Today is Jim Bunning day

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/12/03/bunning-statement-on-bernanke-you-are-the-definition-of-a-moral-hazard/

Instead of taking that money and lending to consumers and cleaning up their balance sheets, the banks started to pocket record profits and pay out billions of dollars in bonuses. Because you bowed to pressure from the banks and refused to resolve them or force them to clean up their balance sheets and clean out the management, you have created zombie banks that are only enriching their traders and executives. You are repeating the mistakes of Japan in the 1990s on a much larger scale, while sowing the seeds for the next bubble. In the same letter where you refused to admit any responsibility for inflating the housing bubble, you also admitted that you do not have an exit strategy for all the money you have printed and securities you have bought. That sounds to me like you intend to keep propping up the banks for as long as they want.

Even if all that were not true, the A.I.G. bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton. First you told us A.I.G. and its creditors had to be bailed out because they posed a systemic risk, largely because of the credit default swaps portfolio. Those credit default swaps, by the way, are over the counter derivatives that the Fed did not want regulated. Well, according to the TARP Inspector General, it turns out the Fed was not concerned about the financial condition of the credit default swaps partners when you decided to pay them off at par. In fact, the Inspector General makes it clear that no serious efforts were made to get the partners to take haircuts, and one bank’s offer to take a haircut was declined. I can only think of two possible reasons you would not make then-New York Fed President Geithner try to save the taxpayers some money by seriously negotiating or at least take up U.B.S. on their offer of a haircut. Sadly, those two reasons are incompetence or a desire to secretly funnel more money to a few select firms, most notably Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and a handful of large European banks. I also cannot understand why you did not seek European government contributions to this bailout of their banking system.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/176480-bunning-vs-bernanke?source=hp_wc

I wonder what it was like to be Ben Bernanke today, on the receiving end of an absolute lashing from Senator Jim Bunning. Here’s a taster:

Chairman Greenspan’s attitude toward regulating banks was much like his attitude toward consumer protection. Instead of close supervision of the biggest and most dangerous banks, he ignored the growing balance sheets and increasing risk. You did no better. In fact, under your watch every one of the major banks failed or would have failed if you did not bail them out.

Bunning then quoted Bernanke’s own words from his own confirmation hearing, when he said that “no bank is too big to fail”. No, Bunning wasn’t laughing either:

Rather than making management, shareholders, and debt holders feel the consequences of their risk-taking, you bailed them out. In short, you are the definition of moral hazard.

This is the sort of parliamentary rhetoric which we Brits are quite used to, but which is electrifying in the normally-staid confines of the US Senate. Good for Bunning for taking the gloves off.

Is Bunning senile?

no...but riversider is.

cc = hfscomm1

redbaiter = doochebag = riversider

riversider: time to own up to your alter identity.

i actually watched the bunning clip. no wonder you like him; he goes on and on and on and doesn't affect anything. rather than asking tough questions, he lectures and tries to point out how he smart he is.

he says that he's going to do everything he can to block bernanke's appointment; of course, he doesn't acknowledge or realize that bernanke will remain in office on a permanent temp basis if he actually makes good on that promise. useless moron.

A four-posts-all-by-Riversider thread starter ... very impressive! Is this a personal best?

hi hfscomm1