Donald Trump - Business Genius? Not So Much

Click here for an article in The New York Times Magazine by Adam Davidson entitled "Behind the Gold Curtain of Donald Trump's Résumé." Quite a takedown.

No One Can Stand Ted Cruz

Samantha Bee's takedown of Ted Cruz (NSFW, of course; it's Samantha Bee).

Governance, Republican Style

This is a portion of a post from Daily Kos, "Spotlight on Green News," on June 8, 2016, by Meteor Blades:

Raúl Grijalva writes - Anti-Government Extremism and Protecting the Grand Canyon:

“This week marks the 110th anniversary of the Antiquities Act, a landmark law allowing presidents to designate national monuments on land owned by the federal government. Its signing by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 began the modern era of conservation, allowing Roosevelt to designate nearly twenty national monuments and protect natural and cultural resources that have come to define our country.

Many of the monuments he established, including the Grand Canyon in 1908, are now among our most popular national parks. The Antiquities Act, by any measure, has been a tremendous and popular success.

Despite that, the law is under constant attack by Congressional Republicans who mischaracterize the authority granted by the Act as a ‘land grab.’ House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was recently recorded at a public event saying that anyone who likes the Antiquities Act should ‘die’ so as to get ‘stupidity out of the gene pool.’ The Chairman went on to describe the law as “the most evil Act ever invented.’”

Words of wisdom from the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

This is what Republicans do. On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan made his inaugural speech, which included the following words:

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Along the same lines, Grover Norquist:

I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Republicans seek to cripple the federal government. When they've defunded and otherwise hamstrung a government department, they point their finger and shout: "See? It doesn't work!"

A key aspect of this is to appoint committee chairmen and agency heads who are committed to disabling the body to which they're appointed. They appoint staunch anti-environmentalists to the EPA; they place coal and oil executives at the head of agencies intended to curb pollution and act as watchdogs on the fossil fuel industry.

How do these bomb-throwers get elected?

Don't Forget The 2016 GOP Clown Car!

Samantha Bee recaps the runup to the selection of Trump as the Republican nominee. (NSFW; it's Samantha Bee.)

Prognostication By The Donald

"I’ve always won and I’m going to continue to win. And that’s the way it is."

That's the Trumpian worldview.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Donald, but in November 2016, that is going to come to a crashing end, and you will be known forever more as the biggest loser in the history of U.S. politics.

Tehran Tom Cotton Wants To "Inflict Pain" On Obama

Click here for an article by Karoli Kuns at Crooks & Liars entitled "'Tehran' Tom Cotton Held up Nation to 'Inflict Pain' on Obama."

There's statesmanship for you. Cotton, Junior Senator from Arkansas, held up the nomination of Cassandra Butts, a personal friend of Obama's from his law school days, for no reason other than the fact that denying her appointment as Ambassador to The Bahamas would "inflict pain" on Obama. (While her appointment was being delayed, Butts died of natural causes last week at the age of 50.)

Cotton had held up a number of Obama's nominations for ambassador trying to make a political point, but when that situation was resolved, he dropped his opposition to all of the others but Butts.

When she met with him to ask why the hold remained on her nomination, Cotton told her "that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s — the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates — and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president."

Well Done, Buzzfeed

[Update: The RNC ad buy in question was for $1.3 million.]

Click here for a full explanation at Crooks & Liars, in an article by Sarah P. entitled 'Buzzeed Tells RNC To Take Their Ad Money And Shove It."

In April, when there were still several Republican candidates in the primary race, Buzzfeed arranged to take a significant amount of money from the RNC (Republican National Committee, run by "obvious anagram Rience Priebus," (h/t Charlie Pierce at Esquire), to run ads for the Republican candidate in the fall. Buzzfeed takes ad money from both sides, as most major media organizations do.

That was then, this is now. Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, Buzzfeed has cancelled the arrangement. Buzzfeed CEO Jonah Peretti sent an email to employees explaining the decision. He finished with the following words:

We certainly don’t like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company. However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don’t run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won’t accept Trump ads for the exact same reason.

Whoa -- Mika? Pro Hillary?

I detest "Morning Joe" Scarborough, and I've never had a high opinion of his sidekick, Mika. But here she is (for some reason Joe's not there to treat her condescendingly, as he usually does), speaking plainly and powerfully about her agreement with Hillary Clinton in rejecting the craziness of Donald Trump. Play it; it's about a minute and a half.

The Trouble With Saudi Arabia

I've often told friends that two trouble spots in the Middle East that don't get a lot of press, but nevertheless present serious danger to the West, are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Mention of Pakistan doesn't raise too many eyebrows; while it doesn't get a lot of media attention, everyone knows Pakistan is shaky and unstable -- and has nuclear weapons.

My mention of Saudi Arabia, though, surprises people. Click here for an article in The New York Times by the editorial board, entitled "The World Reaps What the Saudis Sow."

The article discusses Saudi government support for the radical Wahabi sect that is spreading hatred and intolerance throughout the Middle East -- including within Saudi Arabia itself. The article concentrates on Saudi-funded Wahabi interference in tiny Kosovo (population 1.8 million), which has always been known for its moderate version of Islam.

Some quotes:

Ostensibly a critical ally, sheltered from its enemies by American arms and aid, the kingdom has spent untold millions promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State.

And:

Kosovo, rescued from Serbian oppression after months of NATO bombing in 1999, has been known as a tolerant society. For centuries, the Muslim majority has followed the liberal Hanafi version of Islam, which is accepting of others. Since the war, that tradition has been threatened by Saudi-trained imams, their costs paid by Saudi-sponsored charities, preaching the primacy of Shariah law and fostering violent jihad and takfirism, which authorizes the killing of Muslims viewed as heretics.

And:

The Sunni Arab states still do not seem to understand the extent to which extreme versions of Islam imperil them as well. Although the Saudi royal family relies on the Wahhabi clerics for their political legitimacy, the Islamic State accuses the monarchy of corrupting the faith to preserve its power. Since 2014, there have been 20 terrorist attacks in the kingdom, many staged by ISIS.

Goats On A Wall

Amazing footage of goats on the wall of a dam in Italy. Click here for a video of the goats (alpine ibex) on BBC.

Larry Bird - Magic Johnson

Here's an hour-and-a-half documentary on the Larry Bird/Magic Johnson rivalry.

Tesla Exploits Foreign Workers

Click here for an article at CBC News entitled "Tesla vows to address labour issues after report alleges cheap and unsafe jobs for foreign workers."

The article states that a Slovenian named Gregor Lesnik was injured on the job at a Tesla painting facility. Reporters looking into the story found that Lesnik worked as a subcontractor on a B-1 (business) visa. He was supposedly hired into a supervisory position, but was actually doing a lot of hands-on work in unsafe conditions; he suffered two broken legs and a concussion after a three-storey fall.

It turns out that Lesnik was one of 140 Eastern Europeans hired not directly by Tesla, but by Tesla's contractors, for as little as $5 an hour, with no benefits or protections, often in unsafe conditions.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded to the report by saying he "will investigate" the story and "make it right."

A Foreign Opinion Of Obama

I've copied an article by Richard Roy from Quora Digest entitled "What do people who don't live in the US think of Obama?" I think it's a pretty good encapsulation of Obama's presidency.

Another Brit opinion.. Mine (although I know it is shared by many Brits).

When Obama entered the international political stage I was pleased to see the US breaking the stereotypical 'middle aged white man' mold (even though I am a middle aged white man). The mere fact that America would entertain the prospect of a Black president was seen around the world as a big step forward for the nation that is the global leader.

When we began to hear his speeches that positivism was multiplied to the power of 10.... A potential black president who was intelligent, articulate, thoughtful and who, with every word, gained respect around the world.

When Obama won his first term it felt to me as though the world rejoiced -not just for themselves but for America as well!

I don't think many people around the world have a true understanding of just how tough the financial and political legacy he was left with has been for the Obama presidency. Not only has he had to clean up a fiscal mess far larger than any over the last 80 years, he has had to do this while ending two wars and has had to achieve this in the face of the most disruptive and bitter Republican opposition ever seen, by any president, since the American Civil war. Through all of this he has complained very little, maintained his composure and talked about solutions far more than he talks about his political opponents. He has spoken clearly and with passion and has acted in line with his speeches. Sure there are things he has not achieved but everyone knew where he stood and had to respect his genuine efforts to achieve the things he believed in.

In the teeth of huge adversity he has shown a charm and a character quite rightly admired by billions around the world. It is that charm and character that people began to associate with America and you could hardly ask for a more positive model. His personal life is a positive reflection of his public life.

We are not all Americans. We are not directly affected by the domestic politics of the US. But we are all, ultimately, affected by those politics. But from where I sit eight years of President Obama has lifted the worldwide reputation of the US out of a very nasty hole, into which the US reputation was vanishing very quickly, and brought that reputation back to life.

Enemies of the US have been confounded by Obama, whose common sense, positive and inclusive approach has been very hard to criticize. Friends of the US have been able to point to Obama as a positive force in the world.

In actual fact I think the only negative about Obama is that the frustration of his enemies (usually the enemies of the western world) has grown so much over the last eight years that they are almost ready to explode. But I'd rather have it that way than any other.

I completely agree with the US policy (of maximum two terms for any president) but in Obama's case that is a real shame. One can only hope that the next president of the US can build on his legacy and achievements but it's going to be a very tough act to follow. The alternatives pale in comparison -though some very much more than others.

I completely agree with what others have said before, I believe history will be very kind to Mr Obama and quite right too.

Biden, Effective VP

Click here for an article in American Prospect by Paul Waldman entitled The Real Stakes in the Veepstakes. It was John Nance Garner, VP to FDR for eight years before he resigned over the president's proposal to pack the Supreme Court, who compared the office to "a bucket of warm piss." John Adams and Daniel Webster also had a derisory description of the vice presidency. Walter Mondale, before he became Carter's VP, submitted a list of demands; Carter accepted, and Mondale, with 12 year's experience in the Senate, was very helpful guiding Carter, who had no Washington experience; and the vice president has been more effective ever since (with the mind-boggling exception of the cipher Dan Quayle; Sarah Palin, thank God, didn't make it).

The article is about the selection of a vice president in 2016, but I like the description of Biden's effeciveness:

... one of the great unsung accomplishments of Obama’s tenure is the 2009 Recovery Act, in which the administration not only stopped the economy’s bleeding, but also successfully distributed $787 billion in a relatively short time with barely any of that famous “waste, fraud, and abuse” everyone talks about in Washington—not to mention no major corruption scandals. Biden oversaw and coordinated that implementation. As Michael Grunwald writes in his book about the law, The New New Deal, in the two years after it was passed, Biden “would convene twenty-two cabinet meetings on the Recovery Act, more than the president would convene on all topics, and visit fifty-six stimulus projects. He’d host fifty-seven conference calls with governors and mayors, and spend countless hours checking in, buttering up and banging heads to keep the cash flowing. He’d speak about the stimulus with every governor except Sarah Palin, who abruptly resigned to pursue a career in punditry and reality TV before he had a chance. He’d also block 260 Recovery Act projects that didn’t pass his smell test.”

Krugman: Republican Lies

Krugman hits it out of the park yet again. Click here for his latest article in The New York Times, entitled "Wrath of the Conned," in which he explains that while the Democratic party is at least trying to live up to its ideals, the Republican party is living a lie:

Both parties make promises to their bases. But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises, the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con.

And:

[The Republican] party has historically won elections by appealing to racial enmity and cultural anxiety, but its actual policy agenda is dedicated to serving the interests of the 1 percent, above all through tax cuts for the rich — which even Republican voters don’t support, while they truly loathe elite ideas like privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

And:

If there’s a puzzle here, it’s why this didn’t happen sooner. One possible explanation is the decadence of the G.O.P. establishment, which has become ingrown and lost touch. Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people. And this has left them hapless in the face of a Trumpian challenge.

Probably more important, however, is the collision between demography and Obama derangement. The elite knows that the party must broaden its appeal as the electorate grows more diverse — in fact, that was the conclusion of the G.O.P.’s 2013 post-mortem. But the base, its hostility amped up to 11 after seven years of an African-American president (who the Republican establishment has done its best to demonize) is having none of it.

Digby's Comment On A Preposterous Politico Proposal

Click here for an article by Digby at Hullabaloo entitled "The Village lives. (And it's as silly as ever)."

Jim VandeHei of Politico (or as Charlie Pierce calls it, Tiger Beat on the Potomac) wrote a nonsensical piece calling for some ridiculous third-party coalition fronted by, as he suggested, Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Bloomberg. Digby joins in the general derision the article was accorded, and mocks VanderHei's comparison of the "War on Terror" with World Wars I and II, which pretends that "militant Islam" is an existential threat to Western civilization.

The article contains a striking graph, that unfortunately I was unable to reproduce here, entitled "Deaths from terrorism and gun homicide, 2001-2011." Since that black swan, 9/11, American deaths from terrorism have averaged something like 15 a year (my ballpark guess, not Digby's). American gun homicides, on the other hand, have run between 11,000 and 13,000 per year in that same period.

Clinton/Trump/Cruz - Handling A Financial Emergency

Click here for an article by Paul Krugman in The New York Times entitled "The 8 A.M. Call."

It's a warning about the possibility of global financial emergencies, and an analysis of how the three presidential front-runners -- Clinton, Trump, and Cruz -- would handle the 8 a.m. call predicting impending disaster when the markets open.

His conclusion is that Clinton is by far the best choice as a president who would be most likely to handle a financial crisis correctly (when of course there are no good options, only less-bad ones). Some quotes:

For make no mistake about it: The world economy is still a dangerous place. Financial reform has, I’d argue, made our system somewhat more robust than it was in 2008, but fumbling the response to a shock could still have disastrous consequences. So what do we know about the shocks we might face, and how the people who might be president would respond?

Right now there are two fairly obvious potential economic flash points: China and oil.

Many economists, myself included, have been pointing out for a while that China has a severely unbalanced economy, with too little consumer spending and unsustainable levels of investment. So far, unfortunately, China hasn’t made much progress in dealing with this fundamental imbalance; instead, it has papered over the problem with a huge expansion of credit. Now, with capital fleeing the country at the rate of a trillion dollars per year, it may well be headed for a bust. And China is a big enough player that a bust there could have major spillovers to the rest of the world.

Then there’s a potential oil crisis, very different from the ones we used to have: the problem now is a glut, not a shortage, with many producers having run up large debts they probably can’t repay. You could say that shale oil is the new subprime.

And:

Well, Mrs. Clinton isn’t just the most knowledgeable, well-informed candidate in this election, she's arguably the best-prepared candidate on matters economic ever to run for president. She could nonetheless mess up -- but ignorance won't be the reason.

On the other side, I doubt that anyone will be shocked if I say that Mr. Trump doesn’t know much about economic policy, or for that matter any kind of policy. He still seems to imagine, for example, that China is taking advantage of America by keeping its currency weak — which was true once upon a time, but bears no resemblance to current reality.

And:

Yet things could be worse. The Donald doesn’t know much, but Ted Cruz knows a lot that isn’t so. In a world in which gold bugs have been wrong every step of the way, repeatedly predicting runaway inflation that fails to materialize, he demands a gold standard to produce a “sound dollar.” He chose, as his senior economic adviser, Phil Gramm — an architect of financial deregulation who helped set the stage for the 2008 crisis, then dismissed warnings of recession when that crisis came, calling America a “nation of whiners.”

Mr. Cruz is, in other words, a man of firm economic convictions — convictions that are utterly divorced from reality and impervious to evidence, to a degree that’s unusual even among Republicans. A financial crisis with him in the White House could be, let's say, an interesting experience.

Nixon's War On Drugs: A Fraud

Click here for an article at CNN.com by Tom LoBianco entitled "Report: Aide says Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies." Here's the money quote from top Nixon aide and domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman:

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

"Why Do People Like President Obama?"

I'm reproducing here in full a reply on quora.com to the question: "Why do people like President Obama?" It's by Larry Hill, who says he is a retired engineer:

I'm a moderately liberal person and will be the first to admit how deeply distressed I have been by this President. Even in his seventh year, wizened and chastened by his unremitting Congress, Obama can't be trusted to do what I and most liberals would like to see him do.

On the other hand, I am convinced that in any situation requiring integrity and gravitas, this president will deeply examine issues and construct what he believes is the most right and the most correct response for America. Because he believes that once sworn in he's the president elected by the people, not by the party, and judges accordingly.

In the fall of 2008 I had listened to the investment siren song of the right's anti-Fed, anti-dollar, anti-debt, pro-resource investment philosophy and shunned all debt while holding strong on resource stocks. In six months we saw the spectacle of a Treasury secretary begging Congress to save the world, a presidency that floundered and collapsed in its waning days while credit freeze and market panic intensified. And spurning virtually the only investment - Treasuries - that would weather that storm, I watched three-quarters of my net worth and income evaporate even as I needed it desperately in retirement.

