"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Friday, August 13, 2010

Danke and Merci!

Aug 12, 6:20 AM (ET) By MARCY GORDON
WASHINGTON (AP) - The $700 billion U.S. bailout program launched in response to the global economic meltdown had a far greater impact overseas than other countries' financial rescue plans did on the U.S., according to a new report from a congressional watchdog.
Billions of dollars in U.S. rescue funds wound up in big banks in France, Germany and other nations. That was probably inevitable because of the structure of the Treasury Department's program, the Congressional Oversight Panel says in a new report issued Thursday.
The U.S. program aimed to stabilize the financial system by injecting money into as many banks as possible, including those with substantial operations overseas. Most other countries, by contrast, focused their efforts more narrowly on banks in their nations that usually lacked major U.S. operations.
But the report says that if the U.S. had gotten more data on which foreign banks would benefit the most, the government might have been able to ask those countries to share some of the cost.
"There were no data about where this money was going," panel chair Elizabeth Warren said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. "The American people have a right to know where the money went."
An example: Major French and German banks were among the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. rescue of American International Group Inc., yet the American government shouldered the entire $70 billion risk of pumping capital into the crippled insurance titan. The report compares that with the $35 billion that France spent on its overall financial rescue program and the $133 billion that Germany spent.
Much of the $182 billion in federal aid to AIG - the biggest of the government rescues - went to meet the company's obligations to its Wall Street trading partners on credit default swaps, a form of insurance against default of securities. The partners included French banks Societe Generale, which received $11.9 billion in AIG money, and BNP Paribas, which got $4.9 billion, and Germany's Deutsche Bank, $11.8 billion.
Of the 87 banks and financial entities that indirectly benefited from the U.S. aid to AIG, 43 are foreign, according to the report. In addition to France and Germany, they include banks based in Canada, Britain and Switzerland.
In addition to AIG, many of the U.S. banks and automakers that received billions in bailout aid derive a large proportion of their revenue from operations outside the U.S., the report noted.
The watchdog panel was created by Congress to oversee the Treasury Department rescue program that came in at the peak of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. It has said it's unclear whether U.S. taxpayers will ever fully recoup the cost of the AIG bailout. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will lose $36 billion.

7 comments:

Tom said...

certainly you're not hearing this for the first time?

Brian C. Caffrey said...

Hey, I thought Barack Hoover Obama said we weren't going to be the world's financial leader anymore. Or was it "Tim the tax cheat" Geithner? I wish these wizards of smart would make up their minds.

Tom said...

hey Sherlock....the numbers Dave gave in his post were all from pre Obama. What gets me is this is all old news. It came out in March of last year. Heck, AIG gave money to Goldman who then turned around used some of that money to repay the fed. Lord knows, and I doubt even he knows, whether AIG will ever pay a dime back.

Maybe your problem is this info did not get reported much by the conservative media since it was mainly done under Bush and Paulson. Obama might have screwed some of this up, but at least he tried to attach strings to the money. Bush just gave it to them.

see ya 8/28

Dave said...

Tom, you can call this "old news" all you want, but this report was just released on Tuesday and that makes it's contents "new news." And if I recall correctly, the bailout was conceived in the White House with Barrack Obama present in the meeting. And less than a month after it was passed by Mr. Obama and his cohorts in the Democraticly controlled Congress, Mr. Obama became the president-elect. So don't act as though he had nothing to do with it. He was involved from the get-go.

Now if you want to blame this on Bush, go ahead. I opposed the bailout along with a large percentage of Republicans in Congress. I called the White House after it was passed and demanded that Henry Paulson be fired. But if he acted as though he was the imperial monarch of the financial world with unrestricted power, it is because the Democratic Congress gave him the power.

And if you think it distresses me when either you or the current president blame our situation on Bush, you both may as well give it up. If Obama rates one on my approval meter, Bush rates only about one and a quarter. I was so disgusted with him when he left office that I couldn't stand to hear him talk.

Tom said...

You really need to revisit your history on TARP. I do not think Obama was there when it was all plotted out in the middle of the night in late September by Bush and Paulson and few members of congress. If you remember, it was McCain who wanted to suspend the campaign and he did his, and Obama kept going. Obama voted for it, no argument there, but I did not think this was a blog on the merits of TARP. My response was to Brian who seems to be part of that 50 plus per cent who think TARP was passed when Obama was President, when in actuality it was passed in early October 2008 and the election polling was still to close to call.

TARP passed in the Senate 75-24. Republicans could have filabustered it. Heck, they have on everything since. But it was Bush, and republicans do not, as a general rule, vote against their same party President. Much closer vote in the house, and if I remember right, it failed the first time in the house, so don't give me that Dem. controlled congress crap. It would have passed no matter who the majority party was.

The basis of your blog was AIG giving money to foreign banks. Why did we bail out an insurance company? Google that question.

Dave said...

Tom, you are wrong. Obama and McClain were right there in the White House putting this whole thing together. At that stage of the game, it could not have passed without Obama's support. If he had opposed it, it never would have passed.

When it first came up in the House, every single Republican voted against it plus a few Democrats. If Republicans were in the majority, it never would have passed. In fact, the only way it got through was by the Senate creating a new bill and then sending it to the House (in spite of the fact that the Constitution says that all spending bills must originate in the House, but who cares what the Constitution says when the whole economy is about to collapse). By the time the Senate bill got to the House, enough crisis mongering had taken place that even guys like Newt were on board. My own Congressman voted got cowed into voting for it.

Now if you think I'm trying to let Bush off the hook, you're obviously wrong. I blame him along with every member of Congress that voted for the bill, which includes both McCain and Obama. But let's be real, Obama was just as much a part of it as the rest, and if he didn't approve of how it was being handled, he could have spoken out against it during the campaign and after the election, and he could have changed everything when he took office. But I don't think he did because the whole scheme was just his sort of thing. In fact, I'm quite sure he will do it all over again if he gets the chance, ss would Bush, Clinton, and Bush I. They're all peas from the same Harvard-Yale pod.

Brian C. Caffrey said...

Barry fully concurred in, participated in, and adopted TARP and the stimulus bill. He was acting like he was president in those days.

TARP and any stimulus, whether proposed by Bush or Obama, were wrong and never should have been proposed or approved. All they've done is prolong the agony and prevent the markets from adjusting.

Yeah, Obama's doing a great job. I'm especially impressed with that 9.5% unemployment and the blind, stupid, almost religious faith in Keynesianism. Perhaps he knows he doesn't have a prayer in 2012, and that's why he and Marie Antoinette are taking an extravagant vacation every week. Might as well enjoy the perks of being emperor while you can.