They don't know what they are doing

[Soaring]

- and "they" admit it.

The Weekly Standard

TARP Oversight Chair Says She Doesn't Know Whether It's Working
Obama's transparency czar is using $84 million to build a web site that won't be usable until October, and may not be useful until four years from now.

Obama's stimulus oversight guru, Joe Biden, says "people are being scammed already" in the disbursement of $787 billion.

And, when asked whether TARP is working, Prof. Elizabeth Warren— head of the Congressionally formed oversight committee for that particular trillion-dollar project—says:
"We can't disclose what isn't known. We've disclosed as much as we can, we've addressed this in our various reports. The Secretary of the Treasury says there are some positive indicators and there some negative indicators still in the economy. And that's the best we can do.”

"We can see changes, we try to document those and we try to point out where their continue to be weaknesses,” she continued. "You know this isn't resolved yet, congressman. I'm sorry, it's just not. We're still in mid-crisis and there are both up arrows and down arrows."


Aren't giant, cumbersome government programs fun, especially now that the Obama administration's cult of competence is in charge and offering unprecedented transparency and accountability?

To be fair, Warren took on a terrible job knowing it would be terrible, but it's discouraging that so little headway has been made. Her interviews, upon appointment, reveal that she understood she couldn't measure success of TARP when it was utterly unclear what TARP was ever supposed to accomplish.
Q: You've been quite critical of the Treasury. What troubles you most about what you're getting and what you're not getting?
A: There's no discussion of the overall policy. Instead, there are specific programs that are announced, and from that, it's necessary to reason backwards to figure out what the goal must have been. It's like a "Jeopardy!" game. If this is the answer, what was the question? It's frustrating because without a clearly articulated goal and identified metrics to determine whether the goal is being accomplished, it's almost impossible to tell if a program is successful.

Q: Do you have a clear sense of what the overall TARP plan at this point is supposed to do? Are you capable of summarizing what it's supposed to be doing?
A: No. And neither is Treasury. Treasury has given us multiple contradictory explanations for what it's trying to accomplish.


We live in a society -
"of the Government, by the Government, for the Government".
We are now slaves to A GREEDY government.

 

[Zoom-boing]

"Instead, there are specific programs that are announced, and from that, it's necessary to reason backwards to figure out what the goal must have been."

"Treasury has given us multiple contradictory explanations for what it's trying to accomplish."

Two words describe our government: half-assed and backwards.

 

[garyd]

When your solution to every problem is to pitch more money at it it becomes increasingly comical to watch the explantions of how the solution is working. It's like watching a man try to shovel horse manure through a 3" hole with a scoop shovel

 

[Sweet Willy]

The TARP was about keeping the entire banking system from collapsing. We were days, if not hours from a bank run that would have been a disaster. There is no other goal. If you want it articulated it's pretty simple. The banks don't have the money that they have recorded in the accounts they hold. They don't haver the cash, assets or gold to satify the people who have accounts with them. If as few as 10 or 15% of most banks customers spooked and closed accounts, it's all over. This was VERY close to going down. The whole thing comes unwound then. THe TARP couldn't satisfy the accounts either. The FDIC can't satify the accounts. The accounts can not be reconciled with cash or assets by ANYONE.

Just sit back and complain about the banks getting all this money. It's wasn't Bush, it wasn't Obama, it was the actual smart people who know what happens when people aren't complaining about the money the banks got, but worried about the money the banks don't got. Get it?

Probably not. And that's good. It keeps you safe. Carry on.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Democratic Representative Kanjorski explains how the Federal Reserve told Congress members about a "tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars." According to Kanjorski, this electronic transfer occurred over the period of an hour or two. And it gets worse. Kanjorski paraphrases the following disclosure by Bernanke and Paulson:

On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

Sept. 18 Scare? - Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner on National Review Online


The whole thing can implode in a matter of a day.

It's a pyramid type set up. It will have a terrible end sooner or later. Until then, keep stacking that sucker higher and higher. Maybe I'll be dead by the time it happens.

 

[garyd]

It should have been imploded, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up sans the governmental regulations that brought about this disaster.

 

[Sweet Willy]

It should have been imploded, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up sans the governmental regulations that brought about this disaster.

I agree it's a terrible thing. It will be an unimaginable end. I sure as hell don't want to be around for it. It will be a damn sight tougher than sitting here bitching and moaning about Barak Obama until your fingers are sore. Few of us would ever live long enough to see it recover.

 

[garyd]

It would take about 5 years max to turn around it could be longer depending on whether the government tried to help.

 

[Sweet Willy]

It would take about 5 years max to turn around it could be longer depending on whether the government tried to help.

A lot of people would die. Even in 5 years.

Of course, the mayhem would be a great equalizer. All kinds of fortunes would be turned around. Thieves and outlaws would steal everything that isn't glued down.

 

[garyd]

Not really no. The collapse would not be hearly so complete as you envision. It would be no worse than in 1932 and might be considerably less bad.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Not really no. The collapse would not be hearly so complete as you envision. It would be no worse than in 1932 and might be considerably less bad.

I'd say much worse.

More people.

More dependence on the distribution of basic goods over long distances.

Fewer small farms, sustinance type living is all but unknown today.

More weapons, more violence prone and violence exposed society.

Fewer natural resources to be relied upon.

I think it would be much worse than the first depression. Much longer. 5 years of chaos. 5 years of politcal restoration. 5 years of economic restoration.

 

[garyd]

We had as many guns per capita if not more in 1932 as we do now Hell you could buy a thompson Submachine gun for fifty bucks or so over the counter. Full auto weapons didn't become illegal until the mid to late thirties.

 

[Sweet Willy]

We had as many guns per capita if not more in 1932 as we do now Hell you could buy a thompson Submachine gun for fifty bucks or so over the counter. Full auto weapons didn't become illegal until the mid to late thirties.

I doubt that fact. I'd have to see some confirmation. Guns per PERSON is nearly 1:1 now.