Financial crisis study "Very Powerful Interests' Seeking To Undermine Investigations"

[Darwin333]

FCIC Delays Report Despite Republican Opposition, Citing 'Very Powerful Interests' Seeking To Undermine Investigations

Angelides said in an interview that "there are very powerful interests" seeking to undermine the panel's investigation.

"People who have trillions of dollars at stake who have been watching our efforts closely," Angelides said. "There have been efforts throughout the year to undermine me and my fellow commissioners."

Where the fuck are the names and where the fuck are the cops if this is indeed the case? I want to know exactly who is trying to undermine the commissioners and we should all be demanding that our elected officials investigate and prosecute any and all wrong doing to the fullest extent of the law.

This is something that none of us should stand for. Put the partisanship aside for a minute and realize the implications of what was just said.

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE COPS? If the commissioner is lying then string his ass up otherwise its time for heads to roll. I would go so far as to say that if true this is treason and should be punishable by death. Give them their due process (which they wish to deprive us of), a fair trial, and if found guilty it is time to find some short pieces of rope and some tall trees. As my Grandpa once said about a convicted child molester "let the bastards swing till the sun goes down."

 

[LegendKiller]

What's sad is that there should not be a single power in this country that can stop the government from enforcing the law.

 

[drebo]

I want to know where the consumer accountability in all this is.

Yes, banks fucked over investors which proceeded to fuck over the tax-paying public.

But, no one forced people to buy houses they knew they couldn't afford.

Those people should not be given a pass just because the banks were found to have been cheating investors.

 

[LegendKiller]

I want to know where the consumer accountability in all this is.

Yes, banks fucked over investors which proceeded to fuck over the tax-paying public.

But, no one forced people to buy houses they knew they couldn't afford.

Those people should not be given a pass just because the banks were found to have been cheating investors.

There are an estimated 4.5mm homes that will be foreclosed upon in the next 2 years, that's not including the ~3mm or so already foreclosed. That doesn't include the fact that these people have been hammered earnings wise and can still be held liable for mortgage deficiencies. That doesn't include the fact that their credit scores are now massively impacted and will have a hard time getting a decent interest rate loan for several years.

Provided that is accounted for and the foreclosures do happen and those people take responsibility for their own actions, they have paid for their actions.

Thus, I have no problem going after the other side of the equation.

 

[Phokus]

In this country, we follow the golden rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.

 

[Craig234]

What's sad is that there should not be a single power in this country that can stop the government from enforcing the law.

That's right, but it happens far too much. All it needs is some powerful interests' money buying large amounts of anonymous attacks ads from Karl Rove.

It's no longer democracy, but a facade of democracy, when the politicians owe more to those at odds with the public interest, and serve them over the public.

Right now, it's a mix - and the mix has too much of the wrong side.

The results are a disaster. The public doesn't have 35,000 lobbyists.

 

[Painman]

Welcome to Mexico 2.0. We'll be running for the border soon.

 

[Siddhartha]

Would the GOP controlled House choose investigating Mr Obama et al or big business interests?

 

[Throckmorton]

Would the GOP controlled House choose investigating Mr Obama et al or big business interests?

They'll tell the public that Obama and Big Business are one and the same, while also telling them Obama is anti-business. And people will lap it up as usual.

 

[Darwin333]

I want to know where the consumer accountability in all this is.

Yes, banks fucked over investors which proceeded to fuck over the tax-paying public.

But, no one forced people to buy houses they knew they couldn't afford.

Those people should not be given a pass just because the banks were found to have been cheating investors.

Who is giving them a free pass? I don't want some idiot to get a free house because they where an idiot but if some asshole committed fraud that cost us billions and maybe trillions I want him prosecuted for that fraud. Is that so unreasonable? Rule of law and all that jazz?

Fuck the assholes who knowingly got in over their heads but exactly what relevance does that have to this thread?

 

[Darwin333]

There are an estimated 4.5mm homes that will be foreclosed upon in the next 2 years, that's not including the ~3mm or so already foreclosed. That doesn't include the fact that these people have been hammered earnings wise and can still be held liable for mortgage deficiencies. That doesn't include the fact that their credit scores are now massively impacted and will have a hard time getting a decent interest rate loan for several years.

Provided that is accounted for and the foreclosures do happen and those people take responsibility for their own actions, they have paid for their actions.

Thus, I have no problem going after the other side of the equation.

I'll be damned, you and I are actually in agreement for once.

 

[Darwin333]

That's right, but it happens far too much. All it needs is some powerful interests' money buying large amounts of anonymous attacks ads from Karl Rove.

It's no longer democracy, but a facade of democracy, when the politicians owe more to those at odds with the public interest, and serve them over the public.

Right now, it's a mix - and the mix has too much of the wrong side.

