Author
Greenspan wasn't around when TARP was passed; he hasn't been the Fed Chairman since...what...2004 or 2005? Paulson and Bernanke were the two Administration officials who met with the banks (although, technically, Bernanke's not really part of the Administration) .
You seem confused (or maybe just confusing) here. First you say there were no stipulations when the funds were initially passed out; now you say there were stipulations and that somehow those stipulations were what made the banks take the money??
The fact is, Paulson required the banks to take the money and that "offer" included stipulations from the beginning. Those included restrictions on executive compensation (albeit much less well-defined than the later changes made by the Obama Administration; Paulson was acting under the gun, so little wonder he was a little short on specifics), a prohibition on golden parachutes for senior executives, clawback provisions for bonuses paid to executives that were based on faulty earnings statements, etc. and an agreement not to deduct bonuses/salaries in excess of $500K per executive.
Uh...no, I really can't.
Wrong. See above. Yes, additional changes were made after the initial distribution of funds. For that matter, the purpose for which those funds were used also changed.
Some of those changes were initiated while Bush was still in office; others after. But, I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether the government forced the banks to take the money regardless of the banks' needs or wishes.
First of all, are you familiar with the concept of a time bomb? Because, essentially, that's what was planted into the mortgage (and, by extension) the investment banking systems -- beginning in the 1970's but really in the late '90's. The fact this time bomb exploded on Bush's watch doesn't reallly make it his fault , now does it?
Second, for all his many faults, Bush did, in fact, see signs of this bubble bursting. As early as 2004, he was warning about impending doom wth Fannie and Freddie and was urging Congress to do something to avert a disaster. People like Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd and the Republican majority ignored his warnings and some (Frank, in particular) even went so far as to proclaim predictions of such a disaster essentially nonsense -- saying Freddie and Fannie were in absolutely no danger.
Good for them. What does that have to do with anything?
Traditional Savings and Loans went out the window in the '80s...they weren't around for this debacle.
Again, the seeds for the current crisis were planted before W took office. The Greenspan easy money policy was a contributing factor for sure. Then, again, the tight money policy he pursued in the early '90's -- out of an overwrought fear of inflation -- contributed to the '91-'92 recession. But, he also presided as Fed Chairman during the remainder of the '90's as well. So, for his part in all of those situations, I guess you could say he had mixed results.
You seem confused (or maybe just confusing) here. First you say there were no stipulations when the funds were initially passed out; now you say there were stipulations and that somehow those stipulations were what made the banks take the money??
The fact is, Paulson required the banks to take the money and that "offer" included stipulations from the beginning. Those included restrictions on executive compensation (albeit much less well-defined than the later changes made by the Obama Administration; Paulson was acting under the gun, so little wonder he was a little short on specifics), a prohibition on golden parachutes for senior executives, clawback provisions for bonuses paid to executives that were based on faulty earnings statements, etc. and an agreement not to deduct bonuses/salaries in excess of $500K per executive.
Uh...no, I really can't.
Wrong. See above. Yes, additional changes were made after the initial distribution of funds. For that matter, the purpose for which those funds were used also changed.
Some of those changes were initiated while Bush was still in office; others after. But, I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether the government forced the banks to take the money regardless of the banks' needs or wishes.
First of all, are you familiar with the concept of a time bomb? Because, essentially, that's what was planted into the mortgage (and, by extension) the investment banking systems -- beginning in the 1970's but really in the late '90's. The fact this time bomb exploded on Bush's watch doesn't reallly make it his fault , now does it?
Second, for all his many faults, Bush did, in fact, see signs of this bubble bursting. As early as 2004, he was warning about impending doom wth Fannie and Freddie and was urging Congress to do something to avert a disaster. People like Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd and the Republican majority ignored his warnings and some (Frank, in particular) even went so far as to proclaim predictions of such a disaster essentially nonsense -- saying Freddie and Fannie were in absolutely no danger.
Good for them. What does that have to do with anything?
Traditional Savings and Loans went out the window in the '80s...they weren't around for this debacle.
Again, the seeds for the current crisis were planted before W took office. The Greenspan easy money policy was a contributing factor for sure. Then, again, the tight money policy he pursued in the early '90's -- out of an overwrought fear of inflation -- contributed to the '91-'92 recession. But, he also presided as Fed Chairman during the remainder of the '90's as well. So, for his part in all of those situations, I guess you could say he had mixed results.
Where do I begin.
For starters Greenspan was Fed Chair up until Jan 31, 2006...now that leaves some 'inaccuracies' and flags right away, no matter.
Regardless...if (as you say) Bush had seen the 'warning signs' years before?...that makes him all the more culpable, for if he saw the signs (as you say), yet did nothing?---wouldn't that make him worse than just being a stupid hick?
?To 'parrot' financial deals that were already in place (regarding bonuses, financial investmentment house bonuses and what-not is bogus, as I think you would agree. These were contractual obligations.)
But let's not 'switch'
I have never had a problem with thier compensation...folks that did were uninformed.
That's about water that has flowed under the bridge.
I missed your point somewhere.
Logged
