GROAN

So you think this bureaucracy that we did just fine without, until it was created in 2008, is really necessary? It's a bandaid, created by the people that caused the banking problem to divert attention from themselves. "Look! , A shiny new bureaucracy to regulate you and make you feel safe!"

 

Now, now. She was accused of being an Elitist for saying that. Now that you blast her, we have to accuse you of being, well, um...
let me look of the antonym of "elitist"....umm...
...well, here are the results. They only have the opposite of ELITE, so here is the best they have...

In the same line of our accusations of elitism, we will accuse you of being: ORDINARY

My Ex likes to refer to me and those like me as 'Servant Class'.

 

Think RICO, the organized crime ACT.

 

Some can define the U.S. legislature branch as a criminal enterprise.

Gangster government. We has it.
Laws are for the "little people". Know your place peasants.

For that and a million other reasons, Trump has become the giant red haired middle finger of defiance and disgust we "little people" are sending to Washington.

Screw'em good Trump, just like they do to us. Put some sandy grit in the lube and drive it home honey.

 

Gangster government. We has it.
Laws are for the "little people". Know your place peasants.

For that and a million other reasons, Trump has become the giant red haired middle finger of defiance and disgust we "little people" are sending to Washington.

Screw'em good Trump, just like they do to us. Put some sandy grit in the lube and drive it home honey.

Fight corruption with more corruption? Neither option is going to make the situation better or worse. It is bad and will stay bad. Hopefully we have better options in 4-years.

 

Fight corruption with more corruption? Neither option is going to make the situation better or worse. It is bad and will stay bad. Hopefully we have better options in 4-years.

Not all corruption is equal nore aimed in the same direction or has the same goals.

 

Trump is not president yet, but your crystal ball show's he presided over the country and conducted him self during his 4 years corruptly?

Haters gonna hate even if they have to make Shit up that hasn't happened yet...

 

Haters gonna hate even if they have to make Shit up that hasn't happened yet...

A lot of it comes down to the problem that most people can not separate true factual reality from their own personal opinion.

For way too many, anything they don't like, agree or benefit personally with or from is seen as being wrong or corrupt or worse in their views even if their views themselves are far from being truly honest and unbiased.

For a basic example, If I were running for president how many here would not vote for me simply due to my online personality having clashed with theirs because I would not agree with what I saw a being their uninformed/misinformed/outrightly BS based or biased views of something and gave what I considered a rational less biased counter argument to them at some time?

Probably a lot really, but does that make me a crook criminal, or corrupt for standing up for a personal belief system of my own that I can back up with facts figures and legitimate examples for why I believe it to be correct?

 

I'm willing to take a bet against that statement.

You're right. I was watching the CEO testifying before the House and WF has "clawed back" $40M from him and one other executive. But this was future earnings, not earnings during the time of the alleged crime; which is what claw back really refers to.

The CEO is working for free while the investigation is ongoing.

Regardless of whether or not he knew about the company rules that lead to the bad behavior, he's the CEO and he said the buck stopped with him. I don't think he'll quit as he was asked to, but justice won't be served until he and other managers are held accountable and lose any performance based income for the years in question.

 

Almost all senators and representatives enter congress as average upper middle class citizens.
Guess how many of them leave Washington as multimillionaires?
Google it up sometime if you dare.

Gangster Government Indeed!

 

Gangster Government Indeed!

And they accumulate even more wealth when their political career is over; from all of the favors they've done special interest groups during their career.

The Younger Bush got money from some of his business partners because they thought he needed/deserved more than his fair share. Clearly they were banking favors...

 

It's very easy to show

Congress is in 100% compliance with the law, as the law exempts them from compliance. So what you wrote is technically incorrect and you only need to think about it for a second to understand why.

There are legitimate reasons congress should be exempted from insider trading laws - it is not that hard to figure out why.

The outrage is in their non-compliance with the laws that they have not exempted themselves from: paying taxes, overseas income, corruptions, .....

 

With all the exemptions ... Let's exempt them from more than two terms.

 

You're right. I was watching the CEO testifying before the House and WF has "clawed back" $40M from him and one other executive. But this was future earnings, not earnings during the time of the alleged crime; which is what claw back really refers to.

The CEO is working for free while the investigation is ongoing.

Regardless of whether or not he knew about the company rules that lead to the bad behavior, he's the CEO and he said the buck stopped with him. I don't think he'll quit as he was asked to, but justice won't be served until he and other managers are held accountable and lose any performance based income for the years in question.

I would like to see all executive compensation back to the first witnessed case of illegal activity (2004?) and corporate profits deemed "illegally acquired gains" and have Uncle Sam strip them just like the cash on a drug dealer (or suspected drug dealer). Then take some future earnings to pay off the account holders and fired employees who tried to report to the WF ethics hotline.

It seems that a bunch of the famous 5300 fired employees were fired for poor performance (NOT setting up enough fake accounts or for trying to report fake accounts to company ethics hot line).

 

It seems that a bunch of the famous 5300 fired employees were fired for poor performance (NOT setting up enough fake accounts or for trying to report fake accounts to company ethics hot line).

Stumpf testified that the 5300 terminations were related to account creation fraud, and cross selling goals were part of their performance. Most of them were lower level employees (that they apparently call bankers) and that the level went up to area president (3rd level of manager). He also stated that they aren't finished with their review and that any employee guilty of fraudulent activity would be held accountable (note that he didn't say terminated).

He asked for details of any whistleblower who was terminated for reporting fraud because WF has a non-retaliation policy.

BTW, I have no affiliation with WF. I just watched most of Stumpf's testimony before the House because I got tired of watching stuff about Trump.

 

Stumpf testified that the 5300 terminations were related to account creation fraud, and cross selling goals were part of their performance. Most of them were lower level employees (that they apparently call bankers) and that the level went up to area president (3rd level of manager). He also stated that they aren't finished with their review and that any employee guilty of fraudulent activity would be held accountable (note that he didn't say terminated).

He asked for details of any whistleblower who was terminated for reporting fraud because WF has a non-retaliation policy.

BTW, I have no affiliation with WF. I just watched most of Stumpf's testimony before the House because I got tired of watching stuff about Trump.

There are some reports on CNN.com that whistleblowers were getting called "low producers" or something similar so they were indirectly axed. I think the CEO was stating policy rather than the actual day-to-day operation facts.

If I was his direct report, I would have told the CEO that we don't retaliate against whistleblowers too.

 

I think the CEO was stating policy rather than the actual day-to-day operation facts.

That was the case. He wasn't well versed in day-to-day operations, but he's the CEO of over 250,000. I'm sure that will change in the short term for awhile. Most of the $41M WF took from two executives came from him.

 

Trump is not president yet, but your crystal ball show's he presided over the country and conducted him self during his 4 years corruptly?

Haters gonna hate even if they have to make Shit up that hasn't happened yet...

Is this related to my comment in post #18 about the removal of the CFPB? He has said many times in his speeches that was one of his first 100 day goals.

 

The CFPB looks like to toothless tiger in it's primary responsibility for regulating consumer protection in the United States. It's funded by the United States Federal Reserve (owned by private banks) so I don't see it every being more than a cover for real action on bank crimes. No one has gone to jail and nobody really expects people will.

 

The House asked Stumpf how many regulators were at WF (IIRC, he didn't know; that was a common answer) and said the House would open an investigation into why they didn't notice anything.