We could have O,P,R,G,N,H and the rest of the libs against Vladimir Putin and Chuck Norris. Fun shit (of course, blue blooded American Chuck Norris finds Putin more American than the rest of these Commie pieces-of-shit in DC.
Great, we have the world's biggest pussies run this country: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, Napolitano, and Holder. If they want their money so bad, maybe they should fight for it. Maybe they should have a reality show where they have all the world leaders kick the shit out of each other.
First off I notice that Cenk loves to talk about how TERRIBLE Tim Geithner is but I notice that he can't offer a liable alternative. Who would replace him I beg to ask. Come on Cenk since you know SOOOO much more about the economy than Geithner please tell us what you would do.
If you can't answer this than I think it's time to shut your big know it all mouth.
4:25 - EXACTLY ! Good video! NOW you see "hope and change" at it's worst. Thank you Cenk!
Giving bailout money to banks is SOCIALISM, not Capitalism. (GAH!)
Ask yourself, is the philosphy of "freeing up lending" making sense? Why take OUR tax dollars, give it to banks, and let them "lend" it back to us for interest? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. We need more credit! (aka toxic assets!)
THAT is a BS line meant to funnel money to buddies. Wake up! They are stealing your money!
This isn't socialism. It's inverse socialism. Socialism is where the lower classes rise up, not when they're held down. Socialism is about workers controlling the factories and means of production, not the state dictating that bailouts go to the super rich. If anything, it's CAPITALISM at it's worst, Fascism, which is the polar opposite of Socialism! Fascism is where the state and the corporations meld together, Socialism is when the lower classes establish a radical democracy.
Webster : a political philosophy ...that exalts nation ...above the individual.... headed by a dictatorial leader ... and forcible suppression of opposition. Unfortunately sir, you are right, I am wrong in definition.
"If anything, it's CAPITALISM at it's worst ." I'm sorry, it is not... Capitalism thrives on competition. You didn't see banking and health insurance now. You saw government interference take its course. True Capitalism died many years ago to government interference.
True capitalism cannot live without the government to protect property rights and unfettered capitalism led to the American Gilded Age, where 10 year olds worked 12 hours a day in coal mines and Chinese and Irish laborers died building railroads.
Of course, to call Obama a socialist is bat-shit crazy. To call him a fascist is bat-shit crazy times ten. However, a government which provides "socialism" for the rich and the corporations is definitely to the right. Again, it's inverse-socialism, and it sucks.
Obama took over the Auto, banking, and soon to be health industries. You control the White House, and Congress, and Supreme Court. There are CZARS not elected. The head of the treasury is a tax cheat. No more excuses... its been almost 8 months. Where is that stimulus growth?
1. Smaller Government
2. less tax = more money for everyone, gain - gain
3. less regulations.
4. more freedom.
THAT is the right. You don't know your party. You need to listen to radio more. Turn off the TV.
I don't watch TV and the Democrat Party isn't my party. I did not vote for Obama. I. am. a. SOCIALIST, not some Corporate owned, centrist Democrat. And YOU need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck vomiting vitriol concerning things they haven't the slightest clue about on their microphones, and try reading a history book!
Two decades of Corporate de-regulation: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, eight years of borrowing for a war, and you expect a Centrist Democrat to make some kind of extreme change to save the economy in eight months? Please.
National Socialism was Socialist only in name, as was the USSR only socialist in name. The USSR it could be argued, used something called "State Capitalism". and National Socialism (NAZIsm) was pure Fascism (Corporations and Government combined), and the first people the Nazis worked to eliminate were the true leftist socialists and the communists. The USSR and the Third Reich didn't care about the workers' voices, and thus were not socialist, which is about POPULAR control, not dictatorship
I didn't know Michael Moore wrote history textbooks. I really can't help you. If you insist on listening to no one other than Glenn Beck, Mike Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I can't help you. No one can. You need to read a history book covering the last couple centuries, and preferably an up to date one not approved by Falwell's Liberty "University"
How is preventing assets from liquidating in the least bit capitalistic?
Oh and Cenk, I suggest you look up the monetarist school of economics. In theory, What will happen is that the government buying up all these toxic assets will artificially inflate the value of these mortgage backed securities by creating artificial demand for these assets. The banks will be more financially healthy and will lend out more, which will create inflation, which will, in theory, help businesses and consumers.
I dont particularly like this plan because we have to prevent such malinvestment from happening ever again by letting these toxic assets liquidate. It might be painful in the very very short term, but over the long run we'll be much better off.
Moreover, Krugman's plan to outright nationalize the banks has the same problems as the Paulson/Geithner plan. It makes taxpayers foot the bill for these irresponsible banks.
Moreover, Krugman's plan is fundamentally flawed because it distorts the market, and, like ALL state intervention in the marketplace, this distorts the price, and directs investment to less efficient sectors of the economy. It will ALSO ultimately lead to irresponsible choices by these nationalized banks. They will no longer exist to make a profit, they will exist to "help america" which will lead to artificially cheap credit, which will compound the problems caused by central banking.
If the banks do not loan, let Federal Reserve branched make direct consumer and business loans. Congress could authorize it, and it would be much more efficient than giving it to bad banks and hoping they give it to consumers. When the economy recovers, the programs could be discontinued.
American taxpayers are the ones who took the loans they couldn't afford. NOT illegals - you need ID. Banks are the cornerstone of a country's growth. Therefore, if the country ruins the banks, does the country not need to pay back the banks so it can keep growing? Deal with it, Americans.
i disagree with you its both....banks gave away that money also..banks do not work in the system of "o i give you 40,000 dollers without much of a credit history"-well maybe they did but lol anyway these banks knew they where giving out loans they know people could not pay back...college grads today have loans of 100,000 thousands dollars and that' s just an average of about two semesters (one year)...do the math
I ask you all this: Why do we need a federal government? Like it or not calimar28 its already starting.I work full-time and own a small business. I pay my taxes. When I see what our money is being spent on, I have a right to question that. When we the people have no say in where our money goes, where do you draw the line? I also believe that a state should govern itself. I believe in the Constitution and what our Forefathers foreseen what happens with unlimited fed government policies.
federal government is not needed by the people, but by a very small group of people , and elite that captures a nation´s freedom and then manages it in it´s very own favor and convenience, slowly mining the people´s own convenience. This is the same for the USA as for every nation in the world.
Geithner is a shill for the Federal Reserve, his old employer. He made sure that Goldman Sachs (one of the owers of the Fed) received billions in bailout money via the Fed. The Fed refused to disclose to whom they paid out over $2b in TARP money.
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
I voted for Obama, and I know a lot of dems are prob giving Obama the benefit of the doubt but this isnt gonna last long. Another two motnhs, and the majority of dems will think Obama is selling us down the river.
I dont know what he thinks he's doing. You want to give Wall St help, fine but not 97%...split the damages between them and the country and liquidate the banks that caused this. Goldman frickin Sachs is being bailed out....good god. Cant we start new investment banks? BAD..
The premise of the Treasury plan is that the banks' current problems are partly the result of illiquidity in the market for troubled assets. Reportedly, the bids for these assets are so low that the banks are unwilling to sell the assets leading to concern over the marks at which the banks carry the assets
Krugman flip-flop on his own ideas of nationalization a long time ago. That' the only other option. And I think that will be very expensive. So, I rather see if this will work. Because the Banks will lend to each other again.
It is obvious he cannot think straight. The US SecState is in favor of screwing the dollar? What an idiot. Resign
now, TurboTax Timmy! Obama needs to buy Timmy his own teleprompter looks like that is the only way to keep his foot out of his mouth And remember this is the Only Treasury Secretary that can fix all the economys problems...You think they are all buffoons? Nope they have a plan. Why do you think so many treasury nominees are walking out? Michelle punked Timmy.
It's such an fraud in your face. Let's put all the toxic waste losses in the hands of the taxpayers so we can then resume lending, aka put them into even more debt... Brilliant!
What we need to do is not "nationalize" banks, but take away from the banks the power to create money. When banks can't create money then they can't play both sides of the gambling table and leave the rest of us holding the bill. If only the government can create money then the banks can't create more debt than they can deal with by the way they make those "bets" against themselves dealing in unrealistic debt that has nothing to do with actual businesses. Thanks Cenk for exposing the racket.
i love this guy 100% he is always on point and if you don't get it it's just cuz u'r a stupit zombie , i guess is not totally your foult, there was a trap and you felt in it
I am not an American but I consider myself a friend of America. My question is this...Why is nobody going to jail for this? And if nobody is going to jail because technically no laws were broken - then why is the government bailing out the banks? Bail out the little guys and let the big boys twist in the wind.
Unfortunately, easing credit is only half the battle. The banks need regulation again, and I was greatly put at ease when President Obama began talking about writing regulation this week.
The assets Geightner is wanting to buy are the bulk securities unwound by failed hedge funds, flooding the market and rendering their value at zero. It isn't that they're worth zero per se, they are undervalued. These are securities rated AAA... mortgages from people with the highest credit rating, and the lowest risk of default.
If could get these securities bought/sold again, and rendering them with value, banks who hold these assets would then have more capital on hand, easing credit.
@ rborchers7. You might want to take a look how these assets got AAA ratings. First of all because the rating agencies were paid by the people who wanted the rating, and second you might want to take a look how these securities came to life. Chances are they are worthless. Search CDO and CDS explanation video's and you'll know.
I know how they came about. The rating agencies have downgraded the ARM securities in 2007. Unfortunately by that time the flood of securites had hit the market with failed hedge funds unrolling, and the true market price of those securities was never found out due to every investment manager being scared out of their wits to buy RMBS. I can't say for sure (and I doubt you know) whether AAA rated securities still hold ARM CDS, but I seriously doubt it at this point.
War more or less redistributes the coupons, but basic good and services actually give the money value. The suits cannot do it themselve or with smoke and mirrors. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't doing much worth a crap. If they give bioenergy a nudge it will probably go crazy, but they probably won't do that, because it creates wealth that is far more difficult to suck away. It would be very difficult to pillage this kind of economy therefore it will be stifled.
epicur: yup!! (but just in case you are at all interested, you may want to check out the history and likely future of total national debt/ GDP ratio - you might LEARN something!)
Not really. The economy needs to nourish itself essentially with frequent purchases and big purchases. People can't do that without Banks offering loans for things like better mortgages or car purchases. Out economy is married to the banks and this problem has been over 30 years in the making. Obama just happens to be the guy who must fix it. Too bad we can't wait 40 fucking days before we all have a breakdown becuase our impatient culture demands results instantly. It takes TIME people!
Geithner is a fuckin lobbyist.....in cenks words..Of Courseeeeeee hes looking out for wall street...so much for obama having no lobbyists in the white house. Half the white house are lobbyists.
no we cant! we got into this mess by refusing to invest $14.95 and 2 ours into reading economics for dummies, and god damnit, that's how we intend to get out of it!
The King will just levy more taxes to give to more banks. Carbon Taxes are next. Did I say King? Oops, I meant puppet for a ruling class.... Did I say puppet? I meant president.
WoW... srsly? ultimately you are right, it is the President's responsibility, however, he usually doesn't make all these plans himself... He has a HUGE cabinet of experts to take care of the day to day. Everyone is so quick to say "It's OBAMA", what about "It's BUSH" when his treasury secretary decided to bail all these douches out.
Seriously! The Media and the Democrats loved to blame President Bush for everything and anything done in his administration. There is no way that this plan was NOT vetted through the President.
What we have seen and want we will continue to see is the media covering for the President. They made him, and now they must protect him from accountability. If he fails, they fail.
Yeah, because everyone knows that a lot of BS is due to Bush. However, anyone that watches turks knows that it wasn't Bush, he was too dumb. It was Cheney running BUSH. The president doesn't see everything right away. He lets Geitner do his thing, it goes through congress, the senate, and then the president sees it. If he signs on it, then we can all say WTF?
You could not be more wrong about how these things work. President Bush was his own man regardless of how the media portrayed.
This is President OBama's plan. Only a fool would think that the President would allow a member of his Cabinet to put forth a plan to Congress without his expressed approval.
I don't care if you are wrong or not... I like your name. And you can't tell me that ALL the things that the members of his cabinet and subsidiaries (not even sure if thats the right word, or spelling) are thoroughly checked by the president. Yeah, the give him a quick brief maybe, but he doesn't have time to read every bill or plan. I'm sure geitner was like, "alright prez, we got this idea, it'll work, do I have a go?" And prez said, sure. People can't say any other prez was diff.
I never said everything goes through the President. This decision absolutely went through him . No one goes to Congress for over a trillion dollars without clearly it through the President.
Umm.... you're an idiot. The president elected Geithner to create a plan that would work to solve the bank and economic crisis. It's the president's responsibility, yes, but he doesn't devise all of these plans by himself. He can't, that's too much for one person to do. That's why he has elected officials that assist him in different areas of his administration.
First, the President SELECTS his cabinet, not elects. Secondly, Geither had to sell his plan the President FIRST before he presented to Congress. Once the President signs off on the plan, it is the OBAMA plan. You cannot criticize Geither without including the President. You cannot make the case that one is independent from the other.
There are two options; let the finacial companies fail and have massive deflation of prices and assets with the risk that certain day-to-day necessities(ATMs, self-pay gas and grocery and the like) stop, or bail them out and try to stablize the drawdown. The decision was made to do the second. What bothers me is that no one is addressing the idea that any company that's to big to fail is a trust monopoly, and represents a danger that should be removed.
I agree with franksnow79. The only way to remove this hazard is if treasury takes over the banks and drafts new regulation. However, since the votes are most likely not there to that the Geithner plan is probably the best option (that's what Krugman needs to understand). What Cenk doesn't say is that although the government will provide the overwhelming bulk of the money, it gets 80% of the equity profits and what it is owed the FDIC on the debt tranche.
Your claim (5:10) that "we don't need AIG, Citigroup or Bank of America or ANY of these companies to survive" , isn't just naive, it's ill informed. Damn good thing you're not in charge. Are you an economist, or just a blow-hard with a web-cam?!?
I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think that the taxpayers will take some tough blows in the early years of Obama's first term regardless of which actions we take. This three-decade movement of moronic deregulation policies has gotten us into such a deep shithole that choice is between bad and worse, and letting the banks go under without a backup in place is clearly the worse. I think that after the bleeding slows a bit, Obama will institute the regulations needed to prevent another crash.
But Krugman wants the US to nationalize the banks completely. Not sure if that is a good idea either when we basically need the banks to release loans. I'm not going to pretend to be a world-class economist and poo-poo the idea not one week after this plan was revealed and Wall Street rallied to it. So who amongst us knows what will work? I'm just sick that out of all the people talking about the economy, only about 5% are economists.
HERE IS A QUESTION THAT WE ALL NEED TO ASK OURSELVES,"IF WE PRINTED OUR OWN MONEY HOW THEN COULD WE EVER BE IN A "ECONOMIC CRISIS." OH YAH WE DONT!!!! PRINT OUR OWN ONEY A PRIVATE COMPANY DOES ITS CALLED THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND IT BORROWS MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT AT INREST, what the fuck is that? WHY DO THEY EXSIST? BECAUSE PEOPLE TRUST THIER INFORMATION AND NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THEM OR THIER HIDDEN AGENDA LIKE ECONOMIC CRISIS. ITS TIME FOR SOME REAL CHANG$E LIKE JFK AND MARTIN LUTHER KING
yeah and they both got killed probably from the same freaking type of people. i hate those sneaky bastards! its about time we overthrow them! im mad as hell!
i have cracked the code.. the plan is simple..throw vast amounts of cash down a bottonless pit and hope that some of it comes back... never worked in the past and it will never work now!
Obamba is the supreme being and Giethner the keebler elf is the son he has sent to save our faith in the economy. you liberal scum will worship the elf, kneel to the elf, give all your money to the elf. the Obamnada's word has been spoken
Geithner has been really asleep at the wheel or has been playing possum. Many of the banks are holding trash and American taxpayers don't need this put on the bill. Maybe he is too cushy with wall street? Some bad vibes here.
There are certain times when cenk, is out of his depth and on this subject he is. Cenk gives no solution but only criticism. Unfortunately the taxpayers are going to take a hit either way. The only choice is how soft the hit will be. Bringing everything crashing down is no solution and even more jobs will be at risk. Those toxic assets has to be transformed, given time, out of toxicity, and the Getner plan is a step in the right direction.
The banks were strong armed to be fair to poor and minorities by giving out loans to people who couldn't pay the bills. That = toxic assests. Now we get to buy it back through tax dollars. = we are morons for letting this happen we should overthrow this government violently as is the American way. PS poor people can die i don't give a fuck!!
Many Americans seem to think we are secure, they are wrong. History shows that during times of global depression maps change. Wholesale theft by a government from it's people can cause revolution.
What I think is actually so smart about the plan is that it simultaneously removes the assets from the banks, puts a value on those assets, and puts security in owning them. By insuring the assets, it effectively removes the "toxic" nature of the assets. True, it puts some risk on the tax payer, but if you didn't do it, then the taxpayer wouldn't have anyone to split the cost of the assets with, and the taxpayer would have to buy the entirety of even more risky toxic assets.
"Legacy assets": It is a colossally bad idea to put the government of the United States of America in the business of selling re-re-packaged snake oil. Who might be interested in buying? Somebody who's got the US on the "short sell" list. This is very bad.
Do Not eat that bread, it was made with fluoride water and they'll use biologically ingenered seeds to grow the plants to make the all-purpose flour in the kitchen located in the Nuclear Reactor facilities.
The soup will probably have mercury and radioactive condiments & bird-flu ill chicken in it.
I've disagreed with you a lot and I think you're in the tank for Obama and his continuation of Bush's policies, but I agree with you 110% on this one.
It was alwaysa regulatory probelm. You cannot allow people to take out insurance policies for more than the underlying asset. I like your casino analogy, I thought the same thing, the government should have just said the house is broke sorry thanks for playing. The problem is it would have erroded confidence in the US finacial system. The strength of the dollar is that the US will settle up.
Who the hell says that private banks should be protected from going out of bussiness with USA citizens money? Are you saying that was the right thing to do and that on top of that it is okay to pay them banks interests and more taxes for the federal goverment, after they just robbed all of us? Is that what you are saying? How are you enjoying your Benz?know they made multi-billions of dollars in the last decade, got greedy, joined the elites agenda & bankrupted america all to control the world?
Letting the bank could have wide ranging side effect. Purchasing the bank as "the taxpayers" did with citi give the taxpayer equity in the institution again if/when the value rise the taxpayer can actually make money.
With the amount of money we throw towards corporation we could have Free health care and college education. . . But then again what would we get out of that?. . . That would just fix unemployment and our economy like england after WW2. <.<;
The real reason the hedge funds are involved is to inject objectivity in the valuation of the assets. The government will pay enough to keep the bank afloat . Right now the assets are worthless but that will change when the private investors get a hold of them. Even if they are worthless as cash flow they are still collatatoralize so there is some value to breaking up the assets and selling them. If one is willing to rent the properties and not auction them they could get real value w/o selling.
"The government will pay enough to keep the bank afloat ". The goverment get the money from all of us citizens. Therefore, we are the ones who will have to pay for this. Ohh, and not only us, but our kids, & the kids of our kids. This is going to get a lot worse. Osama & his puppets will just take off on their luxury cars, live confortably in one of their many mansions, enjoy all the money they stoled, all while you, me, our kids brake our backs working like horses to pay off the nations debt.
I saw the government to mean the public vs the private sector. It is not absolute that the government (ie individual tax payers will lose money (although likely). The investors most likely to take up the positions are the surrogates of the banks themselves, if this is permitted then the foxes are watching the chickens. Either way a free market valuation of the asset would leave the banks bankrupt. That is in part b/c of the risk, the taxpayer is reducing the risk to uncover the material value.
The Banks were greedy and lost trillions of dollars. The government had 2 choices. Either bail them out or let them go under. If they don't bail them out the entire economy could collapse.
I would have let them all go under. That would eliminate all the greedy bastards.
"The American people are being too kind to Obama".
Damned straight Cenk, "they" are.
But the times are a changing. And people, like yourself, are finally starting to wake up to the fact that Geithner, (who as of yesterday still had the "full support of my [Obamas] administration), is a boy trying to wear men's shoes.
Yep........I'm a conservative, and god knows we made our share of mistakes in the last term. But I appreciate you calling out Geithner on his latest taxpayer funded fiasco.
Obama is just about useless, he promised change yet he is essentially keeping things in Business as usual mode, during the campaign he used the quote about people continuing to do the same things over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, so by that definition Obama and his Kabal are insane
Uh need you be reminded that he's only been in office for just over 2 months? It's unfair to judge at this point, and I would say that for any President. There's a lot of work needing to be done. The economic catastrophe could take decades to fix. It's a lot easier to break something than it is to fix it.
I do agree though that Geithner's a dipshit and needs to be replaced. Then again I also think that Congress needs to be replaced with people that represent us instead of trading handjobs.
"Uh need you be reminded that he's only been in office for just over 2 months?"
How long do you think we should wait to start judging these pricks for bankrupting our country? You said it yourself, 2 months. In only 2 months they have fucked us, slapped us and now they are ready to give us all a facial! They are treating us all like if we are their bitches. The goverment work for us. They are there to serve us. But they have forgotten this and we are now the ones who must serve the goverment?
wait until we see some actual results is one. Wait until 6 months to a year is another. And yes, in many ways he will need more time than most presidents we have seen in our lifetime. Because , as has been said over and over, and you guys wont' hear it, no president has had to deal to deal with something like this in almost 80 years. At the end of the day, no one REALLY knows WHAT the right solutions are, until something is tried and done. How long to wait? Wait a while.
i agree with both of your statements, but want to mention there is good reason for people to be upset. Every penny of bailout money goes on the US taxpayer. The government only spends money that it collects (or plans to) from tax payers. Take a round number like a Trillion Dollars:
$1,000,000,000,000 divide US population (approx) 306,076,398
equals over $3,000 in debt for every man woman and child in the USA.
That's insult, plus injury, and a complimentary bernanke teabagging imo!
thx for the post. i guess i am lucky that i still dont live on my own right now paying taxes. they must come up with a better way to fix this.
that line u said at the end was also very good too. i did vote for Obama, but im just going to be a suckup and say that he will fix the problem. there are many steps to this problem. banks and just corporations for that matter need to stop trying to save their butts and show some credibility.
Excellent analysis. Nice to hear it like it is. This is the robbery of the century and shows how our corruption is affecting us. We need to throw all the bums out and let all the banks and their friends fail.
I agree its totally ridiculous to put the American public on the hook for what amounts to stupid bets. Just say too f-ing bad you're not going to get your money on that bet.
Add some requirements for the Fed Res & Tres & the SEC & you have the complete plan.
PPL have become so dumb down to small sound bites & tomorrows next outrage that they have forgotten that this is a larger & longer issue that requires many small pieces & much more time for it to develop.
This a situation in which the Sum of the parts involved is greater than their individual worth
That if the 1st step works then step 2 won't lose money & the step 3 will be easier to implement
The Next Step after you clean the balance sheets of both Main St. & Wall St. is to then regulate it properly so that this type of crap can't happen anymore...
So now you set standards for lending practices that are conservative & change the standards for securing ur money (FDIC)
Then you move on to Wall St. and require tough standards to which these firms are held from their reporting practices to their balance sheet requirements to the issuance of credit...
So Obama is trying to fix the health care & energy systems to reduce that burden on Main St. so that MAIN Streets balance sheets are better which means they are better able to pay for their homes/cars/loans etc.
After that we get the banks temporaily healthy so that ppl are confident in the general system again to do that u remove some of the assets at a leveraged cost from the banks balance sheets
should we have had to that... NO but should we've had to reduce dependence on oil period...
I'm really starting to get tired of having to beat back against Cenk's ill-conceived idea of how this is going to work
PPL have to recognize that this is a part of a larger process, one that REQUIRES a healthy Banking system.
This deals with the asset issue only but as Obama has said on several occasions this recession starts on Main Street b/c when ppl weren't making enough money to deal with their high cost they fell behind which snowballed causing the very items of these credit swaps 2 fail
ben stein commented on this, saying that these things are going to be worth a lot of money in the future. they're going to pay off big for anyone who purchases them. problem is, private companies get the profits, and the tax payers may not even get back what we put into actually purchase them for the private investment firms. all in all, this will boost the stock market and will boost spending and bring us back to what we were in sep. other than that, i don't see it helping in the long term.
Ben Stein is a fucking tool. Back in August of 07,' he suggested that financials were going to the moon. In fact, he rated Merrill Lynch, then trading at 75 bucks a strong buy. Listening to Ben Stein is like watching cnbc... Nothing but propaganda and outright lies!
funny, he was on cnbc with wolf blitzer (sp?) when he said this. fact is, what he said was correct about this whole issue, but he avoided getting specific, and said basically wall street wanted a sure-thing, and thats why the stock market went up after the announcement of the plan. i'm not saying I agree with ben steins opinion on this at all, i think this bill is a mistake in a lot of ways, but he did give a short, while not detailed, okay summary of what this will do for those who invest.
The young Turks are ignorant assholes who wanna blame everyone but the right people.
BigTopp6 1 month ago
We could have O,P,R,G,N,H and the rest of the libs against Vladimir Putin and Chuck Norris. Fun shit (of course, blue blooded American Chuck Norris finds Putin more American than the rest of these Commie pieces-of-shit in DC.
carlo1775 9 months ago
Great, we have the world's biggest pussies run this country: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, Napolitano, and Holder. If they want their money so bad, maybe they should fight for it. Maybe they should have a reality show where they have all the world leaders kick the shit out of each other.
carlo1775 9 months ago
First off I notice that Cenk loves to talk about how TERRIBLE Tim Geithner is but I notice that he can't offer a liable alternative. Who would replace him I beg to ask. Come on Cenk since you know SOOOO much more about the economy than Geithner please tell us what you would do.
If you can't answer this than I think it's time to shut your big know it all mouth.
glddraco 1 year ago
Young Turks are lower than human shit..
hockeyfanredwings 1 year ago
trueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
lunousam 2 years ago
This is the first time I agree with the Young Turks!
banklady25 2 years ago
Comment removed
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
4:25 - EXACTLY ! Good video! NOW you see "hope and change" at it's worst. Thank you Cenk!
Giving bailout money to banks is SOCIALISM, not Capitalism. (GAH!)
Ask yourself, is the philosphy of "freeing up lending" making sense? Why take OUR tax dollars, give it to banks, and let them "lend" it back to us for interest? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. We need more credit! (aka toxic assets!)
THAT is a BS line meant to funnel money to buddies. Wake up! They are stealing your money!
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
This isn't socialism. It's inverse socialism. Socialism is where the lower classes rise up, not when they're held down. Socialism is about workers controlling the factories and means of production, not the state dictating that bailouts go to the super rich. If anything, it's CAPITALISM at it's worst, Fascism, which is the polar opposite of Socialism! Fascism is where the state and the corporations meld together, Socialism is when the lower classes establish a radical democracy.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Webster : a political philosophy ...that exalts nation ...above the individual.... headed by a dictatorial leader ... and forcible suppression of opposition. Unfortunately sir, you are right, I am wrong in definition.
"If anything, it's CAPITALISM at it's worst ." I'm sorry, it is not... Capitalism thrives on competition. You didn't see banking and health insurance now. You saw government interference take its course. True Capitalism died many years ago to government interference.
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
True capitalism cannot live without the government to protect property rights and unfettered capitalism led to the American Gilded Age, where 10 year olds worked 12 hours a day in coal mines and Chinese and Irish laborers died building railroads.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Of course, to call Obama a socialist is bat-shit crazy. To call him a fascist is bat-shit crazy times ten. However, a government which provides "socialism" for the rich and the corporations is definitely to the right. Again, it's inverse-socialism, and it sucks.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Obama took over the Auto, banking, and soon to be health industries. You control the White House, and Congress, and Supreme Court. There are CZARS not elected. The head of the treasury is a tax cheat. No more excuses... its been almost 8 months. Where is that stimulus growth?
1. Smaller Government
2. less tax = more money for everyone, gain - gain
3. less regulations.
4. more freedom.
THAT is the right. You don't know your party. You need to listen to radio more. Turn off the TV.
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
I don't watch TV and the Democrat Party isn't my party. I did not vote for Obama. I. am. a. SOCIALIST, not some Corporate owned, centrist Democrat. And YOU need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck vomiting vitriol concerning things they haven't the slightest clue about on their microphones, and try reading a history book!
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Two decades of Corporate de-regulation: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, eight years of borrowing for a war, and you expect a Centrist Democrat to make some kind of extreme change to save the economy in eight months? Please.
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Socialism turns INTO Fascism. (USSR, NAZI)
"workers controlling the factories and means of production"
~ In Capitalism, ANY worker can control a factory. It is called "risk". Nobody has to give you the OK in government.
By your comment, I know you do not own a business. You are a worker who feels you don't have enough say or money.
Let me ask, where is your business plan and loan request? If you can do so well on your own, why not open your own business?
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
National Socialism was Socialist only in name, as was the USSR only socialist in name. The USSR it could be argued, used something called "State Capitalism". and National Socialism (NAZIsm) was pure Fascism (Corporations and Government combined), and the first people the Nazis worked to eliminate were the true leftist socialists and the communists. The USSR and the Third Reich didn't care about the workers' voices, and thus were not socialist, which is about POPULAR control, not dictatorship
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
"and you expect a Centrist Democrat to make some kind of extreme change to save the economy in eight months?"
I'm SO glad you posted that :)
1. Obama isn't Centrist. Only TV pegs him that way.
2. I don't expect him to fix anything, I expect him to make it worse. You're response (8 months too short) shows you think he can and support him.
3. DEREGULATION... You're crazy.
4. I think you should look for ACCURATE history books. They are not written by Michael Moore.
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
Comment removed
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Comment removed
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
I didn't know Michael Moore wrote history textbooks. I really can't help you. If you insist on listening to no one other than Glenn Beck, Mike Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I can't help you. No one can. You need to read a history book covering the last couple centuries, and preferably an up to date one not approved by Falwell's Liberty "University"
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago 2
"I didn't know Michael Moore wrote history textbooks" ~ I didn't know that Omar can't take sarcasm.
Falwell? Now you know my religion? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey, lets get that Socialism in practice now :) Please send a check. Since you are so smart, you must make more money to me : )
Then we can both fly off to that Socialist country that is thriving now... what was the name of it again? ... ahh ahhh... .. hmmmm ? ?
~end of line, Dillinger
rich4444hrsm 2 years ago
FUCK CAPITALISM!!! THIS IS WHaTs WRONG WITH CAPITALISM.
cerritoboy 2 years ago
How is preventing assets from liquidating in the least bit capitalistic?
Oh and Cenk, I suggest you look up the monetarist school of economics. In theory, What will happen is that the government buying up all these toxic assets will artificially inflate the value of these mortgage backed securities by creating artificial demand for these assets. The banks will be more financially healthy and will lend out more, which will create inflation, which will, in theory, help businesses and consumers.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
I dont particularly like this plan because we have to prevent such malinvestment from happening ever again by letting these toxic assets liquidate. It might be painful in the very very short term, but over the long run we'll be much better off.
Moreover, Krugman's plan to outright nationalize the banks has the same problems as the Paulson/Geithner plan. It makes taxpayers foot the bill for these irresponsible banks.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Moreover, Krugman's plan is fundamentally flawed because it distorts the market, and, like ALL state intervention in the marketplace, this distorts the price, and directs investment to less efficient sectors of the economy. It will ALSO ultimately lead to irresponsible choices by these nationalized banks. They will no longer exist to make a profit, they will exist to "help america" which will lead to artificially cheap credit, which will compound the problems caused by central banking.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
If the banks do not loan, let Federal Reserve branched make direct consumer and business loans. Congress could authorize it, and it would be much more efficient than giving it to bad banks and hoping they give it to consumers. When the economy recovers, the programs could be discontinued.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Cenk is really dumb here.
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago
American taxpayers are the ones who took the loans they couldn't afford. NOT illegals - you need ID. Banks are the cornerstone of a country's growth. Therefore, if the country ruins the banks, does the country not need to pay back the banks so it can keep growing? Deal with it, Americans.
Deveiel 2 years ago
in America theirs no laws to stop banks giving out loans to people they know can't pay them out. Plus Americans are stupid.
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago
i disagree with you its both....banks gave away that money also..banks do not work in the system of "o i give you 40,000 dollers without much of a credit history"-well maybe they did but lol anyway these banks knew they where giving out loans they know people could not pay back...college grads today have loans of 100,000 thousands dollars and that' s just an average of about two semesters (one year)...do the math
guitarista1988 2 years ago
I ask you all this: Why do we need a federal government? Like it or not calimar28 its already starting.I work full-time and own a small business. I pay my taxes. When I see what our money is being spent on, I have a right to question that. When we the people have no say in where our money goes, where do you draw the line? I also believe that a state should govern itself. I believe in the Constitution and what our Forefathers foreseen what happens with unlimited fed government policies.
sreign1 2 years ago
federal government is not needed by the people, but by a very small group of people , and elite that captures a nation´s freedom and then manages it in it´s very own favor and convenience, slowly mining the people´s own convenience. This is the same for the USA as for every nation in the world.
I suppose you know that, though
rad3xl 2 years ago
Geithner is a shill for the Federal Reserve, his old employer. He made sure that Goldman Sachs (one of the owers of the Fed) received billions in bailout money via the Fed. The Fed refused to disclose to whom they paid out over $2b in TARP money.
Scam of the Century or what !?!
Silberdachs 2 years ago
Why do you think he hired a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as his Chief of Staff? Wait, didn't Obama ban lobbyists in his administration?
bittergunowner12 2 years ago
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
John Adams
sreign1 2 years ago
So sreign1, are you suggesting a revolution?
calimar28 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama INDICTED by 'Common Law Grand Jury' in Georgia !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
see: worldnetdaily - On-line news March 31, 2009, and do your Google search strings. AOL picked it up.
Why can't this smooth talkin sitting President turn over his real birth certificate ?
DONEwCA 2 years ago
Can anyone say 'Ron Paul"?
Starting to see the light yet?
calimar28 2 years ago 7
neither ron paul or kuchinich won the republican/democratic nods, or dont you remember that?
shoobedoorocketship 2 years ago
Mabey not, but Ron paul in 2012 is something the nation will be yerning for, after 4 years of the CFR controlled Obama.
calimar28 2 years ago
can you say, there is no chance in hell he or any other third party will ever get elected?
hint0122 1 year ago
I voted for Obama, and I know a lot of dems are prob giving Obama the benefit of the doubt but this isnt gonna last long. Another two motnhs, and the majority of dems will think Obama is selling us down the river.
I dont know what he thinks he's doing. You want to give Wall St help, fine but not 97%...split the damages between them and the country and liquidate the banks that caused this. Goldman frickin Sachs is being bailed out....good god. Cant we start new investment banks? BAD..
TheRealCritique 2 years ago
nationalize the banks
genaroman78 2 years ago
Rather than have Treasury take them over, have Justice break them up under the monopoly laws
franksnow79 2 years ago
Cenk, you seem to have an unusually adept understanding of this issue. Kudos.
judoyodan 2 years ago
The premise of the Treasury plan is that the banks' current problems are partly the result of illiquidity in the market for troubled assets. Reportedly, the bids for these assets are so low that the banks are unwilling to sell the assets leading to concern over the marks at which the banks carry the assets
Superplatanoman 2 years ago
Krugman flip-flop on his own ideas of nationalization a long time ago. That' the only other option. And I think that will be very expensive. So, I rather see if this will work. Because the Banks will lend to each other again.
Superplatanoman 2 years ago
Everyone needs to see a documentary called The Obama Deception by Alex Jones. It's here on youtube free and on google video
o7levi 2 years ago
It is obvious he cannot think straight. The US SecState is in favor of screwing the dollar? What an idiot. Resign
now, TurboTax Timmy! Obama needs to buy Timmy his own teleprompter looks like that is the only way to keep his foot out of his mouth And remember this is the Only Treasury Secretary that can fix all the economys problems...You think they are all buffoons? Nope they have a plan. Why do you think so many treasury nominees are walking out? Michelle punked Timmy.
dkkght 2 years ago
Finally some truth.......even thought the truth sucks it still feels good to hear it...thanks man
yotacrawler49 2 years ago
It's such an fraud in your face. Let's put all the toxic waste losses in the hands of the taxpayers so we can then resume lending, aka put them into even more debt... Brilliant!
draggeddownthehole 2 years ago
Why did pres. Obama hire Mr. Geithner in the first place?
ironwork92000 2 years ago 2
Obama & Geithner should give their prayers to the banks as rescue package.
Malnutriti 2 years ago
hmmmmmm?????
well anyway, cenk is the man
dontfuckwithmeman 2 years ago
What we need to do is not "nationalize" banks, but take away from the banks the power to create money. When banks can't create money then they can't play both sides of the gambling table and leave the rest of us holding the bill. If only the government can create money then the banks can't create more debt than they can deal with by the way they make those "bets" against themselves dealing in unrealistic debt that has nothing to do with actual businesses. Thanks Cenk for exposing the racket.
DonkeyofHeaven 2 years ago 2
i love this guy 100% he is always on point and if you don't get it it's just cuz u'r a stupit zombie , i guess is not totally your foult, there was a trap and you felt in it
qkk20 2 years ago
I am not an American but I consider myself a friend of America. My question is this...Why is nobody going to jail for this? And if nobody is going to jail because technically no laws were broken - then why is the government bailing out the banks? Bail out the little guys and let the big boys twist in the wind.
fowzie777 2 years ago
The little guys need the big guys right now, until the little guys can take their place. So for now, the Big guys need to be regulated.
ARom101 2 years ago
Unfortunately, easing credit is only half the battle. The banks need regulation again, and I was greatly put at ease when President Obama began talking about writing regulation this week.
rborchers7 2 years ago
The assets Geightner is wanting to buy are the bulk securities unwound by failed hedge funds, flooding the market and rendering their value at zero. It isn't that they're worth zero per se, they are undervalued. These are securities rated AAA... mortgages from people with the highest credit rating, and the lowest risk of default.
If could get these securities bought/sold again, and rendering them with value, banks who hold these assets would then have more capital on hand, easing credit.
rborchers7 2 years ago
@ rborchers7. You might want to take a look how these assets got AAA ratings. First of all because the rating agencies were paid by the people who wanted the rating, and second you might want to take a look how these securities came to life. Chances are they are worthless. Search CDO and CDS explanation video's and you'll know.
juhmoeduhr 2 years ago
Comment removed
rborchers7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know how they came about. The rating agencies have downgraded the ARM securities in 2007. Unfortunately by that time the flood of securites had hit the market with failed hedge funds unrolling, and the true market price of those securities was never found out due to every investment manager being scared out of their wits to buy RMBS. I can't say for sure (and I doubt you know) whether AAA rated securities still hold ARM CDS, but I seriously doubt it at this point.
rborchers7 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't like this Indian looking motherfuker lool
gator966 2 years ago
loooooooooooooooool
Fail.
YawnGod 2 years ago
War more or less redistributes the coupons, but basic good and services actually give the money value. The suits cannot do it themselve or with smoke and mirrors. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't doing much worth a crap. If they give bioenergy a nudge it will probably go crazy, but they probably won't do that, because it creates wealth that is far more difficult to suck away. It would be very difficult to pillage this kind of economy therefore it will be stifled.
hypnofan35 2 years ago
epicur: yup!! (but just in case you are at all interested, you may want to check out the history and likely future of total national debt/ GDP ratio - you might LEARN something!)
nicholas9999 2 years ago
SOLUTION: 1) Let the banks die due to their bad gambling debts.
2) Lend the money directly to the consumer, which they can use as they see fit.
3) Problems solved. Lessons learned?
marcomariaz26 2 years ago
Not really. The economy needs to nourish itself essentially with frequent purchases and big purchases. People can't do that without Banks offering loans for things like better mortgages or car purchases. Out economy is married to the banks and this problem has been over 30 years in the making. Obama just happens to be the guy who must fix it. Too bad we can't wait 40 fucking days before we all have a breakdown becuase our impatient culture demands results instantly. It takes TIME people!
HabitualNightOwl 2 years ago
it's still better than Obamba's original plan of turning all the banks into chicken & waffle houses
pulsar00815 2 years ago
Geithner is a fuckin lobbyist.....in cenks words..Of Courseeeeeee hes looking out for wall street...so much for obama having no lobbyists in the white house. Half the white house are lobbyists.
Issypt 2 years ago
Can people first get to know atleast a little about economics and/or finance before making a post to these videos!
renuoz 2 years ago 2
no we cant! we got into this mess by refusing to invest $14.95 and 2 ours into reading economics for dummies, and god damnit, that's how we intend to get out of it!
REALLYIMAGINARY 2 years ago
Hehe :)
renuoz 2 years ago
The King will just levy more taxes to give to more banks. Carbon Taxes are next. Did I say King? Oops, I meant puppet for a ruling class.... Did I say puppet? I meant president.
darkkittycry 2 years ago
The title of the video is ALL WRONG. This is the OBAMA plan, not Geithner plan. He works for the President. This is the President's solution.
4951WEDDEL 2 years ago
WoW... srsly? ultimately you are right, it is the President's responsibility, however, he usually doesn't make all these plans himself... He has a HUGE cabinet of experts to take care of the day to day. Everyone is so quick to say "It's OBAMA", what about "It's BUSH" when his treasury secretary decided to bail all these douches out.
siegristrm 2 years ago
Seriously! The Media and the Democrats loved to blame President Bush for everything and anything done in his administration. There is no way that this plan was NOT vetted through the President.
What we have seen and want we will continue to see is the media covering for the President. They made him, and now they must protect him from accountability. If he fails, they fail.
4951WEDDEL 2 years ago
Yeah, because everyone knows that a lot of BS is due to Bush. However, anyone that watches turks knows that it wasn't Bush, he was too dumb. It was Cheney running BUSH. The president doesn't see everything right away. He lets Geitner do his thing, it goes through congress, the senate, and then the president sees it. If he signs on it, then we can all say WTF?
siegristrm 2 years ago
You could not be more wrong about how these things work. President Bush was his own man regardless of how the media portrayed.
This is President OBama's plan. Only a fool would think that the President would allow a member of his Cabinet to put forth a plan to Congress without his expressed approval.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
I don't care if you are wrong or not... I like your name. And you can't tell me that ALL the things that the members of his cabinet and subsidiaries (not even sure if thats the right word, or spelling) are thoroughly checked by the president. Yeah, the give him a quick brief maybe, but he doesn't have time to read every bill or plan. I'm sure geitner was like, "alright prez, we got this idea, it'll work, do I have a go?" And prez said, sure. People can't say any other prez was diff.
siegristrm 2 years ago
I never said everything goes through the President. This decision absolutely went through him . No one goes to Congress for over a trillion dollars without clearly it through the President.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Umm.... you're an idiot. The president elected Geithner to create a plan that would work to solve the bank and economic crisis. It's the president's responsibility, yes, but he doesn't devise all of these plans by himself. He can't, that's too much for one person to do. That's why he has elected officials that assist him in different areas of his administration.
Obama's responsibility ..... yes
Geither's plan ..... yes, and it sucks
SuperluminalStudios 2 years ago
First, the President SELECTS his cabinet, not elects. Secondly, Geither had to sell his plan the President FIRST before he presented to Congress. Once the President signs off on the plan, it is the OBAMA plan. You cannot criticize Geither without including the President. You cannot make the case that one is independent from the other.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
He is your president YOU promoted, and this person YOU promoted heavily on You Tube has chosen incompetent people to lead with him.
This is your fault, and I hold YOU as accountable as your president Obama
LisaJMoore 2 years ago
stfu u think Mcain would do better both would fuck us over all of thme except ron paul considering he would abolish the Federal reserve
dopeskies 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron PAUL '12
siegristrm 2 years ago
First rule of betting with a bookie, make sure they will pay you if you win.
primesteak 2 years ago
Dont let this man's Charm , Good looks and incredible sense of humor fool you.
he know about Economics. His brain is by far his best asset. This is why I rub my clit to TYT daily.
5 STARS !!!!
Jackthemeat 2 years ago
There are two options; let the finacial companies fail and have massive deflation of prices and assets with the risk that certain day-to-day necessities(ATMs, self-pay gas and grocery and the like) stop, or bail them out and try to stablize the drawdown. The decision was made to do the second. What bothers me is that no one is addressing the idea that any company that's to big to fail is a trust monopoly, and represents a danger that should be removed.
franksnow79 2 years ago
Comment removed
Olbermann4Prez 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with franksnow79. The only way to remove this hazard is if treasury takes over the banks and drafts new regulation. However, since the votes are most likely not there to that the Geithner plan is probably the best option (that's what Krugman needs to understand). What Cenk doesn't say is that although the government will provide the overwhelming bulk of the money, it gets 80% of the equity profits and what it is owed the FDIC on the debt tranche.
Olbermann4Prez 2 years ago
Your claim (5:10) that "we don't need AIG, Citigroup or Bank of America or ANY of these companies to survive" , isn't just naive, it's ill informed. Damn good thing you're not in charge. Are you an economist, or just a blow-hard with a web-cam?!?
danbojitsu 2 years ago
why?
faceclutch 2 years ago
I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think that the taxpayers will take some tough blows in the early years of Obama's first term regardless of which actions we take. This three-decade movement of moronic deregulation policies has gotten us into such a deep shithole that choice is between bad and worse, and letting the banks go under without a backup in place is clearly the worse. I think that after the bleeding slows a bit, Obama will institute the regulations needed to prevent another crash.
njb444 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
njb444 2 years ago
Simple explanation. Geithner is in Wall Street's pocket.
playdrumsmofuxa 2 years ago
Who, specifically, is the Wall Street you refer to? Can you prove what you say?
danbojitsu 2 years ago
playdrumsmofuxa - who, specifically, is the Wall Street you refer to? Can you prove what you say?
danbojitsu 2 years ago
But Krugman wants the US to nationalize the banks completely. Not sure if that is a good idea either when we basically need the banks to release loans. I'm not going to pretend to be a world-class economist and poo-poo the idea not one week after this plan was revealed and Wall Street rallied to it. So who amongst us knows what will work? I'm just sick that out of all the people talking about the economy, only about 5% are economists.
