Obama and Congressional leaders are pushing a Trojan-horse financial "reform" bill that would enrich the wealthy and powerful investment bank Goldman Sachs, which was recently accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). That's the discovery of John Berlau, who won the National Press Club's Hume Memorial Award for exposing the conflicts of interest of a former IRS Commissioner.
Earlier, the Obama Administration used the AIG bailout to give billions in legally unnecessary payments to Goldman Sachs, which is so rich that it has admitted it didn't even need the money. Goldman Sachs, one of the Democratic Party's biggest donors, is using its political connections to reap record profits.
Moreover, Obama's legislation would do nothing to rein in the worst offenders behind the mortgage crisis, the government-subsidized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as it would give the government the permanent ability to bail out Wall Street firms.
Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” Worse, the Obama Administration lifted the $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie and Freddie, so that they could continue to buy up junky mortgages at taxpayer expense, and showered their executives with $42 million in compensation. The Obama Administration is now expanding the bailouts of these mortgage giants so that they can lavish pay on their CEOs and reduce the payments of deadbeat mortgage borrowers. (At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes. Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public).
Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk. “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”
Why did they buy these risky loans? They put up with Clinton-era affordable-housing regulations that required them to buy up lots of risky loans, in order to curry favor on Capitol Hill and thus retain their annual $10 billion in tax and other special privileges (which they possessed owing to their status as “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs). They paid their CEOs millions in the process, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses. As GSEs, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.
Banking expert Peter J. Wallison, who prophetically warned against the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, says that Obama's proposals will lead to "bailouts forever" and give big, politically-connected banks that are "too big to fail" the ability to drive smaller rivals out of business at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. His colleague Alex Pollock notes that Obama has not lived up his Administration's claims that it would back reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Obama claims that it will not lead to more bailouts, but even Congressional Democrats admit that it will. As Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Cal.) admits, the "bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. . .The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority."
Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was another key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. If Obama has his way, that pressure will increase. The House earlier approved Obama's proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.” It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.











Comments
Obama and his cronies are thieves.
With most of GS ex-execs in the Obama cabinet and other positions, what else would we expect from him?
When a corrupt man like Dodd writs a bill, the bill must also be corrupt.
Here are 2 planks from the Congressional Record of a hearing on 1/10/1963.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
It is the Communist Goals for the USA.
Once again, we're given a totally disingenious description of legislation. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with 'financial reform'. Political paybacks and federal takeovers are the impetus.
From your linked article:
"Supporters of Dodds bill maintain that it does not create bailouts because the failing firms shareholders would be wiped out and its managers would be fired. But what they dont say is that the money from the $50 billion resolution fund would be used to frequently give creditors of this firm a better deal than they would have in bankruptcy."
While the latter part of this claim may be true, and it may be a valid point to fix- I say fix, not to pull this grandstanding nonsense of huffing and puffing and refusing to do anything- it doesn't address the core claim.
If the shareholders and management- those who can reasonably influence the actions of a bank- are subject to massive penalties and losses if they should drive their institution to financial ruin, how is it creating "perpetual bailouts"? I confess that high finance is mostly arcane to me, but it does not seem as if the creditors are the primary decision makers at Goldman Sachs or other large f
Where are we:
Your list is from Cleon Skousen, who proudly supported dictators and insinuated that American presidents like Truman and Eisenhower were closet communists. I'm not sure what your point is anyhow.
The point Jack is that the goals are being met one by one. Now more than ever.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!