patrick.net

Bankers run the country, not presidents.

NuttBoxer says

Bankers run the country, not presidents.

Bankers and corporations run the country utilizing the extra legal intelligence and information gathering Thuggee agencies, not presidents. The portal opened completely when they blew Kennedy's head off with the co-operation of organized crime. Most Presidents have been their stooges since.

There, fixed it.

marcus says

The idea that democrats deserve more blame than republicans for not seeking justice and consequences for the mortgage crisis of 2008 ridiculous.

I think the impeachment has gotten to you people, and you're trying to lash out and say OBama was as corrupt as Trump. Good luck with that.

Not sure that was his point wholly. As you say in comment 20, things were unfolding during Obama's first term. Doesn't matter if it was laws/regulation passed during Clinton or Bush. Fact was he had an opportunity to take a stand against the bullshit and didn't.

Almost every American felt the consequences of these ass holes and Obama looked the other way while people suffered. Just like a murdered family member, putting the killer in jail won't bring them back, but at least the murderer doesn't get to live a normal life after fucking you over. Between rating agencies and banks there are probably 100's (maybe thousands) of people that should be in jail and they're not. That was indisputably Obama looking the other way and his justice department.

WookieMan says

Between rating agencies and banks there are probably 100's (maybe thousands) of people that should be in jail and they're not.

Agreed.

The ratings agencies willingly gave shitty mortgage-backed bonds AAA ratings while being perfectly aware that they were shit. When called to account, they claimed the ratings were just their "opinions" and were protected by the First Amendment.

"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain." Perfect definition of what the ratings agencies did. It was not protected speech, but simply FRAUD.

But of course the even bigger criminals were Goldman Sachs, who were selling these shit bonds to pension funds at the same time they were betting these bonds would default, by taking out insurance with AIG. They KNEW the bonds would default and yet sold them as AAA. More intentional deception for unlawful gain, more fraud.

When it turned out that AIG would go bankrupt in paying off Goldman, Goldman arranged a taxpayer-funded bailout for AIG. They could do that because guess what? They were placing their people at the highest levels of the US government, like Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

Goldman won't be prosecuted. Very much like the Saudi influence on US politics. The Saudis can murder thousands of Americans on 9/11, fund Islamic terror around the world, and chop up Khashoggi, and never have to pay a thing for it.

All the media talk about "racism" is just a well-funded bullshit distraction and division tactic so we won't talk about THEM.

Pretty much every employee of Well's Fargo who participated in using customers personal data to open up fake accounts should be in jail.

theoakman says

Pretty much every employee of Well's Fargo who participated in using customers personal data to open up fake accounts should be in jail.

Agreed, but they won't be, because $3,760,000 in lobbying. A small price to pay for freedom to commit fraud.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2019&id=D000019743

:
If it was hundreds or thousands of bankers, why wouldn't it be congresses place to go after them ? What laws were broken ?

And actually, if people are honest about what happened it's not the way you guys describe. I believe most of those bankers, the hundreds or thousands that made it happen didn't do it knowingly. Even Goldman who surely did in the end use it's influence to avoid legal consequences and to prevent AIG from causing it to lose billions.

They were convinced that they had created a system that would work. Tranches, CDOs, Swaps and all. They had securitized everything in a way that they believed would work, including ways to hedge the risk. When you get quants pricing the things with algorithms nobody understands but a couple of faulty assumptions, it made a lot of people complacent about the risk.

It might have worked if weren't for the lack of other opportunities in our economy leading too many people getting in to "trading" in homes. "Flipping" homes. Including way to many people that weren't properly capitalized, buying and selling homes, taking out liar loans. Getting in front of the real buyers that needed a long term home, and bidding prices up .That's what the system couldn't handle. And that was caused by people at the local end.

Brokers (both R.E. and Mortgage) were motivated by fees and commissions, same in banks who didn't have the guidance to say no, this is wrong. It was a bubble that blew up slowly. Eventually it was obvious to a lot of us. Shacks selling for half a million, bought by someone with no income hoping to fix it up real quick. and sell it for 100k more. That's the thing that was not accounted for in the high tech design of the financial system behind it. Otherwise it might have actually worked. THat is if everyone was honest.

But this was America. Apparently we loves us our liars and our lying. That's just who we are. Otherwise there could be no Trump.

SO yeah, the true causes of the problem was too overly distributed among too many parties. Sure you could have sent a few high level executives to prison. I don't see how that would have changed anything. I don't blame Obama as much as I do republican congress in the aftermath for not coming up with better laws to prevent it from happening again.

I wonder how parties voted for bailour - did it pass with mostly R or D votes?

:
By the way, I noticed here in LA about 2 years ago, hearing a lot of ads on radio for people to get in to flipping homes again for some company, that provides I don't know exactly what , I think some financing in exchange for much of the profit. Those ads were going for a while, maybe a year, but I haven't been hearing them much in the past year. It's hard to know, becasue I don't ,listen to the radio that much, but I think it stopped. I don't think their timing worked out.

But sadly if we get in to an inflationary market, i.e. with the dollar dropping in value, (the kind that Trump would seriously love to cause), you can be sure they will be back.

OK checked it - bipartisan vote for bailing our banksters in senate, in congress D's voted for it, R's against. So, blame both but Ds more

:
Please share source. Is this bailing out bankers or banks ?

The dems were also more behind bailing out Car companies (GM, Ford, and Chryler) basically anything Obama wanted to do. THat deal ended up making the government money.

Bailing out banks, is not the same as bailing out bankers.

If you are talking about TARP, that was a dem controlled congress and the Bush admin., 2008.

Bailing out banks is very much same as bailing out banksters as they keep their loot. Either let banks go broke and banksters are FREE!!! to jump out of winfow, or nationalize banks that fail ang give banksters NOTHING. As it was done here, fucking banksters are still rich and running the show

:
Yes, but when you're at the precipice in an economy where banks play such a big role, bailing out banks, that symbolizes the government throwing it's weight behind them at a time that otherwise might have led to a much worse crash, it's to assure the people that they need to calm down, and everything is going to be okay.

Many rational people see that move as more about risk aversion, avoiding a much worse global outcome that couldn't even be comprehended, rather than about protecting the bankers that had in part caused the situation.

:
While we're on this subject. Why is it not a problem to have a president that benefits so much financially if the dollar were to suddenly lose half it's value ?

Why is that not a conflict of interest ?

Think about it. Suppose he has $30 billion in real estate holdings with 85% debt. That's 4.5 billion in equity. If the dollar dropped 50% in value and financial assets held their value, they would now be worth 60 billion. That raises his equity to $34.5 billion, with dollars that are worth half as much, so in real dollars his equity goes from $4.5 billion to $17.25 billion.

Maybe I'm way off. Say it's $15 billion with 1.5 billion of his own equity. If the dollar gets chopped in half (like it did in the 70s), it would be worth 30 billion, with his equity jumping by maybe as much as 15 billion (now worth half in 2019 dollars) , so that's 1.5 billion growing to 9 billion in real dollars.

Has there ever been President with this much conflict of interest in American history ? If the President's policies can affect the value of the dollar, then I would say no, we never have.

Can we just maybe possibly at least agree that Trump doesn't see the same downside to inflation that most of us see ?

I know, I know, fortunately for us, Trump isn't that kind of person. He's never thinking about himself or his self interest. He's all about saving America.

Moral Hazard - bail them out, they will keep doing stupid stuff knowing they will be bailed out. If we are afraid of crash then nationalize banks and break them up and leave fucking banksters with $1. That was done in Sweden. As it stands now, Protectors of poor people rewarded banksters for robbing the nation, paying themselves BONUSES! and then going broke

rd6B says

Moral Hazard - bail them out, they will keep doing stupid stuff knowing they will be bailed out. If we are afraid of crash then nationalize banks and break them up and leave fucking banksters with $1. That was done in Sweden. As it stands now, Protectors of poor people rewarded banksters for robbing the nation, paying themselves BONUSES! and then going broke

Iceland, also. The Althing was corrupt, they would not resign or consider anything less than a painless bailout for the banksters while massively increasing the national debt.

