Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Sorry I was wrong. The blog in which I mentioned the head of Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born tried to rein in the derivatives was not 1 1/2 years ago;it was 4 months ago .... January 12,2010...Time flies but not that fast.
About a year and a half ago I wrote a blog about the derivatives and the fact that head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born tried to stop the lack of oversight of the secretive, multitrillion-dollar OTC derivatives market. Her attempts to regulate derivatives in '98 came from Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers, and then Congress who took her powers to regulate the derivatives....I also explained that there was nothing illegal about this scheme; it is needed to be more transparent.... Just the other day, President Clinton admitted that he should not have listen to Robert Rubin and Larry Summers..... You need to read about the case about ,Procter & Gamble's suit against Bankers Trust New York Co..This case got the attention of Brooksley Born.
You are just posting well-known partisaning talking points...I might add Dick Gephardt is now big time Wall Street lobbyists working for Wall Street... What you don't see, is that legislation going forward, this despite your allegations of foul play on the part of the Democrats.
Progressives did not scream about Exxon not paying income tax to the United States. Several corporations do not pay income tax to the United States but in the case of Exxon, that they income tax to about 47 foreign countries. The post just confirmed that income tax paid by corporations is not a left right issue....I explained it is not the fault of Exxon;more the fault of loopholes in our progressive tax system.You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
All the rest of your post is about you saying how much better you are but I really don't care what you watch or hear; just type a few words and I know exactly how right-wing you are....Alan Colms..lol
You want proof, read my profile. Look at my avatar, scroll down and read a post where just yesterday I said "I don't run away from my left wing roots nor do I pretend to be a moderate; and I am entitled.....But I don't represent the left nor do I pretend to do so...I am just a lowly poster who you can ignore;it's not like I would miss you."
As for my own person income tax;don't worry about it. I worked 40 years and paid my taxes not counting military. I still pay income taxes on my Social Security,pension and other taxable items but I'm not complaining; nor am I worried about your tax liabilities.
JohnThat's your prerogative but he can only do so much from the bully pulpit; the rest has to come from our elected officials.... We do have that separation of powers.
This comment was removed by the user.
I offer praise to the President, for taking such action but am watching too see how he follows through, on those points, Mike.
Larry Sommers, Robert Rubein....
Work for Obama. Set up the derivatives before working for Obama.Gee...fox guarding the hen house but since the progressives and obama have control it's all good.
Greg Craig...worked for Obama. Now in charge of the thing with Goldman. The thing about GS is on only ONE type of product, that 's it. Obama said NOBODY who works for him will be able to go into these things while he was in office. Obama, YOU LIE Again!! And Obama's group, the SEC and left wing media timed it all to come out at the same time.
Scott Brown is NOT a conservative, never was. Extremely bad example. And bad use of Tea Party's from the Coffee Baggers old beatnicks. That Tea Party group just uses the name.
You know, PMSNBC has a seat in the White House. It is owned by GE whose head has anytime access to Obama. GE paid NO INCOME TAXES for '09. I didn't hear the propagandist on there screaming about that. Not paid here in the US anyway, but the hide it from taxes overseas operations did. You know, the group that deals with Iran and makes sure they have enough money to make IED shape charges that kill innocent civilians and US troops in Iraq.
I noticed the progressives screamed the other week about Exxon paying no income taxes last year. But they overpaid $11 billion in '08, and '09 taxes were paid out of that. That's why they did not have up to pay a bill.
One of the guvmints worst enemies should be the free, open and honest press. It is so sad that within the last decade or two the main stream vast majority of that so called free press is in the hip pocket of the liberal progressive agenda and then lies about it being open and honest.
This is an honest and open suggestion. I openly admit that I am and have been a talk show junkie. But I don't like the likes of Alex Jones and the other extreme right or the other end like Mike Mallory, Rhandi Rhodes, Keith Olberman, extreme way out left. I can listen to Alan Colmes...sometimes. Pull up on XM, Sirrius, or on the net The Tom Sullivan Show on Fox News Talk, 2pm. I know it will burn you like a vampire but he has no problem hitting Bush's mess as well as Obama's craziness. He has worked the big business as accountant. He lays it out in business terms away from the smoke and mirrors of the "free press" and politics. If you cannot do that them at least be honest and admit your progressiveness, way beyond what you say you are. We can see it. I am dead right Conservative, but I understand how hard it is with the working man getting shafted. Mostly by the guvmint.
