Attorney general conducts war on large banks

Advertisement

Not content with his shabby treatment of J.P. Morgan, Attorney General Eric Holder has now set his sights on Bank of America.

During the 2008 crisis, as an alternative to bankruptcy, the administration asked the bank to take over ailing Countrywide Financial. Five years later, believing no good deed should go unpunished, Holder is suing the bank for the sins of the same Countrywide Financial.

Taking his actions together with his inflammatory speeches, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that he is conducting a war on the nation’s largest banks.

President Obama said recently, “I have a pen, and I have a phone. I will use them to benefit the American people.”

The phone could be used to give his attorney general a tongue lashing for impeding the economic recovery. The pen could serve to sign a unilateral cease-fire in Holder’s war. In so doing, he would certainly benefit the American people.

Responding to the financial meltdown in 2008, the Federal Reserve engineered an increase in the money supply. In normal times this would flow through the banking system, stimulating economic recovery. These are not normal times.

Shellshocked by the legal assault, constrained by the regulators, the banks are hunkered down, waiting for more propitious times. Excess money is channeled into the stock market. This is good in that pension funds, 401k plans and IRAs have recouped the losses experienced in the market collapse of 2008, but it has also enhanced the wealth of owners of large stock portfolios, exacerbating income inequality.

By ending the war, by easing up on excessive regulation, the banks would be encouraged to lend again, stimulating economic growth, increasing the demand for labor, and reducing unemployment. Once full employment is reached, wages would rise, generating more taxes, reducing the deficit.

A vibrant economy means a bull market in stocks, making wealthy individuals even wealthier, but, unlike the current situation, the less wealthy would benefit as well.

If the president really wants to demonstrate he can act without consulting Congress, here is a golden opportunity. Not only does it solve most of our economic problems, it does so without offending the Constitution.

Gordon Philpot

Walla Walla

Comments

namvet60 10 months, 1 week ago

It seems that the Attorney General makes his own rules on everything and tries to make legislation without anyone's approval.

0

downhillracer 10 months, 1 week ago

Sources, please.

Or, Please Don't Feed The Trolls.

1

namvet60 10 months, 1 week ago

Luc - - - a - your repetitive, incoherent drivel is really boring.

0

downhillracer 10 months, 1 week ago

In otherwords, you don't have any facts to back-up your statements, thus have nothing informative to add to the discussion.

Nothing new here.

1

chicoli 10 months, 1 week ago

"Who does not put his money at exorbitant interest and does not take a bribe against the poor. He who does these things shall never be moved" Psalm 15:5. The biblical word for bank thievery was USURY!

Now, just look at your credit card bill. Then check what the banks did during the mortgage crisis when the whole country lost billions of dollars...thanks to our banking system?

Go, Eric Holder. Go after those scumbags CEOs and put them behind bars where they belong.

3

NewInWW 10 months, 1 week ago

The only disappointment I have with Obama's treatment of big banks is that no one has yet gone to jail.

2

PearlY 10 months, 1 week ago

Yes, it's that pesky requirement about needing to do something illegal before being sent to jail. It would be so much nicer if we could send people there on the basis that we just hate them.

0

NewInWW 10 months, 1 week ago

So you think the various large banks that have agreed to pay fines measured in the billions of dollars don't think they did anything illegal? Really?

Not me. I think the large banks paying those huge fines know they acted illegally, that some human directed those illegal activities, and that the humans who directed those activities preferred to use money that should have gone to shareholders to pay those large fines so as to avoid individual prosecution.

I don't hate bankers (or anyone else for that matter); but I do think that law-breakers at every level (not just the poor) should be held to account for their criminal activity.

Increasingly in this country, that's not the case.

3

PearlY 10 months, 1 week ago

If I were a banker and the federal government threatened to try to put me in jail for the rest of my life and I knew I would be tried before a Washington DC jury and it would cost me half my net worth to even TRY to defend myself, with a low chance of success given that I belong to a demonized group, I would certainly demand that my company pay a fraction of 1% of its net worth to protect me, whether I was guilty or not. Companies pay class action settlements and other bribes all the time to protect themselves. It is not a meaningful indication of guilt, just of fear.

To the contrary, I think that the Justice Department knew that it had a weak legal case against most of the people you would have jailed, and even if they were successful at trial, they'd get reversed on appeal, and so they settled for extorting as much money from them as possible. That's not to say there were NO lawbreakers. At the level of mortgage brokers and borrowers, I'm sure there were tens of thousands who applied for and processed "liar loans" knowing they were perjuring themselves. Almost all of these got a free pass not just on jail but on fines as well. Many have even played the victim card and gotten months or years of free residence in their fraudulently purchased homes and/or loan modifications or other relief.

Not to say that there weren't SOME lawbreakers at the upper reaches, but then there also have been SOME convictions. How closely the numbers match to how many should have been convicted is beyond the knowledge of anyone except perhaps Eric Holder, and I wouldn't count on him to tell the truth about it.

0

NewInWW 10 months, 1 week ago

^ Which is a long way around the barn to say that the "pesky requirement" that there be illegal activity was fully satisfied and, as usual, your purple prose about jailing people because "we just hate them" was hot air.

2

downhillracer 10 months, 1 week ago

NIWW, you are a welcome breath of fresh, logical and constructive analysis. TY.

1

PearlY 10 months, 1 week ago

Superficially, it seems we are both writing in English, but I've concluded that can't be true.

0

NewInWW 10 months, 1 week ago

Very much true - I just don't torture the ordinary meaning of words as much as you do to try to justify foolishness.

2

chicoli 10 months ago

Pearl is a clever lady. However her mercurial rhetoric is tricky to fallow, and you never know where she really stands. Is this a spontaneous virtue, or is it a deliberate labyrinth ? Well, only Pearl knows...or does she?

0

jubilado 10 months, 1 week ago

NewinWW: Amen to your comment!

2

kurtfr 10 months, 1 week ago

Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, he can rob the world.

2

namvet60 10 months ago

Make a man the President and he can destroy the country. :)

0

NewInWW 10 months ago

I wouldn't say GWBush destroyed the country, but he certainly damaged it deeply.

1

namvet60 10 months ago

Hello! Apparently some have been out of touch with civilization for quite some time so let me update you? It is February 24, 2014.

0

NewInWW 10 months ago

And apparently some think history started on January 20, 2009.

1

namvet60 10 months ago

And apparently some think that history started on January 20, 2001?

You don't even have to be at Mach speed to get from the Pilgrims to February 24, 2014. Just a little thought process for history.

0

chicoli 10 months ago

Progressive Presidents can "destroy" the country's conservative retrograde, archaic ideas that drags the nation back to Jim Crow laws, Mccarthyism, neocons inspired militarism and to the odious fundamentalist intolerance propagated by some religious nuts!

2

namvet60 10 months ago

When you have an inexperienced, progressive President that follows his belief in the Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", leads the country into an Orwellian state that has the country on the brink of the precipice of total destruction!

1

chicoli 10 months ago

"Rules for Radicals" was used by ex republican senator Dick Armey to train his Tea Party Activists...Ah, hypocrisy!

0

namvet60 10 months ago

That's funny!

Valerie Jarrett (the President's Mentor), an avid proponent of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" (suspected ghost writer) has daily, hand holding meetings in the Oval office. I haven't seen or heard any reports about Ms Jarrett attending or professing any Tea Party literature or attending any rally's waving a Tea Party Flag.

So your feeble, bigoted attempt at using the Rules against the Tea Party sit on Quicksand. Your about up to your eyeballs!

0

chicoli 10 months ago

Let me repeat it again: "Rules for Radicals" was used by ex republican senator Dick Armey to train his Tea Party Activists...Ah, hypocrisy!"...and this is a fact!

What on earth Ms. Jarrett has to do with this?

1

namvet60 9 months, 4 weeks ago

You can repeat it all you would like and it will not make it a fact! Maybe you have it confused with: "If you like your health plan you can keep it! If you like your Doctor you can keep them!" Repeat . . . . . . . . . . . Repeat . . . . . . . . Still a falsehood. Besides, you use "Rules for Radicals" on a regular basis.

Valerie Jarrett - re-read my post above, because it is totally self-explanatory!

0

chicoli 9 months, 4 weeks ago

If you like your cheap, $15.00 a month health plan, only covering for one doctor's visit a year and one rectal examination every 5 years; and only pays for 100 aspirins a year...and then expect the tax payers to pay for your catastrophic health problems! Of course you cannot keep it! But if you want more than one rectal examination every 5 years, you need to pay a bit more...and we, the tax payer will be delighted to pay for the others.

You are lucky you have the VA, a government sponsored Affordable Health Care Plan, so be appreciative to your loving Government!

Jamming Ms. Jarrett into this is another of your well known red herrings!

0

namvet60 9 months, 4 weeks ago

Carlos - you consistently make it apparent that your mental status is becoming very questionable with these types of comments. I have just finished an article that they have acquired two top psychiatrists with great credentials in Cuba. Maybe you should make a trip down to your home land and have them see you before you cause yourself harm? I hate to see anyone go off the deep end as you profess in your various comments.

0

chicoli 9 months, 4 weeks ago

This is another prototype of a red herring from your bag of tricks. When you are at a loss you lash out with far fetch personal insults in the most incoherent fashion possible. Your comments are like IEDs to distract others and conveniently hide your lack of relevant arguments.

Please f--- off!...as in fizz...

1

namvet60 9 months, 4 weeks ago

In your case paco it is commonly called denial. It was showing deterioration in going from unrealistic rhetoric to a crude diatribe.

Just remember you can only help yourself!

0

namvet60 10 months ago

Maybe the attorney general should try doing his real job and start looking at corruption instead of interfering in everyone's business? This article explains the real truth on the food stamp fraud and abuse:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/25/Two-Illegal-Immigrants-Sentenced-For-1-4-Million-Food-Stamp-Fraud

Not everyone uses food stamps for food!

0

downhillracer 10 months ago

And no one uses "Breitbart dot com" for a legitimate source of factual information.

These are simply tired rantings from another Internet Troll. Nothing to see here.

2

namvet60 10 months ago

And this is your pseudo-intellectual input to this commentary - maybe you should start reading some better websites so you can at least add some form of intelligence for a millennial slacker!

0

downhillracer 10 months ago

I'm part of the 'boomer' generation, so pile on down from your high-horsie. Most of my research is done at the library and via academic resources worthy of peer review. Whereas your name calling no doubt comes from your faith.

1

namvet60 10 months ago

Faith? How would your peer group rate your previous comment - A+ for bigotry and F- for substance.

Via academic resources - would that be from the one and only MSNBC?

If it is the Gen-X, millennial or boomer generation - in your case it would still be in the category of Slacker!

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in