If there was any doubt that Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) is a complete idiot, his gratuitous comments about the big banks today puts the issues to rest.

Dodd Says Short-Term Bank Nationalization Might Be Necessary

BTW, did you see the stories about Dodd donating the political contributions from Stanford to charity?

Dodd says he’s giving Stanford contributions to charity

This guy deserves censure, but for some reason the people of CT keep sending him back to Washington.  The White House had to make a statement to try — emphasis try — to deflect Dodd’s remarks.

As Jim Crammer just said on CNBC: “Geithner has vannished.”

Category: BP Cafe

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

24 Responses to “Thank You Christopher Dodd”

  1. Cesar@Doddsvilleinvestments says:

    So are you, or aren’t you in favor of nationalization?? I thought you were in favor. I’m in favor. I would rather have banks go bankrupt, but that’s obviously off the table.

  2. Chris Whalen says:

    I don’t like these terms being thrown around this way. The government is going to manage these institutions via open bank assistance, then we will see a resolution of the subsidiary banks and a restructuring for the public parent a la WaMu And there will be a recovery of some sort for creditors. My prediction is that all deposits of C, etc., will be honored but the bonds will get a haircut.

  3. jeff in indy says:

    “this guy deserves censure. . .” well, it’s one way to keep him out of the state. it’s why i vote for bayh. rather have him do nothing in DC than here.

    there’ll be more gratutious talk. they can’t help it, they’re democrats.

  4. Fredex says:

    Oh, dear. Senator Dodd may have screwed up again. If that wasn’t Stanford’s money to give away then it isn’t Dodd’s money to give away.

  5. USSofA says:

    Why shouldn’t the folks in Connecticut do the same for Dodd as the folks in MA do for Kennedy?

  6. Chris Whalen says:

    Oh, BTW, I just heard from a friend on the Hill that Dodd has completely de-funded the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI) so that there will be no inquiry into mortgage fraud, credit default swaps or even the tens of millions of dollars worth of dirty money that flows through and around the Dodd organization in CT. Senate PSI does not even have car fare for their staff, nothing. Dodd is one of the dirtiest politicians in America and a close friend of President Obama.

  7. Urkel says:

    Spot-on Chris. Dodd is unbelievable. If a Republican behaved in the same way as him, the Democrats and their minions would be up in arms. (I’m speaking as someone who’s generally left-of-center).

    CT voters keep sending him back for the same reasons that Alaskans kept voting in Stevens, Californians send back Pelosi, etc. etc. The incumbents keep bringing home the pork, and the corrupt election systems keeps challengers out.

    (Keep up the good work btw. The Institutional Risk Analyst is essential reading for me…and I’m not even a banker. Go figure.)

  8. bdg123 says:

    Someone in Washington has taken a large duke. I can’t get away from that damn smell. Did Dodd shit his pants? Of course, there appears to be a lot of politicians shitting their pants in Washington because something stinks to high heaven.

    http://tinyurl.com/alx6v8

  9. par1 says:

    Excuse me but didn’t two Repubs, Lindsey Graham and another “idiot” whose name escapes me, say exactly the same thing last Sunday, which was really what put nationalization on the agenda for the week? And Greenspan, that other idiot, two days ago? And isn’t it glaringly obvious that government ownership, whether we use the N-word or not, is where we are heading if we aren’t already there? I thought this was a reality-based blog.

  10. Greg0658 says:

    so now that we are here …
    how does the switcheroo to the Amero go down?
    or has the Euro experiment gone that badly?

  11. Mannwich says:

    Maybe Geithner got smart and is hanging with Paulson. Remember him?

  12. retrogrouch says:

    No one in house is supposed to talk about nationalization until AFTER the stress tests. That will make clear how bad the need is and how totally worthless they are. But with Dodd and others out front before then it won’t seem such a stretch.

  13. Avl Dao says:

    Volker should count his blessings. This isnt American politics circa 1980-84 any more.

  14. Blissex says:

    «And isn’t it glaringly obvious that government ownership, whether we use the N-word or not, is where we are heading if we aren’t already there?»

    That’s one of the most naive comments around here. The whole fight is about control: everybody agrees that the banks and their management will be bailed out entirely with government money; the whole question is whether the government will provide 100% of the new equity to recapitalize the bankrupt banks passively (that is, 100% equity as a grant or a non-recourse loan) and existing management and stockholders will retain full control including the right to take out that government money as bonuses and dividends, or whether some control will have to be ceded to government appointed administrators or management.

  15. doug says:

    Am I the only one seeing the irony of this post using ‘gratuitous’ , then following up with calling someone an ‘idiot’. OK.Great.Ranting is wonderful, moves us right along to a solution…..

  16. Chris Whalen says:

    Good point. Dodd is deliberate. He takes the money with both hands, so idiot was a poor choice. But I stand by gratuitous.

    Wikipedia: “Idiot” was originally created to refer to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. In modern English usage, the terms “idiot” and “idiocy” describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.”

  17. par1 says:

    Since we’re getting personal (thanks, Blissex), what is naive is to think that in the current (post-TARP I fiasco give-away, post-$18.4B bonuses) environment anything like the late-08 structures you seem to think are still potentially on the table would pass political muster.

  18. jeff in indy says:

    now c’mon. who really thought there would be a serious effort to investigate mortgage fraud or any of its cousins? we’re witnessing how a chicago to east-coast reach-around works. the fed’s will continue to piece-meal and parse out the “stimulus” money to the point where even the Big 3 (are there 3 left?) accounting firms won’t be able to unscramble it, let alone us joe fabitz’s. it’s now merely cash passing from hand to hand and turned into another vote buying scam with my money. and i didn’t even get the pleasure of a reach-around.

  19. bdg123 says:

    I tend to call a spade a spade. Prancing around words and blame are for people who would rather be PC than actually focus on getting anything done. You should not back off of your remarks. Gratuitous idiot is a fair characterization. But, rather than using a high-brow intelligent explanation of the term idiot and its applicability, I prefer to wallow in the mud with the Washington pigs being the emotional, classless person I am. He is truly an idiot. One who very likely is a complicit idiot at that. Anyone standing up for politicians after the actions(crimes?) we have seen exposed in the last four or five months doesn’t understand the system must be broken and rebuilt. Obviously, I mean that figuratively by voting out the crooks under the constructs of the rule of law. I’m not that far gone.

  20. Dow says:

    Based on your remarks, I’m going to guess you hold interests in Citi and BofA. Otherwise, why single out Dodd when he’s not the only one talking about nationalization?

  21. ctvoter2010 says:

    As a Connecticut voter, I am embarrassed that Chris Dodd represents our state. With all of his recent troubles, from the sweetheart mortgage deals based on his status as a senator, to his broken promise to release the mortgage records, to his now-obviously wrong input that Fannie/Freddie were fine as they were poised to destroy our economy, to his being the recipient of some of the highest campaign donations from the very people he is supposed to be regulating, to his constant cry for more government intervention when that is what got us here in the first place, to this bone-headed statement to the media that drove down the stocks of Citi and BoA, it is no wonder there is a grassroots movement here in CT to get rid of him

    Check out http://www.theartfuldoddger.blogspot.com for Dodd related coverage with an eye towards 2010.

  22. Chris Whalen says:

    WHALEN’S FOUR LAWS: BOUT POSITIONS IN FINANCIALS AND LIFE IN GENERAL

    Careful Dow. I have no positions in any financials, but am short USTs via the TBT ETF. There is a certain blogger on Yahoo that met my lawyers recently for accusing me falsely of having a short position in C. As somebody who has worked as a regulator and supervisor in the ibanking world, having somebody accuse you of violating NASD rules and SEC regulation, not to mention basic honesty, is no laughing matter.

    I understand fully that some of the ratings and opinions we publish get people steamed. I worked on a desk for many years and appreciate the heat of the moment. But if you falsely accuse me of having an undisclosed position in a stock or other security, which is a violation of my firm’s internal rules BTW, then I am going to give you one chance to retract and apologize, then you meet the lawyers.

    Part of my professional work is to serve as consultant to some of the leading plaintiff lawyers in the US. And don’t forget too that I have been through the fire when it comes to litigation, including a personal default and restructuring that followed five years of litigation connected to my journalistic work in Mexico. Next time you see Alan Greenspan or Warren Rudman, ask them about it.

    But know this: if you falsely accuse me, my firm or its shareholders of wrongdoing but especially violations of securities law and regulation, then I am going to give you the same treatment as I received years ago at the hands of the DEA and the Fed’s Board of Governors. I have a lot of faults, but one thing I do know is how to learn from mistakes. Here are Whalen’s Four Laws:

    1) The only rights you have are those you defend
    2) Its takes money to defend your rights
    3) The only free press is your own
    4) All’s well that ends.

    Re #1, Jack McCoy on Law & Order says “can defend.” No, you want to win.

    Best,

    Chris

  23. krice2001 says:

    @ ctvoter2010 and others:
    I know it’s a shock and embarrasing when one’s senator is discovered to be receiving donations from those they are supposed to be regulating. Or is it? It’s unfortunately how the system works, at least currently. An interesting study I read showed that people are miraculously more forgiving when the politican is from their party or closely shares their views and is much angrier and less forgiving when they are of the opposing party or don’t share their views. And that’s part of what gets us so frustrated. There is a double standard on both sides. Oh well, human nature apparently.

    I’ve noticed how much angrier BR’s blog comments have gotten in the last few weeks. Maybe it’s a sign of the deep economic crisis getting everyone edgier. This remains my favorite economic/financial blog but the comment streams are getting harder to read. It wasn’t long ago most of the comments were good back-and-forths primarily on financial and economic positions.

    It would be foolish to believe that nationalization is off the table. I would guess nothing would or should be at this point. Both administrations are and were flying a bit by the seat of their pants. I’m sure that Dodd let the cat out of the bag, early. Not that some form of it won’t happen, it may or may not, but it’s certainly not irrational to propose it as BR and many others have.

  24. Chris Whalen says:

    I think everyone is a little crazed at the moment.

    Re: Nationalization, OCC are not going to run Citi. People should forget the word nationalization and instead think of a longer-term restructuring a la Conti Illinois. This is OPEN BANK ASSISTANCE we have right now with C, right? We have a loss sharing agreement in place with Citi and FDIC, right? So the resolution process is already underway.