Did Mike Castle Help Funnel Money Into Foreign Banks ?
Aug 13th, 2010 by Frank Knotts
Tens of billions of U.S. dollars have flowed from the U.S. into big foreign banks in France, Germany, Switzerland, Britain and even Canada. And Mike Castle was a part of making it happen.
That’s right, due to the TARP bailout money that was approved in 2008 by congress,which Mike Castle voted for, tens of billions of U.S taxpayer dollars have been funneled overseas to bail out foreign banks.
The foreign banks that benefitted from the TARP money include the French bank, Societe Generale which received $11.9 billion. Another French bank, BNP received $ 4.9billion. The German bank, Deutsche Bank received $11.8 billion. With billions more going to other banks around the world.
How did this happen? Well we find out by looking to a Congressional Oversight Panel report that was released on Thursday August the 12th.
In the report we find that TARP funding and also the stimulus package ,went to failing groups such as AIG. Once AIG received $182 billion dollars, the money began to flow overseas to banks who had investments in AIG.
Somewhere around half of the eighty-seven banks and investment firms who would have lost billions without the AIG bailout money were headquartered overseas.
The report seems to suggest that there was no data about where the money was going.
The report also states that when the U.S. injected hundreds of billions of TARP dollars to stabilize the U.S. financial system in 2008, it also bailed out more than forty major institutions overseas, that had invested in collateralized debt obligations and mortgaged securities. Since it seems as if the U.S. has spent the bulk of the money for the global bailout , why don’t we look at how much some of our global neighbors, who benefited from TARP, spent within their own borders, of their own money.
The Oversight Report states that the TARP money benefited these countries more than their own money. Well paint me shocked! You mean that if someone gives you money it benefits you? How long has this been going on.
France spent $35 billion in-house and Germany spent $$133 billion of their own money.
All of this, while the situation that TARP was intended to head off here at home has worsened. Neither TARP, nor the $862 billion dollar stimulus has helped to turn around the failing U.S economy.
With all economic indicators such as unemployment numbers, the Dow Jones and others showing the real possibility that we could see a double dip recession, is this the best time to be sending money overseas? Let us look at reports such as July’s foreclosure rate, it marked the seventeenth consecutive month when it exceeded 300,000 homes. We have also had near record levels of bank repossession, which increased for eight months in a row. Does this sound like the economic turn around that those who push for and or voted for TARP promised. I think not.
So did Rep. Mike Castle help to funnel money to foreign banks? Well since he voted for TARP, I would say that his finger prints are all over this.
Let’s review a few things. The report says that there didn’t seem to be any data on where the TARP money was actually going. Mike Castle still voted for TARP. Mike Castle voted for a government program that funneled hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the banking industry, which then funneled billions of tax payer dollars overseas.
All of this while Mike Castle was a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, and still he voted for TARP, even though he didn’t know exactly where hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were going.
So once more, he voted for TARP, which resulted in taxpayer money going to the banking industry. But it didn’t do what they said it would. In fact it may have worsened the recession as many leading economist believe, and lead to the record number of foreclosures and repossessions. This could explain why Mr. Castle’s campaign financial report is populated by so, so many donations from those within both the banking industry and the bankruptcy law sector.
I suggest those interested, should go to http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&type=I&cid=N00009775&newMem=N&recs=20 and check out just the top ten contributors. You will find names like,”Young, Conaway et al”, “Richards, Layton & Finger”, “Morris, Nichols et al”, “ Ernst & Young“ .
I suggest you google these names and see just what type of law they practice.
So in a nut shell, Mike Castle voted for TARP sending billions into the banking industry(AROUND THE WORLD IT WOULD SEEM), while adding to the number of bankruptcies, while receiving donations to his campaign from banks and Law firms that operate within the financial sector, all while being a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. Okay, you decide.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DelawarePolitics.net, Jason C O'Neill. Jason C O'Neill said: RT @delpolitics: Did Mike Castle Help Funnel Money Into Foreign Banks ?: Tens of billions of U.S. dollars have flowed from the U…. http://bit.ly/cVLzdq [...]
Frank
Good posting!
