overpay.
Would the government be better in valuing those assets?
No.
In a negotiation between a government official and banker with a bonus at risk, who will have more clout in determining the price?
The Paulson RTC will buy toxic assets at inflated prices thereby creating a charitable institution that provides welfare to the rich—at the taxpayers’ expense.
If this subsidy is large enough, it will succeed in stopping the crisis.
But, again, at what price?
The answer: Billions of dollars in taxpayer money and, even worse, the violation of the fundamental capitalist principle that she who reaps the gains also bears the losses.
Remember that in the Savings and Loan crisis, the government had to bail out those institutions because the deposits were federally insured.
But in this case the government does not have do bail out the debtholders of Bear Sterns, AIG, or any of the other financial institutions that will benefit from the Paulson RTC.
Since we do not have time for a Chapter 11 and we do not want to bail out all the creditors, the lesser evil is to do what judges do in contentious and overextended bankruptcy processes: to cram down a restructuring plan on creditors, where part of the debt is forgiven in exchange for some equity or some warrants.
And there is a precedent for such a bold move.
During the Great Depression, many debt contracts were indexed to gold.
So when the dollar convertibility into gold was suspended, the value of that debt soared, threatening the survival of many institutions.
The Roosevelt Administration declared the clause invalid, de facto forcing debt forgiveness.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court maintained this decision.
My colleague and current Fed Governor Randall Koszner studied this episode and showed that not only stock prices, but bond prices as well, soared after the Supreme Court upheld the decision.
How is that possible?
As corporate finance experts have been saying for the last thirty years, there are real costs from having too much debt and too little equity in the capital structure, and a reduction in the face value of debt can benefit not only the equityholders, but also the debtholders.
If debt forgiveness benefits both equity and debtholders, why do debtholders not voluntarily agree to it?
First of all, there is a coordination problem.
Even if each individual debtholder benefits from a reduction in the face value of debt, she will benefit even more if everybody else cuts the face value of their debt and she does not.
Hence, everybody waits for the other to move first, creating obvious delay.
Secondly, from a debtholder point of view, a government bail-out is better.
Thus, any talk of a government bail-out reduces the debtholders’ incentives to act, making the government bail-out more necessary.
As during the Great Depression and in many debt restructurings, it makes sense in the current contingency to mandate a partial debt forgiveness or a debt-for-equity swap in the financial sector.
It has the benefit of being a well-tested strategy in the private sector and it leaves the taxpayers out of the picture.
But if it is so simple, why no expert has mentioned it?
The major players in the financial sector do not like it.
It is much more appealing for the financial industry to be bailed out at taxpayers’ expense than to bear their share of pain.
Forcing a debt-for-equity swap or a debt forgiveness would be no greater a violation of private property rights than a massive bailout, but it faces much stronger political opposition.
The appeal of the Paulson solution is that it taxes the many and benefits the few.
Since the many (we, the taxpayers) are dispersed, we cannot put up a good fight in Capitol Hill; while the financial industry is well represented at all the levels.
It is enough to say that for 6 of the last 13 years, the Secretary of Treasury was a Goldman Sachs alumnus.
But, as financial experts, this silence is also our responsibility.
Just as it is difficult to find a doctor willing to testify against another doctor in a malpractice suit, no matter how egregious the case, finance experts in both political parties are too friendly to the industry they study and work in.
The decisions that will be made this weekend matter not just to the prospects of the U.S. economy in the year to come; they will shape the type of capitalism we will live in for the next fifty years.
Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are socialized?
Where taxpayer money is used to prop up failed firms?
Or do we want to live in a system where people are held responsible for their decisions, where imprudent behavior is penalized and prudent behavior rewarded?
For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system.
The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingal...on_is_wrong.pdf
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Sep 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
QUOTE(cutecat @ Sep 21 2008, 09:28 AM)
I do not know but it feels like the top again is getting theirs with no trickle down.
The middle looses and the low man will bear the wait of supporting empty promises.
Is this perspective of mine wrong? I am asking for simple answers. It again seems the taxpayers will be the losers;
unless Congress yells wait, stop, slowdown, where are the people of America being protected.
Corporate greed insanely looks like the winner.
The middle looses and the low man will bear the wait of supporting empty promises.
Is this perspective of mine wrong? I am asking for simple answers. It again seems the taxpayers will be the losers;
unless Congress yells wait, stop, slowdown, where are the people of America being protected.
Corporate greed insanely looks like the winner.
Rhetorical.
Of COURSE the top is getting theirs, and trickle-down doesn't trickle.
B of A got Merrill at 50 cents on the dollar.
Barclay's is in the process of buying Lehman's Manhattan Tower for 900 Million, far less than it's worth.
Goldman is cherry-picking the rest of the corpse.
This is the forest fire that was ignored by the "leadership" (and I am non-partisan on this one) in DC. And now heroic Ben is rushing in with his fire extinguisher.
I hope it is fully charged.
The thing that bothers me is the power Paulson is requesting for his office, Its like ok we got the executive branch now and VP off the grid. Homeland security is a duplicate of all the offices under it and now we want to give power to treasurer so he can sell off america in pieces.
No matter how bad it looks the congress has to put some stop language and limits in whatever bill they are working on. Bush is nagging to the press rather then talking to the people, That is the same routine he used for war, judges and power.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - Duties & Functions
Mission
Serve the American people and strengthen national security by managing the U.S. Government's finances effectively, promoting economic growth and stability, and ensuring the safety, soundness, and security of the U.S. and international financial systems.
The Department of the Treasury's mission highlights its role as the steward of U.S. economic and financial systems, and as an influential participant in the global economy.
The Treasury Department is the executive agency responsible for promoting economic prosperity and ensuring the financial security of the United States.
The Department is responsible for a wide range of activities such as advising the President on economic and financial issues, encouraging sustainable economic growth, and fostering improved governance in financial institutions.
The Department of the Treasury operates and maintains systems that are critical to the nation's financial infrastructure, such as the production of coin and currency, the disbursement of payments to the American public, revenue collection, and the borrowing of funds necessary to run the federal government.
The Department works with other federal agencies, foreign governments, and international financial institutions to encourage global economic growth, raise standards of living, and to the extent possible, predict and prevent economic and financial crises.
The Treasury Department also performs a critical and far-reaching role in enhancing national security by implementing economic sanctions against foreign threats to the U.S., identifying and targeting the financial support networks of national security threats, and improving the safeguards of our financial systems.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/duties/
Mission
Serve the American people and strengthen national security by managing the U.S. Government's finances effectively, promoting economic growth and stability, and ensuring the safety, soundness, and security of the U.S. and international financial systems.
The Department of the Treasury's mission highlights its role as the steward of U.S. economic and financial systems, and as an influential participant in the global economy.
The Treasury Department is the executive agency responsible for promoting economic prosperity and ensuring the financial security of the United States.
The Department is responsible for a wide range of activities such as advising the President on economic and financial issues, encouraging sustainable economic growth, and fostering improved governance in financial institutions.
The Department of the Treasury operates and maintains systems that are critical to the nation's financial infrastructure, such as the production of coin and currency, the disbursement of payments to the American public, revenue collection, and the borrowing of funds necessary to run the federal government.
The Department works with other federal agencies, foreign governments, and international financial institutions to encourage global economic growth, raise standards of living, and to the extent possible, predict and prevent economic and financial crises.
The Treasury Department also performs a critical and far-reaching role in enhancing national security by implementing economic sanctions against foreign threats to the U.S., identifying and targeting the financial support networks of national security threats, and improving the safeguards of our financial systems.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/duties/
QUOTE(cutecat @ Sep 21 2008, 04:15 PM)
The thing that bothers me is the power Paulson is requesting for his office ...
Act of Congress Establishing the Treasury Department
Chapter XII.
An Act to establish the Treasury Department. (a)
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be a Department of Treasury, in which shall be the following officers, namely: a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary.
Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue, and the public expenditures; to superintend the collection of revenue; to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to grant under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all warrants for monies to be issued from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law; to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands belonging to the United States, as may be by law required of him; (
to make report, and give information to either branch of the legislature, in person or in writing (as he may be required), respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office; and generally to perform all such services relative to the finances, as he shall be directed to perform.Section 3. And be it futher enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Comptroller to superintend the adjustment and preservation of the public accounts; to examine all accounts settled by the Auditor, and certify the balances arising thereon to the Register; to countersign all warrants drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, which shall be warranted by law; to report to the Secretary the official forms of all papers to be issued in the different offices for collecting the public revenue, and the manner and form of keeping and stating the accounts of the several persons employed therein.
He shall moreover provide for the regular and punctual payment of all monies which may be collected, and shall direct prosecutions for all delinquencies of officers of the revenue, and for debts that are, or shall be due to the United States. ©
Section 4. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Treasurer to receive and keep the monies of the United States, and to disburse the same upon warrants drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, countersigned by the Comptroller, recorded by the Register, and not otherwise; he shall take receipts for all monies paid by him, and all receipts for monies received by him shall be endorsed upon warrants signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, withouth which warrant, so signed, no acknowledgement for money received into the public treasury shall be valid.
And the said Treasurer shall render his accounts to the Comptroller quarterly (or oftener if required,) and shall transmit a copy thereof, when settled, to the Secretary of the Treasury.
He shal. moreover, on the third day of every session of Congress, lay before the Senate and the House of Representatives, fair and accurate copies of all accounts by him from time [to time] rendered to, and settled with the Comptroller as aforesaid, as also, a true and perfect account of the state of the Treasury.
He shall, at all times, submit to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Comptroller, in the sum of one hundred and fify thousand dollars, payable to the United States, with condition for the faithful performance of the duties of his office, and for the fidelity of the persons to be by him employed, which bond shall be lodged in the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States.
Section 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Auditor to receive all public accounts, and after examination to certify the balance, and transmit the accounts with the vouchers and certificate to the Comptroller for his decision thereon: Provided, That if any peson whose account shall be so audited, be dissatisfied therewith, he may within six months appeal to the Comptroller against such settlement. (d)
Section 6. And be it further enacted, That is shall be the duty of the Register to keep all accounts of the receipts and expenditures of the public money, and of all debts due to or from the United States; to receive from the Comptroller the accounts which shall have been finally adjusted, and to preserve such accounts with their vouchers and certificates; to record all warrants for the receipt or payment of monies at the Treasury, certify the same thereon, and to transmit to the Secretary of the Treasury, copies of the certificates of balances of accounts adjusted as is herein directed.
Section 7. And be it further enacted, That whenever the Secretary shall be removed from office by the President of the United States, or in any oter case of vacancy in the office of Secretary, the Assistant shall, during the vacancy, have the charge and custody of the records, books, and papers appertaining to the said office.
Section 8. And be it futher enacted, That no person appointed to any office instituted by the Act, shall directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea-vessel, or purchase by himself, or anoter in trust for him, any public lands or other pulic property, or be concerned in the purchase or disposal of any public securities of any State, or of the United States, or take or apply to his own use, any emolument or gain for negotiating or transacting any business in the said department, other than what shall be allowed by law; and if any person shall offend against any of the prohibitions of this Act, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and forfeit to the United States te penalty of three thousand dollars, and shall upon conviction be removed from office, and forever therafter incapable of holding any office under the United States: Provided, That if any other person that a public prosecutor shall give information of any such offence, upon which a prosecution and conviction shall be had, one half the aforesaid penalty of three thousand dollars, when recovered, shall be for the use of the person giving such information.
APPROVED: September 2, 1789.Persons appointed to office under this act. Prohibition upon.
(a) The acts, in addition to this act which have been passed relating to the Treasury Department, have been: Act of March 3, 1791; Act of May 8, 1792; Act of March 3, 1809, chap.28; Act of November 22, 1814; Act of March 3, 1817, chap.45; Act of February 24, 1819, chap. 43; Act of May 1, 1820, chap. 50; act of May 15, 1820, chap. 107. (return to text)
(
By "an Act for the establishment of a general land office in the Department of the Treasury," passed April 25, 1812, the direction of the sales of public lands was assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury. By "an Act to provide for the collection, safe keeping, transfer and disbursement of the public revenue," passed July 4, 1840, chap. 18, sec.1, the fire-proof vaults and safes provided by the Treasurer in the new building erected at the seat of government, were "constituted and declared to be the Treasury of the United States." This act was repealed by the Act of August 13, 1841, chap.7. (return to text)© See the Act of March 3, 1809, chap. 28, sec. 2. The Comptroller of the Treasury has a right to direct the marshal to whom he shall pay money received on executions, and payment according to such directions is good. (return to text)
(d) See Act of May 8, 1792; Act of March 3, 1809, chap. 28. (return to text)
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-congress.shtml
Welcome to BushWorld, everybody.
The American (Financial) Empire.
We print Dollars for you to use.
Coin of the realm.
Use them or we'll KILL YOU.
Just ask Saddam.
The US Dollar is backed by the 42 gallon barrel of oil.
Gold is sooooo last century.
The American (Financial) Empire.
We print Dollars for you to use.
Coin of the realm.
Use them or we'll KILL YOU.
Just ask Saddam.
The US Dollar is backed by the 42 gallon barrel of oil.
Gold is sooooo last century.
So what powers is he and President Bush asking for him to be given?
I know they do not enforce the collection of fees owed for the use of public lands to graze and feed cattle. That has been a long standing issue of neglect and uncollected resources.
also "a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary."? Compotroller and Auditor should be tared and feathered..who are they?
I know they do not enforce the collection of fees owed for the use of public lands to graze and feed cattle. That has been a long standing issue of neglect and uncollected resources.
also "a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary."? Compotroller and Auditor should be tared and feathered..who are they?
Paulson is asking Congress (with Bush's signature) for a $700 Bil blank check, no conditions, no oversight, no recourse, no strings. In return, he says, he will prevent the global financial meltdown that he says is sure to come otherwise.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Sep 21 2008, 05:31 PM)
My daughter's and son's future will not be automatically enhanced if Hank Paulson is cannned.
Not that I care about his particular future, one way or the other.
Seems like you cannot say the same.
Not that I care about his particular future, one way or the other.
Seems like you cannot say the same.
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 21 2008, 04:38 PM)
Act of Congress Establishing the Treasury Department
Chapter XII.
An Act to establish the Treasury Department. (a)
Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit;
to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue, and the public expenditures;
to superintend the collection of revenue;
to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to grant under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all warrants for monies to be issued from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law;
to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands belonging to the United States, as may be by law required of him;
(b) to make report, and give information to either branch of the legislature, in person or in writing (as he may be required), respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office;
and generally to perform all such services relative to the finances, as he shall be directed to perform.
Section 8. And be it futher enacted, That no person appointed to any office instituted by the Act, shall directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea-vessel, or purchase by himself, or anoter in trust for him, any public lands or other pulic property, or be concerned in the purchase or disposal of any public securities of any State, or of the United States, or take or apply to his own use, any emolument or gain for negotiating or transacting any business in the said department, other than what shall be allowed by law;
and if any person shall offend against any of the prohibitions of this Act, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and forfeit to the United States te penalty of three thousand dollars, and shall upon conviction be removed from office, and forever therafter incapable of holding any office under the United States:
Provided, That if any other person that a public prosecutor shall give information of any such offence, upon which a prosecution and conviction shall be had, one half the aforesaid penalty of three thousand dollars, when recovered, shall be for the use of the person giving such information.
APPROVED: September 2, 1789.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-congress.shtml
Chapter XII.
An Act to establish the Treasury Department. (a)
Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit;
to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue, and the public expenditures;
to superintend the collection of revenue;
to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to grant under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all warrants for monies to be issued from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law;
to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands belonging to the United States, as may be by law required of him;
(b) to make report, and give information to either branch of the legislature, in person or in writing (as he may be required), respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office;
and generally to perform all such services relative to the finances, as he shall be directed to perform.
Section 8. And be it futher enacted, That no person appointed to any office instituted by the Act, shall directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea-vessel, or purchase by himself, or anoter in trust for him, any public lands or other pulic property, or be concerned in the purchase or disposal of any public securities of any State, or of the United States, or take or apply to his own use, any emolument or gain for negotiating or transacting any business in the said department, other than what shall be allowed by law;
and if any person shall offend against any of the prohibitions of this Act, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and forfeit to the United States te penalty of three thousand dollars, and shall upon conviction be removed from office, and forever therafter incapable of holding any office under the United States:
Provided, That if any other person that a public prosecutor shall give information of any such offence, upon which a prosecution and conviction shall be had, one half the aforesaid penalty of three thousand dollars, when recovered, shall be for the use of the person giving such information.
APPROVED: September 2, 1789.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-congress.shtml
Of course I can't, Arneoker ....
You set a much slacker standard in here than I do for the conduct in office of the United States Secretary of the Treasury, who is after all, according to our laws, a creature of the United States Congress ...
And as a responsible American citizen, I can't in good conscience adhere to your lower, slacker standard for the conduct of Henry "HANK" Paulson ....
And how gullible you are, Arneoker ....
You assume that there is this HUGE FINANCIAL CRISIS based solely on the word of none other than Henry "HANK" Paulson, who is about to pull one of the BIGGEST FLIM-FLAMS or RIP-OFFS of a public treasury in the whole history of the world ....
This is like the MOTHER OF ALL BANK ROBBERIES, or CON JOBS ....
And you seem to be advocating for its ARCHITECT, Arneoker ....
Like a defense attorney would ....
If this was the military, Arneoker, Henry 'HANK" Paulson would be gone by now, summarily relieved of command, and perhaps court-martialed to boot for gross negligence in the execution of his command, and for gross failure to fulfill his duties of office ....
But that is military discipline, Arneoker, and good defense counsel that you are, you will tell me that this is not the military, and there I will have to concur .....
NO, IT IS NOT ....
So out here, despite the fact that Henry "HANK" Paulson failed utterly and miserably at his job, and perhaps ENGINEERED this FINANCIAL CRISIS himself to enable himself to get his hands on $700 BILLION of OUR tax dollars and the power that amount of money will give him, without any government oversight at all, HE WILL BE REWARDED WITH NOT ONLY KEEPING HIS JOB, BUT WITH AN ADDITIONAL $700 BILLION IN HIS SOLE CONTROL AS WELL ....
If you look at the law governing his position, Arneoker, you will notice that Henry "HANK" Paulson is asking the Congress which created his position in the first place to:
a) GRANT HIM EXTRAORDINARY POWERS FAR OUTSIDE OF THOSE ORIGINALLY DELEGATED TO THE U.S. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS; and
b) TO GREATLY DIMINISH OR ELIMINATE THE PRESENT OVERSIGHT ROLE OVER HIS POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ....
In a word, Henry "HANK" Paulson is asking our Congress to appoint him as a CZAR, or FINANCIAL DICTATOR here in OUR America with a PERSONAL WARCHEST of $700 BILLION that Henry "HANK" Paulson will raise by assessing every man, woman and child in America, including yours, Arneoker, unless you're getting an exemption for being politically-connected, a PENALTY of $2,000 to SUPPORT CORRUPTION here in OUR America ....
You don't mind paying that penalty, Arneoker, likely because you do have a poltical exemption ....
While I am against it ....
Just as I am very much against Henry "HANK" Paulson staying on in his present capacity for one more day ....
And so ....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.