Would Madoff's Appeal Been Accepted if Bush Were Prez?

POSTED BY: Shinygoodguy
UPDATED: Sunday, March 22, 2009 15:12
VIEWED: 1230
PAGE 1 of 1

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:42 AM

Saw on the news that Madoff's appeal was denied. Good!

But I thought to myself, "Would he had gotten off if Bush was still President?"

There's more to this case than meets the eye. I think, first of all, that he and his wife had a plan "B" just in case he got caught. She had to be in on it. Read somewhere that she was a total bitch and often treated people with utter disdain. Rich folk tend to do that more often than not.

But my thought regarding this is: With the weak policies that were in place regarding regulatory matters, the climate for Madoff (and others like him) was rife with opportunities. For the last 15 to 20 years he operated with impunity. There were those who had their doubts about him, but kept quiet and turned away.

A few weeks ago there was a 60 Minutes Report regarding the whistleblower that no one would listen to - Harry Markopolos, who, for 8 years, tried to convince any that would listen, most particularly the SEC, that Madoff was a fraud.
He was rebuffed and ignored. Now, suddenly he's a star. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

The climate has changed in Washington. And, like it or not, the new sheriff has called to task those who would cheat and otherwise abuse the system. Do the initials A.I.G. mean anything to anyone? These guys almost broke the system, almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
It don't make sense to me that the AIG execs would honor those contracts (actually it does, it's all a boys club) being that were it not for the taxpayers they would all be included in that long line outside the unemployment office. Figuratively speaking.

Jay Leno said it best, don't pay out the bonuses and say to those execs who would pursue payment - "Sue me!" Go ahead and let them sue for their bonuses. First, they would be exposed for the greedy bastards that they are. And then too, Do you think they would want to step into the limelight and expose temselves as the architects of the near-collapse of the world financial markets? Bonuses for running a company, and nearly a world, into the ground? Where's that get fun?

I, for one, I'm glad that the Court of Appeals shot down his feeble attempt to gain his freedom. Finally a decision that makes sense. They said he was a flight risk. Well duh! Hey Bernie, how does it feel to be in the shit?!

SGG

Tawabawho?

KWICKO

Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:59 AM

I call BS on his wife *not* being in on it. She claims she has $62 million of her own assets; I say we need to see receipts and W-2s for that money. Even if she didn't explicitly KNOW what he was doing, she had to suspect something - after all, she was a bookkeeper (allegedly). A bookkeeper who gets paid $62 million... man, that's nice work if you can get it.

Bury his ass under the jail, boot her ass out of the $7 million penthouse, let her get an efficiency apartment and live like the people they swindled. And if they want to bitch about that, let's have a li'l chat with the French, and see if we can borrow one of their guillotines for a bit.

Sometimes justice arrives quietly, and sometimes it arrives with a mighty Thuh-CHUNK!

BTW, I think you put this in the wrong forum - probably a better fit in the RWED area...

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

WHOZIT

Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Saw on the news that Madoff's appeal was denied. Good!

But I thought to myself, "Would he had gotten off if Bush was still President?"

There's more to this case than meets the eye. I think, first of all, that he and his wife had a plan "B" just in case he got caught. She had to be in on it. Read somewhere that she was a total bitch and often treated people with utter disdain. Rich folk tend to do that more often than not.

But my thought regarding this is: With the weak policies that were in place regarding regulatory matters, the climate for Madoff (and others like him) was rife with opportunities. For the last 15 to 20 years he operated with impunity. There were those who had their doubts about him, but kept quiet and turned away.

A few weeks ago there was a 60 Minutes Report regarding the whistleblower that no one would listen to - Harry Markopolos, who, for 8 years, tried to convince any that would listen, most particularly the SEC, that Madoff was a fraud.
He was rebuffed and ignored. Now, suddenly he's a star. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

The climate has changed in Washington. And, like it or not, the new sheriff has called to task those who would cheat and otherwise abuse the system. Do the initials A.I.G. mean anything to anyone? These guys almost broke the system, almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
It don't make sense to me that the AIG execs would honor those contracts (actually it does, it's all a boys club) being that were it not for the taxpayers they would all be included in that long line outside the unemployment office. Figuratively speaking.

Jay Leno said it best, don't pay out the bonuses and say to those execs who would pursue payment - "Sue me!" Go ahead and let them sue for their bonuses. First, they would be exposed for the greedy bastards that they are. And then too, Do you think they would want to step into the limelight and expose temselves as the architects of the near-collapse of the world financial markets? Bonuses for running a company, and nearly a world, into the ground? Where's that get fun?

I, for one, I'm glad that the Court of Appeals shot down his feeble attempt to gain his freedom. Finally a decision that makes sense. They said he was a flight risk. Well duh! Hey Bernie, how does it feel to be in the shit?!

SGG

Tawabawho?

You libs are great at deciding who gets money and who does'nt, the AIG people had those RETENTION bonuses in there contracts and the Dems where OK about untill the pay out, WHY! The amendment making it OK for the bonuses was put in there by a Democrat, (Dodd) it was written in Pelosi's office and signed by Barry. The Pig Package gives a big pile of cash to ACORN which I'm sure you're OK with, and plenty of pork for alot of Democrat projects.

My advice to you libs is to get a thicker skin, Barry is "photo-op" President, he looks great, he sounds great that's it, without his telapromter he's a studdering douchebag.

The House and Senate are ruled by Democrats, not controled "ruled"! All Republicans can do is heckle from the peanut gallery.

The truth is you left-wing, whinning, foul tempered, cheap shot taking, hypocrites are in charge. You can't blame Republicans for anything anymore, blaming Bush and saying you inherited this mess will only go so far.

So please get ready, you whinning, foul tempered, cheap shot taking hypocrits, people who spell better than me are going to expose and make fun of you for the phonys you are. AND THEN I WILL LAUGH AT YOUR PAIN!!! AHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!........also this thread belongs on RWFF.

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, March 22, 2009 6:10 AM

Hey Kwicko, did you hear something?

Is it me or did it sound like someone pointing to their head and using the abbreviation of mountain?

SGG

Tawabawho?

RALLEM

Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Saw on the news that Madoff's appeal was denied. Good!

But I thought to myself, "Would he had gotten off if Bush was still President?"

There's more to this case than meets the eye. I think, first of all, that he and his wife had a plan "B" just in case he got caught. She had to be in on it. Read somewhere that she was a total bitch and often treated people with utter disdain. Rich folk tend to do that more often than not.

But my thought regarding this is: With the weak policies that were in place regarding regulatory matters, the climate for Madoff (and others like him) was rife with opportunities. For the last 15 to 20 years he operated with impunity. There were those who had their doubts about him, but kept quiet and turned away.

A few weeks ago there was a 60 Minutes Report regarding the whistleblower that no one would listen to - Harry Markopolos, who, for 8 years, tried to convince any that would listen, most particularly the SEC, that Madoff was a fraud.
He was rebuffed and ignored. Now, suddenly he's a star. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

The climate has changed in Washington. And, like it or not, the new sheriff has called to task those who would cheat and otherwise abuse the system. Do the initials A.I.G. mean anything to anyone? These guys almost broke the system, almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
It don't make sense to me that the AIG execs would honor those contracts (actually it does, it's all a boys club) being that were it not for the taxpayers they would all be included in that long line outside the unemployment office. Figuratively speaking.

Jay Leno said it best, don't pay out the bonuses and say to those execs who would pursue payment - "Sue me!" Go ahead and let them sue for their bonuses. First, they would be exposed for the greedy bastards that they are. And then too, Do you think they would want to step into the limelight and expose temselves as the architects of the near-collapse of the world financial markets? Bonuses for running a company, and nearly a world, into the ground? Where's that get fun?

I, for one, I'm glad that the Court of Appeals shot down his feeble attempt to gain his freedom. Finally a decision that makes sense. They said he was a flight risk. Well duh! Hey Bernie, how does it feel to be in the shit?!

SGG

Tawabawho?
You libs are great at deciding who gets money and who does'nt, the AIG people had those RETENTION bonuses in there contracts and the Dems where OK about untill the pay out, WHY! The amendment making it OK for the bonuses was put in there by a Democrat, (Dodd) it was written in Pelosi's office and signed by Barry. The Pig Package gives a big pile of cash to ACORN which I'm sure you're OK with, and plenty of pork for alot of Democrat projects.

