The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Frank About TARP

For John, BLUFBarney isn't always wrong.  Always brash but not always wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Salon, we have writer David Dayen talking about former Representative Barney Frank and his new book, Frank.  The focus of the article is TARP and how it failed to help the people with mortgages while it was helping the banks who were foreclosing on the mortgage holders who had fallen behind.  The headline is "Barney Frank drops a bombshell: How a shocking anecdote explains the financial crisis".
The anecdote comes on page 295 of “Frank,” a title that the former chair of the House Financial Services Committee holds true to throughout the book. The TARP legislation included specific instructions to use a section of the funds to prevent foreclosures. Without that language, TARP would not have passed; Democratic lawmakers who helped defeat TARP on its first vote cited the foreclosure mitigation piece as key to their eventual reconsideration.
What happened?  Per the article, the Bush Administration Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson said for tranche two he would pressure the banks to reduce the pressure if incoming President Obama asked.  The President balked.  Understandably, Representative Frank was and is not happy about that.

Read the article.  Maybe even read the book.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

1 comment:

Craig H said...

Both sides work for the banks. Ostensibly, Frank traded this impotent quid for the pro quo of eradicating Glass-Steagall, and Paulsen and Obama ensured that even that drop in the mortgage crisis bucket was sopped up before it rained on the "poor" financial institutions who A) looted Wall Street to the tune of almost a trillion dollars, and then B) looted the US Treasury for that same amount to replenish their stolen (there are two sides to every trade--there are no net losses) liquidity.

There is only one party, and it's in the bankers' pocket.