Barney Frank to retire
-
Manhattan Buckeye^^^
The worst bit about of that video is the American flag in the background representing that cesspool of a conversation. -
Skyhook79
The worst part is that he was voted in for 16 terms.Manhattan Buckeye;1006801 wrote:^^^
The worst bit about of that video is the American flag in the background representing that cesspool of a conversation. -
stlouiedipalma
You mean the American flag on display in the U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES? It's not like this was a manufactured set. I'm so glad you pointed that out to all of us.Manhattan Buckeye;1006801 wrote:^^^
The worst bit about of that video is the American flag in the background representing that cesspool of a conversation. -
stlouiedipalma
What's really a zero is the list of indicted/convicted folks. They were almost all indicted/convicted/sentenced in 2007 or earlier and none of them were major players in the financial crisis of 2008. Hell, they were mostly guilty of insider trading, defrauding their investors and wire and securities fraud.believer;1006767 wrote:In leftist math, that's a zero.
Where are the folks from Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, B of A, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG, et al? These were the big players, whose use of bundled mortgages and derivatives helped put us in danger. Of course Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be included in this list, along with everyone in Congress who, for the 25+ years prior, helped remove any and all regulations on the financial sector. I don't think I've seen any CEO's of any of these companies listed in any federal indictments. -
fish82
Which laws exactly, did they break?stlouiedipalma;1007338 wrote:What's really a zero is the list of indicted/convicted folks. They were almost all indicted/convicted/sentenced in 2007 or earlier and none of them were major players in the financial crisis of 2008. Hell, they were mostly guilty of insider trading, defrauding their investors and wire and securities fraud.
Where are the folks from Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, B of A, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG, et al? These were the big players, whose use of bundled mortgages and derivatives helped put us in danger. Of course Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be included in this list, along with everyone in Congress who, for the 25+ years prior, helped remove any and all regulations on the financial sector. I don't think I've seen any CEO's of any of these companies listed in any federal indictments. -
Bigdogg
[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390540n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox[/video]fish82;1007385 wrote:Which laws exactly, did they break? -
Footwedge
Standing ovation from me. And to Fishy's response about what laws were broken....Sarbanes Oxeley for starters. Fishy you do not understand how the game is played. Those with that type of power can easily circumvent the law...been doing on for decades.stlouiedipalma;1007338 wrote:What's really a zero is the list of indicted/convicted folks. They were almost all indicted/convicted/sentenced in 2007 or earlier and none of them were major players in the financial crisis of 2008. Hell, they were mostly guilty of insider trading, defrauding their investors and wire and securities fraud.
Where are the folks from Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, B of A, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG, et al? These were the big players, whose use of bundled mortgages and derivatives helped put us in danger. Of course Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be included in this list, along with everyone in Congress who, for the 25+ years prior, helped remove any and all regulations on the financial sector. I don't think I've seen any CEO's of any of these companies listed in any federal indictments.
It amazes me that so many staunch conservatives on this site that stand by the mantra of "rule of law" can turn a blind eye to the CEO's and their toadies at these investment banks, and think they can do no wrong. Wayyy to much credence given to the fatman on the AM dial who preached the propaganda....that F & F were 100% behind the housing bubble and subsequent pop. Sorry Rushlips...you are an effin fraud..and your listeners are sick, sick lemmings for believing your horse sh1t.
The fact that the Justice Department won't prosecute....is a true testament to our land of separate legal entities. One for the 99% and one for the 1%.
Fish, if you're into education yourself on the subject, I would suggest you order this book by Glen Greenwald. And no, Greenwald is not a liberal.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/book_release_with_liberty_and_justice_for_some/ -
BGFalcons82
Huh...let's say that laws were broken. Then it is up to the Executive Branch of our government to bring charges...right? Hmmm.....now whom would that be since 1-20-2009? That's right, the same guy that the "99%" are in love with. Talk about dichotomy, eh?Footwedge;1007422 wrote:The fact that the Justice Department won't prosecute....is a true testament to our land of separate legal entities. One for the 99% and one for the 1%.
Oh wait, I forgot. Eric Holder is too busy giving guns away to Mexican drug lords to kill Americans so the regime can twist it into a massive gun-control legislative movement - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/ He's far too busy to prosecute little old theives on Wall Street. After all, they gave more $$$ to Obama than to McCain and they've got to stay at their posts, don't they now? -
Footwedge
I don't know and I don't give a rat's ass which branch of government prosecutes those responsible for the SIW and derivative swap crime of the century. But they should be prosecuted, period. And what is truly sick...these same people reclaimed their status quo of knocking down 40-80 mil per year...after using the biggest financial "shop vac" in hoisting the money back into their coiffers...by raising the interest rate spreads on loans vs. savings rates. For the most part, the 700 billion has been paid back to the taxpayer, right? And they did this in a horrible economy. Pretty slick, huh? Well, think again. It was the American workers, (blue and white) that bailed out the investment/commercial banks. Only this time...they stole directly from the bank accounts of Americans. I bet the fatman on the AM dial never told ya about this little dirty secret, now did he?BGFalcons82;1007452 wrote:Huh...let's say that laws were broken. Then it is up to the Executive Branch of our government to bring charges...right? Hmmm.....now whom would that be since 1-20-2009? That's right, the same guy that the "99%" are in love with. Talk about dichotomy, eh?
Nice of you to interject an oh so typical partisan jab with a subject that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What exactly do guns have to do with the banking debacle?Oh wait, I forgot. Eric Holder is too busy giving guns away to Mexican drug lords to kill Americans so the regime can twist it into a massive gun-control legislative movement - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/ He's far too busy to prosecute little old theives on Wall Street. After all, they gave more $$$ to Obama than to McCain and they've got to stay at their posts, don't they now?
For what it's worth, Holder is as big of a slimeball as many others. What exactly is your point anyhow? -
BGFalcons82
I note your passion, but to claim you don't know which branch of government does the prosecuting is quite troubling, really. Were you just so PO'd that you just typed away and really weren't thinking or are you actually in need of a remedial civics class? Or maybe Obama has everyone so flummoxed that we think he's taken over the legislative branch to go along with his Constitutional duties. I wouldn't be surprised.Footwedge;1007550 wrote:I don't know and I don't give a rat's ass which branch of government prosecutes those responsible for the SIW and derivative swap crime of the century. But they should be prosecuted, period. And what is truly sick...these same people reclaimed their status quo of knocking down 40-80 mil per year...after using the biggest financial "shop vac" in hoisting the money back into their coiffers...by raising the interest rate spreads on loans vs. savings rates. For the most part, the 700 billion has been paid back to the taxpayer, right? And they did this in a horrible economy. Pretty slick, huh? Well, think again. It was the American workers, (blue and white) that bailed out the investment/commercial banks. Only this time...they stole directly from the bank accounts of Americans. I bet the fatman on the AM dial never told ya about this little dirty secret, now did he?
Nice of you to interject an oh so typical partisan jab with a subject that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What exactly do guns have to do with the banking debacle?
For what it's worth, Holder is as big of a slimeball as many others. What exactly is your point anyhow?
Regarding Holder....HE is the one that should be prosecuting them if there were crimes against the USA. My point is that he doesn't give a shit about your cause for throwing them all in the hoose-gow as he's far too busy conjuring up lawlessness amongst the Mexican drug cartels in order to pull off a shellacking on our 2nd Amendment. He is a criminal and should be brought up on murder charges for aiding and abetting criminals in their slaughter of innocent Americans. -
fish82
Okay...that has about zero to do with bundled mortgages and derivatives. But since you graced us with it anyway....Bigdogg;1007407 wrote:[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390540n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox[/video]
I see a lady who claims she has a shitload of evidence, that for some reason she's been essentially sitting on for 4 years. If all this "evidence" actually existed, then someone at Countrywide would be on trial as we speak...plain and simple. -
fish82
1. Stop lapsing into "let me educate you" mode. It's annoying, and you're honestly in no position to educate me on anything...except perhaps how to properly start an Angry Mob or the finer points of hyperbole. And, if you could possibly go a single day without lapsing into a completely unrelated mouth froth about Limbaugh, that would be nice too. [/rant]Footwedge;1007422 wrote:Standing ovation from me. And to Fishy's response about what laws were broken....Sarbanes Oxeley for starters. Fishy you do not understand how the game is played. Those with that type of power can easily circumvent the law...been doing on for decades.
It amazes me that so many staunch conservatives on this site that stand by the mantra of "rule of law" can turn a blind eye to the CEO's and their toadies at these investment banks, and think they can do no wrong. Wayyy to much credence given to the fatman on the AM dial who preached the propaganda....that F & F were 100% behind the housing bubble and subsequent pop. Sorry Rushlips...you are an effin fraud..and your listeners are sick, sick lemmings for believing your horse sh1t.
The fact that the Justice Department won't prosecute....is a true testament to our land of separate legal entities. One for the 99% and one for the 1%.
Fish, if you're into education yourself on the subject, I would suggest you order this book by Glen Greenwald. And no, Greenwald is not a liberal.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/book_release_with_liberty_and_justice_for_some/
B. That said, let's take a look at Sarbanes Oxley, since you chose to toss it against the wall. I see a law dealing primarily with internal accounting practices and reporting, not with the legality of specific investment methods/techniques such as bundling, swaps and/or derivatives. (The specific "offenses" outlined by Lou above warranting prosecution.) It's a massive piece of legislation, so I'll give you permission to educate me this one time, since I'm not able to find it. The question is this: When talking about the specific "offenses" in the OP, exactly which part(s) of S/O do they violate? For instance, where is the section where it states that bundling loans is henceforth illegal?
And the fact that the DOJ won't prosecute is actually a testament to the fact that they don't have a shred of farking evidence to do so. If you think Holder wouldn't be dragging asses into courtrooms far and wide if he had even the slightest chance of a conviction, you've officially left the reservation, Amigo. IMHO, your burning hatred for anything remotely tied to "Corporate America" prevents you from discussing topics like this in a semi rational manner. That's just my $0.02 anyway. -
Manhattan Buckeye
If it was manufactured it would at least have explained Bawney Fwank's idiocy. Taxpayers paid for that flag. Taxpayers paid for the electric bill in the House that day, and we get this type of idiocy? What retawd can even defend Frank? The man is a moron, and he is a big part of the destruction of the U.S. economy. Because he has a donkey by his name you give that a pass?stlouiedipalma;1007296 wrote:You mean the American flag on display in the U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES? It's not like this was a manufactured set. I'm so glad you pointed that out to all of us. -
believer
It's the politically correct thing to do.Manhattan Buckeye;1008129 wrote:Because he has a donkey by his name you give that a pass? -
stlouiedipalmaManhattan Buckeye;1008129 wrote:If it was manufactured it would at least have explained Bawney Fwank's idiocy. Taxpayers paid for that flag. Taxpayers paid for the electric bill in the House that day, and we get this type of idiocy? What retawd can even defend Frank? The man is a moron, and he is a big part of the destruction of the U.S. economy. Because he has a donkey by his name you give that a pass?[/QUOTE
If you really think Barney played that big a role in the destruction of the US economy, you are a bigger dumbass than I originally thought. You're spouting partisan BS and you know it.
] -
Skyhook79
http://www.policymic.com/articles/video-obama-turned-to-jon-corzine-for-economic-advice
Well this explains a lot. HaHa -
gutSomeone else said it here before, any time you subsidize something, you get more of it. That's what happened with the govt at the heart of the housing crisis. Interesting article the other day in the WSJ (can't find it now) finding corrolaries with both this and the S&L Crisis in the 80's. He finds govt subsidies at the heart of both.
Now before you think this is just some conservative big banker BS, he goes on to say that Wall Street is very good at transferring this subsidy (intended for the average joe) to themselves. And he is right, because the average joe is stupid and irrational. Basically, Wall Street does what the govt is incenting them to do - they take low interest money provided by the govt to push these loans, and then do what Wall Street does bundling the risk together and transferring it (wash, rinse, repeat).
And that's how they capture the subsidy because the excessive default risk is transferred to investors and home owners. I will point out there is absolutely nothing criminal with making loans and then bundling and transferring risk. Where Wall Street ultimately got into trouble was a combination of trying to profit on the riskier tiers (which would run counter to the claim they were acting fraudulently because they took on a bunch of risk on the same "crappy" stuff they supposedly knew was junk) and also float from accumulating inventory of some shit they were unable to sell.
The transfer of risk and pocketing a transaction/middle man fee is exactly what Investment Banks are supposed to do. The problem arises, as others have pointed out, with the deregulation where for profit trading desks and risk capital was allowed to leverage the retail banking assets. -
Manhattan Buckeyestlouiedipalma;1009529 wrote:
Thanks for the compliment. Being called dumbass by a partisan shill (and part of the shill that elected idiots like Fwank) is nice knowing what damage was done by letting Freddie and Fannie continue their downfall in their work (which was trying to be subsided by the "worst POTUS of all time") and being rescued by 100s of billions of dollars of taxpayer support (which for folks like my family actually PAY taxes so we care), it should put you out a bit that this idiot is likely getting a pension that you and I would kill each other for.Manhattan Buckeye;1008129 wrote:If it was manufactured it would at least have explained Bawney Fwank's idiocy. Taxpayers paid for that flag. Taxpayers paid for the electric bill in the House that day, and we get this type of idiocy? What retawd can even defend Frank? The man is a moron, and he is a big part of the destruction of the U.S. economy. Because he has a donkey by his name you give that a pass?[/QUOTE
If you really think Barney played that big a role in the destruction of the US economy, you are a bigger dumbass than I originally thought. You're spouting partisan BS and you know it.
]
This guy is the exact problem with the United States, a political insider that ultimately hurt our country, and because you're a DONK it is ok? Please, did you even watch the video. The man is a nut. I'd resign the next day if I acted like that on the floor, but then again I'm not nor never will be an elected official because I wouldn't sell myself to interests that hurt the country. Fwank did. He deserves no praise. -
Manhattan BuckeyeThe guy's hometown newspaper even admits he was stupid:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/14/frank_haunted_by_stance_on_fannie_freddie/ -
gutI don't really understand why the govt needed to get into mortgages and student loans. It's just another form of handout because there was plenty of money there for the getting form the private loan sector, albeit at rates that more accurately reflect risk.
That said, the real problem with Fannie and Freddie, when they ran amok, was when it became another form of welfare.