Comments on: Senator Grassley Targets Goldman-Treasury Conflicts, Net Operating Loss Gimmie

By: Francois

Francois — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:09:00 +0000

Last time I checked, Congress write the Tax Code, not the Treasury. So, yes, Paulson has overreached very far away from his turf here.

“Sadly, this Financial Times story has gotten perilously little coverage in the US.”

Come now, Yves! I’m sure you meant “As expected, this Financial Times…”

Since when is it legit for the US financial media to challenge the spin orthodoxy of the powers that be huh? As a sample, just look at this video on CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=931599105

where a guest had the audacity to mention the existence of the President Working Group (a.k.a. Plunge Protection Team) The scene is rather amusing and illustrates pretty well the level of self-censorship in the US media.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:45:00 +0000

It’s a hint of backbone sufficient to make this progressive consider voting Republican. I’m sure the Republicans will continue to broaden and deepen this new niche by raising fusses over these bailout dilemmas.

By: tom a taxpayer

tom a taxpayer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:05:00 +0000

Senator Grassley, Treasury inspector-general Eric Thorson, and federal prosecutors have a rich lode of criminal conflict of interest statutes to investigate in regard to Robert Steel, Hank Paulson, and the Paulson’s Goldman Sachs crew at U.S. Department of Treasury. These criminal conflict of interest statutes are listed at this Office of Government Ethics website.
http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/other_ethics_guidance/conflict_int_pros_surveys.aspx

Taking just one of these statutes, Post-Employment Restrictions 18 U.S.C. 207, in regard to Mr. Steel it would appear there may be as many as six post employment prohibitions to which he is subject. According the another federal website, the highest level federal employees who terminate from Federal service will be subject to all six post employment prohibitions — 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c), (d) and (f), which make for interesting reading at:
http://www.doi.gov/ethics/eth-207.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:39:00 +0000

Why would this change in the tax code by Paulson and Co. be binding on the next administration? Couldn’t O just change the interpretation back to the old one, the one that was actually written into law by the congress and stick WFC with the right tax bill?

By: Acrimonious

Acrimonious — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:53:00 +0000

My apologies in advance for being off-topic but…
Can anyone explain to me why the Treasury and it’s bailout package is trying to foster so much credit when it has been this country’s spending problem in the first place?
It seems to me we need to dial back our consumption to be in line with our income. And the Treasury’s answer is not helping with $700 billion.

By: ndk

ndk — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:48:00 +0000

Dodd can’t even pronounce Mulally’s name properly. Clearly, he’s well-studied on this issue. Fortunately, Mulally’s got his homework covered: just make sure this is structured as a bridge loan that is repeatedly rolled over, because that’ll protect taxpayers.

WTF.

By: djap113

djap113 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:52:00 +0000

@ Anonymous - November 18, 2008 2:22 AM

Team Obama to the rescue?!!!!

I think this statement clearly represents why Americans are repeatedly taken for a ride. So close, yet so, so far from the mark.

Will there be legal action? Not when these constituents and their interests OWN every single politician on both sides of the aisle in congress... save for Ron Paul.

I have zero faith in our legal system to do anything about what has become legalized robbery, and subsequently slavery of the American taxpayer.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:31:00 +0000

Grassley is just trying to condtion people into thinking he is clean!

Naomi Klein: The Borderline Illegal Deals Behind the $700 Billion Bailout

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107458/?page=1

There’s another piece of this puzzle that is also borderline illegal, which is that in addition to the $700 billion that we are discussing, the $700 billion bailout, there’s another $2 trillion that’s been handed out by the Federal Reserve in emergency loans to financial institutions, to banks, that actually we don’t really know who they’re handing the money out to, because, apparently, it’s a secret.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:00 +0000

All you have to do is is look up the definition of criminal enterprise on the FBI site and you will find many similarities with today’s treasury JMHO

By: River

River — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:03:00 +0000

As long as presidents are allowed use of 'signing statements' to disregard laws passed by congress there will be no utility in having three branches of government. If congress does not oversee, of what use is it?

Congress began undermining their own usefullness when Truman was allowed to fight a war in Korea without approval by congress. Congress has been busily courting lobbyists and ignoring it's responsibilities for a very long time. Now that the nation faces grave problems congress is ill prepared to step up to the plate.

Since congress was unprepared to take on it's responsibilities, it once again handed them off to who ever would take them. In the current situation it is Paulson/Bernanke.