After they steal the money. Their politicians will say we've got to cut back because their is no money to give you for what we've allowed to be stolen. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.
Showing posts with label Wall Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street. Show all posts
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Matt Taibbi on How Wall Street Hedge Funds Are Looting the Pension Funds...
After they steal the money. Their politicians will say we've got to cut back because their is no money to give you for what we've allowed to be stolen. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia | Politics News | Rolling Stone
The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia | Politics News | Rolling Stone:
'via Blog this'
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620#ixzz1yTEU6EWm
'via Blog this'
Someday, it will go down in history as the first trial of the modern American mafia. Of course, you won't hear the recent financial corruption case, United States of America v. Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm, called anything like that. If you heard about it at all, you're probably either in the municipal bond business or married to an antitrust lawyer. Even then, all you probably heard was that a threesome of bit players on Wall Street got convicted of obscure antitrust violations in one of the most inscrutable, jargon-packed legal snoozefests since the government's massive case against Microsoft in the Nineties – not exactly the thrilling courtroom drama offered by the famed trials of old-school mobsters like Al Capone or Anthony "Tony Ducks" Corallo.
But this just-completed trial in downtown New York against three faceless financial executives really was historic. Over 10 years in the making, the case allowed federal prosecutors to make public for the first time the astonishing inner workings of the reigning American crime syndicate, which now operates not out of Little Italy and Las Vegas, but out of Wall Street.
The defendants in the case – Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm – worked for GE Capital, the finance arm of General Electric. Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street – not just GE, but J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia and more – these three Wall Street wiseguys spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars from the coffers of cities and small towns across America. The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion. By conspiring to lower the interest rates that towns earn on these investments, the banks systematically stole from schools, hospitals, libraries and nursing homes – from "virtually every state, district and territory in the United States," according to one settlement. And they did it so cleverly that the victims never even knew they were being cheated. No thumbs were broken, and nobody ended up in a landfill in New Jersey, but money disappeared, lots and lots of it, and its manner of disappearance had a familiar name: organized crime.
In fact, stripped of all the camouflaging financial verbiage, the crimes the defendants and their co-conspirators committed were virtually indistinguishable from the kind of thuggery practiced for decades by the Mafia, which has long made manipulation of public bids for things like garbage collection and construction contracts a cornerstone of its business. What's more, in the manner of old mob trials, Wall Street's secret machinations were revealed during theCarollo trial through crackling wiretap recordings and the lurid testimony of cooperating witnesses, who came into court with bowed heads, pointing fingers at their accomplices. The new-age gangsters even invented an elaborate code to hide their crimes. Like Elizabethan highway robbers who spoke in thieves' cant, or Italian mobsters who talked about "getting a button man to clip the capo," on tape after tape these Wall Street crooks coughed up phrases like "pull a nickel out" or "get to the right level" or "you're hanging out there" – all code words used to manipulate the interest rates on municipal bonds. The only thing that made this trial different from a typical mob trial was the scale of the crime.
USA v. Carollo involved classic cartel activity: not just one corrupt bank, but many, all acting in careful concert against the public interest. In the years since the economic crash of 2008, we've seen numerous hints that such orchestrated corruption exists. The collapses of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, for instance, both pointed to coordinated attacks by powerful banks and hedge funds determined to speed the demise of those firms. In the bankruptcy of Jefferson County, Alabama, we learned that Goldman Sachs accepted a $3 million bribe from J.P. Morgan Chase to permit Chase to serve as the sole provider of toxic swap deals to the rubes running metropolitan Birmingham – "an open-and-shut case of anti-competitive behavior," as one former regulator described it.
More recently, a major international investigation has been launched into the manipulation of Libor, the interbank lending index that is used to calculate global interest rates for products worth more than $3 trillion a year. If and when that case is presented to the public at trial – there are several major civil suits in the works here in the States – we may yet find out that the world's most powerful banks have, for years, been fixing the prices of almost every adjustable-rate vehicle on earth, from mortgages and credit cards to interest-rate swaps and even currencies.
