Bailout Cannot Not Be Reviewed By Any Court Of Law - There Will Be No Accountability.
This little tidbit can be found buried in Section 8 of the bailout wording as it stands today:
“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
So what do some people have to say about this? Personally, I like what Kuttner said about this plan:
“The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street’s dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson — a provision that evokes the Bush administration’s suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security.”
Yep, they want the bailout unchallengeable in court and devoid of any and all oversight. This is what we are dealing with here everyone - a continuation of governmental secrecy, even when it comes to taking money out of our pocket and handing it over to private companies and CEO’s. They want complete authority to do what they please with our money, without providing a single upside to the American taxpayer, while also protecting themselves from any future lawsuits - no matter what happens.
Popularity: 4% [?]
You might also like:
- Someone Is Finally Looking Into Accountability On Wall Street.
- Fed Bailout Now To Include Foreign Banks; Will Amount To $1.8 Trillion.
- Interactive Map of Bailout Recipients.
- Don’t Like The Bailout? Here Is The Contact Information For Your Senator.
- Some Economic Facts From Mother Jones.
Miranda | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
This. Is. Outrageous.
There are no other words to describe this blatant power grab. It cannot be allowed to happen.
cwaltz | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
From what I understand it isn’t just Democrats. The very conservative are also not happy.
Miranda | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
You’re right cwaltz. Fiscal conservatives are in fits over this. The Dems main complaint is that it doesn’t help “regular” Main Street folk. Those in the GOP that oppose just think it’s downright irresponsible. And in a lot of ways — against my usual inclinations — I sort of agree with the conservatives.
david | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
It is irresponsible no matter who gets the blame or who doesn’t like it. But guess who has been driving the boat lately?
Frugal Dad | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
@Miranda (and others): I haven’t agreed with much out of the Republicans here lately (and I declare myself a “Conservative”), but I have to say I am glad that both parties are challenging this bailout–even if they are doing it for different reasons. This is bordering on the ridiculous!
Pinyo | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
I watched Pres. Bush’s speech. If his concern is about not having money to lend to average American, I don’t see why we have to bail out the big financial institution. $700 billion could be made available through other institutions.
I say let the rich people who made mistakes pay the price.
Fit Wallet | Sep 25, 2008 | Reply
I think this is just absurd, irresponsible, and flat-out wrong. I haven’t met one person yet who thinks a no-questions-asked, no oversight emergency bailout is a good idea.
david | Sep 25, 2008 | Reply
Amen Pinyo, Amen.
Dan | Sep 25, 2008 | Reply
VoteNoBailout.org
Peggy McGilligan | Sep 30, 2008 | Reply
Did you know many of the fat cats who circulate from board to board and from job to job throughout the financial industry are also members of the Bilderberg Group and or the Trilateral Commission, founded respectively in 1954, and in 1973, in New York City? When someone takes your money and steals your car, it makes an impression. When they belong to such a shadowy political clique, it leaves an indelible impression. Many elected officials even belong to these cabals, hence the secrecy. When Bill Clinton eased banking restrictions, he dished out $8-billion dollars for “community reinvestment loans.”
When the financing schemes fell through, as is their wont whenever 30-million Mexican nationals buy inflated properties and default, it left banks in the lurch. Hillary Clinton counted on the Politically Correct loan giveaways to buy votes. Interestingly enough, had Hillary secured the nomination; she, instead of Barack Obama would preside over the bailout. So, where’s that $8-bilion plus dollars? Where’s Hillary? Why the caveat in Section 8 of the bailout: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency?”
The Global Initiative people (code speak for car thieves) took my money; they stole my car. If you or I did half the things these people have done, we’d be serving consecutive life sentences. Wise up, get angry, and let the bubble burst. Besides, Ben Stein says we’re going to be just fine. You have my word on it too. Gentlemen, I want my money back. “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.” –Andrew Jackson, to fraudulent financiers, 1832: http://theseedsof9-11.com