How's this for "bailout transparency?"

Discuss

31 Responses to “How's this for "bailout transparency?"”

  1. Phikus says:

    ANON@26: That’s right. They’re just trying to make sure they spend that money responsibly, right? Nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep, America.

    And remember to do your patriotic duty to spend money you don’t have this Christmas. It’s the American way!

  2. Secret_Life_of_Plants says:

    They are probably trying to hide things like this:
    http://tiny.cc/kCkRV

    and this http://tiny.cc/zNBSg

  3. Phikus says:

    What they meant is that they are bailing out from all possibility of transparency. Sorry if this wasn’t clear from the start.

  4. acx99 says:

    @3: you have no tools:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html

    “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.”

    Presuming it manages to avoid being strung up from lamp posts, the final act of a corrupt regime is to loot the nation.

  5. Stefan Jones says:

    Do they WANT congress to pass a law prescribing daily application of baseball bats to the groin of CEOs?

  6. dbarak says:

    Just about makes me sick to my stomach.

  7. Transcanada says:

    We are used to this kind of blacked out transparency from the Conservative Party of Canada.

    The most blatant release of nonsense was this:

    18 pages of blacked out documents from the Canadian Dept of Finance

    This is the government’s explanation on why they changed the Income Trust tax legislation and destroyed $35 billion in Investor market value in 2006.

  8. TJ S says:

    If they’re trying to avoid upsetting/scaring people, they should take a lesson from horror movie directors.

    The monster only becomes more scary when you can’t see it. Being able to see the beast aleviates fear.

    Unless, of course, there’s something really, truely haneous going on. But it’s not like the US Government would ever be involved in something like that, right? Right?

  9. pauldrye says:

    Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act…may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

    I truly don’t understand why your congress keeps putting wording like this into its bills. The Supreme Court is quite happy to determine the constitutionality of any legislation they pass, including the parts that say they can’t.

    Moreover, they’ve proven again and again that they’re willing to do so. Christ, I’m not even an American and I know about Marbury v. Madison.

    All I can assume is there’s such a level of narcissism involved that they’re willing to run off the cliff like Wile E. Coyote solely because they’re the ones involved and they believe that surely they’re more special than every other legislator smacked down over the years.

    • Antinous says:

      I truly don’t understand why your congress keeps putting wording like this into its bills.

      The point is not to do something. The point is to appear to do something.

  10. Osprey101 says:

    This is the bestest thing ever since no-bid contracts!

  11. dmduncan says:

    ➤ The point is not to do something. The point is to appear to do something.

    Exactly. Which is why we don’t have a democracy anymore, we have what appears to be a democracy.

    Two choices for president. On the bright side, that’s one more than a dictatorship has.

  12. Cragsavage says:

    You fools! This is completely transparent.

    It’s just the kind of transparent you can’t see through.

    Try rubbing some greasy food on it. If the paper goes clear, that’s your window to weight gain success.

    Or something.

  13. grimc says:

    @11

    “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.”

    This is from the initial bailout proposal, and supposedly removed/altered from the final version.

    I wonder if the blackout has to do with confidentiality laws regarding employee pay. Not that I think this automatically passes the smell test, but there may be a simple explanation for it.

  14. PukeBazooka says:

    Thanks for posting this, Mark. There have been a few times when I’ve seen or heard news that sounds important but unlikely to get picked up by mainstream sources, think “I should submit this to BoingBoing,” and find out that you’ve already posted it. In case you haven’t guessed, this is one of those times.

  15. Michael A. Banks says:

    Right on, TJ S. The Haunting of Hill House is still scarey.
    –Mike

  16. Michael A. Banks says:

    Assholes! They’re afraid on one hand that the stockholders will cry “Assholes!” and on the other that their fellow CEOs will learn that they are making a hundred grand less than them.

    This is like some authors talking about book advance.
    –Mike

  17. imipak says:

    Some great additions to the facepalm gallery:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26901805/displaymode/1107/s/2/

  18. andreinla says:

    I am not surprised and neither are you.

    My question is: what are the tools allowing enforcement of said transparency, apart from “…but, …but you said so!”

    I really mean it. Is transparency a condition for a transaction to happen, or not? How do we follow up? What tools do we have? How do we point our finger to criminal activity in a way that will have police/fbi get in their cars and to the crime scene?

    Does anybody know? If you do, please post links to verifiable sources etc.

    Thank you!

  19. Cowicide says:

    Maybe the rates are hidden because someone thinks it would be contributing to “collusion”, I dunno.

    Or, they are rat bastards… either way.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Also worth knowing that the reason we have no choice but to subcontract administration of the bailout to the very people who helped create the crisis is because the US Dept. of Treasury has been FEMA-tized — the professionals with depth and experience who used to run it have been let go and been replaced with people of lesser abilities or not replaced at all. (This I gathered from Nobel-winning Paul Krugman on “Fresh Air” today.)

  21. angryf says:

    WTF…. this pisses me off

  22. Anonymous says:

    An excellent way to ensure that you overpay for anything is to promise the other side that you’ll be publicizing the terms widely. If you want a good deal, you have to let the other side keep quiet about what a good deal they gave you. If you’re going to make a lot of noise, they’ll want to make sure that you paid the max, so that their other customers (past and future) don’t get mad. Basic negotiation, folks. It’d be more worrying if the terms were public.

  23. Michael A. Banks says:

    It also reminds one of Google ordering its “publishers” to not tell anyone how much they’re paid.
    –Mike

  24. Agies says:

    “blacked-out” is so blase, redacted is a much better word.

    Anyway I find it hard to cry foul. It’s basically a contract and parts of it are going to be confidential at least until everything is finalized.

  25. airship says:

    Oh, wow. Gee. I’m totally shocked and surprised. Who would have thunk it?

    /sarcasm

  26. Antinous says:

    Opaque is the new transparent.

    -or-

    I, for one, welcome our new Sharpie-wielding overlords.

  27. dculberson says:

    DMDuncan, last I checked we had a process that initially involved several choices for president and gradually worked its way down to two.

  28. thievedrelic says:

    they’ll be the ones with egg on their faces when they realize that they accidentally used a black highlighter.
    thanks onion.

  29. urshrew says:

    I haz Above Top Secrets.

Leave a Reply