psmag.com
You know how it works.
Lose? They ended up making out like a bandit.
Read now and then. Its been covered many times and we'll documented.
How Bankers Manipulate Rating Agencies to Get Their Way
Wall Street pressed S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch to assign more favorable credit ratings to their tobacco bonds deals and bragged that the raters complied. Now many of the bonds are headed for default.
You know how it works.
Lose? They ended up making out like a bandit.
Read now and then. Its been covered many times and we'll documented.
How Bankers Manipulate Rating Agencies to Get Their Way
Wall Street pressed S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch to assign more favorable credit ratings to their tobacco bonds deals and bragged that the raters complied. Now many of the bonds are headed for default.
Lose? They ended up making out like a bandit.
Goldman lost billions.
The once-revered investment bank said it lost $2.1 billion, or $4.97 a share during the fourth quarter, representing the company's first loss since it went public in 1999.
Goldman Sachs posts $2.1 billion loss - Dec. 16, 2008
money.cnn.com
Wall Street pressed S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch to assign more favorable credit ratings to their tobacco bonds deals and bragged that the raters complied. Now many of the bonds are headed for default.
Did any default? Did Goldman know in 1998 that a decade or two later there would be "weaker-than-expected cigarette sales, which drive the size of the settlement payments"?
Those bastards!!!
Now there is evidence the raters also may have succumbed to pressure from the bankers in another area: The sale of billions of dollars in bonds by states and municipalities looking to quickly cash in on the massive 1998 legal settlement with Big Tobacco.
The states couldn't wait for the money, they had to sell bonds to spend it up front? LOL!
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
cafehayek.com
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
So stupid. "Most arrested were "left wingers".
This is why the country is in such a mess and will only get worse. This is the only way you can see the world. I see more and more people like you. It's why I support it all falling apart.
No, Freddie Mac gave them a AAA rating.
Again, Freddie Mac in 1997, guaranteed these exact type of sub-prime loans, as having a AAA rating, with full faith of the Federal government.
CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of CRA loans.The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.
Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek
I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...
This is well documented. Sub-prime loans were guaranteed by Freddie Mac in 1997, under Bill Clinton, and were given a AAA rating, because the Federal government through Freddie Mac guaranteed them.
You might ask... well why were other loans given the same AAA rating?
Because if they did not give those loans the same rating, then they would be at odds with the Federal Government, and the rating agency.
If you have a car, and I had an identical car, but my car was guaranteed by the Federal government to be a safe car, and because of that I could sell it for a ton of money.
So you show up with your 100% identical car, and they say "That's a high risk car!"... and because of that you couldn't sell it... I think you'd rightly have a problem. Either, the agency saying your car is risky, is full of crap... or the government itself that claimed my car was super safe, is full of crap.
That would cause problem. Naturally the rating agency that was told by the government these cars are safe, is going to assume your identical car is safe too.
That's what happened with AAA rated sub-prime loans.
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
So stupid. "Most arrested were "left wingers".
This is why the country is in such a mess and will only get worse. This is the only way you can see the world. I see more and more people like you. It's why I support it all falling apart.
Are you denying they were not-for-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that left-wingers haven't been pushing non-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that free-market for-profit right-wing Capitalists, were running non-profit co-ops?
It's my opinion, I have right to my opinion, and I don't care what you think. My opinion is, I wager most if not all of the people sent to prison for the S&L scandal, were left-wingers.
Regardless, that was a minor comment in a larger post. You are just using that to avoid answering my other points.
I posted the link to back up what I said. Ignore what you want to push your politics. It's sad.
No, Freddie Mac gave them a AAA rating.
Again, Freddie Mac in 1997, guaranteed these exact type of sub-prime loans, as having a AAA rating, with full faith of the Federal government.
CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of CRA loans.The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.
Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek
I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...
This is well documented. Sub-prime loans were guaranteed by Freddie Mac in 1997, under Bill Clinton, and were given a AAA rating, because the Federal government through Freddie Mac guaranteed them.
You might ask... well why were other loans given the same AAA rating?
Because if they did not give those loans the same rating, then they would be at odds with the Federal Government, and the rating agency.
