"Obama: SEC gave 'NO heads-up' on Goldman": MSNBC

1. 60

   fishskinfreak2008posted 14 years ago

   Web-site/URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36693944/ns … _business/
   
   Is the president becoming more of a negativist? This is troubling. He ran and was elected on a platform of "change" and "hope".

   replyreport
   1. 59

      gaylebar1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, he has the "change" thing down.. my question is why do we need change?  I really like the Constitution and don't think it needs to change.

      replyreport
2. 69

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   The Obama supporters are in mass beginning to see what a complete and total fraud he is... all lies.  All promises and no delivery.
   
   "WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days."
   
   What happened to no new taxes on Families earning under $250,000.
   
   Obama is a lying POS.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      SimeyCposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      LOL he didn't lie - VAT is a tax on services and goods - so if you earn less than $250,000 - don't buy anything and you won't get charged tax - so it's a voluntary tax!
      
      OK so they'll probably add VAT to things like beer and cigarettes, food and clothes - so I'm going to go an live in the forest!
      
      Any politician who says 'no new taxes' is lying - George Bush senior made that mistake....

      replyreport
      1. 59

         gaylebar1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         dont forget gas... but then take public transportation... oh but that will be increased to help pay for the gas tax...  The man thinks we are all stupid.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      fishskinfreak2008posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "Obama is a TOTAL FRAUD". Wow that's a strong statement and it isn't exactly true. At least he's TRYING to help people and this is against the backdrop of the GOP screaming "Repeal".

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you think it's inconsistent for the "Party Of NO" to criticize Obama for not keeping more of his campaign promises while doing everything they can to prevent him from doing so?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         gaylebar1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The health insurance bill is a huge mistake...  No one is denying the fact that health insurance is too much money... believe me I know.  I live in Massachusetts where my family of 3 pays $1000/ month for insurance-- you know the state with that the Obama care was designed after... just wait this is heading to EVERYONE... and it isn't fun... the lack of Drs. is amazing.  I haven't been seen buy a real Doctor in 2 years (since I moved here)... it has always been nurses or nurse practitioners. 
         
         My friend has the state insurance and can't find a doctor that takes it.  She has been dropped by one and now is having trouble finding another one... and if she doesn't within 30 days the MA insurance drops her and she has to start all over.
         
         For my family of 3 in FL we paid $485 for the same insurance coverage.  So MA is a mess insurance wise... Obamacare doesn't work... sorry
         
         Why do you think MA a very democratic state voted for Scott Brown.  We know that in this case the Republicans are right.
         
         Sorry.... but in this case the party of NO was our only hope.

         replyreport
3. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 14 years ago

   Was Dumbya a lying POS too?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And how about why Bush Sr. said "read my lips, no more taxes" and then raised taxes? Was he impeached?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         And let's not forget the classic line "The oil will pay for the war!"

         replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yes - by the voters! lol

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Nope, those who elected him would have voted for him again if he could have ran for another term.  Remember his statement during his last run for POTUS?  "We are not heading for a recession, the economy is sound!"  And his voters believed him, again!  I bet most of them believe the teabaggers now too!

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Randy, wake up! He DID run for another term and got defeated!

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  This was Dumbya I was referring to, not his dad!  And you did reelect him for another term.  Instead of trying to stop the bleeding he denied the country was facing economic difficulties which Obama is now trying to fix.  Of course, his people made out like the bandits they were.  So who was really asleep?

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     You were asleep! UW asked why Bush, Sr. wasn't impeached when he lied about no new taxes. I relpied that he WAS impeached - by the voters. Then you said no, the voters would have elected him again if could have "ran" again. He DID run again, and he lost. See?
                     
                     I think you jumped into the middle of a conversation without reading the previous posts. The alternative explanation is that you thought Bush, Sr. served two terms, which I don't think you thought.

                     replyreport
            2. 61

               Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               ???????
               
               H.W. Bush Was not prevented from running, where do you people get your facts?

               replyreport
      3. 61

         Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Nope, but he sure wasn't reelected either!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      tobey100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      No, W wasn't but that's what the left and the media wants everyone to believe.  If you say it enough times it must be true, is that the logic?????

      replyreport
4. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago

   Why do you all insist on bringing up Bush? He's gone. been gone for a year and a half! It's Obama now, should we justify his wrongs by pointing to the wrongs of his predecessor, or should we be pushing for what's right?
   
   The SEC, has shown itself to be like most government agencies, useless, ineffective and corrupt. Obama wants more government, more regulation! What is the good of that if they don't do their job? What we need is free markets and less regulation and to allow companies no matter how big, to fail!

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Even the Republicans are jumping on the Bankster regulation bandwagon while at the same time working to weaken the final bill. Here's the NYTimes editorial from this morning's paper:
      
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/opini … ef=opinion

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You just prove my point, which is government is ineffective most of the time. This bill which everyone seems to agree doesn't solve the problem that brought down our economy, does manage to grow government by creating a new bureaucracy that monitors every financial transaction of private citizens, collects that data and then develops "policy" based on that data.
         
         Obama in each of his legislation has followed the same formula growing government ever larger and ever more intrusive without actually solving the problems at hand. If Bush did this stuff the left would be up in arms! Yet, not a word form the left on this. It's just amazing how the left won't stand for principles when it threatens their hold on power.

         replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, when conservatives cite Rasmussen, you don't want to accept it because you say it's a conservative source, yet you use a NYT op-ed?

         replyreport
   2. 60

      tobey100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely, positively right.  Whenever someone on the left has no argument and no facts (FACTS) to back up their position they immediately turn to 'blame Bush'.  It's old and no one's buying it anymore.  Obama owns this mess and if his followers can't see that they're willfully blind.

      replyreport
5. 61

   JWestCattleposted 14 years ago

   This whole thing is a farce, it will add more regulation, more government employees who will ignore, or not understand, or take a bribe in regard to yet more creative financial transactions.  You cannot legislate morality, at any economic level.  You can use the regulations in place already and actually have the government employees, who make more than the private sector, have the brains and guts to do their job. 
   
   And foremost, the best thing the government can do is quit demanding that loans be made on mortgages that are doomed to failure -- that was the impetus for the financial crisis -- and nothing else.
   
   And their will be a VAT, it was always on the backroom table, I have no doubt.  There are too many 'entitlement' dollars slated to be redistributed as Obama referred to this morning that are growing under this Administration. He actually included health care and social security in his generalization of "entitlements".  When did Social Security become an Entitlement? like Food Stamps? 
   
   The federal government is now the Ultimate Big Bailout, with no end in sight to the sinkhole.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      There is not one shread of truth to the claim that the government is/was "demanding that loans be made on mortgages that are doomed to failure." It's bull.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.  Bill Clinton resurrected this bill to fight "redlining".  Or to put it another way, making loans to people who couldn't pay them back based on the color of their skin so that they (the banks) wouldn't appear to be racist.
         
         That is the genesis of the subprime market, not banks.  They were forced to make those loans or give to "community organizations" or else banks would lose the ability to open foreign branches, ie branches in other states.  Government, just like the Mafia.
         
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
         
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_ … ial_crisis

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Nobody forced Washington Mutual, Indy Mac or Countrywide to make no doc loans based on phony appraisals. They were writing them and selling them like an assembly line. The big banks were buying them and packaging them and selling them to unsuspecting pension funds and banks around the world based on phony AAA ratings by Moody's and Standard and Poors.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I know no one but an eletist liberal will bother reading the facts about the CRA and the deceptive claim that it fostered the recession.  For those who don't have their head in the sand or some unnamed oriface, this is the opinion of a noebel-winning economist on the subject.
               
               http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1 … ignorance/

               replyreport
6. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   I found this interesting. Robert Gibbs said Obama did not receive contributions from the Goldman Sachs PAC, yet this article from CNN says he did:
   
   http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/ … index.html
   
   Here's where Gibbs said O didn't accept PAC money:
   
   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … tions.html

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like Gibbs is saying Obama didn't take PAC money from registered federal lobbyists...volume on my pc isn't so great.  If so, then he's just using semantics to skirt the issue in a defensive sound bite, because Obama took PAC and individual donations from Goldman.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         If I'm not mistaken Goldman executives/pac was one of Obama's biggest contributors.

         replyreport
7. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Well, one of them is being dishonest, but is it CNN or Gibbs??

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      ....ummmm, definitely Robert Gibbs is being cute and dancing with words, his forte'.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Gibbs's statement was plain wrong. One of Obama's top advisers left recently to work for Goldman Sacks.

      replyreport
8. 69

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   And to think that there are people out there who want more regulations and regulatory agencies out there.  The ones we have can't seem to do the jobs we give them.  Maybe we should spend more time on fixing the problems we have rather than making new ones.

   replyreport
9. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Were they forced or were they encouraged to do so?

   replyreport
   1. 69

      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      If they didn't either make those loans or give money to community organizations, they would have had their ability to do business across state lines revoked.  In essence that would have destroyed the bank.  So you tell me, when given the choice between making a bad business decision or having your business destroyed, which would you "pick".  Or do you really have a choice at all?

      replyreport
10. 67

    TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years ago

    Wait wait wait....Wasn't it the SEC guys who were watching porn while the economy tanked? And I'm supposed to believe there were "NO heads up?" C'mon....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Sorry...I know there is no real contribution to the thread there guys...I just hadda say it. When are you gonna get those two headlines on the same forum again?

    replyreport
11. 69

    MikeNVposted 14 years ago

    George Bush was a lying POS.  FACT!
    
