You guys are smart BUT The Multi-Trillion Dollar Heist That Continues to Shrink Ameri

**dirtbiker666** · 06-21-2012, 09:39 AM

I figured I would post this anyways.
FROM
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...20618-297.html

The Ongoing Multi-Trillion Dollar Heist That Continues to Shrink America's Middle Class

By Richard Clark

June 18, 2012

Remember how the mafia used to tell businesses to either pay up or your business will be ruined? What we have here is the new mafia, on a global scale. The main difference is that their names are not Italian. The 2nd largest difference is that the original mafia were pikers and tiny tots by comparison. The 3rd largest difference is that the new mafia essentially owns our gov't & can hire the best attorneys in the world.

::::::::

The entire world is being forced into a huge debt trap of austerity. And so it is that the living standards of ordinary people in the US and Europe must continue to fall, if the bad loans of banksters are to continue to be paid off. Understand, however, that this is one gigantic scam in which the banksters are slowly milking the rest of the world. They are doing this with an ongoing scheme that involves bad derivative bets and toxic loans, which are insured by the government -- a government that the banksters and other Wall Streeters essentially own and control, and hold steady so that the extraordinarily lucrative milking process can continue for just a while longer. How much longer? Until our economy collapses under the burden of this diabolical and very complex scam, which, at their peril, most people don't want to take the time, or make the effort, to understand. But be advised: For every winner (e.g. the banksters), there is a loser (e.g. the taxpayers of the US and Europe).

(As for the banksters' ownership of our government, let's remember what FDR said: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual or by a group.")

The ongoing derivatives debacle engineered by banksters like Goldman Sachs (who have made, and are planning on making ever more of a killing off of it) is largely responsible for the bankruptcy of the European banks. (Derivatives are essentially bets between two parties with the losers going bankrupt and the winners going into hiding. See a simple explanation of derivatives in the next section of this article.)

The bailouts themselves represent money eventually paid out to the winners of these bets, in which the bailout payoff comes in the form of an interest-free loan from the Fed, which is then immediately gambled (i.e. "re-invested') back into the very same scheme that funneled the money back to the winners in the first place. In this scam, the money going to those who _claim_ to be acting in the interest of the bankrupt is in reality being funneled into the pockets of the winners themselves. The scam is that the supposed losers (banks), and the winners, are the very same individuals, while the losses are systematically being passed on to the suckers, i.e. the government -- especially to the hard working citizens who must eventually pay the government taxes that repay the loans of the money that ultimately fund the bailouts. Convoluted? Yes. To understand the details and get the whole picture, read on.

First, some circumstantial evidence

During our recent and ongoing financial crisis, at least 18 former and current directors from federal reserve banks worked in banks and corporations that collectively received over $4 trillion in low-interest loans from the Federal Reserve. (Remember: a trillion dollars could be put into a million trucks full of cash, with a million dollars stuffed into each truck!)

To learn the names of some of the perps in this part of the stunningly massive heist, and understand what they've done, go here. Then see the first comment in the discussion that follows this article for the full story, with evidence.

Some derivatives are perfectly harmless to society, even beneficial

The beauty of derivatives, originally, was (and often still is) that they act like insurance: If you're a company (like, say, an airline) that uses a lot of fuel, you can arrange a derivative contract that locks in the price of fuel a year or two in advance so that your costs don't abruptly rise to the point of causing great difficulty to the operation of your airline. The person on the other side of this contract is betting on energy prices to fall, in which case they would book a profit when selling you the fuel next year at the agreed-upon price. All that's fine and good, though the insurer can get in trouble if they don't have enough money to pay up should the bet go against them, which is essentially what happened with AIG and the hundreds of thousands of mortgage securities it so profitably insured -- profitable until the bottom fell out of the housing market and all their customers tried to cash in on their insurance policies (known as credit-default swaps, or simply "swaps' for short).

The idea behind a credit-default swap (sometimes referred to as a credit derivative) is that if you buy a bond and the seller of the bond defaults, you can recoup most of your losses from an insurance company if you've had the foresight to purchase a credit-default swap (insurance policy) on your purchase of that bond. What's more questionable is when financiers place bets on the price of assets they don't own and have no intention of acquiring. These so-called "naked' bets are in many ways tantamount to simple gambling, and were a prominent feature of the recent financial crisis, the lasting effects of which are still dogging us. For example, many investors bought insurance policies on mortgage securities they didn't own as a way of betting on the price of the securities to fall. However you feel about the social utility of this practice, it's not something that deserves government backing. Yet in many cases the government then had to bail out these investors when it bailed out the likes of AIG. Hence the possibility of sharing in the cornucopian rip-off proceeds when you buy CDSs, i.e. credit-default swap insurance policies. Many experts tell us that the solution to this problem is to require that derivatives (such as CDSs) be traded on exchanges, the same way we trade stocks. The great benefit of this would be transparency: We could all see who was trading and insuring what.

According to Dylan Ratigan, one of the greatest obstacles in resolving the financial crisis in 2008 was the need to pay all the $600 trillion in swaps [a type of derivative] because central bankers couldn't see which swaps served as useful insurance for energy and commodities -- and were therefore essential to the smooth functioning of the economy -- and which had only to do with speculation and simple gambling. So, because the central bankers couldn't see the difference, they were forced to pay off everybody, including the reckless speculators.

In light of this problem, Richard Grasso (former chairman of the NY Stock Exchange) has a radical proposal: Reclassify all the naked derivatives as online gaming. As Grasso tells Ratigan: "I believe regulators should require the product to be " monitored globally to prevent contracts being written in excess of the debt obligations they are designed to insure. " Any contracts written outside these requirements would be deemed null and void by regulators as simply online gaming."

I'm not sure I understand every implication of this--could the bet still be made, just not through a derivative contract, or could it not be made at all? -- or maybe just where gaming is legal? Once again consider the dicey financial innovation (scam) of naked bets. Naked bets are, as previously stated, in many ways pure gambling and were a prominent feature of the recent financial crisis. "For example, many investors bought insurance on mortgage securities they didn't own, as a way of betting on the price of the securities to fall. This is not something that deserves government backing. Yet in many cases the government then had to bail out these investors when they bailed out the likes of AIG." Source article

Behind the Euro crisis: Goldman Sachs playing both sides of the bets.

Let's start with the perpetrators of the fraud: the institutions of Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. It is important to emphasize that it is becoming ever more apparent that Goldman Sachs is involved in an engineered fraud wherein the trillion dollar profits being generated by the fraud are being funneled to private individuals. It seems that Goldman Sachs was involved in a scam wherein it intentionally sold derivatives that were designed to lose for the client and win for the undisclosed other party of the bet (a typical Goldman Sachs set-up). Goldman Sachs also scams governments by selling them sure-to-lose derivatives disguised as sure-to-win, and pockets huge fees in the process, as they systematically milk this-country-and-the-world for all it's worth.

Goldman Sachs discloses how credit derivatives risk is tied to European debt

Goldman Sachs, the fifth-biggest U.S. bank, by assets, disclosed for the first time the gross value of credit-default swaps that the firm purchased and sold relating to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain: By the end of 2011, Goldman Sachs had sold $142.4 billion of single-name swaps (i.e. contracts that pay out in the event of a default) on the five countries -- so the firm said yesterday in an annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company also had purchased credit-default contracts with a gross notional value of $147.3 billion on the nations' debt, the filing shows.

Goldman Scams Greece in Secret Greece Loan

Spyros Papanicolaou (head of Greece's Public Debt Management Agency) and his predecessor, Christoforos Sardelis, recently revealed details of derivative contracts that helped Greece mask its growing sovereign debt to meet European Union requirements. The two men said that neither they nor any other high-level Greek official understood what their country was buying, and so they were ill-equipped to judge the risks or eventual costs.

Goldman Sachs's instant gain on the transaction illustrates the dangers to clients who engage in complex, tailored trades that lack comparable market prices and whose fees aren't disclosed.

"Sardelis couldn't actually do what every debt manager should do when offered something, which is go to the market to check the price," said Papanicolaou, who retired in 2010. "He didn't do that because he was told by Goldman that if he did that, the deal is off." Source article

How Goldman ever so profitably set Greece up for implosion

In this video clip, Greg Palast explains this to Dylan Ratigan and his sidekicks, who then force Greg to admit that the Greek government was, at least inadvertently, complicit in setting Greece up for financial and economic disaster.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

J.P. Morgan gets in on this cornucopian ripoff -- by joining Goldman in keeping Italy derivatives risks hidden

JPMorgan said in its third-quarter SEC filing that more than 98 percent of the credit-default swaps the New York-based bank has written (or issued, for its investor/customers), on the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain) debt, is balanced by CDS contracts purchased (by JPMorgan) for the same type of bonds (also purchased by JPMorgan). All these many insurance contracts will (supposedly) pay off if the bonds go belly up, i.e. if and when these countries default on the immense loans they've taken out (by selling those bonds). JPMorgan said its net exposure was no more than $1.5 billion, with a portion coming from debt and equity securities. But the company didn't disclose gross numbers or how much of the $1.5 billion came from swaps, leaving investors wondering whether the notional value of CDSs sold could be as high as $150 billion or as low as zero.

