|
| |
|
Sponsor |  usmjam | Mar 11, 9:18am | From the page:
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON NEWS
NY Gov Spitzer Expected To Resign
The disclosure that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer hired a high-priced prostitute during a recent visit to Washington, DC first reported by the New York Times has quickly led to speculation that Spitzer will be forced to resign his office. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning Spitzer is expected to resign "perhaps as early as today, according to a person close to him." The Washington Post says "even sympathetic analysts said the governor...did not have a reservoir of goodwill to draw upon that might help him overcome this latest controversy." Republicans in Albany "said that if the governor tries to keep his job, they will probably question whether his state police bodyguards, who provide him 24-hour protection, were complicit in his actions, and whether any state money or facilities were used."
USA Today headlines its front-page story "Revelation Could Cost Spitzer Political Future," and reports "some Democrats may be hoping for a quick resignation to minimize the repercussions of the explosive disclosure, Democratic strategist Peter Fenn says." The Wall Street Journal notes in a front-page story that if the Governor does resign, "the state constitution calls for the job to pass to Mr. Spitzer's lieutenant governor and running mate, David Paterson, a legally blind former legislator." Paterson, adds the Journal, "is as widely liked as Mr. Spitzer is controversial," and "would become the state's first African-American governor."
On Monday, USA Today reports, Spitzer made a public appearance alongside his wife in which he "apologized to his family and the public." In its Style section, the Washington Post says "nearly every post-scandal news conference is like every other. There's a script to these things, as we all know, and...Spitzer followed it to the letter yesterday in seeming to acknowledge his involvement with a prostitute and apologizing for it." Noting Mrs. Spitzer's presence at yesterday's event, Dana Milbank writes in his "Washington Sketch" column for the Washington Post that "whatever Spitzer...did with a petite brunette nicknamed 'Kristen' on the eve of Valentine's Day last month at Washington's Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, it probably wasn't as monstrous as what he asked his wife to do yesterday." |
|
| 
|  StarBright | Mar 11, 1:36pm | What goes around, comes around.
Next step the blind will be leading us. Maybe he can do a better job! |
|
| 
|  leob14 | Mar 11, 10:52pm | | People in Government go crazy with a bit of power, and they lose track of their initial goal...this is a sad sad world |
|
| 
Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor | | usmjam | Mar 17, 2:09pm | Holy Guacamole, we had been saying all along that the Feds had to have taken him down on purpose. We thought it was probably due to embarrassments to the Democrats during the election process such as the drivers licenses to illegal aliens fiasco.
But man, you found a huge huge article Fenian. Here now is the original article by Spitzer where he dared attack the banks & the Bush regime, thereby getting himself targeted.
From the page: "Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers." |
|
| 
| | HeatherLowe | Apr 16, 2:43pm | | He was a dick so who cares. He was two faced and hypocritical piece of crap is all I have to say about him. My body is my body and assholes like him make me sick. |
|
|
Sponsor | | usmjam | Apr 17, 8:19am | Its about the government and big banks colluding to bring on the present banking "crisis". It is not an unexpected "crisis". Its a well orchestrated swindle, the banks overextend credit, the masses take the bait, then the government bails out the big banks with taxpayer's money.
Meantime, smaller banks go under and get swallowed up by the bigger sharks. The sheeple lose homes and businesses, but the government bails out the top banks. No billionaire left behind.
Just read the links above and forget about the sex sideshow. The state finance folks from every single state were working to stop the mess that we are currently in. The federal government went way out of its way to stop the states representatives from protecting their constituents. One way was to conveniently use Spitzer's stupidity to have him leave office, and leave the fight against the federal government and their banking whores.
The Feds can take out anyone, either by the way they took out Spitzer, or the way they took out JFK.
This is no longer about the Spitzer sexcapades, nor about the fact that anybody's body is their body (I still don't get that part of post # 6), or the fact that Spitzer made me sick too. Its no longer about Spitzer and his whores. It should be about the Federal government and their political whores in the banking industry. |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
New York → Discussion