PDA

View Full Version : Environment Greenwald blowing the lid off overt government theft.


Direckshun
04-05-2009, 08:08 PM
There is simply no liberal critic of the Obama administration who is more effective than Glenn Greenwald.

Read this fascinating argument, which argues that top economic officials reap ridiculous monetary benefits from the laws and regulations they write and erase.

This post could apply to the top political officials in any administration, but Geithner and Summers prove to provide Greenwald with ridiculously strong ammo.

This is some "Holy Shit" stuff. Buckle up.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/04/summers/index.html

Saturday
April 4, 2009
08:35 EDT
Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's ownership of government

White House officials yesterday released their personal financial disclosure forms, and included in the millions of dollars which top Obama economics adviser Larry Summers made from Wall Street in 2008 is this detail:

Lawrence H. Summers, one of President Obama's top economic advisers, collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the past year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations. . . .

Financial institutions including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch paid Summers for speaking appearances in 2008. Fees ranged from $45,000 for a Nov. 12 Merrill Lynch appearance to $135,000 for an April 16 visit to Goldman Sachs, according to his disclosure form.

That's $135,000 paid by Goldman Sachs to Summers -- for a one-day visit. And the payment was made at a time -- in April, 2008 -- when everyone assumed that the next President would either be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that Larry Summers would therefore become exactly what he now is: the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government (and the $45,000 Merrill Lynch payment came 8 days after Obama's election). Goldman would not be able to make a one-day $135,000 payment to Summers now that he is Obama's top economics adviser, but doing so a few months beforehand was obviously something about which neither parties felt any compunction. It's basically an advanced bribe. And it's paying off in spades. And none of it seemed to bother Obama in the slightest when he first strongly considered naming Summers as Treasury Secretary and then named him his top economics adviser instead (thereby avoiding the need for Senate confirmation), knowing that Summers would exert great influence in determining who benefited from the government's response to the financial crisis.

Last night, former Reagan-era S&L regulator and current University of Missouri Professor Bill Black was on Bill Moyers' Journal and detailed the magnitude of what he called the on-going massive fraud, the role Tim Geithner played in it before being promoted to Treasury Secretary (where he continues to abet it), and -- most amazingly of all -- the crusade led by Alan Greenspan, former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin (Geithner's mentor) and Larry Summers in the late 1990s to block the efforts of top regulators (especially Brooksley Born, head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission) to regulate the exact financial derivatives market that became the principal cause of the global financial crisis. To get a sense for how deep and massive is the on-going fraud and the key role played in it by key Obama officials, I highly recommend watching that Black interview (it can be seen here and the transcript is here).

This article from Stanford Magazine -- an absolutely amazing read -- details how Summers, Rubin and Greenspan led the way in blocking any regulatory efforts of the derivatives market whatsoever on the ground that the financial industry and its lobbyists were objecting:

As chairperson of the CFTC, Born advocated reining in the huge and growing market for financial derivatives. . . . One type of derivative—known as a credit-default swap—has been a key contributor to the economy’s recent unraveling. . .

Back in the 1990s, however, Born’s proposal stirred an almost visceral response from other regulators in the Clinton administration, as well as members of Congress and lobbyists. . . . But even the modest proposal got a vituperative response. The dozen or so large banks that wrote most of the OTC derivative contracts saw the move as a threat to a major profit center. Greenspan and his deregulation-minded brain trust saw no need to upset the status quo. The sheer act of contemplating regulation, they maintained, would cause widespread chaos in markets around the world.

Born recalls taking a phone call from Lawrence Summers, then Rubin’s top deputy at the Treasury Department, complaining about the proposal, and mentioning that he was taking heat from industry lobbyists. . . . The debate came to a head April 21, 1998. In a Treasury Department meeting of a presidential working group that included Born and the other top regulators, Greenspan and Rubin took turns attempting to change her mind. Rubin took the lead, she recalls.

