This bailout makes it more clear than ever that the inequality in this Country is the result of nothing except an organized, concerted effort by elites to transfer wealth from the populous to an aristocratic class. The conflicts of interest are screaming for attention!
Glenn Greenwald puts it best by asking this question:
How can these bailouts not at least be categorically conditioned on the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from those who are responsible?
The answer to that question lies in the fact that the people who are designing this bailout scheme are: 1) the only ones who understand what happened; 2) are largely responsible for creating it; and 3) profited immensely from the scheme.
Henry Paulson - Secretary of the Treasury is largely responsible for this bailout plan. He was also formerly the head of Goldman Sachs and is estimated to be worth $700 million. So it is not surprising that when Goldman Sachs was firmly in the sights of short sellers, and facing huge losses as a result, Mr. Paulson decided to pull the trigger on this plan.
The question then remains, what do taxpayers get in return for assuming the risk of losses from these private banks? The gains from these bad mortgages have gone to Mr. Paulson and the like, so shouldn't he return those gains?
At the very least, the taxpayer should not be represented by one of the key individuals who profited off of this scheme. At minimum, it is insulting to the taxpayers.
Glenn Greenwald puts it best by asking this question:
How can these bailouts not at least be categorically conditioned on the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from those who are responsible?
The answer to that question lies in the fact that the people who are designing this bailout scheme are: 1) the only ones who understand what happened; 2) are largely responsible for creating it; and 3) profited immensely from the scheme.
Henry Paulson - Secretary of the Treasury is largely responsible for this bailout plan. He was also formerly the head of Goldman Sachs and is estimated to be worth $700 million. So it is not surprising that when Goldman Sachs was firmly in the sights of short sellers, and facing huge losses as a result, Mr. Paulson decided to pull the trigger on this plan.
The question then remains, what do taxpayers get in return for assuming the risk of losses from these private banks? The gains from these bad mortgages have gone to Mr. Paulson and the like, so shouldn't he return those gains?
At the very least, the taxpayer should not be represented by one of the key individuals who profited off of this scheme. At minimum, it is insulting to the taxpayers.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment