1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Northside Storm, May 24, 2011.

  1. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,835
    Likes Received:
    41,310
    1. SEC enforcement division attorneys are not political appointees are not effected one iota by any campaign contribution - even the ones that occurred in the 1990's that would require a time machine to have the effect that you claim.
    2. SEC can't put anybody in jail, that is what DOJ does.
    3. You can't put a corporation in jail.
    4. You have absolutely no evidence for this statement


    Good luck with law school though. .



    Nice - it just keeps getting dumber and dumber. Why don't you identify a single isntance of Goldman Sachs doing this? Unlike Koch industries - it's a public company, so it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it's funneling hundreds of millions into right wing think tanks. It's obviously the story of the century if so, so if you find this out, remember to thank me when you become famous.
     
  2. greenhippos

    greenhippos Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hard to think he's handled it in a better way. Wall Street = rich and powerful people. The market has only gone up a considerable % since he took the presidency, thus those same people have only become richer.
     
  3. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    1 and 2-Exactly, but the SEC needs to refer cases to the DOJ, no? And the DOJ has not put a single Wall Street soul in jail. Not a single one. This isn't a thread about the SEC's handling of Wall Street, it's a thread about the Obama Admin's handing of Wall Street, and last I checked, the DOJ was part of the Obama Administration and very slow when it comes to these cases. I think they definitely failed on Wachovia, I'm still waiting on Goldman results to see if they'll fail again.

    The SEC suffers from the fact that it is a very lax enforcement agency. Whether or not rent-seeking applies in this case is a bit harder to clarify, because you are right, the SEC are not directly affected by political contributions. However, the high number of "revolvers" in not only the SEC, but other branches of government, suggest rent-seeking. For historical comparison, Obama's administration has hired enough revolvers to put it on par with the full length of the Clinton Administration.

    3-You can certainly put the executives in jail though.

    4-There have been quite a few cases of direct influence---notably Rubin's actions in the Clinton administration that heavily favored the big banks by bailing out the Asian countries, and the frequent deregulation bills he pushed through. The current atmosphere where TARP main street goals are being slowly abandoned, and further regulation seems politically difficult (when it really shouldn't) seems to suggest the same thing is happening all over again.

    thanks for the wishes though, I'm probably going to need them.
     
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,835
    Likes Received:
    41,310
    Umm.. Preet Bharara has been pretty busy lately puting poeple in jail, but otherwise it's kind of hard to put people in jail when you don't have enough evidence to do so.

    Actually I can clarify it for you: it didn't. That's why they had to pay the largest fine in history.

    So which ones? Give me some names.
    So you still have no evidence, but you can refer to Robert Rubin 20 years ago about something totally different.
     
  5. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Bradley Manning would disagree.

    Yeah, and the SEC bothered to refer possible criminal fraud to the DOJ eh? Instead, we had to have an independent senatorial investigation. hmm.

    Lloyd Bankfien
    Fabrice Tourre
    Rajat Gupta
    Raj Rajaratnam (the only convicted one---sentencing better be harsh. 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud.)
    Angelo Mozilo
    Joe Cassano
    Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin
     
  6. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,835
    Likes Received:
    41,310
    yes this wikileaks guy makes a lot of sense to bring up. Oh wait no it doesn't.



    The SEC did refer the case to the DOJ, genius. But facts haven't stopped you yet, I trust this time will prove no different.


    So you're saying that the government could convict all of these people of crimes, if it wanted to, but it won't ? Can you please detail the charges for my own amusement? thanks brah.
     
    #186 SamFisher, Jun 15, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  7. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    rent-seeking, leading to an appointment of once again a very favorable Treasury secretary, and subsequently, regulatory capture by Wall Street banks.

    There's more chez the SEC.
    yes yes, blame Bush and the Republicans, but it's not like Obama has done much to change the situation.
     
  8. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    well, it certainly tried with Thomas Drake, didn't it?

    I'd like to see the DOJ use that same energy on something worthy for once, and not government whistle-blowers that are exposing FISA and Fourth Amendment violations.

    Add Wachovia to the list.

     
  9. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,786
    Likes Received:
    3,705
    as much as joseph cassano screwed up the banking system, what crime did he actually commit?
     
  10. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,835
    Likes Received:
    41,310
    ^ two nonresponsive posts in a row, I guess that means you can't find anything to charge joe Cassano with either. :(
     
  11. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Angelo Mozilo

     
  12. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    yeah, it show arbitrary justice and jailing people before convicting them of anything is done for other cases, just not Wall Street crooks that destroyed our economy. The DOJ seems awfully good when it's motivated, doesn't it? Citing 1917 laws to try to get people locked up, and bringing 35-year charges.

    fine, my bad, not like the DOJ has done anything, or more than likely will do anything though.

    Sam, you need to be more patient, me friggin cranking stuff out while I'm (actually supposed to be doing research for other stuff) takes longer than 2 f**king minutes.
     
  13. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,835
    Likes Received:
    41,310
    Why don't you connect the dots of your theory for us - why must you be such a lil' scamp?

    Angelo Mozilo did not get prosecuted because he owns the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Andre Birotte Jr - a career federal prosecutor who specialized in narcotics cases, and later the IG of the LAPD. because of rent-seeking. Andre Birotte Jr. - appointed in 2009, has been bought and paid for by Mozilo's Countrywide Financial Corporation, which went bust in early 2008.

    This involved Angelo Mozilo finding two wormholes in space time, joining them together to a point in 2003, and traveling back in time to buy the mortgage on Birotte's house, which future Angelo Mozilo uses to hold over his head to avoid prosecution. Occam's razor.
     
  14. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    no, quite simply my theory is this---

    the laws of our nation are framed such that bankers and banks will always get away with their crimes.

    The only way to change that is through more regulation, and better, more stringent laws.

    unfortunately, due to rent-seeking and regulatory capture, this legal framework is largely the stuff of fantasyland, and people like Mozilo who made millions screwing other people, will continually walk out scot-free, until Obama starts bringing some of that "change" people, you know, elected him for? I just see more of the sad, sad same.
     
  15. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,835
    Likes Received:
    41,310
    And until we invent time travel, which is what most of your theories require. Again, another future possible career path for you, brah.
     
  16. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Look, there's a big difference between should and would.

    I am of the opinion we should have put these executives to jail. Okay?

    I am well aware that even if the laws were changed, they cannot be prosecuted retroactively. fine.

    However, I would hope that this whole crisis would have at least changed something, that way future Mozilos won't profit from basically screwing everyone of his clients. I want the legal and regulatory framework to change so that this doesn't happen again. As long as there is rent-seeking and regulatory capture, this won't f**king happen, which pisses me the hell off. Look, Americans elected Obama to effect "change". In his handling of Wall Street, he has shown an eerie reticence for that, and has certainly not delivered. I am disappointed.

    That said, some wheels are in motion on the Goldman case at least, and you know, I guess the only thing a first-term president wants is a second president. still, so far, I think the Obama Admin. has done a very poor job in this regard.
     
  17. MFW

    MFW Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,112
    Likes Received:
    24

    I understood your points perfectly. Except there is just one problem. You alleged fraud. Hence to claim the U.S. government somehow was too cozy with Goldman and covered up the fraud, you'd first have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is fraud. And it doesn't go something along the lines of "it's wrong" and more along the lines of "it's illegal." Failing that there's nothing to discuss here.

    Whether the government is too cozy with Wall Street is another matter, but at this point, the fundamental of your premise is false.

    And one would also clearly make an argument that by seeking politically motivated punishment on Goldman, to save one's own political career/hide, would go along way to demonstrate that it always motivated, on the part of the USG, one's own self-interest as supposed to being somehow legally favourable to Goldman.

    You're alleging corruption. I think that's a worthwhile topic. But you haven't successfully expanded upon it in a meaningful way.

    And yet somehow Sammy the moron became an expert on structured products despite never having even looked at a deal, and who incidentally, can't seem to tell assets from his ass. Bottom line Sammy, fraud implies intent. Where's the proof of intent?

    And. LMAO. I'm gonna keep a running tally of how many times you say H-1B in this thread. It's rapidly becoming a joke all by itself.
     
  18. MFW

    MFW Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,112
    Likes Received:
    24
    What crime do you allege? The law doesn't prosecute based on stupidity. If it did you'd have to tack many more names to that list of yours.

    I can't also help but notice that while you claim the stupidity of Wall Street is criminal, you treat the stupidity of investors as being victimized.
     
  19. thadeus

    thadeus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    I'm just curious - MFW, SamFisher, Major:

    Why are you attacking Northside Storm? Because he claims Goldman Sachs committed a crime? Because he claims Goldman Sachs has too much influence over government policy? Because he is saying Obama has too many Goldman Sachs employees in his circle of advisors?

    If I'm incorrect, please correct me.
     
  20. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    lol. I too am curious, although I think I already have a good idea.
     

Share This Page