The Republican Thread

[BigSqwert]

But I just can't stand when people make the Indians out to be a completely harmless and innocent group that did no wrong.

How would you react if people invaded your land and tried taking it from you?

[BearSox]

How would you react if people invaded your land and tried taking it from you?

Listen, I don't condone the actions that were taken. Of course I'd fight back, and if someone tried invading America now, you'd know there'd be a major can of whoop ass opened up on them.

 

I don't really sympathize with either side in this situation. However, I realize both sides were in the wrong and try not to look back at the situation and blame America for being evil. Nor do I blame the Indians. Like I said, it's just a dark time for this country, along with slavery.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith with a moment of non-partisan sanity:

If America Tortures, "I Want Off The Train!"

"We are America, we don't torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train! This government is of, by, and for the people -- that means it's mine. That means -- I'm not saying what is torture, and what is not torture, but I'm saying, whatever it is, you don't do it for me! I want off the train when the government starts -- I want off, next stop, now!"

 

"They better not do it, if we are going to be Ronald Reagan's Shining City on the Hill, we don't get to torture. We don't do it."

[BigSqwert]

I realize both sides were in the wrong

 

Nor do I blame the Indians

 

[BearSox]

What? I don't blame either America or the Indians for what happened in the past, as I think both sides were wrong. What's so mind numbing about that?

[NorthSideSox72]

What? I don't blame either America or the Indians for what happened in the past, as I think both sides were wrong. What's so mind numbing about that?

This should probably be a different thread topic, but, as a whole, I think its awfully hard to put much blame on a civilization that fought back as we slowly crushed them to death so that we could take over the continent. You can certainly blame individual Indians, and bands or tribes, for some of their particular actions, though.

 

Its really an interesting duality. Aside from the revolution, I think the event that most heavily influenced the American persona was the march west in the 19th century. That was when our country went through its puberty and into adulthood. Continuing the analogy, we did some pretty awful things in that transition. We annihilated a civilization, but in the process, built one of the great empires the world has known - one that has done many great things for the world.

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

According to the BAC CEO, the Obama administration forced his company to choose between breaking the disclosure to shareholders law, and keeping quiet about the problems at Merrill.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045610029046349.html

 

Lewis Testifies U.S. Urged Silence on Deal

Bank of America Chief Says Bernanke, Paulson Barred Disclosure of Merrill Woes Because of Fears for Financial System

 

 

By LIZ RAPPAPORT

 

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. -- a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA -- according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank's chief executive.

 

Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York's attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.

[bank of America CEO Ken Lewis testified he was pressured to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill Lynch.] Reuters

 

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis testified he was pressured to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill Lynch.

 

Q: Were you instructed not to tell your shareholders what the transaction was going to be?

 

A: I was instructed that 'We do not want a public disclosure.'

 

Q: Who said that to you?

 

A: Paulson...

 

Q: Had it been up to you would you [have] made the disclosure?

 

A: It wasn't up to me.

 

Q: Had it been up to you.

 

A: It wasn't.

Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits. But these weren't normal times: Late last year, Wall Street was crumbling and BofA faced intense government pressure to buy Merrill to keep the crisis from spreading. Disclosing losses at Merrill -- which eventually totaled $15.84 billion for the fourth quarter -- could have given BofA's shareholders an opportunity to stop the deal and let Merrill collapse instead.

 

"Isn't that something that any shareholder at Bank of America...would want to know?" Mr. Lewis was asked by a representative of New York's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, according to the transcript.

 

"It wasn't up to me," Mr. Lewis said. The BofA chief said he was told by Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson that the deal needed to be completed, otherwise it would "impose a big risk to the financial system" of the U.S. as a whole.

 

Mr. Lewis's testimony suggests how aggressively federal regulators have been willing to behave in their fight to fix the U.S. financial system. The testimony for the first time spreads some of the blame to Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke for Mr. Lewis's decision to keep problems at Merrill under wraps.

 

"Everybody -- Lewis, Paulson, Bernanke -- eventually agreed that any public discussion of the situation at Merrill would have adverse consequences for the system," according to an individual close to BofA.

