Monday, October 11, 2010

Take your time, Mr. Feinberg, take your time.

BP is paying Kenneth Feinberg's law firm, (click title to entry - thank you) Feinberg Rozen, $850,000 a month to administer the $20 billion fund that is compensating victims of the Macondo well spill.

So, let me if I get this correct.  In order for the $20 Billion Trust Fund to be well financed it will NOT come from BP's Treasury, it will come from NEW oil wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

I DON'T THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!

Crimnals.  The halls of Wall Street are lined with criminals.

So, the USA has to TRUST the most ruthless and careless company on Earth.

I demand the payment from BP for the entire amount of $20 billion US NOW. 

BP Pledges Gulf of Mexico Oil Fields to Spill Fund (click here)

1 comment By Sarah Young

October 1, 2010
LONDON (Reuters) - BP, which faces U.S. opposition to drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, named fields there that it will use to help finance its $20 billion fund for victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The oil major on Friday said it would channel revenue from a number of its fields in the Gulf, including Thunder Horse, Atlantis and Mad Dog, into its compensation fund.
"It's quite a clever thing that BP's done which is, here are our deep water Gulf of Mexico assets, and we're pledging overriding royalties as collateral which should suggest to the U.S. administration not to in any way meddle with these facilities," said Seymour Pierce analyst Alan Sinclair.
There have been concerns that the U.S. could ban BP from future drilling after lawmakers in July voted to pass an amendment to a bill that would prevent BP from acquiring new exploration leases after the blow-out at its Macondo well in April....

"Morning Papers" - Its Origins

The Rooster
Maybe next week I'll tackle the issue of the failing health of my father.  That is a big maybe.  I appreciate your continued interest.

There is another collapse waiting just around the corner.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the 'paperwork' was done correctly.  It does have to do with the fact the monies the banks recieved in a bailout has been squandered in other investment that abandoned the USA, its people and its economy.

Paperwork may be in disarray.  BUT, the injustice of what occurred under Paulson's watch in 2008 is sincerely a crime.

Absolutely a crime.  From every reasonable aspect a crime.

Now, the banks are using as an excuse 'paperwork.'  They are going to point to a faulty program that put them at risk again and they are going to ask for another bailout.

I don't think so.

IF, the investment banks 'did the right thing' in the first place and they weren't given a wade of cash to play in the global market, we won't STILL be seeing a 'compounding' of the housing bubble.

That is what this is.  The banks went off to play, their CEOs got their bonuses (After the USA was paid back - they absolutely had to do that.  After all they weren't at fault, it was the stupid and lazy Americans that were at fault.), the USA economy began to shrink as an economic collapse occurred from an UNRESCUED housing market and now the 'compounding' dynamics of 2008 are still knocking at the door.


Because the Bush White House allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to SCAM the American people while intimidating the USA Congress at election time.

Why is the USA still in fiscal trouble?

Because the bailout wasn't about stabilizing the country and protecting national security.  It was about CASH, plenty of it.  It was never about the people of the USA.  It was never about the Middle Class.  It was about wealth.  It was about playing 'the ultimate game' before the regulations returned.

It is my opinion, the USA has been conned by its Former Secretary of the Treasury.


Because he was 'on the inside' and planning 'the escape' of Goldman Sachs from the grip of fiscal obligation to the USA government.

I don't care if any authority cannot touch Paulson.  What is important is that American citizens begin to understand how they are 'assessed' by Wall Street and plotted against, quite literally.

AIG was never a workable strategy.  It gave too much permission for high risk as opposed to actual asset value.  It was a silly idea.  To think investment banks could embark, with abandon, risk and there was an insurance, BANKRUPTCY insurance, waiting at its beckon call.

That is outrageous.

And to KNOW there were CEOs of major investment firms that actually took that capacity seriously from AIG is hideous.

Completely hideous. 

The DOW hit 14,000 alright, but, with no real assets to back it up. 

Speculation has its 'value.'  It is why Wall Street exists.  But, this?  It is completely unconscionable to realize what occurred here and to TRUST all over again.

What is occurring TODAY is a hold by banks of foreclosures.

...Today, Case's mood (click title to entry - thank you) is far more subdued. In scarcely two weeks, he and other housing analysts have watched as the once-staid world of back-office bank procedures has spawned a scandal that threatens to further unhinge the housing market....

