# The financial scams of Wall Street



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I keep meeting people who have left the financial industry because for ethical considerations. The most recent moved from New York to Seattle. After being totally disgusted with the industry and the scams they are running on the public, the person who was highly licensed and worked in international business finance, let the licenses go!

Another fellow who comes to mind quit Soleman Smith Barney because he said he would not do what the company told him to do to people's accounts and milk them for commissions.

I could mention others, but the story is the same. I totally regret ever having trusted Merrill Lynch and hope any one who reads this will heed the warnings.

My question is, what does this say about those who are left in that industry?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

"My question is, what does this say about those who are left in that industry?"

Uh… Rode hard and put up wet? While stopped at a RED stoplight, wink, wink…

*;-)*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Maybe we should be able to deal with the ethically challenged as we see fit? They want no laws or regulations on their scams, why should we be limited in how we chose to deal with them?


----------



## Dez (Mar 28, 2007)

Tit for Tat OR What is good for the banker/politician/lawyer is good for the regular Joe?


----------



## bluekingfisher (Mar 30, 2010)

Long live the revolution!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

CR, You agree with Greensapn/Reagan that fraud and criminal activity is a market risk? The gov't should not be regulating or prosecuting criminals in the financial industry? Most of the frotune 500 filing fraudlent financials and lying to drive stock prices for many years is not worng?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Obviously the hills of WV are not penetrated by the news of the day. Even your hero, Bush the Dumbest, told them they were going to jail if they did not clean up their financials in 6 months. You don't remember that?

Sharp business practices do not include lying to stock holders to drive stock prices nor do filing false financial statements on publicly traded companies.

Goldman Sachs lying about their mortgage backed securities, selling them to trusting investor then taking shorts against their own securities is "sharp business practice"? If you believe that, I doubt you are really an atty. Even the worst of them has to have a basic understanding of legal principle and president.


----------



## BOB67CAM (Dec 28, 2009)

I kinda agree with topo AND cr, if im allowed…
If your dumb enough to jump into the pool of sharks then you had better be smart enough to know what your doing in that pool, if your going to wholeheartedly follow what youre being told, then u had best trust the 1 giving the advice, however i will always try to be the smart 1 or i wont take that leap…
If i were to take that leap then failure is ALWAYS a possible option!
Now that being said this occupy wall street crap drives me nutz, for the simple fact that if they are the 99% were plain out screwed because 90 of them dont have any clue what theyre actually protesting, theyre just mad about things, from housing to jobs, to college tuition…...
Regardless if u hear of a child molester in your neighborhood, chances are pretty good you wont let them watch your child, even at the advisement of a trusted friend, why would you hand your money to a money molester even at the advice of friend?...thats where i get baffled
those 1% are the people with any possibility of giving working folks a job, how many people do u know of making $30,000 or even $60,000 that employ ANYONE full or EVEN part time? The only 1 i do know of is a buddys father who has a garage door business where hes the only employee, but he does employ his son about 1-2 days a month to help him on his "bad days" when he cant do it alone and at that point he literally makes about 50 bux for that day after paying his son…
people nowadays all seem to want freebies, or to be assured everything is totally stable, thats just not how it works. if you dont keep your own stability, why would anyone else?
any of you jocks out there that do this woodworking as a business know that jobs generally dont just fall into your lap, u have to bust your butt to get them and keep them, sure ull get a freebie here and there but its not the norm, in fact id bet money that 99% of it is hard work whether it getting the job, doing the job or even the advertising to get the job, vs. 1% freebie/easy jobs that fall into your lap…i could say im a welder or a mechanic and call it a bussiness but if im just sitting on the couch playing video games chances are pretty slim im going to get anywhere….
on the other hand if someone is "unethical" why would you deal with them? I personally will not. There is a line between illegal and unethical, i was taught that awhile back when my buddy got screwed but it wasnt just 1 time, it was many times. I realized pretty fast that it was him allowing himself to get screwed. The reasons could be chalked up to "not knowing better", or "dealing with unethical people", or just plain "ignorance of what he was getting himself into".
Regardless what it all amounted to was, he wasnt watching his back, someone else was…
Just my opinion on the matter….


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

The hills of West Virginia? Where is that coming from?
Before you trash our backwards way of life, you might want to check your own states first.
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/West_Virginia_Ends_Fiscal_Year_With_Surplus_124998584.html?ref=584


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Sorry Al, I thought cr said he was in WV ;-))

BOB67CAM, I guess that means all the customers of Merrill Lynch, Soleman Smith Barney and the other 15 of the nation's 19 largest brokerage houses identified by Eliot Spitzer s criminal and anyone who bought mutual funds from Strong, Putnam or any of the others that were ID'd as corrupt deserved what they got? Bottomline, anyone who trusts anyone in the financial business is a fool? Since they are all liars, stop the economy? A reasonable expectation of trust and stability is what facilitaes economic growth.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

^Yeah Al^ and make sure that Topa doesn't know about Fred Zane either… Then we would have to talk about all the innocent folks put in jail by this former West Virginian. At least when Zane made it to Texas we caught him, but only after much more fraudulent testimony convictions of the innocent. Too bad Zane didn't go after the Wall Street crooks…


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^Yeah, Zane's a turd, no doubt about it. His type are all around, in every State. We try to weed them out the best we can but there's no real oversight like there is for clinicians. Anyone can pass the Daubert mustard to testify like he did. It's very sad. I wish he'd come from a different State. That was way before my time here, thankfully.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

Fed Loaned Banks Trillions in Bailout, Bloomberg Reports
Email 49 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

In a story that sheds new light on the extent of the country's financial crisis, Bloomberg Markets magazine reported today that the Federal Reserve lent trillions of dollars to beleaguered financial institutions, with $1.2 trillion going out on just one day in 2008.

"The Fed didn't tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn't mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy," Bloomberg reported today. "And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed's below-market rates."

Bloomberg Markets said it went over 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions.

"Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse," Bloomberg reported.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had argued back in 2008 when the crisis hit that revealing borrower details would create a stigma that would have led to more banks collapsing. And the Fed fought to keep the details of the loans, which totaled $7.77 trillion, secret long after.

-


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Nice to hear another sane voice David. One mortgage modification issues and the free money from the Fed to the banks turn out to be why modify mortgages? They got interested free loans from the gov't that they can loan back to the gov't at a tidy profit. Meanwhile these bastards that crashed the economy continue to take billions out in bonuses for themselves. Bank of America is reported to be in trouble, but upper management set aside 10 Billion for bonuses. That 10 Billion would solve there problems.

Just curious CR, is there any level of fraud that becomes a crime? If there are to be no laws or regulations about fraud in the markets, why not let the victims deal with the perpetrators as they see fit? How about luring young girls into the country to sell off as sex slaves. Seems like a shrewd practice to me; low acquisition costs and high margin. Sounds like perfect 21st century business that would blend well with the practices of the past decade.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

NEW YORK (AP) - A judge on Monday used unusually harsh language to strike down a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission over toxic mortgage securities, saying he couldn't tell whether the deal was fair and criticizing regulators for shielding the public from details of the firm's wrongdoing.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said the public has a right to know what happens in cases that touch on "the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives." In such cases, the SEC has a responsibility to ensure that the truth emerges, he wrote.

Rakoff said he had spent hours trying to assess the settlement but concluded that he had not been given "any proven or admitted facts upon which to exercise even a modest degree of independent judgment."

He called the settlement "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."

The SEC shot back in a statement issued by Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, saying the deal was all four of those things and "reasonably reflects the scope of relief that would be obtained after a successful trial."

The SEC had accused the bank of betting against a complex mortgage investment in 2007 - making $160 million in the process - while investors lost millions. The settlement would have imposed penalties on Citigroup but allowed it to deny allegations that it misled investors.

Citigroup said in a statement that it disagreed with Rakoff because the proposed settlement was "a fair and reasonable resolution to the SEC's allegation of negligence" and was consistent with long-established legal standards.

"In the event the case is tried, we would present substantial factual and legal defenses to the charges," it added.

This wasn't the first time that the judge struck down an SEC settlement with a bank, and Rakoff has made no secret of his disdain for settlements between the government agency and banks for paltry sums and no admission of guilt.

