If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Why did the Obama administration let the banks off with little more than a wagging finger and an "Oh YOU"?   (slate.com) divider line 214
    More: Obvious, obama, Ally Financial, Project Syndicate, James Kwak, Peterson Institute for International Economics, credible threat, foreclosures, loan agreement  
•       •       •

4489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2012 at 4:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-25 07:17:09 PM  
Because President Obama got his, and doesn't care about the 99%.
Fark him because he's farking us!
 
2012-02-25 07:18:58 PM  
farm4.staticflickr.com

/Ducks
 
2012-02-25 07:21:26 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Because despite the GOP mantra that Obama is an ultra-liberal socialist commie, he's really right-of-center.


This is the land of capitalism. This is what capitalism buys. Aren't you rightists happy??
 
2012-02-25 07:22:00 PM  

rev. dave: Because market forces rule the government.


If that was actually true, the government would not have subsidized Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and there would be no Federal Reserve. In order for the government to back off from actual market forces, we would have to reverse over 100 years of history.
 
2012-02-25 07:24:46 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Either NO group of 2 or more people can donate as a group, or everyone can.

Sounds good to me.

do you know why that other thread disappeared?


Because the link was broken?

What do I win?!?!?!
 
2012-02-25 07:25:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: DarwiOdrade: Because despite the GOP mantra that Obama is an ultra-liberal socialist commie, he's really right-of-center.

This is the land of capitalism. This is what capitalism buys. Aren't you rightists happy??


The president is black. They aren't allowed to be happy.
 
2012-02-25 07:26:42 PM  

saintstryfe: Sum Dum Gai: saintstryfe: because what could he have done? They didn't do anything that would necessitate perp walking the CEO of Citibank out of his HQ in handcuffs. A huge, expensive investigation would have probably lead to, at best, some minor official getting 40 months at a Club Fed prison, and some minor fines that are way out buffed by what they got.

That's probably the rationale for the settlement. None of the execs would have any chance of seeing jail time over anything they've done, and once you factor in the cost of litigation it wouldn't really have been more profitable to bring charges against the corporations. At best you'd fry some small fish.

exactly. Now don't confuse this with an excuse- I think it's sad that's how it is - but I just think that's the most reasonable explanation as to why we don't get the visceral thrill we want.


Pretty much this. Considering the lawyers these farks can get and what Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and their respective Congresses did for bank regulation, well, good luck, Chuck.
 
2012-02-25 07:28:43 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: DarwiOdrade: Because despite the GOP mantra that Obama is an ultra-liberal socialist commie, he's really right-of-center.

This is the land of capitalism. This is what capitalism buys. Aren't you rightists happy??


images.hollywood.com
 
2012-02-25 07:28:48 PM  

FlashHarry: because, as a card-carrying communist, obama is a wall street shill!

he's also a

fascist/socialist
muslim/radical black christian
empty suit/dangerous tyrant


Dude please tell me you're not.
 
2012-02-25 07:30:13 PM  

LasersHurt: skipjack: Just so I'm clear....the liberal response to this is that this is the GOP's fault because of what you think the GOP would have done? Is that right?

No, and I don't see how you could get that out of it unless you're being wilfully ignorant.

The "liberal response" is "We would love to see them held to account, but conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they would flip their farking nuts about how anti-business the president is, and how he's destroying the economy and preventing the recovery and some sort of socialist crusader."

Do not even try to pretend that conservatives would both endorse and enjoy corporations being punished for their crimes.


Who gives a flying fark what conservatives would do? They're going to go crazy whatever he does, so the least Obama could do is actually show some farking balls and do the right thing. This is about prosecuting people for crimes.

And yes, if you actually read this thread you'll notice that the Obama apologists are trying to switch the focus onto the GOP rather than hold to account the guy who actually made this shiatty deal.
 
2012-02-25 07:32:43 PM  

The Numbers: LasersHurt: skipjack: Just so I'm clear....the liberal response to this is that this is the GOP's fault because of what you think the GOP would have done? Is that right?

No, and I don't see how you could get that out of it unless you're being wilfully ignorant.

The "liberal response" is "We would love to see them held to account, but conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they would flip their farking nuts about how anti-business the president is, and how he's destroying the economy and preventing the recovery and some sort of socialist crusader."

Do not even try to pretend that conservatives would both endorse and enjoy corporations being punished for their crimes.

Who gives a flying fark what conservatives would do? They're going to go crazy whatever he does, so the least Obama could do is actually show some farking balls and do the right thing. This is about prosecuting people for crimes.

And yes, if you actually read this thread you'll notice that the Obama apologists are trying to switch the focus onto the GOP rather than hold to account the guy who actually made this shiatty deal.


It sounds to me like they're saying "This isn't Obama's problem, it's the government's problem." I guess it's up to the reader.
 
2012-02-25 07:39:23 PM  
If democrats do something republicans would, then republicans are mad about it, libertarians are proven right about everything, and Ron Paul automatically becomes president.

Also, the president is responsible for the legislative branch, but that is nothing new.
 
2012-02-25 07:43:12 PM  
Why does anybody of a particular status in society get away with a lot of things that the common rabble wouldn't?
 
2012-02-25 07:45:12 PM  
Capitalism second to last stage.
 
2012-02-25 07:47:00 PM  

mrlewish: Why does anybody of a particular status in society get away with a lot of things that the common rabble wouldn't?



It helps if you own all of the politicians.

Time for a do-over, America. We can start by stretching some rope.
 
2012-02-25 07:47:12 PM  

The Numbers: This is about prosecuting people for crimes


Unfortunately the executives at the companies aren't at any risk of prosecution - except for food & drug violations which have special laws, corporate executives are generally not personally liable for criminal actions by their company, unless they did the violations themselves, or they had personal knowledge that illegal acts were occurring. The former is very unlikely, and for the latter, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was aware of illegal activities. Barring concrete evidence (emails, letters, tape recordings) or eyewitness testimony that the person was made aware, there's basically no way to hold them personally accountable.

For that matter, many of the violations alleged are civil, not criminal offenses.
 
2012-02-25 07:50:51 PM  

Deftoons: rev. dave: Because market forces rule the government.

If that was actually true, the government would not have subsidized Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and there would be no Federal Reserve. In order for the government to back off from actual market forces, we would have to reverse over 100 years of history.


Slaves were freed, Women were given the vote, Yeah, we can eliminate Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Reserve. Just takes a little bit of time.
 
2012-02-25 07:51:00 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com


/i hate that f*cking meme
//stupidest. meme. ev4r!
 
2012-02-25 07:51:13 PM  

RedPhoenix122: I Said: Both parties disproportionately represent the 1%. However, republicans go so far as to resenting you for not being in the 1%. Oddly enough, even poor republicans do this.

I'll never understand why people who barely make ends meet vote for a party that wants to lower their wages and make them pay more taxes, while giving tax cuts to the rich.


Because they think those parties are the only two available.

/PICK. ANOTHER. NAME.
 
2012-02-25 07:52:49 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Republican voters are the battered wives.


Plenty of Democrat voters fit that profile too. You only have to read this thread to see that.
 
2012-02-25 08:02:55 PM  

urban.derelict: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 451x339]

/i hate that f*cking meme
//stupidest. meme. ev4r!


dash.ponychan.net

/You were just asking for that after your rant. :P
 
2012-02-25 08:03:06 PM  

Dinki: Because even if they wanted to put the smack down on the banks (which they haven't shown any real willingness for), the GOP and it's mouthpiece Fox would have screamed that the Administration was trying to interfere in the free market, was trying to micromanage the financial industry; and was stealing from the Job Creators TM.


Maybe at some point, Obama will show some real balls. Maybe after the election. But I kinda doubt it. He's miles better than the Republicans, but this kind of shiat is what has depressed me about him. Everybody knows how much the banks deserve to really get punished, but this administration refuses to do so because...well who the hell knows. They won't be honest anyway about why they are holding back.
 
2012-02-25 08:03:33 PM  
The "robo signing" settlement is fair. Ultimately, this was not an attempt to defraud anyone, it was the failure to properly manage the transfer of debt ownership (mortgages) to the proper holders of the debt through the securitization process.

Ultimately, the real issue was the inability, at a systematic level, to manage the appropriate disposition of a mountain of mortgage defaults, and foreclosures. The "victims" actually were in default, and were not paying their mortgages. They still owed this money, and home owners were largely using this as a tactic to delay foreclosure. Of course, the real goal here should be to fix MERS, and to help people stay in their homes.
 
2012-02-25 08:16:55 PM  

saintstryfe: because what could he have done? They didn't do anything that would necessitate perp walking the CEO of Citibank out of his HQ in handcuffs. A huge, expensive investigation would have probably lead to, at best, some minor official getting 40 months at a Club Fed prison, and some minor fines that are way out buffed by what they got.

No, while it sucks, the best idea was to fix the system as best they could and try to ensure it would not happen again. At least until another republican is in charge.


Speaking as an underachieving farkup who uses it all the time, this is a completely bullshiat excuse. "I wouldn't do a good job anyways so I might as well not try" is something a slacker says about a homework assignment or the dishes. It is not something the goddamn president of the United States should use as an economic policy.


The Numbers: Who gives a flying fark what conservatives would do? They're going to go crazy whatever he does, so the least Obama could do is actually show some farking balls and do the right thing. This is about prosecuting people for crimes.


Also this.
 
2012-02-25 08:23:37 PM  
Because both sides are bad but HELL NO RON PAUL.
going from corrupt to insane doesn't seem like a wise move.
 
2012-02-25 08:25:32 PM  
I don't know why any of you bother to respect the law anymore. It's so passe.
 
2012-02-25 08:29:12 PM  

Con Fabulous: saintstryfe: because what could he have done? They didn't do anything that would necessitate perp walking the CEO of Citibank out of his HQ in handcuffs. A huge, expensive investigation would have probably lead to, at best, some minor official getting 40 months at a Club Fed prison, and some minor fines that are way out buffed by what they got.

No, while it sucks, the best idea was to fix the system as best they could and try to ensure it would not happen again. At least until another republican is in charge.

Speaking as an underachieving farkup who uses it all the time, this is a completely bullshiat excuse. "I wouldn't do a good job anyways so I might as well not try" is something a slacker says about a homework assignment or the dishes. It is not something the goddamn president of the United States should use as an economic policy.


The Numbers: Who gives a flying fark what conservatives would do? They're going to go crazy whatever he does, so the least Obama could do is actually show some farking balls and do the right thing. This is about prosecuting people for crimes.

Also this.


Don't know much about the court system do you?

I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt IS an excellent reason not to try to put someone in jail.
 
2012-02-25 08:44:53 PM  
Because he is one of the .01 %?

Just saying
 
2012-02-25 08:56:29 PM  
Because it's not illegal in Kenya.
 
2012-02-25 09:09:21 PM  

OgreMagi: Someone suggested the exact opposite and it makes sense. Your donations go through a proxy. The donor gets a receipt for tax purposes, but the receipt does not show who received the donation. The recipient does not know who made the donations, nor the number of individual donations. His campaign simply receives a check on a regular basis. Any contributions that bypass this system would be considered an attempt at bribery.


At first glace I like this idea.
 
2012-02-25 09:09:41 PM  

Daraymann: Because he is a (D) and gets a free pass on everything here at Fark?


Yeah, I can totes see him and his advisors: "well, normally we shouldn't do this, but all the liberals on fark will give us a pass, so lets go ahead and do it!"
 
2012-02-25 09:13:47 PM  

clusterfrak: Because both sides are bad but HELL NO RON PAUL.
going from corrupt to insane doesn't seem like a wise move.


We've been going with corrupt for decades. I think going with insane would be a refreshing change of pace. As long as it's a Ron Paul type insane, not a Michele Bachmann insane. Now that would be scary.
 
2012-02-25 09:16:03 PM  

The RIchest Man in Babylon: OgreMagi: Someone suggested the exact opposite and it makes sense. Your donations go through a proxy. The donor gets a receipt for tax purposes, but the receipt does not show who received the donation. The recipient does not know who made the donations, nor the number of individual donations. His campaign simply receives a check on a regular basis. Any contributions that bypass this system would be considered an attempt at bribery.

At first glace I like this idea.


I'm sure the corporations and the politicians their stooges would find a way around a system like this, unfortunately.
 
2012-02-25 09:24:27 PM  
all i know is that if I saw bankers and ceo's getting some street justice done on them I wouldn't stop to administer first aid and my cell phone would suddenly lose service.
 
2012-02-25 09:25:14 PM  

Smackledorfer: Don't know much about the court system do you?

I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt IS an excellent reason not to try to put someone in jail.


First of all, the original comment implied that prosecutions would only catch lower-level financial criminals and the guys at the top would get away, NOT that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone. If you still want to make the argument that there was sufficient investigation to conclude that we cannot criminally indict A SINGLE PERSON FOR ANYTHING, feel free to do so. Personally, I'm deeply skeptical about that.

Secondly, Obama himself has come out and said that, "Too often, we've seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender." Sounds like exactly the opposite of your point, unless the president himself is making baseless accusations.
 
2012-02-25 10:02:05 PM  

Con Fabulous: Secondly, Obama himself has come out and said that, "Too often, we've seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender." Sounds like exactly the opposite of your point, unless the president himself is making baseless accusations.


There's what you 'know' and what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Further, there's the distinction between prosecuting the corporation and prosecuting individuals who work for the corporation. The former is easier, but at the same time, all they would get would be fines, and they've already gotten monetary compensation. The latter is quite difficult in most industries, because it usually involves proving someone knew particular facts, which in most cases is a difficult thing to prove unless you get either a whistleblower or an idiot who documents his criminal acts.
 
2012-02-25 10:11:01 PM  
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota. All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700." The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence." "Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is the economics of government projects.
 
2012-02-25 10:14:46 PM  

Con Fabulous: First of all, the original comment implied that prosecutions would only catch lower-level financial criminals and the guys at the top would get away, NOT that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone


Well, the only criminal charge that seems to recur is that they filed false affidavits. It varies by state, but generally it's a lower misdemeanor - maybe you could get a week or two in jail or a fine. Granted, that could add up if they are prosecuted on many counts.

Also, it would be a state crime, so the attorneys general would be the ones pushing for prosecution, not the federal government.
 
2012-02-25 10:25:16 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Also, it would be a state crime, so the attorneys general would be the ones pushing for prosecution, not the federal government.


Trust me, the Feds have the tools to prosecute if they chose to do so, and there was an interest to do so. Conspiracy, wire fraud, RICO, etc.
 
2012-02-25 10:25:23 PM  
O'bama is a socialist who is in the pay of big banks.
 
2012-02-25 10:26:24 PM  

urban.derelict: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 451x339]

/i hate that f*cking meme
//stupidest. meme. ev4r!


that picture is going to give me nightmares
 
2012-02-25 10:29:42 PM  

LasersHurt: skipjack: Just so I'm clear....the liberal response to this is that this is the GOP's fault because of what you think the GOP would have done? Is that right?

No, and I don't see how you could get that out of it unless you're being wilfully ignorant.

The "liberal response" is "We would love to see them held to account, but conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they would flip their farking nuts about how anti-business the president is, and how he's destroying the economy and preventing the recovery and some sort of socialist crusader."

Do not even try to pretend that conservatives would both endorse and enjoy corporations being punished for their crimes.


Seems I was exactly right. So it seems that liberals cannot do anything for fear of how conservatives might act.

/rather ignorant if you ask me
//but i'm not the one that believes such childish none sense
 
2012-02-25 10:38:36 PM  
Heh... Bankers are smart and politicians are stupid! Tubes, anyone?

/Bye, Bye Ms. American Pie
 
2012-02-25 10:42:24 PM  

The RIchest Man in Babylon: OgreMagi: Someone suggested the exact opposite and it makes sense. Your donations go through a proxy. The donor gets a receipt for tax purposes, but the receipt does not show who received the donation. The recipient does not know who made the donations, nor the number of individual donations. His campaign simply receives a check on a regular basis. Any contributions that bypass this system would be considered an attempt at bribery.

At first glace I like this idea.


I like the idea also.
 
2012-02-25 10:43:17 PM  
Because unlike people who post on Fark, he's smart enough to realize that the banks weren't the root cause of the crisis, and that it's not worth risking further damage to the economy just to do something that would be hugely popular but ultimately would do more harm than good.
 
2012-02-25 10:50:26 PM  

DarwiOdrade: A Dark Evil Omen: DarwiOdrade: Because despite the GOP mantra that Obama is an ultra-liberal socialist commie, he's really right-of-center.

This is the land of capitalism. This is what capitalism buys. Aren't you rightists happy??

[images.hollywood.com image 300x375]


Not you, man. :P
 
2012-02-25 11:20:03 PM  
Oh great. Another hard-hitting fair and balanced bit of tough journalism from Slate.

Better get Sarah Palin ready for the swearing in.
 
2012-02-25 11:28:35 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Because they are balls deep in nose deep in the ass of Big Business just like every single administration since the Civil War?


FTFY
 
2012-02-26 12:04:23 AM  

mrlewish: Why does anybody of a particular status in society get away with a lot of things that the common rabble wouldn't?


Because the plebs don't matter. Well, except as cannon fodder and mindless consumers. Other, than that, no, we don't matter at all.
 
2012-02-26 12:05:49 AM  

Con Fabulous:

Secondly, Obama himself has come out and said that, "Too often, we've seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender." Sounds like exactly the opposite of your point, unless the president himself is making baseless accusations.


of course it is a baseless accusation. If it wasn't then he should come forth with this evidence that people have broken "anti-fraud" laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report