While all of this is informative, it certainly isn’t shocking. Making sure that American banks fail and foreign banks succeed is part of Obama’s master scheme to take the US down a peg or two before he destroys our military.
When one broadens their view and looks at the larger picture on a global level, it becomes understandable from Obama’s point of view.
That Castle is falling in step with the democrats is also understandable. He never was a conservative. Even he says he is a moderate and that means liberal, but I never thought, until now that he was actually guilty of treason.
Castle took an oath when he was sworn in, to protect the United States against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic. Obama has become a domestic enemy and seeks to weaken and destroy America. His actions are obvious, powerful, well-planned and destructive and Castle is right on board with his policies. His voting record proves it.
Well, we have the chance to take him out with this election. We can vote for O’Donnell in the primary and I believe she can easily beat coons with republican support.
Oh Yes! That’s the key, even if Christine wins the primary the Top Elephant’s will once again shoot themselves in the foot and not support the republican candidate. They done that for years and we can’t expect any different this time. I wonder who’s payroll they are on.
Gee, last time I checked, TARP was a Republican bill enacted under a Republican president. Moreover, for you anti-Tarp folks out there, ask yourself this: what would have happened without Tarp? The evidence is pretty clear. The entire banking system was teetering on the brink (how quickly we forget). Tarp stabilized many banks, restored some needed confidence and equilibrium to the system, and averted what could have been a financial meltdown of biblical proportions.
While like many of you I am not a fan of big government, and like many government programs, Tarp was far from perfect in its execution (there’s a surprise), sometimes government regulatation and intervention really is necessary. Sometimes the market really doesn’t work and there is a need for government. At the federal level, we need a military, and a state department, and a postal service (or at least, historically we needed a postal service, maybe it could be replaced today but that’s a different story). We need an SEC that provides some basic regulation of the securities market and public offerings (although like many government programs, the SEC has its excessives). We need health inspectors for restaurants and some level of the FDA to inspect and monitor food processing. Let me respectfully suggest that Tarp, while obviously distasteful to many (myself included) was nevertheless necessary. Just imagine the catastrophic results in one of the largest insurance companies in the world (AIG) had failed. It would have affected the entire insurance industry and would have had quite a domino effect. Although foreign banks “benefited” from Tarp don’t forget that many US banks are owned by foreign banks (Citizens anyone?), and/or had major loans to US banks. So, yes, foreigners “benefited” from Tarp (oh my gosh), but guess what, so did we, and, in fact, foreigners generally benefit from a healthy US economy.
Blaming Castle for Tarp, and failing to acknowledge the many nuances involved here, shows just how desperate at least one O’Possum lover has become.
Tarp is not the stimulus bill (which Castle voted against anyway), which was Keynesian deficit spending that has done little or nothing for the economy. I see that the post snuck in a reference or two to the stimulus bill. Complete apples to oranges.
At the end of the day, Tarp is similiar to other historic crises which called for emergency intervention to ward off disaster. The banking crisis of 1907 was only adverted due to the intervention of JP Morgan, who prevented what could have been an economic catastrophe to rival the great depression, and which led directly to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Bash Tarp all you want, but the alternative was financial ruin that would make today’s unemployment rate and bad economic times look like a picnic in the park.
SF
No you’re not a big government fan because it’s not popular but you are a “Castle Sycophant.”
As always SF, first I have to ask, what do you think your name sake would say about your comments? Maybe you should think of changing your pen name to “Matthews Fan”, as in Chris.
I am going to discount your entire post because of this statement,”The banking crisis of 1907 was only adverted due to the intervention of JP Morgan, who prevented what could have been an economic catastrophe to rival the great depression, and which led directly to the creation of the Federal Reserve.” I believe that Mr. Morgan was a private citizen, not the U.S. Government and the original intention for the Federal Reserve, is that it was to be a private run bank to be used for the depositing of federal reserves. Of course this has been a busted idea since the original “Bank of the United States”.
In this statement you show your total lack of ability to seperate private from public entities. This is exactly the mentality that has lead us down this road of government takeovers. Mike Castle has clearly and admittedly played a role in this.
As for the connection between TARP and the stimulus, that one is easy. TARP set the precedent, which Mike Castle voted for. Though he may not have voted for the first stimulus(he has voted for the second), he was a part of laying the ground work, because it was wrong to begin with and it didn’t work, if it had, there would have been no need for the stimulus.