Perhaps I have been too abstract in some of my statements, so, let me be more PLAIN.

These are the foreclosures facing the nation in 2008.  Two years ago.  Nothing abstract about that.

What the bank bailout SHOULD HAVE DONE was to 'close the gap' between the cost of the homes and the current market value in 2008 after the bubble broke.

Every homeowner in the USA doing what was expected of them, should have received a 're-valued' mortgage with new 'reduced' monthly mortgage payments.  $700 billion could have done that. 

But, one might say, that would not have saved the banks and we would have experienced an economic collapse anyway and we would be in the same boat we are today.

Not so.

The housing market, if the banks had applied their borrowed monies to the 'ACTUAL' toxic assets would have been buoyed ONLY at a lower 'value.'  Homeowners would lose money, but, they won't have lost their homes and their equity would be somewhat intact.

With homes being owned and not abandoned, the market would have stabilized and the American Dream would be mostly intact, but, with slightly less wealth.

The investment banks on the other hand, would still be here but with loans to pay off.  They would not have paid them off as quickly as they did.

It would have been the banks that felt the biggest pinch.  NOT.  Americans.

What IF the Investment Banks were NOT given CASH as a bailout?

What if instead they were given 'a line of equity' that would 'compensate' them for their losses to be paid back over a period of time?

What if the 'line of credit' given to them 'made up the difference' between the difference in the VALUE of a home that was being abandoned because it was no longer worth what the homeowner paid for it?

What if the banks STILL held a mortgage to the 'devalued'' properties?

What if what occurred was a 'readjustment' of the home's value?

THEN 're-mortgaqge the home at its new value?

 AND all the owners stayed in their homes and began to make payments on the home's NEW VALUE?

Would the economy of the USA still be intact?

Would the value of homes stabilize?

Would the investment banks still be around?

Would they be raking in billions of profits every quarter from their new speculation?

Would their CEOs be receiving their bonuses as their company's assets were 'revalued' as the debt for the OVER SPECULATION was now payable to the USA Treasury over time?

And, would they have 'paid back' the monies as soon as their new speculation 'paid off?'

What was so astounding was 'the game.' The ego driven game. Wall Street had NO CLUE or they were to scared to allow anyone to believe the worst was about to happen.

The man at the head of the OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) was James Gilleran. That’s him holding the chain saw. What’s he doing with the chain saw? He’s “cutting red tape for the financial industry, chopping away regulations, abolishing restrictions”. His four friends in the photo are heads of other regulatory agencies. The photo was taken in 2003 “to highlight the Bush administration’s commitment to reducing regulation”.

Gilleran was appointed to the office of OTS in 2001 by his boss, then Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, a Bush appointee. He had been a heavy contributor to Republican candidates running for office. In his job, Gilleran oversaw thrifts & thrift holding companies worth more than $1 trillion in assets. Does that particular number ring a bell? Two other big banks that failed under the watchful eye of the OTS was IndyMac and Washington Mutual. I’d say OTS is really on top of everything, wouldn’t you?

(Don't get IndyMac confused with FreddyMac.  Two different entities.)

The Dow never reached 14,000 because of Wall Street genius.  It reached it because of lack of it and a lot of hot air and ALL the assets 'in play' from 'The American Dream.'

Dow Reaches & Retreats From 14,000

Tuesday, July 17, 2007
...AL GOLDMAN, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, A.G. EDWARDS: But after you get up to and surpass a big round popular number, you tend to go into a little pause to refresh. So I wouldn't be surprised to see the market do a little siesta for a couple or three days or something like that. But, the trend is up and I assume that the next important stopping point will be 15,000.
PRATT: Bank of America's Joe Quinlan is also in the bullish camp, predicting the Dow will tack on an additional 3 to 5 percent by year end and hit 15,000 in 2008.
JOSEPH QUINLAN, MARKET STRATEGIST, BANK OF AMERICA: I would put the odds at 15,000 on the assumption that U.S. economy continues to expand, the Fed is on hold, interest rates stay in that range bound, say 5.25. We don't think they are going to go much higher than that. I am concerned about oil prices though....

I really want people to think about this. Because. Nothing else makes sense.

When I think of a Bailout, it is suppose to 'recover' an institution so they can find their way out of a fiscal chasm.

When the USA 'bails out' an institution it is NEVER so the institution can simply walk off and specultate some more. 

