Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, regardless of job description the fact remains there are 120k Fed LEOs running around armed and with arrest authority.

Which is a lot different from your statement that the "Fed approx (last I read) has about 44k sworn officers for all agencies. "

Can you agree that 120K sworn officers is > 44K sworn officers?

 CptJake wrote:
So, regardless of job description the fact remains there are 120k Fed LEOs running around armed and with arrest authority.

Which is a lot different from your statement that the "Fed approx (last I read) has about 44k sworn officers for all agencies. "

Can you agree that 120K sworn officers is > 44K sworn officers?

Since you're working the technicality angle in a half hearted attempt to troll now: they actually have more than 120k 'sworn officers', they have 120k officers who have the authority to make an arrest and carry weapons. This includes prison guards, customs inspectors, certain specialized security details (for example the FBI Police, the Library of Congress security detail, and the Secret Service security details), assault and hostage rescue (FBI SWAT), and so on and so forth.

However, since what I was talking about was the investigation of crimes, it would appear that your source supports my assertion.

 Frazzled wrote:
especially when the govenrment itself is forcing compliance with their cool new scheme to loan to parties that are not creditworthy.

Republican talking point #13632, discredited since 2008, still repeated because, frankly, the right wing simply doesn't give a gak that the things they say aren't actually true.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
especially when the govenrment itself is forcing compliance with their cool new scheme to loan to parties that are not creditworthy.

Republican talking point #13632, discredited since 2008, still repeated because, frankly, the right wing simply doesn't give a gak that the things they say aren't actually true.

Not to derail this thread...

but...

wut? CRA Act ring a bell? Not to mention the whole shenanigan of FreddieMac/FreddyMae... o.O

 whembly wrote:
Not to derail this thread...

but...

wut? CRA Act ring a bell? Not to mention the whole shenanigan of FreddieMac/FreddyMae... o.O

Which didn't require the banks to loan to people who were marginal or bad prospects, it merely removed previous government barriers to lending, and let the banks decide for themselves.

Now, the original tranching schemes were thought up by the government, but they were very limited in scope. The industry took off when the banks started setting up their own internal departments to package loans as tranches and sell them on derivative markets, and the increasing appetite for more loans to on-sell led the banks to lend more and more recklessly.

The idea at the core of the whole collapse was entirely within the private sector, when it became clear that instead of making a loan and then waiting 30 years for the full return if the loan was good, instead they could make a loan on Monday, good or not, and package it up and receive the full economic benefit on Tuesday, ready to do the same thing again come Wednesday.

You don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Alan Greenspan, speaking to congress on the then on-going disaster in September 2008;
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity – myself especially – are in a state of shocked disbelief."

 CptJake wrote:
*sigh* You may want to update your reading.

Presents data from 73 federal law enforcement agencies that employed full-time officers with authority to make arrests and to carry a firearm while on duty. The report describes federal law enforcement agencies by the number of sworn officers, type of agency, primary state of employment, and law enforcement function. It details data by sex and race of officers for agencies with 500 or more federal officers; presents overall growth patterns in employment; and summarizes Federal Bureau of Investigation data on federal officers killed and assaulted.

Highlights:

In September 2008, federal agencies employed approximately 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States.
The four largest agencies, two in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and two in the Department of Justice (DOJ), employed 4 in 5 federal officers.
Women accounted for 15.5% of federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in 2008. This was a slightly lower percentage than in 2004 (16.1%), but higher than in 1996 (14.0%).

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4372

I will admit to being immature and giggling when I read the link

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
especially when the govenrment itself is forcing compliance with their cool new scheme to loan to parties that are not creditworthy.

Republican talking point #13632, discredited since 2008, still repeated because, frankly, the right wing simply doesn't give a gak that the things they say aren't actually true.

Thouest knowest not what thousest vomitest. THE CRA and government were hot to force up the housing rate for bad borrowers. Did banks go berserk after? You betcha, but the rules were changed to open the flood gate for them to do it.

Update:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/politics/u-s-marijuana-banks/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

No bank with a brain is going to touch this. The reputational risk is huge, and Obama can change his mind on a whim. Further, what happens with the next President?

 Frazzled wrote:
No bank with a brain is going to touch this. The reputational risk is huge, and Obama can change his mind on a whim. Further, what happens with the next President?

Not to mention it just makes it easier for the Feds to seize all that money when they decide the time is right.

 d-usa wrote:
Update:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/politics/u-s-marijuana-banks/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The U.S. government issued rules on Friday for the first time allowing banks to legally provide financial services to state-licensed marijuana businesses.
The Justice Department issued a memorandum to prosecutors that closely follows guidance last August largely limiting federal enforcement priorities to eight types of crimes.
These include distribution to children, trafficking by cartels and trafficking to states where marijuana isn't legal. If pot businesses aren't violating federal law in the eight specific priorities, then banks can do business with them and "may not" be prosecuted.
The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidelines that Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery said was intended to signal that "it is possible to provide financial services" to state-licensed marijuana businesses and still be in compliance with federal anti-money laundering laws.
The guidance falls short of the explicit legal authorization that banking industry officials had pushed the to government provide.
But because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, classified alongside heroin as among the most dangerous substances, officials say this is as far as the government can go.

So the law itself hasn't changed, just that the DoJ is not currently going to target those selling pot within State law. A position that is easily reversible. I can see there being a huge amount of uncertainty for banks with this.

I

PLUS the Federal Reserve is the big regulator here and its not beholden to the whims of the DOJ.

 Frazzled wrote:
PLUS the Federal Reserve is the big regulator here and its not beholden to the whims of the DOJ.

Awesome!! What could possibly go wrong with this announcement then? This is reading more like a "do something that feels good", rather than "do something that addresses the issue"

Does the Federal Reserve have any regulatory or law enforcement powers as far as money laundering is concerned?

Or would that fall under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service and the Department of the Treasury?

They wouldn't be covered under any decisions made by the Department of Justice either, so I'm just curious.