And I know you sent in a huge extra tax payment that the left screams all need to send in. ;)There is no law against it and is in fact a line to do so.
Last night I was watching a group of protesters in Illinois;holding up their signs that read "Have some guts." The protesters wanted to increase taxes instead of laying off teachers. They saw that the 40 to one ratio was going to be a problem in the future..... That group is the exact opposite of the Tea Party.
I don't really understand the meaning of your first sentence but we already have "Pay as you Go" which is designed to be deficit neutral legislation. The president has also proposed a bipartisan fiscal commission to provide recommendations for long-term deficit reduction. Remember the Republicans came up with this proposal but when the president thought it was a good idea, they no longer supported it, so by executive order of the President had to create this bipartisan fiscal commission.
It takes money to sustain our technological superiority and innovation. China is not a paper tiger; it is a world power economically and militarily; it is in our best interest to recognize that. What some fiscal conservatives don't understand is that we live in a "pay me now or pay me later" world; want to or not; we have a global economy. Clichés, talking points, resting on our laurels and chest bumping is not a policy, legislation, or a plan. The Internet changed all that.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explained it this way;" We had to avert a deep depression; lay out the foam (action) to keep the fire from spreading." This economy is complex we cannot just arbitrarily pull a number like 70% of the air and say" everything is okay; rollover and go to sleep."i.e. Frank, his wife Amanda and their two children are awakened by smoke; open their door and see that our house is engulfed in flames. Frank immediately calls 9/11(public service) not thinking about the cost. At the time he is very appreciative but six months later, the city brings up a motion to give the police officers and firemen a raise. Guess who is opposed to that? One of our problems is that we want the services but we don't want to pay for them. There are about 10,000 baby boomers a day signing up for Social Security; we already have an older working force but do the small government people call for a commission to fix Social Security and Medicare?
I think making excuses is the unwillingness to take part of the blame. It's very easy to lay all the blame on Washington.This has been done for years. Our economy is, credit based and a lot of our citizens are overextended. We have locked the barn door with a cheap lock(finance reform), we are not willing to cut Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending nor are we willing to raise some taxes to pay for the September 15,2008 financial crisis.
As I said the other day, the stock market, manufacturing, retail sales and consumer confidence are up but we can only be cautiously optimistic because unemployment is still at 9.7%. When you have six major banks bring in 63% of GDP, don't expect the unemployment figures to go down much because Wall Street is anything but trickle down. The cost of food and gasoline has gone up 6% since last year at this time. What's my point? The economy is too complex to blame it all on the government tax-and-spend policies.
"The doomsayers would not have liked President Eisenhower because tax rates were high."
I don't think anyone would have like those tax rates, but the real question is how many people actually paid that rate. Income was diverted from producing jobs to tax free bonds and other unproductive junk.
When JFK became president he cut the rate to 70% and reduced capital gains taxes. But what I was talking about (reading comprehension?) were the taxes on production, namely corporate taxes on income, payrolls, property, not to mention the same for state, county and city taxes. In addition there is the hidden tax associated with regulations and tons of forms and reports. I seem to recall hearing that GE's income tax report was over 20,000 pages - something is wrong here.
We can no longer afford to saddle our businesses with all this cost, we could do it in the past and maybe get away with it but no more, not in a global economy. But instead of trying to decrease this burden Obama is increasing it. With spending completely out of control it's going to get much worse - I can hear it now, "aw shucks, we just have to have a value added tax, sorry about that - aw, go blow it out your.........
Your statement regarding my support of a zero deficit budget, invites inflation. It reinforces the status quo, in which case cost rises disproportionately to income. Yes, income has risen but substantially less than cost of living.
My argument is simple, if the government wants to increase it’s budget, then first it should cut waste or expand tax revenue; and tax revenue increase should be because of increased income. I would ascertain that the government should not require greater than 70% of tax revenue. If it does, then the government should find a way to cut cost or raise individual income.
Of course eventually, I am expecting a National Sales Tax to simply the tax code and eliminate various inequalities and deceptive tax practices.
As far as being stagnate, the greater danger is exhausting ourselves to meet another countries expectations. China’s economy is far from a threat too the United States now, as long as we work to maintain our technological superiority and innovation. China’s assets today are the same as they were 5,000 years ago; their size and willingness to push it’s people beyond cruelty to achieve their aims.
There was a chance until recently, they would adopt Americas traditional governing ethic, which would have made them a threat. That opportunity has passed for the moment and would take considerable resolve to require.
America is not China, America only needs too look within it’s borders to find the solutions to it’s problems. The only thing preventing this is, “I can’t”, “It can’t”, or “So and so is stopping me” attitude.
Whether it will take another crash in 5 or so years, intelligent regulation and a compensatory system will be created and adopted as the norm. I just don’t require sacrificing the financial future of American children too realize it, maybe politicians do?
Common Sense is about being burnt and not making excuses as to why it was hot; and do what is necessary too not get burnt again. Maybe in Washington they are a bunch of masochists and sadist?
Mike,Here is something I do find very interesting:
TVNewser has learned Donny Deutsch, who'd been filling in on the 3pmET hour this week on MSNBC, won't be anchoring for the rest of the week after a segment yesterday seemed to criticize his colleague Keith Olbermann. This week, Deutsch has been calling his show "American the Angry." Yesterday, he played a clip of various radio and TV talkers in all their anger -- including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann. Adding insult to insult, Deutsch's guest, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, then called Olbermann and Ed Schultz, "the biggest hate mongers on television." Deutsch responded, "I'm not taking the side of either one." TVNewser has learned MSNBC president Phil Griffin talked with Deutsch and the show's producer and expressed his disappointment with the segment. An MSNBC spokesperson tells us Deutsch was going to be off the rest of this week due to a personal issue.
VictoreYou have threaten to leave several times;make your threats come true...We are beginning to sound like a couple of elementary school children yelling out "oh yeah,and you're a another one." ..We both have better things to do....I rather finish watching Chris Matthews.
Where is your proof? Without that cut & paste;it amounts to a personal attack without basis.....I did not call "WE" or anyone else a racist...Do I respect the Tea Party? Absolutely not( my right).
There is a difference between not inclusive (their right) and racism.
I don't run away from my left wing roots nor do I pretend to be a moderate; and I am entitled.....But I don't represent the left nor do I pretend to do so...I am just a lowly poster who you can ignore;it's not like I would miss you.
Yes you Mike, you have called us racist you’re part of that liberal base, you claim to be left of center, you speak the same language, you’re and advocate for the left you continue to publish all of their political views plus your own views, little on take any responsibility when the party is wrong, you have the same ideological make up. I can’t even meet you half way on issues because you become so condescending with leftwing crap. It has come down to the left loosing all common sense.
Again I think you’re a paid professional Blogger, and probably work for MSNBC. LOL!
No,Victore for one I am not your ole buddy and your on-line psychoanalysis does not have any merit because I have not called anyone a racist; again with the “WE.”..I am not mad at the 18% that are protesting…Cut & paste a statement where I called anyone a racist.
I mockingly brought up Socialist, Marxist, and Fascist just to poke fun at the people who use those labels.
I really do not know who “you people” are but the last time I looked 85% of Democrats are happy with President Obama and quite content as a whole.
I repeatedly said this economy belongs to Obama but this April 7,2010 poll from Politico disagrees...It is recovering.
Former President George W. Bush gets more blame for the country’s economic troubles than his successor or the Democrats who control Congress, according to a Harris poll out Wednesday. Thirty-one percent of the 2,344 adults surveyed said Bush deserves the most blame for a rough economy, leading the second-place Wall Street by 6 percentage points. Democrats in Congress were blamed by 16 percent of those polled, while President Barack Obama was blamed by 14 percent. Republicans in Congress were blamed by 9 percent of respondents, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was blamed by 4 percent.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
Mike,Ole buddy, I don’t know where it is that you gather that information about this victim thing that has become a very popular word in your vocabulary.
I have said this before; the democrats have the majority, why do you people keep complaining? Is it because we disagree with your policies and the under handed tactics that are used to pass unpopular legislation! You call us racist, extremist; you’re pissed off because we protest big government and unprecedented spending, budgets that are out of control along with an un-stoppable deficit! Spare me the victim crap please. Don’t give me that Bush BS; Obama owns it with out a doubt…
The socialist thing, now that you bring it up. Are you one? If so which is it a National Socialist or a communist Socialist?
You’re not receipted to opinions only to prove them wrong, unless they can get through that little narrow window open that you very seldom provide…
Once more have a nice evening
For those that think the WH had a part in the SEC bring charges against Goldman Sachs;your only option is to call President Obama a liar.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Wednesday said "categorically" that the Securities and Exchange Commission never discussed fraud charges against Goldman Sachs with the White House in advance.
"They've never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that will be brought," Obama said in an interview with CNBC. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has accused Goldman Sachs of fraud in the structuring and marketing of a debt product tied to subprime mortgages.
Your link is not through because you have to be a subscriber to the WSJ in order to get the full story.
This what the whole case rests on.
Goldman now says it lost roughly $100 million on the Abacus investment, which is at the center of accusations that Goldman and Mr. Tourre defrauded investors in the deal. Goldman points to its losses on Abacus 2007-AC1 and, indeed, in the broader mortgage arena, as evidence that it did not create a mortgage security that was intended to fail, as the Securities and Exchange Commission claims. But interviews with people with knowledge of Goldman’s trading paint a more nuanced picture of the bank’s losses — and profits — in mortgage trading during that time.
While Goldman lost money on the Abacus deal now under scrutiny, the bank made a profit on other bets against the mortgage market. And Goldman tried to entice investors to buy its portion of the Abacus investment, these people said. A Goldman Sachs spokesman declined to comment
We shall see but it does merit a trial.
I don't know what you are reading but tax revenues have fallen and tax refunds were at an all-time high. The tax rates have not changed since 2006. ....95% of taxpayers got a tax cut.
The doomsayers would not have liked President Eisenhower because although tax rates were high he wrote this memo after The launch of Sputnik gave the Soviet Union an enormous boost in world respect and influence. Politicians and average Americans reacted in shock, and demanded increases in military and science education spending. The eventual launch of Explorer I in January 1958 finally allowed the United States to enter the space race.
This another topic that was mentioned on "Morning Joe."
Oh,that Rupert Murdoch rag?
The WSJ does not have a truth certain crystal ball, it does have a credible viewpoint but evidence of their wrongdoings has been out there a while. There are other sources;I guess that's why we have trials..... The SEC would not have brought this case forward if they didn't think they had credible evidence...IMO
Again, we shall see.
"We can choose to remain stagnant but the world is not."
We will not remain stagnant - no, we are falling behind. Excessive government spending and excessive taxation on our means of production is a game changer and I can't wait until interest rates start rising :(
Typical response from someone that plagiarizes to make a point. BTW the kool-aid reference has gone out of style and doesn't really have much of a bite, coming from another partisan.:-)
The new ones are Socialist, Marxist, and Fascist.
Question, why do right wing conservatives like yourself always play the victim card? (any one that chimes in with a little bet of their knowledge, and doesn’t hold up to your standards, they’re tagged inferior to you.)….Instead of trying to speak for other posters; why can’t you just ask why I don’t always accept your opinions…Have you noticed that other bloggers do the same thing?…I bet you do the same thing.
"Rollingstone, You don't know what you are talking about ."
I was just quoting the Wall Street Journal if that's OK. "The SEC vs. Goldman. More a case of hindsight bias than financial villainy."
As Judy Garland once sang: "Socialists, Marxists & Fascists oh my!"
It was just a metaphor meaning, don't choke Wall Street with a lot regulation because we want them to be profitable but don't neglect your oversight power.
IMO…We cannot attain a “zero deficit budget” nor do we want to, but a “deficit neutral budget”, is doable…The reason is economics; China is building 52 nuclear reactors, investing in solar panels, turbines, and light rail throughout their country, and spending money in Africa acquiring their natural resources. We can choose to remain stagnant but the world is not.
I understand now, you’re the expert on all of these issues, any one that chimes in with a little bet of their knowledge, and doesn’t hold up to your standards, they’re tagged inferior to you. You’re one dedicated hard nose left wing liberal, OMG, the left does no WRONG in the eyes of Mike.
How about some KOOL-AID Mike, maybe a 55gal drum that might hold you over for a day or two…
Have a fine day
Before I sold my business last year, I ran a video game store. Instead of allowing others to steal my games or putting them behind a cage, I pulled the disc and kept them behind the desk. Oh, an began to engage in idol conversation with every customer.
I’ve learned to maintain a discussion with several people at the same time, keep their interest, and not say anything in one line of thought that might disadvantage another.
In doing this I discourage theft, kept my customers from feeling the negative implications, developed more innovative cross promotion, and increased productivity.
There is always more than the “either or” scenario, if you put some thought into it.
In this case, I support more intelligent regulation and a monetary compensation system that will have the money necessary to deter, sustain, and rebuild; independent of government spending. A system that is designed to function in a “zero deficit budget”, basically. Every single government policy and legislation, from now on, must be designed towards a “zero deficit budget”.
Failure to do so, will most likely result in devastated consequence for our posterity.
You don't know what you are talking about because the civil case may be a preliminary for a criminal case.i.e. Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading; if Goldman Sachs knew what they were selling was going to fail and benefited by buying insurance to pay off when it did; that is criminal but time will tell. We have lemon laws and deceptive practices laws. I imagine we will hear that the 1994 Mexico bailout was really a bailout of Goldman Sachs;this firm is not exactly a monastery…… We will also hear about Goldman Sachs convincing one of the world's largest insurance companies (AIG) to buy into this scheme and finally hear about the role the bond ratings firms played… I will say for the umpteenth time; a perfect storm…True, the derivatives were not regulated, so some their actions per se were not illegal but conspiring to commit fraud is.
BTW It won't stop with Goldman Sachs; Bank of America and Merrill Lynch are next.
VictoreYou really need to keep up because this legislation has been ongoing for over year; the Senate minority leader threatened a filibuster and the SEC filed a lawsuit last Friday…..
1. They could get a bipartisan bill and have that talking point in the upcoming off-season elections.2. Mitch McConnell could have filibustered and the Dems could've hung that "The GOP favors Wall Street” label on them in the upcoming off-season elections.3. The Republican legislators were getting nervous because Wall Street reform is popular.4. The SEC filing but just icing on the cake.
It's a civil case because GS did not break any laws - this whole thing is a crock of S#$t.. BTW I did watch John Stewart he's funnier than hell.
Since you are always advising me on what I can post and what I should not; allow me to advise you.1. Quit plagiarizing… If you're going to cut and paste, give credit to your source.2. Quick skimming; that way you would see that I said that in 2008, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer went to Wall Street and convinced them that they could be just as business friendly as the Republicans.3. I have read two books “Too Big to Fail” and “The Big Short”, viewed a couple documentaries detailing Goldman Sachs role in the financial crisis, so it’s not that big of a secret…. The SEC has been pressured by the New York Times and others but you center on the right leaning conspiratorial angle…. The SEC is an independent body but its head is selected by the president.4. So the president really cares what you think or did you subscribe to the mass email list?5. I still wonder why it is only a civil case and not a criminal one.I believe your C&P came from seekingalpha.com/.../199280-goldman-sachs-the-sec-and-the-question-of-timin…...Word for word…When posters do that, it leads me to believe they really don’t know or care about the subject. Just my opinion.
Sorry Mike that repot was from NASDAQ...
Mike, you need to stop blowing all that liberal smoke, the Dems are just as deep into the pockets of WS as you make your claim about Republicans. How about some honesty here, can the BS… • This investigation has been ongoing for a long time. At some point we will know when it was initiated and when Goldie became aware of it. Reuters has a report quoting an unnamed source that the Wells Notice relating to the SEC inquiry was delivered six months ago. My own instincts on this are that it was even longer than that. This could easily have been going on for a year. • Mary Schapiro (head of SEC) does not go to the bathroom without first checking with Rahm Emanuel. To say that this is a high profile case is a silly understatement. This is THE case of the century. The decision to go forward with a public complaint last Friday was done with the President's knowledge and approval. • Everyone in D.C. has been pointing to the financial markets as a measure of the "success" of their policies. They point to DOW 11,000, they point to narrowing credit spreads, and they look at wealth creation as the "report card" which validates their actions. I don't believe these folks are stupid at all. They knew full well that the initial reaction of the markets would be very broadly negative. They must have considered that the SEC action could have lasting consequences to the capital markets. They knew that they had spent a king's ransom to bring the banks back to life, they must also know that this step could have the effect of undermining all of that. Given the foregoing I have to assume that at some point the SEC sat down with Blankfein and said, "Do you want to pay a big fine, not admit any guilt and agree to be good boys in the future? " Again a guess: If on Friday the announcement had been that GS had agreed to a $3b fine and the case was closed, GS's stock would have risen and the broad market would not be worrying about how sloppy things are going to be in the next few weeks. I think Blankfein would have written a very big check to avoid the headlines we are seeing today.
So for me a central question is, " Why last Friday ?" Possibly we will never know the answer to that. But I have my own suspicions. This step was made at this time to influence the outcome of the financial regulation that is now being discussed and drafted. What better reason to implement big reforms than a big splashy case in the papers that all but proves that our big banks are crooks and they need to be regulated into oblivion.
So far this weekend I have received three mass email messages from the President. None have connected the dots directly to the SEC case with Goldman. But the hints are obvious: