SEC may have destroyed documents, senator says

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

SEC may have destroyed documents, senator says


www.marketwatch.com

The Securities and Exchange Commission may have destroyed documents and compromised enforcement cases involving activity at large banks and hedge funds during the height of the financial crisis in 2008

It doesn’t make sense that an agency responsible for investigations would want to get rid of potential evidence

Agency staff “destroyed over 9,000 files” related to preliminary agency investigations

also alleged that the agency destroyed documents and information collected for preliminar
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Goldman Executive Named as SEC Investment Chief




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
First and Foremost...
Be Mad At Yourselves!!
Especially progressives!

Goldman Executive Named as SEC Investment Chief
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You wanted more regulations?
More appointed cronies?
Well you have it!

This is what regulations bring you, cronies!
And cronies make rich corporations richer!

Trust me, I swear, I am not trying to start the thread by engaging in partisan finger pointing.
But some groups are really for more regulations while others aren't.

Regulations only make rich corporations richer
Companies lobby, for exampled paid for Obama's presidential campaign and then get appointed to regulatory positions.

And here you see just ONE example of what happens.

Listen, there are too many special interest groups and lobbies for the U.S. to advocate more and more regulatory bodies in an already out of control Government.

I don't see that as too difficult to understand.
Thoughts ATS?

Do you still want more regulations?
Or will you instead want to empower the people by allowing freedom in the markets?

www.marketwatch.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Office shredding parties.


Who would have thought it,

The Blair government in Britain was also guilty of this.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Regulations only make rich corporations richer Companies lobby, for exampled paid for Obama's presidential campaign and then get appointed to regulatory positions.

Nonsense.

We just need to give the government more control and then the special interest groups will disappear.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


This is ridiculous reasoning. Some things HAVE to be regulated simply because the risk of allowing 'self-regulation' is too great should the parties involved act irresponsibly. The big players on Wall Street wield massively disproportionate influence over the markets. High volume high-speed automated trading has essentially marginalized the private investor.

The problem here has nothing to do with regulation. The problem is fraud, irresponsibility and an utter lack of accountability. Wall Street has been allowed to do pretty much whatever it wants and our corrupt/complicitous government has simply stood-by. They have intentionally developed inordinately complex investment systems and intruments in order to better concel fraud.

Until there is accountability with serious criminal consequences for malfeasance --- for both those on Wall Street and the government with the responsibility for oversight --- nothing will change. And this systematic looting will continue. Your suggestion might work in a 'perfect world' where banksters and politicians have some semblence of ethics but such is not the case.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


Government sanctioned regulation simply legitimizes the fraud.

Everywhere there is regulation backed by government guns there is a "good ol boy" oligarchy breaking rules for their friends and raping the average Joe for fun and games.

From your local code enforcement officer to the SEC to the POTUS.

Consolidation breeds corruption.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Regulations only make rich corporations richer Companies lobby, for exampled paid for Obama's presidential campaign and then get appointed to regulatory positions.

Nonsense.

We just need to give the government more control and then the special interest groups will disappear.



dude you so need to put the crack pipe down and re-write this ...... FAST



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Sorry MA but you got things backwards - corporations fight regulations tooth and nail, not seek to create more of them. It was deregulation that led to the market collapse in 2008, especially in the banking sector that involved subprime mortgages and the securitization of those loans as bonds then sold to unwary investors.

The lack of regulations allowed these practices to go unchecked and the SEC itself had been so gutted by lack of funding and other measures taken by the Repubs to virtually cripple the it to the point it couldn't do anything to regulate the market or prevent these types of collapses. Read the first few paragraphs of "In Defense of SEC Funding" to see what I mean. If the SEC if going around destroying documents we can assume they have gotten in bed with the firms they are supposed to be watching, just as the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service was supposed to be watching over the gulf oil wells and was instead aiding and abetting that industry in circumventing safety measures (see: Gulf Oil Spill Puts Spotlight on Regulator With Mixed Record), or the way James Watt (Reagan's Sec. of the Interior) had gutted regulations at the Dept. of Interior, turning it into a backdoor for industries to strip mine national parks (see: The Legacy of James Watt).

I could go on, but the SEC is just another agency that has been derailed by the right-wing push to remove any and all obstacles by corporatists in their pursuit of profit at all costs. That you would blame "progressives" for this is laughable, given that in 2008 it was the Bush regime in office.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Amazing. You have people that have watched the elite take this country off of a cliff because they were allowed to run rampant due to deregulation, and are now trying to say that regulation is the reason behind this blatant criminal activity.

