4 ms·

Can I sue politicians for lying? Why is it that this is only a one way street? Hell, frankly, I think that heads should roll for the bailout. It is not autho

by nirvana 14y ago

Can I sue politicians for lying? Why is it that this is only a one way street? Hell, frankly, I think that heads should roll for the bailout. It is not authorized under the constitution, and it is the largest financial heist in history. A bunch of politicians can simply steal american money and give it to banks, and get away with it? Really? And people are upset, but they blame the banks only? And then forgive the "debt" they created and pretend like it was "paid back". It's still going on too. Right now, every month, they are handing out $40B a month buying "distressed assets". You know how to get rich? Be well connected, make a loan to someone who then turns around and defaults (he got the loan money, so he's well paid) then get the politicians to write you a check! There's no oversight now, the Federal Reserve-- a private bank owned by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, probably Rothchild family, et. al. is the one spending the money. No legislation is needed to make it legal. It's stealing more money every month than all the organized crime has stolen in this countries entire history! And it's not even worth a mention in the local papers. That's messed up!

tptacek 14y ago
Am I following this correctly, that you believe the US government and particularly our central bank is corrupt, and therefore we shouldn't sue corrupt private companies because that's hypocritical? Or do you think the suit against S&P is a good thing, but not enough of it?
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  no, the OP believes that the politicians should be sued too - right now it's a case of the pot vs the kettle.
gnosis 14y ago
"And then forgive the "debt" they created and pretend like it was "paid back"." Could you substantiate this claim? I'm genuinely interested. I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of the bailout money was paid back. I'd read in reputable newspapers that this was the case. If it was "forgiven" instead, I'd be very interested to see the proof.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Most of the bailout dollars were not loans, they were equity ownership stakes. To the extent the loans were "paid back in full" the dollar amount represents only a fraction of the total bailout provided.
- sxcurry 14y ago
  I believe you are correct - most of the bailout money has been repaid: As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program. [Wikipedia]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
tptacek 14y ago
Expand on the Rothschild connection, will you?
- Locke1689 14y ago
  I'm trying really hard to not read that comment as an anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theory, but I'm having a pretty rough time, since the Rothschild banking arm is notoriously conservative in its asset management and investment.
sxcurry 14y ago
"not authorized under the constitution" Can you give some specifics about why this is so?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Here you can reasonably expect to end up litigating Alexander Hamilton with someone who several months ago said this in an HN comment: "Maybury v Madison contained a criminal action on the part of the supreme court where they usurped power that did not belong to them, under the constitution, and where they correctly ruled that unconstitutional laws are invalid the moment they are signed."
gph1 14y ago
Please explain how monetary policy is "stealing money". Absurd tin foil hat caricatures like this often makes any reasonable discussion of the Fed and its role impossible.
- bitcartel 14y ago
  There is an argument that the zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing helps banks who are technically insolvent, at the expense of prudent savers like pensioners.
asr 14y ago
To answer your question: yes, you can sue the politicians for spending your money in a way you don't think is Constitutional. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flast_v._Cohen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flast_v._Cohen and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Taxpayer_standing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Taxpayer_standin.... That said, the best way to fix the problem is to vote the politicians out of office. (Not really going to touch the rest of this...)
- ekianjo 14y ago
  > the best way to fix the problem is to vote the politicians out of office. In a bi-party world, your odds of getting anyone out of office and preventing them from coming back later are, unfortunately, pretty damn low.
mylittlepony 14y ago
I always feel like everything that is happening in the US, has already happened in Argentina. But every time I mention it, I get dismissed like it was a stupid comparison. And then it happens again and again, and then I hear the exact same thing from other Argentinians that have been to or live in America, they try to warn you, but no one wants to hear, so they get dismissed too. Seeing Obama reelected was the final proof I needed. Whether the alternative was worse or better does not even matter, the system is doomed. People will vote whatever they see on TV, and will fall for the same old politician tricks. Get the poor and the naive, win the elections, and then steal from everyone through things like inflation and bailouts. I'll just drop here this perverse quote from Obama, after he saw that the current president of Argentina (who absolutely destroyed what was left of the country) got 54% of votes and got reelected on 2011. He said something like "I have things to learn from you". Sure, it could be nothing, don't listen to me.
- pekk 14y ago
  How would electing Romney show that the US was not bound for the same fate as Argentina?
  - mylittlepony 14y ago
    "Whether the alternative was worse or better does not even matter, the system is doomed" It wouldn't show that it was not bound for the same fate, but at least it would show you have the minimum level of self-respect, pride as a nation, and awareness needed to fix the issue in the future. Money, charm, and favoritism shouldn't drive and win a political campaign. Idealists should be able to get attention and be elected, instead of being hidden and smeared: establish a number of TV slots at random, say 10 or 20, pick candidates at random (if there are more than the available slots), and let them have the same air time. Also, corporations shouldn't be allowed to make donations to finance political campaigns. That's bribe in our faces. Teach the basics of economics in schools, so they understand where inflation comes from, and how it's not a natural disaster.

