Matt Taibbi: Bush tougher on corporate America that Obama is. Hands down.

[boneyard bill]

Amazing news! The Justice Department has actually filed a criminal lawsuit against a New York bank! Finally, Justice has charged leading executives at Abacus Bank in Manhattan for criminal activities. Never heard of Abacus Bank? Neither have I. It's not actually a Wall Street bank. It's in China Town and it is, as New York banks go, very, very tiny.

So we have major Wall Street banks which have lost civil cases and paid many billions of dollars in fines for such activities as criminal fraud, laundering drug money, and even laundering terrorist money, but no criminal charges have been filed. Keep in mind that regulatory agencies can only file civil cases. The Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, has to file criminal charges, and he can't seem to find the evidence to file such charges against a single Wall Street executive despite the fact that they have lost numerous cases in civil court.

Matt Taibbi is no right-wing Republican and Democracy now is not exactly a libertarian web site. So here's the story from Matt Taibbi on the most pro-Wall Street president in US history, and Taibbi has been covering Wall Street for a long, long time.

The whole video is 22 minutes long, but it's set at the point where Taibbi compares Obama and Bush which is only the last few minutes.

Three more cheers for trickle-down economics, liberal style.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ugher_on_corporate_america_than_obama_is.html

 

[ksen]

Whoa, you posted this like you think we agree with the president's handling of wall street.

I think the real question is how come you don't like the president leaving wall street alone? Isn't less government better?

 

[boneyard bill]

Whoa, you posted this like you think we agree with the president's handling of wall street.

I think the real question is how come you don't like the president leaving wall street alone? Isn't less government better?

Even the staunchest libertarian doesn't think the government should not enforce laws against fraud. Sure. If we legalized marijuana, there would be no laws against laundering marijuana money, but there would also be no need to launder the money in the first place. The Wall Street banks would stand to lose a lot of business if we legalized drugs. But they keep on making money off of illegal drugs because they don't get prosecuted for it. They get fined, and the bank i.e. the stockholders, not the executives, get stuck with the fines.

There's a reason why I think most of the posters here agree with Obama's handling of Wall Street. Just look at past threads on the subject.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even the staunchest libertarian doesn't think the government should not enforce laws against fraud. Sure. If we legalized marijuana, there would be no laws against laundering marijuana money, but there would also be no need to launder the money in the first place. The Wall Street banks would stand to lose a lot of business if we legalized drugs. But they keep on making money off of illegal drugs because they don't get prosecuted for it. They get fined, and the bank i.e. the stockholders, not the executives, get stuck with the fines.

There's a reason why I think most of the posters here agree with Obama's handling of Wall Street. Just look at past threads on the subject.

You are mistaking not running around crying the "The Sky is Falling!!!!!!" with being pleased with Obama's policies.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Who agrees with his handling of Wall Street? It's been shameful.

 

[laughing dog]

What is "trickle down economics, liberal style"and what does any of this have to do it?

 

[Nexus]

Who agrees with his handling of Wall Street? It's been shameful.

I'm certain Wall Street agrees with his handling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm certain Wall Street agrees with his handling.

The good news is that campaign contributions, ie "free speech", almost certainly had no influence in any of that. I'm sure of it. It'd be against the law otherwise.

 

[boneyard bill]

You are mistaking not running around crying the "The Sky is Falling!!!!!!" with being pleased with Obama's policies.

Frankly, I've found even very little support for arguments against Obama's imperialistic policies in Ukraine, which I would have thought would have evoked at least a little curiosity. Instead, I am criticized for resorting to posts from leftist web sites. It isn't my habit to do so, but here I go again, and the people here, not having John Kerry to quote against me (as if you could believe a single word out of John Kerry's mouth) want to respond with the a very long yawn.

Taibbi didn't say that Obama wasn't being tough on Wall Street. He said Obama didn't even come close to being as tough on Wall Street was George Bush was! So why are you all belly-aching about the Koch brothers running ads against Obama and his supporters? Why aren't you pinning a medal on them? Obama's successor would be hard-pressed to do less to enforce the law against Wall Street bankers than he is. What good are "regulations" if they are not enforced?

- - - Updated - - -

What is "trickle down economics, liberal style"and what does any of this have to do it?

Trickle-down economics, liberal style are the policies of the Obama administration. Failure to prosecute Wall Street executives is one of those policies.