"The SEC's longstanding policy - hallowed by history, but not by reason - of allowing defendants to enter into consent judgments without admitting or denying the underlying allegations, deprives the court of even the most minimal assurance that the substantial injunctive relief it is being asked to impose has any basis in fact," he wrote in Monday's decision.

Adam Pritchard, a professor of securities law at the University of Michigan Law School, said courts could become clogged with cases that would normally be settled if other judges adopt Rakoff's reasoning and deprive companies of their incentive to avoid trial.

He called it a powerful SEC tool to encourage settlements "and Judge Rakoff is taking that away from them."

The SEC's consent judgment settling the case was filed the same day as its lawsuit against Citigroup, the judge noted.

"It is harder to discern from the limited information before the court what the SEC is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline," the judge wrote.

"In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers," Rakoff said. "Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found. But the SEC, of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges; and if it fails to do so, this court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency's contrivances."

He set a July 16 trial date for the case.

Khuzami said in the SEC statement that Rakoff made too much out of the fact that Citigroup did not have to admit wrongdoing. He said forcing Citigroup to give up profits, pay fines and face mandatory business reforms outweigh the absence of an admission "when that relief is obtained promptly and without the risks, delay and resources required at trial."

Khuzami added: "Refusing an otherwise advantageous settlement solely because of the absence of an admission also would divert resources away from the investigation of other frauds and the recovery of losses suffered by other investors not before the court."

Rakoff said the power of the judiciary was "not a free-roving remedy to be invoked at the whim of a regulatory agency, even with the consent of the regulated."

He added: "If its deployment does not rest on facts - cold, hard, solid facts, established either by admissions or by trials - it serves no lawful or moral purpose and is simply an engine of oppression."

In the civil lawsuit filed last month, the SEC said Citigroup Inc. traders discussed the possibility of buying financial instruments to essentially bet on the failure of the mortgage assets. Rating agencies downgraded most of the investments just as many troubled homeowners stopped paying their mortgages in late 2007. That pushed the investment into default and cost its buyers' - hedge funds and investment managers - several hundred million dollars in losses.

Earlier this month, Rakoff staged a hearing in which he asked lawyers on both sides to defend the settlement.

At the hearing, Rakoff questioned whether freeing Citigroup of any admission of liability could undermine private claims by investors who stand to recover only $95 million in penalties on total losses of $700 million.

In his decision, he called the penalties "pocket change" to a company the size of Citigroup and said that, if the SEC allegations are true, then Citigroup got a "very good deal." If they are untrue, the settlement would be "a mild and modest cost of doing business," he said.

In 2009, Rakoff rejected a $33 million settlement between the SEC and Bank of America Corp. calling it a breach of "justice and morality." The deal was over civil charges accusing the bank of misleading shareholders when it acquired Merrill Lynch during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 by failing to disclose it was paying up to $5.8 billion in bonuses to employees even as it recorded a $27.6 billion yearly loss.

In February 2010, he approved an amended settlement for over four times the original amount, but was caustic in his comments about the $150 million pact, calling it "half-baked justice at best." He said the court approved it "while shaking its head."

Citigroup's $285 million would represent the largest amount to be paid by a Wall Street firm accused of misleading investors since Goldman Sachs & Co. agreed to pay $550 million to settle similar charges last year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. resolved similar charges in June and paid $153.6 million.

All the cases have involved complex investments called collateralized debt obligations. Those are securities that are backed by pools of other assets, such as mortgages.

Rakoff's ruling Monday was the latest in a series of setbacks for the SEC under the leadership of Chairman Mary Schapiro. Rakoff has said he doesn't believe the agency has been sufficiently tough in its enforcement deals with Wall Street banks over their conduct prior to the financial crisis.

The SEC told Rakoff recently that $285 million was a fair penalty, which will go to investors harmed by Citigroup's conduct, and that it was close to what the agency would have won in a trial.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Stockholders do not have the assets to go up against management of publicly traded companies. In reality, your position is pure BS! Just like the Topamax Malpractice drug pusher, $400,00 to start. I was told no atty will take on Merrill Lynch, and none would. You are either in a fantasy world, being paid to push corporate propaganda on the web or an ignorant fool. You obviously have no experience in these matters, at least not for the perspective of the general public.

