That Obama Is Such A Corporate Tool!

Errr, or not....

U.S. Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

--snip--

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17goldman.html?hp

Would this ever have happened under the administration of a corporate tool? No. No it wouldn't.

And think for a moment about the TIMING of this. As we go into the debate over financial regulation.

Republicans are about to get steamrolled. Badly.

:rofl:

markets could withstand the hit that we are about to witness.

This is gonna be interesting!

Man oh man, I sure hope the Repubs obstruct. Make my day!

and with more accountability.

This administration's been nothing short of a disgrace- holding only the most egregious corporate crimiaals accountable- and often, not even then.

Peanut Corp, anyone?

Then again, if you're a whistle blower- watch out....

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you are serious, you are one twisted up kid.

arising from it- some with Resolution Trust Corp involvement.

But hey- with respect to the acts about the relative lack of accountability in the aftermath of this meltdown, don't take my word for it, read what William K. Black, James Galbraith and Elliot Spitzer have to say.

So in terms of being twisted- seems to me that moniker applies to those who- like Bushbots on the other side of the aisle, fail to acknowledge objective reality when it causes some dissonance re: "object of their affections."

Furthermore your insistence that Bush was "better" is absurd coming from anyone who claims to be a Democrat.

Then you most likely weren't part of the clean up.

What you seem to conclude as "insolence" is simply honesty and experience- and objective comparison and contrasting.

Perhaps you have a short memory?

Some people do.

Or perhaps you've simply no shame whatsoever-

Seen that bit dozens of times before.

that go along with that.. Also, the "clean up" for this mess is still underway.. Maybe make your judgements after they have had a chance to sort this all out.

but decided to let someone else do it, for fear of responses like "Is that you, Tim?"

But honestly, we forget that this administration nominated and put in place a new SEC chair. A new sheriff is in town.

damnit!

:kick:

LOL!! The same people will still find something else to whine and complain about. They're never happy. Often their RW trolls anyway.

Its the latest two batches of mods.

And I see that's already happened. Never mind, moving goalposts and apples and oranges polemic offered with zero proof is their MO.

K&R :yourock:

The lawyer who brought the charges is a 25 year SEC lawyer, who first gained prominence against Crazy Eddie in NY.

The SEC is an independent agency. When Holder indicts, my criticism will be tempered.

and its fair to bet that they will use the template to go after anyone who assembled toxic CDO's then took paper against their lose.

Goldman Sachs should dismantled and/or nationalized.
They will get little more than a slap on the wrist.
Obama IS a corporate tool, but at least he's OUR corporate tool...

Unlike some, I don't imagine it's easy to build a case against these crooks. I hope these charges stick; the laws concerning Wall St. are slippery at best and what is really needed is a government agency with some teeth. In the meantime, though, it's about time someone was held accountable.

And I notice the stock market reacted negatively; that speaks volumes about the nature of the situation.

Defend G.S. and the rest of the fat cat bankers?

I always thought Democrats were more educated and rational than Republicans, so therefore could hold rational, educated and thought provoking debates about issues without dissovling into pissing matches and name calling.

Apparently, by the looks of this thread, I was wrong.

Let's hear something "rational".

Meaning he was all for supporting teabaggers who hate bailouts and want WallStreet to pay but then he goes and wants to help them out and liquefy the reform bill..putting him in cohoots with the very people who almost ruined us and many other Repubs are supporting this. What is there a pissing contest about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x19915

:toast:

they get it. :toast:

It is an independent agency and thus the Obama White House had nothing to do with the timing of this. The President did, however, appoint the current leadership of the SEC so that definitely counts for something.

But this is Obama's SEC going after this. It wouldn't have happened under a Bush SEC.

A case like this one may well have been prosecuted under the former SEC (which is not to say that matters haven't improved- they have somewhat, as the latest GAO report shows).

That said, my point re: enforcement and lack thereof still stands and is acknowledged by anyone with even a modicum of information as to the workings of the SEC and DOJ on these matters.