- - - Updated - - -

The good news is that campaign contributions, ie "free speech", almost certainly had no influence in any of that. I'm sure of it. It'd be against the law otherwise.

Those campaign contributions did not stop the Bush Administration from prosecuting executives who committed fraud and Bush senior was, apparently, even tougher.

 

[laughing dog]

Trickle-down economics, liberal style are the policies of the Obama administration. Failure to prosecute Wall Street executives is one of those policies.

If you mean running historically large deficits, then Reagan engaged in trickle-down economics, liberal style Prosecution (or lack of prosecution) is not an economic policy. Since we are not in Wonderland, it seems to me that you are simply engaging in rhetorical excess to express your butthurt.

It is true that prosecutions for financial fraud are lower now than under either Bush or Reagan. However, it is also true that there has been a distinct downward trend in these prosecutions since 1999

(source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/obama-prosecuting-fewer-financial-crimes-than-under-either-bush-presidency.html

 

[ksen]

Instead, I am criticized for resorting to posts from leftist web sites.

So you're posting an OP taking Obama down for being soft on Wall Street from a leftist and then complaining about how leftists aren't upset with Obama being soft on Wall Street?

Is that about right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Frankly, I've found even very little support for arguments against Obama's imperialistic policies in Ukraine...

Can you even remotely stay on topic?

Those campaign contributions did not stop the Bush Administration from prosecuting executives who committed fraud and Bush senior was, apparently, even tougher.

True. Obama is an ass for not trying to make right with Wall Street.

 

[SimpleDon]

If you mean running historically large deficits, then Reagan engaged in trickle-down economics, liberal style Prosecution (or lack of prosecution) is not an economic policy. Since we are not in Wonderland, it seems to me that you are simply engaging in rhetorical excess to express your butthurt.

It is true that prosecutions for financial fraud are lower now than under either Bush or Reagan. However, it is also true that there has been a distinct downward trend in these prosecutions since 1999

(source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/obama-prosecuting-fewer-financial-crimes-than-under-either-bush-presidency.html

The peak in prosecutions was reached as a result of the Savings and Loan deregulation fiasco. The banking executives sent to jail were prosecuted under laws that made the executive responsible for accounting control fraud. The executive would pressure the accounting department of their companies to underplay the risk involved in some of the loans that they were making. This is exactly what the executives did in the subprime mortgage deregulation fiasco that caused the Great Recession and the Lesser Depression that we are still in.

However, Wall Street used their considerable influence to change the laws to make it much harder to prosecute the executives for this crime. The changes occurred between the two deregulation fiascoes. They were made by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat, Clinton. I don't think that Obama had anything to do with the changes in the laws.

 

[SimpleDon]

Bill, I assume that you are using the term "liberal" in the sense of "conservatives are the good guys and liberals are everyone else and the bad guys" rather than anything to do with the meaning of the word in the English language.

And that this is another one of your "liberals are just as bad as conservatives" threads.

It is my humble opinion that this series of posts are not as effective as you seem to feel that they are.

For a whole lot of reasons the current administration is decidedly right of center, a conservative administration. It is certainly more conservative than the Clinton and Bush I administration, and pretty much, as you point out, on par with the Bush II administration.

But pointing out how badly the outcomes are of these policies are under the current administration is, if anything, a further repudiation of the conservative economic policies, Reaganomics, trickle down, supply side economics, etc., rather than a validation of them as you seem to think. And a call for a swing back to the left to start reversing these policies.

 

[boneyard bill]

If you mean running historically large deficits, then Reagan engaged in trickle-down economics, liberal style Prosecution (or lack of prosecution) is not an economic policy. Since we are not in Wonderland, it seems to me that you are simply engaging in rhetorical excess to express your butthurt.

It is true that prosecutions for financial fraud are lower now than under either Bush or Reagan. However, it is also true that there has been a distinct downward trend in these prosecutions since 1999

(source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/obama-prosecuting-fewer-financial-crimes-than-under-either-bush-presidency.html

Oh please, more Obama apologetics.

First of all, liberals on these boards have not criticized Reagan for running large deficits. After all, Obama's have been even larger. They criticized Reagan for cutting taxes which were partly responsible for those large deficits.