Bank runs will become daily news in 2012. The fear index is already running high. A lot of banks are "under water' with debt. The stunning info-graphics here illustrate, breathtakingly, the absolutely gargantuan amount of money that banks in Europe and the US have loaned to Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain (the so-called PIIGS) -- the very countries that have surreptitiously gobbled up trillions in borrowed money and that are least likely to pay any of it back!

So what happens when they default or threaten to default? Answer: Either the central banks and/or governments of the US and Europe start creating trillions of new dollars out of thin air (leading to unprecedented inflation) so as to reimburse the banksters and bondholders, OR the world economy goes into a major depression as credit freezes up and investors everywhere cash out of their investments.

Why will investors everywhere then cash out of their investments? Let me answer that question by pointing out that there is no way in hell that the trillions-of-dollars-worth of credit default swap insurance policies on these toxic bonds can ever even begin to be paid off. And when that reality is finally grasped, there will either be the mother of all bailouts (which will lead to the worst inflation the world has ever seen), or there will be a depression the severity of which the world has never seen. Unconvinced? If you haven't already done so, look at the graphics in the last link! Then remember how the mafia used to tell business owners to either pay up or your business will be destroyed, and begin to realize that what we have here is the new mafia, on a global scale. The main difference is that their names are not Italian. The second largest difference is that the original mafia members were pikers and tiny tots by comparison. The third largest difference is that the new mafia essentially owns the government and can hire the most capable attorneys and lobbyists in the world to get legislation that allows them to carry out this fraud and extortion, by and large within the letter of the law. The fourth difference is that the new mafia is threatening the world economy rather than individual businesses.

**dirtbiker666** · 06-21-2012, 09:39 AM

Cliffs: When you are old you'll be eating dog food because Social Security will be bankrupt in order to pay the people who already have one-third of the wealth, for their bailouts. If you need an operation you can't afford you will be told you are terminal and to die. That's if you survive the coming economic chaos and food riots, which the richest one percent don't care about because they'll just go off-shore or into their luxury bunkers.

"CNN Money: Private Luxury Bunkers Up 1,000%, Underground Communities Being Built"
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/22/real...kers/index.htm

All this because they made you believe that Occupy Wall Street was just a bunch of bums wanting hand-outs rather than a movement to stop this train wreck. You laughed along with everyone else, and now all the banksters are gone with your money and future (you meaning everyone.)

From "23 Mind-Blowing Facts About Income Inequality In America"
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-c...#ixzz1xpdJvK6I

**charley** · 06-21-2012, 10:53 AM

And the answer is ??????? Legalize weed !!!!! .....Smoke more weed.....

**Ichigo** · 06-21-2012, 10:55 AM

This shit pissed me off so bad i haven't been able to get passed the first paragraph

Frigging stinking greedy banking bastards!!!!!!!!

**[SIL]** · 06-21-2012, 11:01 AM

add bigbens 12k scheme to paint the whole picture..

**IronAddict** · 06-21-2012, 12:09 PM

Yup!

**heavyiron** · 06-21-2012, 12:21 PM

LOL at any dunce who is been relying on social security to be there and not saving for retirement.

**ebn2002** · 06-21-2012, 12:34 PM

The funny thing is that the people are mad at the banks. I work at one of the 3 largest financial firms in the world. Why would my company not partake in this? Please give me a reason not to take free risk at the expense of an idiotic government that knows NOTHING about financial markets. BE MAD AT THE GOVERNMENT. THEY GAVE OUT YOUR TAX DOLLARS. BE MAD AT YOURSELF, FOR BEING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE TRADE.

If you and your sibling were each given $10 allowance, and your sibling gambled it all away and you saved yours, and the next day your sibling needed money and your parents gave the extra money to them and not you, would you be mad at your sibling (the banks) or your parent (the government) for unfair practice?

And everybody bitching in this thread better not have a checking, savings or brokerage account with any institution that received a bailout fund and I'm sure all of you do.

**Curt James** · 06-22-2012, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

The funny thing is that the people are mad at the banks. I work at one of the 3 largest financial firms in the world. Why would my company not partake in this? Please give me a reason not to take free risk at the expense of an idiotic government that knows NOTHING about financial markets. BE MAD AT THE GOVERNMENT. THEY GAVE OUT YOUR TAX DOLLARS. BE MAD AT YOURSELF, FOR BEING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE TRADE.

If you and your sibling were each given $10 allowance, and your sibling gambled it all away and you saved yours, and the next day your sibling needed money and your parents gave the extra money to them and not you, would you be mad at your sibling (the banks) or your parent (the government) for unfair practice?

And everybody bitching in this thread better not have a checking, savings or brokerage account with any institution that received a bailout fund and I'm sure all of you do.

You there! You shut up with your facts!

**Gissurjon** · 06-22-2012, 07:30 AM

http://www.motherjones.com/files/outofbalance.jpg

**ebn2002** · 06-22-2012, 08:45 AM

And we as citizens can stop the "1%" from controlling 80% of the money. simply stop buying their products. That means, pay cash for your house because the 1% provide you mortgage financing, cut up your credit cards because the 1% finance that, pay cash for your car, close all your bank accounts that charge you any fees, close any and all brokerage accounts and do not buy any financial products (stocks, bonds, options, etc, they make the spread on all of these and "manipulate" the market so you lose).

We could easily do this but you would have to live within your means which we as Americans refuse to do, so the 1% take advatage of that. If you owe money on your house, thank the 1% for loaning you the tens of thousands of dollars to buy it or you would be in an apartment or on the streets. If you owe on your credit card you should thank the 1% for loaning you the money to buy a big screen TV you can't afford to pay cash for. Many of you don't fall into this category, but many of you make $60,000 per year and live in a $250,000 house with 4 flat screens and 2 new cars worth $45,000 each and spend $500 a month on BS. If thats you, you should thank god every day for the 1% because you can't afford any of that.

Rant/

**DOMS** · 06-22-2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

And we as citizens can stop the "1%" from controlling 80% of the money. simply stop buying their products. That means, pay cash for your house because the 1% provide you mortgage financing, cut up your credit cards because the 1% finance that, pay cash for your car, close all your bank accounts that charge you any fees, close any and all brokerage accounts and do not buy any financial products (stocks, bonds, options, etc, they make the spread on all of these and "manipulate" the market so you lose).

We could easily do this but you would have to live within your means which we as Americans refuse to do, so the 1% take advatage of that. If you owe money on your house, thank the 1% for loaning you the tens of thousands of dollars to buy it or you would be in an apartment or on the streets. If you owe on your credit card you should thank the 1% for loaning you the money to buy a big screen TV you can't afford to pay cash for. Many of you don't fall into this category, but many of you make $60,000 per year and live in a $250,000 house with 4 flat screens and 2 new cars worth $45,000 each and spend $500 a month on BS. If thats you, you should thank god every day for the 1% because you can't afford any of that.

Rant/

I could buy into this if the 1% didn't buy off politicians, thereby becoming criminals. They, and the politicians they buy off, need to go to jail for life for that they've done to the USA.

**Griffith** · 06-22-2012, 09:05 AM

wtf is wrong with all the untrusting cynics in Anything Goes

All the rich people will bring back their offshore money and secret accounts in tax havens to help the world recover from this! The mining companies in australia have decided they pay too much tax, so now they are running canidates and buys up the press while demanding seats on the boards and editorial control!

SHOOT A BILLIONAIRE TODAY, make the world a better place!

**ebn2002** · 06-22-2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by DOMS

I could buy into this if the 1% didn't buy off politicians, thereby becoming criminals. They, and the politicians they buy off, need to go to jail for life for that they've done to the USA.

Again, I agree, but I think the blame lays with the politicians. You can't fault businesses for doing what they HAVE TO DO to get ahead. In America, you have to buy politicians. The banks choice is simple, play by the "rules" and fund politicians, or go bankrupt and face SEC investigations and other retribution. The politicians choice is complex, and involves the DECISION to be corrupt, while they still have the choice of not being corrupt and choose their own path.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

**DOMS** · 06-22-2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

Again, I agree, but I think the blame lays with the politicians. You can't fault businesses for doing what they HAVE TO DO to get ahead. In America, you have to buy politicians. The banks choice is simple, play by the "rules" and fund politicians, or go bankrupt and face SEC investigations and other retribution. The politicians choice is complex, and involves the DECISION to be corrupt, while they still have the choice of not being corrupt and choose their own path.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

I agree completely. They politicians have made bribery from special interests group, just to name a single item.