Would prosecute. :rofl:

Got any other good one's?? How about some knock knock jokes?

Joker, what we see happening here IS enforcement. It's the very fucking definition. This is how it looks. Or do you think the SEC has a squad of Storm Troopers they send to execute the bad guys? :rofl:

Which the SEC sat on for nearly a DECADE!

Think again:

isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.../Thursday%204%2016%20Paper%201.pdf

And- since it's obvious that you're as clueless as you are juvenile, who do you think the current Chairman of the SEC is?

Mary Schapiro- the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) during the Bush administration- and Bush appointee to the President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy.

So when those of us familiar with these matter scoff about the matters like, it's not without reason- though it is with considerable disgust (just as it has been with respect to civil liberties).

It is being enforced NOW, only AFTER the fact. I know it wouldn't have been enforced by them BECAUSE IT FUCKING WASN'T. Holy crap.

I mean, really, holy crap. Keep it up though, it's some of the most incredible nonsense I've ever seen! You are really outdoing yourself! It's incredible! :rofl:

Did I say the SEC did absolutely nothing under Bush? Did I say that? Really? Where?

Are you really going to defend Bush's SEC??? You're doing that? Really? :rofl:

Many of the problems with the financial, insurance, banking and energy regulations- the precursors- occurred during the Clinton administration (although to his credit, Bill Clinton vetoed legislation re: accounting "reform" that led to Arthur Anderson et al. in the mid 1990's, only to be overridden by Democrats & Republicans in Congress).

But hey- don't take my word for that either. Look it up for yourself. It's a matter of record that might even be found on Google.

That said, my bet would be that most anyone on this board knows that we have some things in common.

Seems to me that most folks here don't, when it comes right down to it- share the same or similar sets of attitudes beliefs and values as most of those who identify with 21st Century Republicans.

N'est pas?

The only difference on this part of DU being that some few are still willing- as we always have been, to express opinions- or knock opinions. That's what discussion forums are all about, IMO.

If you want more cohesion in a comfortable setting, DU has given folks such a place. It's a group where people won't be bothered with so much dissension if they don't like or want it- and it's been well respected by all of the memebers of the board.

:rofl:

You'll either follow it up and learn- or you won't.

Got no reason to lie to you- and no agenda other than to help you out as we can.

(left to Ms. Depa, there wouldn't even be much of that).

And who thinks Bush's SEC was just as good as Obama's?

:rofl:

You've given up flying under the radar I guess.

Behave like a middle schooler- your choice.

Dime a dozen.

But that's nothing of any substance.

You've shown that you have nothing whatsoever to offer.

Much like the last time, when you thought that there would be some cost containment method in the health care bill.

To your credit, you did at least have a go with that in GD- got your ass kicked so to speak, but you were game.

Which is why some of us bother with you.

More!!p :rofl:

Or did that slip your mind. However they let that slide for years. So yeah, I sincerely doubt after the Madoff disaster if they would have prosecuted this. Giving them way too much credit. Even Markopolous was like if he was ever the head of the SEC, he'd fire everyone there and start over.

which brought all this to light.

As has been reported- Madoff not only considered the current Chairperson to be a "good friend," but was someone who was in a position to have known about- and to have encouraged action on the Ponzi scheme.

Independent agency and these are civil charges.

I'll wait till the criminal indictments from the Justice Department to come back on the Reservation.

Holder goes for the corporate death penalty on Goldman Sachs, like what was done to Arthur Andersen I'll be back to moderate cheerleader.

This is a civil case, we can argue preponderance of evidence as reasoning.

I've read the filing, it is a pretty cut and dry case of fraud as someone who did securities compliance for 4 years. What happens next will be where rubber meets the road.

Do you stop at a 31 year old VP, or do you pull more of these bond and CDO and CDS apart.

The WAMU and Lehman's brother's case and documentation detail pages and pages of violations of federal law, not civil, criminal.

When I see Holder get off his ass and indict criminally you can talk about the President's stance on this issue, because frankly that is where you scare these executives...I know, I've worked with them on SOX compliance. Jail is not some place they want to go.

That is when I get back on the reservation, not when we do civil cases.

As for the appointments, I think this has more to do with public anger and disintegration of public trust in the SEC as a regulator than it has to do with who the appointments are.

Retail investors have not moved back into the market, it is why Kramer is on his morning talk show tour of how great the market is. If you want me to show you volume and other figures to back that up, no problem. Of course, It be wasted time because other than Statistical and Texas Observer I could not have an intelligent conversation on what "low volume" really means.

Frankly a great deal of Americans have figured out the game is rigged and other than their 401(k)s are looking at alternatives. In order for this rally to be sustainable people need to believe the game is not rigged.

I don't post here that much, because frankly I'm sick of trying to educating half of you, and when half the parties don't know what they are talking about, than it is impossible for rational discourse, I'd have better luck explaining progressive taxation at Tea Party.

Criminal indictments may follow. It's not unusual for civil cases to be filed first and nothing precludes forthcoming DOJ activity. In fact this case may help in that regard by shaking things up.

I'm back on the reservation. Till than I'm extremely skeptical of this administration based on their actions in year one on this front.

Frankly, the only shot they have in November is criminal indictments, which is the right thing to do anyway.

The economic indicators even by the biggest cheerleaders are 2% GDP growth and very slow job growth...not going to be good for an election year.

Before you jump down my throat, Nate Silver has the same polling data up on 538.com

As of today 7 states are leaning to GOP pick-ups in the Senate with no DNC pickups.

Nate mostly sides on optimism for DNC races.

Even Nate Silver's. I doubt Nov. will be bloodbath.

This case is good news any way you slice it, both politically and otherwise. Would criminal cases be better, hell yeah, but this is still good and I'm happy about it and who knows what it will shake loose.

And new regulations, whether technically effective or not, might inspire more confidence. Actually effective regulation probably would inspire more confidence.

Smart investors are still very leery of the big players on Wall street. Who can blame them?

That being said, enforcing existing laws does more than new regulations....the SOX game was played once.

how do you explain that?

is rather small compared to the CDS, CDO, and other scams that brought down the entire world economy.

Madoff is in jail because his Ponzi scheme collapsed, no collapse Madoff is still running it. Has nothing to do with who was or not in charge of the SEC...he was friendly with all the former chairman and now chairwoman from his position at NASDAQ.

He simply ran out of money to hide what he was up to.

I'd ask you what you know about the SEC, its structure, how it operates etc, but I know you don't know much.

I'm still having trouble understanding of how criticism of the way I think the government is running right now in financial sectors is an endorsement of George W. Bush.....you know you can think both political parties aren't doing a good job on an issue...it is stunningly possible.

When I see criminal indictments from Justice, I'll be nicer.


The current SEC chief's record at FINRA is nothing to be bragging about...hope she is serious and is going to do a better job from here on out.

under Obama they are going after major corporations

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/news/newsmakers/madoff_whistleblower/

<<I'd ask you what you know about the SEC, its structure, how it operates etc, but I know you don't know much.>>

the fact is you know far less than you think you do.

:shrug:

Remember Arthur Andersen, yeah they aren't around no more.

Not a fan of his the former President, but call me when Goldman is in receivership by Barack Obama Justice Department action.

This is the first of hopefully many actions...when the actions go criminal, than you have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and Barack Obama has no power over the SEC other than appointing board members, I think you'll remember that discussion when a Goldman alumni was appointed to a big position and people were "upset" and a certain crowd quickly made sure everyone know that Barack can't make appointments to staff.

Cheers!

no influence?

The President has limited ability to influence the SEC other than by appointing board members picked by congress, it was set up that way by our greatest President Uncle Franklin.

I will be cautiously optimistic, I've watched this administration backtrack too many times to get my hopes they will do the right thing.

When I see the DOJ filing criminal complaints, I will move to the optimistic category.

At the end of the day, Larry Summers is in Washington D.C. and Paul Volcker is speaking at Kutztown University next week. All the evidence I need to where the President stands.