I assume that what is blacked out is whatever the real deal is behind the current line that banks which do not need bailouts ought to be financed to buy out other banks, rather than the government buy out troubled banks or partially fund them and then later sell off those assets to the benefit of the US taxpayer. Free money for takeovers is what is blacked out, I am guessing.
The Washington Post today 10/22/2008 offers evidence of a theory I have. We have been hearing that some banks (pretend!) that they don't want bailout money, but they have to take it. Pablum! Today we hear that some banks will be using their bailout money for takeovers. Now for my theory. In 1999-2000, Morgan Rockefeller Rothschild, big New York banks, sent out an army of tiny mortgage bankers. We saw the signs in the grass at the traffic light, we received cold calls at home, we saw ads in newspapers, all from tiny mortgage bankers we have never heard of, and now they are gone. They pushed free money, causing people who would have invested in real estate to invest multiples more in multiples more houses. Soon they were bidding against each other, sending prices multiples higher. The stalking horses were providing the loans at first. Slowly they drew target banks to compete, offering debt over equity and sub-prime and variable rate loans, above all based on false valuations created by supporting buyers to bid against each other. People were refinancing every year, buying many houses, until rents could not rise any higher. Rents topped out in 2004-5, and I heard a Stanford econmics fellow and George Mason "Center for Public Choice" economist, two opinions, noting that rents had topped. Target banks were wiped out. Now taxpayers are paying the big New York banks to take over their targets. As long as the stalking horses, or ponies, are never connected to big New York banks and Fed partners, no one will be the wiser. Nice scam, huh? -Bob --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, RoadsEnd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Sardar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: October 22, 2008 1:53:47 PM PDT > To: "Sardar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Treasury Blacks Out Key Parts of Private Bailout Contracts > > Treasury Blacks Out Key Parts of Private Bailout Contracts > > David Sirota > Huffington Post > October 22, 2008 > > Remember how Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson promised full > transparency in spending the $700 billion bailout money? And remember > how bailout opponents predicted that the failure to mandate such > transparency would allow all sorts of Halliburton-style shenanigans? > From the looks of the first private contracts issued by the Treasury > Department, it looks like the bailout opponents were correct. > > As flagged by BailoutSleuth.com, Paulson is blacking out the sections > of government contracts that spell out how much private firms will be > paid for their services in administering taxpayer money. Here's a page > from the compensation part of a contract with Bank of New York, which > has been hired to do some of the bookkeeping (because, of course, the > Bush administration is happy to privatize that function): > > > > And here's a page from the compensation part of a Treasury contract > with law firm Simpson Thatcher Bartlett - a firm being hired to > provide "legal advice" to the government: > > > > Think these are doctored images? Check them out yourself on Treasury's > website - the first contract is here (blacked out section on page 25 > of the PDF) and the second contract is here (blacked out section on > page 5 of the PDF). > > a.. A d v e r t i s e m e n t > b.. > So, just to review - within just a few weeks of the bailout passing, > our government is blacking out the parts of public contracts that > explain how much taxpayer cash private contractors are going to be > paid. Perhaps this is what Paulson meant when he promised transparency > - by posting these blacked out contracts on the Treasury website, the > government is being transparent about exactly where it is being > secretive. But I don't think that definition of transparency really > flies, do you? > > Of course, I wish I was surprised about this - but one of the major > reasons I was opposed to this bailout from the beginning was because > (as I and others repeatedly wrote) there is no real transparency at > all. Now we know what "no transparency at all" really means. > > The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link > attachments: > Shortcut to: http://www.infowars.com/?p=5466 > > Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent > sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e- > mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. >
