Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[Griff]

I'm glad I pulled my millions when they got off the gold standard.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Rich Americans Sue UBS to Keep Names Secret

This actually could become a very big deal if the names are exosed. I would like to see who is on that list.

[classicman]

Yup - I hope they are a bunch of politicians and banking or Wall Street execs. Then we can actually hold them accountable.

[TheMercenary]

I want to see the list of politicians, former and current that may be there. It would be perfect.

[sugarpop]

I hope they release ity as well. I'm sick to death of people getting away with crap like this, regardless of who they are (politicians, corporate pirates, etc.). I think they may be cooperating because rich pricks in America caused the economic collapse of the entire world.

[tw]

I remember those UBS commercials that were advertising moving money overseas to reduce taxes. Back then, I was asking myself how UBS could do this and not invite government investigation. Well, today we know why. A fox was in the hen house. Legalized corruption renamed as deregulation.

[classicman]

UBS AG Helps Fill Lawmakers' Coffers

Swiss bank UBS AG agreed today to pay $780 million to settle claims by the U.S. Department of Treasury that it helped American customers evade paying taxes by hiding their Swiss bank accounts from U.S. tax authorities. But that's not the only help that UBS has provided Americans. In the 2008 election cycle, the foreign bank's employees and PAC contributed $3.1 million to federal candidates (including candidate committees and leadership PACs), parties and PACs, 54 percent of which went to Democrats. Among all finance, insurance and real estate companies, UBS has given more campaign donations than all but six other companies. It also spent nearly $1.3 million lobbying between 2007 and 2008.

UBS not only split its funds between Republicans and Democrats, it also made sure to help out more than one presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle and directed its funds to a few of the higher ups of the finance-related congressional committees. Here are some of the notable recipients.

* President Obama collected more from employees of the company than any other candidate or party committee, bringing in $512,800 for his presidential bid. As a senator, Obama co-sponsored a bill, S. 681, in 2007 that would have gotten tougher on tax havens, and listed Switzerland, among others, as an "offshore secrecy jurisdiction." The bill didn't appear to make it past the Senate Committee on Finance.

* Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), came in second with $170,900.

* Former presidential candidate and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the top 10 individual recipients ($108,500), in addition to former presidential candidates Mitt Romney ($123,350) and Rudy Giuliani ($111,300).

* Former congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel collected $64,700. Emanuel received more from UBS than any other member of the House in the 2008 cycle.

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs brought in $61,500. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.


And just as the company has invested in lawmakers, a few have invested their personal funds in the foreign bank and its subsidiaries. In 2007, seven members of Congress had between $207,187 and $500,180 of their own funds invested in the bank. (Members of Congress report the value of their assets in ranges, making it impossible to calculate their exact worth.)
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) had the most invested at between $100,001 and $250,000. Others with money wrapped up in the bank include:
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif),
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.),
Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.),
Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas),
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Clinton.
For the complete list of recipients in the 2008 election cycle, download this file:
UBS Chart.xls

Originally Posted by tw

Legalized corruption renamed as deregulation.

They gave to both parties, but heavily favored the D's. This had nothing to do with deregulation and everything to do with buying politicians.

Also -

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.

How the heck is that legal? How can that not be the most blatant form of influence peddling? Conflict of interest anyone?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

They gave to both parties, but heavily favored the D's.

Again you got it backwards to promote wacko extremism. Republicans were in power then. Republicans got most of the money. Why purchase the party that had no power? Convenient when a staunch Republican takes every opportunity to take cheap shots at Democrats and Obama. classicman lied again.

Those USB contributions are for 2007 and 2008. But those advertisements and money laundering were being promoted somewhere around 2002/3.

Did classicman forget a Jack Abramoff scandel that set new records for corruption - exceeding all previous corruption by a factor of 10? Record corruption directly almost exclusively at Republicans such as Tom Delay. USB would be only one taking advantage of 'deregulation'.

Many think of the Caymans as a haven for money laundering and tax evasion. But the list of largest money trafficer includes some Pacific Islands and Israel was in the top five back then. Caymans did not even make the top ten as I recall. Who was the party to buy? Republicans were pushing all this 'deregulation' then.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Again you got it backwards to promote wacko extremism. Convenient when a staunch Republican takes every opportunity to take cheap shots at Democrats and Obama. classicman lied again.

Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
Follow the thread there big boy. BTW, You crossed the line again tommy boy.
#1 - I never lied.
#2 - The only wacko in this thread is you.
#3 - I'm not a republican.
#4 - The D's got twice as much money as the R's.

As usual, the facts that don't conveniently fit into your preconceived notions get overlooked or ignored.

Originally Posted by tw

Republicans were in power then. Republicans got most of the money.

False - Read the link. This is 2007 & 2008 that WE are all discussing, not 2002. C'mon along with the rest of us.

Originally Posted by tw

Why purchase the party that had no power?

Because it was obvious to everyone who would be in power. They were simply planning ahead. If you notice they still threw a few bones to the R's to cover their ass, look bipartisan, and gave it to the key R's...... just in case.

Originally Posted by tw

Those USB contributions are for 2007 and 2008.

Thats the timeframe we are all talking about. Wanna join us? Great - wanna talk about something else? Start another thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
False - Read the link. This is 2007 & 2008 that WE are all discussing, not 2002. C'mon along with the rest of us.

And again you have it all backwards. USB was doing this asset hiding in the early 2000s. You are discussing 2007/2008 Congressional contributions. USB was moving assets even back in 2003 when it was advertised and all but permitted due to near zero enforcement.

When it comes to corruption, the wacko Republicans (not to be confuse with moderate and therefore partiotic Republicans) set new standards for corrupution. Let's not forget that USB, at the same time, was offering programs to move (hide) assets overseas. classicman is lying again to blame Democrats.

Originally Posted by classicman

Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
Follow the thread there big boy. BTW, You crossed the line again tommy boy.

#4 - The D's got twice as much money as the R's.

In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.

Senate contributions: nearly twice as much to Republicans ($110K - R, $61K - D)
PAC to PAC contributions: more to Republicans.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.

FALSE
Based upon the numbers from the link within the article
the totals for each party were:
D - $1,710,767.00
R - $1,400,533.00
O - $26,975.00
Somehow one D got -$20 not sure about that one.

Based upon the attachment from the link within the article we were both wrong. As far as twice as much, I was incorrect. As far as the R's getting more than the D's you were incorrect.

The D's still got more although I think the amount more is rather insignificant. Perhaps to someone who knows who the specific recipients are, the info would mean more. I even broke it down by amounts and did donations >$500 and >$10,000 The percentages seemed to be about the same as the overall totals.

My conclusion - they were bribing everyone.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.

Senate contributions: nearly twice as much to Republicans ($110K - R, $61K - D)
PAC to PAC contributions: more to Republicans.

From your link the totals are:
Direct:
Total D - $426,500
Total R - $408,500

PAC:
Total D - $150,000
Total R - $206,500

Gross:
R - $615,000
D - $576,500

The R's got more in the Senate, but the D's got more in the House. With PAC's the R's got more.
51% to 49% - a statistical tie.
However, the totals from your link aren't even close to the total contribution from the original link in the article I posted which was well over $3,100,000. Where did the other $2,000,000 go?

[TheMercenary]

Great post classic! Quite telling. So much for the Demoncrats being the party of change. Well done.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great post classic! Quite telling. So much for the Demoncrats being the party of change. Well done.

I think you will find that campaign contributions follow power. That should come as no surprise.

Lets see if it leads to as many Democrats being investigated for corruption as the Republicans when they last controlled Congress:

Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.

http://www.propublica.org/article/po...gation-wrap-up

In fact, the one change that did occur was the Ethics/Lobbying Reform that the Democrats adopted as soon as they assumed control of Congress. The first such reform in more than 20 years.

It doesnt go nearly far enough, but it does bring more transparency so that it should be easier for you to nab those naughty Demoncrats!

One immediate result.....you're not likely to see another K. Street Project ...the Republican blatant influence peddling scheme that was in place for 10+ years wont fly under the new regulations to prevent the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.