Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

I'm so glad our government rulers are so good at stopping corruption.

Just when you thought the seemingly endless rabbit hole of Wall Street-Washington corruption, cronyism, co-option, crime and kickbacks may have finally come to an end, here comes the House Ethic Committee to pronounce that no ethics breaches were found among House members in its investigation involving the scandal surrounding Countrywide "VIP loans" and the "Friends of Angelo." And in just doing so, the House effectively cleared itself of any wrongdoing and that's it, case closed - move along... Move along.

For those who may have forgotten, it was only back in July(see link inside) that yet another House Committee, that for Oversight and Government Reform, found "Countrywide used its VIP Program to aid its lobbying efforts as well as to strengthen its relationship with taxpayer backed Fannie Mae.  Countrywide partnered with Fannie Mae in a strategic business alliance that also included joint lobbying efforts." Specifically, the report alleged that:

“The Committee’s investigation found Countrywide lobbyists and CEO Angelo Mozilo used discounted loans as a tool to ingratiate itself with policymakers in an effort to benefit the company’s business interests,” said Issa.  “A former lobbyist for Countrywide testified that Members of Congress, staff, and other government officials were directed to the company’s VIP program as part of an effort to create a favorable impression of the company on Capitol Hill.  This preferential treatment – that varied depending on the influence of the borrower – was not routinely offered to the public.”

A log of all loans processed by Countrywide’s VIP unit showed 17,979 loans between January 1996 and June 2008. Borrowers included Members and employees of Congress, the White House, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, federal agencies, and other government entities. The log listed hundreds of duplicate loans – the actual number of VIP borrowers was considerably less than 17,979. Lawyers for Bank of America acknowledged that the log may not contain the full roster of VIP borrowers.

Countrywide established the VIP unit in 1991 toprocess loans for senior Countrywide officials and their friends. Referred to internally as Branch 850, the unit had 13 full-time employees trained to provide enhanced customer service. According to VIP Loan Unit operating procedures, the suite of benefits available to VIP borrowers included program/underwriting and pricing exceptions.

(MOAR INSIDE...IF YOU DARE)

by Anonymousreply 6102/02/2013

The last act of any corrupt government is to loot the nation's treasury.

by Anonymousreply 412/27/2012

The resident Idiot Libertarian Troll is babbling to himself again. Oh joy.

by Anonymousreply 712/28/2012

Op, and so forth....did your daddy administer you an extra large booty bump tonight? You are flying high and nonsensical.

by Anonymousreply 912/28/2012

And 91% of all incumbents nationwide were reelected. So it shows Americans are quite satisfied with their government.

YOU may not be but most people are.

by Anonymousreply 1112/29/2012

R11 people are stupid. Next?

by Anonymousreply 1212/29/2012

[quote]Please. PLEASE, point out one, even one, issue where I'm wrong.

Economics.

History.

Finance.

Politics.

Now what do I win?

by Anonymousreply 1312/29/2012

Dear heart, posting something multiple times on multiple threads doesn't make your argument any more compelling. It just makes you a troll and gets your threads locked and/or deleted.

by Anonymousreply 1512/30/2012

This troll is still here? Some needs to send this asshole to a FEMA camp ASAP!

by Anonymousreply 1712/30/2012

I do know a former Governor who ran against her corrupt party incumbent. Then after she was sworn in called in the feds for an investigation which ended in most of her party's higher ups being thrown in jail.

by Anonymousreply 1812/30/2012

Libertarians, idiots, etc.

by Anonymousreply 2001/03/2013

ROFL.... Is that really the best you can do? "Ooh, he made money on the sale of his television channel! String him up!"

by Anonymousreply 2201/04/2013

R22-

It's just to show how phony these pseudo liberals really are. They make millions, while raising taxes on the poor. Fuck 'em.

by Anonymousreply 2301/06/2013

[quote]It's just to show how phony these pseudo liberals really are. They make millions, while raising taxes on the poor. Fuck 'em.

ROFL.... Dear heart, Al Gore isn't a politician and hasn't been one for years. Get over it. As for "pseudo liberals," coming from you, that's hilarious, particularly since liberals and Democrats consistently vote against "raising taxes on the poor." But hey, why let a little dose of reality get in your way? It never has before!

by Anonymousreply 2401/07/2013

R24-

They voted to raise taxes on the poor. Every poor worker making minimum wage is going to take home 2% less each week due to the law Obama signed.

So, unless you can explain how that isn't "raising taxes on the poor" then shut up.

by Anonymousreply 2501/07/2013

Taxes are only being raised on individuals with incomes above $400k and households making above $450k.

What you're referring to is the expiration of a temporary stimulus measure that was never intended to be permanent.

Try harder, Freeper.

by Anonymousreply 2601/07/2013

R26-

Don't be a douche.

It was a tax increase.

You're using the "government language" where a "cut" in spending is really just a lower raise in their budget. If you look at the "budget cuts" they are actually higher than the year before, but since they are lower than "the projections" they are called a cut.

This INCREASE in taxes on POOR people is wrong, and dumbass motherfucking assholes like you need to shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 2701/07/2013

Barack Obama cut people's payroll taxes. He wanted to keep it. The GOP in Congress forced its expiration (by not renewing it). So Republicans are to blame for everyone's taxes going up.

by Anonymousreply 2801/07/2013

[quote]They voted to raise taxes on the poor.

No, they didn't. Not one word in that bill they passed contained a tax hike on the poor.

[quote]Every poor worker making minimum wage is going to take home 2% less each week due to the law Obama signed.

Sorry, moron, but it's just not true.

[quote]So, unless you can explain how that isn't "raising taxes on the poor" then shut up.

ROFL.... Wow, you really *are* that ignorant, aren't you? The recent bill contained no tax hike for the poor. Look it up. You will not find a single tax hike in that bill.

by Anonymousreply 2901/07/2013

[quote]It was a tax increase.

No, actually, it wasn't.

[quote]You're using the "government language"

Nope, we're using the language of reality, where the bill recently passed contained no tax hikes. You're whining because the bill failed to extend a temporary measure that expired.

by Anonymousreply 3001/07/2013

R29, the payroll tax holiday Obama got passed in 2010 as part of the second stimulus was allowed to expire, so yes, working people's taxes did go up. No, there isn't a specific tax increase line in the bill... the absence of renewing the payroll tax holiday is the culprit.

by Anonymousreply 3101/07/2013

[quote]the payroll tax holiday Obama got passed in 2010 as part of the second stimulus was allowed to expire, so yes, working people's taxes did go up.

R31, I'm well aware of that. That doesn't make my post at R29 any less accurate. Nobody "voted to raise taxes on the poor." And nobody is paying less "because of the law that Obama signed." The moron I'm responding to has made it clear that he doesn't know the difference.

by Anonymousreply 3201/07/2013

[quote]That doesn't make my post at [R29] any less accurate.

Yes, it does.

[quote]Nobody "voted to raise taxes on the poor."

Yes, they did... when they knowingly voted for a bill that didn't renew a tax holiday, they increased their taxes. They did the same for those making over $400k/year. The tax cuts expired... they renewed the Bush cuts (and made them permanent) for those making less. They did NOT renew the payroll tax holiday, so those taxes went up too.

You're trying to weasel out on a technicality, while ignoring exactly what happened.

It's simple: Obama cut taxes a while back. Republicans insisted that those tax cuts expire, while fighting to keep Bush's tax cuts from expiring on the wealthy. It's clear Republicans don't give a shit about working people or if taxes go up on them.

by Anonymousreply 3301/07/2013

It's not just Rethugs, R33

The Dems allowed taxes to rise on the poorest of the poor. Both parties are to blame.

by Anonymousreply 3401/07/2013

[quote]Yes, they did...

Oh, garbage. I repeat: nobody "voted to raise taxes on the poor." You can scour that bill from start to finish and you will not find one tax hike on the poor.

[quote]when they knowingly voted for a bill that didn't renew a tax holiday

Thank you for proving my point.

[quote]You're trying to weasel out on a technicality, while ignoring exactly what happened.

And garbage, again. This was a temporary tax cut. It was always intended to be a temporary tax cut. Extending it or, worse, making it permanent, would have damaged Social Security. We're returning to the status quo of the past quarter century. To pretend otherwise is the real "weasel[ing] out on a technicality."

[quote]It's clear Republicans don't give a shit about working people or if taxes go up on them.

On this we agree. And the moron to whom I was responding always seems to forget this in his tirades against Obama.

by Anonymousreply 3501/07/2013

R34, Obama wanted to keep the tax holiday. It was GOP instance that caused it to lapse. Blame the right people.

by Anonymousreply 3601/07/2013

R36-

Obama could have vetoed the bill. Instead he signed it.

Ergo, he raised taxes on the poor.

I'll bet you defend his murder of innocents in Libya and Iraq too- since he's not a Rethuglican they must deserve to be killed.

by Anonymousreply 3701/07/2013

[quote]I'll bet you defend his murder of innocents in Libya and Iraq too- since he's not a Rethuglican they must deserve to be killed.

ROFL.... Why yes, of course. That absolutely follows.

Not.

by Anonymousreply 3801/07/2013

R38, like I've shown in multiple posts- you never defend your point you just try to act "above it all".

You have shown that you support raising taxes on the poor, despite your twisting of the language.

So, do you think Obama should be tried for war crimes? Should Bush?

by Anonymousreply 3901/07/2013

[quote]like I've shown in multiple posts- you never defend your point you just try to act "above it all".

Right back at you, dear. You simply make assertions here, most of them silly and quite a few of them provably false (tell us again how gold always outperforms the stock market, won't you?). Then you get angry when someone employs your own tactics against you. Funny how that works.

[quote]You have shown that you support raising taxes on the poor, despite your twisting of the language.

ROFL... It's called reality, dear. Deal with it. And no, dear, I haven't, which is why you can't defend this bit of silliness any more than you can the rest of your accusations.

[quote]So, do you think Obama should be tried for war crimes? Should Bush?

Start a new thread and we can discuss it, dear.

by Anonymousreply 4001/07/2013

[quote]It is a simple, straightforward question, with a simple answer- yes or no.

Yes, dear. And my response was a simple response.

[quote]Start the thread if you want. I've already seen the threads that I started shut down by the webbie because I called Obama on his shit.

ROFL.... No, dear. You've seen your threads shut down because you're a moron, a troll, and a spammer. The webmaster actually has far more tolerance for you than most would, since you have to go to extreme measures to get your threads shut down.

by Anonymousreply 4201/08/2013

Your joking right OP?

by Anonymousreply 4301/08/2013

On the new treasury secretary, JLew-

The Washington Times reports: Jacob J. Lew, President Obama’s presumed choice to lead the Treasury Department, has close ties to Wall Street, receiving more than $900,000 in bonus cash from a division of Citigroup just as the company was getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers[...]

Formerly chief operating officer at Citi Alternative Investments, a division of Citigroup, Mr. Lew received a bonus of $944,578 in January 2009, a payment that came days before he joined the State Department and later surfaced in a government ethics form.

The bonus came on top of $1.1 million in other Citigroup compensation he reported receiving during 2008 and the first two weeks of 2009.

This is typical revolving door stuff. Go through the revolving door and collect millions.

As I have pointed out earlier, Lew had no financial background that would warrant his being put in the position he found himself at Citigroup.

(ht John Duncan)

by Anonymousreply 4401/10/2013

The Washington Times reports:

Jacob J. Lew, President Obama’s presumed choice to lead the Treasury Department, has close ties to Wall Street, receiving more than $900,000 in bonus cash from a division of Citigroup just as the company was getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers[...]

Formerly chief operating officer at Citi Alternative Investments, a division of Citigroup, Mr. Lew received a bonus of $944,578 in January 2009, a payment that came days before he joined the State Department and later surfaced in a government ethics form.

The bonus came on top of $1.1 million in other Citigroup compensation he reported receiving during 2008 and the first two weeks of 2009.

This is typical revolving door stuff. Go through the revolving door and collect millions.

As I have pointed out earlier, Lew had no financial background that would warrant his being put in the position he found himself at Citigroup.

(ht John Duncan)

by Anonymousreply 4501/10/2013

Yes, dear, we heard you the first time.

by Anonymousreply 4601/11/2013

[quote]The Washington Times reports

Try using a reliable source next time.

by Anonymousreply 4701/11/2013

R47-

From that notoriously conservative conspiracy website "Huffington Post"

The New York Times has just run two articles confirming that President Obama intends to appoint Jacob Lew as Treasury Secretary Geithner's replacement. Most people assume that Geithner is a creature of Wall Street through direct employment, but Geithner never drew a paycheck directly from Wall Street. Geithner worked for a wholly-controlled subsidiary of Wall Street -- the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Lew is the real deal, another brick in Obama's creation of Wall Street on the Potomac. While the first NYT article ignored Lew's work on Wall Street, the second article simply tries to minimize it.

Mr. Lew had a brief turn in the financial industry before joining the Obama administration four years ago, working at the financial giant Citicorp, first as managing director of Citi Global Wealth Management and then as chief operating officer of Citigroup Alternative Investments. "Global Wealth Management" refers to banking services for the wealthiest people in the world, a club in which mere millionaires are barely worth having as a client. "Alternative investments" refers to financial derivatives traded for the bank's own account. Lew's training was as a lawyer. From CBS News:

Obama is clearly comfortable bringing another ex-Wall Streeter into an administration that, beyond a recent ratcheting up of populist rhetoric, has done relatively little to rein in the financial industry. That, in turn, reflects the ease with which Washington hands like Lew shuttle between the Street and the Hill. Case in point: Lew's predecessor as budget chief, Peter Orszag, left the agency and joined Citi as vice chairman of global banking. A job in politics is no longer a back-door to a lucrative job in banking -- it's a red carpet. The revolving door keeps spinning.

The Citi [alternative investments] division ultimately lost billions. As for Lew, he naturally made big bucks during his three-year stint at Citi, including a roughly $950,000 bonus in 2009 -- after the company's federal bailout.

by Anonymousreply 4801/11/2013

I notice the h8rs shut down when they are confronted. Word!

by Anonymousreply 4901/12/2013

Yes, dear, we heard you the first time.

by Anonymousreply 5001/12/2013

OP is bumping every dead thread to push her bullshit. Troll-dar r19, and see this thread turn up piss yellow. Then go into the other FED threads and see the little shit also on there.

by Anonymousreply 5101/12/2013

Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.

But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.

It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.

by Anonymousreply 5201/12/2013

Yup, R51, and he was so moved by the crap he posted in R52, that he resurrected literally all of his old threads to repost it, thereby spamming the group.

by Anonymousreply 5301/13/2013

R52 copy and pasting the same drivel in dozens of threads is further proof that libertarians lack the ability to think for themselves.

by Anonymousreply 5401/13/2013

Don't you just love R55? I think he's one of those guys who posts drunk. You know the type: gets drunk, then goes onto Datalounge and resurrects all of his old threads as he types bleary-eyed.

by Anonymousreply 5701/25/2013

R55? It's your mother here. Please kill yourself.

by Anonymousreply 5801/25/2013

Looks like our favorite freeper troll is back in action bumping all of his threads! I wonder how miserable he is to be around in real life.

by Anonymousreply 5901/25/2013

Remember when Congress applauded itself recently for creating insider trading laws for members of Congress. Well, they also built in a loophole.

CNN is reporting that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office wrote a loophole into the House version of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK) by exempting Congress members’ spouses and children from having to report stock market transactions.

The Senate version of the bill requires these transactions be reported within 45 days by both its members and their families. But a memo from the Office of Government Ethics, which oversees all federal executive branch employees, used the House version, telling them spouses and children were not subject to the rule.

The law, which bars members of Congress from trading stocks based on information they get for work purposes and requires them to register any stock transactions over $1,000 within 45 days, was signed into effect in April.

by Anonymousreply 6001/29/2013

Test

by Anonymousreply 6102/02/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.