The Cellar - Obama spanks Wall Street.

Page 4 of 4

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Obama spanks Wall Street. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19459)

TGRR	02-19-2009 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 536234)

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.

Not the point. I have the right to bear arms. Self-defense is not necessary to justify that right.

TGRR	02-19-2009 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 536346)

Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.

Yep. But have you ever tried to clean one? Plus, the neighbors bitch when you plink at stuff behind the house.

TGRR,
Lives in AZ, where we actually CAN (and do) target shoot from the back porch.

classicman

02-20-2009 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 536234)

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR (Post 536573)

Not the point. I have the right to bear arms. Self-defense is not necessary to justify that right.

Yes it is. Thats the basis of it. If you disagree, then why you have "the right to bear arms."

classicman

02-24-2009 02:13 PM

Back on topic....

Thain ordered to disclose Merrill bonus details

Quote:

A New York judge has ruled that John Thain, former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, will have to name names in a state probe into bonuses paid out at Merrill in late December, just days before Bank of America acquired the firm.

The ruling is a victory for New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo, who is investigating why Merrill paid out $3.6bn in bonuses during a year in which the firm reported losses of $28bn, and a potential setback to BofA, which had warned Mr Thain not to discuss details of the payments.

Mr Thain, who gave a lengthy deposition to state prosecutors last week about the bonuses, refused to discuss individual pay-outs, according to court filing from Mr Cuomo’s office on Monday. The filing indicated that Mr Thain’s lawyer, Andrew Levander, told prosecutors: “I don’t want to have him sued by the company for their saying he’s violating someone’s privacy.”

New York state supreme court justice Bernard Fried ruled that Mr Thain would have to answer the attorney general’s questions, which he is expected to do on Tuesday, but said specific information about individual bonuses need not be made public.

According to Mr Cuomo’s court filing, Merrill Lynch established its $3.6bn bonus pool on December 8, and did not reduce it during the following weeks, even though Merrill’s pre-tax operating losses turned out to be $7bn more than anticipated at that time. For the fourth quarter, Merrill Lynch recorded $21bn in pre-tax operating losses.

When the Financial Times disclosed the early pay-outs last month, BofA blamed the payments on Mr Thain. But evidence has emerged that Ken Lewis, BofA chief executive, and members of his transition team had a greater degree of knowledge of the matter than they indicated.

According to people at Merrill Lynch, two senior members of BofA’s team were involved in the bonus process. All three BofA executives have been issued subpoenas by Mr Cuomo’s office.

A spokesman for Mr Thain said: “Bank of America directed Mr Thain not to discuss specific bonus details. We continue to co-operate fully.”

In response to the ruling, BofA said, “[The] ruling [is] consistent with company’s position that the information is private and should remain private to protect rights of individuals and the competitive position of company”.

I think the right to privacy went out the window when they used public money to pay out bonuses while posting a huge loss. Is this some sort of new math or something?

(thanks tw, but we do NOT need another Enron accounting wacko-extremist cut and paste post)

sugarpop

02-24-2009 07:26 PM

So you think privacy comes before truth, in the public good? And ethics violations? I'm sorry, but I think Thain should go to prison, and anyone at BOA complicit in this. Those people took public funds, because they had to. They caused this mess. NO, they created it. I'm fucking sick of the greed of rich people. (not that all rich people are greedy. but the ones who aren't wouldn't be hiding.)

classicman

02-24-2009 08:38 PM

What are you talking about?

TheMercenary

02-24-2009 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 538440)

Good God, is that a repeated rant?

sugarpop

02-24-2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 538475)

What are you talking about?

Sorry, I misread your post. My bad. :blush:

classicman

03-06-2009 01:18 PM

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

Quote:

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.

To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).

Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.

Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

A long, but interesting look from the "other side"

sugarpop

03-07-2009 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 542214)

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

A long, but interesting look from the "other side"

ho hum. While I agree that Obama may be a little too optimisitic about how long the recession will last and how strong the recovery will be, he gets creamed for not being positive enough and using too much negative languange about where we are now, and now he is getting creamed for being positive. He just can't win. Maybe he should just keep his mouth shut. God forbid we have a president who actually tries to be honest with us.

Undertoad

03-07-2009 03:54 PM

You could have read the article.

tw	03-08-2009 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 542214)

A long, but interesting look from the "other side"

Then add facts to that citation to see it starts with a lie based in a half truth.

Quote:

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes,

John Kennedy's tax cut created a short term economic gain - followed by a harmful downturn. But again, those who want to spin myths ignore the lessons of history. Any economic boom created by money games means economics takes revenge later. Tax cuts to create economic wealth explains bad economic numbers for the next four years.