Secondly, the fact that prosecutions have declined since 2000 is irrelevant. Taibbi already made that point. But when it comes to prosecuting TOP executives, Obama falls WAY, WAY short even of George Bush. Yes, Obama is prosecuting Abacus band whose top executive gets paid $90,000 a year.

Finally, prosecutions certainly ARE an economic issue if you think regulations are important. Prosecutions, after all, are what enforces regulations, and if you aren't going to enforce the regulations, it's the same as repealing them. So if conservatives propose to repeal a regulation, liberals on these boards jump all over him. But when Obama simply refuses to enforce them, it's no big deal.

 

[boneyard bill]

So you're posting an OP taking Obama down for being soft on Wall Street from a leftist and then complaining about how leftists aren't upset with Obama being soft on Wall Street?

Is that about right?

No. I'm complaining that liberals on the boards are not upset about Obama.

WAKE UP! I've been saying for quite a while now that Obama ISN'T EVEN a liberal. On foreign policy he's as hawkish as he dares to be. On civil liberties he's been a bigger disaster than George Bush. And on economics he has been more of a corporate crony than any Republican ever dreamed of being.

 

[boneyard bill]

The peak in prosecutions was reached as a result of the Savings and Loan deregulation fiasco. The banking executives sent to jail were prosecuted under laws that made the executive responsible for accounting control fraud. The executive would pressure the accounting department of their companies to underplay the risk involved in some of the loans that they were making. This is exactly what the executives did in the subprime mortgage deregulation fiasco that caused the Great Recession and the Lesser Depression that we are still in.

However, Wall Street used their considerable influence to change the laws to make it much harder to prosecute the executives for this crime. The changes occurred between the two deregulation fiascoes. They were made by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat, Clinton. I don't think that Obama had anything to do with the changes in the laws.

These laws haven't stopped these corporations from losing civil law suits. And just because a the laws make it more difficult, does that explain why NO executives have been prosecuted at all? And if they can go after executives at Abacus bank, why can't they go after bigger fish. After all, the complaint isn't that no bank executives have been prosecuted. The complaint is that no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted.

 

[ksen]

No. I'm complaining that liberals on the boards are not upset about Obama.

And you know this how?

WAKE UP! I've been saying for quite a while now that Obama ISN'T EVEN a liberal. On foreign policy he's as hawkish as he dares to be. On civil liberties he's been a bigger disaster than George Bush. And on economics he has been more of a corporate crony than any Republican ever dreamed of being.

You've convinced me. I will not vote for Obama in the next presidential election.

 

[Underseer]

Whoa, you posted this like you think we agree with the president's handling of wall street.

I think the real question is how come you don't like the president leaving wall street alone? Isn't less government better?

Well of course he thinks that. As a right winger, he would never criticize a Republican president, therefore no liberal would ever criticize Obama.

That's how he knows that no liberal would ever criticize Obama despite reading constant complaints from liberals on these very forums ever since Obama set foot in office.

Either that, or he believes what FOX News tells him to believe more than he believes his own lying eyes.

 

[boneyard bill]

Bill, I assume that you are using the term "liberal" in the sense of "conservatives are the good guys and liberals are everyone else and the bad guys" rather than anything to do with the meaning of the word in the English language.

And that this is another one of your "liberals are just as bad as conservatives" threads.

It is my humble opinion that this series of posts are not as effective as you seem to feel that they are.

For a whole lot of reasons the current administration is decidedly right of center, a conservative administration. It is certainly more conservative than the Clinton and Bush I administration, and pretty much, as you point out, on par with the Bush II administration.

But pointing out how badly the outcomes are of these policies are under the current administration is, if anything, a further repudiation of the conservative economic policies, Reaganomics, trickle down, supply side economics, etc., rather than a validation of them as you seem to think. And a call for a swing back to the left to start reversing these policies.

No. I'm not accusing Obama of being a conservative since I don't see where conservatives support bailing out banks or subsidizing business at all. On that point conservatives are in agreement with the leftists and against what passes today for liberalism. George Bush was not a conservative even though he was tougher on corporate executives than Obama was. But his foreign policy was adventuristic and his domestic policy was as a big spender and deficit enhancer. Most of the problems we have today are the result of George Bush's presidency. Obama's sin is that he has made things worse instead of correcting the problems he inherited from Bush.