It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Barack Obama Bashes financial Giants for Squandering Bailout Funds; Vows Crackdown

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

President Barack Obama Bashes financial Giants for Squandering Bailout Funds; Vows Crackdown


www.nydailynews.com

President Obama pushed for more aggressive monitoring of the Wall Street bailout Friday - and he put corporate swashbucklers on notice he'll crack down on their lavish extravagances.

Obama was teed off after hearing reports of companies receiving taxpayer cash, "then going out and renovating bathrooms or offices."

He vented over a "lack of accountability and transparency in how we are managing some of these programs to stabilize the financial system."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.usnews.com
www.financialweek.com




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Funny how the average Americans were hearing on the news almost daily there for a while about how all these big companies who received bailouts were squandering all the bailout money doing "business as usual", lavish vacations at resorts, huge bonuses in the millions of dollars and such, and we never heard a peep out of Bush to condemn this!

Well, at least Obama has now.

I think the final little extravaganza that caused this reaction from him was when Merrill Lynch's CEO, John Thain, the one who kept saying he still deserved his multimillion dollar bonus after the bailout, went on a shopping spree and spent over $1 million redecorating his office, the extravagance included, a TRASH CAN for $1,200, an $87,000 area rug, a $25,000 desk, and $28,000 for curtains!

Obama's spokesman said, ...



"The American people need to be greatly assured that their hard-earned money is not going to the bonuses or the remodeling of an office at a bank that's in trouble," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.


And then he re-iterated how the bailout is SUPPOSE to be used!



"That money needs to go directly to the American people in the form of loans - whether it's a student loan or an auto loan or [one to] a small business so that it can meet its payroll," Gibbs added.


Well, let's just hope Obama and his administration will be able to keep on top of these companies to ensure their extravagant spending is kept in check and the bailout money is used for what it was intended to be used for!

www.nydailynews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I can't believe some people. You know some people actually believe that if we didn't act it would have been a lot worse so they don't complain about the financial collapse? When I tell them that the money was wasted and I give them the facts they don't even listen. So, I just hope that the money goes where it's supposed to go. We were duped. People still don't like to think that... because they think people do what they're supposed to do. Ugh.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Well i can say that it "seems" he's hit the ground running in trying to fix the problems palguing American politics. But all of this seems a little too good to be true at the moment.

I attempt to be optimistic and do realize that alot of what he has said, does place him at odds with past administrations behaviour. But i'm still gonna give it six months to really see how things play out.

He can say he'll be placing people accountable all he wants, but without any prosecution, or SPECIFIC incidents that he deals with, that's just in the wind as far as i'm concerned.

Blackovitch or whatever his name is would be a great place to start.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
If Obama feels this way ... Why did they execute the bailouts in the first place??

This looks like the MSM is trying to make Obama look like a super hero... He was still a senator furing these bailouts , and congress should have sided with him.

This is all a coverup and a free pass for Obama.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


It's not Obama's fault. It's Henry Paulsun's fault for the first bailout because he gave all the money to his bank buddies and his buddies at AIG. You can't rewrite history like that.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
How does he plan to crackdown if they are not violating the terms Congress laid out in the bailout bill? They may not be using the money as Congress and everybody intended, but it was never said they couldn't spend the money in this manner. Congress gets an "F" for bill writing, Treasury gets an "F" for continuing to give out the money knowing this was going, and the ones receiving the money gets a big "FU" for not using Common Sense and helping to get this economy back on track.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


sad part is this isnt just in the US
back here the Banks who were bailed out are giving them selves bonuses

buch of *****

wounder if Brown will take a page from obamas book and say something here
since blair did follow Bush around like a poodle



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Meanwhile, Obama's Democratic counterpart, Nancy Pelosi, says that the hundreds of billions of dollars that we've already given to the banking industry just may not be enough.


Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Pelosi resisted the notion that the government would nationalize some banks, but when asked whether more funds would be needed above those already approved for the TARP, she said that "some increased investment" in return for equity might be necessary.


Link

There you have it, folks. We may have to give them even more money to flush down the toilet. No wonder Pelosi's Congress had a 9% approval rating at one point last fall.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by vor78]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


Actually I think ALL Congress just acted too hastily in passing that bailout bill to begin with!

I think it was passed in a panic due to Paulson's pressure that the world would come to an end if they didn't!

It was just totally RIDICULOUS to leave it all in the hands of one man to hand out all of that money and to oversee that it was being used the way it was suppose to be used, especially when that guy was Paulson!

[edit on 1/25/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Good start for Obama.

Way to piss me off even more, big money executives.

Do they realize that some people don't even make 25,000$ in a year? And they spend that on some fancy pencil sharpener or some crap? You know what, let me get one of those guys alone in their office, and show them how painful a 28,000$ desk feels.


Have a nice day all.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
All I am saying is ... If Obama and company knew he was going to win, Don't you think Obama should have showed great opposition to the original bailouts?

It doesn't add up.

I still think the worst has yet to come ... In the form of a 825,000,000,000 Stimulus.

And that is yes ... a 12 figure price tag.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
IF the money were meant for the PEOPLE, then they should have been able to approach the US Treasury, directly, for loans.
It is OUR money that they are making available to the banks to loan back to US!


I agree...good press.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
If Obama feels this way ... Why did they execute the bailouts in the first place??




I don't understand your position here. What does how Obama feels about how the bailout money has been misused have to do with George Bush's execution of the bailout bill?

Not knocking Bushs' execution of the bill. Just don't know what the two have to do with eachother.

Personally though, I don't even know if Bush is upset or not. It depends on what he thinks is the best use of money.

Typically conservatives believe in trickle-down economics, where the money that guy spent on all those things went to companies which were selling them which have employees which, when paid, become consumers.

So from that perspective, if you believe trickle-down economics works... it's not a problem.

I think the issue here though is that the money was assumed to be designated for one purpose, and used for another.




This looks like the MSM is trying to make Obama look like a super hero...



How is that? Where did the MSM come into this? Obama said something at a press conference, it came from his mouth. What's that got to do with the MSM?




He was still a senator furing these bailouts , and congress should have sided with him.

This is all a coverup and a free pass for Obama.


I know you might feel that way, but do you have any proof of this?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Is it your mission to spin everything?

He was still senator and he could have voiced his opinion .. seeing he was to be POTUS

At that point in Bush's term, It did not matter. Even if Bush vetoed the original bailouts , it was overturned by congress.

If McCain or any other republican would have been in office it would be on their hands. But with Obama in office .. if he says he is mad at this , then everyone agrees and sides with him. There will be no words in opposition to Obama.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I agree with a few people on this thread.

He voted for the bailout as did a lot of other senators, in fact I think 74 senators voted yes for it.

Now he is mad about where the bailout money is going? He voted for it and he is guilty of it. He put his stamp of approval on it by voting for it.

Once again all I see is political posturing from Obama, and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Obama was the clear frontrunner when the bankster rip off took place. Going against the incredibly unpopular bailout might just have turned the election for McCain, it would certainly have sealed victory for Obama. The bottom line is that both declared who owned them by supporting the banksters. Obama is just posturing now. Face it folks, the bankster bailout should have shown everyone who really runs this country, and it’s not the 90% of the population that opposed it.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well at least he is doing something about it, but he probably shouldn't have voted for the bailout anyway. I think he just did that to help himself get elected and didn't go through it thoroughly enough, just like the majority of the senators. Not to mention a majority of people in the US didn't want the bailout in the first place. It just feels a little hypocritical to me.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I dont want to hear words I want to see action. Talk is cheap as they say. When I see some discipline then Ill be impressed.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
Well at least he is doing something about it, but he probably shouldn't have voted for the bailout anyway. I think he just did that to help himself get elected and didn't go through it thoroughly enough, just like the majority of the senators. Not to mention a majority of people in the US didn't want the bailout in the first place. It just feels a little hypocritical to me.



What?!?!?! It's opposing the bankster rip off that would have helped either one get elected. And what's hypocritical is for Obama to act outraged after having supported the theft. Are you saying that you think the people were hypocritical for opposing their money being taken?

edit sp

[edit on 25-1-2009 by resistor]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join