Is Henry Paulson Stupid or A Robber Baron Doppleganger?

by Trish Purcell   That is a rhetorical question because the overall effect of what Henry Paulson has done so far benefits the financial market and makes it pretty clear that he is not stupid. What it makes just as clear is that Paulson is not concerned with the common good of the people of America. If he is concerned, as he claims, about the taxpayers: Why is it that Britain's Gordon Brown got voting rights at the banks that they bailed out, seats on the boards, and 12 percent dividends for UK taxpayers, but Hank Paulson got no voting rights, no seats on the board, and only 5 percent for US taxpayers? Why is it that Gordon Brown got it in writing that the banks had to start lending the money they got, but Henry Paulson, didn't get it in writing, and the banks are not lending? Why is it that we know investment in high risk complex financial instruments created this economic meltdown but Henry Paulson is not telling banks that the bailout money is contingent on their agreement to desist from such risky investments? Why is it that we had to bailout some banks because they were too big to be allowed to fail, and then Henry Paulson pushed through a tax windfall for banks that encourages them to buy other banks which creates even bigger banks? Why is it that Treasury is supposed to be handling the bailout but is actually outsourcing the job to the Bank of New York Mellon, essentially privatizing our Treasury? Why is it that the taxpayers were promised transparency in the bailout but rather than making information available, things like the amount paid to the Bank of New York Mellon for handling the mechanics of the bailout and the hourly billing rate of the law firm contracted for the equity deals, are blacked out in documents available to the public?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18748