RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Occupy Wall Street

Wonder Boy content User mighty weilder of the Penis of Truth
7500+ posts 4 minutes 19 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Occupy Wall Street

...Pro flinging his poo across every forum...

Those that want to engage in violence at this point are complete idiots. We are no where near the point of corporatism, fascism, tyranny, or whatever you want to call it where armed resistance is required. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be more than happy to water The Tree of Liberty if needed to. I just think that most of our current problems could be remedied without it at this point.

I don’t think we are really too far off on this. It is just a matter of how we see it. You see it as something we are heading towards. I see it as something that is already lurking beneath the s

I got nothing! I can't beat him!!

I assume the "tree of Liberty" you refer to is Jefferson's statement that it periodically needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.

The Tea Party it could be argued is too focused on government corruption, and not giving enough mention to the corporate lobbyist part of the equation.
The Occupy Wall Street protestors give more emphasis to corporate lobbyist influence and profit, and not giving enough (if any) mention of the necessary government part of the equation to enable corporate profits.

50% of All Workers Made Less than $26,000 in 2010
By Derek Thompson
Oct 20 2011, 10:55 AM ET 196

Today we get our first look at American wages in 2010 based on payroll taxes reported to the Social Security Administration. David Cay Johnston picks out the most important takeaways, including:

1) Half of all workers made less than $26,364, the median wage in 2010. That means the typical wage is at its lowest level since 1999, after adjusting for inflation.

2) The number of millionaires increased by about 20 percent.

3) The size of the missing workforce is 10 million. The number of working people fell by 5.2 million since 2007. But that's not the entire job deficit, because, based on population growth estimates, 4.5 million more would have joined the workforce between 2007 and 2011. Add it up, and you get a 10-million-worker gap.

What you see in the graph above is that median pay took a nosedive after 2007, effectively wiping out all gains made in the previous eight years. The macro explanation is that the economy shrunk, and middle class jobs disappeared and were replaced with (or outlasted by) lower-paying positions that companies kept on. But the economy isn't one giant corporation. It's thousands of giant, medium-sized, and small companies in industries that lived through very different recessions. Here's a look at pay on an industry-by-industry level from our friends at PayScale.


The industries with wages growing considerably slower than the rest of the country -- the ones really pulling down the national average -- are construction (huge bubble burst), food service (an unproductive industry that requires little advanced education) and sales and retail (another unproductive industry that requires little advanced education). So one thing that's keeping wages low is the fact that the most important stimulus of the last decade blew up in our face, and another big thing is that lots of workers without college degrees don't have the skills to demand higher wages in more productive professions. I'm as astounded as Johnston about these wage numbers, but I'm less optimistic that is the kind of trend we can reverse in an election.


Update: There are some reasonable questions about how many of these workers are part-time. I don't know the answer to that question. Our official measures of part-time workers are inconsistent, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data on workers by hours-per-week is here. What we know: About 24 million people worked less than 29 hours a week in 2010. About 35 million people worked 34 hours a week or less in 2010

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/50-of-all-workers-made-less-than-26-000-in-2010/247059/?google_editors_picks=true#



"The number of millionaires increased by about 20 percent."

You see, that's the problem. If this country had more millionaires, that would mean more money for everyone else.

-Right Wing SuperFriends

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576638981631627402.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Jacqueline Siegel paces the floor of her unfinished 7,200-square-foot ballroom. The former beauty queen, with platinum-blond hair, blue eye shadow and a white minidress, clacks along the plywood construction boards in her high heels trailed by a small entourage of helpers and staff

"This is the grand hall," she says, opening her arms to a space the size of a concert hall and surrounded by balconies. "It will fit 500 people comfortably, probably more. The problem with our place now is that when we have parties with, like, 400 people, it gets too crowded."

The Siegels' dream home, called "Versailles," after its French inspiration, is still a work in progress. Its steel-and-wood frame rises from the tropical suburbs of Orlando, Fla., like a skeleton from the Jurassic age of real estate. Ms. Siegel shows off the future bowling alley, indoor relaxing pools, five kitchens, 23 bathrooms, 13 bedrooms, two elevators, two movie theaters (one for kids and one for adults, each modeled after a French opera theater), 20-car garage and wine cellar built for 20,000 bottles.

At 90,000 square feet, the Siegels' Versailles is believed to be the largest private home in America. (The Vanderbilt family's Biltmore house in North Carolina is bigger at 135,000 square feet, but it's now a hotel and tourist attraction). The Siegels' home is so big that they bought 10 Segways to get around—one for each of their eight children.

After touring the house, Ms. Siegel walks out to the deck, with its Olympic-size pool, future rock grotto, three hot tubs and 80-foot waterfall overlooking Lake Butler. Her eyes well up with tears.

Versailles was supposed to be done by now. The Siegels were supposed to be living their dream life—throwing charity balls and getting spa treatments downstairs after a long flight on their Gulfstream. The home was the culmination of David Siegel's Horatio Alger story, from TV repairman to chief executive and owner of America's largest time-share company, Westgate Resorts, with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and $200 million in profits.

Yet today, Versailles sits half-finished and up for sale. The privately owned Westgate Resorts was battered by the 2008 credit crunch and real-estate crash. It had about $1 billion in debt—much of it co-signed by the Siegels.

The banks that had loans on Versailles gave the Siegels an ultimatum: Either pay off the loans or sell the house. So it's now on the market for $75 million, or $100 million if the buyer wants it finished.

As she stands on her deck in the Florida sun, Ms. Siegel wipes away her tears. "Maybe it will still work out," she says. "It always does, right?"

The Siegels' Versailles may be the nation's most extravagant monument to the debt-fueled, status-crazed real-estate binge of the past decade. Like many Americans, the Siegels borrowed too much, spent too much and bet that values could only go higher. Even in the age of excess, Versailles was excessive.

Their story might seem like the exception among the rich, who, we're told, just keep getting richer. Yet episodes like the Fall of the House of Siegel are becoming increasingly common as the wealthy undergo a sweeping and little-noticed revolution. The American rich, who used to be the most stable slice of the personal economy, are now the most volatile, with escalating booms and busts.

During the past three recessions, the top 1% of earners (those making $380,000 or more in 2008) experienced the largest income shocks in percentage terms of any income group in the U.S., according to research from economists Jonathan A. Parker and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen at Northwestern University. When the economy grows, their incomes grow up to three times faster than the rest of the country's. When the economy falls, their incomes fall two or three times as much.

The super-high earners have the biggest crashes. The number of Americans making $1 million or more fell 40% between 2007 and 2009, to 236,883, while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50%—far greater than the less than 2% drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less, according to Internal Revenue Service figures.

Of course, the trauma of giving up a Gulfstream or a yacht can't compare with the millions of Americans who have lost their only job or home. The Siegels will make do in their current 26,000-square-foot mansion.

The incomes of the wealthy can also be "managed" through selling stock, exercising options and shifting around business losses. Yet their income volatility is roughly the same when options are excluded, and their accumulated wealth is also highly unstable.

During the 1990 and 2001 recessions, the richest 5% of Americans (measured by net worth) experienced the largest decline in their wealth, according to research from the Federal Reserve. As of 2009, the richest 20% of Americans showed the largest decline in mean wealth of any other group.

Yet the rise of the manic millionaire marks something new in the U.S. economy and will increasingly be felt by the rest of the country. With the wealthy now at the center of the political debate, from the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York to the tax battles in Washington, portrayals of millionaires and billionaires are being shaped more by partisan ideologies than economic realities. The story of more volatile wealth may not fit neatly with either party's agenda, but it offers a clearer view of the rich—who they are, how they got there, and how they will drive our own economic futures.

Though often described as a permanent plutocracy, this elite actually moves through a revolving door of riches, with some of today's nouveau riche becoming tomorrow's fallen kings. Only 27% of America's 400 top earners have made the list more than one year since 1994, one study shows.

It wasn't always this way. For decades after World War II, the top-one-percenters were the most steady line on the income and wealth charts. They gained less during good times and lost less during contractions than the rest of America.

Suddenly, in 1982, the wealthiest broke away from the rest of the economy and formed their own virtual country. Their incomes began soaring higher during good times. The top 1% of earners more than doubled their share of national income, to 20% as of 2008. Looking at another measure, the richest 1% increased their share of wealth from just over 20% to more than 33%.

Those surges were often accompanied by mini-crashes, even though the direction over time was always up. A top 1% that had once been models of financial sobriety set off on a wild ride of economic binges.

This marked a new personality type in the history of wealth: the High-Beta Rich.

"High beta" is a term used in financial markets to describe a stock or asset that has exaggerated up and down swings with the market. Tech start-ups and casino stocks have high betas, for example. Yet studies show that today's rich have higher betas than many of the riskiest gambling stocks. Between 1947 and 1982, the beta of the top 1% was a modest 0.72, meaning that their incomes moved relatively in line with the rest of America. Between 1982 and 2007, their beta soared more than three-fold.

What created high-beta wealth? Economists aren't sure. The rise of the high-betas and the rise in inequality started at the same time, suggesting they have a common cause. Mr. Parker and Ms. Vissing-Jorgenssen cite new communication technologies that allow the best workers and products to be scaled over larger markets, thus making them more sensitive to economic changes. Others cite globalization and the rise of "winner-take-all" pay schemes.

Interviews with more than 100 people with net worths (or former net worths) of $10 million or more, and a wave of new studies on the rich, suggest a different cause: the "financialization" of wealth. Simply put, more wealth today is tied to the stock market than to broader economic growth. A larger share of today's rich make their fortunes from stock-based pay, shares in publicly traded companies, selling a business or working in finance.

Because the stock market is up to 20 times more volatile than overall economic growth, the market-based fortunes of the wealthy are now more unsteady. Fast-moving global capital is also creating more asset bubbles, which have become their own self-destructing wealth machines.

Rising debt plays a role. While the rich are often portrayed as thrifty "millionaires next door," the era of low interest rates and easy money has turned them into a leveraged elite. The household debt of the top 1% surged more than three-fold between 1989 and 2007, to $600 billion, and grew faster than their net worth.

Add to that the growing arms race in conspicuous consumption and you get big spenders who are only one crisis away from financial ruin. Edra Blixseth, the former co-owner of the Yellowstone Club in Big Sky, Mont., went from being a paper billionaire to filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy—liquidation—in three years. She says that she and her husband, Tim, were "living on the financial edge" even as they had two yachts, three jets and a California estate with its own 19-hole golf course and staff of 110 people.

"I felt like we were always trying to project the image of success," she says.

The fallout from the "high betas" is likely to grow. As the wealthy gain a greater share of wealth and income, they account for a growing share of spending, taxes and investments. The top 5% of earners now account for 37% of consumer outlays, according to Moody's Analytics. The top 1% of earners pay 38% of federal income taxes. The richest 1% of Americans own more than half of the country's individually held stocks, according to the Federal Reserve.

As go the high-beta rich, so goes America. Their hyper-cycles will become our own, as the consumer economy, financial markets and tax revenues experience more rapid and extreme spikes and crashes.

The spending of the rich is even wilder than their incomes. The spending volatility of the top 10% of earners is now more than 10 times the spending volatility of the bottom 80%, according to one study.

Since a high percentage of spending by the rich is discretionary—jewelry and vacations rather than toothpaste and milk—it rises and falls with their confidence and the stock market. Luxury is now the most volatile segment of the consumer economy. The average price of a Gulfstream V tumbled from $45 million to about $23 million during the latest recession, while sales volume fell by nearly half. Similar patterns show up with racehorses, yachts and multimillion-dollar vacation homes. The butler shortage of 2007 became the butler glut of 2010.

The Siegels show how the cycle of high-beta wealth plays out in the lives, values and economy of the rich. Before 2008, Mr. Siegel's company, Westgate, was earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the family. The Siegels poured $50 million into Versailles, which seemed reasonable at the time. When friends asked David why he wanted to build the largest home in America, he had a simple answer: "Because I can."

"I was cocky and I didn't care what the house would cost because I couldn't spend all the money I was making," Mr. Siegel says.

When Westgate couldn't roll over its debts, he had to bail out the company with hundreds of millions of dollars of his own. He fired half of his workforce of 12,000 people and sold off assets. Mr. Siegel says that today, Westgate is "highly profitable" and demand is strong, but revenues are still half their peak levels due to lack of financing.

The Siegels took their first hard look at their own lifestyle. They fired 14 of their 15 housekeepers and lost their private chef, named "chef Jeff." They pulled their kids out of private school and put them in the local public school.

Ms. Siegel has started a nonprofit called ThriftMart, a mega thrift-store that sells donated clothes—many from her own closet—and other items for $1.

She does miss one luxury—the Gulfstream. After they defaulted on the $8 million jet loan, the banks seized the plane. The Siegels can use it only occasionally, with the banks' permission.

Recently, the family boarded a commercial flight for a vacation, making for some confusion. One of the kids looked around the crowded cabin and asked, "Mom, what are all these strangers doing on our plane?"

—Adapted from "The High-Beta Rich: How the Manic Wealthy Will Take Us to the Next Boom, Bubble, and Bust," to be published Nov. 1 by Crown Business

on this day in 2005, jla looked down to see the shark sailing by beneath his feet and wondered just where it had all gone wrong...

also,

Interesting that you hypocritically cut-and-pasted this, Pro.

Since you pathologically contribute daily to the "divide" portion of this graphic, as you partisanly rant endlessly about the evils of Republican-conservatives.

I'm sorry that picture offends you, David. It must be the "common sense" portion of it that frightens you so. Or, maybe you just don't understand it? A bit over your head?

it's like you're not even trying anymore.

The image does not offend me, Pro.

You whine about the partisan divide, and then you rail on conservatives and Fox News daily.

I'm done with you.

when it comes to pedophilia.

Sure it does! Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding to it, when it wasn't directed at you at all. You chose its importance to you, so therefore it must have offended you enough to force a response?

OR: is it just because I posted it?



I rail on FAUXNews daily, which is symptomatic of a corrupt Republican base, just like the Dems and MSNBC. The only difference is, MSNBC and the like don't try and pretend they're anything but Liberally-slanted media. FAUXNews, on the other hand, has all the rednecks fooled.

So, what does that picture have to do with anti-Conservative/FAUXNews Partisanship? OH! It's because you saw me post it and assumed it must automatically be anti-Conservative? Or, is it because you believe, deep down, that they are the ones causing the great divide?

Either way, the fantasy you face right now is your own. That picture speaks volumes. It's exactly what's wrong with American politics and society. But, if you want it to be "anti-FAUX" or whatever, you go ahead. The actual point remains either way...

As the number of Occupy Wall Street arrests nears 1,000, instances of police brutality continue to pile up. Felix Rivera-Pitre was punched in the face in New York during a march through the city’s financial district; Ryan Hadar was dragged out of the street by his thumbs at Occupy San Francisco; and at Occupy Boston, members of Veterans for Peace were shoved to the ground and dragged away for chanting and peacefully occupying a local park.

These efforts to intimidate the protesters are symptoms of three decades of policies that have militarized civilian law enforcement. Sgt. Shamar Thomas, a U.S. marine at the Occupy Wall Street protests, was so appalled by the behavior of the NYPD that he loudly confronted a group of 30 officers, shouting at them:

"This is not a war zone. These are unarmed people. It does not make you tough to hurt these people. If you want to go fight, go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Stop hurting these people, man, why y’all doing this to our people? Why are y’all gearing up like this is war? There are no bullets flying out here."

Police repression in America is hardly new. Low-income neighborhoods, communities of color and political activists have always had to deal with unneccassary shows of force by some police officers. Thanks to a populist uprising threatening a status quo that benefits the top tier of American society to the detriment of the bottom 99 percent, many Americans for the first time are witnessing the U.S. police state in action.

As Occupation Spreads, So Does the Police State

A clear pattern has emerged in the response to occupations throughout the country, from San Francisco to Denver, involving midnight raids by heavily armed paramilitary units of riot police deployed to enforce park curfews.

Protesters at Occupy San Francisco are familiar with the routine. They have endured multiple late-night police raids on their encampment in Justin Herman Plaza, the most brutal of which took place Sunday, Oct. 16. Minutes before midnight and with the approval of Mayor Ed Lee (who is currently running for reelection and claims to be supportive of the movement's overall message), 70 police officers decked out in full riot gear marched into the encampment to enforce a 10pm curfew. They dismantled tents, tarps, the medical station and the kitchen, along with some personal belongings, all of which were loaded onto Department of Public Works trucks.

Some 200 protesters resisted peacefully, locking arms to prevent the police invasion, which was met with a frighteningly violent response. According to the San Francisco Bay Guardian, one protester received a lengthy beat-down for duct-taping his body to a pole inside the camp. The police allegedly "ripped him off the pole, threw him to the ground and struck him in the head and ribs. When he left by ambulance a few hours later, he appeared to be convulsing or seizing," reported the Bay Guardian.

Protesters using their bodies to block the DPW trucks from leaving were dragged out of the street, some by their fingers and thumbs. Those who locked arms to form a human chain were pulled apart and thrown onto the sidewalk.

Ryan Hadar, 19, described his experience to the Guardian: “They bent back my thumbs, trying to pry me away from the people I was locking arms with. When I asked if they were trying to break my thumbs [one officer] replied, ‘Only if I have to.’ Then they dragged me to the sidewalk by my index finger. I asked if they were trying to break my finger, and this time they replied, ‘Yes.’"

After destroying the campsite, sending one activist to the hospital and arresting at least five protesters, the police departed from the scene around 1:40am.

You're an idiot, Pro.

I could not possibly be more clear.
The image does not offend me. What offends me is your hypocrisy in posting it.

You claim to be neutral and condemn MSNBC and other far-left media, but in post after post, topic after topic, you clearly are the liberal indoctrinated, and pretend to be a moderate you're clearly not.

Your opinion on gay issues. Where someone who doesn't agree with your position is not simply a person you respectfully disagree with. No, they're neanderthal. They're evil! They're unfit to be part of civilization and should be denied any voice.

Likewise your opinion cheering on revolution in the Occupy Wall Street topic. Anyone who doesn't agree with your highly opinionated version of the facts is a corporate dupe, a Republican shill, EVIL, I tell you, EVIL!! Meanwhile, you're the one who cheers on leftist/marxist violence, and then backpedalled from that zeal when you were called on it.

And needless to say, your opinion of our military in uniform is so insulting and vile that any number of them would beat you to death on the spot if they knew what you said behind their backs on these boards.

You are one fucking piece of work, Pro.

And so it is with anyone who disagrees with your opinion of Fox News. DESPITE THAT YOU NEVER EVEN WATCH IT, to know one way or the other what Fox actually reports.

So, basically.... I'm a very opinionated intolerant Tea Party redneck, who lives for the opportunity to slander and mock people and beliefs I never bothered to even try to understand.

The only way you can go on rationalizing what you believe is just to put your blinders on and blanket-stereotype people who don't share your view of how the world works.

Pro, you are certainly a Marxist Socialist Terrorist whom I want to kill. But only because I called dibs on the missus.

You mean, kind of how I've made this thread to show the corruption of modern corporate politics, and posted an image as an example of said corruption? Or, do you mean "hypocrisy" in how you promote FAUXNews as "Fair & Balanced", the primary source for most of your opinions and talking points, but cannot simply refute the facts of Hard-Right bias on their part?

You made need to think about that again. I believe you are missing something.



I don't "pretend" to be anything I'm not. I post facts. You cry. Rinse, repeat. Nothing's changed. You believe there is a bias since you have found yourself backing the wrong side. You support corruption of politics and business...as long as it benefits your Republican Party. Other than that? Marxism, Liberal Media, Socialism, etc., etc. You're like clockwork, David. We can all set our watches to your crazy.



................. WTF are you talking about, David? I'm genuinely lost on this point. Have I offended you in the past with my opinions? I don't rememeber, honestly. But, if you got something to accuse me of, stop being a pussy and just post it. I'm not going to sit here and try and figure out exactly what the hell you're on about. There's so many instances of you freaking out, I cannot narrow down the conversation you're talking about in my head.



Show me where I've called you, or anyone here, "evil". Go ahead. Show me. I'll wait. Go grab the quote from the OWS thread and post it here. I mean, Phil made me a banner made up of all your life-threatening sayings about me being an "enabler of evil". I'd like to see you prove I said the same thing.



And there we go! Another violent threat from David the Wonder Racist! Keep it up, David. A few more posts like that, and I'll be happy to contact the law enforcement in Florida to have a conversation with you. I don't appreciate some ignorant old man redneck threatening my life behind a computer screen. So, keep it up, fool. You'll find yourself in a looot of real-world trouble (because you don't actually know what I do in real life, do you?)



I certainly am. Fair, honest, and to the point. All my facts sourced and proven. Meanwhile, you have yet to address a single point of the post you quoted. So, who's the "fucking piece of work", David? Oh, that's right. It's the crying infant who demands everyone act and think the way he wants: white, rich, and dominant over the weak. Good luck with that.



And yet I can source it anytime I want, showing you exactly what I'm talking about. How about that G. Gordon Liddy thing, eh? I mean, I never watch FAUXNews. So, how did I know something you didn't? Of that's right, because you're just dumb.



Agreed and well said!



Kind of like how you claim I'm a Marxist Socialist Terrorist who you want to kill? Right.

BTW, if I had to "rationalize" any of my points, logic would state that I would be alone in my opinions on subjects. Whereas, 99% of the world backs "my view" of the world. Why? Because it's reality. The real world, not the Right vision of White Utopia and Corporate Capitalism.

So, either get over yourself and stop whining all over the place like a sad, bitter infant, and join the human race, or face constant defeat in your personal life. There's no real third option. Take your time.

October 19, 2011

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - A new audit of the Federal Reserve released today detailed widespread conflicts of interest involving directors of its regional banks.

"The most powerful entity in the United States is riddled with conflicts of interest," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after reviewing the Government Accountability Office report. The study required by a Sanders Amendment to last year's Wall Street reform law examined Fed practices never before subjected to such independent, expert scrutiny.

The GAO detailed instance after instance of top executives of corporations and financial institutions using their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms, and, in at least one instance, themselves. "Clearly it is unacceptable for so few people to wield so much unchecked power," Sanders said. "Not only do they run the banks, they run the institutions that regulate the banks."

Sanders said he will work with leading economists to develop legislation to restructure the Fed and bar the banking industry from picking Fed directors. "This is exactly the kind of outrageous behavior by the big banks and Wall Street that is infuriating so many Americans," Sanders said.

The corporate affiliations of Fed directors from such banking and industry giants as General Electric, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers pose "reputational risks" to the Federal Reserve System, the report said. Giving the banking industry the power to both elect and serve as Fed directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest," the report added.

The 108-page report found that at least 18 specific current and former Fed board members were affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.

In the dry and understated language of auditors, the report noted that there are no restrictions in Fed rules on directors communicating concerns about their respective banks to the staff of the Federal Reserve. It also said many directors own stock or work directly for banks that are supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve. The rules, which the Fed has kept secret, let directors tied to banks participate in decisions involving how much interest to charge financial institutions and how much credit to provide healthy banks and institutions in "hazardous" condition. Even when situations arise that run afoul of Fed's conflict rules and waivers are granted, the GAO said the waivers are kept hidden from the public.

The report by the non-partisan research arm of Congress did not name but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest, including:

Stephen Friedman In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, chairman of the New York Fed, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed's rules prohibited. He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public. After Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed, according to the GAO.
Jeffrey Immelt The Federal Reserve Bank of New York consulted with General Electric on the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program while Immelt, GE's CEO, served as a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Jamie Dimon The CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed's emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns.At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.

I'm not really sure. It's been deleted but oakland will probably be in flames by tomorrow.