Bank bailout may hurt taxpayers, be open to fraud

Bank bailout may hurt taxpayers, be open to fraud

finance.yahoo.com

In a 250-page quarterly report to Congress, the rescue program's special inspector general concludes that a private-public partnership designed to rid financial institutions of their "toxic assets" is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

The report, which examines the six-month old, $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, is scheduled for release Tuesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Uh, ya think?

The crazy thing about these "reports" is that they always come WAY after the fact, long after the two-party crime family votes these provisions into place.

Everybody and their brother KNEW this was the biggest heist and rape of the treasury and tax-payer base in history, and it just keeps going and going and going...

Unbelievably sickening what has become of our country in recent years...Greed and power rules all...

finance.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I watched an episode of The Daily Show recently. The guest was Elizabeth Warren who is the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) for the Troubled Assed Relief Program (TARP). The interview is in the second segment of the show.

Here's the link to that show (April 15, 2009)

www.thedailyshow.com...

Let me just say here that it's a shame that this type of important information is coming out on a "Comedy Channel" show and not the MSM. But it doesn't suprise me.

Anyway, he interviewed this woman and what she said about the $700 billion dollar bailout is interesting. Something every taxpayer should be well aware of. After all, this is "Our" money that is being "invested" in these companies.

Basically what this woman is saying is that out of the initial $350 billion that we gave these banks (via the purchase of stocks) we gave away 78 BILLION dollars. And now we are down even more than that because the value of the stock that "We" the taxpayers invested "dropped".

See, initially we purchased stock. For every $100 of stock we purchased we actually only got $66 worth of stock. That was the initial money we gave away. Then, since the value of the stock dropped our investment has actually been a "loss".

I think everyone should watch at least the second segment of this video to get a better understanding, since I'm just giving a basic overview of what she said.

The second part of the $350 billion is what this OP is about. PPIP (Private-Public Investment Program). Something that she briefly touches on. We, the taxpayers have been thoroughly and completely screwed and alot of people don't even really realize the full extent.

In the third segment of the show she goes into what has been going on since the beginning of the United States in 1792.

Please people, watch the video. It may be the comedy channel BUT this woman is the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP program and she knows what she's talking about!

in addition it was reported "sunshine may be accompanied by blue sky" and "a politician may be deceptive when he moves his lips."

this is obvious to almost everyone outside of MSM tv land

Uh, duh? Isn't that obvious?

Second line second line... I think people should have known this by now.

reply to post by cnichols


I've seen her on several shows over the past few months and she always says the sam thing: we don't know exactly who got the money or what they did with it and no, she has no power at all. all she can do is ask questions. so what's the point of having a watchdog who knows nothing, cannot demand information and has no power to do anything even if she finds something? this is the new transparency. do what ever they want while sticking their tongues out at us and saying "take that you fools! you can't do a thing to stop us". This woman seems like a very sincere person. How can she stand to be in this position?

reply to post by earlywatcher


She may be cast in the role of watchdog; but in reality she is a placeholder. When the time is right a new 'enabler' will replace her and take us down the primrose fleecing path once again.

Didn't we already have 'watchdog' agencies and law enforcement and justice department agencies whose sole purpose was to keep this kind of abuse from happening? Of course we did. Do you think adding one more on the payroll will change anything? No, it won't.

Frankly, there are about 100 or so people in various agencies who should be charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to fraud to treason. Problem is we voted for half of them, and they were 'instructed' to appoint the rest - so they are still in charge.