    And Obama is a lying POS.  FACT!
    
    Because Bush sucked so bad doesn't make Obama anything at all.  Obama is a POS all on his own.
    
    Lie after lie.
    
    You don't think Obama knew what a Fraud the Bailout was?  Timothy Geithner is tax cheat... Obama knew this and appointed him secretary anyway.  Why?  Because Obama is a puppet for the Banking Elite.
    
    The current Finance Reform is a FRAUD and suddenly Team Obama is using Goldman's as the scape goat?  Brilliant Obama was too stupid to see the Fraud last year... but now he see's it?  What a load of Crap.
    
    The Financial Reform does nothing but shift more power to the Puppet Masters at the Federal Reserve.  Team Obama's bill will just give the people who created the problem FULL control.
    
    Why do you think they want a $50 Billion slush fund? So whenever anything goes wrong they can bailout their Wall Street Buddies.
    
    There has been plenty of regulation in the past and the Republicans and Democrats both introduced legislation to remove it.  Now they are doing nothing more than shifting more power to the Bankers.  This isn't reform.  It's a fraud on the people.
    
    American's are debt slaves and too stupid to figure out why.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       MikeNV - You will have better luck reviving demand for buggy whips than a return to the gold standard.

       replyreport
12. 60

    susanlangposted 14 years ago

    SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Oct. 6, 2008
    Bank Settles Countrywide Mortgage Lawsuit
    Bank Of America Agrees To Modify Loans Of Homeowners In 11 States Facing Loss Of House
    
    
    The settlement applies to people who obtained their mortgages through Countrywide Financial Corp., which Bank of America bought in June.  (AP / file)
    
    
    Hope for Homeowners Act
    
    Do you qualify for a more affordable government-backed mortgage? Get facts on the new mortgage relief plan.
    
    
    Weathering The Downturn
    
    2 House Republicans Seek Countrywide Probe
    SEC Opens Formal Probe Of Countrywide
    (AP)  Facing a lawsuit over deceptive mortgage practices, a Bank of America Corp. subsidiary has agreed to modify tens of thousands of loans to keep people in 11 states from losing their homes, the Illinois attorney general's office said Sunday.
    
    Borrowers stuck with Countrywide Financial mortgages that they can't afford could see their interest rates reduced or have the loan principal cut. Some might qualify for having to pay nothing but interest for a decade. Even people who can't afford to keep their homes with such changes will be able to get help moving to a new home.
    
    "This is going to provide a tremendous amount of relief," said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
    
    Her office and officials from California negotiated the settlement. Nine other states have also joined the settlement, and other states could sign on, said Deborah Hagan, chief of Madigan's Consumer Protection Division.
    
    If all 50 states were to join, the settlement could provide $8.7 billion in relief to 400,000 borrowers, Hagan said.
    
    In California alone, the settlement will offer $3.5 billion in relief. For Illinois, that would translate to $190 million. The total for the 11 states was not immediately available.
    
    The settlement applies to people who obtained their mortgages through Countrywide Financial Corp., which Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America purchased in June, at the same time Illinois and California sued the company.
    
    "Countrywide's lending practices turned the American dream into a nightmare for tens of thousands of families by putting them into loans they couldn't understand and ultimately couldn't afford," California Attorney General Jerry Brown Jr. said in a statement Sunday.
    
    The other states joining the settlement are Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington.
    
    Fast Fact
    The states joining in the settlement are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington.
    Bank of America will launch the new mortgage aid program in December, said Barbara Desoer, president of Bank of America's mortgage, home equity and insurance services. In a statement, she called it "a comprehensive program that provides more solutions than ever before to assist troubled borrowers and put them back on the path to sustained home ownership."
    
    The mortgage aid includes revising customers' payments so they don't exceed 34 percent of income. Other options include reducing interest rates and adjusting principal so that borrowers don't wind up actually losing equity under some payment plans.
    
    Countrywide will not charge loan modification fees and will waive prepayment penalties.
    
    Madigan said she hopes the settlement could serve as a model for steps that other lenders could take to make up for misleading mortgage practices. She stressed that the agreement involves no tax money but will help people keep their homes and keep money flowing to lenders
    
    "This settlement will help homeowners stay in their homes, which ultimately helps investors and also helps communities," said Madigan, a Chicago Democrat.
    
    Any thoughts on this hubbers?

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       The settlement will help, but how much it will help isn't clear. Countrywide was one of the biggest and most dishonest offenders in writing mortgages that should never have been written.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          susanlangposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Now that's a refined thought Ralph, thanks for the input!

          replyreport