And let me set you straight on one more thing about me my good friend, yes TARP was a Republican program under a Republican president, but if you take the time to go back and read my postings at the time , you will see that I am consistent in my criticism of it and those who voted for it. I care less about which party put it in place than I am with the results
Remember when Taylor (Charlton Heston) yelled ; “It’s a mad house?”
What would be even more interesting would be a search of just which European banks are getting the money, as many banks in Europe are now compliant with Sharia law.
Given the current administration’s penchant for advancing explicitly Muslim causes as well as its interest in global enterprises, financial and political, it may just be our tax monies are being funneled into overtly religious enterprises in defiance of the clear meaning of the Constitution.
The concerns are well expressed here:
http://www.hudson-ny.org/422/sharia-banking-conquers-europe
Further, the use of monies doled out to AIG may not pass the smell test:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243717/american-taxpayer-financial-jihadist-andrew-c-mccarthy
I think the matter merits serious attention.
Thank you Frank for pointing out to StoesselFan that he thinks NOTHING like John Stoessel, who I like.
And your suggest that he change names to Matthewsfan, heh, I’m with you too with that cool idea.
Because it’s kind of like Mike Castle….they can call us names, call us small-minded, call us incapable of understanding the grand economic of it all, but we might have been born at night, us idiots who carry this country on our back out here in la la land, but not LAST night.
That stimulus was big robbery of the tax bank so that Obamer could appease his buddies who supported him. Go on and tell us snidely about AIG and on and on and on and how the world would have collapsed if Obamer, a miserable failure who now espouses building a grand mosque within eyesight of ground zero, hadn’t come to save the day.
We AIN’T buying it. And we AIN’t buying Mike Castle either.
May they not sleep a wink with worry from now to election day.
Gee, last time I checked, TARP was a Republican bill enacted under a Republican president…
True, of course. But bear in mind, the current rise of true conservatism is a reaction to the confluence of two pernicious trends- the socially ‘moderate,’ internationalist agenda of Bush and the neo-cons (exemplified by the prescription drug benefit, foreign wars and deficits) and the move towards real socialism by Obama and the Democrats. If this trend portends the future, then a lot of Americans will long for the past. We’ll see the results in November.
Faye, I will just say stay tuned !
Rick you are correct, and the trouble in the past for the “TRUE” conservatism to rise was that the people were disengaged. That is no longer completely true. The TEA movement (note total lack of the use of the word party) and the radical leftist agenda of this administration has lead people to sit up and take notice. I think this will lead to people who in the past were justing voting, will now become informed voters. I believe trends will show that informed voters will trend more to the right.
But bear in mind, the current rise of true conservatism is a reaction to the confluence of two pernicious trends- the socially ‘moderate,’ internationalist agenda of Bush and the neo-cons (exemplified by the prescription drug benefit, foreign wars and deficits) and the move towards real socialism by Obama and the Democrats.
Your “true” conservatism and your internationalist neo-con agenda have one thing in common: They are both inherent minority positions, and only attain majority by pandering to social conservatives to form a coalition.
SoCons overplayed their hand and are now losing the culture wars. Social conservatism is beginning to lose its inexplicable Pavlovian ability to make working people vote against their economic interests.
I actually welcome the teabagger criticisms up to a point. If we could harness teabagger energy to roll back corporate capture of government, we might find common ground. But teabaggers aren’t interested.
There is no reason we shouldn’t have a stronger social democracy in America. America’s rise as a world power coincided with the emergence of a strong central government. America did not rise to pre-emininence as a world power until we had defeated the small-minded seccessionists. Now it looks like we may have to do it again.
How big a government do you need to remain the world’s pre-emininent superpower? China and Russia and Iran and North Korea are cheering on the teabagger efforts to return America to an underfunded loose confederation.
Alpha….you’re real cute with that “teabagger” word.
If you really wanted to make a point, and have someone read it, you’d knock it off.
