Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:17 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Obama Fails To Follow Through On Financial Fraud Unit Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:16:18 PM

President Obama said in 2012: "So if you are a big bank or financial institution, you’re no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail –- because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again. (Applause.) And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices -- those days are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them. (Applause.)

We’ll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans."

State Of the Union 2012

Now it has been a year since this promise and there have been no investigations, no arrests and no convictions. What gives? It is time for us to all contact the White House to demand that the President follow through on his promise.

How To Contact the White House
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,537
Points:3,244,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 14, 2013 1:25:29 AM

"Who is against it and why?"

One might wonder the same thing regarding the recent renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act" -- yet quite a few in Congress nevertheless voted against it. Chances are that many who did vote against it will end up being re-elected. Go figure.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2013 5:35:34 PM

I have already contacted the WH to ask the President to follow through.

I also contacted my Rep and Senators asking that they support increased investigations and sentencing.

You know when we cracked down on drug usage our enforcement costs and imprisonment costs when way up. And the problem was not reduced much. Not much gain and a huge loss for America.

But when we crack down on white collar crime, there are far fewer criminals to catch and lock up. And they typically have a lot of money that could be fined away from them, helping to offset incarceration and enforcement costs.

And since they won't be perpetrating their crimes any more the economy will be improved. The crimes they do hurt the economy. Siphons spending power away from individuals. Kills consumer demand and jobs. We shut them down and lock them up and they will not be out there impacting the economy any more.

I just don't see why we can't get this done.

Who is against it and why?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,623
Points:831,930
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2013 12:17:07 PM

Wells fargo in Maryland was threatened with being sued if they didn't make more minority loans. The only way they could do that was to loosen their requirements for loans [like money down and steady employment]. When their minority loans defaulted, they were then sued for foreclosing on too many minorities. It wasn't ALL about corporate greed; some of it was political BS.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,569
Points:3,488,200
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2013 10:30:48 AM

Steve - Didn't I tell you before that it was a crying shame? Why didn't your hero, Obama, follow through with this? Could it be to protect his rich financial buddies from being "clapped in the slammer"?

I told you before, I also decry corporate corruption. Isn't it interesting that of all people, George W Bush was the one who signed in the Sarbanes-Oxley act? You know, the one that makes the board of directors accountable to the shareholders under penalty of law? If Obama so believes in corporate "fairness" and accountability, then why isn't he pushing for more financial accountability and oversight? I think your outrage is somewhat misplaced. Why aren't you petitioning Obama and sending him messages to make this happen if you so believe in it? Hmmmm?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2013 10:14:42 AM

I am surprised there are no other comments here.

Everybody is fine with corporate fraud and lax enforcement?

Is Bernie Madoff and the like your hero?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 2:56:45 PM

I75, that is recently a very popular Conservative Myth.

Why didn't you say these loans were required by law?

Instead you said these loans were virtually required by law.

That is because there is no law which requires banks to make bad loans.

What it did require was that a certain percentage of loans must be made to neighborhoods which the banks prefer to overlook (prejudice). (it's called red-lining)

The banks took it upon themselves to decide to make bad loans. They did this because they saw how to repackage them as good investments and then sell them off.

And THAT is just the kind of thing a Financial Fraud Unit could be cracking down on. It does not look good for Mr. Obama to drop the ball on this. It looks like he is too cozy with big banks.


[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/25/2013 2:58:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 2:56:41 PM

dup

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/25/2013 2:57:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 2:56:41 PM

dup


[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/25/2013 2:58:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,214
Points:3,081,870
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 8:01:02 AM

Steve, you are on the right track:
"We’ll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments."
"tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis."
"This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans."

Maybe the reason that nothing has happened with this promised initiative is that an investigation into the risky lending practices found that these loans were virtually required by law! The unintended consequences of the CRA raise their ugly heads.
Hold accountable those who broke laws, or those who upheld them?

It must suck to promise to investigate people who were acting under a law that turns out to be a boondoggle of unimaginable proportions!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 9:31:37 PM

Allowing this kind of thing to continue hurts us in psychological ways besides contributing to wealth inequity. It undermines confidence in our government to think that these really rich people can get away with this stuff because they have 'friends in high places'.

We often hear about how unpopular Congress is. Their approval rating hovers around 10% and even lower.

But we never hear what the approval rating is for corporate executives.

I'd be interested to see what America really thinks about the 1%.

I wonder if they are as unpopular as Congress?

And another thing. Not a single word about white-collar crime or holding accountable those who caused the melt-down in the SOTU address. Is the President that out of touch that he thinks this is not important to we the people?
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,329
Points:325,465
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 10:35:24 AM

"We need some teeth behind fighting white collar crime."

Prison sentences would certainly be in order. Of course, you need to open a Financial Crimes Unit first.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,927
Points:1,863,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 10:13:39 AM

I applaud you SemiSteve...but there have been a lot of things he has not followed through on and whenever we bring it up you liberals get your shorts in knot.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,569
Points:3,488,200
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 10:09:35 AM

SemiSteve - now you're making sense. I agree that SOX says that we ought to be making bloody sure that companies are run in the general interest of the shareholders. Also, I agree, white-collar crime needs to be cracked down upon - HARD. You're not wrong.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 2:16:08 PM

We need some teeth behind fighting white collar crime.

One would think this could be a priority after the financial meltdown.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 12:43:47 PM

Is it a spending problem or is it a revenue problem?

Big corporations have been sucking capital out of society for decades and sequestering it in the hands of a very few very wealthy individuals. The result is fewer jobs, more desparate job-seekers, and less pay for the jobs that do exist. That has caused a slow-down of our entire economy, meaning less dollars in circulation being chased by more and more people. A slow economy produces less revenue. That causes the deficit to rise.

If the big corporations had adopted the Henry Ford strategy of feeding more funds into society then people would be able to spend more. They would thuis create more customers for their products. This would cause more and more offshoot jobs to fill the demand for that spending. All of that economic activity would produce far more revenue. The deficit could be eliminated completely in such a situation. Federal debt could be reduced and eventually wiped out. Federal spending could remain at the exact same level it is at; and there would be no debt.

But many corporations are allowed great latitude in their desire to produce ever more profits. Big corporations are doing great. (Look at the DOW.) They have influenced government to make the rules favor them. Even in tough economic times the big corporations are doing better than ever - if you call vast profits for a few 'better'. Most of the workers at these corporations (the ones that remain after the massive cut-backs) have seen their buying power reduced over the last 35 years.

Much of what big corporations do, especially financial ones, is borderline legal. And if it is not legal and they want to do it, they try to get the law changed to that it becomes legal. Even if it harms society. Some of it is strictly illegal but they do it anyway because enforcement is lax. They frequently pay fines and simply consider it the cost of doing business. Then they repeat the same offenses.

Most of the budget for the FBI has been dedicated to a) Terrorism and b) blue collar crime. Prior to 9-11 there was a greater budget for white-collar crime. But most of those units were shut down and the manpower re-assigned to terrorism. Often we hear stories of terrorism plots halted and the perpetrators apprehended by the FBI. What is not often said is that FBI agents planted the idea, the plan and supplied the materials to the perps. The FBI uses informants whom they pay handsomely, or threaten with prosecution, to find these perps. And just as often, the perps would never had committed a crime if they were not prompted to do so. The FBI does this to maintain their budget. This way they are 'showing results' to justify the billions they spend on these ridiculous efforts which often put people behind bars who would have never posed a threat on their own.

If only the FBI were to spend as much on white collar crime as it does on terrorism we would see less money being sequestered into the hands of a very few people and more money in circulation in the economy where it can produce jobs and revenue, thereby reducing our deficit and eventually our debt.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,472
Points:1,559,045
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 1:09:42 PM

Another indication that we have a major upcoming problem and Obama along with his supporters refuse to see it.
.
>>>I hate to interrupt Obama’s “We Don’t Have a Spending Problem” World Tour. But reality intervened on Tuesday as the Congressional Budget Office released a report that says that the budget deficit will grow through 2023 and “will eventually require the government to raise taxes, reduce benefits and services, or undertake some combination of those two actions,” reports CBSNews- and all of that just to cover interest payments.

“In its annual Budget and Economic Outlook,” writes CBSNews, “the CBO said debt held by the public will be bigger by 2023 than in any year since 1951 and will be at 77 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2023, far above the 40-year average of 39 percent of GDP. As a result, the CBO report said, the federal government’s interest costs ‘will be very high’ and will be rising. Interest costs will more than double by the end of the ten-year forecasting period.”

The CBO projects that interest rates on the Ten-Year Treasury Note will rise from 2.1 percent currently, to 5.2 percent in 2017.

In December, the Treasury Department reported that total interest bearing debt owed by the government carried an interest rate of 2.523 percent. Last year’s interest payments on that debt totaled $360 billion. If interest rates overall reflect the CBO’s forecast for the benchmark, interest rates payments alone will reach one trillion dollars by 2017.

Just current debt would require interest payments of 2.5 times 2012 levels or $890 billion. You can add another $100 billion in interest costs for deficits accumulated between 2013 and 2017.<<<

Will the big spenders EVER get their head out of the sand and understand the spending we have (both parties but the progressives much more so) been doing is unsustainable.

We can raise taxes again and still. We can reduce spending. We can print more money and devalue the dollar. The Progressives seem to only like ever more taxes and hiding the devalustion of the dollar by cute names like qualative easing. Its gonna hurt and hurt bad when we hit the wall.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,472
Points:1,559,045
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 12:34:38 PM

Steve if you eat too many onions nobody will kiss you though------This minor little problem dwarfs your concern about some financial institutions
.
>>>So between now and the end of the decade, the national debt will explode, at least seven million people will be denied keeping their current plan even if they like it (other estimates are considerably higher), federal healthcare spending is poised to swamp the rest of the federal budget, and unemployment is likely to remain dismally high. After 2023, the picture gets much worse. Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin runs through some of these numbers in chart form in this user-friendly report, which is worth a read. The actuaries also expect sluggish growth in the near and medium-term future, stunted by the growing debt burden. Tepid growth would still beat Q4 of 2012, in which the US economy actually contracted for the first time since 2009. Jim Pethokoukis adds a critical piece of information that contextualizes the anticipated debt boom:



The flood of new debt comes despite tax revenue from 2015 through 2023 being higher than the historical average. We have a spending problem.


In spite of higher than average expected revenues -- thanks to President Obama's various tax hikes and some moderate GDP growth -- the CBO nevertheless foresees nearly $9 trillion in publicly-held red ink staining our books in the next decade alone. One trenchant snapshot of this phenomenon comes in 2023, when the CBO sees the government collecting double the tax dollars that it did in last year, yet the annual deficit will still hit $978 billion. As Pethokoukis summarizes, we have a spending problem, no matter what the president may believe. I encountered a similar head-in-the-sand mindset on Fox Business Network the other night, as Democratic strategist Malia Lazu echoed the White House's continued obsession with "more revenues:"<<<

WE, the United States, have a spending problem and the big spenders refuse to see it or to take steps to do anything at all to stop it. Sooner or later the rest of the world will force us to deal with it. Based on past history it will hurt all of us much less to deal with it now rather than later.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,564
Points:449,485
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 11:39:42 AM

I happen to really really like onions. I eat as many of them as I do apples. Onions are just as good for you as apples are. They are almost magic. Eating a lot of onions is a healthy habit. We could reduce our national health care costs by promoting frequent injestion of onions and apples.

I have not changed my opinion of Obama since I campaigned for him in the fall.

Actually I am following through on what I said I would do. I am glad I helped get him reelected. That was the first part of my intentions. And this is part of the second part.

My plan of 'campaign and complain' was to get him elected because he was the lessor of two bad choices, Romney being the worst. Then after the election I said I would become critical of his policies that I found objectionable. That is why I began this topic.

'Too Big To Fail' institutions should be broken up; and no more should be allowed to get so big that their failure impacts our economy so directly.

The 2008 economic crisis was brought on by greed and by easing financial regulatory oversight. That greed is still out there. And the financial oversight has not been increased sufficiently. We are still in danger of another melt-down. There is more work to do and we need to send a clear message to the President that we want it done. We need to spread the word and get as many citizens as possible to pressure him to do the right thing and come down on these greed-o-maniacs before they are allowed to make things even worse.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:16,414
Points:1,836,665
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:08:36 AM

I grew up in a very large democrat family, the area where I grew up, I have an immediate 1st and 2nd cousin (plus once removed) family number of over 1,700. We were all democrat. One thing that I notice when going back home home lately, is that - the majority of them are not bragging up obama any longer. It appears to have become a shameful talk item. I do have one first cousin, who still answers most of the questions put to him, with: "ya, but George Bush . . . " Even he is no longer as vocal for bho, perhaps he now realizes what his medical costs will be, as he recently retired at age 65, 3 years ago.

One can only call an onion an apple for so long, then it becomes evident that it actually is an onion.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,472
Points:1,559,045
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:28:19 PM

Steve just how many more instances of Obama lying out his teeth does it take for youj to finally get the idea that he and his fellow liberals are not telling the truth? When will you admit that they are leading you down the primrose path?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,319
Points:2,357,510
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:25:38 PM

Obama has failed to follow through on numerous fronts, don't tell me that you're surprised that he let one of your oxen get gored too...
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:19:56 PM

Unfortunately this is the type of thing that has to go through congressional approval first. At the moment a Democrat cannot ask a Republican for a stick of gum without being accused of being a socialist that wants to take from the good hard working republicans.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,657
Points:2,866,205
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:18:01 PM

SemiSteve, you are finally seeing Obama for what he is.
Post a reply Back to Topics