When the USA 'bails out' an institution is is usually in the best interest of USA Sovereignty. 

National Security. 


The USA Economy.

It does not make sense to me that the Congress of the United States of American would see itself clear to pass on CASH to failed investment banks so they could simply walk away and play on a different playground.


That is exactly what they did.

Now, CASH is a realy interesting concept. Because I strongly believe Alan Greenspan never intended to hurt people.


Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:54pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. spending may have been lifted (click title to entry - thank you) by close to 3 percent a year in recent years as owners tapped the enhanced values of their homes for cash, according to a paper coauthored by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan....

When 'the idea' of expanding the ability of the average American homeowner to 'great wealth' was explored by Greenspan, I really believe he was sort of like Einstein creating the nuclear reaction.  He never intended it for methods of war.  But, it was applied there by someone else.

I think the exploitation by Wall Street has a lot to do with folks that 'train' to work not just for Wall Street, but, to be loaned out to government to 'work the inside.'  The Treasury Departments. 

I also believe Paulson is directly responsible for abandoning the American economy..  Because, I honestly don't believe the Investment Banks were suppose to 'get out of Dodge.'  At least they weren't 'a first glance.'

Step 1 followed by Step 2 followed by Step 3

Assets held by single home owners.


How can Wall Street turn it into equity for itself? 

Liquid equity.  Not just 'holdings' in Real Estate Speculation, but, CASH.

See. This is how institutions like the US Chamber of Commerce works.

Commandment 10:  Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods.

Ah, yes. 

But, that is exactly what this graph shows and if anyone believes it was drawn up for the sake of showing how SMART American homebuyers are, think again.

Because, you see, that 'wealth' the average American calls "The American Dream," doesn't really belong to the owner of the property.  It belongs to the US Chamber of Commerce and ultimately Wall Street.

They covet everything.  They covert every aspect of a person's life.  If there is a way to make a buck, they know about it. 

And you see having all that money as assets to Americans as a retirement fund was simply a waste of money to folks at the US Chamber of Commerce. 

So, how to they move Americans to HAND OVER their 'American Dream?' 

...The rise in the market value of homes (click title to entry - thank you) since the early 1990s has led to a substantial increase in the level of housing wealth (figure 1). However, since the mid-1980s, mortgage debt has grown more rapidly than home values, resulting in a decline in housing wealth as a share of the value of homes (figure 2).

There is broad agreement in the literature that housing wealth supports consumption; however, there is considerable disagreement as to the magnitude of the effect and much debate as to whether the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) out of housing wealth differs from the MPC from financial wealth. There also is disagreement as to whether home equity extraction adds to PCE beyond the traditional wealth effect....

So, Wall Street ended up taking a bath on its own 'risk.'

Basically, after the laws that controlled this entire mess were removed, the 'Egos/CEOs' of Wall Street thought they could handle anything. 

They knew if they became 'to big to fail' the country would have to do something about them.

They were 'eyeing' a bailout the entire time. 

So, while these firms were riding high on nothing but ego, AIG was insuring them to prevent collapse IF the entire 'speculative' mess fell apart.

Now, I am no Wall Street genius.  But, the 'idea' of supply and demand seems relatively simple.  When there is 'a lot' of a product the price comes down and when there isn't enough of a product the price goes up. 

Relatively simple concept.  So, now that ANYONE could 'speculate' by using their home equity as a CREDIT LINE, the 'game began.'  No constraints.  No shoulds or shouldn't.  Simply 'gaming the system' and KNOWING the entire time the worse their 'SPECULATION RATIO' (In some circles called "Margin.") became the more chance existed they would fail. 

And guess what?  It became time for 'Margin Call.'  When the investment banks, except Morgan, couldn't make 'margin call' they turned to AIG to 'pay off on their insurance.'  What a convenience that was.  To simply ride rough shod over the entire system of finance on a global scale and figure if it all feel apart they had their own bailout ready. 

Wow.  No holds barred Wall Street.  How sweet it is.

Well, AIG didn't have enough money.  After all they were speculating too, but, their 'Leverage Ratio' was worse than those they insured.

But we all remember that, right? 

The USA Treasury came riding to the rescue.  The Fed came riding to the rescue.  $700 billion bailout so they could MANAGE their toxic assets (AND NOT ABANDON THEM) and a $1 Tillion 'petty cash' fund so there was no barrier to any recovery.


So.  Like.  What happened?