Obama's singular success at reviving the national economy to the point of almost universal optimism (among human beings, if not the political right), when March 2009 looked an awful lot like a replay of March, 1932, deserves our utmost respect. It took a half century for markets to recover their levels after 1929. It took Obama five years. Europe still hasn't figured out how to do it. (Nor has Kansas.)

Then in 2009, as my wife's job and all health insurance evaporated, we watched Congress tangle over a health plan that might make her insurable again with a cancer history - only to see the new President rebuffed at every turn, his every attempt at conciliation with the Right made a mockery and a fool's errand. The thing that eventually emerged from that made nobody happy, which probably means it was good law. That law got my wife insured.

In 2010, of course, the Right struck back [after sweeping Republican gains in Congress]. Public employment at all levels was cut wholesale and state economies deliberately sabotaged to try to force the country onto an austerity footing. Between 2011 and 2013 the red state austerity programs shaved between 1% and 2% off of GDP. Congressionally-mandated federal government austerity coupled with the government shutdown of 2013 nearly reversed the economy in the first two quarters of last year. But the oil collapse righted that ship.

Throughout this, the president took every penny at his disposal and every possible avenue to shore up what he could, to encourage infrastructure development and get money into the hands of people. Faced in 2013 and this year with ever more hostile REDMAP-generated right wing majorities, the austerity experiment is still running, and showing failure after failure, overseas and in various states. Kansas may never recover.

In 2011 Obama was excoriated for high energy costs throughout the country. Yet one constancy of his presidency has been support of energy development across the country - fracking, alternates and offshore development. Today, wholesale and retail energy costs have been cut in half - highly stimulative - and I am still waiting for that enthusiastic chorus of "Thanks, Barack!" from the right that he so richly deserves.

Do liberals hate fracking? You betcha. Poisons the Oglallah.

During the ACA fight and even this year, Obama has signaled his willingness to sign legislation trimming Social Security and Medicare. Nothing gives you quicker pariahhood in liberal circles.

Yes, he should have closed Guantanamo when he had the opportunity, before Congress changed in 2011. Since then, Congress has thrice-damned itself with its stranglehold on Cuba, our national embarrassment.

The 2011 National Defense authorization included draconian provisions to enable the midnight arrest and disappearance of people suspected of terror thought crime. Obama signed this, claiming he had no choice if he was to pay the military. Shame, shame on all.

The chaos triggered by the Bush invasion of Iraq reverberates ever more strongly across Africa and parts of Asia. Bush's failure to impede in any way Soviet adventurism in Georgia has led directly to the situation in Ukraine, and what happens there will determine the fate of the Baltics. But the fact is that Bush could not intervene, he had already squandered America's troops, money and influence in the Afghan and Iraqi morass. (Yes, Russia is technically not soviet, but Putin is.)

In contrast, Obama's presidency has dealt as well as any could with the toppling of regimes across Africa and Syria. At any number of points a misstep could have quickly exploded into all-out mobilization to fight wars of conquest and suppression in a dozen countries. OK, I'm not going to say reverence, but certainly awe that we are still able to buy milk and butter, and travel as freely as we wish. Under McCain/Palin today we would be drafting seventeen year olds for pending combat in Iran and Russia, in the developing global conflict and accompanying religious scourge. Cities across the globe would be smoking. Your city.

I suspect the fact that Europe, America and most of the globe are not involved in this conflict will come to be the definition of the Obama presidency. We have stood at the brink of the most perilous times since 1939, and have not stepped off. The world is remarkably peaceful. And for that, Obama deserves his Prize.

Yes, I want single-payer health care. It works fantastically well. Yes, I want a forceful stand on women's rights, particular those involving family planning: the less government, the better. No government is best.

Yes, I want food stamps expanded, not diminished. Recent studies show that strong welfare systems actually encourage the work ethic, not diminish as the right wing would have it. And local efforts to supply food to needy as SNAP money evaporates are woefully limited, and insufficient.

Yes, I want the twin voices of religion and money stilled in politics. Shut off the dark money flows, and tax religion like any other business if they insist in meddling with politics.

Yes, I want a tiny transaction tax to put a collar on high-frequency trading, which is killing markets worldwide. And, yes I want an end to HF front running of customer transactions at Schwab and other brokerages. Yes, jail sentences for the criminal activity at HSBC, Morgan et al.

And yes, I want a totally free Internet, not just in America but globally - because for some reason I still believe that the free exchange of ideas is what will save and extend humanity. Instead, you can't even say "global warming" in Florida - or discuss pollution in China.

But all in all, Obama is doing most often what is right, and sometimes good, and many times brilliant. He will be remembered as one of the truly outstanding presidents for what he fixed and what he avoided, with the opposition he faced doing it. And the calm moral courage he projects to the nation. He won't be remembered like the gilded propaganda icon of a Reagan, as reverenced in the breech by Republicans, but as a true transformative giant.

I wish he'd concentrate on some things the liberals might want.

[Update:] Since I wrote this a year ago, few things have changed. The economy is still performing very well and is at full employment, though some speed bumps remain as the Fed tries to normalize its books. Guantanamo is still open but maybe Obama will force a fait accompli on Congress. Congress is still obstreperous, and the Trump candidacy all but establishes the liberal claim that McConnell's opposition is born of pure racial hatred. We are still not in a ground war with anyone even as the true cost of Bush adventurism comes calling in cities around the world. The low price on hydrocarbons is reducing oil output. But since the effect is concentrated in one sector while the price benefits are widespread, the stimulus effect is being felt far and wide.Kansas since 2014 has billed itself as the proving ground of Republican governance and economic practice. It is failing badly in every important respect, and in its failure points out how effectively the Obama administration has handled the economy. Most damning is Kansas' willingness to harm its people while grunting and struggling to release the perfect Republican trickle.

Obama's Court nominee (Merrick Garland) seems to be the perfect centrist. Though Garland once wrote in dissent of a Roberts ruling while on the DC circuit, I worry about a tendency to support harsher prosecution. While at the same time the country is mulling John Ehrlichman's admission that the war on drugs and its harsh sentencing was a deliberate, cynical Nixonian attack on the growing power of blacks and liberals. How many lives destroyed? It is not clear where Garland would rule if presented with another Citizens United.

And as the summer election season approaches, Obama's favorable rating is as high as any president since the 1960's. At the same time, Bernie Sanders rides in on a progressive mount that appeals to half the Democrats, a majority of Independents and as many Republicans as favor Trump. I'm not certain how "liberal" Sanders is, but he comes trying to right many wrongs, including those many egregious things that Obama and Clinton are willing to let slide.

Wall Street Fines For 2008 Malfeasance - $40 Billion And Counting

Click here for an article by Matthew Goldstein in The New York Times entitled "Goldman to Pay Up to $5 Billion to Settle Claims of Faulty Mortgages."

The Wall Street firm [Goldman Sachs] said on Thursday it had agreed to a civil settlement of up to $5 billion with federal prosecutors and regulators to resolve claims stemming from the marketing and selling of faulty mortgage securities to investors.

But Goldman wasn't the biggest offender:

Bank of America in 2014 paid about $16.6 billion in a similar settlement with federal and state agencies, and JPMorgan Chase paid about $13 billion in 2013. In all, the banks have paid more than $40 billion in settlements to resolve claims investigated by the task force.

Why not criminal charges? A lot of people went to prison as a result of recent financial scandals. According to another New York Times article, by Jesse Eisinger, on April 20, 2014, states:

After the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, 1,100 people were prosecuted, including top executives at many of the largest failed banks. In the ’90s and early aughts, when the bursting of the Nasdaq bubble revealed widespread corporate accounting scandals, top executives from WorldCom, Enron, Qwest and Tyco, among others, went to prison.

According to Charlie Pierce at Esquire, SPW (Senator Professor Warren) says the following:

"There's been a lot of revisionist history floating around lately that the Too Big to Fail banks weren't really responsible for the financial crisis. That talk isn't new. Wall Street lobbyists have tried to deflect blame for years. But the claim is absolutely untrue. There would have been no crisis without these giant banks. They encouraged reckless mortgage lending both by gobbling up an endless stream of mortgages to securitize and by funding the slimy subprime lenders who peddled their miserable products to millions of American families," Warren wrote. "The giant banks spread that risk throughout the financial system by misleading investors about the quality of the mortgages in the securities they were offering."