Senate Sets Bank-Rescue Vote, House May Act Friday

www.usdoj.gov...

I find the above link to be especially hilarious. I wonder who has the job of responding to that one....

*Quoted
"You may report waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct to the OIG by mail:

Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
Investigations Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 4706
Washington, DC 20530
e-mail: [email protected]

hotline: (contact information in English and Spanish): (800) 869-4499

or hotline fax: (202) 616-9881"
*End Quote

Heres the more pertinent facts from the site.

I bet these folks are on "vacation" at the moment.

Question..., (as this is a rare opportunity where so many people who's financial opinions I value highly are present at the same time.)

I was under the impression that the main reason no one leaped to the aid of Lehman Bros. was because one hundred billion dollars of their bottom line was Chavez's (Venezuela), not a slight financial 'hit'.

Otherwise, for example, had the underlying capital been Chinese, (as in Stearn's(?) or AIG's(?) case, the FED-driven rescue would have been nearly instantaneous.

Suffice to say, this was not a 'given' in terms of veracity; so I wouldn't be surprised if my source (diplomatic) was off target. However, the coincidence is there, and there are many within those circles who are still fuming over the nationalization of the Venezuelan Oil industry.

Could this be a legitimate factor in the 'decision' to allow Lehman Bros. to fail, when "rescue" funds were obviously, if not virtually, available?

reply to post by Maxmars


That is exactly what I did with the ones that supported the bill from my state, today I voted and I voted against all of them.

reply to post by Maxmars


No, no, its not like that. AIG, the sunday night before Lehman Brothers monday collapse, was denied any and all help from the fed. When Lehman Brothers went under, the situation changed.

Could you imagine what would happen to the markets if both Lehman Brothers and AIG went under in the same 3 day time span? Not to mention, Lehman Brothers was the largest bankruptcy in history, if I remember right. AIG, the worlds largest insurer, just couldn't be allowed to collapse at the time it was going to.

Thats the reason AIG got bailed out and Lehman didn't. The Federal Reserve, up to that monday, refused the idea of helping any of these companies. They took a hardline policy of "no more help". They also tried to make it clear that AIG would be just an exception to the rule, and not a new rule all together.

The situation since then has changed. Hands off isn't working.

reply to post by Rockpuck


My dearest Rockpuck you know by now that the most corrupted politicians and president in this nation is right now running this nation to the ground.

While congress and the president for the last 8 years had lined up their pockets with the will of the lobbyist running Washington we the American people had nothing but hard times, unemployment and the death of our American dreams going into foreclosures.

Still this corrupted and dirty government we have doesn't given a darn about what happen to our nation and the regular citizens, because most of them have big fat accounts in the Cayman Islands and in the same European banks that they want the American tax payer to pay for.

Nothing but the most corrupted government in our history, they found the way to fatten their nasty bellies and their nasty pockets at our expenses and our unborn.

They all traitors.

reply to post by Maxmars


There's an interesting theory about the Lehman "affair":

And the Band Played On
Special Status and the $138 Billion Riddle?

It is highly likely [or a certainty on my planet] that J.P. Morgan was INSOLVENT and was “BAILED OUT” last Monday, September 15, to the tune of 138 billion dollars. This would explain why the Fed and Treasury dictated that Lehman fail – to disguise or otherwise obfuscate the recapitalization of or illicit transfer of 138 billion to A MUCH SICKER, TEETERING ENTITY, J.P. Morgan Chase.

This makes sense. Investment banks are dropping like flies, owing to their involvement in credit derivatives – this is a fact.

J. P. Morgan is – HANDS DOWN – the largest derivatives player in the world with a book of 90 Trillion in notional value on March 31, 2008 ...

There have been so many financial shenanigans going on the last few of years that it's hard to keep up with the accelerated pace we've seen over the last few months.
.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
At least they added that important mental health coverage bill. Thanks to that, I can stick Blue Cross & Blue Shield with 90% of the cost of my treatments because THIS BILL IS DRIVING ME F..... NUTS! Real smart move by the Senate! kinda like requiring that every bottle of rotgut comes with a little pack of asprin to treat the ensuing hangover.

Since the amount of money they're willing to print/spend is limitless now,
why don't they force health insurance companies to cover all Americans
and to pay whatever amount of the monthly premium that a given
family cannot afford to pay. While the doors to the treasure house are
open, let's go for the gold baby!

reply to post by grimreaper797


Thank you. That helps me in vetting my source. I wasn't actually sure how the Venezuelan money would be tied into that in the first place, but I'm in a gray zone, learning all the time.

The Fed's charter gives it power in this area, but is it operating on a contractual compulsion. I mean, are they 'responsible' for doing these things? Many objections arise from critics describing the Fed's actions as 'unrestrained and unregulated'. That seems to elude me because the charter is something I haven't had the pleasure of reviewing. Or is that 'private information', I wonder?

Originally posted by carewemust

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
At least they added that important mental health coverage bill. Thanks to that, I can stick Blue Cross & Blue Shield with 90% of the cost of my treatments because THIS BILL IS DRIVING ME F..... NUTS! Real smart move by the Senate! kinda like requiring that every bottle of rotgut comes with a little pack of asprin to treat the ensuing hangover.

Since the amount of money they're willing to print/spend is limitless now,
why don't they force health insurance companies to cover all Americans
and to pay whatever amount of the monthly premium that a given
family cannot afford to pay. While the doors to the treasure house are
open, let's go for the gold baby!

That would not increase their wealth.

Not a one-liner.

reply to post by Maxmars


Not sure where you heard that...

The Marathon Fund was the Majority Share Holder of Lehmans, which was financially backed, I believe, by Asian financial assets, however, headquartered in New York

www.marathonfund.com...

www.prnewswire.com.../www/story/09-25-2007/0004669100&EDATE=

While the Chinese may back our debt through treasury purchases and bond purchases, Sovereign Wealth Funds .. notably, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE for example, actually had large shares in these banks..

I believe, though it's hard to research stock ownership at least for me it is, lol, but I believe the wealth funds have fled the markets, are fleeing the markets, or got stuck in the market but want out..

In fact, aside from oil, I don't see where a Wealth Fund of the Venezuelan government owns a majority of any major bank?

reply to post by Gools


WOW! I would have thought that would have been received by the market like a bomb!

I suppose the media deemed the incident as 'unworthy' of dissemination to the hay-seed public.

Man! I gotta stop sleeping. I miss so much.

Well I found this information I guess The face of our lenders may be about to change as we now has lost our supremacy in the markets and others around the world are picking up the status.

Interesting.

Financial Hubs See an Opening Up at the Top, Wall Street's Long, Dominant Run Is Fading, Global Financiers Say

As the United States continues to reel from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, other major banking and financial centers around the world are witnessing a boom. Shanghai, Singapore, Mumbai, Dubai and others are poised to takeover the void left by shrinking U.S. investment firms.

But many of these financial institutions have investment and had bought into most of the failing financial institutions that are now waiting for the bail out.

I guess now we know to where most of the bail out is going to end.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Well, it's difficult to be certain, at times, when an e-acquaintance is as fully knowledgeable as they seem. This was one of those times. I found the angle 'worthy of inquiry' probably out of bias (not personal), after all, the industry seems rife with self-serving people who might just stoop to such behavior.

But, happily, with a forum like ATS around, our enemy "Ignorance" gets its butt routinely kicked about. It's fun.

In all seriousness, I was fishing a bit, because it seemed unusual that a country like Venezuela would engage in that kind of banking/investment. But then, they do have a Central Bank, no?

The meme I find hardest to contend with is that these Central Banks are, tactically distinct, but centrally controlled from a strategic perspective.

You know, plans within plans. I suspected they operated at that level. Less individual and more institutional greed.

But thank you for the information.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Yup, I think maybe the notion that "you don't even need help" was supposed to bolster the markets to support the companies.. of course, didn't work..

And if you look at AIG stock, well, bailout didn't do much for them either.

AIG is also a massive company, and more like a conglomerate.. in theory the Mortgage backing side of AIG could be allowed to fail, while the insurance and other aspects of AIG remain solvent.

marg6043

I take it then it concerns you that both Presidential candidates hands down support this bill, inspite of the largest outcry of the American People in history?

Under normal circumstances .. that's political suicide..

And if one of those candidates where to have said "hell no!" .. they would have been elected in a windfall...

Interesting, to say the least.. at least we know these puppies (because they act like obedient disciplined puppies compared to men of stature and respect) are well trained.

The Fed's charter gives it power in this area, but is it operating on a contractual compulsion. I mean, are they 'responsible' for doing these things?

The Federal Reserve is given authority to "handle the economy" in a sense..

They are essentially the board of banks that ensure everyone plays by the rules, no one bank cheats another .. yada yada yada..

Which is why the Federal Reserve's power only extends to banks.. bank to bank interest rates, bank to bank policies, bank to bank investments, finra, securities and exchanges, and for some god unknown reason, the printing of money.

It's not a Government Agency, it is not sanctioned by the Government, I don't even think it gets funding from Congress, though I am unsure, they certainly never had to ask for funding to print the hundreds upon hundreds of billion in bailouts?

So no.. they are not bound by the Constitution, they are bound by Law, though interpenetrated through the Judicial System..

No different then any other Corporation or Business.

Many objections arise from critics describing the Fed's actions as 'unrestrained and unregulated'.

The Fed is urging this passage, because they represent banks..

However, it is the Treasury, which is directly sanctioned by the Constitution, thus bound by it's laws, thus has to go before Congress, that wants to enact this 700billion.

Fed has nothing to do with it.

REASON AS TO WHY:

The Federal Reserve is only a Board, a committee to enact certain rules..

They cannot buy anything, they can only "lend out" money at interest, money printed from nothing, that is supposed to, over time, be re-paid and, in theory, destroyed. However, they could never actually print money from nothing and then try and buy something with it.. it's out side their "jurisdiction" so to speak.

However, the US Government is fully able to purchase anything they so desire.. and so.. when the Fed desides that all hell is breaking loose, inflation cannot contain the markets anylonger, we need to erase it from our books and "start anew" ..

They say hey, mr. treasurer, please, buy all our bad assets at above market prices..

The Treasurer says "mmkay" and goes to Congress and says "pay this bill, any way necessary."

Congress then goes "OK! ...... wait ... what's this fine print here?"

Why does the Treasurer want unlimited un-reviewed powers??

Easy.

When ever the Fed says "oh snap we # up again" they can just say "hey mr. treasurer buy this" .. and he does.. because he no longer has to ask Congress..

If this bill passes, we are one leap forward to ending the Republic, and dismantling the Constitution.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Exactly that is the part that many people do not understand, this like making the Treasury department a new establishment that no longer be ruled by the constitutions but by the same bankers that rules the Federal Reserve, the new entity will then have a Governor and become the bastard child of the Fed.

This one I got right after I read the original bill.

Then if this happen, any other office of the government will then can ask for powers to separate and be run as a private entity with his own powers.

This ridiculous it goes against anything written in the Constitution.



[edit on 1-10-2008 by marg6043]