The results are a disaster. The public doesn't have 35,000 lobbyists.

I understand your point and while it might not have been your intent, the moment you start saying stuff like "buying large amounts of anonymous attacks ads from Karl Rove" you give people a big opening to turn this into a partisan political discussion.

This should not be a partisan discussion. This should be something that ALL of us can set our own politics aside on and agree that the rule of law should be enforced and we will not stand for people secretly interfering with investigations simply because they have money. That should NEVER be tolerated, politics be damned. This should be a common ground issue in which both sides can shake hands and in one voice say "not on our watch". Please make no mistake, it is OUR watch because it is very obvious (lack of naming people in the article is further proof) that our elected officials are not doing it.

 

[Darwin333]

Would the GOP controlled House choose investigating Mr Obama et al or big business interests?

That is the damned point. The Democrats did NOT do it and the Republicans WON'T do it. We must demand that they do it and the only way that happens is if we make this a non-partisan issue because that is exactly what it is.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'll be damned, you and I are actually in agreement for once.

I may work in the industry but I do not defend the actions of criminals any more than I do those of people who over-levered themselves to buy houses, cars, and tvs, through HELs and houses.

The moral hazard isn't the bailout. The moral hazard isn't fixing the problem after the bailout and making an example.

My example? Every single CEO who led the banks to financial ruin would forfeit their earnings through criminal investigations. If homeowners have to forfeit their "wealth", then so do the CEOs.

This is why Mozilo should be penniless. It's why John Thain shouldn't be the head of CIT.

 

[Jhhnn]

Would the GOP controlled House choose investigating Mr Obama et al or big business interests?

You are such a silly person.

 

[Double Trouble]

FCIC Delays Report Despite Republican Opposition, Citing 'Very Powerful Interests' Seeking To Undermine Investigations

Where the fuck are the names and where the fuck are the cops if this is indeed the case? I want to know exactly who is trying to undermine the commissioners and we should all be demanding that our elected officials investigate and prosecute any and all wrong doing to the fullest extent of the law.

This is something that none of us should stand for. Put the partisanship aside for a minute and realize the implications of what was just said.

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE COPS? If the commissioner is lying then string his ass up otherwise its time for heads to roll. I would go so far as to say that if true this is treason and should be punishable by death. Give them their due process (which they wish to deprive us of), a fair trial, and if found guilty it is time to find some short pieces of rope and some tall trees. As my Grandpa once said about a convicted child molester "let the bastards swing till the sun goes down."

Uh, you do realize that you can "seek to undermine" something without doing anything illegal, right? There are probably parties with vested interests in certain outcomes and certain findings that might try to slow down certain investigations, use influence to redirect others etc. All of that can be done perfectly legally, that's the crappy system that we have.

Also, it's a huffpo article, so I expect the usual level of drivel, I wouldn't mind seeing an article on the issue from a credible outlet.

This should not be a partisan issue, we're all getting screwed over by this process, but we all know it will descend into a partisan fight when one (or both) side(s) try to use the situation to push their agenda.

 

[IGBT]

go ask barney frank (BF) what's going on.

 

[NoStateofMind]

"bilderberg group!" - Alex Jones

 

[Darwin333]

Uh, you do realize that you can "seek to undermine" something without doing anything illegal, right? There are probably parties with vested interests in certain outcomes and certain findings that might try to slow down certain investigations, use influence to redirect others etc. All of that can be done perfectly legally, that's the crappy system that we have.

Also, it's a huffpo article, so I expect the usual level of drivel, I wouldn't mind seeing an article on the issue from a credible outlet.

This should not be a partisan issue, we're all getting screwed over by this process, but we all know it will descend into a partisan fight when one (or both) side(s) try to use the situation to push their agenda.

What does huffpo have to do with the direct quote from the Democrat Chairman of the committee?

And if it is all perfectly legit, then the fallout from publicly stating their names and their actions should be almost non-existent. If those with "trillions at stake" are doing nothing illegal but are doing unethical things to hinder the committees investigation the American people should know about it. Especially when the assholes with the trillions at stake in question almost definitely have part of those trillions due to the US taxpayer.

We already have admitted fraud in sworn testimony that has gone completely unpunished. Forgive me if I think any of these assholes are going to be brought to justice unless we ALL demand it and leave the partisanship at home. Otherwise the politicians will do what they are really good at which is have us argue with each other while they do nothing.

 

[JS80]

go ask barney frank (BF) what's going on.

BF = Butt fucker?

 

[Craig234]

I understand your point and while it might not have been your intent, the moment you start saying stuff like "buying large amounts of anonymous attacks ads from Karl Rove" you give people a big opening to turn this into a partisan political discussion.

