• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Our Libs have to hate Geithner

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Status Quo We Can Believe In. Traders fear uncertainty, and a transfer of power to a new person, new party and new philosophy has contributed to the year’s selloff. But Geithner’s recent work is well-known on Wall Street, as an architect of the Bear Stearns sale, the Lehman collapse, and the AIG rescue. You may love him or you may hate him, but you certainly know him.

Let's examine what our resident libs had to say previously about bailing out folks such as AIG;

OT, "while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country... "

fff, "What part of the Constitution covers giving Wall Street $700 billion?"

Kolo, "If you think this ' rot' just started with the last elections in the Congress....are really are as dumb as you sound. This has been festering for DECADES upon DECADES and they ALL are guilty. Wall Street, greedy banks/bankers, ....

So now, what do you fine folks think of Obama appointing one of the people behind the bailout?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I know little about Geithner- but questioned from day one if he was another Paulson- just like putting a chicken in the hen house.....

But- the investment/banking/money world says he is one of the smartest and bestest to bring this economy out of the hole GW put it in- and one of the best regulator/oversight people...

Remember how much the Stock Market jumped the day Obama announced his appointment :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Libs Brain


socialistdem1.gif
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I know little about Geithner- but questioned from day one if he was another Paulson- just like putting a chicken in the hen house.....

But- the investment/banking/money world says he is one of the smartest and bestest to bring this economy out of the hole GW put it in- and one of the best regulator/oversight people...

Remember how much the Stock Market jumped the day Obama announced his appointment :???:

He's behind the AIG bailout and you're still blaming Bush? Did you read architect of the AIG rescue?

You wail and moan and the "fat cat bankers" on Wall St., and now you're siding with them? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It doesn't take much for you to do a complete 180 does, it? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
I know little about Geithner- but questioned from day one if he was another Paulson- just like putting a chicken in the hen house.....

But- the investment/banking/money world says he is one of the smartest and bestest to bring this economy out of the hole GW put it in- and one of the best regulator/oversight people...

Remember how much the Stock Market jumped the day Obama announced his appointment :???:

He's behind the AIG bailout and you're still blaming Bush? Did you read architect of the AIG rescue?

You wail and moan and the "fat cat bankers" on Wall St., and now you're siding with them? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It doesn't take much for you to do a complete 180 does, it? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Didn't think I was siding with him....

"while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country...

And I think my comment was concerning GW/Paulson/Cox/etal and the past 8 years of no oversight, no regulation, no enforcement of laws on the books that were put there to prevent these type crashes from happening....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
%$&^%$ fat cat bankers *^^%^%&^ bailout [email protected]$%#^$% &*^&^ bankers. What, somebody appointed one of those %%^$ , $$$^, dang bankers who #$%^$%$ the whole $^%$$ country? %%$% &^^^& !! OH, it was Obama? Oh.... I hear he is well thought of...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
OT said:
And I think my comment was concerning GW/Paulson/Cox/etal and the past 8 years of no oversight, no regulation, no enforcement of laws on the books that were put there to prevent these type crashes from happening....
That's a lie, OT...watch the clip again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
OT said:
And I think my comment was concerning GW/Paulson/Cox/etal and the past 8 years of no oversight, no regulation, no enforcement of laws on the books that were put there to prevent these type crashes from happening....
That's a lie, OT...watch the clip again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Do you libs like your crow with ketchup, BBQ sauce, mustard, ....?

Any bets on if they will admit they were wrong in blaming Bush?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
RobertMac said:
OT said:
And I think my comment was concerning GW/Paulson/Cox/etal and the past 8 years of no oversight, no regulation, no enforcement of laws on the books that were put there to prevent these type crashes from happening....
That's a lie, OT...watch the clip again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Do you libs like your crow with ketchup, BBQ sauce, mustard, ....?

Any bets on if they will admit they were wrong in blaming Bush?

Who controlled the White House and Administration for the past 8 years as many of these laws went unenforced or were totally thru aside....Who told regulators to "take an 8 year coffee break" or "shuffle paper- make it look like your busy- but do nothing on GIPSA enforcement"...
Why are even Republican Congressmen calling for the indictment of Bush for allowing the collapse by failing to enforce the laws on the books :???:

What Party has controlled Congress for 12 of the past 14 years :???:

And its all the Democrats fault :roll: :???: OY VEY!!!! :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Did you watch the clip, OT? Bush was calling for MORE regulation. He did it several times! The bill in the banking committee for more regulation was split ALONG PARTY LINES. Barney Frank was the main Congressman fighting AGAINST more regulation - he didn't think there was any problem!

How can you, as a former investigator, look at these facts and reach the conclusion that you have? It's time for honesty with us and yourself.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Did you watch the clip, OT? Bush was calling for MORE regulation. He did it several times! The bill in the banking committee for more regulation was split ALONG PARTY LINES. Barney Frank was the main Congressman fighting AGAINST more regulation - he didn't think there was any problem!

How can you, as a former investigator, look at these facts and reach the conclusion that you have? It's time for honesty with us and yourself.
OT has no idea what a filibuster is or how Congress works...or doesn't work, as the case may be! When he only looks from one perspective, he doesn't know he is lying!!! I'll agree with him that there is blame to go on both side...Bush could have used the bully pulpit to go over the heads of Congress directly to the people as Reagan did!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Did you watch the clip, OT? Bush was calling for MORE regulation. He did it several times! The bill in the banking committee for more regulation was split ALONG PARTY LINES. Barney Frank was the main Congressman fighting AGAINST more regulation - he didn't think there was any problem!

How can you, as a former investigator, look at these facts and reach the conclusion that you have? It's time for honesty with us and yourself.

Easy SH- they were the party in power- Its their final responsibility...

But if you look at the entire Bush reign- there is a pattern to let the big Corporate Industry-Investment- and Multinationals run unpoliced and with no oversight...
You have the GIPSA administrator " Shuffle papers and look busy- but do nothing" to the investigators-- you have the FDA- that when given money by Congress to hire more inspectors- instead gave huge bonus's to management- but did nothing to get more inspectors or stop the influx of imports that were killing our kids and elderly (and still are today)...You had CSPA- that when all the poisoned toys were found- was found to have one inspector- to handle everything.....So nothing was being inspected....
You have CFTC and SEC commisioners that Congressional testimony shows were told to "take an 8 year coffee break" or "go on 8 year vacation"....They wouldn't even enforce the rules on the books about oil speculation-- and then when Congress gave them some more teeth to close the Enron loophole in the Farm Bill- Bush found an attorney to write an opinion saying not to use it...

On thru the banking regulators- that were told not to enforce the law pertaining to requiring lenders to verify citizenship/immigrant status of borrowers-- and so many of these default loans were made to illegals in states like California and Colorado...This is what made Rep. Bilbray stand up in a hearing the other day and ask that Bush be indicted as a co-conspirator under the RICO statute....

I could go on an on and add more all day...Maybe one or two could be considered an incompetent choices of administrators (still Bush's responsibility)--but when every agency and Dept. starts showing the exact same thing- its a pattern that goes right back to the top....

This current Madoff investigation may become very interesting-- but instead of the little guys getting ripped off this time, and it just being pushed under the table--this time there were many millionaires and billionaires- that are screaming to high heaven about why when this character had been reported years ago- and many times to the SEC about fraud and a Ponzi scheme--SEC DID NOTHING- no investigation- NOTHING....
Because that was the George Bush administration policy- do nothing on oversight or policing....
George Bush fiddled while greedy fatcats raped and pillaged- and may cause the downfall of this country.....
 

Tex

Well-known member
The president and his men are the executive branch and the executive executes the laws and policies.


Congress can only do oversight and decide whether they should allocate money for enforcing the laws that are on the books.

I will have to say that it was a republican congress and in specific, RM, a republican Senator who did not fund the original COOL law (Senator Thad from MS).

COOL could have been enforced without an MCOOL law at all and all under the authority of the USDA and their rule making. The USDA has shown that it can spend money (on NAIS) that was not specifically written into law by legislators.

Too many politicians---on both sides of the aisle--have been paid off for big business's interests and for selling out the public interest.

I don't just categorize them as dems or republicans. One accepting a bribe (campaign donation) to do the bidding of contributors against the public interest is crooked no matter what side of the aisle they are on. They may be called public servants but they are only serving themselves.
 

Mike

Well-known member
This current Madoff investigation may become very interesting-- but instead of the little guys getting ripped off this time, and it just being pushed under the table--this time there were many millionaires and billionaires- that are screaming to high heaven about why when this character had been reported years ago- and many times to the SEC about fraud and a Ponzi scheme--SEC DID NOTHING- no investigation- NOTHING....
Because that was the George Bush administration policy- do nothing on oversight or policing....
George Bush fiddled while greedy fatcats raped and pillaged- and may cause the downfall of this country.....

To say that Bush was part of the cause that Madoff was not caught is quite a stretch. In fact, it's a lie.

Madoff's Ponzi scheme is believed to have had it's inception in the 1970's and is definitely known to exist for at least 16 years. That's Pre-Bush if you didn't know beforehand.

Until they have a report from an investor about an actual ripoff, the SEC could not detect a descrepancy......just from the way the books were set up. The tips the SEC received were ambiguous.

In fact, had the futures market not taken a nosedive... he would still not be caught.

Remember, this guy ripped off his own sister.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few loans to black applicants and won the case. As one commentator noted in May 2008, legal “successes” such as this were probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007. That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose credit was poor. When the law forced them to lend money anyway, the inevitable collapse occurred.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Purposely- or because of Incompetence- it happened on the Bush Watch- which makes him responsible....That is the job of the SEC- to check out these reports/allegations- and give at least some protection to the investor...

This will probably end up costing the taxpayers billions $ too- especially if the incompetence/complicity of the SEC is shown- because the Federal Insurance fund set up to cover these type of ripoffs has no where the money to pay off all the claims...Not even a dime on the dollar...

Madoff scandal sparks investigation into SEC failures

2009-01-06

News

The US Securities and Exchange Commission's failure to act on the "red flags" raised about Bernard Madoff's investment business has sparked a wide-ranging investigation of the regulator's inaction.


Speaking at a US House financial services committee hearing on the alleged Madoff fraud, SEC's inspector general David Kotz said his unit had launched the investigation at the initial request of SEC chairman Christopher Cox.

Cox asked Kotz to investigate why allegations made about Madoff as far back as 1999 were dismissed by the regulator as not credible. Kotz was also asked to look into alleged conflicts of interest arising from the Madoff family's relationships with members of the SEC's staff.

However, Kotz said his probe would go beyond the specific points raised by the SEC chairman and will include an evaluation of broader issues regarding the overall operations of the SEC's inspection and enforcement divisions.

Kotz told the House hearing his office would seek to "provide overarching and comprehensive recommendations to ensure that the commission fulfils its mission of protecting investors, facilitating capital formation and maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets" following the completion of the investigation.

The investigation will be "independent and as hard-hitting as necessary" and would not shy away from criticism of the SEC where it is warranted, Kotz promised.

The investigation could lead to a shake-up of the SEC and other regulatory authorities who have been criticised for failing to spot the many problems in the financial industry that came to light in 2008.

Congressman Paul Kanjorski, a member of the financial services committee and chairman of the sub-committee on capital markets, insurance and government sponsored enterprises, said Madoff's Ponzi scheme fell through the cracks of the US regulatory system.

He was particularly critical of the apparent failure of the SEC to conduct inspections or obtain records after Madoff was initially forced to register as an investment adviser.

"It now appears that regulators should have detected the Madoff wrongdoing earlier because of the red flags raised by others," Kanjorski said.

He pointed out that outsiders had been unable to model Madoff's returns and highlighted articles in the specialist press published as early as 2001 raising questions about the company. "Other red flags include unrealistically steady investment returns and an auditor the size of a mouse examining a fund the size of an elephant," he said.

Kanjorski said the SEC needed greater resources to fulfil its functions. He pointed out that the enforcement unit was chronically understaffed, employing just 400 people to look at 11,000 investment advisers and thousands of mutual funds.

The hearing brought little comfort to clients who lost money in the fraud.

Stephen Harbeck, president of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), which oversees the liquidation of failed brokerage companies, said identifying investor assets in Madoff Investment Securities had proved problematic.

"The customer statements Madoff had been sending to investors bore little or no relation to reality. The records sent to customers were inaccurate when compared to the inventory of securities actually held by the brokerage firm," he said.

Harbeck said this had meant it was not possible to transfer all or parts of customer accounts to other brokerage companies.

He said claim forms had been mailed to over 8,000 Madoff investors since January 2, 2009 requesting details of the sums given to and withdrawn from Madoff Investment Securities. The responses will be used to analyse what each investor is owed.

However, Harbeck warned "extended time period of the deception and the numerous deposits and withdrawals of assets from the company over that time may make that reconstruction very difficult".

Harbeck also said over $830 million in liquid assets of the defunct brokerage company had been identified to date and may be subject to recovery by clients. A court order authorising the release of $29 million of debtor assets had also been obtained, he said.

Where securities or cash are found to be missing from customer accounts, the SIPC can use its own funds, within limits ($500,000 in missing securities, $100,000 in missing cash), to restore customer accounts.

The organisation currently has assets of just $1.6 billion in the SIPC Fund which is used to restore customer accounts.

Trying to Blow The Whistle on Madoff
POSTED: 01:56 PM ET, 01/13/2009 by Derek Kravitz


Long before the name Bernard Madoff became synonomous with the biggest Ponzi scheme in American history, two people -- a reporter and an accountant -- had caught some red flags in Madoff's numbers.

New York accountant Harry Markopolos spent the better of a decade combing through Madoff's books in an unsuccessful attempt to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine the hedge fund's finances.

The bookish and media-shy Markopolos started looking at Madoff in 2000 after his boss at an investment firm asked the accountant to figure out how Madoff made his money. Markopolos couldn't and, even after he left the company, continued to feed info to a contact at the SEC, including a 2005 memo entitled, "The World's Largest Hedge Fund Is a Fraud."

"Why would people think I feel good about this?" Markopolos told the Boston Globe. "People think I'm a hero, but I didn't stop him. He stopped himself."

But Markopolos wasn't the only one wondering aloud about Madoff's secretive investing.

In 2001, Barron's Erin E. Arvedlund wrote a somewhat skeptical look at Madoff's operation, calling on financial advisers who questioned how Madoff could routinely produce double-digit returns year after year with no down spells.

"When Barron's asked Madoff how he accomplishes this, he says, 'It's a proprietary strategy. I can't go into it in great detail.' Nor were the firms that market Madoff's funds forthcoming."

One of the most interesting and prescient aspects of Arvedlund's examination into Madoff was her interview with an unnamed investment manager who advised his clients to pull their money out of Madoff's hedge fund after he "couldn't explain how they were up or down in a particular month."

In an article for Conde Nast Portfolio, Arvedlund said she interviewed some 100 people about Madoff. Very few had ever met the man and he remained steeped in mystery, although the rumors about how he made his money abounded.

"Over the ensuing years, fund-of-funds managers I spoke to repeated the rumors about Madoff," she wrote. "He remained a hot commodity in the hedge fund world, but no one had successfully been able to disprove his claims." (Arvedlund's NPR interview)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2009/01/blowing_the_whistle_on_madoff.html?wprss=washingtonpostinvestigations
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Slow down guys!!!
That is too much information for oldtimer and the bash BUSH bunch to comprehend in such a short amount of time!
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Tell me OT, if you had a deputy that was on the take and wasn't doing his job, you, as sheriff, would be ultimately responsible...right? Would that also make you corrupt???? And think about this, most of the employees of the executive branch are career, not political appointees.

And you still didn't address the fact that it was Democrats that blocked reform to Freddie and Fannie...which lead to the credit collapse!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
 
Top