HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » TAIBBI: "The adminis...

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 01:47 PM

TAIBBI: "The administration is clearly listening to the Occupy movement."


Is Obama's 'Economic Populism' for Real?

...................

Seriously: despite what people think, the crimes weíre dealing with are not terribly complicated, and any veteran investigator would grasp the basic concept Ė taking worthless crap and selling it as high-end merchandise Ė within ten minutes. The most important element contributing to the success of a committee like this is a locked room full of clean hands. And Breuer and Khuzami are not a good start.

But itís too early to say what is going on. Everything that Iíve heard about Schneiderman in the last year leads me to believe that heís the genuine article. I havenít heard a single thing suggesting otherwise. But there are certainly a lot of curious elements here. For one thing, as Yves Smith points out, Schneiderman really isnít getting much extra authority by taking this post. As New York AG he could already have taken this investigation anywhere he wanted:

Itís clear what the Administration is getting from getting Schneiderman aligned with them. It is much less clear why Schneiderman is signing up. He can investigate and prosecute NOW. He has subpoena powers, staff, and the Martin Act. He doesnít need to join a Federal committee to get permission to do his job. And this is true for ALL the others agencies represented on this committee. They have investigative and enforcement powers they have chosen not to use. So we are supposed to believe that a group, ex Schneiderman, that has been remarkably complacent, will suddenly get religion on the mortgage front because they are all in a room and Schneiderman is a co-chair?

One thing we do know: Obamaís decision to tap Schneiderman publicly, and dump Geithner, and whisper about a millionaireís tax, signals a shift in its public attitude toward the Wall Street corruption issue. The administration is clearly listening to the Occupy movement. Whether itís now acting on their complaints, or just trying to look like itís doing something, is another question. Itís way too early to tell. But itís certainly very interesting.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/is-obamas-economic-populism-for-real-20120126#ixzz1kgKVU3bD

10 replies, 4312 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

Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 01:54 PM

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 01:55 PM

2. always

always welcome
Uncle Joe

peace, kpete

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 01:56 PM

3. I believe there is more to the OWS and Obama

than meets the eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 06:57 PM

4. An optimistic answer to Taibbi's question, why appoint men who have had the authority to enforce3

laws but haven't done it?

Because these men might change their minds if legal issues and a legal point of view that is not part of their specific expertise were presented to them?

Or, because there is some broader criminal issue than these men deal with in their specific assignments?

Or, because two of the men think that everything that was done was legal. If the third man can convince them otherwise, then they have a legal case that can be won even against the formidable army of lawyers that the Wall Street crowd will hire.

Just being right does not win a case. Strategy is everything. And think of the variety and scope of issues: garden-variety criminal fraud, securities fraud, securities regulation violations and housing and investment issues. Wow. It cuts across a huge slice of our economy and our law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 09:49 PM

5. The only trouble is -- 1 + 1 = 2 works in real life, but

the math turns out different solutions when dollars and lobbyists
and big dollar pay outs to The Wealthiest Bank Accounts
become involved.

This looks GREAT, but who knows how it's going to come out,
given recent history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 10:47 AM

6. Reagan put 1000 banksters behind bars in 1986 - Pres. Obama, are you to the left or right of Reagan?

So far, after a much more criminal series of fraudulent acts, ZERO banksters are in jail; none have been even indicted. The president has given his tacit blessing to the bankster fraud by NOT forcing investigations into the numerous crimes committed, IMO.

After the S&L scandal, 1000 banksters were jailed under the Ronald Reagan administration. The question for our president is: are you a Democrat, are you to the right of Ronald Reagan or are you to the left of Reagan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to txlibdem (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 11:50 AM

7. Funny how Neil Bush was not included.

There have been some bankster arrests recently.

But, let's not forget WBush took all the FBI white collar crime investigators off white collar crime and into anti-terrorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:25 PM

9. Are you excusing the lack of arrests of these bankster criminals?

I don't think that's an argument you'd win.

Let me repeat: Ronald Reagan put 1000 banksters in jail after the S&L crisis. Shouldn't we expect "our" President to be at least as forceful against the banksters in this most recent crisis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to txlibdem (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:46 PM

10. Nooo! Now, over 100 of Reagan's administration were convicted, but, do you have a link on banksters?

W Bush's change of the FBI to the anti-terror was foolish and even farcical. But, I take anything that old drunk did as worthless. (Ask anyone to name two good things he did and they can't recall one.)

What the banksters did was legal as far as the S&Ls were concerned. (Aside from the usual crop of Ponzi schemers.)

Thus, Neil walked away without a scratch to work on selling his school systems during his brother's no child left a behind.

I would like it if Obama pulled a W Bush and changed the DOJ and the FBI using the Patriot Act. Trouble is that the SEC gave permission to collateralize the CDOs and CDSs in Apri 2004 under W Bush. (Note, just months before his re-selection, and that the press did not report it until October 2008.)

So, if you have a link, I'd like to review it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 01:16 PM

8. Anyone who listened to SOTU last year,

and compares it to the language of SOTU this year,
will be for forced to acknowledge the effect of OWS.
The only thing President Obama didn't borrow from OWS this year are the "uptwinkles" and "downtwinkles" sign language.









You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread