COMMENT OF THE DAY “I did work for Allen a few years back and found him to be a genuinely nice person who was willing to pay (on time, no less) for what he wanted. At the time he was focused on ‘trust’ services, which were primarily vehicles for Latin and South American wealth protection from currency fluctuations that were common in the 1990’s. He was extremely generous with the Antiguan people and government which he could afford to do, as the profits from the Antigua banks would incur hefty taxes upon re-patriation to the US. He was heavily tied to the democratic congressional members at the time. I once bumped into Conn. Senator Christopher Dodd in the lobby of his building on Westheimer. Sarbannes and even Sheila Jackson Lee counted on him for support. He does have a bit of history with the State Department, and paid a fine for lax controls related to potential money laundering in the 1990’s. I’ll be curious to find out about the SEC’s findings.” [mt, commenting on Feds Now Raiding Stanford Financial Group Offices in the Galleria]
Sign up for the Newsletter
So Chris Dodd get extremely low rate Mortgages from Countrywide and mostly like takes money from this group.
And he’s currently in charge of the Senate Finance Committee.
My guess is that this won’t be to serious unless Dodd is going down.
Okay, Republicans, don’t get too excited. Your team is in this too.
This doesn’t excite. It actually saddens me.
Mentioning of Dodd and I could throw in Barney Frank too is because they are currently the guys that are in charge of writing banking/financing laws.
The same goes if Republicans were in charge.
In an article from last October, this is how Stanford described how he grew his business:
“built a good chain and the chain can replicate itself by bringing in other people who have their own chains.”
Sounds like a nice, succinct definition of a pyramid scheme to me!
Source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1006/202.html
Criminals…all of them. Send them far away after stripping every red cent out of any assets they may have left.
Enron anyone? Madoff of the Bayou?
Percy, mindsets like yours are what make both self-appointed teams more odious than they need to be. A good team player must believe his or her team to be the team of what the country really needs done, otherwise why stand for it? And yet must imagine that the question of, “Otherwise, why stand for it?” has a different, underhanded and usually treacherously incentivized answer for other teams’ players, natch (almost ipso facto on their not being party to your party and therefore not standing for the symbolism of your party getting to anoint the future — quite prior to and independent of any particular future practice being introduced, you understand). This leads to attaching great significance to Whose turf some talking point or other constitutes. And necessarily so – if you let it slide, the other team will appear to be the one to be on, the one with answers, the one with a bright practical etc. And worse, It might get bigger. Votes aside, wrong symbolism there. Some folks notice how every election has to usher in talk of the withering of the losing party as we know it. It’s like, knowing that certain cosmic absolute ultimate frames of reference are being disallowed from the public sphere now, people are tempted to reassign that kind of nobility to lesser stand-ins to stop the gap.
I’m not begging for a party founded on one common Quixotic mission toward objectivity. But I’m happy to point out the following:
The fact that partisans of replacement factions would grow to act the same way will yield a person no easy night’s sleep, let alone massage the justness of their cause, because in the mean time it is precious little wonder that both nobama and probama sides of the aisle keep arriving at solutions that scratch some itch on the axis defined by the two parties’ self-conceptions of grandeur and identity (instead of defined by, you know, information). Their talk of what the country really needs done just mocks it and wears it out – let alone the idea that reformers always pretend to be about what the citizens can do together for themselves (cf. Bush’s faith based initiatives and Obama’s initiative based faith; cf. the general similarities between their avowed inaugural messages), until it’s a question in office of closing the purse strings for their favorite ideas that the country, you know, really needs done to it. Unless that [and again, it’s as though, knowing that certain cosmic absolute ultimate frames of reference are being disallowed from the public sphere now, people are tempted to reassign that kind of nobility to lesser stand-ins to stop the gap] makes a person weep, there’s something wrong with them; and if a person still feels like this increasingly, not decreasingly, democratic melange of a republic is the best that we can do, then I’ll weep for two.