It's not OJT, Obama is committing fraud ...

[HoustonRaven]

.... so says two of his very vocal pre-election supporters of President Obama.

Here is a link to Bill Moyers Journal, April 3rd broadcast. On the show, he had William Black on. It's long but WELL worth the time.

Conservatives, this WILL make you very angry.

Liberals, lets see if you have the stones to watch this objectively.

The blame, as myself and others on this board have pointed out, rests on both sides to include the current administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY

Black wrote a book based on that experience and called it “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.” And now he says bluntly that the crisis we are going through was caused not by incompetence and greed, but by outright criminal fraud that is being covered up by the same people who made it possible for CEOs of banks and mortgage companies to amass fortunes by removing the regulatory barriers designed to prevent such fraud. He spares no one, not even the new president for whom he ardently campaigned scant months ago, and certainly not Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, whom he accuses of continuing his predecessor’s covering up of the massive fraud they themselves played large roles in enabling.

Here are some of the startling points he makes in the interview:

Bernie Madoff was a Ponzi scheme piker compared to the financial system itself. He put a limited number of people at risk, while the big banks and mortgage lenders risked the whole system by selling toxic loans – ones not likely to be paid back – and calling them “Triple A.”

The FBI publicly warned back in 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud that would lead, if unchecked, to at least as big a crisis as the S&L scandal of the 80s. The FBI said it was going to make sure that didn’t happen, but instead the Bush Administration reduced the number of white-collar specialists in the agency by 500. There are, he says, one-fifth as many FBI agents involved in this giant mess as worked the S&L crisis.

“Under Secretary Geithner and Secretary Paulson before him,” says Black, “ . . . we took $5 billion, for example, in U.S. taxpayer money and sent it to a huge Swiss bank called UBS. At that same time the bank was defrauding the taxpayers of America. And we were bringing a criminal case against them. We eventually got them to pay a $780 million fine, but wait; we gave them $5 billion. So, the taxpayers of America paid the fine of a Swiss bank. And why are we bailing out somebody who is defrauding us?”

Moyers asks, “Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?”

Black: “Absolutely.”

[Galen Sevinne]

I have been following this on blogs for several days now. My take is that Obama-Geithner are doing the same thing as Bush-Paulson and are attempting to avoid putting banks into receivership. Obama is has two choices and they are to ignore the regulation and try to float the banks with bailout money OR nationalize them which would certainly unhinge the Right as some socialist/communist plot. No? What should he do? Would you be happy with nationalizing the banks? Or would you cry socialist?

Either way I have a hard time seeing it as "comitting fraud" The regulation under scrutiny is stated as:

PCA (Section 1831o) was adopted in 1991 as part of FDICIA

1.Purpose
The purpose of this section is to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions at the least possible long-term loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund. (1831o (a) (1)).

(2) Prompt corrective action required

Each appropriate Federal banking agency and the Corporation (acting in the Corporation's capacity as the insurer of depository institutions under this chapter) shall carry out the purpose of this section by taking prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions. (1831o (a) (2))

(i) appoint a receiver (or, with the concurrence of the Corporation, a conservator) for the institution; or

(ii) take such other action as the agency determines, with the concurrence of the Corporation, would better achieve the purpose of this section, after documenting why the action would better achieve that purpose.

It sounds like typical human resources language for a job as in, "Job duties are A, B and C as well as any other duty that is deemed appropriate."

There is specific language followed by a catch all phrase of basically everything else.

Now if you want to hear me bitch about Obama talk about his dismissing of law suits against the Bush Administration for his warrantless wiretapping. He appears to be endorsing the illegal eavesdropping by Bush which is a gross violation of personal rights. Looks like Bush will get a free ride for his overstepping of so many basic rights.

I have been following this on blogs for several days now. My take is that Obama-Geithner are doing the same thing as Bush-Paulson and are attempting to avoid putting banks into receivership. Obama is has two choices and they are to ignore the regulation and try to float the banks with bailout money OR nationalize them which would certainly unhinge the Right as some socialist/communist plot. No? What should he do? Would you be happy with nationalizing the banks? Or would you cry socialist?

Either way I have a hard time seeing it as "comitting fraud" The regulation under scrutiny is stated as:

PCA (Section 1831o) was adopted in 1991 as part of FDICIA

1.Purpose
The purpose of this section is to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions at the least possible long-term loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund. (1831o (a) (1)).

(2) Prompt corrective action required

Each appropriate Federal banking agency and the Corporation (acting in the Corporation's capacity as the insurer of depository institutions under this chapter) shall carry out the purpose of this section by taking prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions. (1831o (a) (2))

(i) appoint a receiver (or, with the concurrence of the Corporation, a conservator) for the institution; or

(ii) take such other action as the agency determines, with the concurrence of the Corporation, would better achieve the purpose of this section, after documenting why the action would better achieve that purpose.

It sounds like typical human resources language for a job as in, "Job duties are A, B and C as well as any other duty that is deemed appropriate."

There is specific language followed by a catch all phrase of basically everything else.

Now if you want to hear me bitch about Obama talk about his dismissing of law suits against the Bush Administration for his warrantless wiretapping. He appears to be endorsing the illegal eavesdropping by Bush which is a gross violation of personal rights. Looks like Bush will get a free ride for his overstepping of so many basic rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

There seems to be an unwritten rule for new administration to avoid litigation against former adminstrations.

[HoustonRaven]

As I said, it's not an "either or" situation.

It's not either Bush's faut OR Obama's fault. Bush got it started. No doubt about it. But as it stands now Obama is the current President and the policies have been continued by Obama to the tune of expanding the debt 3 times greater than Bush.

Frankly, I dont care who is to blame so long as its accurate and fixed.

The economy should be allowed to fix itself and not mortage our future for short term satisfaction. Black agrees with that assesment.

[HoustonRaven]

Not to mention, there is absolutely NO way possible the economy turns around and grows until the Debt to GDP ratio comes back to the black.

Hense, my comments on Obama thinking he can make 2+2 equal 5.

This is real, free of spin and party talking points. We are on a sinking ship right now and some are more concerned about rearranging the deck chairs.

[Galen Sevinne]

As I said, it's not an "either or" situation.

It's not either Bush's faut OR Obama's fault. Bush got it started. No doubt about it. But as it stands now Obama is the current President and the policies have been continued by Obama to the tune of expanding the debt 3 times greater than Bush.

Frankly, I dont care who is to blame so long as its accurate and fixed.

The economy should be allowed to fix itself and not mortage our future for short term satisfaction. Black agrees with that assesment.

That is not at all what Black is saying. he has been saying that regulations stemming from the S&L debacle require banks to be nationalized when are insolvent. Black thinks that by law there MUST be more government intervention in the form of nationalizing the banks. Bush and Obama has avoided that regulation through a small loophole that says nationalize them or whatever else appears to be effective - more or less.

I think your criticism of Obama via Black is incorrect. Anyway, your other idea Obama is "commiting fraud" because of spending is also incorrect in that it is not fraud to go with the notion that spending and thus effecting the debt, is the way to fix the economy. There are plenty of economists including Krugman that believe Obama is not spending enough...that is hardly fraudulent.

[Galen Sevinne]

This is real, free of spin and party talking points. We are on a sinking ship right now and some are more concerned about rearranging the deck chairs.

that is absolutely a talking point.

[HoustonRaven]

You missed the entire point of Black's message.

You're seeing this in terms of left and right. Black and others (including myself) are done with the politics of it all.

He is not saying spending equals fraud. Fraud comes from the current cover up into the various bank pay offs that were conducted under Bush and now Obama. What he IS saying we're spending so much we cannot possibly pay it back ... ever!

It's fun and games when we debate other topics. You throw out your points, I throw out mine.

This is different. No games here on this one. This needs to be fixed NOW and our leaders, on both sides of the fence, are pissing on our legs and telling us its only rain.

[Galen Sevinne]

You missed the entire point of Black's message.

You're seeing this in terms of left and right. Black and others (including myself) are done with the politics of it all.

He is not saying spending equals fraud. Fraud comes from the current cover up into the various bank pay offs that were conducted under Bush and now Obama. What he IS saying we're spending so much we cannot possibly pay it back ... ever!

It's fun and games when we debate other topics. You throw out your points, I throw out mine.

This is different. No games here on this one. This needs to be fixed NOW and our leaders, on both sides of the fence, are pissing on our legs and telling us its only rain.

I am not looking at this as a left or right issue. I see both sides doing the same thing. I have been following this since it hit the blogs last week.

He is not saying spending equals fraud. Fraud comes from the current cover up into the various bank pay offs that were conducted under Bush and now Obama. What he IS saying we're spending so much we cannot possibly pay it back ... ever!

Black is saying that the various bank payoffs is fraud because of his interpretation of the regulation I copied and pasted above. He sees it mandatory that the banks go into receivership. Others, probably including Bush-Paulson and Obama-Geithner see the second clause of the regulation that says more or less "whatever seems to work" other than receivership.

What he IS saying we're spending so much we cannot possibly pay it back ... ever!

this is a talking point as I have mentioned there are many respected economists that think we are not spending enough. Now you can disagree with that but there are arguments on both sides of spending vs. spending freeze and there are talking points on both sides. You don't hear many people (noted economists) coming out in favor of a year long spending freeze.

The bottom line is that the economy is in a seriously bad place and that is not Obama's doing. Any solution out of the problem will have drawbacks for sure that are easily attacked from the other side.

There are signs of improvement.

[4G63]

The Government always has to do something, right?