But USA v. Carollo marks the first time we actually got incontrovertible evidence that Wall Street has moved into this cartel-type brand of criminality. It also offered a disgusting glimpse into the enabling and grossly cynical role played by politicians, who took Super Bowl tickets and bribe-stuffed envelopes to look the other way while gangsters raided the public kitty. And though the punishments that were ultimately handed down in the trial – minor convictions of three bit players – felt deeply unsatisfying, it was still a watershed moment in the ongoing story of America's gradual awakening to the realities of financial corruption. In a post-crash era where Wall Street trials almost never make it into court, and even the harshest settlements end with the evidence buried by the government and the offending banks permitted to escape with no admission of wrongdoing, this case finally dragged the whole ugly truth of American finance out into the open – and it was a hell of a show.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620#ixzz1yTEU6EWm
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Scott Brown votes against women's right and uses Wall Street/Koch money to push his wife out there to fight his battles
Scott Brown began voting against women's rights in Massachusetts and hiding behind his wife's skirts as she reminded everyone of how she use to do innocuous fluff infotainment pieces for the local news. Gail was like an old friend basically telling you about weather, fires and somebody involvement in a hit and run accident.
No wonder Scott had time to be home with the babies I'm sure his late night shoots had him on a completely different schedule while his wife worked for a living.
Then afterwards Scott began to pursue his career as a career politician with three terms in the Massachusetts house and three in the senate, which the job of government worker is pretty much a career that most Massachusetts residents can identify with.
So when Scott was in trouble he quickly went to his Wall Street/Koch friends and got a bundle of money to promote his wife to the point that you might actually think that Gail Huff was running against Elizabeth Warren.
Then who can forget when Scott trolling for cash with one of the Koch Brothers and telling him he couldn't do it without him.
Then finally why would you ever want to return to Wretham, Massachusetts in a beat up old truck when you can pal around with the Washington versions of career politicians, like senator for life John McCain.
Then finally that brings us back to Gail Huff and her love of family values that marks any Republican candidate.
Gail Huff I wonder what the toothpaste is symbolic of. I guess that goes over big with the family value crowd.
Here's the full video of Gail's talents. She must have been squirting the toothpaste while Scott was posing. This is pretty typical of north east conservative elites.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Elizabeth Warren has taken a ton of money from Boston. Scott Brown from Manhattan. That isn't even in Massachusetts.
LP - Wall Street's senator from Massachusetts. Or as Scott Brown's adds say he's independent. He's independent if you happen to own a bank.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Wall Street speculators drive up price of gas. Not doubt Occupy Wall Street is to blame somewhere.
From Steve thanks.
I thought it was Iran being threatened that automatically raised the price or there not being enough holes in the US
From Steve thanks.
I thought it was Iran being threatened that automatically raised the price or there not being enough holes in the US
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Why Wall Street Should Stop Whining | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
Why Wall Street Should Stop Whining Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone
When I read things like this I’m simultaneously amazed by two things. The
first is the unbelievable tone-deafness of people who would complain out loud,
during a time when millions of people around the country are literally losing
their homes, that their bonuses – not their total compensation, mind you, but
just their cash bonuses, paid in addition to their salaries and their
stock packages – are barely enough to cover the mortgage payments for
their new condos, the taxis they take when walking is too burdensome, and their
girlfriends with expensive tastes.
The second thing that amazes me is that Sherman is buying all this. I don’t
know this reporter at all, and I’m happy to concede that he probably hangs out
with more Wall Street people than I do. But I’m still in touch with plenty of
people in the business, and I have yet to have any investment bankers crying on
my shoulder about how the Dodd-Frank bill is forcing them into generic breakfast
cereals.Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-wall-street-should-stop-whining-20120208#ixzz1lqRgQeYF
When I read things like this I’m simultaneously amazed by two things. The
first is the unbelievable tone-deafness of people who would complain out loud,
during a time when millions of people around the country are literally losing
their homes, that their bonuses – not their total compensation, mind you, but
just their cash bonuses, paid in addition to their salaries and their
stock packages – are barely enough to cover the mortgage payments for
their new condos, the taxis they take when walking is too burdensome, and their
girlfriends with expensive tastes.
The second thing that amazes me is that Sherman is buying all this. I don’t
know this reporter at all, and I’m happy to concede that he probably hangs out
with more Wall Street people than I do. But I’m still in touch with plenty of
people in the business, and I have yet to have any investment bankers crying on
my shoulder about how the Dodd-Frank bill is forcing them into generic breakfast
cereals.Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-wall-street-should-stop-whining-20120208#ixzz1lqRgQeYF
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Scott Brown Raises $3.2 Million In Fourth Quarter 2011 For Massachusetts Senate Race
Scott Brown Raises $3.2 Million In Fourth Quarter 2011 For Massachusetts Senate Race
Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) campaign raised an impressive $3.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, bringing his total cash on hand to $12.8 million. Brown faces a strong challenge for his Massachusetts Senate seat from Democrat and Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren.
The Boston Globe reports that Brown's war chest is the largest of any Massachusetts candidate for statewide office at this time in the race.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party dismissed the figure. "It's no surprise that Wall Street and the big banks continue to finance Scott Brown's campaign because he continues to put their interests first, ahead of middle-class Massachusetts families," said spokesman Kevin Franck in a statement. A report from the Center for Public Integrity revealed that K Street lobbyists and Wall Street interests had hosted fundraisers for him in the fourth quarter, but it's impossible to know how much was raised, since the campaign hasn't yet released itemized figures.
The Brown campaign said Warren would likely raise more. "Despite our success, we also know that our opponent is getting lots of financial support from extreme liberal special interests, and she will likely surpass our numbers," said Brown campaign finance director John P. Cook in an email to supporters.
LP - What a shock? The battle could be determined as the voters of Massachusetts vs. Wall Street;s ability to buy any office they want. Scott Brown may not have people but he does have Wall Street and that their unlimited supply of George Washingtons they give him. Which do you think really matters in a democracy?
Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) campaign raised an impressive $3.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, bringing his total cash on hand to $12.8 million. Brown faces a strong challenge for his Massachusetts Senate seat from Democrat and Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren.
The Boston Globe reports that Brown's war chest is the largest of any Massachusetts candidate for statewide office at this time in the race.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party dismissed the figure. "It's no surprise that Wall Street and the big banks continue to finance Scott Brown's campaign because he continues to put their interests first, ahead of middle-class Massachusetts families," said spokesman Kevin Franck in a statement. A report from the Center for Public Integrity revealed that K Street lobbyists and Wall Street interests had hosted fundraisers for him in the fourth quarter, but it's impossible to know how much was raised, since the campaign hasn't yet released itemized figures.
The Brown campaign said Warren would likely raise more. "Despite our success, we also know that our opponent is getting lots of financial support from extreme liberal special interests, and she will likely surpass our numbers," said Brown campaign finance director John P. Cook in an email to supporters.
LP - What a shock? The battle could be determined as the voters of Massachusetts vs. Wall Street;s ability to buy any office they want. Scott Brown may not have people but he does have Wall Street and that their unlimited supply of George Washingtons they give him. Which do you think really matters in a democracy?
Friday, January 6, 2012
Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone
Those numbers tell us that both parties rely upon the same core of major
donors among the top law firms, the Wall Street companies, and business leaders
– basically, the 1%. Those one-percenters always give generously to both parties
and both presidential candidates, although they sometimes will hedge their bets
significantly when they think one side or the other has a lopsided chance at
victory. That’s clearly what happened in 2008, when Wall Street correctly called
Obama as a 2-1 (or maybe a 7-3) favorite to beat McCain.
The 1% donors are remarkably tolerant. They’ll give to just about anyone who
polls well, provided they fall within certain parameters. What they won’t do is
give to anyone who is even a remote threat to make significant structural
changes, i.e. a Dennis Kucinich, an Elizabeth Warren, or a Ron Paul (hell will
freeze over before Wall Street gives heavily to a candidate in favor of
abolishing their piggy bank, the Fed). So basically what that means is that
voters are free to choose anyone they want, provided it isn’t Dennis Kucinich,
or Ron Paul, or some other such unacceptable personage.
If the voters insist on supporting such a person in defiance of these donors
– this might even happen tonight, with a Paul win in Iowa – what you inevitably
end up seeing is a monstrous amount of money quickly dumped into the cause of
derailing that candidate. This takes overt forms, like giving heavily to his
primary opponents, and more covert forms, like manufacturing opinions through
donor-subsidized think tanks and the heavy use of lapdog media figures to push
establishment complaints...
...It was always annoying when these two parties and the slavish media that
follows their champions around for 18 months pretended that this was a colossal
clash of opposites. But now, with the economy in the shape that it’s in thanks
in large part to the people financing these elections, that pretense is more
than annoying, it’s offensive.
And I imagine that the more they try to play up the drama of these
familiar-but-empty campaign rituals, the more irritating to the public it will
all become. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if, before the season is out, the
campaign itself will become a hated symbol of the 1% -- with the conventions and
the networks’ broadcast tents outside the inevitable "free speech zones"
attracting protests the same way the offices of Chase and Bank of America did
this fall.
Or maybe not, we’ll see. In any case, the dreary campaign to choose the next
imperial administrator -- the One Percent-Off, let's call it -- starts tonight.
It’s the same old ritual, but I just don’t think it’s going to fly the same way
this time around.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103#ixzz1ig1IWGo4
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103#ixzz1ig0oioUq
Those numbers tell us that both parties rely upon the same core of major
donors among the top law firms, the Wall Street companies, and business leaders
– basically, the 1%. Those one-percenters always give generously to both parties
and both presidential candidates, although they sometimes will hedge their bets
significantly when they think one side or the other has a lopsided chance at
victory. That’s clearly what happened in 2008, when Wall Street correctly called
Obama as a 2-1 (or maybe a 7-3) favorite to beat McCain.
The 1% donors are remarkably tolerant. They’ll give to just about anyone who
polls well, provided they fall within certain parameters. What they won’t do is
give to anyone who is even a remote threat to make significant structural
changes, i.e. a Dennis Kucinich, an Elizabeth Warren, or a Ron Paul (hell will
freeze over before Wall Street gives heavily to a candidate in favor of
abolishing their piggy bank, the Fed). So basically what that means is that
voters are free to choose anyone they want, provided it isn’t Dennis Kucinich,
or Ron Paul, or some other such unacceptable personage.
If the voters insist on supporting such a person in defiance of these donors
– this might even happen tonight, with a Paul win in Iowa – what you inevitably
end up seeing is a monstrous amount of money quickly dumped into the cause of
derailing that candidate. This takes overt forms, like giving heavily to his
primary opponents, and more covert forms, like manufacturing opinions through
donor-subsidized think tanks and the heavy use of lapdog media figures to push
establishment complaints...
...It was always annoying when these two parties and the slavish media that
follows their champions around for 18 months pretended that this was a colossal
clash of opposites. But now, with the economy in the shape that it’s in thanks
in large part to the people financing these elections, that pretense is more
than annoying, it’s offensive.
And I imagine that the more they try to play up the drama of these
familiar-but-empty campaign rituals, the more irritating to the public it will
all become. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if, before the season is out, the
campaign itself will become a hated symbol of the 1% -- with the conventions and
the networks’ broadcast tents outside the inevitable "free speech zones"
attracting protests the same way the offices of Chase and Bank of America did
this fall.
Or maybe not, we’ll see. In any case, the dreary campaign to choose the next
imperial administrator -- the One Percent-Off, let's call it -- starts tonight.
It’s the same old ritual, but I just don’t think it’s going to fly the same way
this time around.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103#ixzz1ig1IWGo4
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103#ixzz1ig0oioUq
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Can Warren Go Without Wall Street Money? | Crooks and Liars
Excellent piece on last word last night. Forbes calls Scott Brown Wall Street's favorite senator with 10 million dollars of their cash socked away in the bank. He definitely doesn't want to come back to Massachusetts in that red truck he used as a photo op. Then you have Elizabeth Warren who Wall Street hates, because she has again and again taken the side of working Americans. The questioned asked by this piece is important can anyone be elected today who Wall Street doesn't pre-approved.
Can Warren Go Without Wall Street Money? Crooks and Liars
Can Warren Go Without Wall Street Money? Crooks and Liars
According to Matt Taibbi Obama in the middle of pushing for a deal to help alleviate the suffering banks, who stole millions from the Americans
Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
POSTED: August 24, 11:17 AM ET
Eric Schneiderman and President Barack Obama
Michael Nagle/Getty Images and JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.
On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general.
This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.
Full Story here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)