HabitualNightOwl 2 years ago
i'm with krugman
sisforshayla 2 years ago
the hit would be a good cause
amp1616 2 years ago
HERE IS A QUESTION THAT WE ALL NEED TO ASK OURSELVES,"IF WE PRINTED OUR OWN MONEY HOW THEN COULD WE EVER BE IN A "ECONOMIC CRISIS." OH YAH WE DONT!!!! PRINT OUR OWN ONEY A PRIVATE COMPANY DOES ITS CALLED THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND IT BORROWS MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT AT INREST, what the fuck is that? WHY DO THEY EXSIST? BECAUSE PEOPLE TRUST THIER INFORMATION AND NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THEM OR THIER HIDDEN AGENDA LIKE ECONOMIC CRISIS. ITS TIME FOR SOME REAL CHANG$E LIKE JFK AND MARTIN LUTHER KING
Tubztele 2 years ago 2
yeah and they both got killed probably from the same freaking type of people. i hate those sneaky bastards! its about time we overthrow them! im mad as hell!
amp1616 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH THE OBAMA DECEPTION!!!!!!!!
UGOTDAJACK 2 years ago
i have cracked the code.. the plan is simple..throw vast amounts of cash down a bottonless pit and hope that some of it comes back... never worked in the past and it will never work now!
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
Wow what a buddy system.
itoastergo 2 years ago
Obamba is the supreme being and Giethner the keebler elf is the son he has sent to save our faith in the economy. you liberal scum will worship the elf, kneel to the elf, give all your money to the elf. the Obamnada's word has been spoken
pulsar00815 2 years ago
Geithner has been really asleep at the wheel or has been playing possum. Many of the banks are holding trash and American taxpayers don't need this put on the bill. Maybe he is too cushy with wall street? Some bad vibes here.
jengacrock 2 years ago
blah!
jkesquered 2 years ago
Awesome show, I really hope you get on T.V. ... "The American people are being too kind to Obama" I completely agree.
prodigy00073 2 years ago 4
There are certain times when cenk, is out of his depth and on this subject he is. Cenk gives no solution but only criticism. Unfortunately the taxpayers are going to take a hit either way. The only choice is how soft the hit will be. Bringing everything crashing down is no solution and even more jobs will be at risk. Those toxic assets has to be transformed, given time, out of toxicity, and the Getner plan is a step in the right direction.
bgrawhot 2 years ago 4
Your best commentary ever. Legacy sucks. Obama is going to end up a one term pony if he does not wise up.
kidstalkpolitics 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who is this mumbling fuck!
374250rex 2 years ago
you better get that time slot! TYT nation baby!
noyan000 2 years ago
The banks were strong armed to be fair to poor and minorities by giving out loans to people who couldn't pay the bills. That = toxic assests. Now we get to buy it back through tax dollars. = we are morons for letting this happen we should overthrow this government violently as is the American way. PS poor people can die i don't give a fuck!!
374250rex 2 years ago
AIG gave goldman sachs 12 billion on top of what we gave them. there paying each other off big
malik910 2 years ago
wow I've got two bucks! can I become a "private investor"?
this is bullshit!
thecheney 2 years ago
Many Americans seem to think we are secure, they are wrong. History shows that during times of global depression maps change. Wholesale theft by a government from it's people can cause revolution.
mick0438 2 years ago
What I think is actually so smart about the plan is that it simultaneously removes the assets from the banks, puts a value on those assets, and puts security in owning them. By insuring the assets, it effectively removes the "toxic" nature of the assets. True, it puts some risk on the tax payer, but if you didn't do it, then the taxpayer wouldn't have anyone to split the cost of the assets with, and the taxpayer would have to buy the entirety of even more risky toxic assets.
uforeader 2 years ago
stop smoking the devils pole
374250rex 2 years ago
consters
my peniss
WKaliberr 2 years ago
Shit, let's buy some of these 97% guaranteed is a hell of a lot better than what's happening to my 401k.
CampHazzard 2 years ago
Yeah put me down for 2 cases of snake oil please....
stuartjamesgemmell 2 years ago
These bankers are CRIMINALS.
Put them to jail.
Don't freakin' help them.
joeygonzo 2 years ago
Good old Euphemisms.
They never fail in being a weak and useless way of trying to hide the truth.
qanazir 2 years ago
"Legacy assets": It is a colossally bad idea to put the government of the United States of America in the business of selling re-re-packaged snake oil. Who might be interested in buying? Somebody who's got the US on the "short sell" list. This is very bad.
Julzug 2 years ago
anthony6661 >
"soup kitchen, bread lines opens at 6am "
Do Not eat that bread, it was made with fluoride water and they'll use biologically ingenered seeds to grow the plants to make the all-purpose flour in the kitchen located in the Nuclear Reactor facilities.
The soup will probably have mercury and radioactive condiments & bird-flu ill chicken in it.
The methadone is good, directly from China....
JOSYMOL 2 years ago
No such thing as can't sell.
There is:
1) a buyer
2) a seller
3) a price
There are 1000s of competant, solvent banks to buy this crap but they aren't on Wall St giving megabucks in contributions.
Paetaor 2 years ago
The problem is if the thing you are buying is a loan you ain't gonna get back.
qanazir 2 years ago
I've disagreed with you a lot and I think you're in the tank for Obama and his continuation of Bush's policies, but I agree with you 110% on this one.
Good job TYT
cheeseaura 2 years ago
It was alwaysa regulatory probelm. You cannot allow people to take out insurance policies for more than the underlying asset. I like your casino analogy, I thought the same thing, the government should have just said the house is broke sorry thanks for playing. The problem is it would have erroded confidence in the US finacial system. The strength of the dollar is that the US will settle up.
schmokay 2 years ago
Who the hell says that private banks should be protected from going out of bussiness with USA citizens money? Are you saying that was the right thing to do and that on top of that it is okay to pay them banks interests and more taxes for the federal goverment, after they just robbed all of us? Is that what you are saying? How are you enjoying your Benz?know they made multi-billions of dollars in the last decade, got greedy, joined the elites agenda & bankrupted america all to control the world?
JOSYMOL 2 years ago
Letting the bank could have wide ranging side effect. Purchasing the bank as "the taxpayers" did with citi give the taxpayer equity in the institution again if/when the value rise the taxpayer can actually make money.
schmokay 2 years ago
With the amount of money we throw towards corporation we could have Free health care and college education. . . But then again what would we get out of that?. . . That would just fix unemployment and our economy like england after WW2. <.<;
Nolen87 2 years ago
The real reason the hedge funds are involved is to inject objectivity in the valuation of the assets. The government will pay enough to keep the bank afloat . Right now the assets are worthless but that will change when the private investors get a hold of them. Even if they are worthless as cash flow they are still collatatoralize so there is some value to breaking up the assets and selling them. If one is willing to rent the properties and not auction them they could get real value w/o selling.
schmokay 2 years ago
"The government will pay enough to keep the bank afloat ". The goverment get the money from all of us citizens. Therefore, we are the ones who will have to pay for this. Ohh, and not only us, but our kids, & the kids of our kids. This is going to get a lot worse. Osama & his puppets will just take off on their luxury cars, live confortably in one of their many mansions, enjoy all the money they stoled, all while you, me, our kids brake our backs working like horses to pay off the nations debt.
JOSYMOL 2 years ago
I saw the government to mean the public vs the private sector. It is not absolute that the government (ie individual tax payers will lose money (although likely). The investors most likely to take up the positions are the surrogates of the banks themselves, if this is permitted then the foxes are watching the chickens. Either way a free market valuation of the asset would leave the banks bankrupt. That is in part b/c of the risk, the taxpayer is reducing the risk to uncover the material value.
schmokay 2 years ago
The Banks were greedy and lost trillions of dollars. The government had 2 choices. Either bail them out or let them go under. If they don't bail them out the entire economy could collapse.
I would have let them all go under. That would eliminate all the greedy bastards.
kymystic65 2 years ago
"The American people are being too kind to Obama".
Damned straight Cenk, "they" are.
But the times are a changing. And people, like yourself, are finally starting to wake up to the fact that Geithner, (who as of yesterday still had the "full support of my [Obamas] administration), is a boy trying to wear men's shoes.
Yep........I'm a conservative, and god knows we made our share of mistakes in the last term. But I appreciate you calling out Geithner on his latest taxpayer funded fiasco.
bobbytiger 2 years ago
Cenk, you sound like the Republicans who are saying to let them fail!
:-)
richardhutnik 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How can you support a President who was born in Kenya?
StinkingHombre 2 years ago
he was born in hawaii prick....and even if he was born in kenya, which he wasnt, i would rather have barack over the retard from texas any day....
hamza1947 2 years ago
It's pretty easy actually.
81FOB808 2 years ago
Obama is just about useless, he promised change yet he is essentially keeping things in Business as usual mode, during the campaign he used the quote about people continuing to do the same things over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, so by that definition Obama and his Kabal are insane
tico8007 2 years ago
Uh need you be reminded that he's only been in office for just over 2 months? It's unfair to judge at this point, and I would say that for any President. There's a lot of work needing to be done. The economic catastrophe could take decades to fix. It's a lot easier to break something than it is to fix it.
I do agree though that Geithner's a dipshit and needs to be replaced. Then again I also think that Congress needs to be replaced with people that represent us instead of trading handjobs.
XelhosTallyn 2 years ago 2
"Uh need you be reminded that he's only been in office for just over 2 months?"
How long do you think we should wait to start judging these pricks for bankrupting our country? You said it yourself, 2 months. In only 2 months they have fucked us, slapped us and now they are ready to give us all a facial! They are treating us all like if we are their bitches. The goverment work for us. They are there to serve us. But they have forgotten this and we are now the ones who must serve the goverment?
JOSYMOL 2 years ago
wait until we see some actual results is one. Wait until 6 months to a year is another. And yes, in many ways he will need more time than most presidents we have seen in our lifetime. Because , as has been said over and over, and you guys wont' hear it, no president has had to deal to deal with something like this in almost 80 years. At the end of the day, no one REALLY knows WHAT the right solutions are, until something is tried and done. How long to wait? Wait a while.
Rosannasfriend 2 years ago
@XelhosTallyn
i agree with both of your statements, but want to mention there is good reason for people to be upset. Every penny of bailout money goes on the US taxpayer. The government only spends money that it collects (or plans to) from tax payers. Take a round number like a Trillion Dollars:
$1,000,000,000,000 divide US population (approx) 306,076,398
equals over $3,000 in debt for every man woman and child in the USA.
That's insult, plus injury, and a complimentary bernanke teabagging imo!
tillo2008 2 years ago 2
I wonder if these ceo's, banker's, politician's, got castrated (balls cut off) they would behave better (no more male hormones)
NiteAngel 2 years ago
Wow. Cenk is sounds a little Ron Paulish right now. May not be a bad thing.
uskafighter 2 years ago 3
I like Obama, but his vetting was terrible. Three of his cabinet had tax issues and Tim Geithner is RETARDED.
fanaticmoron 2 years ago
Geithner did not come up with this plan by himself. I wish the Geithner hating would stop already!
ver506 2 years ago
This eithner puke is a real piece of work. Former NY Fed Pres, sits alon side Bernanke, talks of increasin his power.
New World Order Socialism, anyone?
You want a prosperous economy on a lobal scale?
first of all DISCLOSE THE FREE ENERGY THAT WE KNOW EXISTS.
ELIMINATE THE SECRECY OF THE FINANCIAL PRINTING PRESS.
Hang traitorous scum like Obama, Bushs, Kerry, Clintons, Rockefellers, Cheney, Bernanke, Greenspan, Blair, Brown, Thatcher, Rice, Albright, Powells, Rothschilds, and their masters.
steveofourty 2 years ago
thx for the post. i guess i am lucky that i still dont live on my own right now paying taxes. they must come up with a better way to fix this.
that line u said at the end was also very good too. i did vote for Obama, but im just going to be a suckup and say that he will fix the problem. there are many steps to this problem. banks and just corporations for that matter need to stop trying to save their butts and show some credibility.
Sly88Frye 2 years ago
Excellent analysis. Nice to hear it like it is. This is the robbery of the century and shows how our corruption is affecting us. We need to throw all the bums out and let all the banks and their friends fail.
kohlerman8 2 years ago
I agree its totally ridiculous to put the American public on the hook for what amounts to stupid bets. Just say too f-ing bad you're not going to get your money on that bet.
duncan36 2 years ago
Neat how all the haters saying TYT always sides with Obama are really quiet right now.
digiring 2 years ago
lol!
Sly88Frye 2 years ago
You mean the same guys who waited until Bush was out of office before they started bitching about the President?
jstutz2003 2 years ago
could someone please point out the law that says the government is required or even allowed to bail out private business with taxpayer money???
thats what I thought....this is simply theft on a grand scale
offdaheez 2 years ago
Add some requirements for the Fed Res & Tres & the SEC & you have the complete plan.
PPL have become so dumb down to small sound bites & tomorrows next outrage that they have forgotten that this is a larger & longer issue that requires many small pieces & much more time for it to develop.
This a situation in which the Sum of the parts involved is greater than their individual worth
That if the 1st step works then step 2 won't lose money & the step 3 will be easier to implement
Try that PPL!!
SCarter45 2 years ago
Well if it is such a good plan...why did the banks go down to beging with?
WhiteBull 2 years ago
The Next Step after you clean the balance sheets of both Main St. & Wall St. is to then regulate it properly so that this type of crap can't happen anymore...
So now you set standards for lending practices that are conservative & change the standards for securing ur money (FDIC)
Then you move on to Wall St. and require tough standards to which these firms are held from their reporting practices to their balance sheet requirements to the issuance of credit...
SCarter45 2 years ago
I was actually for the bailout when it was first proposed. But now I wish they hadn't bothered. These companies need to die.
Danny77uk 2 years ago
So Obama is trying to fix the health care & energy systems to reduce that burden on Main St. so that MAIN Streets balance sheets are better which means they are better able to pay for their homes/cars/loans etc.
After that we get the banks temporaily healthy so that ppl are confident in the general system again to do that u remove some of the assets at a leveraged cost from the banks balance sheets
should we have had to that... NO but should we've had to reduce dependence on oil period...
SCarter45 2 years ago
Legacy is right! Our kids will probably be paying them off!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
I'm really starting to get tired of having to beat back against Cenk's ill-conceived idea of how this is going to work
PPL have to recognize that this is a part of a larger process, one that REQUIRES a healthy Banking system.
This deals with the asset issue only but as Obama has said on several occasions this recession starts on Main Street b/c when ppl weren't making enough money to deal with their high cost they fell behind which snowballed causing the very items of these credit swaps 2 fail
SCarter45 2 years ago
This problem is much bigger than Geithner thinks or can handle.
carboy101 2 years ago
ben stein commented on this, saying that these things are going to be worth a lot of money in the future. they're going to pay off big for anyone who purchases them. problem is, private companies get the profits, and the tax payers may not even get back what we put into actually purchase them for the private investment firms. all in all, this will boost the stock market and will boost spending and bring us back to what we were in sep. other than that, i don't see it helping in the long term.
thecellarlife 2 years ago
Ben Stein is a fucking tool. Back in August of 07,' he suggested that financials were going to the moon. In fact, he rated Merrill Lynch, then trading at 75 bucks a strong buy. Listening to Ben Stein is like watching cnbc... Nothing but propaganda and outright lies!
coultrane 2 years ago
funny, he was on cnbc with wolf blitzer (sp?) when he said this. fact is, what he said was correct about this whole issue, but he avoided getting specific, and said basically wall street wanted a sure-thing, and thats why the stock market went up after the announcement of the plan. i'm not saying I agree with ben steins opinion on this at all, i think this bill is a mistake in a lot of ways, but he did give a short, while not detailed, okay summary of what this will do for those who invest.
thecellarlife 2 years ago