20,000 people (in a country of only a few hundred thousand) basically blockaded the Parliament and the 20 cops on duty count not possibly break them up.

Investors who fail to police Management deserve no mercy. Ram it down their throats like John Holmes in 1981.

NoCoupForYou says

rd6B says

Moral Hazard - bail them out, they will keep doing stupid stuff knowing they will be bailed out. If we are afraid of crash then nationalize banks and break them up and leave fucking banksters with $1. That was done in Sweden. As it stands now, Protectors of poor people rewarded banksters for robbing the nation, paying themselves BONUSES! and then going broke

Iceland, also. The Althing was corrupt, they would not resign or consider anything less than a painless bailout for the banksters while massively increasing the national debt.

20,000 people (in a country of only a few hundred thousand) basically blockaded the Parliament and the 20 cops on duty count not possibly break them up.

Investors who fail to police Management deserve no mercy. Ram it down their throats like John Holmes in 1981.

Agreed the only problem is that usually after the right thing has been done the other juggernaut - the government - takes over because they have done something once right for the people and now they think they can run the banks and companies better (and enrich themselves) - which they can't. They are equally disastrous - just look at Sweden - if not worse as they have all the firepower and govt coercion to intimidate truthers and protestors. What should be done is just this: fire/prosecute all participants and the rest of the workers, place the bank into receivership, sell all assets, distribute the remaining funds per enforceable contracts and after bankruptcy have another private bidder takeover if there's interest, if not, let it rest in peace. Letting corrupt bureaucrats run things instead of corrupt bankstas is not a solution.

marcus says

While we're on this subject. Why is it not a problem to have a president that benefits so much financially if the dollar were to suddenly lose half it's value ?

Why is that not a conflict of interest ?

Not sure how the executive branch can't be in conflict of interest constantly. Think about it.

WookieMan says

Think about it.

Avoiding my question almost completely. Wrong. We've never seen anything remotely similar to this.

If we had a 1970s kind of inflation, Trump stands to make somewhere between 5 and $20 BILLION, that's with a B (in real 2019 dollars).

Much less on the deflation side would presumably ruin him.

Senators from both parties voted to confirm Hank Paulson as US Treasury Secretary. Hank headed up Goldman Sachs previously, during the period that resulted in a record fraud settlement by Goldman with the USG.

marcus says

What laws were broken ?

Knowingly misrepresenting the risk of securities you sell is fraud. Money laundering for cartels and terrorists (HSBC) is a crime.

:
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

No one who's ever looked at that industry could ever believe that Obama picked up the phone and negotiated the contract or had anything to do with it.

Right wingers are always so gullible, always grasping at straws.

Obama has made more than 10 million from previous books he wrote. He actually wrote them himself too. There was a bidding war for his and Michelle's memoirs. One of the bidders was Murdoch's book publisher, Harper Collins.

Maybe it's not just gullibility, maybe what bothers idiots on the right is that book publishers believe that his and Michelle's Memoirs are worth that much.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/321619-bidding-hits-60m-on-obamas-book-deal-report

At least four publishers are involved in an auction over the Obama books, sources told the Times, which reported that Penguin Random House is leading the pack and a decision on the winning bid is expected soon.

Penguin published Obama’s last three books.

HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., is reportedly another contender. HarperCollins winning the rights would bring the Obamas into the same publishing house as figures such as Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, one of the former president’s biggest media critics.

Sources briefed on the auction’s standing said Macmillian is a third competitor, while Simon & Schuster, which is owned by CBS, remains a fourth player.

Then, no matter that we've all seen dozens of big Netflix deals for all kinds of people , that meme implies that it's becasue George Soros is a big shareholder in Netflix that Netflix gave a deal to The Obama's new production company.