If you have a car, and I had an identical car, but my car was guaranteed by the Federal government to be a safe car, and because of that I could sell it for a ton of money.
So you show up with your 100% identical car, and they say "That's a high risk car!"... and because of that you couldn't sell it... I think you'd rightly have a problem. Either, the agency saying your car is risky, is full of crap... or the government itself that claimed my car was super safe, is full of crap.
That would cause problem. Naturally the rating agency that was told by the government these cars are safe, is going to assume your identical car is safe too.
That's what happened with AAA rated sub-prime loans.
I posted the link to back up what I said. Ignore what you want to push your politics. It's sad.
Name one fact based claim that I said, that was false?
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
So stupid. "Most arrested were "left wingers".
This is why the country is in such a mess and will only get worse. This is the only way you can see the world. I see more and more people like you. It's why I support it all falling apart.
Are you denying they were not-for-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that left-wingers haven't been pushing non-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that free-market for-profit right-wing Capitalists, were running non-profit co-ops?
It's my opinion, I have right to my opinion, and I don't care what you think. My opinion is, I wager most if not all of the people sent to prison for the S&L scandal, were left-wingers.
Regardless, that was a minor comment in a larger post. You are just using that to avoid answering my other points.
You are the utmost expert on your opinion but you are being untruthful as to what you know are the facts.
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
How exactly did Wall Street destroy lives ?
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Name one fact based claim that I said, that was false?
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
So stupid. "Most arrested were "left wingers".
This is why the country is in such a mess and will only get worse. This is the only way you can see the world. I see more and more people like you. It's why I support it all falling apart.
Are you denying they were not-for-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that left-wingers haven't been pushing non-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that free-market for-profit right-wing Capitalists, were running non-profit co-ops?
It's my opinion, I have right to my opinion, and I don't care what you think. My opinion is, I wager most if not all of the people sent to prison for the S&L scandal, were left-wingers.
Regardless, that was a minor comment in a larger post. You are just using that to avoid answering my other points.
You are the utmost expert on your opinion but you are being untruthful as to what you know are the facts.
So you actually think Obama can change something that was completely legal, that the government through Freddie Mac was doing itself.... and make illegal, and retroactively throw bankers in jail for?Name one fact based claim that I said, that was false?
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
So stupid. "Most arrested were "left wingers".
This is why the country is in such a mess and will only get worse. This is the only way you can see the world. I see more and more people like you. It's why I support it all falling apart.
Are you denying they were not-for-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that left-wingers haven't been pushing non-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that free-market for-profit right-wing Capitalists, were running non-profit co-ops?
It's my opinion, I have right to my opinion, and I don't care what you think. My opinion is, I wager most if not all of the people sent to prison for the S&L scandal, were left-wingers.
Regardless, that was a minor comment in a larger post. You are just using that to avoid answering my other points.
You are the utmost expert on your opinion but you are being untruthful as to what you know are the facts.
That Obama could have done nothing to uphold his promises.
So you actually think Obama can change something that was completely legal,Name one fact based claim that I said, that was false?
can’t stop thinking about Barack Obama insisting that his decision to not prosecute Wall Street executives after they destroyed millions of lives was an honorable and moral defense of the social order
Well... yeah. Obama was right on that. You can't just redefine what is legal and illegal, after the fact, because you don't like the outcome.
Trust me, you don't want to live in a world, where they can make something you did 10 years ago illegal, and go to prison for it today.
Further, that isn't even the truth. What Obama said was simply a cover to avoid the real reason, which is the moment they tried to send bankers to prison for their action between 1997, and 2007, those bankers would have fought that in court, with all the documents showing the US government sued them, and forced them, and encouraged them to do those actions.
Obama himself would be called to witness that he sued banks like citigroup to make bad loans in the 1990s.
The Democrats knew that by dropping this, that left-wingers would be more mindlessly angry at the banks, than the government, and never take the time to find out the government was behind everything.
Obama totally failed us here. He ran on prosecuting the bankers while telling the bankers behind closed doors to ignore his rhetoric.
He is sadly admitting here it was all a lie. And people ask why people accept Trump's lies. Those who do something themselves really have little room to condemn others for the same.
