Back in the fall, you would have thought from the media coverage of the TARP debate and its eventual passage that some sort of crime had been committed when the House didn't pass it the first time around.
"CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric demanded to know from House Minority Leader John Boehner, "What in the world are you people doing?" on her Sept. 29 broadcast. However, there was a side to this that people never were allowed to realize behind closed doors during the debate, as Fox News host Glenn Beck explained.
The "Glenn Beck Show" host on his April 20 program told viewers he had inside knowledge of how the Bush administration strong-armed the banks into agreeing to the terms of the TARP bailout.
"Look, I have friends that were in the room with the Treasury under George W. Bush and when Paulson walked in and said, ‘Gang, here's the deal - you're going to take this and you're going to sign this paper,'" Beck said. "And they said, ‘Well, now wait a minute here - they said you aren't leaving here until you sign this paper.'"
That according to Beck was reminiscent of Mafia tactics.
"This was Mafia," Beck said. "And it was from the Republicans. It was Mafia tactics. Now you can't get out. Now they're not letting some of these banks out of that deal. This was never about anything other than control, was it?"
Beck had compared turn-of-the-century progressivism to the policies President Barack Obama is pursuing. And, according to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the move of the government to become a common stock shareholder from a preferred stock shareholder is a sign of the government trying to strengthen its power over the banking system, or "a backdoor way" of nationalizing the banks.
"But, it really is a dirty deal for taxpayers because what it means is taxpayers actually get dividends from these banks," Bachmann explained. "Once you convert to a common share, the dividends go away - the taxpayers don't get the benefits. The other thing is the taxpayer loses its position to receive money back from the banks, so when the banks do well - if you have preferred shares, the taxpayers would be first in line to get paid back, common shares you don't."
However, the worst part of converting the shares is the power the government will have to exercise over the banks.
"But here's the worst thing about it Glenn - the common shares have the voting rights," Bachmann continued. "So now the federal government will essential vote and own those banks."
Bachmann confirmed Beck's theory of the coercive tactics used originally and explained the potential future consequences of the TARP bailout.
"I think part of the reason is once the government nationalizes and owns these banks, then the government will have the right to say which bank will get more money, which bank won't," Bachmann said. "And don't you see the injection of politics into all of this? So if banks play the political game right with Uncle Sam, they'll get infusions of capital or they pull back."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bachmann
April 20, 2009 - 20:51 ET by mrbillWatch out, Bachmann is crazier than a s**t house rat. She even tops Beck.
Is it just crazy that apparently Im the only one getting dividends on my common stock. Maybe they wont give Bachmann money since she is so crazy and would just lose it.
Dividends...
April 20, 2009 - 21:33 ET by Missouri ConservativeI don't think any of the banks are paying dividends on their common stock anymore, Mr. Bill.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Once again--I point out--
April 20, 2009 - 23:47 ET by misterbillOnce again--I point out--that I am MISTERBILL and I disagree with mrbill. And I most certainly do not take general company seriously and not because he says so.
Tom Blumer--thank you. I am sure you were trying to do your job as a journalist at showing that even the MSM has discussed this, but I do think your information skewers a couple of posters here.
misterbill
April 21, 2009 - 00:23 ET by nofateI saw this trollish impostor and was going to reply to your comment further down the thread, but when I came back to the impostor, you already had the situation well in hand. :-)
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
So Bush forced them to
April 20, 2009 - 21:01 ET by general companyTake the money, and Obama wont let them give it back? Why cant I have that kind of luck.
Beck you should reveal the source or keep it to yourself. Seriously
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
>>>Beck you should reveal
April 20, 2009 - 21:21 ET by seanrobins>>>Beck you should reveal the source or keep it to yourself. Seriously
Why, because YOU say so?
You can believe him, or not.
But do you find it so hard to believe? After all, everyone involved at that level back last Fall was completely out of their minds, and so freakin' desperate to pull this crap over on us. And they succeeded!
So, precisely which part of Glenn's account of the Mafiaesque takeover of our economy do you find hard to believe?
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
I will tell you why
April 20, 2009 - 21:45 ET by general companyBecause that is what the other so called media does, thats why. Wheather it's true or not dont enter into it. If your source wont publicly state it they are suspect.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Now, I really don't get
April 21, 2009 - 06:45 ET by seanrobinsNow, I really don't get this... Unless all of journalism has decided to swear off anonymous and confidential sources. That's never going to happen. And unless you're the New York Times trying to destroy the country (SOP), anonymous sources are often desirable as the only way to get to a story.