Of course maybe it's just a hope that it sells to the other idiots. Got to keep that base alive, I reckon.

"While we're on this subject. Why is it not a problem to have a president that benefits so much financially if the dollar were to suddenly lose half it's value ?

Why is that not a conflict of interest ?"

It is a conflict of interest. That's why the founders specifically stated only gold and silver could be legal tender.

marcus says

Avoiding my question almost completely. Wrong. We've never seen anything remotely similar to this.

Wrong. It's all wrong. Your congress critters and basically insider trading based on contracts that THEY are voting on. They know if Lockheed is going to get a $5B contract before the public does. So yes, we see it daily when some House member is worth $100M. Like for realz?

And you're right, we've not seen anything similar to this from Trump. He's got a long way to go before he crosses into Clinton territory. I seriously hope your being sarcastic. Trump will make a ton of money just like everyone in Congress and every past President. This is not uncharted territory by any stretch of the imagination. Not sure what I've said is wrong.....

WookieMan says

This is not uncharted territory by any stretch of the imagination.

Then you don't understand my point at all. And that's fine. Kind of the usual.

marcus says

WookieMan says

This is not uncharted territory by any stretch of the imagination.

Then you don't understand my point at all. And that's fine. Kind of the usual.

What is "never seen anything remotely similar to this" mean? Explain. You haven't. You're just grandstanding and pretending like a point was made. I've seen hundreds if not thousands, if you include family members, make millions off their political position. Your claim is that this is something new or huge. Explain.

Barack Obama's net worth
2007: $1.3 million
2017: $40.0 million
Increase: $38.7 million (+2,977%)

:
Yes, the 2 books Obama wrote before being President were raking in the royalties even while he was President. I guess something happened that made a lot of people read his books (spoiler: He was elected President).

In 2017 he has part of a $65 million dollar book deal (see who the bidders were bidders in my comment above) advanced and big speaking fees.

Yes, it's good to be Barack Obama.

It must be because of corruption and a vast left wing conspiracy. It could not possibly be becasue of the global admiration for this leader who is well versed in so many topics, able to talk about those topics in full sentences at way above the 5th grade level, and also a very gifted public speaker and writer ?

Indeed Obama was “part of” a $65 mil book deal, together with his wife (the priciest book deal in history)— which incidentally was granted by the publisher of Common Core books. I’m sure there’s no conflict of interest between Obama’s windfall, and his admin mandating Pearson’s books for K-12.

There was once a standard that public servants avoid the hint of dual interests, and declare competing claims to the public. Obama’s conflict of interest with Pearson Publishing is one of the most egregious examples I’ve seen. It’s Banana Republic time.

marcus says

Obama has made more than 10 million from previous books he wrote. He actually wrote them himself too.

HaHaHaHaHaHa! Gasp, Splutter!

Obama only has a few identifiable screeds on law, and they are almost childish in their simplicity, certainly they never made the grade for any law school Law Review. There have been many commentators stating that Obama's token stint on the Harvard Law Review made no sense at all, and the stories concocted about it bear no resemblance to any process at any other law school. I remember when he ran for President, they called him "A Law School Professor". He was only a voluntary lecturer very part time, he had no scholarly appointments or experience. Those voluntary lecturer positions are a dime a dozen for lawyers who want some status by having a law school affiliation, however tenuous. Stuff that Obama wrote himself have been suppressed or re-written/edited because they contain grammatical errors and improper spellings and usages.

If he wrote shit for himself, it was publicity stunt lies about his origins in Africa. He did write some sincere things about his REAL father, the bisexual communist journalist and pornographer Frank Davis in Hawaii, but they were very strange, since his grandfather more or less repatriated them to spend time together. Where do you think Obama's 'Chicago Connection' comes from? The Chicago connections are from Frank Davis' radical communist origins in Chicago. One wonders from what he wrote about Frank Davis if Obama wasn't molested, which would make him a real head case.