“I was told by the secretary of the treasury that the CFTC had no jurisdiction, and for that reason and that reason alone, we should not go forward,” Born says. . . . “It seemed totally inexplicable to me,” Born says of the seeming disinterest her counterparts showed in how the markets were operating. “It was as though the other financial regulators were saying, ‘We don’t want to know.’”

She formally launched the proposal on May 7, and within hours, Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt issued a joint statement condemning Born and the CFTC, expressing “grave concern about this action and its possible consequences.” They announced a plan to ask for legislation to stop the CFTC in its tracks.

Rubin, Summers and Greenspan succeeded in inducing Congress -- funded, of course, by these same financial firms -- to enact legislation blocking the CFTC from regulating these derivative markets. More amazingly still, the CFTC, headed back then by Born, is now headed by Obama appointee Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive (naturally) who was as instrumental as anyone in blocking any regulations of those derivative markets (and then enriched himself by feeding on those unregulated markets).

Just think about how this works. People like Rubin, Summers and Gensler shuffle back and forth from the public to the private sector and back again, repeatedly switching places with their GOP counterparts in this endless public/private sector looting. When in government, they ensure that the laws and regulations are written to redound directly to the benefit of a handful of Wall St. firms, literally abolishing all safeguards and allowing them to pillage and steal. Then, when out of government, they return to those very firms and collect millions upon millions of dollars, profits made possible by the laws and regulations they implemented when in government. Then, when their party returns to power, they return back to government, where they continue to use their influence to ensure that the oligarchical circle that rewards them so massively is protected and advanced. This corruption is so tawdry and transparent -- and it has fueled and continues to fuel a fraud so enormous and destructive as to be unprecedented in both size and audacity -- that it is mystifying that it is not provoking more mass public rage.

All of that leads to things like this, from today's Washington Post:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials. . . .

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials. . . .

In one program, designed to restart small-business lending, President Obama's officials are planning to set up a middleman called a special-purpose vehicle -- a term made notorious during the Enron scandal -- or another type of entity to evade the congressional mandates, sources familiar with the matter said.

If that isn't illegal, it is as close to it as one can get. And it is a blatant attempt by the White House to brush aside -- circumvent and violate -- the spirit if not the letter of Congressional restrictions on executive pay for TARP-receiving firms. It was Obama, in the wake of various scandals over profligate spending by TARP firms, who pretended to ride the wave of populist anger and to lead the way in demanding limits on compensation. And ever since his flamboyant announcement, Obama -- adopting the same approach that seems to drive him in most other areas -- has taken one step after the next to gut and render irrelevant the very compensation limits he publicly pretended to champion (thereafter dishonestly blaming Chris Dodd for doing so and virtually destroying Dodd's political career). And the winners -- as always -- are the same Wall St. firms that caused the crisis in the first place while enriching and otherwise co-opting the very individuals Obama chose to be his top financial officials.

Worse still, what is happening here is an exact analog to what is happening in the realm of Bush war crimes -- the Obama administration's first priority is to protect the wrongdoers and criminals by ensuring that the criminality remains secret. Here is how Black explained it last night:

Black: Geithner is charging, is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.

These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed, not because...

Moyers: What do you mean?

Black: Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation's top regulators, during the entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave no warning. He did nothing in response to the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud. All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his phrase about legacy assets. Well he's a failed legacy regulator. . .

The Great Depression, we said, "Hey, we have to learn the facts. What caused this disaster, so that we can take steps, like pass the Glass-Steagall law, that will prevent future disasters?" Where's our investigation?

What would happen if after a plane crashes, we said, "Oh, we don't want to look in the past. We want to be forward looking. Many people might have been, you know, we don't want to pass blame. No. We have a nonpartisan, skilled inquiry. We spend lots of money on, get really bright people. And we find out, to the best of our ability, what caused every single major plane crash in America. And because of that, aviation has an extraordinarily good safety record. We ought to follow the same policies in the financial sphere. We have to find out what caused the disasters, or we will keep reliving them. . . .

