HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Barack Obama, in a breath...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:23 AM

 

Barack Obama, in a breathtaking display of cynicism, blatantly sells out to large Corporations

In a breathtaking display of cynicism, Barack Obama more or less proposes Mitt Romney's platform to resolve the Fiscal Cliff.

He has demonstrated with absolute clarity that he is on the side of large Corporations and not on the side of ordinary Americans.


WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, with his latest fiscal cliff offer, proposes extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning less than $400,000 a year, and paying for it by increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting Social Security and Medicare.
Obama's offer would allow the payroll tax holiday to expire, meaning middle class workers will see smaller paychecks in 2013. Economists have warned that the recovery is too fragile to risk a broad tax hike on workers. It would also gradually reduce Social Security, pension and disability benefits seniors are due to receive, taking a small bite up front, but building up to much larger cuts over time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/obama-social-security-fiscal-cliff_n_2319850.html

Obama's latest proposals to resolve the so called "fiscal cliff" sound more like Mitt Romney's platform every day.
N.B. The tax rates for those making more than $400,000 is a red herring. It affects a trivial amount of revenue.



HSBC settlement - a slap on the wrist shareholder penalty of 5 weeks of revenues.

William K Black quite rightly asks on Huffington Post "Why did Obama save a criminal enterprise like HSBC?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/hsbc-settlement_b_2291859.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Why didn't Obama take away HSBC's US banking license?
Why didn't he put some HSBC execs in jail?

Monsanto - why are about a dozen ex senior Monsanto employees are now in positions of influence in government?

Why is Monsanto getting carte blanche in the latest Agriculture Bill?
“The Farmers Assurance Provision” is the title of a rider, Section 733, inserted into the House of Representatives 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Somehow, as a farmer, I don’t feel the least bit assured. It allows carte blanche for Monsanto not to have to obtain FDA approval before planting."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/14/monsanto-gets-its-way-in-ag-bill/#.UM5m7goxJiA.twitter

Why aren't Joe Corzine and Jamie Dimon in jail over the MF Global theft from client segregated accounts and other frauds?

Continued at :-
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/barack-obama-demonstrates-his-true.html

29 replies, 2038 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Barack Obama, in a breathtaking display of cynicism, blatantly sells out to large Corporations (Original post)
Ian62 Dec 2012 OP
djean111 Dec 2012 #1
newfie11 Dec 2012 #2
bowens43 Dec 2012 #3
madrchsod Dec 2012 #4
RandiFan1290 Dec 2012 #5
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #6
RandiFan1290 Dec 2012 #7
Ian62 Dec 2012 #8
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #10
Ian62 Dec 2012 #18
Ian62 Dec 2012 #19
Ian62 Dec 2012 #22
Recursion Dec 2012 #27
latebloomer Dec 2012 #9
Ian62 Dec 2012 #12
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #11
Ian62 Dec 2012 #13
Ian62 Dec 2012 #14
ananda Dec 2012 #15
snot Dec 2012 #17
Safetykitten Dec 2012 #16
woo me with science Dec 2012 #20
leftstreet Dec 2012 #21
Mona Dec 2012 #23
MineralMan Dec 2012 #24
Ian62 Dec 2012 #25
spanone Dec 2012 #26
TorchTheWitch Dec 2012 #28
Rocky888 Dec 2012 #29

Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:27 AM

1. Oh noes! you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good!

Good for corporations, not American citizens. Well, good for 1% of them, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:30 AM

2. The seniors are screwed

But corporations are very happy ( their people too my friend)!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:45 AM

3. Make no mistake obama is laughing at us. 'LOL!! Fooled them again!!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:13 AM

4. i guess there really is`t any difference between romney and obama

oh shit....i wasted a half an hour of my day just to vote for obama. oh well i`ll never do that again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:20 AM

5. Why own 1 party

When you have enough money to own both of them?

Such a fight over these tax cuts... Did Democrats put up this much of a fight when Bush got them passed?
I remember them passing quite easily only 5 months after Bush took office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandiFan1290 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:22 AM

6. Not really. One set of the Bush tax cuts took Cheney to break a 50-50 tie.

 

This whole OP is garbage though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:29 AM

7. No deals? No grand bargain?

Why did they just give the tax cuts away and accelerate them in 2003 without getting anything in return?

