Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

He's Back...The Return of Elliot Spitzer...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babsbunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:00 PM
Original message
He's Back...The Return of Elliot Spitzer...
http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/03/hes-backthe-return-of-elliot-spitzer.html

Elliot Spitzer is back and hes talking. The thought of this, no doubt, brings a small shiver to the boardrooms of some of the perps walking around trying to figure out how to hide the money this week. Today Edward Liddy testified that there have been death threats made to or about executives who received bonuses, so no names will be put on the record, but these anonymous players must know that the jig is up in the land of easy-money. Isn't what to do a no-brainer for these great Americans?

Spitzer may be as "disgraced" as any anonymous sex loving Republican loser, but America is known for its great second acts, and we may be witnessing the curtain rising on Spitzer's.
Today in Slate Elliot Spitzer has a short op-ed that speaks volumes about what is going on, and indirectly, if you follow the money, what happened to him. Plainly stated, Spitzer brings the AIG Ponzi Scheme one step closer to the revered establishment when he explains how the bailout money was funneled straight into the top players, with Goldman Sachs being the name that comes up again and again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. "..anonymous sex loving Republican loser..." Huh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Wow! Who is that in your message? Santo "El Enmascarado de Plata"?
Mexican masked wrestler? Whoever it is, HE ROCKS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Ultra Man. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Republican loser?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. At least they heard our plea
He'll be Fareed Zakaria's guest on Sunday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. Nothing against Spitzer
but why wasn't he talking before? Why wait until the week of the bones outrage to find his voice? AIG did their most outrageous acts in 07 and 08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. he was...no one listened..
For instance:


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

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.
ad_icon

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.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanks for posting that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. He was. That's why he was targeted via illegal (probably) wiretaps to shut him up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danascot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. and this from 12/3/09: Too Big Not To Fail

"We need to stop using the bailouts to rebuild gigantic financial institutions."

http://www.slate.com/id/2205995/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. He's been talking for a decade. He's been after AIG for years. He went after Greenburg
personally. He went after the banks. The Bush security apparatus took him down for specifically that reason. Spitzer was very close to exposing the entire scam when they cut him off (with his own help).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. I for one will listen to him.
I know, that he knows exactly what has been going on.
I don't give a shit about his hookered past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Me too. Went to hooker. Warned about economic collapse.
On balance, I want Spitzer to speak out more often. He was the cop on Wall Street.

I don't care about his sex life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. he was probably set up by the powers that be
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-20-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I think he was. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC