Has Wall Street Won

[OldTrapper]

There have been concerns about the status of Wall Street v Main Street. Everyone recognizes the income inequality, now the concern is that for the average American the economy is going to be destroyed.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-big-win-20100804

It's not that there's nothing good in the bill. In fact, there are many good things in it, even some historic things. Sen. Bernie Sanders and others won a fight to allow Congress to audit the Fed's books for the first time ever. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to protect against predatory lending and other abuses. New lending standards will be employed in the mortgage industry; no more meth addicts buying mansions with credit cards. And in perhaps the biggest win of all, there will be new rules forcing some varieties of derivatives – the arcane instruments that Warren Buffett called "financial weapons of mass destruction" – to be traded and cleared on open exchanges, pushing what had been a completely opaque market into the light of day for the first time.

All of this is great, but taken together, these reforms fail to address even a tenth of the real problem. Worse: They fail to even define what the real problem is. Over a long year of feverish lobbying and brutally intense backroom negotiations, a group of D.C. insiders fought over a single question: Just how much of the truth about the financial crisis should we share with the public? Do we admit that control over the economy in the past decade was ceded to a small group of rapacious criminals who to this day are engaged in a mind-numbing campaign of theft on a global scale? Or do we pretend that, minus a few bumps in the road that have mostly been smoothed out, the clean-hands capitalism of Adam Smith still rules the day in America? In other words, do people need to know the real version, in all its majestic whorebotchery, or can we get away with some bullshit cover story?

 

[steveox]

Obama promised t0 tax the rich he hasn't done jack squat except taxing the little guy.

 

[OldTrapper]

Obama promised t0 tax the rich he hasn't done jack squat except taxing the little guy.

Income inequality started long before Obama. Remember how the Republicans "promised" to repeal Obamacare?

Politicians promise a lot of things to get elected, and most often those promises are the first to go away once elected.

 

[Cruella]

Income inequality started long before Obama. Remember how the Republicans "promised" to repeal Obamacare?

Income inequality has always been, and always will be. Obama seems to be particularly gifted at making it a bigger divide, by destroying the middle class.

As far as repealing Obamacare, that would have to be done with a Republican President and both houses controlled by Republicans.

Republicans have voted on repealing Obamacare 39 times, but dirty Harry won't bring it up in the Senate. And even if he did and by some miracle it passed, Obama would veto it.

 

[Texas_tea]

Income inequality has always been, and always will be. Obama seems to be particularly gifted at making it a bigger divide, by destroying the middle class.

As far as repealing Obamacare, that would have to be done with a Republican President and both houses controlled by Republicans.

Republicans have voted on repealing Obamacare 39 times, but dirty Harry won't bring it up in the Senate. And even if he did and by some miracle it passed, Obama would veto it.

Accurate comment Cruella ...

You always seem to be able to make your point amongst this type of leftist psycho-babble ....

Impressive indeed .....

 

[OldTrapper]

Income inequality has always been, and always will be. Obama seems to be particularly gifted at making it a bigger divide, by destroying the middle class.

The "bigger divide" as you refer to it, began with Reagan. That was when the wages began to stagnate, and the middle class began to lose its wealth while the nations wealth was transferred (redistributed) to the wealthy:

http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

Reagan's tax policies did, however, redistribute the tax burden significantly, even if they failed to reduce it overall. By cutting income taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the wealthy, while increasing payroll taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the working poor and middle class, Reagan shifted the tax burden down the income scale. During the 1980s, the total effective federal taxation rate for the poorest one-fifth of American families actually increased by more than 16%. By contrast, the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest one-fifth of families fell by 5.5%, and the richest one percent of Americans saved even more: their tax rate fell by 14.4%.25
Small-Government Values vs. Big Government Spending
Reagan's failure to truly reduce taxes for most Americans was mirrored by a failure to restrain government spending. Reagan ran for office in 1980 as a harsh critic of "tax and spend" liberalism, vowing as president to shrink the size of the government by slashing federal spending. Once in office, however, Reagan found it impossible to deliver on his promises. The largest chunk of the federal budget went to pay for Social Security and Medicare, which provide retirement income and health care for the elderly, and which are the two most popular government social programs in American history. While Reagan had long criticized both, he found it politically impossible to dismantle them.

After Social Security and Medicare, the next largest government expense was the military—and Reagan, a staunch Cold Warrior, never considered cutting defense spending and instead increased it substantially. "Defense is not a budget item," he told planners at the Pentagon. "You spend what you need."26 With Social Security, Medicare, and defense all off the table, there just wasn't much left to cut; those three programs, combined with unavoidable payments on the national debt, accounted for fully 85% of the federal budget during Reagan's presidency. Congressional Democrats had little interest in slashing away at the remaining 15% (which included many liberal social programs instituted by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society), and Reagan never really went to the mat politically to try to force them to do so. As a result, total government spending continued to rise.

As far as repealing Obamacare, that would have to be done with a Republican President and both houses controlled by Republicans.

Republicans have voted on repealing Obamacare 39 times, but dirty Harry won't bring it up in the Senate. And even if he did and by some miracle it passed, Obama would veto it.

LOL, we saw what allowing the Republicans to have control of all three branches did to the country, and it will never happen again.

Tell me, just what is the Republican alternative to Obamacare?

 

[Gipper]

Of course Wall Street has won. They won a long time ago, but now they are even more powerful and wealthy than ever before. All thanks to the idiot progressive administrations of W and BO.

The largest corporations/banks control our government. They have become one.

 

[Gipper]

Tell me, just what is the Republican alternative to Obamacare?

Must there be an alternative to a reality that is really bad?

Obamacare is a disaster on multiple fronts. Why not get rid of it, then figure out something? I know the Left's talking points are to condemn the Rs because they do not have an alternative plan (which may not be correct). But that argument is nonsense. If something is really bad, why not get rid of it? Not first figure out an alternative.

Obamacare does nothing to solve healthcare problems in our nation. It compounds the problems. Like most things instituted by the Left, it makes things worse.

 

[Texas_tea]

Of course Wall Street has won. They won a long time ago, but now they are even more powerful and wealthy than ever before. All thanks to the idiot progressive administrations of W and BO.

The largest corporations/banks control our government. They have become one.

Clinton's DOJ prosecuted only 1000 white collar crimes on Wall Street compared to Bush's DOJ prosecuting 1300 white collar crimes on Wall Street.

How many white collar crimes on Wall Street has Obama's DOJ prosecuted?

You guessed it ..... absolutely ZERO!

That's most likely because Obama's DOJ is more concerned with prosecuting white patriots than real crime in this Country.

 

[Texas_tea]

Must there be an alternative to a reality that is really bad?

Obamacare is a disaster on multiple fronts. Why not get rid of it, then figure out something? I know the Left's talking points are to condemn the Rs because they do not have an alternative plan (which may not be correct). But that argument is nonsense. If something is really bad, why not get rid of it? Not first figure out an alternative.

Obamacare does nothing to solve healthcare problems in our nation. It compounds the problems. Like most things instituted by the Left, it makes things worse.

Gip ....

You know as well as I do that there were many alternatives to Obamacare presented by the GOP .... but, good luck convincing the brainwashed lefty's of such facts!

 

[Gipper]

Clinton's DOJ prosecuted only 1000 white collar crimes on Wall Street compared to Bush's DOJ prosecuting 1300 white collar crimes on Wall Street.

How many white collar crimes on Wall Street has Obama's DOJ prosecuted?

You guessed it ..... absolutely ZERO!

That's most likely because Obama's DOJ is more concerned with prosecuting white patriots than real crime in this Country.

I do not doubt your post, but the prosecution of white collar crimes means little to the overall effect of Wall Street and the big banks controlling our government. The big corps have lots of money and influence. They use it to control legislation, to their benefit. This state of affairs has been in existence for some time. It has however, gotten much worse under Big Ears.

 

[OldTrapper]

Must there be an alternative to a reality that is really bad?

Obamacare is a disaster on multiple fronts. Why not get rid of it, then figure out something? I know the Left's talking points are to condemn the Rs because they do not have an alternative plan (which may not be correct). But that argument is nonsense. If something is really bad, why not get rid of it? Not first figure out an alternative.

Obamacare does nothing to solve healthcare problems in our nation. It compounds the problems. Like most things instituted by the Left, it makes things worse.

The Republicans talked about fixing healthcare for 30 years, and did nothing save for Prescription Part D. Now they whine, and bitch, which is about all they are good at. I remember when Hillary has her healthcare deal back in the early 90's, and the Republicans said to let them fix it. They had all three branches, and could do NOTHING, not even tort reform. So, costs kept climbing, employers kept taking that benefit away from the employee, fraud kept growing, people were allowed to die by insurance companies and millions are not uninsured as a result.

Now, everyone knows there are weaknesses in the Obamacare program, however, the Republicans have proposed NOTHING to fix those problems. Both branches passed it, Obama signed it into law, the USSC has ruled it is Constitutional, time to quit the childish pranks of the right, and work together to find the solution.

 

[OldTrapper]

Clinton's DOJ prosecuted only 1000 white collar crimes on Wall Street compared to Bush's DOJ prosecuting 1300 white collar crimes on Wall Street.

How many white collar crimes on Wall Street has Obama's DOJ prosecuted?

You guessed it ..... absolutely ZERO!

That's most likely because Obama's DOJ is more concerned with prosecuting white patriots than real crime in this Country.

Not exactly true, however, you do have your alternate reality:

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/wach/hands-off-white-collar-crime675/

In case you missed it, the New York Times dropped a bombshell yesterday, delicately accusing the Bush and Obama administrations of endorsing a program to look the other way regarding white collar criminals. In a move that many would argue had protected criminal wrongdoing in the financial industry, the very same players being protected, would go on to single-handedly cause the collapse of the US economy. If these very same people and corporations were brought to justice the first time, they wouldn’t have been in a position to do the damage they did a few years later.

According to the New York Times article, the practice of ‘deferred prosecution agreements’, or ‘non-prosecution agreements’ in some cases, began in the early years of the George Bush Jr. administration. As early as 2004, a little known company named AIG had reached a deal of ‘deferred prosecution’ with the Justice Department. Avoiding any criminal prosecution at all, AIG simply paid a fine of $126 million dollars and the charge of helping their clients falsify financial statements just went away. The company was free to continue any criminal activity it wanted, understanding that none of the criminals would every go to jail. AIG would simply have to share some of the ill-gotten loot with the government.

<snip>

That was the year Justice Department officials met with a Bush administration cross-agency task force called the Corporate Fraud Task Force. At the meeting, Deputy Attorney General James Comey is alleged to have asked, “Is American business being hurt by the Justice Department’s investigations?” The agenda and tone of the question itself shocked many in attendance. But it was only a hint of what was to come. Two and a half years later, the American economy had crashed.

It was those first months of the crash that the New York Times article centers around. Documents reveal that when the financial industry’s house of cards collapsed, powerful executives, possibly in fear of prosecution, had lobbied the Bush administration and its Justice Department to officially change its enforcement and investigating guidelines. Ask and it shall be done.

The new guidelines ended a brief era of prosecutions rivaling the famed ‘Untouchables’. Corporate executives, actual people, went to prison in cases such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Rite Aid and Imclone. Federal prosecutors had waged a legal war on behalf of the American people. But in the middle of 2008, they were told to stop.

The Times summed up the 2008 Justice Department Directive saying, ‘The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-enron.3884296.html?_r=0

The U.S. Justice Department has placed new restraints on federal prosecutors conducting corporate investigations, easing tactics adopted in the wake of the Enron collapse.
The changes were outlined Tuesday in a memorandum written by Paul McNulty, the U.S. deputy attorney general. Under the revisions, federal prosecutors will no longer have blanket authority to ask routinely that a company under investigation waive the confidentiality of its legal communications or risk being indicted.

Instead, they will need written approval for waivers from the deputy attorney general and can make such requests only rarely.

The new guidelines will help companies defend themselves by "making it easier for corporations to say no and not having to worry about that decision being held against them," said Andrew Weissmann, who headed the U.S. Justice Department's Enron task force and is now in private practice.

<snip>

Still, they are being made just as companies are seeking, and receiving, greater protection from criminal and regulatory scrutiny.

Last month, the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, an independent group formed with the blessing of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., called for an overhaul of securities market rules, including greater protection of companies, their directors and employees and their outside auditors from regulators, investigators and civil suits.

 

[Texas_tea]

Of course it's Bush's fault .....

 

[Gipper]

The Republicans talked about fixing healthcare for 30 years, and did nothing save for Prescription Part D. Now they whine, and bitch, which is about all they are good at. I remember when Hillary has her healthcare deal back in the early 90's, and the Republicans said to let them fix it. They had all three branches, and could do NOTHING, not even tort reform. So, costs kept climbing, employers kept taking that benefit away from the employee, fraud kept growing, people were allowed to die by insurance companies and millions are not uninsured as a result.

Now, everyone knows there are weaknesses in the Obamacare program, however, the Republicans have proposed NOTHING to fix those problems. Both branches passed it, Obama signed it into law, the USSC has ruled it is Constitutional, time to quit the childish pranks of the right, and work together to find the solution.

Your argument is straight out of the D party play book...and as such, is meaningless. When government imposes bad things, allowing it to happen because the opposing party offers no alternative, is foolish.

Obamacare was passed by ONE PARTY...the D PARTY...with not ONE R vote...with nearly the entire MSM cheering them on. Is that the kind of government you like?

You will get no argument from me about the failures of the R party. IMO it needs to die.

So the USSC and Obama approved of Obamacare. Big deal...that is not an effective argument for its implementation.

Big government always sucks. One would think all Americans would know this when considering its numerous failures.