OP is right on the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:32 AM

8. Please explain which facts I have got wrong or otherwise counter

 

with evidence.

Just saying the OP is garbage when I have given evidence and links to each of my points does not really cut it.

Did you read the whole article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:46 AM

10. There was no "sell out" to those companies. That is the main gist of your post.

 

HSBC paid a record $1.9 billion fine which dwarfed the previous record fine of $550 million Goldman paid.

MF Global broke no law and all the funds were located.

Obama is keeping the most important of the Bush tax cuts - the 10% bottom rate. The SS payroll tax cut was always meant to be temporary.

You are wrongly implying that there is a quid pro quo happening. There is no such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:14 PM

18. HSBC received a fine of $1.9bn

 

They made over $11bn in profits in 2011.
No HSBC execs have been punished.
HSBC have been money laundering for years.

Several commentators have stated that banks are now above the law, including the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/opinion/hsbc-too-big-to-indict.html?_r=0
"It is a dark day for the rule of law. Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. They also have not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions."

If you do not punish bad behavior with adequate penalties, you will get more of it.

Money laundering within large banks is endemic. There have been several recent cases already.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/money-laundering-by-large-banks-is.html



The funds stolen from MF Global segregated accounts (what is left of the $1.5bn) is sitting in JP Morgan's accounts. The money has not been returned to it's rightful owners.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:25 PM

19. The SS payroll tax cut was supposed to have been temporary

 

but considering the state that the economy is in :-

U6 unemployment is at 15%
record numbers are on Food Stamps
Corporate profits are at record levels

Why is is the payroll tax cut not being extended for marginal/middle class tax payers and paid for by raising Corporation Tax revenues from some of their abundant profits?
By closing tax loopholes used by large Corporations to pay next to nothing in taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:42 PM

22. Why hasn't Obama at least declared that

 

Joe Corzine, Jamie Dimon and the board of HSBC are unfit persons to manage other people's money?
You have to be authorised by the regulators in order to be able to do this.

Corzine is planning to set up another hedge fund. What sort of investors do you think he is going to attract?

Jamie Dimon is CEO of a bank with $70 trillion in derivatives.
He also sits on the board of the NY Federal Reserve, a clear conflict of interest.

JP Morgan lost about $6bn on the London Whale trade. They said it was a hedge, but in reality it was speculation making a loss.
Do you want to be on the hook with Jamie Dimon managing $70 trillion?

Jamie Dimon has not stolen client segregated accounts just once. He also did it when PFG collapsed. There is nothing at all to stop him doing it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:20 AM

27. Because Presidents don't "declare people unfit persons", maybe? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:39 AM

9. This is all appalling

and, unfortunately, not at all surprising.

I am confused, however- how do you extend taxcuts for people earning under $400K and ALSO have a middle-class tax increase?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to latebloomer (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:53 AM

12. Under the fiscal cliff as it currently stands - taxes rise substantially for EVERYBODY

 

E.G. the lowest tax rate of 10% disappears into the 15% band. Every tax band goes up.

In addition the payroll tax cut of 2% is set to expire.

Obama is now proposing keeping the tax rates for those earning under $400k the same as 2012 but letting the 2% payroll tax cut expire - so everybody's tax bills are going to go up in 2013.

Tax changes for 2013 as they currently stand
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/178778/Income+Tax/2013+Federal+Income+Tax+Update

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:47 AM

11. I agree on the HSBC and Monsanto

To be upset over the move from $250,000 to $400,000, on the other hand, strikes me as ridiculous.

The Republicans started at "Absolutely no tax rate hikes ever."

They then moved to "OK, tax rate hikes."

They then moved to "OK, tax rate hikes at $1,000,000."

If they go for tax rate hikes at $400,000, they will have given a) the principle, and b) $600,000+ for the level. Obama will have given $150,000 for level, period. That's a loss? Indeed, it's really effectively $388,500, since that's where the top tax bracket starts. Obama will have given up $137,500 as the level in exchange for a permanent 39.5% rate on anything bigger than the top bracket? That's a loss? I'm mystified by this thinking.

Oh, well, people say, he should have just gone over the cliff! But he's giving away the payroll tax holiday! Um, what do you think happens to the payroll tax holiday if we go over the cliff? What do you think happens to middle class paychecks if we go over the cliff? Oh, we'll dare them to vote it down next year, then make them extinct! Sounds like a very plump couple of birds in a bush.

Now, let me say to close that you're absolutely right on chained CPI. It is a horrible idea and I hope we avoid it. Ultimately, I'd like to see the policy effects of the various protections, but you're right that chained CPI is shit and should not be on the table. But to complain about the $400,000 level strikes me as ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:04 AM

13. I am saying the $400k number is a trivial red herring

 

designed as a sop to Democrat opinion and supporters.

The amount of revenue expected to be raised by increasing taxes for those on more than $250k was equivalent to about 8 days of government spending.
It was about $80bn annually. 2012 spending is circa $3,500bn

Obviously the tax revenue raised will be quite a bit less if it is only going to apply to those on over $400k.

Obama's own projections for his 2013 deficit during the election was about $1,100bn.

The Republicans and Democrats have created a sham argument over taxing the rich equivalent to something like $50bn a year.

There are easy ANNUAL savings of $1 TRILLION plus from government waste.
But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going near them. They would somewhat reduce Corporate profits, which are currently at record highs (read my full article & the links within it).
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/it-is-very-easy-to-cut-1tn-from-federal.html

Why isn't Obama going after CORPORATION TAX loopholes as a revenue raising measure? That alone would raise more than the circa $50bn the sham argument is about.

Corporate profits are at record levels. But large multinationals pay next to nothing in Corporation Tax.

The solution to the current economic stagnation is simple.
The balance between record Corporate profits and real wages hitting new lows must be addressed.
You would have thought this would be a dominant Democrat meme. But it isn't.

Keeping the payroll tax cut and closing Corporate Tax loopholes whereby large Corporations siphon off US generated profits to tax havens like Bermuda (Google) to pay for it would be one small step in the right direction.

Reducing the huge amounts of government waste so that you do not need to collect so much tax from the lower and middle class taxpayers would be another step in the right direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:00 AM

14. The latest Pro Big Banking scandal is UBS Libor fixing slap on the wrist

 

UBS are set to receive a circa $1.5bn slap on the wrist shareholder fine.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/uk-ubs-libor-idUKBRE8BI00L20121219

Apparently 36 traders are under investigation for possible criminal charges.
But you can be sure that no one of importance on the UBS board will go to jail.
After all the ex chairman of UBS's American section, Robert Wolf, was a regular golfing partner of Obama. He remains a "senior advisor" to UBS.

UBS Libor fixing in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/19/ubs-1bn-libor-payments-to-brokers


The person assigned by Barack Obama to supposedly "get tough" on Libor fixing is Gary Gensler, chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Needless to say Gary Gensler is an ex senior Goldman Sachs banker, employed by the firm for 18 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gensler

Libor scandal : The biggest financial fraud of all time
http://www.businessinsider.com/libor-scandal-biggest-financial-fraud-of-all-time-2012-12

The author of the above article neglects to mention American banks such as JP Morgan which are intimately involved in setting Libor rates.

Some UBS trader discussions on setting Libor rates

A $1.5bn fine. Sounds like a lot but in relation to the trillion dollar derivative markets hanging on every tick and reset from this now-proven-to-be-entirely-false market, it seems a fine is too easy. Just as with Barclays, the UBS traders (who combined their LIBOR submission and proprietary trading units from 2005 to 2009) used hints and suggestions and requests for "market color" to ensure fixes were exactly where they needed them up and down the curve. The quotes and hubris are entirely damning and also show a totally willful disregard for capture (especially following a discussion of the mainstream media noting 'odd' LIBOR quotes during the crisis). This went from top to bottom in the organization, summed up perfectly in this one exchange: "...It is highly advisable to err on the low side with fixings for the time being to protect our franchise in these sensitive markets. Fixing risk and PNL thereof is secondary priority for now."

The Problem:

During the period from 1 January 2005 to 1 September 2009 (in relation to LIBOR) and to October 2009 (in relation to EURIBOR), UBS combined the roles of determining its LIBOR and EURIBOR submissions and proprietary trading in derivative products referenced to LIBOR and EURIBOR. This combination of roles was a fundamental flaw in organisational structure given the inherent conflict of interest between these two roles and the absence of any effective means of managing that conflict. There was a clear conflict between the obligation to make submissions in accordance with the published criteria and the responsibility for the profitability of trading positions.
The hubris:

individuals referred to each other in congratulatory and exhortatory terms such as “the three muscateers ”, “SUPERMAN”, “BE A HERO TODAY” and “captain caos ”
The Simplicity of the cheat:

UBS’s systems and controls did not prevent Traders from persisting with their Internal Requests and attempting to influence submissions by camouflaging them as “market colour”.
The Reason:

“... It is highly advisable to err on the low side with fixings for the time being to protect our franchise in these sensitive markets. Fixing risk and PNL thereof is secondary priority for now”.
Media Attention:

Increased media attention in height of the crisis drove significant management pressure and demands: These were to “err on the low side”, be in the “middle of the pack”, “move towards... issuance levels” and revert back to “middle of the pack” when determining its LIBOR submissions between August 2007 and at least December 2008.
The To and Fro of Cheating...

“if you keep 6s unchanged today ... I will fucking do one humongous deal with you ... Like a 50,000 buck deal, whatever ... I need you to keep it as low as possible ... if you do that .... I’ll pay you, you know, 50,000 dollars, 100,000 dollars... whatever you want ... I’m a man of my word”

“...mates with the cash desks, and i always help each other out” with the result that “3m libor is too high cause I have kept it artificially high.”

"as i said before - i dun mind helping on your fixings, but i’m not setting libor 7bp away from the truth i’ll get ubs banned if i do that, no interest in that"

“if you drop your 6M dramatically on the 11th mate, it ·will look v fishy, especially if and go with you. I’d be v careful how you play it, there might be cause for a drop as you cross into a new month but a couple of weeks in might get people questioning you.” Trader A replied: “don’t worry will stagger the drops ...”
Some Concern But Generally Too Egotistical To Fail...

“i agree we shouldnt ve been talking about putting fixings for our positions on public chat”.

Manager D commented “great article in the WSJ today about the libor problem”. Trader-Submitter A replied “ ... just reading it”. Approximately two hours after that discussion the following exchange occurred:
Trader-Submitter D: “mate any axe in libors?”
Manager D: “higher pls”
Trader-Submitter D: “93?”
Manager D: “pls”
Trader-Submitter D: “k”
From Top to Bottom

“...the guidance I got from my management with regards to libors is that we should aim to be in the middle of the pack ..."


Bit apart from that, we are sure UBS is an upstanding bank worthy of wealthy clients' trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:03 AM

15. Ouch

-- Bit apart from that, we are sure UBS is an upstanding bank worthy of wealthy clients' trust. --

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:44 AM

17. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:05 AM

16. You see, it is a BIG plan. Corzine has superpowers, flies to another planet to get rare new element

 

for Monsanto, Monsanto invents new fertilizer that makes 30' corn, Monsanto people in government approve new corn, HSBC then finances new corn farms, and corn requires more workers to harvest, and EVERYONE is happy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Safetykitten (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:27 PM

20. Yeaaaaaaah.

That's the ticket!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:30 PM

21. Maybe he'll get another Nobel prize n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:57 PM

23. By his own admission...

He would have been considered a left-leaning republican years ago, but the country's politics have shifted so far to the right, the democratic party is where he best fits now.

For us die hard democrats, there is no party that truthfully serves us. They have learned how to talk the talk to get our votes, but not to walk the walk.

I voted for Obama, as disapppointed in him as I was during his first term. He *was* the leser of two evils, and will do some good things. Romney is a sociopath, and if we ever wondered how bad things could get, his presidency would have been a good example. I don't buy the argument that there isn't a difference - there is a huge difference, just not as much as I would like

Fyi, can't read the blog on my mobile, get a weird split screen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:11 PM

24. Trouble is, you're not linking to news. You're linking to opinion.

There is a difference. But thanks for trying, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:31 AM

25. I am sure that if Obama proposed closing Corporate Tax loopholes

 

before any social benefits cuts were applied and/or extending the payroll tax cut it would enjoy the support of the vast majority of Americans.

I am listing specific events and statements.
Then reporting some opinions of these events, e.g. from Matt Taibbi & NY Times; and then adding my own opinion of the whole package.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:40 AM

26. tons of bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:25 AM

28. and why would anyone be surprised?

Where do people think his campaign money comes from? Dems threw in the towel and started taking money from Big Corp since Reagan killed the unions... and since then the Dem party has been in Big Corp's pocket.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:26 AM

29. The payroll tax is the social security trust fund! We need to pay it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread