Daily Archives: December 14, 2014

Fed Vice Chairman Shocked At Wall Street Influence After Jamie Dimon “Whips” Cromnibus Votes

Gee ya think???


As The Wall Street Journal reports,

Stanley Fischer gave some unscheduled remarks Friday morning at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, waxing philosophic about the global process for setting financial-system rules.

Mr. Fischer suggested rules set directly by legislatures can be imperfect, lamenting the role of Wall Street banks in shaping the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

“I thought that when Dodd-Frank started, that the banks would not succeed in influencing it, having lost all the prestige they lost,” he told a crowd of several dozen at the Washington, D.C., think tank. “Boy, was I wrong.”

Mr. Fischer also recalled how during his time leading the Bank of Israel, he felt keenly aware of political considerations. When his central bank colleagues asserted that the institution acted independently of the elected government, his reply was, “Yes. And we are two bad decisions away from not being an independent central bank.”

Did the political influence of big Wall Street banks wane after the financial crisis? Not according to the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Fischer begins speaking at around the 1:06:30 mark…


New G20 Rules: Cyprus-style Bail-ins to Hit Depositors AND Pensioners

Interesting article…


On the weekend of November 16th, the G20 leaders whisked into Brisbane, posed for their photo ops, approved some proposals, made a show of roundly disapproving of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and whisked out again. It was all so fast, they may not have known what they were endorsing when they rubber-stamped the Financial Stability Board’s “Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution,” which completely changes the rules of banking.

View original post 1,568 more words

A movement and a hashtag has been born from the Wall Street giveaways in the spending bill: #CitigroupShutdown

Elizabeth Warren pic

#CitigroupShutdown from Twitter feed

 Thanks to Congress and now Senate that voted yes to the Wall Street giveaways snucked in to the spending bill that passed in both legislative branches, the government is now the whole subsidiary of Wall Street:

Fire the yes men/women Congress? Absolutely.:

Democrats Who Voted For The Cromnibus Received Double The Money From Wall Street Than “No” Voters

It’s all about the benjamins…


What exactly motivated those 57 Democrats to break ranks with the rest of their party – the 139 democrats voted against the spending bill – and to be not only on the receiving end of Elizabeth Warren’s ire, but also accountable for dumping a few hundred trillions of derivatives into the laps of US taxpayers.

The answer, what else: money. The WaPo reports:

“We cross-referenced the vote with data from the Center for Responsive Politics on how much each member had received in campaign contributions from the finance/insurance/real estate industries. This isn’t only from PACs affiliated with those industries, we’ll note; it also includes employees of firms in those industries. On average, members of Congress who voted yes received $322,000 from those industries. Those who voted no? $162,000. Here’s the split by party.

Averages can be deceiving, of course, so here’s another way to look at it. We color-coded each member of the House by party and then by how much money he or she had received from those industries as a function of the member who had received the most. On the chart below, darker colors mean the members took in more cash from the finance sector.

It’s clearly noticeable, particularly on the Democratic side, how those who had received the most in campaign contributions were also more likely to vote “yes” on the bill.

Justice Department Downplays Evidence of Politics in Probe of Former Alabama Governor

New evidence related to one of the most controversial public corruption cases in recent years, the 2006 conviction of Alabama’s former Democratic Governor, Donald E. Siegelman, indicates that Department of Justice prosecutors, who are supposed to ignore politics, were thinking and acting in partisan terms when they probed the governor’s administration.

The same evidence illustrates a systemic problem at the Justice Department: When the Department investigates allegations of misconduct by its own prosecutors, it typically avoids transparency or public accountability. As a result, the public can be left with a question: Is the Justice Department whitewashing prosecutorial abuse?

In 2002, during the Justice Department’s investigation of Siegelman’s administration, a federal prosecutor emailed the son and campaign manager of Siegelman’s principal Republican opponent updating him on the confidential probe, according to a Justice Department document obtained by the Project On Government Oversight and reported here for the first time.

In the email, the prosecutor said he had been “thwarted” after starting an investigation “into the Siegelman administration.” He added that it was “frustrating for me and a small group of like minded conservative prosecutors” to “fight the tide in order to do the job we are sworn to do.”

According to the document, an internal affairs unit at the Justice Department reviewed the email in the course of investigating whether various Department actions against Siegelman were “politically motivated.” The internal affairs unit, known as the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), determined that the prosecutor “should not have sent the e-mail. . .and that the fact he did so raised serious questions about his judgment, especially given his supervisory authority over public corruption cases.”

However, as in many OPR cases reviewed by the Project On Government Oversight for a report published in March 2014, there seems to be a disconnect between facts uncovered in the investigation and the conclusions drawn by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog.

Despite the email quoted above and other findings critical of “several current and former Department attorneys involved in the Siegelman cases,” OPR “concluded. . .that the evidence did not establish that political motivation played a role in the investigations or prosecution of Mr. Siegelman,” the document said.

Read on.

Senator Warren is nominated for a Grammy for her book A Fighting Chance

Congratulations Senator Warren on your Grammy nomination!



Actors Anonymous

James Franco

Label: Brilliance Audio

A Call To Action

Jimmy Carter

Label: Simon & Schuster Audio

Carsick: John Waters Hitchhikes Across America

John Waters

Label: Macmillan Audio

Diary Of A Mad Diva

Joan Rivers

Label: Penguin Audio

A Fighting Chance

Elizabeth Warren

Label: Macmillan Audio

We Will Survive: True Stories Of Encouragement, Inspiration, And The Power Of Song

Gloria Gaynor

Label: Brilliance Audio