From: Minister of the Treasury Paulson

Submitted by mlaldrid on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 15:03
in

Subject: REQUEST FOR URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship
with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country
has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of
800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it
would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my
replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you
may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation
movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need
the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these
funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly
under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for
a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the
funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund
account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to
wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission
for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will
respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used
to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully
Minister of Treasury Paulson

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Letter from a congress person

Submitted by bartley on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 15:39.


Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.
[...]
I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.


see also what the letter writer predicts will happen which sounds about right to me.

My problem with this thinking is...

Submitted by aburd on Mon, 09/22/2008 - 17:06.

If they add a bunch of new regulations to the bill in one week they aren't going to be well thought out rules. They will have unintended negative consequences for everyone. I don't think there's a single person who is against new regulation. I don't think there is a single person who is against oversight. But as it stands now this is a really simple bill. There is no confusion. Adding oversight makes sense so there is one extra page to the bill. But completely overhauling the financial system in the middle of a crisis is not a practical goal.

And when I say that there isn't a single person who is against regulation... keep in mind that I work with a lot of anti-regulation folks and I haven't heard anyone talking about the advantages of deregulation. Bring on the regs, just make them the right ones. We don't need more regulations demanding that people of poor credit get loans or whatever. We need regulations preventing loans from being originated that are sold by the same guy selling you property (guess who is more interested in selling property than checking credit in that situation?). Make the cash reserves at banks larger so we don't have to deal with as many bank failures during crises. Make the rating agencies actually do full research on a bond before rating it. And what about an agency in charge of all financials in the market who can be as quick-footed as the market innovations. And how does it sound to have serious criminal repercussions for lying on a loan app?

This push to add a bunch of poorly thought through laws and punishments just isn't smart. Fix the problem then bring on the rules.

700 Billion's pretty large I guess

Submitted by bartley on Thu, 09/25/2008 - 21:53.


"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

But the bailout will pay for itself!

Submitted by mlaldrid on Thu, 09/25/2008 - 23:42.

And make a profit, even! So why not double down?

This is an unauthorized cybernetic announcement.