 

A person in government familiar with Mr. Bernanke's conversations with Mr. Lewis said Wednesday that the Fed chairman didn't offer Mr. Lewis advice on the question of disclosure. Instead, Mr. Bernanke suggested Mr. Lewis consult his own counsel.

 

Mr. Paulson repeatedly told Mr. Lewis that "the U.S. government was committed to ensuring that no systemically important financial institution would fail," according to his spokeswoman.

 

Mr. Lewis couldn't be reached for comment. A BofA spokesman said, "We had no legal obligation to disclose ongoing negotiations with the government and disclosure of ongoing negotiations likely would have severely disrupted the global financial markets and damaged the bank."

 

In the transcript reviewed by the Journal, Mr. Lewis didn't say he was explicitly instructed to keep silent about the losses piling up at Merrill. But his testimony indicates that he believed the government wanted him to remain silent.

'Good Part of the Hit'

 

Mr. Cuomo's investigator asked: "Wasn't Mr. Paulson, by his instruction, really asking Bank of America shareholders to take a good part of the hit of the Merrill losses?"

 

Mr. Lewis said, "Over the short term, yes." But he also said he believed Mr. Paulson's motive was preventing widespread disaster in the U.S. financial system.

 

According to a person familiar with the matter, Mr. Paulson in March told Cuomo investigators that Mr. Lewis may have misinterpreted some remarks about the Treasury's disclosure obligations as referring to BofA's obligations.

 

The transcript, which stems from an investigation into bonus payments at BofA conducted by the New York attorney general's office, illuminates the difficult dilemmas that regulators and executives alike have had to wrestle with in recent months. By keeping mum, the CEO of one of the biggest U.S. banks appeared to set aside a basic tenet of American-style finance -- that, above all, companies must disclose material information to shareholders and potential investors

 

"Regulators are supposed to tell you to obey the law, not to disobey the law," said Jonathan R. Macey, deputy dean of Yale Law School. "If you're the CEO, your first obligation is not to your regulator, it's to your institution and shareholders."

 

At the same time, regulators were struggling to prevent a systemic panic. In the transcript, Mr. Lewis is quoted saying that the regulators' goal was to put everything in place for the deal to be done, "so that you didn't set off alarms in a tragic economy."

 

Mr. Lewis's statements highlight a lack of public disclosure that has accompanied the financial crisis since its inception. The crisis has roots in the fact that Wall Street banks didn't adequately disclose the true prices of the toxic mortgage-related assets they held. The government has also been criticized for offering limited disclosure of the details or rationale of some of its bailout strategies, from the forced sale of Bear Stearns Cos., to the $173 billion injection into American International Group Inc.

 

The testimony -- which the New York attorney general plans to release to federal regulators and overseers of bailout money and banks Thursday -- stemmed from an investigation that started when the New York attorney general began examining the circumstances surrounding $3.6 billion of bonus payments to Merrill employees just before the takeover was completed. New York prosecutors are expected to provide the testimony to several regulatory bodies, says a person familiar with the matter.

 

The new details of Mr. Lewis's interactions with regulators over the Merrill merger coincide with the bank chief's battle to retain control of his company as it continues to struggle. The size of the Merrill losses stunned investors in January, and earlier this week Mr. Lewis gave a dim outlook for the economy, setting aside another $13.4 billion to brace for more credit losses, despite earning a first-quarter profit.

Jobs at Stake

 

The Wall Street Journal previously reported, in a page-one story on Feb. 5, that Mr. Lewis agreed to proceed with the Merrill merger only after Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke said that he and his board would lose their jobs if Bank of America backed out of the deal. Mr. Lewis's testimony with the New York attorney general's office corroborates that account.

[Rocky Start]

 

Mr. Cuomo's office says it has been unable to gather a full picture of the Fed's role in the December discussions because the Fed has invoked a regulatory privilege, allowing it to keep some documents confidential.

 

Mr. Lewis has previously said that he first considered backing out of the Merrill deal on Dec. 13, when he said his chief financial officer told him projected after-tax losses were "about $12 billion."

 

Shareholders of the Charlotte, N.C., bank voted to approve the purchase on Dec. 5, and the deal was completed on Jan. 1.

 

Bank of America agreed to accept $20 billion in new capital from the government and announced the injection, in conjunction with the Merrill losses, with its regularly scheduled earnings release on Jan. 20.

 

Mr. Lewis has since been vilified by lawmakers and shareholders for his handling of the purchase. Several investors, including TIAA-CREF, a major pension-fund manager, have said they intend to vote against his re-election as chairman. Some argued that Mr. Lewis should have informed shareholders of the potential losses at Merrill before the Jan. 1 closing of the deal.

 

During his testimony, Mr. Lewis described a conversation with Mr. Paulson in which the Treasury secretary made it clear that Mr. Lewis's own job was at stake. Mr. Lewis still was considering invoking his legal right to terminate the Merrill deal. Mr. Paulson was out on a bike ride when Mr. Lewis phoned to discuss the matter, according to the transcript.

 

"I can't recall if he said, 'We would remove the board and management if you called it [off]' or if he said 'we would do it if you intended to.' I don't remember which one it was," Mr. Lewis said. "I said, 'Hank, let's de-escalate this for a while. Let me talk to our board.' "

—Dan Fitzpatrick and Dennis K. Berman contributed to this article.

 

Write to Liz Rappaport at [email protected]

[Cknolls]

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith with a moment of non-partisan sanity:

If America Tortures, "I Want Off The Train!"

 

 

 

Until someone hits us again. Then his ass will be asking Wuh happened? and who is to blame?

[Rex Kickass]

There are zero situations which are made better by the presence of additional nuclear armed countries.

 

Ummm, India-Pakistan was actually made more stable, not less by nuclear proliferation.

[Rex Kickass]

According to the BAC CEO, the Obama administration forced his company to choose between breaking the disclosure to shareholders law, and keeping quiet about the problems at Merrill.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045610029046349.html

 

Paulson was Bush's Secretary of Treasury, not Obama's.

 

And this testimony was given in February - although its entirely possible that in the five full days of the Obama administration that this conversation happened where Geithner was not yet sworn in - I'm guessing that wasn't the case.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ummm, India-Pakistan was actually made more stable, not less by nuclear proliferation.

I disagree here. I see no stabilization related to the events. India went nuclear some time in the 80's by most accounts, and wars continued. Paki went more recently, and they still nip at each other. The lack of all out war in recent years is more a factor of lack of central military control in Pakistan, its own fights in the north with Taliban and other tribes, and an economy that was collapsing some time ago.

 

[Balta1701]

I disagree here. I see no stabilization related to the events. India went nuclear some time in the 80's by most accounts, and wars continued. Paki went more recently, and they still nip at each other. The lack of all out war in recent years is more a factor of lack of central military control in Pakistan, its own fights in the north with Taliban and other tribes, and an economy that was collapsing some time ago.

Yeah. For about 5 years there after they both tested their bombs, they were at each other's throats and probably the only thing that stopped them from actually having another war was international intervention. But especially now with the government instability in Pakistan...that situation has perhaps the highest potential for absolute disaster of anywhere in the world.

 

Edit: And that doesn't take in to account the increased possibility of a mistake.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I disagree here. I see no stabilization related to the events. India went nuclear some time in the 80's by most accounts, and wars continued. Paki went more recently, and they still nip at each other. The lack of all out war in recent years is more a factor of lack of central military control in Pakistan, its own fights in the north with Taliban and other tribes, and an economy that was collapsing some time ago.

 

 

I kinda see what he's saying. But that's a unique situation. Pakistan and India have long been at odds and if only one power had the bomb it could be a situation where the country was more aggressive and hostile towards the other. But, that isn't the case so it's just guesswork. That being said, Pakistan is slowly (picking up the pace though recently) becoming more and more regionalized internally amongst warlords and clans, and if that government ever topples, the fact that they and India both have the bomb could be cause for extra worry in that region.