Moyers: Yeah. Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?

Black: Absolutely.

Moyers: You are.

Black: Absolutely, because they are scared to death. . . . What we're doing with -- no, Treasury and both administrations. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration kept secret from us what was being done with AIG. AIG was being used secretly to bail out favored banks like UBS and like Goldman Sachs. Secretary Paulson's firm, that he had come from being CEO. It got the largest amount of money. $12.9 billion. And they didn't want us to know that. And it was only Congressional pressure, and not Congressional pressure, by the way, on Geithner, but Congressional pressure on AIG.

Where Congress said, "We will not give you a single penny more unless we know who received the money." And, you know, when he was Treasury Secretary, Paulson created a recommendation group to tell Treasury what they ought to do with AIG. And he put Goldman Sachs on it.

Moyers: Even though Goldman Sachs had a big vested stake.

Black: Massive stake. And even though he had just been CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. Now, in most stages in American history, that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn't be allowed in civilized society.

This is exactly what former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson warned about in his vital Atlantic article: "that the finance industry has effectively captured our government -- a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises." This is the key passage where Johnson described the hallmark of how corrupt oligarchies that cause financial crises then attempt to deal with the fallout:

Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique -- the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large. . . .

As much as he campaigned against anything, Obama railed against precisely this sort of incestuous, profoundly corrupt control by narrow private interests of the Government, yet he has chosen to empower the very individuals who most embody that corruption. And the results are exactly what one would expect them to be.

-- Glenn Greenwald

petegz28
04-05-2009, 08:33 PM
I guess Obama isn't such the hot commodity anymore?


We are witnessing the biggest fuck job of the tax payer in American history, imo. I am ready for a non-violent revolution. It is long overdue.

Direckshun
04-05-2009, 08:54 PM
I guess Obama isn't such the hot commodity anymore?

We are witnessing the biggest **** job of the tax payer in American history, imo. I am ready for a non-violent revolution. It is long overdue.

Far as I am seeing it is a maintaining of the status quo. But an incredibly disturbing one at that, built on the back of a change agent for POTUS who, at least in this realm, hasn't changed jack shit and seems to have no intentions of doing so, but talking it up as if he is.

KC Dan
04-05-2009, 09:23 PM
Wow, wow and wow again. If this is all true and in my head, I know it is - a public uprising must occur. This is massive fraud, theft and treason against the American taxpayer. I was wondering why and still am why there hasn't been massive investigations when it was announced that Goldman, German, French and other banks were getting AIG bailout money when they all received bailout money on their own... This is just crazy. Thanks for the thread!

SBK
04-05-2009, 09:27 PM
A few things come to mind in this. First, this is our fault as voters. The country belongs to us and we're too uneducated and uninformed to kick the corrupt out of office. Second, this is a good example of what conservatives mean when they say that liberalism is one set of rules for me, and another set of rules for everyone else. Only in this case, it's more like government officials, one set of rules for me, one for everyone else.

We the people need to wake up and demand better.

KC Dan
04-05-2009, 09:33 PM
A few things come to mind in this. First, this is our fault as voters. The country belongs to us and we're too uneducated and uninformed to kick the corrupt out of office. Second, this is a good example of what conservatives mean when they say that liberalism is one set of rules for me, and another set of rules for everyone else. Only in this case, it's more like government officials, one set of rules for me, one for everyone else.

We the people need to wake up and demand better.
I like what you said at the start and finish of your post. It is OUR fault and all involved gov't officials think the rules do not apply to them. This is not a left-right issue. This is an unimaginable fleecing of our tax dollars with no actual transparancy nor accountability by the last or this administration/congress.

petegz28
04-05-2009, 09:35 PM
Far as I am seeing it is a maintaining of the status quo. But an incredibly disturbing one at that, built on the back of a change agent for POTUS who, at least in this realm, hasn't changed jack shit and seems to have no intentions of doing so, but talking it up as if he is.

If anything he is making it worse.

alanm
04-05-2009, 09:36 PM
I guess Obama isn't such the hot commodity anymore?


We are witnessing the biggest **** job of the tax payer in American history, imo. I am ready for a non-violent revolution. It is long overdue.
I think we have yet to see just how corrupt this administration really is.
Chicago politics at it's finest.

petegz28
04-05-2009, 09:37 PM
A few things come to mind in this. First, this is our fault as voters. The country belongs to us and we're too uneducated and uninformed to kick the corrupt out of office. Second, this is a good example of what conservatives mean when they say that liberalism is one set of rules for me, and another set of rules for everyone else. Only in this case, it's more like government officials, one set of rules for me, one for everyone else.

We the people need to wake up and demand better.

I am going to partially disagree. A lot of the corruption has occured under alleged "conservatives". That being said it is not just government officials either. It is one set of rules for the Oligarchs, to hell with everyone else.

alanm
04-05-2009, 09:42 PM
I am going to partially disagree. A lot of the corruption has occured under alleged "conservatives". That being said it is not just government officials either. It is one set of rules for the Oligarchs, to hell with everyone else.There has to be term limits for Congress and the Senate. A lot of these guys on both sides need to be prosecuted. By honest lawyers and judges. If you can find one or two working as far away from Washington as possible.

petegz28
04-05-2009, 09:44 PM
There has to be term limits for Congress and the Senate. A lot of these guys on both sides need to be prosecuted. By honest lawyers and judges. If you can find one or two working as far away from Washington as possible.

Agreed.

KC native
04-05-2009, 09:52 PM
This is the one area where I have been really in disagreement with Obama since these names were announced. He is being swindled by big banking and investment insiders. Rubin and Summers both need to go. They are partially responsible for this crisis so they should have never been appointed.

I think this has been Obama's biggest mistake so far. I think these people were talked up since they were prominent when Clinton was president. Obama knowing that the economy was in the shitter figured he could turn to people who helped preside over good times which would help turn the economy around. Long story short, I think that the finance guys pulled one over on the lawyers this time.

stevieray
04-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Tea anyone?

stevieray
04-05-2009, 11:35 PM
Far as I am seeing it is a maintaining of the status quo. But an incredibly disturbing one at that, built on the back of a change agent for POTUS who, at least in this realm, hasn't changed jack shit and seems to have no intentions of doing so, but talking it up as if he is.

:thumb:

Jenson71
04-05-2009, 11:59 PM
It's definitely nice to see someone provided a forum to talk about the mingling of Wall St. and Washington D.C.

This isn't about one major party being better than another, though. Through the identity politics game, the Democratic party has failed miserably at being a party for the common man. But, I can just see the Republican opportunists offering their thumbs up to the disgruntled and who actually just want to use it to get their current favorite Republican elected next time and completely miss the entire point. What we need is the Blacks, the regulators, who work on the people's behalf, and a responsive executive and legislative branch that works for more than just the capitalist/financial class in our country. We need to make sure this recession wakes the whole house up, not just a few people.

It also stresses the importance of third parties. When people dismiss Ralph Nader as useless and irritating, as many do, I think it'd be a good idea to stop and question their motive.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 12:15 AM
I agree that this is a system problem more than it is a Democratic Party problem, because the Bush folk and Clinton folks were in bed with these guys, too.

I could dismiss this under the Bush administration as Bush simply being swindled by his own men. But Obama has proved to be so meticulously involved in the details of his administration, that it's simply impossible for him NOT to have noticed that his promise to clean up this incestuousness is going unbroken every day of his administration.

pikesome
04-06-2009, 12:32 AM
I agree that this is a system problem more than it is a Democratic Party problem, because the Bush folk and Clinton folks were in bed with these guys, too.

I could dismiss this under the Bush administration as Bush simply being swindled by his own men. But Obama has proved to be so meticulously involved in the details of his administration, that it's simply impossible for him NOT to have noticed that his promise to clean up this incestuousness is going unbroken every day of his administration.

If one wanted to be very cynical the argument could be made that Obama is, and never was, anything more than a shiny bauble. That his Dick Cheney wears a skirt and wants us to think she's Jewish.

I didn't like the idea of voting for Obama because I felt like I was electing President Clinton or Pelosi and it's damn hard to see how I was wrong. And we're only months into his admin.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 12:36 AM
If one wanted to be very cynical the argument could be made that Obama is, and never was, anything more than a shiny bauble. That his Dick Cheney wears a skirt and wants us to think she's Jewish.

I didn't like the idea of voting for Obama because I felt like I was electing President Clinton or Pelosi and it's damn hard to see how I was wrong. And we're only months into his admin.

Obama = Cheney? Are you arguing that?

pikesome
04-06-2009, 12:44 AM
Obama = Cheney? Are you arguing that?

Obama=Bush

Clinton or Pelosi=Cheney

Seriously, Hillary Clinton as Sec of State?

That the power isn't the dude in the Oval office it's the party leaders. Although I always thought Bush was more his own man than his critics gave him credit. Too bad it's not clear that was a good thing either.

Obama might prove me wrong but it's these kind of things (the OP) that feed my original reservations.

NewChief
04-06-2009, 04:34 AM
Bah! Salon.com is just a liberal rag. It's the World Net Daily of the Left /Kotter.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2009, 05:49 AM
Wow, wow and wow again. If this is all true and in my head, I know it is - a public uprising must occur. This is massive fraud, theft and treason against the American taxpayer. I was wondering why and still am why there hasn't been massive investigations when it was announced that Goldman, German, French and other banks were getting AIG bailout money when they all received bailout money on their own... This is just crazy. Thanks for the thread!

That's also why the problem is a global one too. There's no investigations because too many in congress are bought by the same interests including Obama administration. Or they're corrupt and can be blackmailed.

jAZ
04-06-2009, 05:52 AM
Bah! Salon.com is just a liberal rag. It's the World Net Daily of the Left /Kotter.

/A lot more people than just Kotter.

Mr. Kotter
04-06-2009, 07:08 AM
Bah! Salon.com is just a liberal rag. It's the World Net Daily of the Left /Kotter.


Eh....It's not quite that bad.....but it isn't exactly a highyly reputable or credible source for objective and balanced political coverage.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2009, 07:23 AM
Eh....It's not quite that bad.....but it isn't exactly a highyly reputable or credible source for objective and balanced political coverage.

Why do you say that? What's credible to one is not to another. They all have their biases.

SBK
04-06-2009, 10:55 AM
I am going to partially disagree. A lot of the corruption has occured under alleged "conservatives". That being said it is not just government officials either. It is one set of rules for the Oligarchs, to hell with everyone else.

What I wrote.

A few things come to mind in this. First, this is our fault as voters. The country belongs to us and we're too uneducated and uninformed to kick the corrupt out of office. Second, this is a good example of what conservatives mean when they say that liberalism is one set of rules for me, and another set of rules for everyone else. Only in this case, it's more like government officials, one set of rules for me, one for everyone else.

We the people need to wake up and demand better.

We the people get screwed by both parties. Anyone going to the Atlanta Tea Party next week?

htismaqe
04-06-2009, 11:33 AM
I agree that this is a system problem more than it is a Democratic Party problem, because the Bush folk and Clinton folks were in bed with these guys, too.

The Republican vs. Democrat debate is so polarizing that it provides the PERFECT cover for the fraud being committed against the people of our country.

Baby Lee
04-06-2009, 12:24 PM
Geez, this throws my long held and recently reiterated hypothesis right out of the water;

Problem being the ubiquity of greed, behind every well meaning politician (even granting that that is what is actually in the office) seeking to eliminate greed is a set of greedy advatantage takers who have the plans to pull in their haul off the new rules, only now it's not the fault of the market, but of our own government's meddling. Now instead of greedy people working the market, and failing if they push too far, we have greedy people working the rules and NEVER getting punished.
It's no different than 'campaign finance reform' leading to nothing more than even more aggressive use of campaign financing to influence legislation.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 01:52 PM
Eh....It's not quite that bad.....but it isn't exactly a highyly reputable or credible source for objective and balanced political coverage.

I'd love to know what you believe to be a highly reputable or credible source for objective, balanced political coverage.

Jenson71
04-06-2009, 02:32 PM
The New York Times today has a considerably more amiable piece today on Summers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/business/06summers.html?_r=1&ref=us

Here are some of the highlights:

Lawrence H. Summers plays down his stint in the hedge fund business as a mere part-time job — but the financial and intellectual rewards that he gained there would make even most full-time workers envious.

Mr. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Harvard president who is now the chief economic adviser to President Obama, earned nearly $5.2 million in just the last of his two years at one of the world’s largest funds, according to financial records released Friday by the White House.

“I have a better sense of how market participants sort of think and react to things from sort of listening to the conversations and listening to the way the traders at D. E. Shaw thought,” Summers said.

While at Shaw, Mr. Summers also peered into the inner workings of the $2 trillion hedge fund industry, which the Obama administration is now relying on to buy billions of dollars of worrisome assets from the nation’s beleaguered banks.

Some of his critics worry that such ties raise questions about whether the government’s ever-changing effort to bolster the financial industry will benefit Wall Street in general, and hedge funds in particular, at the expense of taxpayers.

“Did Summers spend so much time with the hedge fund, or its investors, sovereign wealth funds and so on, that he started to think like them?”

At Harvard and at Shaw, Mr. Summers cultivated a small circle of financial professionals — particularly hedge fund managers — to serve as an informal brain trust. He consults with them on policy matters from his perch in the White House.

Friends of Mr. Summers say he has always been meticulous about avoiding conflicts of interest and that he was just as careful at D. E. Shaw. For instance, Mr. Summers went to lengths to pay the Social Security taxes on payments he made to even occasional babysitters from the 1980s, said Jeremy Bulow, an economics professor at Stanford, who has known Mr. Summers since graduate school.

“To Larry, it was not about figuring out where the line is and making sure you’re on one side of it,” Mr. Bulow said. “He would never even get close to it.”

Even so, Mr. Summers, who, before the crisis broke out, spoke and wrote about the need for greater financial regulation, has not resisted the efforts to tighten up on hedge funds like Shaw. The administration, for instance, is moving toward closing a tax loophole that these funds have long enjoyed. A White House spokeswoman says his actions supporting hedge fund regulation prove he is not biased.

KC Dan
04-06-2009, 02:34 PM
The New York Times
'nuff said....ROFL

Jenson71
04-06-2009, 02:38 PM
'nuff said....ROFL

Enough said of what? Do you think that the NYT is safeguarding a Democratic administration, or that the NYT is safeguarding a corporate/Wall Street agenda? Or, other?

Do you have any problems with the article itself, or do you just go through life dealing in strict logical fallacies?

KC Dan
04-06-2009, 02:42 PM
Enough said of what? Do you think that the NYT is safeguarding a Democratic administration, or that the NYT is safeguarding a corporate/Wall Street agenda? Or, other?

Do you have any problems with the article itself, or do you just go through life dealing in strict logical fallacies?I have problems with the NYT. They are now a ridiculous excuse for a major news organization. I can tell you that without reading that article that the NYT slanted this article to show in some roundabout way that the Treasury and Obama's advisors really, really are not doing things to benefit Wall Street or themselves. Am I right?

Baby Lee
04-07-2009, 07:18 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040603697.html