Which brings me back to the original point the point that you don't think is the point: Is there any reason to doubt the truth of what's being reported by Glenn.
You have been overall jaded by the MSM's lack of trustworthiness and credibility...and that's a valid concern. But that concern only brings me back to my point: If Glenn reports something based on his sources, does he have the credibility to be believed? Clearly the NY Times does not.
I think GB does.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Also
April 20, 2009 - 21:51 ET by general companyBut do you find it so hard to believe?
None of it. But that isnt the point.
So, precisely which part of Glenn's account of the Mafiaesque takeover of our economy do you find hard to believe?
Little redundent, but, none of it. But that isnt the point.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show"
Bernie Goldberg
You can merely refer back to CNBC's broadcasts that day ....
April 20, 2009 - 21:49 ET by Tom Blumer.... for all the evidence you need. Beck's "revelation" (while a useful reminder, it's not really new info) just confirms what was reported by CNBC at the time.Video is still there.
Tom
April 20, 2009 - 23:50 ET by nofateThanks for that link. Since I am a mind numbed robot, I came to NB because of Rush, and he was telling the same story at the time, sourcing unnamed persons that he knew that were at the meeting.
This video is interesting for the point of view of several of the participants. I transcribed a portion of it that caught my ear:
I about dropped my jaw on the floor when I heard that. Later, one of the participants said,
The entire conversation was enough to make me want to barf, especially in light of what we know now, that Obama and crew are in the process of taking over as much of the economy as they can get their hands on, and they have no plans to give it back, even if the recipients of federal largesse want to repay.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Judge Napolitano talked about this a month ago
April 21, 2009 - 07:11 ET by PopularTechFNC's Napolitano Claims Bush Administration Committed 'Extortion' Against Banks
Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates To Skyrocket"
I believe it
April 21, 2009 - 08:07 ET by MazziThis basic story came out right after the fateful weekend when the deal was done. If I recall correctly Wells-Fargo (and a couple of others - I am working from memory here) said "nah, thanks - we don't need the money", and they said that they were not permitted to leave the meeting until they signed on the line.
Mafia tactics may be a bit of a dramatic way to put it, but it is fairly certain that the story is true - even if the main players have realized that they better shut up. Judging fromwhat happened at GM, they have good reason to only discuss this "off the record" at this point.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
oops
April 21, 2009 - 08:08 ET by MazziI should have read all the comments before I posted. Thanks for the video link.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
And now, apparently,
April 20, 2009 - 22:00 ET by motherbeltAnd now, apparently, President Obama and his cronies don't even want them to repay the loans.
Instead, they want an equity share in the banks:
Converting those loans to common shares would turn the federal aid into available capital for a bank — and give the government a large ownership stake in return.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
And they say with a straight face...
April 20, 2009 - 23:37 ET by mizflame98that the government have no intention of running the banks. Anyone who believes anything the Obama administration says has to be a simpleton.
“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
Jeff -- This serves to confirm what CNBC blithely reported ....
April 20, 2009 - 21:46 ET by Tom Blumer.... in mid-October, and which I noted here at NewsBusters and at BizzyBlog ("CNBC: Paulson ‘Put a Gun to All Their Heads’").
Partially transcribed from the CNBC broadcast (video is still there):
I knew I had heard this
April 20, 2009 - 21:57 ET by general companybefore, I had just forgotten where. This whole thing stunk to high heaven and still does.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
this is common knowledge now
April 20, 2009 - 21:54 ET by candanceGlenn Beck isn't just flapping his gums. NB reported on this several months ago, I remember. It really did happen that way.
So???
April 20, 2009 - 22:07 ET by kilrodSo, why aren't we protesting this "gun to head" business. If it's wrong it's wrong even if the repubs did it. I think the "one world gov." was alive and well long before o-Dumb-uh and the dimocraps took over.
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
agreed kilrod
April 20, 2009 - 22:13 ET by candanceIt's all fun and games when Beck says something, but when he turns out to be right people suddenly care.
A lot of people had a hard time thinking Bush would really allow that to happen. But he did. And the truth needs to come out so that Bush can be rightly judged in history.
The Obvious
April 20, 2009 - 21:55 ET by slickwillie2001Obviously if Beck reveals his sources, or if the sources provide their own press release, the Bamster will fire them. Funny how keeping one's sources confidential is a sacred right of journalists, but only when they are liberal journalists.
This is not a new story either; an April 4th WSJ article by Stuart Varney who also works at the Fox Business Network first pointed out how banks were blackmailed into taking TARP money. This is how the Bamster is pushing his fascist program on America.
Ref: Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks: http://online.wsj.com
Good point
April 20, 2009 - 22:01 ET by general companyObviously if Beck reveals his sources, or if the sources provide their own press release, the Bamster will fire them.
This is a verygood point, I had not thought of that,,,,,, being an American.
: [
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Confused...
April 20, 2009 - 22:19 ET by AFClonebut when aren't I?
If this happened under Paulson's watch and nobody has been hired for the Treasury except Geitner, how can the source be fired? I thought they all left.
I beleive they were refering
April 20, 2009 - 22:24 ET by general companyTo bank employees being fired, that is certanly how I took it. BTW
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Ah, that makes sense
April 20, 2009 - 22:26 ET by AFCloneI was thinking Treasury department, not the banks.
Re Bank Employees
April 21, 2009 - 00:04 ET by slickwillie2001Yes, that is the way I took it. I recall Varney on TV discussing this, and Beck more recently discussing it, and from the articles written, and I took it to mean that bank executives, if not CEOs, had confided in folks from FBN/WSJ.
Why don't the banks fight it? Fear. If they fight, the government can destroy the bank through their audit process, the stock will crash, they can fire the executives, they can illegally clawback salaries and bonuses, they can have Barney Fwank subpoena them for which they need $$$ lawyers, and then they can send the ACORN bus goons to their neighborhoods to harrass them after Barney gives them the right addresses to go to. And we will pay for ACORN. This can all happen in a week.
And if a judge somewhere decides to hear their case, it might come to trial in 2011. By then it won't matter. In general the courts are not going to be of any use in slowing the Bamster's fascist takeover; they move far too slowly to be of any help.
Considering the light of this
April 21, 2009 - 06:36 ET by general companyI have changed my mind about the anonymaous sources in this case. But if I were the Banks, I would fight it regaurdless, the public would take their side once they saw our Gov. removing them from their offices. The thought of this makes me ill.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
um....
April 20, 2009 - 22:27 ET by candanceThere are lots of reasons why someone would want to stay private. If you were in their shoes, especially seeing what happened to the AIG executives, would you want your name being broadcast all over the internet?
Most of the political stories we read come from unnamed sources. The story about Rahm Emmanuel having secret meetings with reporters, that was a Politico story from an anonymous person "close to the situation." I never heard anyone here demand Politico start naming names. That's just one example - there are dozens more.
What I see here is a lot of sour grapes because it's embarrassing to Bush.
That is not my problem
April 20, 2009 - 22:38 ET by general companyWhat I see here is a lot of sour grapes because it's embarrassing to Bush.
Not my reason, what keeps the msm from saying what ever they want,,,oh they do. That is why we are all here.
The only articals I notice that DONT reveal sources are old media. Fox may do it, by I dont see "unnammed source" or "source close to what ever"in their articals.
Am I wrong here?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
My other two cents
April 20, 2009 - 22:39 ET by AFClone(If I keep this up, I'll have to ask for a bailout from the Govt)
First, no, I would hate to get noticed by the media. Joe the Plumber proved that.
Second, I personally don't like anonymous sources. I understand the reasoning but it is a little annoying to see "a member close to the situation but asks not to be named because they are not authorized" in military articles or political "secrets". What happened to the backbone of America? If you feel the information needs to be out to the public, then accept the consequences or keep your mouth shut.
But that's just my opinion. Which I have a right to, and you have a right to ignore it. At least for this month.
this
April 20, 2009 - 22:15 ET by katainkentthis is old news, yes?
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
I wonder
April 20, 2009 - 22:28 ET by RESTLESS 1With both republican and democrat adminstrations pushing this on us, will this be the event that unites the country in a way those bloodsuckers on Capitol Hill won't like?
It doesn't matter who controls congress or holds the presidency, we all get screwed in the end.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Sounds plausible. Bush's
April 20, 2009 - 22:28 ET by RR GOPSounds plausible.
Bush's strong suit wasn't economics and I think he received bad advice from Paulson.
After the '80s/'90s S&L bailouts it should be more than apparent that government 'help' is less than helpful.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Never forget that we have since learned that Geithner was ....
April 20, 2009 - 23:08 ET by Tom Blumer.... in the background during all of this as head of the Fed in New York making his expert suggestions as to what Paulson should do.
Geithner's role has been cited in lots of places. It was considered a plus(!) during the runup to his confirmation.
I'm willing to bet
April 20, 2009 - 23:24 ET by nwahsI'd bet Glenn Beck is the first talk show host to take hostages live on the air. The guy is keeping company with the fleas in a flea circus.
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
did you even read the rest of this?
April 20, 2009 - 23:35 ET by candanceCNBC reported this exact same thing weeks ago. I suppose next you will be telling us that Erin Burnett is an unhinged kook.
Troll Alert
April 21, 2009 - 00:07 ET by nofateHere's what nwahs does if you annoy him. Then he runs and hides under his bridge. He's a slimy little troll. He's still looking for his "precious".
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I stand by that email
April 21, 2009 - 08:41 ET by nwahsYou are too stupid to be arrogant. I didn't want to contribute to the 87 flame posts that come whenever there is disagreement, so I emailed you instead of reponding to your adolescent insults in the thread. I email others and get emails . But unlike you, while I expect no privacy in email, I bend over backward to respect other people's privacy. I also don't advertise other blogs in my sig.
Some respect others, some don't. Guess where you fit in?
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
sorry backward shawn
April 21, 2009 - 08:48 ET by candanceThis isn't about simple disagreement. You showed up here, both guns blazing, calling Norman a foul mouthed nut job and comparing him to cult members.
And I know that you did that purposely to be provacative. You edited that post to add the remark about Branch Davidians. Apparently you felt that your first comment wasn't snarky enough.
Don't try to play the victim now.
How am I playing victim?
April 21, 2009 - 09:13 ET by nwahsVictim of what? Where do you think I'm playing victim. I was making a point that most people don't use private messages in threads and most people don't leech of another's blog to advertise their own.
I'm certainly not embarrassed by that private message. It was succinct.
I sure don't feel victimized.
Is Norman the guy in the yellow jacket? Who was the guy walking around with a flag and pushing it into peoples faces when they were trying to talk? Think he was a nut job or just rude?
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
Here's the video I'm talking about
April 21, 2009 - 09:27 ET by nwahshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
This is not a CNN video. This is a private video. You have the guy in the yellow jacket (Norman?) using the F-word , another lady rudely pointing her finger in the face of the reporter while spouting a conspiracy theory, and some lady shouting "You telling everyone that we're bad people!"
The article that did not link to the video I just showed you, left all of this out. The people in the video I just linked to, were not acting stable. They appeared to be rude, and slightly off.
What do you think about this video?
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
OMO
April 21, 2009 - 09:48 ET by candanceAsking if I ever saw that video? Um, duh NB had it up within hours of the incident. Everyone has seen that video.
That's kind of *why* I told you on the other thread that they rightly lost their tempers. When Roesgen approached him, he politely began making a point about Abe Lincoln. After six seconds she pulled away the mic and tried to argue with him. Then she informed her audience that the crowd was a bunch of right wing kooks organized by Fox News. If a reporter showed up and treated you that way I very much doubt you would want them there.
She wanted to debate them, and when that didn't work she blatantly insulted them. That was the source of the anger.
The fact is
April 21, 2009 - 11:18 ET by nwahsThe reporter pulled away when the guy in the yellow jacket got in a confrontation with the guy draping everyone with that yellow flag. Thats what happened. And NewsBusters did not put up that behind the scenes video I posted.
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
really?
April 21, 2009 - 11:27 ET by candanceNewsBusters did not put up that behind the scenes video I posted.
Are you sure?
We have two possibilities here:
1) You are willfully flapping your gums in ignorance.
2) You are willfully being dishonest.
Either way, my point still stands. She interrupted him to start a debate and then brushed off the crowd as a bunch of anti-government right wingers.
Come on nwahs, I know lefties can do better than this. We need a better class of troll here.
I missed that
April 21, 2009 - 19:07 ET by nwahsI didn't see that when I first read the blog. I probably missed it or it might have been edited later. NewsBusters usually notes if a blog is edited, so I probably missed it.
The point is she stopped talking with the guy when the guy started talking to someone else in the interview. She has more patience than me. No one would shake their finger in my face for very long. Its an attempt to menace someone, and no one should take that crap.
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
fact?
April 21, 2009 - 11:30 ET by katainkentmy opinion is that the gentleman with the yellow flag was attempting to calm the man down in front of the camera. The older gentleman likely knew that the "reporter" was going to spin this man's anger exactly the same way you have.
You get angry with people that post on this board (not even face to face) and you call them names and you have no idea how this man could possibly get more than a little outraged with this reporter?
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
And then, when they cut
April 21, 2009 - 11:21 ET by nofateAnd then, when they cut back to the main feed, the anchorette babe stated something like "Yeah, that's the kind of thing we are seeing all over the country" which tells poor souls that don't watch anything but MSNBC and CNN that we're all kooks. Fair and balanced as always.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Wah!!! I Wants Me Precious Back!
April 21, 2009 - 11:17 ET by nofateAs before:
"I bend over backward to respect other people's privacy." Right. You use the cloak of what you perceive as "privacy" to insult me where no one else can see it. Why don't you just do it out in the light of day like the rest of us? If I don't agree with you, I can expect hateful e-mails, using the NB backchannel? And I'm supposed to keep that secret? Sorry, I didn't join that club. You oughta be glad I'm not pressing the issure with the Administrators for abuse of the system. But I would rather have you and trolls like you out in the open where everyone can see what you are.
"I also don't advertise other blogs in my sig." What the hell does that mean? NB places a heading up there that says "My Other Sites". You have a problem with that? Talk to the Administrators of the site.
" ...I emailed you instead of reponding to your adolescent insults in the thread.." Adolescent insults? Let's count em:
And that's just in the two or three comments within this thread. You are an adolescent insult to this site. In other words, a TROLL. And, in your own words, you "wast bandwidth". You are a waste of bandwidth, and you will notice I did not try to send that privately in an e-mail, Gollum, er, nwahs.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I stand by my private message to you
April 21, 2009 - 18:59 ET by nwahsI wasn't private messaging that observation to use a "cloak."
(I find it hilarious you think I was). I PM'd you because it was off topic, but I can see you're lost somewhere in Middle Earth.
Just curious, since we are way, way off topic. Are you a fan of of the movies or the books? Why did they drop Tom Bombadil and what the heck was he?
Let's waste time, chasing cars, around our heads
Some things never change-----------
April 20, 2009 - 23:52 ET by misterbillSome things never change-----------
Garofalo you!
mrbill OPPS misterbill,
April 21, 2009 - 01:24 ET by upcountrywateryea EVIL is well EVIL sorta like gravity, always around.
this trollster Backwards to some, more of a reversal to me@ 8 sec.
Just maybe his half life here, is well close to reverting to electron dust, as many others that have followed, wobbing left in a blinding fog
I'm liking... Garofalo you!
not directed at you, mb..lolol
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Rupert Pupkin
April 21, 2009 - 05:45 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI'd bet Glenn Beck is the first talk show host to take hostages live on the air.
No, that would be Rupert Pupkin.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
These
April 21, 2009 - 00:15 ET by justmecomments have been very useful! I was having a discussion the other day with a friend and shared that the banks were forced to take the money, but she couldn't buy it. I couldn't recall were to find the info and forgot to continue pursuing it. I just emailed her the link to the cnbc video. THANKS.
Curious
April 21, 2009 - 08:46 ET by bioteachedCouldn't we the people essentially make this bank takeover null and void if we all just decided not to do business with government owned banks? If everyone that had an account with a bank that was soon to be government owned moved their account to a bank that did not take TARP money, what leverage would the government have over us?
I am very serious here. I would like to see a response from the Newsbusters community on this one as I see the collective thought process as beneficial (plus, I am sure there are people that are smarter than I and with more insight into this issue on these message boards).
Thank you in advance for any response.
it isn't that simple
April 21, 2009 - 09:09 ET by candanceFirst of all, the government has targeted banks that were "too big to fail" precisely because they have huge investments in our economy. They currently own loans on restaurants and other small businesses - it would be impossible for us to avoid them altogether.
Second, the large banks set the tone for how the banking industry operates. Small banks and lenders take loans from the big guys all the time, and the fed already controls the interest charged on those loans. So not only would you have to avoid the big ones, you would have to avoid any bank, car dealership, mortgage company, or anyone else who was backed by them.
Third, the government has ways of assuring a solid lender will go bankrupt, which we saw when lawyers were suing Countrywide over mortgage rejections ten years ago. The plan is to smother competition out of the industry and then force banks like CitiGroup to buy them out.
Number four, a lot of the TARP money is also being spent on banks overseas, which they could use to buy American property or shares in the American stock market.
govt.
April 21, 2009 - 09:21 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby This is NOT what WE elected them to do.