This should not be a partisan discussion. This should be something that ALL of us can set our own politics aside on and agree that the rule of law should be enforced and we will not stand for people secretly interfering with investigations simply because they have money. That should NEVER be tolerated, politics be damned. This should be a common ground issue in which both sides can shake hands and in one voice say "not on our watch". Please make no mistake, it is OUR watch because it is very obvious (lack of naming people in the article is further proof) that our elected officials are not doing it.

Sorry, but the phrase 'partisan political discussion' is not a reason to leave a big part of the issue censored. That's fact, not 'big partisan political discussion.

I'd be happy to change is to the more general phrase 'these powerful interests are able to influence politicians with the powerful role of their money in politics'.

I've got no problem with leaving out unnecessary political side-taking, but leaving out important information because one side is partisan and won't listen is wrong.

You are going too far in wanting 'non-partisan' when you compromise the points being made to accommodate unreasonable demands on the issue.

The reference to Rove was not meant to be partisan, but to use him as an example to just make the problem clear.

He chose to create a group that IIRC was in the top 5 spenders influencing elections around the country, competing with the parties themselves it was so big, with the last I heard over 90% of his budget coming just from three Texas billionares with interests like wanting to pollute using their wealth to buy elections. It's a clear example of the sort of undermining of democracy that happened from a number of groups that is very relevant to why what LegendKiller mentioned is prevented.

 

[Double Trouble]

What does huffpo have to do with the direct quote from the Democrat Chairman of the committee?

Nothing, I don't have issue with the quote, but much of the article is drivel.

And if it is all perfectly legit, then the fallout from publicly stating their names and their actions should be almost non-existent.

There are shades of grey to everything, very little is black or white. Not saying that whatever is being done is right or wrong (I don't have enough information to make that determination), just that you have to take all this stuff with a giant grain of salt.

 

[Craig234]

Darwin333, sorry again, but a bit more info is helpful on your concern 'this should not be a partisan issue'.

Again, I agree - but when it IS partisan because one side fights against the public interest, it doesn't help to say 'don't say that, pretend they aren't doing it.'

A couple facts:

- The commission is made up of six Democrats and four Republicans (because of the majority party in each house getting to name three people).

Zero of the Democrats, and all four of the Republicans, are the ones in this story who are fighting the extension of the report to include new information.

The move comes on the heels of revelations that the nation's biggest mortgage companies employed possibly-fraudulent tactics in trying to foreclose on distressed homeowners. The recent disclosures by the likes of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial that they used flawed documentation practices sparked inquiries by all 50 state attorneys general, as well as federal prosecutors and federal regulators, among others. Those investigations are ongoing.

The crisis commission is also looking into the matter, said Phil Angelides, the panel's Democratic chairman. The Republicans on the panel are resisting further inquiries, according to people familiar with the matter.

That's not the person saying this being partisan - it's the Republicans being partisan.

You want to take an issue with all six Democrats trying to look into the banks, and all four Republicans, and say 'don't be partisan by mentioning the parties!'

The Republicans are the ones making it partisan.

- To their credit, 2/3 of House Republicans voted for this commission to be created - albeit with an absurdly low $8 million budget.

But zero Democrats voted against the measure, while all 59 no votes were Republicans.

Again, that's not being partisan to say the facts - the voters are the ones being partisan.

While I agree this 'should not be a partisan issue', you make the same mistake Obama makes in pretending some people are not being partisan.

I'm all for not making an issue of the partisan behavior and trying to get a good investigation in the public interest. But when you express concern about how the (Democratic) chairman reports there are massive industry pressures on the commission not to tell the truth - when we already have ZERO criminal convictions while the previous much smaller Savings and Loan crisis had hundreds - and for not name names - it doesn't make sense to complain about saying who the blockers are.

The blockers on the commission, the ones doing what those 'massive industry pressures want' here, are all the Republicans and none of the Democrats.

That's useful information, not 'partisan' information. The partisans are the members.

I guess you'd rather say the problem has nothing to do with the parties, just because that's 'non-partisan'.

 

[dawp]

I want to know where the consumer accountability in all this is.

Yes, banks fucked over investors which proceeded to fuck over the tax-paying public.

But, no one forced people to buy houses they knew they couldn't afford.

Those people should not be given a pass just because the banks were found to have been cheating investors.

If the lenders had been doing their job in the first place, those loans would have never been made. They had a responsibility to their shareholder to make sure all loans made were above board and they did not.

 

[Double Trouble]

If the lenders had been doing their job in the first place, those loans would have never been made. They had a responsibility to their shareholder to make sure all loans made were above board and they did not.

That's like saying if someone robs a home, it's not the fault of the robber but rather the fault of the homeowner for not securing the home sufficiently. In reality, the robber is at fault and should end up in jail, and the homeowner is going to suffer unpleasant consequences (getting robbed) as a result of not taking all the actions he probably should have.