Posted on 12/15/2008 2:55:41 AM PST by CutePuppy
You recall correctly, “Blood on the Street” by “Charlie” Gasparino. He is a very good investigative reporter and “plugged in” and wise to the ways of the Street.
I doubt, though, that just one book can cover everything that goes on now. Internet Bubble and crash was pretty straightforward and didn’t have much political content, compared to all the currents, undercurrents, plots and subplots that we have today - where Big Government and politicial and financial manipulations meet on the central stage in the Global Financial Crisis play.
As Warren Buffett likes to say, "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." The tide has gone out, and there are a lot of "naked" people on the [Palm] beach now, but I don't know if we'll find out who many of them are, considering most of them are of the Democratic variety.
"I believe it is considered fraud to convert public monies designated for one purpose to another purpose." - if it is not, it should be considered a fraud, but it's done all the time - particularly in the states - under the guise of "public good" and "we are from the government, we are here to help".
The money went somewhere - he didn’t burn it.You are absolutely right, some of it went to Bernie and family as commissions, some went offshore on behalf of the investors / "donors", some went to political campaigns ("like the Other one"
The beneficiaries should be tracked down and made to cough up the difference between what they “donated” and what they recouped.
There is almost nothing left for redemptions, so now is the time for "Ponzi scheme" that sends the old man to white criminals' low security prison, but pretty much leaves the rest of the family set.
As Liz points out very well:
As the bard of Avon wrote: “tis better to be thought a hapless victim of a Ponzi scheme than to admit to tax evasion.”
I would add, the same applies to massive illegal political campaigns donations. Clintons and Norman Hsu, with their infamous "Ponzi scheme" that diverted and distributed funds to small "donors", were pikers compared to "the Other one" who raised hundreds of millions in "small" untraceable donations over the Internet. This money had to come from somewhere, what better than from tax-deductible Ponzi scheme "losses". Donations are made, "invested" money by individuals / foundations is "gone" to the Money Heaven (not offshore haven, of course) and investment losses offset future tax-free investment gains.
Governments, in general, and liberal Democrats, in particular, are very good at abusing the system and misusing the public money. That's the reason Paulson wants to get and allocate the rest of the TARP money (the "second half") now. Had elections turned out differently, he would't be asking for it now.
I'm sure his firm issued phonied up "statements" showing year after year what people "had". Can you be any more sure that the statements you get from your 401K, your bank, or your credit union are not equally worthless paper and ink?
I'm reminded of those silly statements the Social Security Administration issues that tell me how much money I'll get per month if I retire at 67. It's all BS, and anybody who believes it is a fool. I have to say the same thing about any financial statement these days, there were some mighty sophisticated people who got bamboozled by this fraud.
The IRS should sit up and take notice. Most of the govt money being converted is tax-exempt bond revenue....usually acted upon via passage of bond referenda on ballots.
Voters ---and tax-exempt investors---were clearly misled.
They really weren’t getting large returns...they were just steady freddy 10-15%, always.
Bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.