My advice to you libs is to get a thicker skin, Barry is "photo-op" President, he looks great, he sounds great that's it, without his telapromter he's a studdering douchebag.

The House and Senate are ruled by Democrats, not controled "ruled"! All Republicans can do is heckle from the peanut gallery.

The truth is you left-wing, whinning, foul tempered, cheap shot taking, hypocrites are in charge. You can't blame Republicans for anything anymore, blaming Bush and saying you inherited this mess will only go so far.

So please get ready, you whinning, foul tempered, cheap shot taking hypocrits, people who spell better than me are going to expose and make fun of you for the phonys you are. AND THEN I WILL LAUGH AT YOUR PAIN!!! AHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!........also this thread belongs on RWFF.

It is true that the AIG bonuses were in their contracts, and the corporation had to pay them out as a matter of accounting protocol without an individual decision being made whether it was the right choice or not, but I still think it was bad form for the tax dollar to be used for the bonuses. I believe the entity at fault here is Congress though for not putting a clause in the bai

KWICKO

Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:09 PM

Quote:

I think it odd how the economy was going strong until shortly after the Democrats took the majority of Congress. Did they foul up the economy on purpose to draw attention away from their glaring inability to develop a foreign policy?

1) I don't think a "glaring inability to develop a foreign policy" is going to be a huge problem, in light of the last 8 years. It's a pretty easy proposition, really. Step Number One: Don't go around invading sovereign nations willy-nilly.

2) I could lay just as legitimate a claim as yours, that the Republicans poisoned the well for the economy in hopes that it would force the Democrats to deal with it (or hopefully for the GOP, to FAIL to deal with it), and also that it would force them to raise taxes, which would make a fantastic campaign opportunity in 2010. The GOP, after all, had to realize that they'd screwed the pooch going into the '08 elections, given their performance over the past 8 years.

Do I think anyone purposely collapsed the economy? Nope; I think sheer greed did it, aided greatly by deregulation and the end result of "trickle-down" economics, which have routinely been shown NOT to work, unless your stated goal is to shrink the middle class to enormously enrich the already-rich. If that's what you're after, tinkle-on economics is great.

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

RALLEM

Sunday, March 22, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I think it odd how the economy was going strong until shortly after the Democrats took the majority of Congress. Did they foul up the economy on purpose to draw attention away from their glaring inability to develop a foreign policy?

1) I don't think a "glaring inability to develop a foreign policy" is going to be a huge problem, in light of the last 8 years. It's a pretty easy proposition, really. Step Number One: Don't go around invading sovereign nations willy-nilly.

2) I could lay just as legitimate a claim as yours, that the Republicans poisoned the well for the economy in hopes that it would force the Democrats to deal with it (or hopefully for the GOP, to FAIL to deal with it), and also that it would force them to raise taxes, which would make a fantastic campaign opportunity in 2010. The GOP, after all, had to realize that they'd screwed the pooch going into the '08 elections, given their performance over the past 8 years.

Do I think anyone purposely collapsed the economy? Nope; I think sheer greed did it, aided greatly by deregulation and the end result of "trickle-down" economics, which have routinely been shown NOT to work, unless your stated goal is to shrink the middle class to enormously enrich the already-rich. If that's what you're after, tinkle-on economics is great.

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

The inability to construct a viable foreign policy was the reason the Democrats believed they lost the 2004 election against President Bush, and the Iraqi war is a legal war as directed by the United Nations if Iraq failed to meet certain criteria. All the United States did was force the United Nations to follow its dictates when those criteria were not meant, instead of letting them waiver on their resolve. If the Iraqi War were illegal the United Nations would be looking to try President Bush for war crimes.

Please lay a legitimate claim showing the Republicans tanked the economy. I explained in my previous post why I thought the Democrats may have tanked the economy to gain the presidency and I showed evidence on how they had the ability according to the constitution, but I did not bother to get into actual bills they may have passed. I think the one thing the Democrats did do to tank the economy was to give President Bush what he wanted without much debate. The President can ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars, but it is Congress' responsibility to give him what he really needs and if they do give him the sun, the moon, and the stars and it turns out to be a bad decision, then it is Congress' fault because this is their responsibility.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html