Frank, go study your economic history. Your are correct to observe (as I stated) that the 1907 banking crisis was averted due to the efforts of a private individual, JP Morgan, but, of course, in your ignorance of economic history, you jump to the wrong conclusions. Morgan was only able to avert the crisis due to his immense wealth, as well as his influence with many of the leading banks of the day. However, the government realized that it (and the economy) got lucky. To avoid future crises, and to provide for the day when there was no JP Morgan around to bail out the economy, the federal reserve system was created (contrary to your “belief,” the federal reserve was not created to be the federal government’s bank for its deposits, that was the first and second bank of the united states in the late 1700s and first part of the 1800s). In other words, the federal reserve system was created so as to guard against future financial shocks such as those that created the 1907 crisis. It’s worked fairly well, but, like any system is not perfect. So, your lack of knowledge of history dooms your analysis. At a minimum, check out wikipedia, but there are also several good economic treatises and histories you can check out as well.
And, for the record, no one on this thread has commented on the alternative to TARP. Should we allowed AIG to fail (and once AIG failed, other large insurance companies)? Should we have allowed banking to grind to a halt? You guys are so short-sighted, and so smug in your pronouncements, that you fail to consider the alternatives. I don’t think anybody was happy about having to enact Tarp, but the alternatives were less attractive.
And don’t try and argue that because Tarp “failed,” the stimulus was needed. The two are not connected. The first worked, as it prevented a failure of major banks and insurance companies that would have brought financial activity in this country to a halt.
The stimulus has been a disaster for many reasons, but it wasn’t made necessary because Tarp “failed.” The economy was already in a recession; Tarp was designed to prevent financial chaos, not to enable the economy to recover from recession.
Extend the Bush tax cuts and I think we’ll start to dig ourselves out of this hole. Part of the problem now is too much uncertainty about what is going to happen that has caused business to sit still and put off things until they can figure out what (if anything) the government is going to do next.
..have one thing in common: They are both inherent minority positions..
We’ll see in November. I think you’re in for a shock. A major shock.
We’ll see in November. I think you’re in for a shock. A major shock.
Entirely possible. Trickle-down has a hypotic grip on the masses that never seems to lose its power, no matter how many times it fails.
Voters need to be hit over the head with a two-by-four several times before they come to their senses. The Bush Administration was the first two-by-four, but apparently another whack is needed. The Paul Ryan plan to voucherize and privatize Social Security and Medicare ought to do the trick.
SF, we could argue all day about mine and you level of knowledge on any given topic. The point here is not whether TARP was even moderately effective, the point is that Mike Castle voted for it, without knowing where the money was going, as stated by the Oversight Report, and it ended up funneling “BILLIONS” of U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign banks. Is this the kind of thoughtful legislation we can expect him to continue to exercize if sent to the Senate?
What is your alternative Frank? I’d like to hear one. Tarp saved the world from a global economic meltdown.
Thank you GeorgeC, that’s the point.
Frank, as to debating level of knowledge, I assume you’re generally well educated, but your “facts” about the formation of the fed and the banking crisis of 1907, which you then said would lead you to discount my points, were completely in error. Can’t have a real discussion without an understanding of history and I’m sorry if I suggested you were intelligent. Look, I get the point of all your recent posts. You don’t like Mike Castle, you want him defeated in the primary (even though that would lead to Chris Coons as your next senator) and so you will criticize him at every turn. I suspect that if you were to look at the entirety of his votes, you’d find more that you agreed with than you disagreed with (for example, he voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker), but instead you focus on a few and harp away. While I agree that his vote on cap and trade was wrong (and he is on the record as saying he won’t vote for it again), I think criticism of Tarp is misguided and demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what would have happened without it. Was Tarp perfect? Certainly not, but it was better than the alternative and, unlike a lot of other legislation, there wasn’t a lot of time to get it perfect (even assuming that were possible).
Trickle-down has a hypotic grip on the masses that never seems to lose its power, no matter how many times it fails.
Speaking of failure, try Socialism….your opiate.
“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.” – ‘New Deal’ architect and FDR’s Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. . . May 1939.
TARP has nothing to do with that Rick. The Stimulus, which is totally unrelated and was not voted for by Castle does. I don’t think anybody here is saying the Stimulus was a good idea, but that isn’t the point of Frank’s post.