After Spitzer ID the criminals of Wall Street, 17 of the largest 19 paid millions in fines to the SEC and to the states in 2 different enforcement actions and agreed to to not respond to any public statements about their criminal activities. The millions Merrill Lynch paid amounted to about 1/2 day's earnings as far as I could tell from their financials. Solomon Smith Barney paid bigger fines but it was impossible to tell what the impact would be on them as their financials are buried in Citigroup's financials. Too much effort to bother to find out.

Complaints to the SEC are pointless and have been since the late 80s or early 90s.. If they were doing anything at all, Bernie Madoff would have been shut down years ago.

Face it CR, you and your ilk are morally repugnant and the epitome of what is wrong with America in the 21st Century. A weasel clause to cover every crooked scam you can dream up. I'm certainly glad no one in my family has any attitudes remotely similar to yours. Our traditions go back to the founding of this country. We were among the first to aid Boston when the British blockaded the Patriots.

I never thought I would do this, but Good Bye!!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

^ What Topa says ^, about big corporations, financials, AND lawyers.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Topa, I hope you mean Good Bye to the political threads. I'm about done with them myself. It's kind of like hitting my thumb with a hammer; I can only take it so much.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Yup, I'm done. The leeches have just about destroyed this country. I can hardly wait to watch them destroy each other. I am beginning to thing socialism is preferable to a plutocracy.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

Every blessed once in a great while, all artifice is stripped away, rhetoric collapses under the weight of its own absurdity, and we get to see things as they really are. Such will be the case later this week when the Senate tries to vote on extending the payroll-tax holiday. The Republicans will oppose it-that is to say, the Republicans will support a tax increase on working Americans. And why? Because the Democrats want to pay for it with a small surtax on the very top earners. So the choice couldn't be more direct: which is more important, giving the middle class a tax cut or protecting those who make more than $1 million a year? Republicans are making it clear. This vote alone should destroy them.

The facts: The Social Security payroll tax comes to 12.4 percent of an employee's salary-employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent. The money goes into the Social Security Trust Fund and finances benefits. At the end of last year, the Obama administration, in exchange for temporarily extending the Bush tax rates on all income levels, got Congress to agree to a one-year 2 percent payroll-tax holiday for employees, down to 4.2 percent. For a $50,000 earner, that meant paying $1,000 a year less in payroll taxes. It was agreed in that law that the holiday would cost the Social Security Trust Fund nothing-the depleted revenue would be replaced out of the general treasury. So the holiday adds to the general deficit but does not affect the trust fund.

The cut proved popular, or is presumed to be popular, so now, as many people predicted last year, Congress wants to extend it. Republicans of course say (as they say of everything) that it hasn't done any good. But economists attest to its stimulative value. Two economists at the Economic Policy Institute say ending the holiday would reduce GDP by $128 billion and cost 972,000 jobs in 2012. The EPI is a liberal outfit, but Mark Zandi of Moody's, who advised John McCain in 2008, agrees that raising the payroll tax back to where it was could cause another recession.

And besides those macroeconomic concerns, there is the simple question of money in people's pockets as they try to tough out the economy. A thousand dollars to a $50,000 earner, or $1,500 to a $75,000 earner, isn't nothing.

What the Senate Democrats want to do now is this. They want to increase the employee's reduction from 2 percent to 3.1 percent (that is, to cut it in half from the normal 6.2 percent rate). And they now want, for the first time, to extend the holiday to employers as well. This is important, and it probably won't be well explained in very many places. But the Democrats would have employers pay 3.1 percent (rather than the 6.2 percent they now pay) on the first $5 million of their payroll. Also, if employers add to their payrolls, they would pay no payroll tax on new hires. So the new bill is specifically aimed at helping the job creators. The total cost is $255 billion.

The Democrats want to pay for it with a 3.5 percent surtax on dollars earned over $1 million per year. In other words, if someone earns $1.3 million a year, she will pay the extra 3.5 percent only on the last $300,000 in earnings; that is, an extra $10,500 a year (bear in mind that this person takes home, after taxes, around $30,000 every two weeks). So it certainly raises the taxes of the very wealthiest. But it gives more money back to middle-class people, and it stimulates the economy, perhaps to the tune of 50,000 jobs a month, maybe even more.

Mitch McConnell unsurprisingly announced his opposition to it Monday. And yes, this is the same Mitch McConnell who said in January 2009 that a two-year suspension of the payroll tax "would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and in the hands of individuals," and that "Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief."

Well, that was then. Now three things have changed. One, the idea was a Republican one back then; now it's a Kenyan one. That alone is enough to make it poison to them. Two, extending the holiday will help the economy at a moment when Republicans are now very clearly trying to hurt the economy. This is not even a controversial thing to say anymore, it's so obvious. And three, now there's a price tag on it; it has to be paid for in some way, and that way is a surtax on super-high incomes. And this above all is what the GOP cannot accept. These are the makers, not the takers, in Paul Ryan's obscene formulation.

It's sickening to watch them lie about this one. Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl hit two major talking points on TV over the weekend:

The problem here is that the payroll tax doesn't go into general revenue, it supports Social Security. And you can't keep extending the payroll-tax holiday and have a secure Social Security. That's the first problem …

By taxing the people who provide the jobs, you put off the day we have economic recovery and job creation in this country. And that's precisely what the Democratic plan would do. It would hit those people, the small businesses who we all acknowledge are the ones who create the jobs coming out of economic difficulty.

Both statements are lies. The first is another one of those not-intended-to-be-factual statements for which he is renowned. The Social Security Trust Fund is not affected by the new proposal any more than it was for the original one-year holiday last year. The second statement is the usual GOP talking point on this-we're protecting small businesses-but it's especially lame in the context of this proposal. Don't most small businesses have payrolls under $5 million? Of course they do. Those employers will directly benefit from this law. And businesses large or small will pay nothing on new hires.

So the bill will cut taxes on middle-income people and on small employers. And it won't get a single Republican vote. Maybe one-Scott Brown might have to back it. But they will block this. They will hope instead that Harry Reid eventually (before the end of the year) permits a one-year extension at the current 2 percent rate that is paid for out of the general treasury. In which case the GOP will be voting to increase the deficit! Yep, the deficit-hawk party would sooner add a couple of hundred billion to the deficit than impose a surtax on people who make more than $1 million a year. It just never ends with these people.

This is the most rancid display yet on the GOP's part. And I think you'll agree there is no lack of competition for that mantle. Having the stones to campaign against Obama's "Medicare cuts" in 2010 when all they want to do is cut Medicare was up there, but this is even worse. How a party can so nakedly represent only the top 1 percent while at the same time try to stop anything that will help the economy, and survive while doing it, is just beyond me. Obama should give an Oval Office speech Wednesday night and say: "If you are an employee and make less than $1 million, or if you are an employer of any size, I am trying to give you a tax cut. If you are an employee who makes more than $1 million a year, you should write and thank your Republican senator, because the Republicans are blocking me and helping you."

It really is that simple.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Dang it Al, 
THAT is why I hit my thumb with a hammer this week (a 4lb'r no less) while trying to snug-fit some T-Track! I do have to say that that was the first time I actually "Splat" blood from doing so. Not a pleasant feeling for sure.
*8-((*

Topa,
I hate to give the bastards anything and have tried to counter these R-wingnuts in equal fashion, but it has NOT been fun and I HEAR YOU. IMO, LJs should shut down any political threads and I have said as much in a couple of PMs to those who could shut it down. BTW, I even found these Bagger's Playbook. *;-)*

And I do understand the old analogy of wrestling with pigs… "...the pig enjoys it and you just get muddy." It does get old…


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Wow David, very well laid out and explained. It is this kind of thing that keeps me railing against the Republican machine, though as I said above, it has NOT been fun.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

thanks mike
i can't say i wrote this
found it on yahoo news

it is so sickening to see our country divided
it seems the shills for the rep party
can't stop SCREAMING about
how they have the one and only way

my guess they have been promised to get what the rich have
(then to find out they have to steal it themselves)
as their party bosses don't want to share after all

i have a new way to invest my money

i give it to all the 'true believers'
going into the casinos
they promise to split the winnings with me

I WILL BE RICH !

much better than investing it on wall street


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

What does it tell me about those left in the industry ? It tells me that they are the biggest monkeys left on the banana tree . When the British blockaded the Patriots , Admiral Tom Brady was there to drive those socialists back to Washington State ( at that time not even a State ) in the War of 1932 . After the war, the upstart British were driven out and they returned to Bermuda. Washington was admitted as the 54th State . Although many names for the State were considered , such " Newfound Skaggitland " ," Micrcoscottia " , " Buckstoneia " , and" The State that is not D.C. but that State below Calgary land " , but they settled on just plain old "Washington " . Many were disappointed by this name , especially the Microscotts , In defiance , they named the State Capitol " SEE I SETTLED ! " This name , as we know, was later shortened to "Seattle " after the phonic conservation movement of Y2K , at a cost of 500 billion dollars !
When the evil Dickey Nikon was elected president in the 60s , he scoffed at living in the White House .or even in the District of Columbia , partly because he was a Whittier guy and did not wish to be associated with Columbia University , the alma mater of all 12 previous presidents . He took residence in New York in the Bathwater Hotel on Wall Street and set up something called the New York Stock Exchange right next door . People in Chicago were outraged until they realized it had nothing to do with ' cattle ' or stockyards . Worse . Banking . A New Age concept that would change the face of America . This Nikon Presidential "Banking" scam soon fell apart , when it was discovered that all the stocks were inflated , and whose value was solely based on the fluctuating price of the yearly poppy crop in S.E. Asia ! In a bloody coupe , Nikon was forced to plane and de-plane many times before escaping to the country of California . El BJ took power next . He bombed all the poppy fields in S.E. Asia , and there were some minor injuries , but he avoided bombing Turkey and Wall Street . The damage had been done ; the Stock Market craze was here to stay . Penny stocks and "junk bonds " would be gobbled up, and millions of people opened their own Savings and Loan companies . All adult Americans became CFOs overnight, and they all lent money to each other, in a frenzey of boat buying and condo building and cosmetic surgery that the World had never seen before . Hard to believe , huh ?
This has been an excerpt from my up coming book ( as yet untitled ) on the financial History of the New World . I wish to thank the Ionesco Foundation for their generous grant , as i endeavor to finish this groundbreaking tome on history and finance . Thank you . @copyright 2011 Moment t.m. all rights reserved . parking reserved, also .


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Nice post David. I hope it opens some eyes and more importantly, some brains!

I can't wait to see your book moment.

One of the predictions I have made in the past is not wanting to live in a gated community as this economy goes down. I did not hear much of what he was saying, but this afternoon, Norman Goldman reported the wealthy are becoming concerned about roving armed mobs. Wish I had heard the source of his info.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

yea bob

i read cattle rustling is on the rise again

funny how there is so much crying
from the 
ranchers
big farmers
commercial fishermen
loggers
and unions

they are the ones that all get govt.
help

the rest of us don't get anything
but higher prices
and more taxes


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

David, Most of them want to socialize the down side and capitalize the up side; ie, we bail them out ;-(( I find it quite interesting that there is another thread about a seller not shipping tools. Most are incensed by that, but there seemed to be a lot of "it's your own fault if you are scammed by Wall Street" here.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

i never understood why our economy
is run on the whims of money addicted gamblers

they buy/sell at the drop of (or rise of)
the market that is based on invented money

when we had a gold standard
money was real
you either had some or not

today if all of these crooks had to 'cash out'
what do they really have
and that all they have to do is go bankrupt
(and be bailed out by us the people)
and not owe a cent to anyone
and continue on their merry way
(think american airlines here
who filled for chapter 11 today)

while we all go down the drain
and lose not only our hard earned work
but our country as well


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Starting in the late 70s all the regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression to prevent high stakes gambling with depositors money were removed. In the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000, they even superseded all the state laws and banking regulations protecting depositors. Sen Phil Graham and his famous wife of the Enron board were prime movers in this disaster.


----------