Basic knowledge does not come from a political agenda. Had classicman read that first sentence, then he knew the author was flawed. Tax cuts to create economic wealth is only believed by those too niave to learn and too ignorant to see throught extremist propaganda.

Any harm to the Dow today is directly traceable to George Jr and wacko extremists politics. Same people who promoted the Kennedy tax cuts as a solution back then are a major reason for economics taking revenge today.

Yes, Obama is being accused of talking negatively because that is what the economics who have studied these conditions in detail have been warning. Do you want Obama to tell the truth - or lie? If classicman had grasped the citation, then he immediately saw a political agenda that contradicts what this nation's best economist were saying only months ago in San Francisco.

A GDP drop of 9% which takes two years to reach bottom. Unemployment averages 7% and keeps dropping for five years. Housing prices take five years to drop 36%. Government debt rises 86%. Scary part is that America has already surpassed some of these averaging numbers. However statistical variations for 'average' GDP and unemployment numbers are large.

Thank you George Jr for debts we must still pay for such as the $1trillion for "Mission Accomplished".

George Sr was not that dumb. George Sr got the world to pay for Desert Storm. Economics is now taking revenge for wacko extremist economics just like economics did 1975 and 1979 for 1968 and 1970 Vietnam, Nixon's refusal to raise taxes, and numerous economic incentives that created Gerald Ford's stagflation.

Any economic pain today is directly traceable to eight year of wacko extremists who even said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Guess what. Deficits do matter. But Cheney was preaching to those who never learned from history. Deja vue for those who would again deny these lessons and again promote Kennedy tax cuts. Economics again taking revenge. Only the ignorant and naive would blame Obama. And yet that is what wacko extremists (Palin supporters) are doing.

classicman

03-11-2009 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 542707)

add facts Kennedy's tax cut economic gain - harmful downturn spin myths ignore lessons money games revenge later Tax cuts bad numbers
Basic knowledge political agenda. Tax cuts economic wealth niave ignorant extremist propaganda.
directly traceable George Jr wacko extremists . Kennedy tax cuts revenge.
Obama talking truth lie? political agenda contradicts
GDP drop reach bottom keeps dropping Housing prices drop debt rises. Scary part
George Jr "Mission Accomplished" George Sr not dumb
Desert Storm taking revenge wacko extremist Vietnam, raise taxes, and economic incentives created stagflation.
economic pain directly traceable wacko extremists "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" Cheney preaching never learned Deja vue deny lessons tax cuts. taking revenge. ignorant naive bblame Obama. wacko extremists.

Maybe just maybe we need a little short term help to stem the tide of rising unemployment, reduced monetarycirculation, lowered production and falling housing prices. Maybe tax cuts do help - even if its in only for the short term to keep more people working and to buy some time. Just for the short term till the long term plan kicks in... Maybe?

China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts

Quote:

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- China vehicle sales surged 25 percent in February, the first gain in four months, after the government cut taxes on some models, helping the country extend its lead as the world’s largest auto market this year.

Sales of passenger cars, buses and trucks climbed to 827,600. The tally in the first two months rose 2.7 percent to 1.56 million, compared with a 39 percent decline to 1.35 million in the U.S.

China has halved retail taxes on small cars and drawn up plans to give out vehicle subsidies in rural areas to revive demand after auto sales rose at the slowest pace in a decade last year. Combined with the country’s wider 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) economic stimulus package, the policies have caused General Motors Corp. to roughly double its forecast for China’s nationwide auto market growth this year.

“Consumers are regaining confidence because of the government’s stimulus policies,” said Ricon Xia, an analyst at Daiwa Research Institute in Shanghai. “Still, vehicle sales may fluctuate in the coming months.”

Passenger-car sales, including sport-utility and multipurpose vehicles, rose 24 percent last month to 607,300, the association said. In the first two months, the tally climbed 5.8 percent to 1.22 million.

Sales of cars with engines or 1.6 liters or less jumped 19 percent in the first two months. Their market share gained by 7.71 percentage points.

Rising sales and production cuts by automakers has caused the nation’s stockpile of unsold vehicles to fall to the lowest in two years last month, the grouping said.

Commercial-vehicle sales fell 6.9 percent in first two months as the sector received less government support than passenger cars, the group said. Truckmakers are now seeking similar stimulus plans, it added.

Redux

03-11-2009 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 544090)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes such a short-term tax cut:

Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases. The bill provides all taxpayers with a deduction for State and local sales and excise taxes paid on the purchase of new cars, light truck, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles through 2009. This deduction is subject to a phase-out for
taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a joint return). This proposal is estimated to cost $1.684 billion over 10 years

In fact, overall, about 1/3 of the provisions (and costs) of the bill are tax cuts and other tax relief/incentives.

sugarpop

03-11-2009 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 542556)

You could have read the article.

ummm, I did.

sugarpop

03-11-2009 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 544090)

You can get cars here now for 0 tax. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think tax cuts will do much of anything but put more money into the pockets of the people who need it the least.

lumberjim

03-11-2009 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 544183)

You can get cars here now for 0 tax. What does that have to do with anything? I don't think tax cuts will do much of anything but put more money into the pockets of the people who need it the least.

is this a state thing, or do you refer to the 'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009' where you can itemize your sales tax paid on a car on your federal return? there's a big difference. meaning, you save xx% of your tax paid depending on your income bracket. ...if you paid $2000 tax on a car, and are at the 17% tax bracket, you pay $340 less tax :: finger pop, swirl ::

some states don't charge sales tax far cars anyway......so those people don't benefit from the new 'program' anyway.

Quote:

SEC. 1008. ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION FOR STATE SALES TAX AND
EXCISE TAX ON THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN MOTOR
VEHICLES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 164 is amended
by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) Qualified motor vehicle taxes.’’.
(b) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES.—Subsection (b) of section
164 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the
term ‘qualified motor vehicle taxes’ means any State or
local sales or excise tax imposed on the purchase of a
qualified motor vehicle.
‘‘(B) LIMITATION BASED ON VEHICLE PRICE.—The
amount of any State or local sales or excise tax imposed
on the purchase of a qualified motor vehicle taken into
account under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the portion
of such tax attributable to so much of the purchase
price as does not exceed $49,500.
‘‘(C) INCOME LIMITATION.—The amount otherwise taken
into account under subparagraph (A) (after the application
of subparagraph (B)) for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by the amount which bears the same
ratio to the amount which is so treated as—
‘‘(i) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(I) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross
income for such taxable year, over
‘‘(II) $125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a joint
return), bears to
‘‘(ii) $10,000.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘modified
adjusted gross income’ means the adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for the taxable year (determined without
regard to sections 911, 931, and 933).
H. R. 1—204
‘‘(D) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE.—For purposes of this
paragraph—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified motor
vehicle’ means—
‘‘(I) a passenger automobile or light truck
which is treated as a motor vehicle for purposes
of title II of the Clean Air Act, the gross vehicle
weight rating of which is not more than 8,500
pounds, and the original use of which commences
with the taxpayer,
‘‘(II) a motorcycle the gross vehicle weight
rating of which is not more than 8,500 pounds
and the original use of which commences with
the taxpayer, and
‘‘(III) a motor home the original use of which
commences with the taxpayer.
‘‘(ii) OTHER TERMS.—The terms ‘motorcycle’ and
‘motor home’ have the meanings given such terms
under section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the date of the enactment of
this paragraph).
‘‘(E) QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES NOT INCLUDED
IN COST OF ACQUIRED PROPERTY.—The last sentence of subsection
(a) shall not apply to any qualified motor vehicle
taxes.
‘‘(F) COORDINATION WITH GENERAL SALES TAX.—This
paragraph shall not apply in the case of a taxpayer who
makes an election under paragraph (5) for the taxable
year.
‘‘(G) TERMINATION.—This paragraph shall not apply
to purchases after December 31, 2009.’’.
(c) DEDUCTION ALLOWED TO NONITEMIZERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 63(c) is amended
by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking
the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘,
and’’, and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(E) the motor vehicle sales tax deduction.’’.
(2) DEFINITION.—Section 63(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(9) MOTOR VEHICLE SALES TAX DEDUCTION.—For purposes
of paragraph (1), the term ‘motor vehicle sales tax deduction’
means the amount allowable as a deduction under section
164(a)(6). Such term shall not include any amount taken into
account under section 62(a).’’.
(d) TREATMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDER ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM
TAX.—The last sentence of section 56(b)(1)(E) is amended by
striking ‘‘section 63(c)(1)(D)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (D) and
(E) of section 63(c)(1)’’.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to purchases on or after the date of

classicman

03-11-2009 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 544157)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes such a short-term tax cut:

I am aware of that and I think its a great thing. I was specifically referring to tw's post. Thanks for the informed link & quotes to further support my point

Redux

03-11-2009 08:14 PM

What it doesnt include is tax cuts for the top wage earners.

There is no evidence that such tax cuts "trickle down" and provide a stimulative effect as claimed repeatedly by the supply siders.

classicman

03-11-2009 08:18 PM

ok, then take them all out. Fuck it.

TGRR	03-11-2009 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 544221)

ok, then take them all out. Fuck it.

Wait. So you are only for tax cuts to the rich?

classicman

03-11-2009 10:02 PM

HA HA HA HA I knew I could count on you! where ya been all day?

TGRR	03-11-2009 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 544274)

HA HA HA HA I knew I could count on you! where ya been all day?

Work. Apparently I don't get paid if I don't go.

TGRR,
That's the MAN trying to KEEP ME DOWN!

classicman

02-10-2010 07:59 PM

Quote:

Barack Obama, US president, on Wednesday said he “did not begrudge” the multi-million dollar bonuses given out to Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and added that their large pay-outs were a consequence of America’s “free market system”.

Mr Obama’s comments, in an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, are likely to attract further controversy at a time when public anger over the Wall Street bonuses is increasingly being directed at Washington. They were also on Wednesday contrasted with Mr Obama’s recent criticisms of the “obscene” bonuses paid out on Wall Street as evidence that the White House was unable to sustain a clear message on the subject.

Link

Well which is it? After blasting these guys for so long, In March 2009 it was "Bonuses are violation of "our fundamental values" now suddenly its "That is part of the free-market system.” WTH? Which is it?

xoxoxoBruce

02-10-2010 08:36 PM

1 Attachment(s)

It's both. It's the way the free market system works, and an example of the more-for-me-fuck-you-and-the-country mentality of wall street.

What do you want him to do? If he bad mouths the system, then the republicans/tea baggers scream socialism. If he doesn't, they scream duplicity. Remember it's congress that has to fix this shit.

TheMercenary

02-10-2010 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 633881)

That is because his admin is filled with GS lackey's. Why would he screw his own appointee's?

TheMercenary

02-10-2010 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 633897)

Remember it's congress that has to fix this shit.

Exactly. In fact I would be a much bigger supporter of Obama if the Congress wasn't so screwed up.

tw	02-10-2010 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 633903)

That is because his admin is filled with GS lackey's.

So why are those GS lackey's so viciously attacking GS's bonuses and other questionable activities. Oh. That is what GS wants its lackey's to do.

Yznhymr

02-20-2010 10:25 PM

Obama can't spank his own monkey without bragging about it.

Lamplighter

10-22-2015 04:22 PM

There is probably a better thread for this, but...

There have been many Dwellar complaints over the fact that no bank executives
have been held personally accountable for the financial crisis starting back in 2008.

The following article seems to me to hold out some hope, after all.

How to Punish Corporate Fraudsters
NY Times - ERIC R. HAVIANOCT. 22, 2015

Quote:

<snip>Few outside the legal community are familiar with the concept of “exclusion,”
which permits many federal agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of Health and Human Services
— to temporarily or permanently block corporations that violate their rules from doing business with them.
Importantly, it can also be applied to individual corporate officers, such as chief executives
and lower-level executives, and is especially effective in the finance and health care industries.

Since most big banks are federally insured, and many large health care companies do business
with Medicare or Medicaid, barring an executive from that work can be a professional death sentence.

For example, the F.D.I.C. can bar someone for life from any federally insured bank
by demonstrating in an administrative hearing that the person violated federal banking regulations
or failed to correct any “unsafe or unsound practice.”

To exclude a health care executive from federal health programs,
the Department of Health and Human Services can also conduct an administrative hearing
to show that the executive engaged in fraud. And the S.E.C. can bar a financial services executive
by filing a civil case in federal court, showing that the person is unfit “to serve as an officer or director”
of a public company and proving that the executive knew about or recklessly ignored the improper activity.

Others have also been barred from any federally regulated bank over the past 15 years,
including the former C.E.O. of the now-defunct American Sterling Bank
and an executive of Louisiana’s First Guaranty Bank.
In addition, the Bear Stearns executives who were acquitted of criminal charges after the financial crisis
were later barred from the securities industry for several years.
<snip>

BigV	10-23-2015 07:31 PM

Yes, that does sound hopeful. But I am skeptical that the tool will be used.

Lamplighter

10-23-2015 08:55 PM

Well, it's probably too late for the 2008 economic crisis.

But for the serious fight that is coming on Medicare cost reductions,
it might carry some weight (after the fact), or even as a
preventative measure that would get the attention of CFO's, etc.

.

xoxoxoBruce

10-24-2015 01:25 AM

I'm pessimistic. For show they might throw a token or two who are ready to retire and have the golden parachute in their pocket, under the bus. But I'd be surprised at even that because it would affect the company's stock, and even if that was temporary stockholders would be ragging on their congress critters.

classicman

10-25-2015 10:59 AM

Yup ... 7 YEARS later they are going to effectively blackball their financial friends and biggest political supporters ... Are you high?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.

Page 4 of 4

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page