http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/15/MNAB1733BH.DTL&tsp=1
QuoteDemocratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying the American people are demanding "discipline and accountability" following the multibillion-dollar federal bailouts, vowed today to initiate a legislative commission with broad oversight to investigate the causes of Wall Street irregularities and their full costs to taxpayers.
Pelosi, speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California, said she wants the panel to be modeled after the Pecora Commission, a bipartisan investigative body established by the U.S. Senate in 1932 to examine the causes and abuses of the Wall Street crash of 1929 and to prevent a repeat.
"They investigated what happened in the markets," including conflicts of interests and irregularities that set off such devastating effects on the U.S. economy, she said. When the commission issued its findings during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "they had tangible recommendations," she said, which helped generate widespread public support for major banking system reforms and new securities laws.
Pelosi said she discussed the matter with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today and will raise the matter with her colleagues in the House of Representatives next week. She said her actions have been sparked by the observation that, no matter where she travels in the United States, she hears one common concern about financial irregularities.
"People are very unhappy with these bailouts," particularly multimillion-dollar bonuses paid out to executives of failing firms like American Insurance Group, or AIG, that have received federal bailout funds, she said.
"Seventy five percent of the American people, at least, want an investigation of what happened on Wall Street," the Speaker said to applause from the audience.
"We're going to have a commission... even if it is only in the House of Representatives," Pelosi vowed, saying it would allow Americans "to have a clearer understanding of how we got here - and the risk that's been taken by the taxpayers in all this."
"That's what we would do with this commission, is to make sure it does not happen again." she said.
She said the move coincides with legislation she will soon send to President Obama on financial institution regulation and reform, "so we have transparency...discipline and accountability to the American taxpayer."
Pelosi made the unexpected announcement in response to a question from Commonwealth Club CEO Gloria Duffy just one day after Obama's speech on the economy at Georgetown University. In his speech, Obama said oversight and regulation of Wall Street would be one of five pillars in his "new foundation" for the American economy.
Veteran political consultant Don Solem of San Francisco said that with economic concerns continuing to be high on the lists of American concerns, Pelosi's announcement about the is a savvy move.
He said the Depression-era commission's findings "laid the groundwork for rapid movement that included the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission" and critical oversight regulations that followed.
"When the public doesn't know something, it becomes suspicious of everything," Solem said, adding that in the current financial crisis and resulting bailouts "the American public is hearing a lot of perspectives, many of them ideological in nature."
"They want the facts, why certain things didn't happen at certain points, and what can be done to prevent it," he said. But "what's been missing to date ... is that it hasn't been stitched together by anyone in a comprehensive manner with oversight," such as the 9/11 Baker-Hamilton Commission did when it presented its findings on domestic terrorism in a bipartisan and comprehensive manner with enormous credibility.
Still Solem warned, to succeed "this commission must be broad and comprehensive - and viewed as preventive. If there's fault-finding ... then it ought to move to the proper channels."
The Pecora Commission was named after Ferdinand Pecora, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Banking's chief counsel who led his investigation beginning in January 1933 during the administration of Herbert Hoover.
Pecora was the high-profile figure who personally questioned many of Wall Street's most influential figures of the day. He was credited with uncovering a variety of abuses of banks and their affiliates. Roosevelt later appointed him to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Rich, Nancy, rich. People are upset about the bailouts that you helped usher in, so you think that there should be a panel to investigate why Wall Street tanked. Good use of taxpayer money!
Congress wouldn't be Congress without some good old fashioned witch hunts.
Well according to Facebook I'm apparently a huge Nancy Pelosi fan, so: go Nancy! :wub:
Quote from: Caliga on April 15, 2009, 07:08:17 PM
Well according to Facebook I'm apparently a huge Nancy Pelosi fan, so: go Nancy! :wub:
<_<
They issued too many subprime mortgages and sold too many credit default swaps. She should hire me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 02:08:57 AM
They issued too many subprime mortgages and sold too many credit default swaps. She should hire me.
Actually, she should go talk to her buddy Barney. He can tell her what happened.
She is going to be the leader of the Democrats in the House until she retires or is assassinated isn't she? :cry:
Yep, this investigation is needed; maybe find some worthy business people as candidates for Gitmo. :cool:
When this first broke I wrote my Congressman letting him know that, among other things, I expect Congress to be investigating itself and their mistakes, and any culpability for failure, negligence, or even possible criminal/ethical wrong doings by Congress members in the financial meltdowns. Same as needs to be done for business.
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2009, 08:19:18 AM
Yep, this investigation is needed; maybe find some worthy business people as candidates for Gitmo. :cool:
When this first broke I wrote my Congressman letting him know that, among other things, I expect Congress to be investigating itself and their mistakes, and any culpability for failure, negligence, or even possible criminal/ethical wrong doings by Congress members in the financial meltdowns. Same as needs to be done for business.
No it isn't. If the commission gets up and running all it will do is point more fingers at various businesses. Nothing good will come out of that.
My solution - I think we should kill everyone with more money than me, then make a throne of skulls for me to sit on.
Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2009, 10:06:10 AM
My solution - I think we should kill everyone with more money than me, then make a throne of skulls for me to sit on.
Have you considered running for Congress?
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2009, 08:19:18 AM
Yep, this investigation is needed; maybe find some worthy business people as candidates for Gitmo. :cool:
When this first broke I wrote my Congressman letting him know that, among other things, I expect Congress to be investigating itself and their mistakes, and any culpability for failure, negligence, or even possible criminal/ethical wrong doings by Congress members in the financial meltdowns. Same as needs to be done for business.
This "investigation" will not take one single look at any members of Congress. And if they do, it will be completely politically motivated.
So it will simply amount to yet another populist witch hunt of the Evil Business People. Which, of course, is what Pelosi/Reed/et al wants. Get the rabble all fired up and it isn't that hard to convince them that the solution is to take more power away from the Evil Business People and concentrate it into the hands of those who only want what is best for the poor, oppressed masses.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 09:54:59 AM
No it isn't. If the commission gets up and running all it will do is point more fingers at various businesses. Nothing good will come out of that.
Are you kidding? The proper solution to a system wide failure is to locate scapegoats.
I don't want to run for congress, they will be part of my throne.
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2009, 10:07:35 AM
So it will simply amount to yet another populist witch hunt of the Evil Business People. Which, of course, is what Pelosi/Reed/et al wants. Get the rabble all fired up and it isn't that hard to convince them that the solution is to take more power away from the Evil Business People and concentrate it into the hands of those who only want what is best for the poor, oppressed masses.
Yep.
Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 10:07:48 AM
Are you kidding? The proper solution to a system wide failure is to locate scapegoats.
Are you kidding? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 10:12:34 AM
Are you kidding? :unsure:
Yes. If Congress wants to know who is responsible ultimately they need to look in the mirror. But really they mostly need to work on getting the economy turned around, or at least attempt to minimize the damage.
Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 10:13:53 AM
Yes. If Congress wants to know who is responsible ultimately they need to look in the mirror. But really they mostly need to work on getting the economy turned around, or at least attempt to minimize the damage.
I don't see how witch hunting gets us anywhere closer to a better economy.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 10:15:31 AM
I don't see how witch hunting gets us anywhere closer to a better economy.
Right I was being incredibly sarcastic. That is why when you asked if I was kidding I said 'yes'.
Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 10:16:38 AM
Right I was being incredibly sarcastic. That is why when you asked if I was kidding I said 'yes'.
I thought that was some sort of meta-sarcasm. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 10:15:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 10:13:53 AM
Yes. If Congress wants to know who is responsible ultimately they need to look in the mirror. But really they mostly need to work on getting the economy turned around, or at least attempt to minimize the damage.
I don't see how witch hunting gets us anywhere closer to a better economy.
I don't see how Congress is capable of doing anything else.
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 10:24:21 AM
I don't see how Congress is capable of doing anything else.
Then they should do nothing with regards to it. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 10:26:21 AM
Then they should do nothing with regards to it. :)
If congress simply "did nothing" in general, we'd all be better off.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 10:26:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 10:24:21 AM
I don't see how Congress is capable of doing anything else.
Then they should do nothing with regards to it. :)
To be seen to do nothing is unacceptable. That's how politics works.
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 10:32:59 AMTo be seen to do nothing is unacceptable. That's how politics works.
Isn't there some way in which they could posture, seemingly doing a lot, but not actually doing anything at all? :(
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2009, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2009, 08:19:18 AM
Yep, this investigation is needed; maybe find some worthy business people as candidates for Gitmo. :cool:
When this first broke I wrote my Congressman letting him know that, among other things, I expect Congress to be investigating itself and their mistakes, and any culpability for failure, negligence, or even possible criminal/ethical wrong doings by Congress members in the financial meltdowns. Same as needs to be done for business.
This "investigation" will not take one single look at any members of Congress. And if they do, it will be completely politically motivated.
So it will simply amount to yet another populist witch hunt of the Evil Business People. Which, of course, is what Pelosi/Reed/et al wants. Get the rabble all fired up and it isn't that hard to convince them that the solution is to take more power away from the Evil Business People and concentrate it into the hands of those who only want what is best for the poor, oppressed masses.
Ah well, we will need a lot more tea parties then, in order for Congress (all parties) to get the message.
I already told my Congress man to speak out against the witch hunts, and to prevent the silly investigations they did that caused such witch hunts, back when the AIG families were targeted. I guess so what perhaps, but I figured I'd tell him rather than just complain about it.
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2009, 11:05:52 AM
Ah well, we will need a lot more tea parties then, in order for Congress (all parties) to get the message.
I am not interested in wasting time with Tea. I saw we toss Congress into Boston Harbor instead this time.
Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2009, 10:06:10 AM
My solution - I think we should kill everyone with more money than me, then make a throne of skulls for me to sit on.
You are truly a great man. -_-
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi122.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo240%2FArmchairVictim%2Fevil_red_king-skull_throne.jpg&hash=6d2053363b9b9c7822a4e043c300c2b104e8b350)
Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2009, 11:05:52 AM
Ah well, we will need a lot more tea parties then, in order for Congress (all parties) to get the message.
I am not interested in wasting time with Tea. I saw we toss Congress into Boston Harbor instead this time.
Enviro laws wouldn't let the harbor be so polluted. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 10:54:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 10:32:59 AMTo be seen to do nothing is unacceptable. That's how politics works.
Isn't there some way in which they could posture, seemingly doing a lot, but not actually doing anything at all? :(
That's what witchhunting is all about.
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 11:13:04 AMThat's what witchhunting is all about.
BURN BARNEY FRANK AT THE STAKE. :)
Also, I do agree that this would turn into a massive witch hunt, making the AIG hunt look rather tame. So even though I figure that some businesses need to be investigated for their practices, I'd have to change my view and be against it or neutral about, given the wacky attitudes going on lately. I'd go along with it if Congress could mitigate the witch hunt fervor, but I fear the witch hunts somewhat suit Congress as it deflects or masks attention from their bungling and complicity in things.
Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 11:13:04 AMThat's what witchhunting is all about.
BURN BARNEY FRANK AT THE STAKE. :)
He's not flaming enough for you? :P
Quote from: KRonn on April 16, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
Also, I do agree that this would turn into a massive witch hunt, making the AIG hunt look rather tame. So even though I figure that some businesses need to be investigated for their practices, I'd have to change my view and be against it or neutral about, given the wacky attitudes going on lately. I'd go along with it if Congress could mitigate the witch hunt fervor, but I fear the witch hunts somewhat suit Congress as it deflects or masks attention from their bungling and complicity in things.
Wouldn't investigating potential violations fall to Justice or Commerce? Surely they would be better at it than a body of people too incompetant to avoid being elected to Congress?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 02:08:57 AM
They issued too many subprime mortgages and sold too many credit default swaps.
I think that's too simplistic. The arguments I've read that make most sense to me are to do with monetary policy (John Taylor) and the change from net borrowers to net creditors that happened with emerging countries after the '97 Asian crash (Martin Wolf). It was that shift that enabled American, British, Spanish, Irish and Icelandic banks (and others) to be so easy with the credit. To use a phrase I read today in relation to Taylor's argument the worst subprimes did was to amplify the effects.
And I think this idea's ridiculous. Stabilise the banking system, develop some new regulation, see if you need more stimulus and then, if everything else has gone perfectly well, then start investigating Wall Street. Do it when the crisis has passed and the facts are in and there's the possibility that you'll generate some light as well as heat.
The question is, who will be tea-bagging Nancy Pelosi while she probes Wall Street?
I bet Ed Anger would pay to watch it, btw.
Witchhunting = Government looking to closely at stuff I don't want them to.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2009, 05:05:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 02:08:57 AM
They issued too many subprime mortgages and sold too many credit default swaps.
I think that's too simplistic. The arguments I've read that make most sense to me are to do with monetary policy (John Taylor) and the change from net borrowers to net creditors that happened with emerging countries after the '97 Asian crash (Martin Wolf). It was that shift that enabled American, British, Spanish, Irish and Icelandic banks (and others) to be so easy with the credit. To use a phrase I read today in relation to Taylor's argument the worst subprimes did was to amplify the effects.
Monetary policy can maybe explain the housing bubble, but it doesn't explain the insane pricing on the subprime related assets.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 05:25:12 PM
Monetary policy can maybe explain the housing bubble, but it doesn't explain the insane pricing on the subprime related assets.
What do you mean by assets? The ones the banks were trading?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2009, 05:32:44 PM
What do you mean by assets? The ones the banks were trading?
CDSs, CDOs, FYIs, PDQs, all that stuff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 05:33:42 PMCDSs, CDOs, FYIs, PDQs, all that stuff.
Weren't they generally bundled together? From my understanding sub-prime assets trading was only about 25% and of that 25% most were mixed in with prime assets to make it a more attractive and valuable proposition.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2009, 05:12:08 PM
The question is, who will be tea-bagging Nancy Pelosi while she probes Wall Street?
I bet Ed Anger would pay to watch it, btw.
No.
I like 'em around 19, not 190.
QuoteWeren't they generally bundled together? From my understanding sub-prime assets trading was only about 25% and of that 25% most were mixed in with prime assets to make it a more attractive and valuable proposition.
If you're talking about AIG specifically, yes. That's why AIG's financial products division was coming under such heavy fire; it was their idea to sell packages that included CDS assets; it seemed like a win-win, because it let them lower their burden while lowering the price for the sale, but they forgot to account for the fact that a lot of purchasers were insuring with AIG, so they ultimately ended up with the responsibility when subprime mortgage assets tanked, as well as a bulk of former purchasers who wanted to offload their burdens because there's still a fuckton of unvalued assets out there that could go toxic at any moment.