Draining the Swamp

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:50 am

Geithner's Dirty Little Secret

The "dirty little secret" that Geithner is going to great degrees to obscure from the public is very simple. There are only at most perhaps five US banks that are the source of the toxic poison causing such dislocation in the world financial system. What Geithner is desperately trying to protect is that reality. The heart of the present problem, and the reason ordinary loan losses are not the problem as in prior bank crises, is a variety of exotic financial derivatives, most especially credit default swaps.

In the Bill Clinton administration of 2000, the Treasury secretary was Larry Summers, who had just been promoted from number two under former Goldman Sachs banker Robert Rubin to be number one when Rubin left Washington to take up the post of Citigroup vice chairman. As I describe in detail in my new book, Power of Money: The Rise and Fall of the American Century, to be released this summer, Summers convinced president Clinton to sign several Republican bills into law that opened the floodgates for banks to abuse their powers. The fact that the Wall Street big banks spent some US$5 billion in lobbying for these changes after 1998 was likely not lost on Clinton.

One significant law was the repeal of the 1933 Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited mergers of commercial banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch or Goldman Sachs. A second law backed by Treasury secretary Summers in 2000 was an obscure but deadly important Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That law prevented the responsible US government regulatory agency, Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC), from having any oversight over the trading of financial derivatives. The new CFMA law stipulated that so-called over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives like credit default swaps, such as those involved in the AIG insurance disaster, (and which investor Warren Buffett once called "weapons of mass financial destruction"), be free from government regulation.

At the time Summers was busy opening the floodgates of financial abuse for the Wall Street Money Trust, his assistant was none other than Tim Geithner, the man who today is US Treasury Secretary, while Geithner's old boss, the self-same Summers, is President Obama's chief economic adviser as head of the White House Economic Council. To have Geithner and Summers responsible for cleaning up the financial mess is tantamount to putting the proverbial fox in to guard the henhouse.

What Geithner does not want the public to understand, his "dirty little secret", is that the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 allowed the creation of a tiny handful of banks that would virtually monopolize key parts of the global "off-balance sheet" or OTC derivatives issuance.

Today, five US banks, according to data in the just-released Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency's Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activity, hold 96% of all US bank derivatives positions in terms of nominal values, and an eye-popping 81% of the total net credit risk exposure in event of default.

The top three are, in declining order of importance: JPMorgan Chase, which holds a staggering $88 trillion in derivatives; Bank of America with $38 trillion, and Citibank with $32 trillion. Number four in the derivatives sweepstakes is Goldman Sachs, with a mere $30 trillion in derivatives; number five, the merged Wells Fargo-Wachovia Bank, drops dramatically in size to $5 trillion. Number six, Britain's HSBC Bank USA, has $3.7 trillion.

After that the size of US bank exposure to these explosive off-balance-sheet unregulated derivative obligations falls off dramatically. Continuing to pour taxpayer money into these five banks without changing their operating system, is tantamount to treating an alcoholic with unlimited free booze.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby analog » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:05 am

shap this i believe is real fundamental to whatever's going on.

for some reason treasury has been merged with the financial industry's darkside. i do not understand it with any depth... that Frontline show i linked (inside the meltdown) reported Geithner told the seven biggest banks they HAD to sign up for the rescue, over most of their objections.

And to think, i was worried Hillary would open a seam in treasury to the health insurors - instead treasury's been eviscerated by bigger sharks and it looks like a feeding frenzy.

looks at first glance like somebody is guilty of high treason.... and i'm too dumb to understand it.

i finally finished Brzeszinski's Grand Chessboard.. only thing makes any sense at world level is if this is to slow down economic growth of global competitors more than it hurts us. but i'm not smart enough to understand how.
could it be , on other hand, simple stupidity and greed and ignorance of history? wouldn't be first time. Barbara Tuchman wrote a book, March to Folly, about self destructiveness of humans in large groups...

we DO live in interesting times.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:51 am

Lawrence Summers, Economic Advisor To President Obama, Earned Millions From Hedge Funds

Of course, he is now positioned to advise the regulation of those funds. Curiouser and Curiouser.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:44 am

House ethics committee hurtles into action!

The U.S. House of Representatives have finally gone into action after months of ducking investigating Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y) for questionable financial dealings, Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn) for alleged sweetheart mortgage deal, and Rep. John P. Murtha for taking illegal contributions.

The case that is taking their esteemed attention is for a speeding ticket that was given to Rep. Zach Space (D-Conn). The serious offense was that he drove 65 in a 50 mph traffic zone, and was given a warning for driving with an expired license
.

Nice to know they’ve got their priorities in order.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby dai bread » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:28 pm

You might say "watch Zach Space" perhaps. Is that his real name????
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:28 am

Judge Tosses Stevens Conviction, Orders Probe Of Prosecution

The judge says that, in nearly 25 years on the bench, he has never seen anything approaching the level of prosecutorial misconduct exhibited in this case.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby jamiebk » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:39 am

Shapley wrote:Judge Tosses Stevens Conviction, Orders Probe Of Prosecution

The judge says that, in nearly 25 years on the bench, he has never seen anything approaching the level of prosecutorial misconduct exhibited in this case.


Yeah...and Stevens is a real poster child for ethics... :roll:
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:42 am

jamiebk wrote:
Shapley wrote:Judge Tosses Stevens Conviction, Orders Probe Of Prosecution

The judge says that, in nearly 25 years on the bench, he has never seen anything approaching the level of prosecutorial misconduct exhibited in this case.


Yeah...and Stevens is a real poster child for ethics... :roll:


I've not commented one way or other on Stevens' guilt or innocence. From the sound of things, however, I would gather the press (and thus, the people) have been as misinformed as the jury regarding the issue, so we may have to rethink whatever opinion we have formed based on the 'evidence' presented.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby jamiebk » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:52 am

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sullivan-bio.html

Some background on the judge:

Upon his appointment by President Ronald Reaganto the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984, Judge Sullivan became the ninth lawyer from the Houston firm to become a judge.
On November 25, 1991, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President George Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President William Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

Upon his appointment as a United States District Judge, Judge Sullivan became the first person in the District of Columbia to have been appointed by three United States Presidents to three judicial positions.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:09 pm

Looks like he's seen a lot. For this to be the first time in his time the bench that he has seen this level of prosecutorial misconduct would seem to indicate that the offenses were pretty bad.

Unfortunately for us, our view of Stevens is shaped by news reports that were written by reporters that recieved their news from the prosecutors. The news, thus, is perhaps as tainted as the prosecutor's testimony.

I recall that William Ayers was similarly freed due to prosecutorial misconduct. However, Mr. Ayers acknowledged his actions, so we know of his guilt. Mr. Stevens proclaims his innocence and, lacking information to the contrary, I am disinclined to claim otherwise.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby jamiebk » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:23 pm

Shapley wrote: Mr. Stevens proclaims his innocence and, lacking information to the contrary, I am disinclined to claim otherwise.


That is our law (innocent until proven). He will not be tried which is a shame. I feel that where there is smoke there is fire. I choose to believe otherwise.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:17 pm

Understandable. He's a politician, so he's probably guilty. :)

I must admit to not being familiar with Mr. Stevens, even though he has been in the Senate for a number of years. If I knew more about him, I would probably not be so willing to accept his dismissal as a lack of guilt. Legally, we are bound to the 'innocent unless proven otherwise' concept, but only in matters of law. I have always believed O.J. was guilty, verdict or none, even though I remain vehemently opposed to the double jeopardy imposed by the second trial. I accept the legal status of William Ayers' dismissal of charges, but that doesn't mean I have to like the guy.

My only point on Mr. Stevens is that I believe the news surrounding the charges may be as flawed as the prosecution itself, given that the prosecutors were the source of much of the news. With no more to go on, I will take the charges of corruption with a grain of salt.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:28 pm

Sen. Feinsteins Husband Cashes in On Crisis

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:01 am

Will Murtha Scrutiny Lead Anywhere?

The watchdog groups are following up on the investigation surrounding the PMA Group and, reportedly, three key lawmakers closely tied to it — Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., Peter J. Visclosky, D-Ind., and James P. Moran, D-Va.. . . . Interestingly, under House rules that were in existence until 1997, the outside groups could have filed an actual complaint with the ethics panel itself.

That complaint would have required action of some form — even a cursory investigation before dismissal. But the rules changed in 1997.

Under a change that was adopted that year, outside groups and private citizens were barred from actually filing complaints with the ethics committee. Now, only individual members of the House of Representatives can file a complaint with the Ethics Committee against a fellow member.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the result: The number of complaints (and, therefore, the number of investigations) dropped substantially.

And who was the mastermind who pushed through the change, so that outside groups and private citizens could no longer file complaints with the House Ethics Committee?
Why, none other than Murtha himself.


It’s like he knew what was coming . . . .
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:43 am

Arlen Specter Switches Party, Expected To Give Democrats "Veto-Proof" Majority

It's not much of a jump for Specter, who was never a 'team player' on the Republican side. I still have to wonder what they offered him. The 60-seat margin is expected when the Minnesota election is certified and noted tax cheat Al Franken is seated as Senator.

Update: According to Fox, Specter is not switching parties this term, but is running on the Democrat ticket in 2010, apparently because of a strong showing from conservate Pat Toomey in primary polling.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby jamiebk » Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:10 pm

In a statement, Specter said, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

"It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable," he added.

Several Senate officials said a formal announcement could come later in the day or on Wednesday. Specter planned a news conference for Tuesday afternoon.

Specter, 79, and a veteran of 29 years in the Senate, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said the White House as well as leaders in both parties had been involved in discussions leading to his move.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:01 pm

Shapley wrote:Arlen Specter Switches Party, Expected To Give Democrats "Veto-Proof" Majority

It's not much of a jump for Specter, who was never a 'team player' on the Republican side. I still have to wonder what they offered him. The 60-seat margin is expected when the Minnesota election is certified and noted tax cheat Al Franken is seated as Senator.

Update: According to Fox, Specter is not switching parties this term, but is running on the Democrat ticket in 2010, apparently because of a strong showing from conservate Pat Toomey in primary polling.


Does that constitutes "veto proof" majorities in both houses? I'm too lazy to google it. Didn't Spectre start as a Democrat??
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:21 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:Does that constitutes "veto proof" majorities in both houses? I'm too lazy to google it. Didn't Spectre start as a Democrat??


Assuming Minnesota seats Franken, the Senate will have a 'fillibuster-proof' margin. Since the House does not use filibusters, there is no such value. I think 'veto-proof' requires either 67% or 75% on some issues. If I used the term 'veto proof' earlier, I apologize.

Generally, they don't worry about 'veto-proofing' the vote if the President is of the same party.

And, yes, Sen. Specter did start as a Democrat, but I don't think he was ever elected to office on the Democrat ticket. His bio says he switched in 1966, his vote record says he never really did.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby BigJon@Work » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:15 pm

Great! one more chance to vote against Mr. Single-Bullet-Theory.
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Shapley » Mon May 04, 2009 8:03 am

545 People

Commentary by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of 300+ million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300+ million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.


I've been saying this for a long time.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron