Wanna know where the TARP money is going?

[catmando]

Click the link to watch Elizabeth Warren on two segments of the Jon Stewart show;

Jon Stewart shines bright light on where our TARP bailout money is going
Submitted by Chad on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 1:00pm. Analysis

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Chad Rubel
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

The blending of Elizabeth Warren -- serious overseer in her role as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel over the TARP money for the bank bailouts -- and comedian Jon Stewart proved to be a nice brew of information for people who want to see where our taxpayer money went. A tea, if you will, that was required drinking for the teabaggers from yesterday's protests.

Though Warren has been on other outlets, including "Dan Rather Reports," her appearance on a 2-part segment on last night's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" was a chance to get important messages where people will pay attention.

Stewart's take on what Warren told him wasn't tea, so much, as it was "financial chicken soup" for me. "That is the first time in probably 6 months to a year that I felt better."

Warren gave us a brief history lesson where we went in boom and bust cycles, hitting a bust every 15 years or so until the Great Depression. After the New Deal, we went 50 years without a major bust, until Ronald Reagan put his stamp on regulation, and then we had the savings & loan crisis. She noted that we have been "pulling the threads of regulatory fabric."

It takes someone really smart to sift through the economic insanity that is the banks and insurance companies such as AIG, and oversee the TARP funding for these companies. Fortunately, we have such a person in Elizabeth Warren -- professor of law at Harvard, where she teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law - in her role as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

But despite the rosiness, Warren is fighting a losing battle, trying to get the word out about what is going on, and what we should watch for to make sure the money is being spent well.

In previous interviews, Warren has pointed out that in the initial $350 billion investment under then Treasury Secertary Henry Paulson, we ended up getting -- for every $100 invested -- stocks and warrants worth $66. Stewart's reaction was unique, at one point, putting his head in his hands in disgust. Warren noted that the news is even worse, given that the value of the stock has dropped.

Warren said that she has no subpoena power, but is able to talk about this on shows such as this. While she has been on numerous news programs, an appearance on The Daily Show crosses much needed lines.

The more publicity Warren can get, the more sight we'll get to see our money do well."If they don't give you transparency, tell me, because I will keep talking about it on the same network after 'Mind of Mencia'," Stewart replied.

While people were standing outside protesting yesterday in numerous parks across the country, wondering why their taxpayer dollars are being spent on a stimulus package that would actually directly help their lives, much more money has gone over hand and fist to the same companies that helped put us in this mess in the first place with very little protest from these same people. Fortunately, some of us are paying attention to the TARP money, and whether we are spending this well.

Even if we can't keep good enough track of the money we have dished out, Warren kept pointing out that we need to change the way we regulate the banking system.

Stewart called attention to a great quote that she had, noting the lack of downside to the shenanigans of Wall Street in the 21st century: "Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell." We need the threat of a long-term warm up.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/714

[phragle]

Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. Critical thinking might involve determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven define critical thinking as "Skilled, active, interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and argumentation."[1] Parker & Moore define it more narrowly as the careful, deliberate determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which one accepts or rejects it.[2]

Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the nature of the problem and the question at hand. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness.

In contemporary usage "critical" has the connotation of expressing disapproval,[3] which is not always true of critical thinking. A critical evaluation of an argument, for example, might conclude that it is good.

After reading this..
I agree with the premise, though I might interject that critical thinking encompasses the balance of the new material being evaluated against possible variables derived from previous teachings. As the material being used to evaluate will never contain 100% of the same constraints of the present situation, a distortion is present which may effect the outcome in a positive or negative way. Only by sharpening ones critical thinking ability through education and practice is one readily able to determine these distortions and develop compensation to enter into the equation. Thus the more one learns and performs critical thinking, the more accurate the end result will be.


hey..I can cut, paste AND evaluate.. i found an article, understood it, agreed with it, then summarized and wrote what I thought would be of benefit for you to be able to interput it.

[sledge]

interput

all that and you forgot to spellcheck....sheesh...:biggrinjester:

Nothing but Harvard Dems looking out for each other. They need to put a Phoenix MBA grad in charge of TARP oversight. :sifone:

[phragle]

spelling is next semster :)

[catmando]

Well phragle I'm glad you have c&p skills, really I am, but tell me...what does your post have to do with mine? I don't see any relevance.

[Tommy Gun]

Trying to obtain the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread by reading the information that follows appears to be a test of ones inate ability to understand the spin.

Deregulation may in fact be one of the issues that helped fuel the subprime crisis, but it does not address the failure of our elected and appointed officials to recognize it nor remedy it in advance of the breakdown. Those roots can be traced to fault on both side of the aisle. My interest is not in blaming Bush or the Dems, but rather I seek to correct what has happened as quickly as possible, learn from it and move forward.

The current political trend of orbital spending and taxation does little to ease my concerns, in fact the effect is quite the opposite...I fear we are headed for armageddon if these fools are not stopped. There is a power grab going on like never before. The tea parties served to help bring a grass roots movement of legitimately concerned citizens of both parties to life. We must gain control of those we elect; it should not be the other way around. So I ask:

Does anyone really have oppostion to a constitutional balanced budget ammendment?

Is anyone in favor of registering or banning handguns or automatic weapons?

Does anyone think we should provide drivers licenses, jobs and services to illegal aliens?

Does anyone really think raising taxes to increase welfare and give more money to community organizers will improve the countries economic well being?

Is anyone opposed to drug testing for welfare?

Is anyone opposed to more nuclear power plants, or increased drilling?

Does anyone think the goverment should be giving money to private companies to prevent bancruptcy?

Is anyone really in favor of affirmative action?

Is anyone really opposed to fair "right to work" laws that would prohibit union intimidation.

Does anyone really have anything positive to say about the card check proposal that eliminates the right to a secret ballot vote?

Does anyone really have a problem with us torturing terrorists who are trying to kill us?

Does anyone want to continue to send our money to countries who refuse to support democracy?

[phragle]

Well phragle I'm glad you have c&p skills, really I am, but tell me...what does your post have to do with mine? I don't see any relevance.

simple...I was commenting on your habit of random cut and pastes with no thought from you...opinions, explinations etc... it's nice you can cut and paste but can you think? express opinion?? not an attack on you...as I am more than willing to discuss my ideas on a topic...but I need something besides a random paste to discuss.

[Bobcat]

just when we thought he was out of rope , somebody gave him a little bit more

[catmando]

simple...I was commenting on your habit of random cut and pastes with no thought from you...opinions, explinations etc... it's nice you can cut and paste but can you think? express opinion?? not an attack on you...as I am more than willing to discuss my ideas on a topic...but I need something besides a random paste to discuss.But your post does not address the subject of my op so it is irrelevant. If you want to discuss the TARP situation, fine. If not, please do not post in this thread.

[catmando]

Trying to obtain the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread by reading the information that follows appears to be a test of ones inate ability to understand the spin.


Is all political thought just spin to you? Do you not see that Warren is trying to get to the bottom of where the money went and what we are getting in return? Does that not interest you?


BTW all those questions you ask are irrelevant to the article I posted. Please remove them from your post.

[phragle]

Is all political thought just spin to you? Do you not see that Warren is trying to get to the bottom of where the money went and what we are getting in return?


.


now that makes sense. and yes politics is all spin to me, there is never a complete story told, someone is always hiding something, and there is always an alterior agenda. Trust nothing you read untill you have figured out why it was written and what it attempts to achieve as well as who is going to benefit from it. we are not lobbiests..we do not make huge behind the scenes financial contributions...what ever it is it's in someone elses benefit, not the avg citizens.

[phragle]

question...why is she in the position she is, with no subpena power and no recourse but to make information public?? and no real power... simple..she is filling a position because somebody thought the position would make a good heat sheild. as such she serves no purpose but to deflect heat and has no recourse but to burn herself up as a sacrafiical lamb.

[catmando]

question...why is she in the position she is, with no subpena power and no recourse but to make information public?? and no real power... simple..she is filling a position because somebody thought the position would make a good heat sheild. as such she serves no purpose but to deflect heat and has no recourse but to burn herself up as a sacrafiical lamb.Question...do you think Oversight panels are useless? Should we not have them? Should we just let everybody do whatever they please with no accountability like in the good ol bu$h days?

[phragle]

oversight panels are worthless without teeth. if you put a pitbull in the yard...it will deter trespassers... if you stick the little tacobell dog in the yard on a 6 inch leash and call it a watch dog..the trespassers are just gonna kick the dog on the way thru.

[Ratickle]

Do you not see that Warren is trying to get to the bottom of where the money went and what we are getting in return? Does that not interest you?


question...why is she in the position she is, with no subpena power and no recourse but to make information public?? and no real power... simple..she is filling a position because somebody thought the position would make a good heat sheild. as such she serves no purpose but to deflect heat and has no recourse but to burn herself up as a sacrafiical lamb.


Question...do you think Oversight panels are useless? Should we not have them? Should we just let everybody do whatever they please with no accountability like in the good ol bu$h days?


oversight panels are worthless without teeth. if you put a pitbull in the yard...it will deter trespassers... if you stick the little tacobell dog in the yard on a 6 inch leash and call it a watch dog..the trespassers are just gonna kick the dog on the way thru.

Now you guys are getting to the true issue which needs to be fixed. Cat, take the "party" spin out.

You have Carter's watch when the commodities were manipulated and cost people their fortunes.You have Reagan's watch when the Savings and Loans did the same. You have Clinton's when the Dot Com's took trillions. And now, under Bush's watch the same issues happened with subprimes.

Under all, very few were prosecuted and very few monies were recovered and returned. If this President wants to set an example to be followed. Put those azzholes in jail and get the money back.

If we continue to allow scam artists to do what these have done without true repercussions, all funds seized, it will continue to happen. Read about the assets that were sold as solid, Class A, investments and what the truth was. They should have all their current assets seized and what's left returned to the investors.

[Playn]

Is all political thought just spin to you?




Now Cat, comming from you that's freak'n hilarious!

[catmando]

Now Cat, comming from you that's freak'n hilarious!It's all spin then isn't it? There's no truth just spin.

[phragle]

To a politician, truth is a relative term...... when one is in a position maintained solely by popularity, image is much more important than substance.

[catmando]

Now you guys are getting to the true issue which needs to be fixed. Cat, take the "party" spin out.


What should I put in...YOUR spin? There was no spin in my questions. I haven't heard one of you guys yet say we don't need an Oversight board. And I happen to agree with your last paragraph. Without punitive measures things won't change.

[LaughingCat]

I'll address the primary post:

It is difficult to imagine Democrats cleaning up the corporate sector. However, one concern I have had for a long time is the belief by many in power that less regulation is better. Republicans became intoxicated with the power they could attract with this mantra. However, the power achieved was short-sighted and short lived. now, the flipside has emerged leading to a major power shift tot eh Democrats.

Being an analogy and metaphor guy, I find it best to illustrate it this way. I enjoy auto racing, love NFL. We can all agree on the following: The owners make all decisions for their teams, they may choose to delegate authority down the chain, but they reserve the ultimate right to make changes withint he organization.

The League sets the general platform for how the teams compete and operate. When properly structured, the teams compete on a basis that hopes to harness true competitiveness. Zguidelines, rules and laws are set to provide a level playing field the allows each team the chance to win based on the competitive edge and ingenuity they contruct while operating within the guidelines of the league.

The League does not fire GMs, crew chiefs, mechanices, lineman, quarterbacks, etc. However, they may sanction them, suspend them or otherwise penalize the teams in such a way that the teams know it is best to operate within the guidelines. Every once in awhile, something extraordinary happens. . . maybe an owner violates a major rule, cheating, point shaving, anything. The League may step in and go beyond their normal scope of authority. . for the best interst of the other teams. (I don't know the story, but Eddie DeBartolo had to give up contrioling interst of the 49er's) You get the idea.

When you look at our banking and finance systems, it is true. . . we operated for more than 50 years with great efficiency and very reasonable profitability. Then we started to dergulate. Just pulls a couple small regulations out of the way. This resulted int eh S&L Crisis of the late 80's. So we pulled some more regulations. Each time a problem came up, we said we needed fewer regulations.

Back to my sport analogy. Imagine if the teams convinced the elagues to stop checking for nitrous bottles in NASCARs. Or if they petitioned the leagues to take away the pit referees' ability to penalize a team the didn't stop their racecar within the white lines. So now you have Tony Stewart pitting in a way that blocks Junior from pulling his car out until Stewart is done. but the pit official cannot do anything about it.

How about if the NFL teams convince the League that each referee is not allowed to turn their field of vixion more than 40 degree from where their heads are facing once the ball is snapped. As a result, some defensive coordinators design plays so that corner backs and linebacker chop block and snap other players bones, but no one was allowed to see it.

This is coming off as a rant, but there has to be a reasonable amount of regulation iin our system, which goes beyond the business self-regulating. We CANNOT sustain our superior economy SOLELY on the premise that the free market is the MOST efficient means of commerce. it might be the quickest way to make shorterm money, but it will NOT give you a sustainable economy system of growth. You will have bubbles and crashes. Or even worse, depressions.

I happen to believe Elizabeth Warren is right.We have to weave the proper amount of regulation back into the syste, Because now we are learning that if you break the system enough to where the average joe doesn't trust it, there is no system for teh free market businesses to make money from.

I'd keep going, but my soapbox is starting to buckle.

[LaughingCat]

We now have to fear the fact the Democrats, who have traditionally not been overly friendly to business are charged with fixing this situation. We can and abd have to hope they don't get too radical and go social. At the same time, if this is the beginning of a paradign shift from Conservative Republican/Liberal Democrat to Conservative Democrat/Liberal Republican by way of a temporary, multi-year liberal spending recovery program, then everyone might want to step back from the trees and look at teh forrest. because we all might be propping up the one who is about to become our ideological enemy.

But wouldn't that just be a bowel-loosening load of irony.

[cuda]

Anyone can fix the blame. How about someone fixing the fvcking problem?