WALL STREET PROSECUTIONS UNDER OBAMA: ZILCH
The Washington Times ^ | 08/20/12 | Jean-Claude Groulx
For all the bluster of Obama, pre- and post-2008, as well as that of Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the alleged criminal activities on Wall Street, there have been zero Wall Street prosecutions under Obama/Holder.
Compare that with his predecessors Bush and Clinton:
Bush: 1,300 convictions; Clinton: 1,000 convictions; Obama: Zero attempts.
(Excerpt) Read more at times247.com ...
So you won't be bitching when your tax dollars go to shoring up Wall Street the next time, then. Got it.SDHornet wrote:Free Market!!!
Caught a clip of CNN this morning, said it was basically just Elizabeth Warren complaining and that these banking and campaign finance points were all negotiated between the Donks and Conks behind closed doors...nothing new to see here, move along...
Agreed.SDHornet wrote:Not at all, I’m just pointing out that the banks will get their (our?) money one way or another. Donk or Conk it doesn’t matter they are in on it too.
I think you should sell off your portfolio (or only invest in moral yet unprofitable government dependent startups) in protest.Chizzang wrote:Shouldn't we at least be embarrassed that we have two wildly different standards of departure..?
1) The open and loud humiliation of the miserable poor
and
2) The fabulous Banking system that is here for the benefit of America
Organized Crime which is basically my view of our financial sector - does far more damage to America than poor people have ever done to damage America and the fact that we still argue about that is sad
The open and acceptable High Level collusion is shameful but flaunted like we should be proud
Do you really think Dodd Frank was written without Wall Street's interest in mind?kalm wrote:It's a joke this is even being considered yet not a peep yet from the "free market" right.
I wonder where Hilary and the tea baggers will stand on this one.
Legislation written of, by, and for Wall Street, but nah...we don't need campaign finance reform...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6304082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Elizabeth Warren: Barack Obama Sold Out Average Americans "Over and Over and Over"
Pundit Press ^ | 10/12/14 | Aurelius
In an exclusive interview with Salon, Senator Elizabeth Warren slammed Barack Obama over an apparent betrayal of the American middle class in favor of Wall Street.
"He picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street," Warren said, accusing the President of backing "Wall Street" instead of average Americans.
Following up on that, the author said that the President "always" backed Wall Street.
Warren answered back quickly (emphasis mine), "That’s right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter."
(Excerpt) Read more at thepunditpress.com ...
You knew damn well that Moonbat was going to start ramping up her populist rhetoric.Bronco wrote:Elizabeth Warren: Barack Obama Sold Out Average Americans "Over and Over and Over"
Pundit Press ^ | 10/12/14 | Aurelius
In an exclusive interview with Salon, Senator Elizabeth Warren slammed Barack Obama over an apparent betrayal of the American middle class in favor of Wall Street.
"He picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street," Warren said, accusing the President of backing "Wall Street" instead of average Americans.
Following up on that, the author said that the President "always" backed Wall Street.
Warren answered back quickly (emphasis mine), "That’s right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter."
(Excerpt) Read more at thepunditpress.com ...
Hillary's worst nightmare!Baldy wrote:You knew damn well that Moonbat was going to start ramping up her populist rhetoric.Bronco wrote:
CID1990 wrote:I think you should sell off your portfolio (or only invest in moral yet unprofitable government dependent startups) in protest.Chizzang wrote:Shouldn't we at least be embarrassed that we have two wildly different standards of departure..?
1) The open and loud humiliation of the miserable poor
and
2) The fabulous Banking system that is here for the benefit of America
Organized Crime which is basically my view of our financial sector - does far more damage to America than poor people have ever done to damage America and the fact that we still argue about that is sad
The open and acceptable High Level collusion is shameful but flaunted like we should be proud
My liberal mom goes bonkers when I tell her that
usually when shes bitching about corporate America and mentions her stocks in the same sentence.
True enough... 
Ummm, do you expect a politician to stump on the details of financial reform?GannonFan wrote:Kind of hard to get worked up about this. This was always one of the failings of Dodd/Frank - it was supposed to make sure that the financial system could never fail and cause great economic harm to America, and then when it was written it never came close to doing that. Whether the banks use federally insured subsidaries to float derivatives or not really doesn't matter when it comes to America's safety from economic ruin or not - the banks that are too big to fail could still be felled if they pushed out these derivatives. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
We do get more regulation of the banks through this bill in the increase in the amount of money that goes to the CFTC so that's a good thing (and what the Dems wanted when they allowed the derivative easing to be inserted in the first place).
As for Warren, eh, just really more grandstanding with very little to bring to the table. She's a great voice on income inequality, but like many others, including many on this board, she's incredibly short on actual ideas and policies that would reverse the trend in income inequality that she rails so much against. She's like a political placebo - you take a pill that doesn't have any real medicine in it, and you just hope that the positive belief you have in the pill working will be sufficient to actually make it work.
Chizzang wrote:CID1990 wrote:
I think you should sell off your portfolio (or only invest in moral yet unprofitable government dependent startups) in protest.
My liberal mom goes bonkers when I tell her that
usually when shes bitching about corporate America and mentions her stocks in the same sentence.
I'm mostly pointing out how PROUD we are of our wildly lopsided playing field that we call "free Market" and the dumpster Fire that is congress who continues to cater to the highest bidder without question...
The whole pseudo Free Market horse sh!t posturing has grown stale but (God Bless America)
I'm not suggesting that it isn't great for those born on third base
Pretending to have hit a triple
CID1990 wrote:I think you should sell off your portfolio (or only invest in moral yet unprofitable government dependent startups) in protest.Chizzang wrote:Shouldn't we at least be embarrassed that we have two wildly different standards of departure..?
1) The open and loud humiliation of the miserable poor
and
2) The fabulous Banking system that is here for the benefit of America
Organized Crime which is basically my view of our financial sector - does far more damage to America than poor people have ever done to damage America and the fact that we still argue about that is sad
The open and acceptable High Level collusion is shameful but flaunted like we should be proud
My liberal mom goes bonkers when I tell her that
usually when shes bitching about corporate America and mentions her stocks in the same sentence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dget-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;But perhaps even more outrageous to Democrats was that the language in the bill appeared to come directly from the pens of lobbyists at the nation’s biggest banks, aides said. The provision was so important to the profits at those companies that J.P.Morgan's chief executive Jamie Dimon himself telephoned individual lawmakers to urge them to vote for it, according to a person familiar with the effort.
The White House, in pleading with Democrats to support the bill, explained that it got something in return: It said that it averted other amendments that would have undercut Dodd-Frank, protected the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from Republican attacks, and won double digit increases in funds for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. "The president is pleased," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
Earnest said that Democrats were upset about "a specific provision in this omnibus that would be related to watering down one provision of the Wall Street reform law. The President does not support that provision. But on balance, the President does believe that this compromise proposal is worthy of his support."
But "that provision" isn't just any provision. It's one that goes to the heart of the Dodd Frank reform because it would let big banks undertake risky activities with funds guaranteed by the federal government and, hence taxpayers.
The omnibus appropriations bill would do that by undoing the Dodd Frank provision that ordered banks to move their riskiest activities -- such as default swaps, trading commodities, and trading derivatives -- to new entities so that deposits guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. would not be in danger.
I think I took that pill right before the 2008 election.GannonFan wrote: She's like a political placebo - you take a pill that doesn't have any real medicine in it, and you just hope that the positive belief you have in the pill working will be sufficient to actually make it work.
You're missing the point. Whether the derivatives (and really, we're just talking about a small percentage of them - most are still directly held by the banks anyway) are traded from subsidaries or by the parent bank, it doesn't matter when it comes to "protecting" the American taxpayer. Nothing in this will increase the risk that is already there, and maybe there even more than before because of Dodd-Frank. We've made too big too fail into law already because of this legislation, worrying about where 5% of derivative trading is done is the political equivalent of not seeing the forest because of the trees.kalm wrote:Ummm, do you expect a politician to stump on the details of financial reform?GannonFan wrote:Kind of hard to get worked up about this. This was always one of the failings of Dodd/Frank - it was supposed to make sure that the financial system could never fail and cause great economic harm to America, and then when it was written it never came close to doing that. Whether the banks use federally insured subsidaries to float derivatives or not really doesn't matter when it comes to America's safety from economic ruin or not - the banks that are too big to fail could still be felled if they pushed out these derivatives. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
We do get more regulation of the banks through this bill in the increase in the amount of money that goes to the CFTC so that's a good thing (and what the Dems wanted when they allowed the derivative easing to be inserted in the first place).
As for Warren, eh, just really more grandstanding with very little to bring to the table. She's a great voice on income inequality, but like many others, including many on this board, she's incredibly short on actual ideas and policies that would reverse the trend in income inequality that she rails so much against. She's like a political placebo - you take a pill that doesn't have any real medicine in it, and you just hope that the positive belief you have in the pill working will be sufficient to actually make it work.
I'd guess Warren has a better idea than Gannonfan of the mechanics of banking reform, considering her experience.
Regarding Dodd-Frank, it's a classic example of the influence of money in politics. What needs to happen is simple enough until the lobbyists get their hands on it. But prohibiting banks backed by tax payer dollars from gambling is something everyone should agree on...unless your a conk in independent clothing.
Fake Pocahontas moonbat...Baldy wrote:You knew damn well that Moonbat was going to start ramping up her populist rhetoric.Bronco wrote:
1) What percentage of derivatives are still held by government backed entities themselves? What's the dollar amount? Even IF these are small numbers, are you still ok with socializing the risk?GannonFan wrote:You're missing the point. Whether the derivatives (and really, we're just talking about a small percentage of them - most are still directly held by the banks anyway) are traded from subsidaries or by the parent bank, it doesn't matter when it comes to "protecting" the American taxpayer. Nothing in this will increase the risk that is already there, and maybe there even more than before because of Dodd-Frank. We've made too big too fail into law already because of this legislation, worrying about where 5% of derivative trading is done is the political equivalent of not seeing the forest because of the trees.kalm wrote:
Ummm, do you expect a politician to stump on the details of financial reform?
I'd guess Warren has a better idea than Gannonfan of the mechanics of banking reform, considering her experience.
Regarding Dodd-Frank, it's a classic example of the influence of money in politics. What needs to happen is simple enough until the lobbyists get their hands on it. But prohibiting banks backed by tax payer dollars from gambling is something everyone should agree on...unless your a conk in independent clothing.
Warren makes a lot of people happy, and I'm sure you as well, with vague sentiments about working for the middle class and making things fairer and making incomes more equal. But almost all of it is just good soundbites. How does she propose any of that to actually be accomplished? If you champion finance reform, there should be something a little more substantive to it than just saying you champion it. Where are the ideas, where is the panacea to make everything better? Progressivism used to be about things, at least back when you had leaders like TR and Wilson (both flawed, certainly, but both progressives) - direct elections, trust busting, ending boss-rule in politics, safe workplaces, etc. Now the term has been pulled off the historical books to make people think there's something more there to make their lives better and easier. There is genuine struggling in America today, wages are stagnant, futures are murky, and yet the best Progressivism can do, and the best the emerging leader of the Progressive movement can say, is that we're going to makes things fairer. Super. Maybe we should cross our fingers as well.
All of it. That's the point, it doesn't matter how arm's length the banks keep this trading from themselves, in the end, all of it is essentially backed by the government. We pretend that there's "really risky" stuff being done but that the bigger bank, the "too-big-to-fail" thing, can't be impacted by it, but they are. That's the faulty logic of Dodd-Frank - we pretend that we've insulated ourselves from big banks failing and hurting the economy and instead we've become even more attached to them than before.kalm wrote:1) What percentage of derivatives are still held by government backed entities themselves? What's the dollar amount? Even IF these are small numbers, are you still ok with socializing the risk?GannonFan wrote:
You're missing the point. Whether the derivatives (and really, we're just talking about a small percentage of them - most are still directly held by the banks anyway) are traded from subsidaries or by the parent bank, it doesn't matter when it comes to "protecting" the American taxpayer. Nothing in this will increase the risk that is already there, and maybe there even more than before because of Dodd-Frank. We've made too big too fail into law already because of this legislation, worrying about where 5% of derivative trading is done is the political equivalent of not seeing the forest because of the trees.
Warren makes a lot of people happy, and I'm sure you as well, with vague sentiments about working for the middle class and making things fairer and making incomes more equal. But almost all of it is just good soundbites. How does she propose any of that to actually be accomplished? If you champion finance reform, there should be something a little more substantive to it than just saying you champion it. Where are the ideas, where is the panacea to make everything better? Progressivism used to be about things, at least back when you had leaders like TR and Wilson (both flawed, certainly, but both progressives) - direct elections, trust busting, ending boss-rule in politics, safe workplaces, etc. Now the term has been pulled off the historical books to make people think there's something more there to make their lives better and easier. There is genuine struggling in America today, wages are stagnant, futures are murky, and yet the best Progressivism can do, and the best the emerging leader of the Progressive movement can say, is that we're going to makes things fairer. Super. Maybe we should cross our fingers as well.
Easy, they don't want to be inefficient (i.e. waste money) jumping through hoops to do what they're going to do anyway. Less hoops to jump through means more money to make. The risk never changes, just the time involved.kalm wrote: 2) Why does Wall Street continue to spend campaign and lobbying money on things that don't matter?
See answer to #2kalm wrote: 3) Why did Jamie Dimon personally get involved in something that doesn't matter?
You're pretty sure? Well, hey, let's hear 'em. Do I have time to get a cup of coffee while I wait?kalm wrote: 4) I'm pretty sure Warren has made proposals with meat on them but yes, political soundbites tend to be just that…soundbites.
So you're backtracking a bit on #1 then? I never said Dodd-Frank didn't have issues or that it might it in fact be a joke of a regulatory act. After all the two men it was named after both had cozy ties to financial services. You could be absolutely right that the provision requiring banks to keep high risk instruments on the balance sheets of non-insured subsidiaries didn't matter. That if those subsidiaries fall we still bail them out anyway. But you'll need to drill that down a bit more to show that's the case. At least on paper, those subsidiaries would fail - which is what any fan of the free market would want to happen.GannonFan wrote:All of it. That's the point, it doesn't matter how arm's length the banks keep this trading from themselves, in the end, all of it is essentially backed by the government. We pretend that there's "really risky" stuff being done but that the bigger bank, the "too-big-to-fail" thing, can't be impacted by it, but they are. That's the faulty logic of Dodd-Frank - we pretend that we've insulated ourselves from big banks failing and hurting the economy and instead we've become even more attached to them than before.kalm wrote:
1) What percentage of derivatives are still held by government backed entities themselves? What's the dollar amount? Even IF these are small numbers, are you still ok with socializing the risk?
Easy, they don't want to be inefficient (i.e. waste money) jumping through hoops to do what they're going to do anyway. Less hoops to jump through means more money to make. The risk never changes, just the time involved.kalm wrote: 2) Why does Wall Street continue to spend campaign and lobbying money on things that don't matter?
See answer to #2kalm wrote: 3) Why did Jamie Dimon personally get involved in something that doesn't matter?
You're pretty sure? Well, hey, let's hear 'em. Do I have time to get a cup of coffee while I wait?kalm wrote: 4) I'm pretty sure Warren has made proposals with meat on them but yes, political soundbites tend to be just that…soundbites.
