when Kansas tried trumpy like taxes it failed

Chris Cox

Photo Illustration; Cox: Roger L. Wollenberg / Landov: Getty

The ex-SEC chief's blindness to repeated allegations of fraud in the Madoff scandal is mind-blowing, but it's really his lax enforcement that lands him on this list. Cox says his agency lacked authority to limit the massive leveraging that set up last year's financial collapse. In truth, the SEC had plenty of power to go after big investment banks like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch for better disclosure, but it chose not to. Cox oversaw the dwindling SEC staff and a sharp drop in action against some traders.


the republicans planned the crash

they wanted at the baby boomers money


it was in their homes



they got a fuck ton of that
 
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
 
Some Firms Elude Anti-Money Laundering Rules

A regulation requiring broker-dealer subsidiaries of banks to report suspicious activities to the government has gone unenforced since passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the General Accounting Office reported. As a result, large portions of the financial system are outside the reach of anti-money laundering initiatives.

A regulation requiring broker-dealer subsidiaries of banks to report suspicious activities to the government has gone unenforced since passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the General Accounting Office reported. As a result, large portions of the financial system are outside the reach of anti-money laundering initiatives.

The regulation, issued by the Treasury Department in 1996, requires depository institutions-including broker-dealer subsidiaries-to file Suspicious Activity Reports, or SARs, whenever criminal activity is suspected.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime




By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer


Prostitution scandal developments[edit]
On July 16, 2008, The New York Times published an article that explained how Spitzer used campaign funds to pay for two Mayflower Hotel bookings, $411.06 apiece, where he was alleged to have met with prostitutes. While it remains unclear if Spitzer stayed in the hotel on the nights he booked, The Times has stated that Spitzer met with prostitutes in early 2008. Spitzer declined to comment on the issue.[101]
In November 2008, prosecutors who were in charge of the case announced that Spitzer would not face criminal charges for his involvement in the sex ring. They cited that no evidence of misuse of public funds was found and therefore it would not serve the public interest to press charges against Spitzer. The disgraced former Governor offered an apology for his conduct, saying "I appreciate the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and I acknowledge and accept responsibility for the conduct it disclosed."[102]



the white house madam


the same one Vitter got caught wearing diapers to


Vitter was re elected


Spitzer resigned


hmmmmmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top