The Seattle-based Washington Mutual Bank is shut down by the FDIC. The Raiders from the last Great Depression, JP Morgan, Strike Again. Have you protected yourself?
As foretold in my last article Yes, West Virginia, There is a Banking, Housing, and Financial Crisis – FDIC Closes Ameribank, Washington Mutual failed Thursday, September 25 per this New York Times article. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair stated that it was a rapidly deteriorating condition that forced the FDIC to move in before Friday. The failure of the $307 billion lender is the largest in American history.
JP Morgan Chase moved in and purchased the bank in a secret shotgun sale done at the cigar-smoke-filled betting saloon that passes for Washington DC these days. The move is definitely excellent news for the FDIC as JP Morgan Chase will absorb the $31 billion loss towards insuring the deposits that would have fell to the FDIC. A hit of this magnitude would have sunk the FDIC funds into the $10-15 billion range, a 75% drop since the start of 2008. We taxpayers can thank the lucky stars that JP Morgan Chase moved in, or can we? Keep your ears pealed for more details on the deal made by the Washington insiders with this bank. JP Morgan Chase devoured failed investment bank Bear Stearns in another shady dealing earlier this year. Here is Dr. Ellen Brown’s idea on what transpired there.
His latest courageous action has been to go after Washington for it’s epidemic Wall Street bailouts.
United States District Court in Albany seeking to halt the execution of the emergency bailout of Wall Street insurance giant American Insurance Group, AIG. On Wednesday, Schulz filed a second federal lawsuit seeking to block the larger Wall Street bank bailout currently being negotiated through the U.S. Congress.
Yesterday, while ignoring the dissimilar legal issues raised in the two lawsuits, the U.S. District Court issued an Order combining the two cases into a single case and denying the applications for injunctive relief requested. The Court, in effect, ducked a judicial (and very public) hearing to examine the critical legal question at the heart of the bailouts: What Constitutional authority exists for the U.S. Government or Federal Reserve to use public (taxpayer) funds for definitively private purposes?
Again, what legal authority allows the U.S. Government to directly purchase the distressed assets and contracts of privately owned Wall Street firms for the express purpose of mitigating their private investment risks and losses?
Together, the lawsuits assert that the commitment of public funds and credit for the direct benefit of privately owned banks is an ultra vires act by the United States Government and Federal Reserve, i.e., beyond the limited legal authority granted by the Constitution. Both lawsuits had asked for a “show cause” hearing demanding that the Government defendants produce evidence of their alleged legal authority to commit public funds for such purposes, as well as emergency and permanent injunctions halting the bailout efforts.
If you are interested in the full story, including why the Courts fearfully dismissed the lawsuits erroneously, as well as what you can do about it, then please click here.
As George Will said on ABC following the debate, “They argued about $18 billion of earmarks and that is only a rounding error compared to the full budget”. Too true George. That statement alone sums up the entire debate. The debate was predictable and will amount to nothing more than a “rounding error” in the grand scheme of the election. Now (and I have to say it) wouldn’t it have been more interesting to have a couple other voices on that stage? If there’s one thing that I learned from the debate it was this: Oh how I miss Ron Paul. Bob Barr could have been that Paul-like voice, but that was more than an uphill battle to begin with.
I thought Obama was slightly better and seemed more genuine, but that’s no surprise. Now the media pundits discuss the “effectiveness” of the debate and claim there was no “clear winner”.
In my mind there is certainly a clear loser… the American people. The candidates argued about who’s intervention was better. They argued about who should be taxed. They both agreed on most of the larger issues. No wonder some are having problems choosing between them.
There was no mention of the document one of them will pledge to defend and uphold upon taking office. It’s almost like the Constitution has become a dirty word to them. It is the new “third rail” of politics.
I wonder if they will modify the oath of office and change the word “Constitution” to the following:
“the old irrelevant document that I will ignore even though it is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.”
At least then, we’d get some honesty from our politicians.
We had the live blog open for commentary on the first debate between Obama and McCain. For a transcript of our comments and several of our readers check out the link below.
Over at The Liberty Papers, there’s a call for supporters of Ron Paul and Bob Barr to overlook the minor differences and focus on the majority of the issue on which the two candidates agree, such as freedom, liberty, and a smaller, Constitutional government.
Whether you consider yourself a libertarian (big “L” or small “l”), classical liberal, a Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan/Ron Paul Republican, Objectivist, or just simply want less government and more freedom we should always remember that there is far more which unites us than divides us. This is not to suggest that these finer points of these philosophies are not important—they are. The foes of liberty in the Democrat and Republican Parties want us to be divided. As long as we fight amongst ourselves, we are marginalized and they win. I think George Phillies said it best at the ’08 Libertarian National Convention: “The enemy is not in here, the enemy is out there!”
The liberty movement is much bigger than the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Lew Rockwell, Cato, or Reason. All have made an invaluable contribution to the cause of liberty and should be applauded for their efforts. Let’s not lose sight of the big picture.
I happen to agree with this sentiment. We have so much more to gain by doing so.
“Party is the madness of many for the gain of a few.”
– Alexander Pope
Subject: Messages to Congress running as high as 300 to 1 against the bailout
First the Republicans were for it (the Big Bailout), and then they were against it. What happened?
What happened is YOU, and others like you, pounding on Congress to NOT pass the Big Bailout.
There were constant reports on CNBC yesterday, and in other places, that calls and messages to Congress were running roughly 300 to 1 against the Big Bailout. This is what made the Republicans reverse course.
Your messages and calls to Congress do make a difference!
But pressure from powerful special interests also has an impact, so we must maintain OUR pressure.
It would also help to provide Congress with an alternative plan that is better than the Big Bailout. Fortunately, we can do that. All Congress has to do is remove the mark-to-market accounting rule, and replace it with a “discounted cash flow” accounting rule. Doing so would . . .
Newt Gingrich has some pretty strong words for the Secretary of the Treasury, Wall Street, both mainstream Presidential candidates, and especially Congress.
“I think this is going to be a nightmare to implement and I believe it is about as bad as anything I’ve seen in economic policy…”
“This idea that we’re gonna buy the paper and some bureaucrat in Washington is gonna be responsible for $700 Billion in bad paper… I think is Socialism at it’s worst. I can’ imagine why this Administration is doing it. I think it is profoundly wrong, and I hope it is defeated if it comes to the Floor in this form.”
“Let’s start with putting under oath some of the members of Congress… I mean, Senator Dodd, who will presumably be helping write this bill, was the largest single recipient of money from both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… Senator Obama was second… uh, Senator Clinton was the largest recipient from Lehman Brothers. Senator Obama was second. I think Congress ought to also be under investigation. If… if we’re gonna look at greed, let’s look at politicians, as well as the people who gave to them.”
And then, of course, I couldn’t help but chuckle as Hannity goes out of his way to talk over Newt and says, “I don’t wanna interrupt you, but…”
Ron Paul appeared yet again on FOX with Neil Cavuto yesterday. He seemed surprised and happy that the bailout talks have stalled. Let’s hope the talks stay that way. Watch Ron do what he does best below.
There will be no Bob Barr or Ron Paul, but we will be live blogging the first Presidential Debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. This is of course, assuming John McCain actually participates and the debate takes place.
Mike Miller and I, Marc Gallagher, will provide our commentary together as we watch the debate live. Feel free to participate with us beginning tonight at approximately 8:45pm (EST). We welcome any and all comments from our readers during the event.
Hopefully, we can remain civil with the big government rhetoric we are likely to hear from the two establishment candidates. Wouldn’t it be better if they included a few of the other third party candidates like Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney?
The live blog transcript will remain here following the debate for future reference.
Here is Bob Barr’s appearance on CNN American Morning emphasizing his opposition to the government bailouts. “We don’t need more government!” He says. Well Bob, I agree.
Liberty Maven
Follow LM on Twitter