Wednesday, May 13, 2009
TARP documents
The docs released under a FOI request from Judicial Watch are somewhat interesting but still don't answer the important questions.
The one useful piece of information: These criminal syndicates, in return for their gargantuan Hanukkah gifts, promised in writing to start lending and to help consumers modify mortgages.
The promise:
= = = = =
In support of the US financial system and the broader US economy, the [fill in name here] agrees to:
Issue Preferred Shares in the amount of 10 billion to the US Treasury under the terms and conditions of the TARP Capital Purchase Program announced today.
Participate in the FDIC .... (unimportant)
Expand the flow of credit to US consumers and businesses on competitive terms to promote the sustained growth and vitality of the US economy.
Continue to work diligently, under existing programs, to modify the terms of residential mortgages ....
= = = = =
One big question from the start of this crime was why the gov't didn't simply ORDER the criminal syndicates to resume lending. This document APPEARS to be an order to resume lending, but the gangs have NOT resumed lending, and the gov't has NOT punished them for violating this written contract.
Syllogism: These monstrous gifts were exchanged for [what looks like] a written promise. We know that the feds are perfectly capable of enforcing any decision or promise when they want to. When they get really irritated, they bring out the tanks, bombs and snipers. The feds are not irritated at all, therefore these documents were not really promises at all.
The rest is still a mystery. Was there a real promise, a real quid pro quo, outside of these documents? The banks have certainly kept silent about the entire deal, so perhaps silence was the real exchange. Or was the whole "flooding with liquidity" bit just a magician's cape to distract us from a larger crime?
= = = = =
Later: Radio talker Jerry Doyle interviewed Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Doyle, who has been almost alone in asking the important questions about the greatest theft in history, asked Fitton: Why was this giant transfer of money so urgently needed at that particular time? And Fitton slipped away from the question. He muttered something about "assuming good faith on Paulson's part" and then skated over into a standard pre-recorded brand-R rap about Obama The Socialist. ¶ 9:32 AM
The one useful piece of information: These criminal syndicates, in return for their gargantuan Hanukkah gifts, promised in writing to start lending and to help consumers modify mortgages.
The promise:
= = = = =
In support of the US financial system and the broader US economy, the [fill in name here] agrees to:
Issue Preferred Shares in the amount of 10 billion to the US Treasury under the terms and conditions of the TARP Capital Purchase Program announced today.
Participate in the FDIC .... (unimportant)
Expand the flow of credit to US consumers and businesses on competitive terms to promote the sustained growth and vitality of the US economy.
Continue to work diligently, under existing programs, to modify the terms of residential mortgages ....
= = = = =
One big question from the start of this crime was why the gov't didn't simply ORDER the criminal syndicates to resume lending. This document APPEARS to be an order to resume lending, but the gangs have NOT resumed lending, and the gov't has NOT punished them for violating this written contract.
Syllogism: These monstrous gifts were exchanged for [what looks like] a written promise. We know that the feds are perfectly capable of enforcing any decision or promise when they want to. When they get really irritated, they bring out the tanks, bombs and snipers. The feds are not irritated at all, therefore these documents were not really promises at all.
The rest is still a mystery. Was there a real promise, a real quid pro quo, outside of these documents? The banks have certainly kept silent about the entire deal, so perhaps silence was the real exchange. Or was the whole "flooding with liquidity" bit just a magician's cape to distract us from a larger crime?
= = = = =
Later: Radio talker Jerry Doyle interviewed Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Doyle, who has been almost alone in asking the important questions about the greatest theft in history, asked Fitton: Why was this giant transfer of money so urgently needed at that particular time? And Fitton slipped away from the question. He muttered something about "assuming good faith on Paulson's part" and then skated over into a standard pre-recorded brand-R rap about Obama The Socialist. ¶ 9:32 AM