Here's the difference. All politicians say things they wish they could do, and when they get into office, they can't.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
Yes, he would have needed the House and Senate to go along. Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws. He ran the Justice Department and needed no one's approval.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
We are NOT supposed to be the country that arrests people and puts them in prison without ever giving them a trial. Without providing any evidence at all. That is not who we are supposed to be. That is not who we were in the past.
Again, you are wrong. His supporters were wrong for not holding him accountable. Again, you are arguing what is suppose to be the greatest country in the world can not do what it had done in the recent past.
You've thrown in the towel over the US being any better than some third world country.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Trump doesn't think.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
But Obama could have. Obama was suppose to be this great law scholar. Are you saying he was ignorant, incapable or a liar?
No he could not have. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think he lied, knowing stupid people would believe the lies, and support him. But it is also possible that he is far more ignorant than we thought.
Obama needed none of that to prosecute those who broke our laws.
Again, the banks were selling the exact same loans, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were selling... and they were sued by Andrew Cuomo in 1998 to make those bad loans.... and Freddie Mac in 1997 guaranteed those bad loans.
So one of two things is true.... Either what the banks did was not against the law, because government itself was the biggest proponent of those actions..... or if they sent those banks to court, they would expose to everyone that the entire government going back to Bill Clinton in 1997, was doing the exact same things, including Obama himself which sued Citigroup to make bad loans.
And yet that is exactly what we did before. Why was it now impossible?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Fast Facts
Not even close to being comparable. You are comparing a domestic action, to a war action. When we captured POWs in WW2, did we try them in domestic courts? No we did not.
Further, it's not possible to do that. Blowing up a bomb in NYC, where the FBI can investigate it, and collect evidence, and gather data, and create a court case..... is nothing like fighting in Fallujah, Iraq.
Do you really think that insurgent groups are going to stop fighting so that FBI or some other investigators, can come sift through a war zone, to find evidence against captured fighters? Do you really think that?
You really think we'll have some guys with gloves and a trench coat, walking around in a combat area, dusting for finger prints, while dodging bullets and grenades? Maybe they can go interview local combatants who will be happy and smiling to provide them with eye witness accounts?
Completely and entirely different than going through a trade center bombing in 1993. The absurdity of comparing the two is beyond my ability to understand, unless you are just trolling here.
Again, we did it in the past.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BOASTS 905 CONVICTIONS IN S&L SCANDAL
And people wonder why I hold the position that we really aren't all that great of a country any longer.
This is one of the ironies of left-wing ideology, because over and over left-wingers promote "co-ops", as being the brilliant alternative to profit-based free-market Capitalism.
You do know that the S&Ls the crashed in the late 70s and early 80s were co-ops, right? Most of the people who went to jail, were left-wingers.
Regardless, again you are comparing apples and oranges. The convictions of the S&L scandals, were for fraud. Clearly defined fraud.
That didn't happen in the sub-prime crash. You think it did, others claim it did, but it didn't. The few times during the crash where there was fraud, people were convicted.
There are examples where people went to prison, when they engaged in clear fraud.
But as whole, during the 2008 crash, there was no fraud involved. The market changed, because of government intervention.
As I said before... you can't just send people to prison, because you don't like them, or you don't like what happened. You have to actually commit a crime. Obama can't just retro-actively declare everything that was perfectly legal from 1997 to 2006, to be a crime, and toss people in prison for it.
So stupid. "Most arrested were "left wingers".
This is why the country is in such a mess and will only get worse. This is the only way you can see the world. I see more and more people like you. It's why I support it all falling apart.
Are you denying they were not-for-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that left-wingers haven't been pushing non-profit co-ops? Or are you suggesting that free-market for-profit right-wing Capitalists, were running non-profit co-ops?
It's my opinion, I have right to my opinion, and I don't care what you think. My opinion is, I wager most if not all of the people sent to prison for the S&L scandal, were left-wingers.
Regardless, that was a minor comment in a larger post. You are just using that to avoid answering my other points.
You are the utmost expert on your opinion but you are being untruthful as to what you know are the facts.
That Obama could have done nothing to uphold his promises.