Do yourselves a favor tea partiers...stop working on behalf of those that wish to have all of us on soup lines. It looks foolish.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
What part of the US government being corrupt from top to bottom do people not understand?

The entire thing is corrupt.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Thats why you cant change the status quo. Keep it corrupt keep the status quo. Keep TPTB in control of all the corrupted thus able to impose and influence all outcomes to meet desired objectives!!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Sorry MA but you got things backwards - corporations fight regulations tooth and nail, not seek to create more of them. It was deregulation that led to the market collapse in 2008, especially in the banking sector that involved subprime mortgages and the securitization of those loans as bonds then sold to unwary investors.

Ya I got things backwards, like Dems fight with Republicans tooth and nail, and vice versa.... right?
There's no such thing as a one party system

Dude it's all a facade, it's a dog and poney show
Of course corporations and politicians would want you to think that there's a clash between them
Of course dems and republicans want you to not know it's a one party system.

Remember what Jesse Ventura said?
Politicians are like wrestlers, they pretend to fight each other but they are all friends in the locker room
Same thing with corporations and politicians, come on man, follow the money.

Look who caused the economic collapse and who gave loads and buckets of money to Obama's presidential campaign. Same people!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Amazing. You have people that have watched the elite take this country off of a cliff because they were allowed to run rampant due to deregulation, and are now trying to say that regulation is the reason behind this blatant criminal activity.

Do yourselves a favor tea partiers...stop working on behalf of those that wish to have all of us on soup lines. It looks foolish.

Liberals want more regulations and hate rich people
Then they get more regulatory cronies that show favortism to big corporations and rich people get richer
Then libs say, we hate rich people, tax the rich and we need more regulatory bodies
Then rich people just keep getting richer

Wow!
Really?
Who's looking foolish?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
So... what is he waiting for to send the FBI to put all those SOBs in jail for fraud and economic terrorism?

Come on.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act






If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."

The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.

But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.

This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame: REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.


This looks as if it was from both sides of the Aisle folks !


excerpt from William Kaufman's Article:

www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The best way for our 'brand' of corporate citizen to prosper is to encourage regulations and author those regulations themselves... which is what we have today....

Same thing for the medical industry, energy, big aggro, big pharma, and ESPECIALLY finance.

After seeing the creation of our second and third "quasi" governmental agencies (Fanny and Freddie) you would think that people would see the truth by now... but instead too many attach their sense of self-esteem with the 'favored' brand of marketed politics and refuse to allow any alteration of the model which affirms how much these guys "rock."

Your politicians work for them... not you. Your regulators work for them... not you. Don't believe me? See where they go when they 'leave' government. By their subsequent destination you can judge their alliance.

When you have means and motive, all you need is opportunity.... that's where the problem starts.

Why do you think our congressmen and senators leave public "service" with their wealth having increased by orders of magnitude? Since when is public service supposed to be a 'gold-mine' for the servant? Answer: it wasn't. And back in the day when it wasn't - you didn't have people in government switching parties and playing head games to stay in office... they came, they served, and they left. I don't begrudge anyone some profit as long as it's part of an opportunity not cloistered and excluded from scrutiny or kept within a social club like the make-believe "two" party political system - you know, the one where no matter who is "in power" they all still get rich while we all still get poorer, and nothing really improves so much as it dances around the same circle of power.
edit on 18-8-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I've mentioned this in another thread... in 2009, 50% of the members of Congress were millionaires compared to less than 10% of the general population; 10% had wealth of over $10M compared to only 1.6% of the general population. Tthe median net wealth of members of the House was $765,000 and the Senate was $2.8M. The median net wealth of the general popultaion was a paltry $86,000. And as we've lost a disproportionate amount of our wealth by virtue of collapsing home values, the disparity is almost certainly worse. So can anyone really expect people who have a measure of wealth between 10 and 325 times greater than us have even the smallest clue as to how we live? More importantly, can anyone actually expect these people to represent us? It's analagous to having residents of New York represent Boston Red Sox fans.

Face it, the entire system is irreperably broken and has been for some time. The only change is that the facade is finally falling away so that it can no longer be hid from the People.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


They must be taking their cue from Eddie Barzoon over at Milton, Chadwick & Waters.







new topics
top topics
 
8

log in

join