Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (761922)	1/6/2014 10:34:18 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573678

Not as bad as the drought climate. Thanks for asking.

To: Sdgla who wrote (761922)	1/6/2014 10:57:32 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By joseffy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573678

‘An interesting sort of coincidence’: Finance reporter on ANOTHER massive JPMorgan settlement dailycaller.com Fox News financial reporter Charlie Gasparino called the latest massive settlement between the Justice Department and JPMorgan Chase — this one a cool $2 billion for failing to detect Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme — “an interesting sort of coincidence,” hinting the settlement is the latest example of an Obama administration vendetta against the megabank. Gasparino spoke with Fox’s Neil Cavuto Monday about the settlement, which brings the total amount grabbed by the government up to $20 billion — a deal that would’ve been unthinkably harsh even a year ago. Many analysts and pundits believe the snowstorm of settlements — which have not been levied against other similarly-accused banks — is payback for CEO Jamie Dimon’s criticism of the Obama administration’s economic policies. (RELATED: Are the Feds targeting JPMorgan for criticizing Obama?) “You gotta ask why JPMorgan is just handing them the money now after paying $13 billion and many more,” Gasparino began. He claimed that he had spoken to numerous sources tied to the megabank’s board of directors, who apparently were seriously concerned “the Feds were going to break them up. Not break up all the banks, just them, based off all this regulatory stuff.” Gasparino questioned whether the Obama administration actually targeted JPMorgan to enforce the law. “It’s an interesting sort of coincidence that after Jamie Dimon started attacking the Obama administration, particularly on economic and regulatory policy, then all of these investigations start popping up.” The reporter admitted that JPMorgan isn’t squeaky clean, but that the company’s mistakes aren’t much different from those made by other banks. “They’re a big bank, stuff goes wrong there,” he noted. “Are they a criminal institution as some people on the left suggest? I don’t think so. I can tell you a lot of bad stuff goes on at other places.” “But it is an interesting coincidence that when Jamie Dimon starting opening his mouth they went after him” he continued. “And here’s the thing. In this highly regulated environment, the Feds can put you out of business.” Gasaparino claimed that the JPMorgan board is eager to put all legal issues behind it after this last, final settlement, and is hoping for smooth sailing by the end of this quarter. “I think it’s only smooth sailing when there’s a different administration in place for these guys,” the reporter countered.

To: Sdgla who wrote (761922)	1/7/2014 12:14:03 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573678

the major export of California will be residents.

To: Sdgla who wrote (761922)	1/7/2014 2:18:06 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573678

“I mean no taxes. That’s what I mean when I say tax free – no business tax, no corporate tax, no franchise fee, no income tax,” Cuomo told officials at the University at Buffalo. Politicians often prefer high taxes and other expenses on businesses in general, then making a bunch of concessions, reductions, tax holidays tax free zones etc. Probably because its gives them more control, and more appearance of responsibility for economic growth. Keep rates low and business does well, well maybe its just a good time for the economy, or maybe it was some national policy, or something put in by the guy before you. Lower rates for some company to move it and it becomes "I created 1000 jobs...", even if the economy would probably have done better, and the situation allows less opportunity for corruption, when you have generally low rates then with high rates and then special exceptions.