by nirvana 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Am I following this correctly, that you believe the US government and particularly our central bank is corrupt, and therefore we shouldn't sue corrupt private companies because that's hypocritical? Or do you think the suit against S&P is a good thing, but not enough of it?

AutoCorrect 14y ago
no, the OP believes that the politicians should be sued too - right now it's a case of the pot vs the kettle.

gnosis 14y ago

"And then forgive the "debt" they created and pretend like it was "paid back"." Could you substantiate this claim? I'm genuinely interested. I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of the bailout money was paid back. I'd read in reputable newspapers that this was the case. If it was "forgiven" instead, I'd be very interested to see the proof.

ams6110 14y ago
Most of the bailout dollars were not loans, they were equity ownership stakes. To the extent the loans were "paid back in full" the dollar amount represents only a fraction of the total bailout provided.
sxcurry 14y ago
I believe you are correct - most of the bailout money has been repaid: As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program. [Wikipedia]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 14y ago

Expand on the Rothschild connection, will you?

Locke1689 14y ago
I'm trying really hard to not read that comment as an anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theory, but I'm having a pretty rough time, since the Rothschild banking arm is notoriously conservative in its asset management and investment.

sxcurry 14y ago

"not authorized under the constitution" Can you give some specifics about why this is so?

tptacek 14y ago
Here you can reasonably expect to end up litigating Alexander Hamilton with someone who several months ago said this in an HN comment: "Maybury v Madison contained a criminal action on the part of the supreme court where they usurped power that did not belong to them, under the constitution, and where they correctly ruled that unconstitutional laws are invalid the moment they are signed."

gph1 14y ago

Please explain how monetary policy is "stealing money". Absurd tin foil hat caricatures like this often makes any reasonable discussion of the Fed and its role impossible.

bitcartel 14y ago
There is an argument that the zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing helps banks who are technically insolvent, at the expense of prudent savers like pensioners.

asr 14y ago

To answer your question: yes, you can sue the politicians for spending your money in a way you don't think is Constitutional. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flast_v._Cohen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flast_v._Cohen and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Taxpayer_standing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Taxpayer_standin.... That said, the best way to fix the problem is to vote the politicians out of office. (Not really going to touch the rest of this...)

ekianjo 14y ago
> the best way to fix the problem is to vote the politicians out of office. In a bi-party world, your odds of getting anyone out of office and preventing them from coming back later are, unfortunately, pretty damn low.

mylittlepony 14y ago

I always feel like everything that is happening in the US, has already happened in Argentina. But every time I mention it, I get dismissed like it was a stupid comparison. And then it happens again and again, and then I hear the exact same thing from other Argentinians that have been to or live in America, they try to warn you, but no one wants to hear, so they get dismissed too. Seeing Obama reelected was the final proof I needed. Whether the alternative was worse or better does not even matter, the system is doomed. People will vote whatever they see on TV, and will fall for the same old politician tricks. Get the poor and the naive, win the elections, and then steal from everyone through things like inflation and bailouts. I'll just drop here this perverse quote from Obama, after he saw that the current president of Argentina (who absolutely destroyed what was left of the country) got 54% of votes and got reelected on 2011. He said something like "I have things to learn from you". Sure, it could be nothing, don't listen to me.

pekk 14y ago
How would electing Romney show that the US was not bound for the same fate as Argentina?
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  "Whether the alternative was worse or better does not even matter, the system is doomed" It wouldn't show that it was not bound for the same fate, but at least it would show you have the minimum level of self-respect, pride as a nation, and awareness needed to fix the issue in the future. Money, charm, and favoritism shouldn't drive and win a political campaign. Idealists should be able to get attention and be elected, instead of being hidden and smeared: establish a number of TV slots at random, say 10 or 20, pick candidates at random (if there are more than the available slots), and let them have the same air time. Also, corporations shouldn't be allowed to make donations to finance political campaigns. That's bribe in our faces. Teach the basics of economics in schools, so they understand where inflation comes from, and how it's not a natural disaster.