**oufinny** · 06-22-2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by DOMS

I could buy into this if the 1% didn't buy off politicians, thereby becoming criminals. They, and the politicians they buy off, need to go to jail for life for that they've done to the USA.

Truer words have never been spoken. It's funny listening to the banker try to pass off blame while he is party to the buying off of all of congress and the Presidents as well.

**oufinny** · 06-22-2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

Again, I agree, but I think the blame lays with the politicians. You can't fault businesses for doing what they HAVE TO DO to get ahead. In America, you have to buy politicians. The banks choice is simple, play by the "rules" and fund politicians, or go bankrupt and face SEC investigations and other retribution. The politicians choice is complex, and involves the DECISION to be corrupt, while they still have the choice of not being corrupt and choose their own path.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

No, you go bankrupt like every other freaking company out there. The world would not have ended, the money would not have stopped flowing, there is a reason we have bankruptcy protection laws and courts. I wish many of them did go bankrupt but that $16 TRILLION you got to save your asses from the Federal Reserve made sure your terrible bets on credit default swaps and derivatives didn't take you down. I thought OWS was a poor attempt to get the message across, nonetheless it needs to be corrected. Too big to fail is better known as too corrupt to let the little guys win.

**Ichigo** · 06-22-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by oufinny

No, you go bankrupt like every other freaking company out there. The world would not have ended, the money would not have stopped flowing, there is a reason we have bankruptcy protection laws and courts. I wish many of them did go bankrupt but that $16 TRILLION you got to save your asses from the Federal Reserve made sure your terrible bets on credit default swaps and derivatives didn't take you down. I thought OWS was a poor attempt to get the message across, nonetheless it needs to be corrected. Too big to fail is better known as too corrupt to let the little guys win.

Exactly! What makes you think these thieving bastards deserved to be bailed out when all other companies go bankrupt.

**ebn2002** · 06-22-2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by oufinny

No, you go bankrupt like every other freaking company out there. The world would not have ended, the money would not have stopped flowing, there is a reason we have bankruptcy protection laws and courts. I wish many of them did go bankrupt but that $16 TRILLION you got to save your asses from the Federal Reserve made sure your terrible bets on credit default swaps and derivatives didn't take you down. I thought OWS was a poor attempt to get the message across, nonetheless it needs to be corrected. Too big to fail is better known as too corrupt to let the little guys win.

EXACTLY. Why didn't they go bankrupt? Because the federal government dicided that if the banks failed the system would crash. The federal government is retarded. They should have let them all fail, GM and many other non-financial companies included. But what you are missing is the fact that the GOVERNMENT made the decision to hand out your money. The banks simply accepted the handout. Would you not take free money to save your business? You would take it just like the banks did.

All I'm saying is the problem is with the government for being fiscally irresponsible, but the public doesn't see past the news stories and are mad at the banks which makes no sense. OWS was a joke. Follow my instructions on how to cut out the 1% if you want real results and want them to feel monetary pain, but it must be done on a national level and Americans don't have the drive, fortitude, balls, ability, intellect or willpower to do anything about it because there is no quick fix we all like so much and to fix this would take actual time, thought, coordination and MAKING HARD DECISIONS where somebody loses (this is why Social Security hasn't been fixed, nobody will make hard decisions and cut people because "they might not get re-elected", which is all that matters to them). Again, the politicians are at the root of the problem

**oufinny** · 06-22-2012, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

EXACTLY. Why didn't they go bankrupt? Because the federal government dicided that if the banks failed the system would crash. The federal government is retarded. They should have let them all fail, GM and many other non-financial companies included. But what you are missing is the fact that the GOVERNMENT made the decision to hand out your money. The banks simply accepted the handout. Would you not take free money to save your business? You would take it just like the banks did.