[lostfan]

I kinda see what he's saying. But that's a unique situation. Pakistan and India have long been at odds and if only one power had the bomb it could be a situation where the country was more aggressive and hostile towards the other. But, that isn't the case so it's just guesswork. That being said, Pakistan is slowly (picking up the pace though recently) becoming more and more regionalized internally amongst warlords and clans, and if that government ever topples, the fact that they and India both have the bomb could be cause for extra worry in that region.

Pakistan never really was unified, it's always been less like a state and more like a confederation of independent tribes.

[southsider2k5]

I disagree here. I see no stabilization related to the events. India went nuclear some time in the 80's by most accounts, and wars continued. Paki went more recently, and they still nip at each other. The lack of all out war in recent years is more a factor of lack of central military control in Pakistan, its own fights in the north with Taliban and other tribes, and an economy that was collapsing some time ago.

 

Not to mention the flow of that information and materials to other countries and the destabilization that has had on other parts of the world.

[kapkomet]

Paulson was Bush's Secretary of Treasury, not Obama's.

 

And this testimony was given in February - although its entirely possible that in the five full days of the Obama administration that this conversation happened where Geithner was not yet sworn in - I'm guessing that wasn't the case.

I knew someone would say this. With that said, NOTHING done after the election was done without direct knowledge and approval from Obama's staff.

[Rex Kickass]

I knew someone would say this. With that said, NOTHING done after the election was done without direct knowledge and approval from Obama's staff.

 

That's a load of horsecrap kap. Things were done without direct knowledge and approval frequently - that's done with every administration. Is it possible that Obama knew about this? Yes. Is it possible that Bush knew about this? Yes. Is it possible that it was a snap decision from Paulson? Very yes.

 

I understand wanting to forget about the last 8 years, but moving the goalposts back to November 2008 is just ridiculous.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah. For about 5 years there after they both tested their bombs, they were at each other's throats and probably the only thing that stopped them from actually having another war was international intervention. But especially now with the government instability in Pakistan...that situation has perhaps the highest potential for absolute disaster of anywhere in the world.

 

Edit: And that doesn't take in to account the increased possibility of a mistake.

 

I don't disagree that a nuclear Pakistan is a bad thing. I do, however, feel that mutual nuclear proliferation has led to a more stable relationship between India and Pakistan over the last 15 years, and I feel it exclusive to that relationship only.

[kapkomet]

That's a load of horsecrap kap. Things were done without direct knowledge and approval frequently - that's done with every administration. Is it possible that Obama knew about this? Yes. Is it possible that Bush knew about this? Yes. Is it possible that it was a snap decision from Paulson? Very yes.

 

I understand wanting to forget about the last 8 years, but moving the goalposts back to November 2008 is just ridiculous.

Of course Bush knew about it. Duh. But so did Obama.

[Balta1701]

I don't disagree that a nuclear Pakistan is a bad thing. I do, however, feel that mutual nuclear proliferation has led to a more stable relationship between India and Pakistan over the last 15 years, and I feel it exclusive to that relationship only.

But...that very same nuclear proliferation has not led to a more stable or safer world.

[southsider2k5]

Paulson was Bush's Secretary of Treasury, not Obama's.

 

And this testimony was given in February - although its entirely possible that in the five full days of the Obama administration that this conversation happened where Geithner was not yet sworn in - I'm guessing that wasn't the case.

 

According to the BAC CEO, it was the case.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9042302461.html

 

NEW YORK -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. threatened to remove the management and board of Bank of America unless it acquired ailing investment house Merrill Lynch late last year, according documents released today by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

 

Ken Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, told investigators he wanted to back out of the merger, because "devastating losses" at Merrill Lynch would have been a detriment to his own company, the documents show. But the threat from Paulson changed his mind, Lewis told the attorney general's office.

 

Paulson told New York investigators that he made the threat to remove the leaders of Bank of America at the request of Bernanke, the documents state. The two men were gravely concerned about the danger to the wider financial system.

 

Lewis did not immediately inform shareholders about the losses at Merrill Lynch or the pressure from the federal government.

 

The accounts contained in the documents highlight the lengths to which senior officials have gone in seeking to save the global financial system from collapse -- even if this comes at the expense of disclosing the severity of troubles to shareholders. Some shareholders have claimed that this violated the government's own securities laws requiring the disclosure of information.

ad_icon

 

Bank of America is obligated to inform its shareholders of any decisions that could materially impact the firm's fortunes. Breaking that obligation could make the company legally liable to its shareholders. Even if the action was not illegal, it is already reinforcing shareholder anger about Lewis' leadership. Several prominent shareholder groups are trying to remove Lewis, who serves as the company's chairman and chief executive, from one or both of those roles at the annual meeting next week.

 

Lewis told board members in a Dec. 22 meeting -- eight days before the purchase of Merrill Lynch was to close -- that Fed and Treasury officials had informed him that the board of directors and management of the bank he had presided over for years would be removed if they pulled out of the deal, according to minutes of the board meeting.

 

"The Treasury and Fed are unified in their view that the failure of the Corporation to complete the acquisition of Merrill Lynch would result in systemic risk to the financial system," the minutes read.

 

Lewis told the board that Bernanke had said he had spoken with various other federal regulators, including incoming Treasury officials of the Obama administration, and that all parties had pledged their commitment to provide additional government funds to help Bank of America absorb losses on certain Merrill Lynch assets.

[DukeNukeEm]

Pakistan never really was unified, it's always been less like a state and more like a confederation of independent tribes.

One of the biggest reasons why it wouldn't be necessarily bad if Iran got nuclear weapons. Iran is fairly ethnically diverse, but their constitution is fairly clear about equality between those groups. The CIA has actually tried to destabilize Iran by inciting ethnic tension, and it didn't work. Iran is a strong, democratic and stable country with a loudmouth president who knows better than to match his words with actions, there's not much to be worried about giving them nuclear weapons.

 

Israel being the sole nuclear power in the region is pretty dangerous. The one deterrent they have against using them is losing the support of the United States. If Iran got nukes it would force peace talks on Israel across the board, a lot of concessions by both sides and a huge decrease in violence matched with an increase in diplomacy. The region is a mess, and giving the most established powers on both sides nukes will put everyone on their toes.

 

Most of you are so programmed with the "axis of evil" drilled through your thick skulls that you can under no circumstances view the international system from the lens other than that of an American. It's really a waste of my time to even argue this point.

[DukeNukeEm]

But...that very same nuclear proliferation has not led to a more stable or safer world.

Only once has the been a war between major powers since 1945 (US and China, and it barely counts), that's the longest streak in modern human history.

[lostfan]

Yeah Duke, Iran barely qualifies as a democracy, you should stop citing that as if they were equivalent to Western democracies.

Edited April 23, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

One of the biggest reasons why it wouldn't be necessarily bad if Iran got nuclear weapons. Iran is fairly ethnically diverse, but their constitution is fairly clear about equality between those groups. The CIA has actually tried to destabilize Iran by inciting ethnic tension, and it didn't work. Iran is a strong, democratic and stable country with a loudmouth president who knows better than to match his words with actions, there's not much to be worried about giving them nuclear weapons.

 

Israel being the sole nuclear power in the region is pretty dangerous. The one deterrent they have against using them is losing the support of the United States. If Iran got nukes it would force peace talks on Israel across the board, a lot of concessions by both sides and a huge decrease in violence matched with an increase in diplomacy. The region is a mess, and giving the most established powers on both sides nukes will put everyone on their toes.

 

Most of you are so programmed with the "axis of evil" drilled through your thick skulls that you can under no circumstances view the international system from the lens other than that of an American. It's really a waste of my time to even argue this point.

MMMMMMMMkay. The world is just soooooo Cheeeeer-i-o! The laughable part of this is you are arguing with a guy who knows more on his pinky finger about this then you do (no, not me, I'm just an ignorant average "thick skull", but I guess that doesn't matter). And I know you know lf knows what he's talking about.