Why has Barack Obama been such a chicken and not hired Bill to get it done? He's a weak President. You give him the power, and he squanders it. Where's FDR? To Hell with Reagan (well, not literally: mercy and forgiveness; hope he's finally repentant).
Barack Obama said the following:
Well, first on the issue of prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehmans and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn't necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless....
via President Clears Wall Street Of Crimes (worth reading too).
Bill Black disagrees (below) with Barack Obama and says that the same things that were done concerning the bankrupt Savings and Loans could be done regarding the bankster banks. Bill has also made clear that banking regulators have gone in and unwound banks many times. It's routine. There have been plenty of bank failures. The federal government steps in all the time. Bill has laid out a clear plan (also below). Here's some of the deliberate disinformation William K. Black is countering:
In remarks byÂ Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart, he said regulators do not have a system in place that would allow orderly failures of the largest financial firms without taxpayer rescues.
Lockhart said in his speech:
"The system we should work toward is one in which no institution is too big to fail," Lockhart said today in a speech in Atlanta. "Much is being done in the aftermath of the Fed's and the Treasury's emergency interventions of 2008 to get to this state of affairs, but, in my view, this is a longer-term aspiration at this moment."
Here's an article by Bill Black published just yesterday: "The Cost of Theoclassical Economics and Economists."
Bill Black is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He spent years working on regulatory policy and fraud prevention as Executive Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention, Litigation Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Deputy Director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement, among other positions.
Bill writes a column for Benzinga every Monday. His other academic articles, congressional testimony, and musings about the financial crisis can be found at his Social Science Research Network author page and at the blog New Economic Perspectives.
Bill Black is an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City (UMKC). He is a white-collar criminologist. He was the Executive Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention from 2005-2007.
The article is a wide-ranging, and properly negative, critique of the so-called "Washington Consensus," which is a shorthanded way of referring to global (including internal to the US, as the article makes clear) imperialism by predatory [and often terroristic] capitalists (neoliberals). The "liberal" in "neoliberal" means laissez-faire, as the "conservatives" of the time when laissez-faire capitalism was begun were the "nobility" who didn't want to cede power to the "merchant class." The neoliberals are not the cultural "liberals" of today.
I take umbrage with both of those connotations of the term "liberal," as the use of the term in the name of this Church is designed to take back the term to restore its original, even Biblical, meaning that does not include libertinism (or a license to iniquitous behavior). Liberty/freedom is not the so-called right to do evil. Freedom is being free from evil. That's why Jesus's yoke is the lightest.
...it is time to place the financial institutions that committed widespread fraud in receivership. We should remove the senior leadership of the banks and replace them with experienced bankers with a reputation for integrity and competence, i.e., the honest officers that quit or were fired because they refused to engage in fraud. We should prioritize the receiverships to deal with the worst known "control frauds" among the "systemically dangerous institutions" (SDIs). The SDIs' frauds and fraudulent leaders endanger the global economy.
We propose Bank of America for the first receivership. In the last few weeks, the SEC has obtained a large (albeit grossly inadequate) settlement of its civil fraud charges against the former senior leaders of Countrywide. (Bank of America acquired Countrywide and is responsible for its frauds.) Fannie and Freddie's investigations — with their findings reviewed by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) — have identified many billions of dollars of fraudulent loans originated by Countrywide that were sold fraudulently to Fannie and Freddie through false representations and warranties. The Fed, BlackRock, and Pimco's investigations have identified many billions of dollars of fraudulent loans provided by Countrywide under false reps and warranties. Ambac's investigation found that 97% of the Countrywide loans reviewed by Ambac were had false reps and warranties. Countrywide also engaged in widespread foreclosure fraud. This is not surprising, for every aspect of Countrywide's nonprime mortgage operations that has been examined by a truly independent body has found widespread fraud — in loan origination, loan sales, appraisals, and foreclosures. Fraud begets fraud. Lenders that are control frauds create criminogenic environments that produce "echo" epidemics of control fraud in other professions and industries.
Appointing a receiver for an SDI [a systemically dangerous institution] will be a major undertaking for the FDIC, but it is also well within its capabilities. Contrary to the scare mongering about "nationalizing" banks [I'm for nationalization! There's no fear here about that. Nationalization's a good thing if done/run correctly.], receivers are used to returning failed banks to private ownership. Receiverships are managed by experienced bankers with records of competence and integrity rather than the dread "bureaucrats." We appointed roughly a thousand receivers during the S&L and banking crises of the 1980s and early 1990s under Presidents Reagan and Bush.
Here is how it works. A receiver is appointed on Friday. The bank opens for business as normal (from the bank's customers' perspective) on Monday. The checks clear, the ATMs work, and the branches all open. The receiver's managers direct the business operations, find the true facts about the bank's operations, senior managers, and financial condition, recognize the real losses, and make the appropriate referrals to the FBI and the SEC so that the frauds can be investigated and prosecuted.
The receiver is also a well-proven device for splitting up banks that are too large and incoherent by selling units of the business to different bidders who most value the operations.
The major thing I constantly disagree with about Bill's writing is that he gives the opposition way too much the benefit of the doubt as to their motives. What I'm saying is that even though Bill is obviously brilliant and knows a great deal about prosecuting financial criminals, he's still too naive and gullible about the true characters of those, such as John Williamson.John Williamson may not appear the shady person on the outside, but even the disingenuousness showing through about him in Bill Black's article speaks to Williamson's willingness to allow the criminal Plutocrats to roam the Earth as ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.
Bill needs a pair of those movie sunglasses that let him see the serpents.
Nevertheless, if a secular government is what you want and if you want to clean up "Wall Street," William K. Black should head your short list for the position of "new sheriff in town." I'd actually give him the job were I Barack Obama and not a wimp or sort of clandestinely most interested in finally lining my own pockets (sellout from the beginning).
John Williamson has been at this process of mininizing his hand in the current economic crash and criminal behavior rampant as a result of his "Washington Consensus" for a long time: "Evaluating the "Washington Consensus"."
Now, to those "Christians" out there, let me say that the Wall Street banksters are the dogs of Hell to Bill Blacks avenging Archangel Michael. That's the Old Testament/Covenant view.
I'm actually for the New Covenant, but apparently the rest of the world hasn't even reached the level of the righteousness of the Pharisees yet.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Jesus the Christ; Yahushua Ha Mashiach; Yah Saves the Anointed One (Matthew 5:20)
The "best" secular solution:
- The Federal Reserve should be nationalized, ASAP!
- All Federal Reserve Notes should be immediately designated as United States Notes (USN; interest-and-tax free).
- The money supply should be pegged to real productivity and regulated in real-time via super computers connected to nodes inputting all transactions. (This would be a temporary measure on the road to a moneyless society.)
- What constitutes Real Productivity would be nearly everything considered productive today less "finance capitalism" in the sense used by Marx. (Note: I am not a Marxist.)
- Those USN should be used to completely pay off the National Debt.
- The banking system should be a public utility.
- Usury (loans at any interest not just high interest) should be banned as the inherent evil that it is.
- The people through their government should declare a Jubilee (for one thing: forgiveness of all debts).
- From there, democracy in the workplace and economic democracy should reign completely, displacing the great evil known as "Capitalism" that's worshipped by mammon worshipers the world over.
Recent related Posts:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)