All I'm saying is the problem is with the government for being fiscally irresponsible, but the public doesn't see past the news stories and are mad at the banks which makes no sense. OWS was a joke. Follow my instructions on how to cut out the 1% if you want real results and want them to feel monetary pain, but it must be done on a national level and Americans don't have the drive, fortitude, balls, ability, intellect or willpower to do anything about it because there is no quick fix we all like so much and to fix this would take actual time, thought, coordination and MAKING HARD DECISIONS where somebody loses (this is why Social Security hasn't been fixed, nobody will make hard decisions and cut people because "they might not get re-elected", which is all that matters to them). Again, the politicians are at the root of the problem

The government didn't decide, the private federal reserve did. And so did the Sec. of the Treasury Hank Paulson so all his buddies would have jobs and bonuses. It was all a scam, don't steal from Peter to pay Paul. Your ass would be out a job too if they failed.

I studied finance and economics; what I learned watching what happened from 1999-2004 was its not a great place to have a job unless you are at Goldman getting some fat bonus while virtually stealing with your clients money. That company gives out more money in bonuses each year than my company makes in a year; we are an oil and gas producer too... that is FUCKED UP.

**heckler7** · 06-22-2012, 12:50 PM

[QUOTE=ebn2002;2876135]
If you and your sibling were each given $10 allowance, and your sibling gambled it all away and you saved yours, and the next day your sibling needed money and your parents gave the extra money to them and not you, would you be mad at your sibling (the banks) or your parent (the government) for unfair practice?

QUOTE]its more like the siblings were the government and the parents were the banks, government never successfully resolves anything they involve themselves in.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I could buy into this if the 1% didn't buy off politicians, thereby becoming criminals. They, and the politicians they buy off, need to go to jail for life for that they've done to the USA.

I agree with you, real influence comes from wealth, not the people.

Originally Posted by Socrates

wtf is wrong with all the untrusting cynics in Anything Goes

All the rich people will bring back their offshore money and secret accounts in tax havens to help the world recover from this! The mining companies in australia have decided they pay too much tax, so now they are running canidates and buys up the press while demanding seats on the boards and editorial control!

SHOOT A BILLIONAIRE TODAY, make the world a better place!

as soon as the dept of game and fish declares a bag limit on rich people I'm in!

Originally Posted by ebn2002

Again, I agree, but I think the blame lays with the politicians. You can't fault businesses for doing what they HAVE TO DO to get ahead. In America, you have to buy politicians. The banks choice is simple, play by the "rules" and fund politicians, or go bankrupt and face SEC investigations and other retribution. The politicians choice is complex, and involves the DECISION to be corrupt, while they still have the choice of not being corrupt and choose their own path.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

seems like everyone is corrupt nowadays, I dont even trust my dentist, he wants to replace all my fillings and I think he's trying to scam me.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I agree completely. They politicians have made bribery from special interests group, just to name a single item.

bribery is now a career, their called lobbyists now.

Originally Posted by oufinny

No, you go bankrupt like every other freaking company out there. The world would not have ended, the money would not have stopped flowing, there is a reason we have bankruptcy protection laws and courts. I wish many of them did go bankrupt but that $16 TRILLION you got to save your asses from the Federal Reserve made sure your terrible bets on credit default swaps and derivatives didn't take you down. I thought OWS was a poor attempt to get the message across, nonetheless it needs to be corrected. Too big to fail is better known as too corrupt to let the little guys win.

yes sir, let them feel the consequence for their actions, its the only way they will change their practices.

**DOMS** · 06-22-2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by heckler7

bribery is now a career, their called lobbyists now.

Holy crap, did I butcher my post. But yeah, special interest groups participate in legalized bribery. Made legal, of course, by the politicians.

It's the one god damn thing I wanted from Obama. It was also the reason that I almost voted for him. Instead, the fucker does a 180 and embeds special interest group even further into Washington.

**ebn2002** · 06-22-2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by oufinny

The government didn't decide, the private federal reserve did. And so did the Sec. of the Treasury Hank Paulson so all his buddies would have jobs and bonuses.

Your ass would be out a job too if they failed.

And how does the federal reserve have the ability to spend your tax dollars? And yes I would be out of a job, for about two days.

**heckler7** · 06-22-2012, 01:06 PM

[QUOTE=DOMS;2877333]

Originally Posted by heckler7

Holy crap, did I butcher my post. But yeah, special interest groups participate in legalized bribery. Made legal, of course, by the politicians.

It's the one god damn thing I wanted from Obama. It was also the reason that I almost voted for him. Instead, the fucker does a 180 and embeds special interest group even further into Washington.

Oboma would benefit most from ending lobbying since Romney is backed by all the major banks and is getting heaps of money. Your right, all the hope and change didnt become realized. Politics 101 campaign on one agenda, but take office with another.

**Bowden** · 06-22-2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

The funny thing is that the people are mad at the banks. I work at one of the 3 largest financial firms in the world. Why would my company not partake in this? Please give me a reason not to take free risk at the expense of an idiotic government that knows NOTHING about financial markets. BE MAD AT THE GOVERNMENT. THEY GAVE OUT YOUR TAX DOLLARS. BE MAD AT YOURSELF, FOR BEING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE TRADE.

If you and your sibling were each given $10 allowance, and your sibling gambled it all away and you saved yours, and the next day your sibling needed money and your parents gave the extra money to them and not you, would you be mad at your sibling (the banks) or your parent (the government) for unfair practice?

And everybody bitching in this thread better not have a checking, savings or brokerage account with any institution that received a bailout fund and I'm sure all of you do.

LOL.
I use a credit union.
Only an idiot uses a bank.

"Be mad at the government".
It was the government that had to use tax payer dollars to bail out the 'financial institutions' that threw risk management out the door and violated their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
Executives at Citicorp, BOA and AIG should go to jail for what they did.

**azza1971** · 06-22-2012, 06:51 PM

In history they have done this before, who do you think really causes the stock market to crash? Sept 11 another financial attack. The trillion bailout is another, the whole GFC, why wasnt Australia effected that much by all this et our economy is going strong. Because we are a long way from you greedy cunts…..

**coolhandjames** · 06-22-2012, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by azza1971

In history they have done this before, who do you think really causes the stock market to crash? Sept 11 another financial attack. The trillion bailout is another, the whole GFC, why wasnt Australia effected that much by all this et our economy is going strong. Because we are a long way from you greedy cunts?..

**Zaphod** · 06-22-2012, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by ebn2002

Again, I agree, but I think the blame lays with the politicians. You can't fault businesses for doing what they HAVE TO DO to get ahead. In America, you have to buy politicians. The banks choice is simple, play by the "rules" and fund politicians, or go bankrupt and face SEC investigations and other retribution. The politicians choice is complex, and involves the DECISION to be corrupt, while they still have the choice of not being corrupt and choose their own path.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

Banks were getting ahead anyway. They decided they had to have it all right fucking now, consequences be damned. But the consequences are everybody else getting fucked like hookers on coupon day while they, the bankers, get free money to start the whole system over again and cry "what did you expect us to do? We aren't regulated. But don't regulate us because then we won't be able to fuck you harder next time around."

**ebn2002** · 06-25-2012, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by DBowden

Executives at Citicorp, BOA and AIG should go to jail for what they did.

What about General Motors and Chrysler, they took the same bailout funds. Should their executives go to jail? Of course not, you're being irrational and overly emotional.

The government "HAD" to use tax payer dollars? LMAO. Then they had no choice and there is no need for argument, correct? No. The government DECIDED to use taxpayer dollars. Just like they are thinking about doing it again with another round of easing, referred to as QE3. They DECIDED that letting the banks go under would ultimately be worse for the country than bailing them out. Why is that so hard to understand? The people you elected BENT YOU OVER FOR KICKBACKS FROM THE BANKERS, and you're mad at the bankers, whom owe you nothing and you never elected or did shit for in the first place.

**Zaphod** · 06-25-2012, 10:17 AM

GM and Chrysler took bailout money with strings attached. Government stock ownership, pay the money back, bankruptcy, etc. Banks got their money with no strings attached. Some of the bank CEOs were even hauled in front of congress to answer for WHERE all that bailout money went and they didn't have a clue and nothing was done or said after that. Also, GM's CEO had to step down from GM completely before they got any money. That wasn't a requirement for any of the banks.

Thread: You guys are smart BUT The Multi-Trillion Dollar Heist That Continues to Shrink Ameri

Thread Tools

Display

You guys are smart BUT The Multi-Trillion Dollar Heist That Continues to Shrink Ameri

Similar Threads

Primo instead of HCG while on cycle. Need some smart guys and endos to give feedback

Legalizing marijuana would hinder the multi-billion dollar empire of Mexican drug car

New Multi-Vitamin. What do you guys think?

For all u smart guys

Can abs shrink if.

Posting Permissions