Why Isn't Wall Street In Jail?
 

Watch the movie Inside Job with Matt Damon narrating.

The Administration has high takes in Wall Street, especially Goldman Sachs Tim Geitners old firm!

Don't kid yourself the "ease regulation" crowd of the Republican Party is part of this too.

Truth is both parties take HUGE contributions from Wall Street. Whoever wins the election (anny federal election) owes fealty to wall Street.

I say:

Increase the membership in the House of Representatives to a ratio of 1 Congressman for each 100,000 (or 50,000?) citizens (from 1 congressman for each 715,000 citizens) and the "citizens united" quandary will end in the House of Representatives.

Next we should consider Unicameralism. Have only one parliamentary body, that seats both Senators (for six years) and Congressmen (for two years), like Nebraska does.

Is the editorial suggesting that US Attorneys are in the bag for Congress or the Administration? Prove it.

I love lib editorialist suggesting throwing people in jail as a solution to risk. There is a difference between criminal behavior and risk. There are plenty of investigations going on at both the State and Federal level and people are being prosecuted. Proof of a crime and allegations of a crime aren't the same thing.

If Barney Frank and Dodd where thrown in Jail, it might give elected officials pause about pushing banks to lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back. If rating agencies were conspiring to help sell mortgages for investment houses maybe that should be prosecuted. If the SEC knew about it maybe we should throw them in jail. If they didn't know about it maybe we should throw them out of work and stop paying for it?

Prosecutions are moving ahead in spite of the fact that government regulators like the SEC dropped the ball just like they did with the BP oil spill. Was government conspiring to sell oil to BP. Where they conspiring to drop loan costs to people who couldn't pay them back? Was the FDA conspiring with drug companies to put unsafe drugs on the market and tainted food? Maybe we should be locking up regulators along with the bankers?

Maybe we should.

And I won't hold my breath waiting for these investigations to end in arrests; I will believe it when I see the frauds from Wall Street in prison. Frank and Dodd should be in prison too, without question. But why just start with them?

As for building cases; its a lot harder when the people you are trying to investigate own the lawmakers.

Are you suggesting US Attorney's and Federal Judges are in the bag for Congress?

Again I have no issue bringing guys to justice. I find it disgraceful to see libs calling for people to be locked up without enough evidence to prosecute. Suggesting locking people up because you feel a crime was committed sounds like the kind of State I want no part of. It's bad enough conservatives support locking people up without due process now I'm hearing it from the libs.

I'm a proud supporter of the ACLU and that includes jusutice for bankers along with drug offenders.

They're not in jail because you, Buster and IJF have not yet posted enough threads on the subject.

Obama is simply waiting for you to show how much you care about this issue, by starting new threads. As soon as you reach his threshold of passion, these pig-dog banksters will surely see the shining light of Obama'ian Justice.

So get posting!:yes:

You should read the report that came out today. Countrywide directly bribed Congresspersons and their aids to fend off regulation which the Bush administration was trying to get through on subprime loans.

This wasn't about just contributions for access this was direct bribes in the form of below market loans to Congressman and their aids.

What I love is the financial reform act carries Chris Dodds name on it, the same Chris Dodd who took a direct bribe from Countrywide to help fannie keep funding those subprime loans before the entire house of cards caved in on itself.

We don't need more Congress people we need to fumigate Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/report-country...030119140.html

wow, who said we should lock up people without proper evidence :huh:

The suggestion I made, and stand by, is that its much more difficult to investigate a crime when the people you are investigating own the lawmakers and game the system.

Fixed.

Fish, we have pledged to stop posting about corruption on Wall Street because we realized that it doesn't exist. We logged on to the Heritage Foundation to research Corporate greed but we were redirected to the topic of acceptable risk taking. Hell, we tried to look up the definition of greed and this is what Heritage gave us;

greed [griːd]
1. An act that causes hardship to powerful corruptions. EX: a serf who makes outlandish demands to employers such as decent health benefits.


Then we googled corporate scams that fleece America and all we kept getting was Trickle down economics. :huh:

TBDR. :zzz:

Greed is legal.

Illegallity is illegal.

Act and react accordingly.

Weak dodge is weak Mr. Edwards. Maybe you should look inward my proud (D) friend, and clean thine own house of corruption, before worrying about it from everyone else. The day you start being as aggressive towards the Edwards, the Chris Dodds, the William Jerrerson's and the Charlie Rangel's, and the baised-to-no-end-dishonest-as-FOX MCNBC's, maybe, just maybe, you might actually be taken seriously as a crusader against corruption and dishonesty.

Till then, you're just another in a long, LONG, line of "My Party does it, it's ok, the other side does it, it's not" hacks, frankly.

Selective moral outrage by the politically selective lecturers of morality.

A rotten apple is still rotten regardless of the kind, my debating friend. My political persuasions may lead me to being a progressive liberal but I have no illusions as to the people who represent my party. Here is a quote that accurately represents my political argument in this thread;

“Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.

Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”
― Henry A. Wallace

1. Who cares what people pay "lip service" to?

2. Greed is legal and always will be.

3. "Evading" Law is a dishonest way of saying "Not Actually breaking the Law, but Still Doing Things We don't Like".

Quote:

Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Applies to (R) and (D) equally. Both crave power over all other things, and use whatever tool exists to get it. neither is "better" than the other in this way, yet you universally argue and point out only one side of an equal, two-sided coin.

Quote:

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

Funny, sounds alot like Modern Liberalism/Collectivism to me.

It's a weak argument, given that Liberalism stands for power of the State to compel from the citizenry what it (the liberal ruling elite) think best, while the Right, equally power hungry, limits their state based compulsion to issues moral and religious. They certainly support corporatism, btu corporatism cannot compel won it's own.

Quote:

They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”

Again, shockingly, I fail to see a major divide between right and left in this warning.

And that, my friend, is your problem. You support a side equally guilty in almost every way, worse in quite a few, yet stand and proudly proclaim your crusade without even a hint of how hypocritical and obviously so you are.

A rotten apple is still rotten regardless of the kind, my debating friend. My political persuasions may lead me to being a progressive liberal but I have no illusions as to the people who represent my party. (pss-you must have missed this part of my post ;))

Indeed.

Difference is, I discard both rotten apples.

You bake a pie out of one of them, whilst beating the other over and over with a hammer.