Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark...rss_topstories

wrote in message
...
Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark...rss_topstories



Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after Spitzer for
"unusual financial transactions". Right. :-)

On Mar 11, 12:28*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark.../index.htm?ere...

Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after Spitzer for
"unusual financial transactions". Right. :-)

Yep! And supposedly the number one person that should have his finger
on the pulse of this nation was the last one to hear that analysts are
projecting $4.00 a gallon gas........

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark...rss_topstories



Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after Spitzer for
"unusual financial transactions". Right. :-)




For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that."
But he's just speculating.

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well, they take $200 billion that we've borrowed mostly from China,
and loan it to banks!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/mark...rss_topstories




Meanwhile, another division of Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. goes after
Spitzer for "unusual financial transactions". Right. :-)



For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that."
But he's just speculating.

We did learn something from 8 years of The Clintons.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:25 -0400, HK wrote:


For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that." But he's just
speculating.

I don't know. Lately, I've been reading about PEPs (politically exposed
people) and SARs (suspicious activity reports). It seems since 9/11,
banks have been using software to spot suspicious activities. The irony,
is Spitzer, as AG, put pressure on the banks to have more accountability.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...,4637246.story

wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:25 -0400, HK wrote:


For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that." But he's just
speculating.

I don't know. Lately, I've been reading about PEPs (politically exposed
people) and SARs (suspicious activity reports). It seems since 9/11,
banks have been using software to spot suspicious activities. The irony,
is Spitzer, as AG, put pressure on the banks to have more accountability.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...,4637246.story

While $10,000 might not trigger an investigation for everyone. My
colleague who is very well "connected" in NYC, told me that any well
connected person should know that anytime a politician transfers a large
amount of money, it will definitely trigger an investigation, no matter
who they are or what party they are affiliated with. It would not matter
if it was the governor of NY, or the mayor of Paducah or the police
chief of Highland Beach, Md.


My very well connected friend told me they are concerned about illegal
payoffs, bribes, and payola and they definitely would follow up any
politician making those large transfers. My friend was not speculating,
he was just calling it like it is.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:25 -0400, HK wrote:


For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that." But he's just
speculating.

I don't know. Lately, I've been reading about PEPs (politically exposed
people) and SARs (suspicious activity reports). It seems since 9/11,
banks have been using software to spot suspicious activities. The irony,
is Spitzer, as AG, put pressure on the banks to have more accountability.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...,4637246.story

While $10,000 might not trigger an investigation for everyone. My
colleague who is very well "connected" in NYC, told me that any well
connected person should know that anytime a politician transfers a large
amount of money, it will definitely trigger an investigation, no matter
who they are or what party they are affiliated with. It would not matter
if it was the governor of NY, or the mayor of Paducah or the police
chief of Highland Beach, Md.

My very well connected friend told me they are concerned about illegal
payoffs, bribes, and payola and they definitely would follow up any
politician making those large transfers. My friend was not speculating,
he was just calling it like it is.

There is no $10,000 limit. There isn't a set amount.

It's all software looking for patterns. Which is the exact thing that
Spitzer used to get his bad guys.

The irony is that he didn't understand the system enough to avoid
getting caught himself.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:25 -0400, HK wrote:


For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons.
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that." But he's just
speculating.

I don't know. Lately, I've been reading about PEPs (politically exposed
people) and SARs (suspicious activity reports). It seems since 9/11,
banks have been using software to spot suspicious activities. The irony,
is Spitzer, as AG, put pressure on the banks to have more accountability.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...,4637246.story

While $10,000 might not trigger an investigation for everyone. My
colleague who is very well "connected" in NYC, told me that any well
connected person should know that anytime a politician transfers a large
amount of money, it will definitely trigger an investigation, no matter
who they are or what party they are affiliated with. It would not matter
if it was the governor of NY, or the mayor of Paducah or the police chief
of Highland Beach, Md.


My very well connected friend told me they are concerned about illegal
payoffs, bribes, and payola and they definitely would follow up any
politician making those large transfers. My friend was not speculating,
he was just calling it like it is.


Payola? Politicians being paid to play certain songs?

On Mar 12, 7:36*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:14:25 -0400, HK wrote:

For what it is worth, a colleague who is rather "connected" in DC told
me today that he thought Spitzer was being "targeted" for other reasons..
"The amounts of money the news reports say triggered the bank to label
them as possibly suspicious are too small for that." But he's just
speculating.

I don't know. *Lately, I've been reading about PEPs (politically exposed
people) and SARs (suspicious activity reports). *It seems since 9/11,
banks have been using software to spot suspicious activities. *The irony,
is Spitzer, as AG, put pressure on the banks to have more accountability..

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...k0312,0,463724...

While $10,000 might not trigger an investigation for everyone. *My
colleague who is very well "connected" in NYC, told me that any well
connected person should know that anytime a politician transfers a large
amount of money, it will definitely trigger an investigation, no matter
who they are or what party they are affiliated with. It would not matter
if it was the governor of NY, or the mayor of Paducah or the police
chief of Highland Beach, Md.

My very well connected friend told me they are concerned about illegal
payoffs, bribes, and payola and they definitely would follow up any
politician making those large transfers. *My friend was not speculating,
he was just calling it like it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to what I heard this morning, one of the things that
triggered a closer look was the fact that "after" he transferred the
amt. larger than 10 grand, he called a bank employee and tried to get
him to take back the transfer, and when the employee said it was too
late, Spitzer asked the employee to change the name on the transfer,
that set off alarms the the employee and he filed a report..