If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Whoever wins on election day is likely to be greeted by lower unemployment figures, whoever loses may end up just being a greeter   (in.reuters.com) divider line 60
    More: Spiffy, Wal-Mart, Kohl, unemployment  
•       •       •

1208 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Sep 2012 at 6:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-21 04:56:26 PM
The word "job" is subjective.
 
2012-09-21 06:13:58 PM
Well....

If Obama wins, the headlines and stories will be all about how it's due to temporary job gains due to the holidays, and Obama still sucks.

If Romney wins, it will be a clear sign that Romney is the savior of the US economy.
 
2012-09-21 06:28:42 PM
meat0918:
If Obama wins, the headlines and stories will be all about how it's due to temporary job gains due to the holidays, and Obama still sucks.

You have it backwards.

Note, for example, the linked story. They're setting the stage for an Obama loss, so they can pretend his policies actually worked. Eventually. Of course, the Obamaniacs are still pretending that the current bad economy is Bush's fault, so...
 
2012-09-21 06:37:58 PM

cirby: They're setting the stage for an Obama loss, so they can pretend his policies actually worked.


That weed you're smoking, pas that along dude.

Here are your next two presidents: Obama (4 more years, Clinton (8 years).
Write it down and note the date of the prediction.

The world now knows that the rethuglicans are basically mentally ill.
They're finished as a political party.
 
2012-09-21 07:00:42 PM
Whoever wins the election, the American people are the ones that lose. Here's my campaign promise: The winning candidate will continue to erode civil liberties, will continue to sell our future to corporations, and will continue to wage global war against the American public image.

/Same as the old president.
 
2012-09-21 07:36:18 PM

cirby: Of course, the Obamaniacs are still pretending that the current bad economy is Bush's fault, so...


"Obamaniacs" meaning anyone who understands simple math and the basic workings of the federal government then yeah, the "Obamaniacs" do understand whose fault it is.
 
2012-09-21 08:10:02 PM
There is this dopey meme about "uncertainty" among the job creators about the "economy" is keeping them from entrepreneuring and making us all rich.

Its more like the greedy racist bastarts don't like the black boy in the white house and refuse to help him appear successful in any way.
So I suppose they think, in their adorable GOP mentally ill way, Rmoney wins, the flood gates of capital will open and it'll rain skittles and hundred dollar bills on all of us.

It's all nonsense. This is as good as it gets, peon serfs.
You can't convince people who don't even know they're being screwed that any certain group is screwing them. At this point, after 30 years of daily rape, actual making love is impossible and their minds are wrecked.

Whomever wins, we're equally screwed.
 
2012-09-21 08:55:24 PM

meat0918: Well....

If Obama wins, the headlines and stories will be all about how it's due to temporary job gains due to the holidays, and Obama still sucks.

If Romney wins, it will be a clear sign that Romney is the savior of the US economy.


Would you expect anything less from the "liberal" media?
 
2012-09-21 09:15:53 PM
isn't Romney already technically unemployed?
 
2012-09-21 09:21:57 PM

Plant Rights Activist: isn't Romney already technically unemployed?


Not if Israel has anything to say about it.
 
2012-09-21 09:30:58 PM
This would be better news if Walmart decided to work its permanent employees more than 15-30 hours a week. Or at least give them regular schedules so they could try to get second jobs.

I can't figure out why retail corporations do that to their workforce. It's got to add double digits to their turnover rate.
 
2012-09-21 09:41:01 PM

zenobia: I can't figure out why retail corporations do that to their workforce. It's got to add double digits to their turnover rate.

I can't figure out why retail corporations do that to their workforce. It's got to add double digits to their turnover rate.

I can't figure out why retail corporations do that to their workforce. It's got to add double digits to their turnover rate.

 
2012-09-21 10:22:38 PM
Good grief, corporations can't put off hiring people and not sitting on mounds of cash for another four years, can they?
 
2012-09-21 10:40:40 PM
It doesn't matter. Just flip a coin, already. There are no substantial differences between the two.
 
2012-09-21 10:42:57 PM
I didn't realize the holidays extended to January 20, subby.
 
2012-09-21 10:47:30 PM

meat0918: Well....

If Obama wins, the headlines and stories will be all about how it's due to temporary job gains due to the holidays, and Obama still sucks.

If Romney wins, it will be a clear sign that Romney is the savior of the US economy.


What newspapers are you reading? Or are you talking exclusively Rush and his fans? Every main stream paper will tout how obama's plan is working because they have to push their golden child even though he is failing miserably.
 
2012-09-21 11:29:20 PM
How about we stop pretending that people who are unable to find a job for so long that they give up looking are good news because now they longer count in the unemployment numbers?

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-21 11:29:56 PM

BullBearMS: they no longer

 
2012-09-21 11:33:20 PM

DrPainMD: It doesn't matter. Just flip a coin, already. There are no substantial differences between the two.


This

Honest Bender: Whoever wins the election, the American people are the ones that lose. Here's my campaign promise: The winning candidate will continue to erode civil liberties, will continue to sell our future to corporations, and will continue to wage global war against the American public image.

/Same as the old president.


And definitely this

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-21 11:46:25 PM

meat0918: Well....

If Obama wins, the headlines and stories will be all about how it's due to temporary job gains due to the holidays, and Obama still sucks.

If Romney wins, it will be a clear sign that Romney is the savior of the US economy.


WHAT?!

What news outlets do you read?

Is it voluntary? Are you in some sort of hospital or something?

The headlines I see are all "The President is Right and Romney Done Said Something that Pissed Off the Savages AGAIN!".
 
2012-09-21 11:55:17 PM

BullBearMS: And definitely this


Oh look, the old tired both sides are the same gig.
/even when they aren't
 
2012-09-22 12:22:12 AM

Kurmudgeon: BullBearMS: And definitely this

Oh look, the old tired both sides are the same gig.
/even when they aren't


So the guy who repeatedly promised to "fix the economy" finally prosecuted the fraudulent bankers who destroyed it for their own profit?

No. No he didn't.

That would be because he's just as owned by the rich as the Republicans are.
 
2012-09-22 12:33:47 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: cirby: They're setting the stage for an Obama loss, so they can pretend his policies actually worked.

That weed you're smoking, pas that along dude.

Here are your next two presidents: Obama (4 more years, Clinton (8 years).
Write it down and note the date of the prediction.


Clinton? That's a funny way to spell Elizabeth Warren.
 
2012-09-22 12:40:52 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: You can't convince people who don't even know they're being screwed that any certain group is screwing them. At this point, after 30 years of daily rape, actual making love is impossible and their minds are wrecked.


This is a good metaphor, but I'd add that the screwed are members of a royal harem, and keep hoping if they hold onto their Stockholm syndrome long enough one day someone will make them queen.
 
2012-09-22 12:45:18 AM

K.B.O. Winston: Clinton? That's a funny way to spell Elizabeth Warren.


Careful. They get incredibly butthurt if you bring up the fact that Warren isn't willing to sell out the middle class and the poor to wealthy donors like our current leadership is.
 
2012-09-22 12:49:07 AM

BullBearMS: K.B.O. Winston: Clinton? That's a funny way to spell Elizabeth Warren.

Careful. They get incredibly butthurt if you bring up the fact that Warren isn't willing to sell out the middle class and the poor to wealthy donors like our current leadership is.


She will either be an epic success or a monumental failure in a bid for the White House. Either way it will be one Hell of a show.

/unless she backs away slowly and bolts when no one's looking
//not that I'd blame her
 
2012-09-22 01:38:09 AM

BullBearMS: Kurmudgeon: BullBearMS: And definitely this

Oh look, the old tired both sides are the same gig.
/even when they aren't

So the guy who repeatedly promised to "fix the economy" finally prosecuted the fraudulent bankers who destroyed it for their own profit?

No. No he didn't.

That would be because he's just as owned by the rich as the Republicans are.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-22 01:49:58 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: he's just as owned by the rich as the Republicans are.


So Obama didn't put the guy in charge of regulating Wall Street when all this bullshiat went down in charge of Treasury?

He didn't put a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of prosecuting the banks at the Department of Justice?

Every one of his three White House Chiefs of Staff haven't come from the banking industry?

He didn't work to prevent any of the States from prosecuting bank fraud?

Oh, wait. He did all of those things.
 
2012-09-22 02:14:57 AM

BullBearMS: K.B.O. Winston: Clinton? That's a funny way to spell Elizabeth Warren.

Careful. They get incredibly butthurt if you bring up the fact that Warren isn't willing to sell out the middle class and the poor to wealthy donors like our current leadership is.


No we just mock you for claiming that writing her in for president is going to change the system.
 
2012-09-22 02:18:01 AM

BullBearMS: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: he's just as owned by the rich as the Republicans are.

So Obama didn't put the guy in charge of regulating Wall Street when all this bullshiat went down in charge of Treasury?


Why wouldn't you put a regulator in charge of the Treasury? Is there something more?

He didn't put a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of prosecuting the banks at the Department of Justice?

Wouldn't an experienced Wall Street attorney be a millionaire? Is there something more?

Every one of his three White House Chiefs of Staff haven't come from the banking industry?

What does that mean, exactly? That they worked for banks? Or something more?

He didn't work to prevent any of the States from prosecuting bank fraud?

Want to cite?
 
2012-09-22 02:19:24 AM

Introitus: The word "job" is subjective.


cirby: Of course, the Obamaniacs are still pretending that the current bad economy is Bush's fault, so...


Obamaniacs, they have salami in their pants.
 
2012-09-22 02:26:15 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Want to cite?


Putting a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of prosecuting the banks.

Newsweek:
Obama delivered heated rhetoric, but his actions signaled different priorities. He chose Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white-collar defense unit. The move to Covington, and back to Justice, is an example of Washington's revolving-door ritual, which, for Holder, has been lucrative--he pulled in $2.1 million as a Covington partner in 2008, and $2.5 million (including deferred compensation) when he left the firm in 2009.

Putting a Covington partner--he spent nearly a decade at the firm--in charge of Justice may have sent a signal to the financial community, whose marquee names are Covington clients. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice.

Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white-collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principal deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white-shoe firm with A-list finance clients.
 
2012-09-22 02:36:26 AM
Put the guy in charge of regulating Wall Street when all this bullshiat went down in charge of Treasury?

Frontline on PBS:
NARRATOR: At the start of his presidential quest, Obama had chosen a dream team of reform-minded economists.

That team, for the most part, gathers around Barack Obama as he rises. And who've you got? You've got Robert Reich, the liberal labor secretary under Bill Clinton. You've got Joe Stiglitz, who, of course, called the crisis earlier than anyone. And at the center of it, you've got all 6-foot-8 of him, Paul Volcker.

NARRATOR: Candidate Barack Obama had made the economy a key issue.

Sen. BARACK OBAMA: We've got eight years of disastrous economic policies. That's what we're going to change when I'm president of the United States of America!

CHARLES DUHIGG, The New York Times: Obama very early realized that things were only going to get worse. And so Obama made this decision, "The thing I'm going to run on is that there is a problem in our economy, my opponent doesn't see it, and I can fix it."

NARRATOR: But now, during the transition in Chicago, President-elect Obama faced a crucial decision about the economy. What team would he put together to carry out his agenda?

CHARLES DUHIGG: There's people on the left who are saying that Obama should appoint someone who represents a tough-on-Wall-Street regulator, someone who's going to take Wall Street to the woodhouse on behalf of the Treasury.

NEWSCASTER: Paul Volcker is extremely close to Obama-

NARRATOR: The left's first choice was Paul Volcker. Feared on Wall Street, he was the reformers' guru, a former Federal Reserve chairman, a pro-regulation advocate, and an outspoken critic of the Wall Street banks.

Picking Volcker would deliver on his campaign promises to reform the banks and get tough on Wall Street. But inside his transition team, there was also a more moderate faction, veterans of the Clinton administration. They had their own candidate.

NARRATOR: Tim Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve. During the financial crisis, he had led the Bush administration's response on Wall Street.

ROBERT REICH, Obama Economic Advisor: I knew that he was a protege of Bob Rubin. I knew that he was therefore of and by and from Wall Street. He sees the economy, as a practical matter, the way Wall Street sees the economy. And therefore, Tim Geithner is going to reflect what Wall Street ultimately wants.

NARRATOR: For Obama, adding Geithner, a key player during the Bush administration, would be an unusual choice.


Obama ran on fixing the mess and getting tough on banks.

Instead, he put Wall Street's guy in charge of Treasury.
 
2012-09-22 02:42:52 AM
Every one of his three White House Chiefs of Staff haven't come from the banking industry.

dl.dropbox.com

Bill Moyers on PBS
We've already made our choice for the best headline of the year, so far: "Citigroup Replaces JPMorgan as White House Chief of Staff."

When we saw it on the website Gawker.com we had to smile - but the smile didn't last long. There's simply too much truth in that headline; it says a lot about how Wall Street and Washington have colluded to create the winner-take-all economy that rewards the very few at the expense of everyone else.

The story behind it is that Jack Lew is President Obama's new chief of staff - arguably the most powerful office in the White House that isn't shaped like an oval. He used to work for the giant banking conglomerate Citigroup.

His predecessor as chief of staff is Bill Daley, who used to work at the giant banking conglomerate JPMorgan Chase, where he was maestro of the bank's global lobbying and chief liaison to the White House.

Daley replaced Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who once worked as a rainmaker for the investment bank now known as Wasserstein & Company, where in less than three years he was paid a reported eighteen and a half million dollars.

The new guy, Jack Lew ran hedge funds and private equity at Citigroup, which means he's a member of the Wall Street gang, too. His last job was as head of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, where he replaced Peter Orzag, who now works as vice chairman for global banking at - hold on to your deposit slip - Citigroup.

President Obama may call bankers "fat cats" and stir the rabble against them with populist rhetoric when it serves his interest, but after the fiscal fiasco, he allowed the culprits to escape virtually scot-free. When he's in New York he dines with them frequently and eagerly accepts their big contributions. Like his predecessors, his administration also has provided them with billions of taxpayer dollars - low-cost money that they used for high-yielding investments to make big profits. The largest banks are bigger than they were when he took office and earned more in the first two-and-a-half years of his term than they did during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. That's confirmed by industry data.

And get this. It turns out, according to The New York Times, that as President Obama's inner circle has been shrinking, his "rare new best friend" is Robert Wolf. They play basketball, golf, and talk economics when Wolf is not raising money for the president's campaign.

Robert Wolf runs the U.S. branch of the giant Swiss bank UBS, which participated in schemes to help rich Americans evade their taxes.

And so it goes, the revolving door between government service and big money in the private sector spinning so fast it becomes an irresistible force hurling politics and high finance together so completely it's impossible to tell one from the other.
 
2012-09-22 02:51:13 AM
Work to prevent any of the States from prosecuting bank fraud.

NY Times
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

Rolling Stone
A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena.

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.

The idea behind this federally-guided "settlement" is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they'll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.
 
2012-09-22 03:09:12 AM
Obama choosing to stand between the bankers and the pitchforks.

Frontline on PBS
NARRATOR: At the White House, the political team worried it was just a matter of time before the anger would be aimed at the president. They wanted to make an example of one of the CEOs.

NOAM SCHEIBER: David Axelrod, Obama's top political advisor, very much wanted some scalps. Robert Gibbs, who was the press secretary but also a very senior political aide, wanted scalps. And even Larry Summers thought there should be a scalp. And that was when the talk drifted toward, "Do you fire," you know, "the CEO of Bank of America"?

Sen. TED KAUFMAN (D), Delaware: Royal Bank of Scotland is almost twice as big as CitiGroup. You know what the British government did? They took it over and they fired the CEO. Guess what? When we had the problem with car dealers, car companies, we went out there, we fired the CEO. Why do we not fire the CEOs of some of these companies that have gotten into terrible trouble?

NARRATOR: It would have been a bold step for Obama, but Tim Geithner warned the president against it. He wasn't going to participate in what he called "Old Testament justice."


Wall Street's guy didn't want anyone on Wall Street to be punished for destroying the economy?

Imagine that.

Guess whose side Obama took.

NARRATOR: Two weeks later, the nation's top bankers were summoned to the White House.

NEWSCASTER: -after leveling some very harsh words at bankers-

NARRATOR: The president wanted to talk to them.

NEWSCASTER: Looking for accountability from the nation's banking leaders, today President Obama is meeting with CEOs of some of the nation's-

CHARLES DUHIGG: Thirteen bankers were called into a room to meet with the president of the United States. They were told that they were going to be chastised, that this was going to be the opportunity for the president to vent the public's anger.

NARRATOR: The bankers feared they could be forced to accept dramatic reforms- a ban against "too big to fail," a limit on executive compensation, and a requirement that they refinance mortgages for underwater homeowners.

RON SUSKIND: Walking into that meeting, these guys have not been this nervous since they were in nursery school. They're ultimately powerful, sovereign men atop their institutions, but now they know that they really could get whacked.

NARRATOR: No one knew what to expect, Summers's Old Testament justice or Geithner's cautious encouragement. Now they'd find out what he thought.

RON SUSKIND: Obama comes in, and he's all business.

NARRATOR: There were few pleasantries exchanged. The president spoke first.

KEN LEWIS, CEO, Bank of America, 2001-09: The president made it pretty clear when he talked to us, you know, "We're between you and the pitchforks, guys. And you need to just acknowledge that."

CHARLES DUHIGG: The bankers have essentially made a decision that they're prepared to go along with what needs to be done to resolve this problem, to get the public back on the side of corporate America.

NARRATOR: But as the meeting progressed, to their astonishment, it became clear the president was in no mood for confrontation.

RON SUSKIND: What's interesting is that the next statements and the rest of the meeting essentially is Obama skinning back as fast as he can on that pitchforks punch. And he says right after that, "What we have, gentlemen, is a public relations disaster that's turning into a political disaster. And I'm here to help."
 
2012-09-22 04:49:19 AM
BullBearMS:

Understand that most of us know Obama bought and sold by bankers, but so is Romney. They all are.

We have a choice between a lesser evil or a prime evil. What do we do? What do you do when the cops work for the robbers?
 
2012-09-22 05:19:22 AM

nmemkha: What do we do?


Stop pretending one of the evils isn't evil for a start.

dl.dropbox.com

/Both sides are bad
//So don't vote for either
 
2012-09-22 06:24:02 AM
I'm sorry but after seeing Reddit this site is worthless. News gets put on days later... Can't believe some of the articles that gets put on here and the ones that get declined... I've been here since 01 I believe and I will miss you but its time to go. Adios!
 
2012-09-22 06:47:38 AM

GUATAPOPO: I'm sorry but after seeing Reddit this site is worthless. News gets put on days later... Can't believe some of the articles that gets put on here and the ones that get declined... I've been here since 01 I believe and I will miss you but its time to go. Adios!


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-09-22 07:01:39 AM

GUATAPOPO: I'm sorry but after seeing Reddit this site is worthless. News gets put on days later... Can't believe some of the articles that gets put on here and the ones that get declined... I've been here since 01 I believe and I will miss you but its time to go. Adios!


This is copy-pasta, forget it.
 
2012-09-22 07:01:39 AM
Neither of them will be a greeter. If Romney loses, he's got Bain, if Obama loses, he'll make millions off speeches, or he could even be a lobbyist.
 
2012-09-22 08:25:12 AM

BullBearMS: So the guy who repeatedly promised to "fix the economy" finally prosecuted the fraudulent bankers who destroyed it for their own profit?

No. No he didn't.

That would be because he's just as owned by the rich as the Republicans are.


Hmm, false comparison is false, should have expected such shiat. And no mention from you of how the 2010 GOP House has farked things up. You must be a practiced right wing liar.
Here, copy paste this you worthless puke.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/pro m ise-kept/
Notice there were no promises about banks, mr. right wing liar. Now go pack some Romney fudge.
 
2012-09-22 09:36:33 AM

dervish16108: Neither of them will be a greeter. If Romney loses, he's got Bain, if Obama loses, he'll make millions off speeches, or he could even be a lobbyist.


This.

Clinton managed to suddenly develop a net worth of over 80 Million Dollars after his turn in the White House.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.

What in the world did he do to earn that money?

Well, he led the fight to repeal of all those inconvenient Glass-Steagall regulations, put into place after the financial shenannigans that caused the Great Depression. This was a major cause of our current financial crisis, since it directly led to the creation of our "too big to fail" banking conglomerates.

dl.dropbox.com

He worked with Republicans to shut down an attempt by the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate the banks derivatives gambling, which was the other major cause of our current financial crisis.

PBS Frontline: The Warning
"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.


Then he also worked with Republicans to pass the first of many free trade agreements that allow America's manufacturing jobs to be moved to nations where the wealthy can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without any sort of financial penalty when they bring those manufactured goods back into the States.

The banks and the obscenely wealthy have gotten their money's worth with Clinton. Although I'm sure the whiny ass politics tab biatches will complain that it's only bad when the Republicans do it.
 
2012-09-22 09:37:56 AM

cirby: Of course, the Obamaniacs are still pretending that the current bad economy is Bush's fault, so...


The economy cratered on george w. bush's watch. It has recovered, however slowly, on Obama's. For the "slowly" part, I don't so much blame george w. bush as the traitors in Congress who'd rather crater the economy again than see Obama get reelected.

i105.photobucket.com

"If that dadburn Dimmycrat varmint is FER it, AAAAAAHHHHHHM AGIN it!"
 
2012-09-22 09:38:12 AM
Farking Seasonal adjustments, how do they work?
 
2012-09-22 10:12:12 AM

BullBearMS: Work to prevent any of the States from prosecuting bank fraud.

NY Times
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

Rolling Stone
A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena.

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.

The idea behind this federally-guided "settlement" is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they'll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.


DOJ was trying to get Schneiderman to join the federal suit instead of ruining their chance at getting a big settlement.
 
2012-09-22 11:01:41 AM

Arkanaut: DOJ was trying to get Schneiderman to join the federal suit instead of ruining their chance at getting a big settlement.


The banks were caught red handed submitting fraudulent foreclosure documents to the courts in all 50 states.

Fraud is a felony offense. We should be talking about major prison time, not trying to arrange a slap on the wrist fine that is a tiny percentage of the money their fraud brought in.

However, what did our two political parties do when the evidence of this widespread felony fraud across the nation was made public?

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

In an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.


Oh look. The Democrats and the Republicans suddenly got bipartisan as fark when it comes to protecting their wealthy banker friends from the legal and financial consequences of their fraud. Funny how quickly they come together when the interests of the rich come into play.

That attempt failed when the press caught on to what they were doing, however, Obama went on to force Schneiderman to accept a slap on the wrist fine and nobody having to admit guilt for Wall Street later.
 
2012-09-22 11:05:17 AM

BullBearMS: Arkanaut: DOJ was trying to get Schneiderman to join the federal suit instead of ruining their chance at getting a big settlement.

The banks were caught red handed submitting fraudulent foreclosure documents to the courts in all 50 states.

Fraud is a felony offense. We should be talking about major prison time, not trying to arrange a slap on the wrist fine that is a tiny percentage of the money their fraud brought in.

However, what did our two political parties do when the evidence of this widespread felony fraud across the nation was made public?

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

In an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.
...


Ok. What do you propose we do about it? Electing Romney won't solve the problem. As you agreed, Romney is just as bad, if not worse.
 
2012-09-22 11:32:30 AM

nmemkha: Ok. What do you propose we do about it?


How about we begin by accepting reality?

Both sides are sold out to the same obscenely rich few and have been selling everyone else's interests out for decades now.

Why should you continue to reward that behavior with your vote? Find a third party you like.

Stop falling for this:

dl.dropbox.com
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report