CDZ Twenty Billion Dollar Fine, "we can afford it"

[JakeStarkey]

Thus human beings must make the rules and enforce them. Lassiez Faire Capitalism will always allow power to grow without a governor. As we all learned, but some have forgotten: "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

and humans who have the power to make laws aren't corruptible ? Think about it.

Sure, most are. Look to DC to see how MOST of Gov't has been captured today. Perhaps we could try GOOD GOV'T POLICY instead of the right wings mythical laissez faire BS and start trying to clean it up? Start by getting Corps completely out of politics like the Founders wanted? Second get money out of politics? Go back to enforcing laws that stopped the monopolies that has flourished since Reagan ignored them and every Prez since? That's a start right?

No---There will ALWAYS be a "decider" who has more power than other people and it will never be fair. Who do you suggest establish "good policy" ? Liberals ?

Who? Why not conservative policy? After alll they have a LONG history of being on the correct side of history right? PLEASE let me know just ONE conservative policy that's worked as promised?

Libs? They gave US the PROGRESSIVE policies that created the worlds largest middle class. You know, labor laws, union rights, SS, etc

Or we can follow the cons/GOP who gave US the first GOP great depression, the Reagan S&L crisis or Dubya's subprime bubble?

And yet the eighties was the favorite decade

Not in the real world. The mid 90s bubba.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thus human beings must make the rules and enforce them. Lassiez Faire Capitalism will always allow power to grow without a governor. As we all learned, but some have forgotten: "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

and humans who have the power to make laws aren't corruptible ? Think about it.

I did for about three seconds. There are checks and balances in passing a new law, not so in Laissez Faire Capitalsim.

Nor in an Obama dictatorship

Hahaha dude you're clueless

Your single sentence comments are the iterations of a parrot in human attire; find a new hobby, we have enough clowns on this message board who are unable to think for themselves.

Repetitive talking points are platitudinous, and most of which offered are lies, BIG LIES, half-truths, rumors, or something the the far right does which they accuse liberals, progressives or Democrats of doing,

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since corporations are considered individuals, who is going to jail??? Oh, the rich walk ..at least the individual did...

The buck should stop at the corner offices, and the fines should be paid by the corporate officers from their personal stash. Why should the stock holders be punished?

Because they benefit from the actions of the crooks that run their companies. If a sole owner of a business hired someone to run their business for them and said "Do whatever you have to to maximize profits. I don't wanna hear about the details, just do it." - well, they'd be held responsible, in part, for whatever the person they hired did

The fact that stockholders hardly ever take a hit when their companies play dirty is one of the biggest problems with the current state of corporate law.

Stockholders are not culpable for a couple of reasons:

• Most invest on the recommendation of a broker
• Pension funds harm those unaware of how their future benefits are invested
• Most don't vote, they default to a proxy on hiring, retention, etc.

Makes no difference at all.

If their funds are used for culpable criminality, their dividends must be given back.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since corporations are considered individuals, who is going to jail??? Oh, the rich walk ..at least the individual did...

The buck should stop at the corner offices, and the fines should be paid by the corporate officers from their personal stash. Why should the stock holders be punished?

Because they benefit from the actions of the crooks that run their companies. If a sole owner of a business hired someone to run their business for them and said "Do whatever you have to to maximize profits. I don't wanna hear about the details, just do it." - well, they'd be held responsible, in part, for whatever the person they hired did

The fact that stockholders hardly ever take a hit when their companies play dirty is one of the biggest problems with the current state of corporate law.

Stockholders are not culpable for a couple of reasons:

• Most invest on the recommendation of a broker
• Pension funds harm those unaware of how their future benefits are invested
• Most don't vote, they default to a proxy on hiring, retention, etc.

Makes no difference at all.

If their funds are used for culpable criminality, their dividends must be given back.

I can't verify that the stockholders are culpable but for the costs to the company/corporations impact on future dividends or the price of the stock.

see: http://www.williamsmullen.com/sites/default/files/wm-url-files/White_Collar_Client_Alert_03_09 v3.pdf

Do you have a source or case which requires a stockholder to pay back any dividends received. The case in the above link is criminal, but may not have increased the bottom line of he company, it does make the employees, supervisors and managers culpable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing that prevents a prosecutor charging a corporation in a criminal case, and nothing that prevents a judge from destroying the shield and attaching dividends and having the court seize a corporation with its assets. Hmmm, that means share holders could be held liable for criminal penalties in that they received tainted fruit. Could that extend to seizing their possessions?

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is nothing that prevents a prosecutor charging a corporation in a criminal case, and nothing that prevents a judge from destroying the shield and attaching dividends and having the court seize a corporation with its assets. Hmmm, that means share holders could be held liable for criminal penalties in that they received tainted fruit. Could that extend to seizing their possessions?

Well, that's a question only the trier of fact could answer, and I suppose the answer wouldn't be consistent among judges or if it went to the USSC it would likely be decided 5-4.

IMO, culpability requires proof of intent, though reading the link I posted seems to put my opinion in the trash bin.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Of course he could afford it, simply deducted from next donation from FEd reserve. Libs rage against the banks and do nothing..........

They tried occupied wall street, that didn't work since all the republicans and the police were against them.

Really ...what about total lib control of govt for 2 yrs......do anything then........nope any bankers prosecuted....nope.........look in the mirror

 

[Manonthestreet]

Unregulated capitalism is monstrous, it creates monsters and other enemies of the people.

Its not unregulated, its unprosecuted.

 

[Dad2three]

Of course he could afford it, simply deducted from next donation from FEd reserve. Libs rage against the banks and do nothing..........

They tried occupied wall street, that didn't work since all the republicans and the police were against them.

Really ...what about total lib control of govt for 2 yrs......do anything then........nope any bankers prosecuted....nope.........look in the mirror

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR


“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - latimes

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

 

[Manonthestreet]

More bs............

 

[dilloduck]

More bs............

absolutely-----Libs only want to regulate money that might be advantageous to conservatives.

 

[Manonthestreet]

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama admin Justice Dept from prosecuting the banks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right neo-corporatists whine. That's OK: the day of reckoning will come upon them.

 

[dblack]

Why do you and others seem to think deregulation is a good thing for the American People

I'm not, actually, in favor of most of what passes for "deregulation". Mostly, it's just re-regulation. Changing the rules to suit whoever has the lobbyists.

 

[jasonnfree]

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama admin Justice Dept from prosecuting the banks.

Looks like Obama isn't the big bad liberal people think he is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama admin Justice Dept from prosecuting the banks.

Looks like Obama isn't the big bad liberal people think he is.

Yep, not one of the crooks and liars went to jail - of course that might be more just than the prior administration which put Martha Stewart in Prison as a scapegoat.

 

[Dad2three]

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama admin Justice Dept from prosecuting the banks.

except putting US back in

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama admin Justice Dept from prosecuting the banks.

Except an economy on the edge that might go back into a deep GOP depression BUT:


Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR


“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - latimes

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

 

[jc456]

No---There will ALWAYS be a "decider" who has more power than other people and it will never be fair. Who do you suggest establish "good policy" ? Liberals ?

Who? Why not conservative policy? After alll they have a LONG history of being on the correct side of history right? PLEASE let me know just ONE conservative policy that's worked as promised?

Libs? They gave US the PROGRESSIVE policies that created the worlds largest middle class. You know, labor laws, union rights, SS, etc

Or we can follow the cons/GOP who gave US the first GOP great depression, the Reagan S&L crisis or Dubya's subprime bubble?

And yet the eighties was the favorite decade

Yeah, Ronnie was lucky enough to push out his credit bubble onto Poppy Bush!

Dude, show me the % on food stamps!

You mean 30+ years of trickle down? Yep

Yep!

 

[jc456]

Like

and humans who have the power to make laws aren't corruptible ? Think about it.

Sure, most are. Look to DC to see how MOST of Gov't has been captured today. Perhaps we could try GOOD GOV'T POLICY instead of the right wings mythical laissez faire BS and start trying to clean it up? Start by getting Corps completely out of politics like the Founders wanted? Second get money out of politics? Go back to enforcing laws that stopped the monopolies that has flourished since Reagan ignored them and every Prez since? That's a start right?

Union money? Sounds good!

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have???

We have the truth and you can't handle the truth.

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE, just ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?? lol

Policy? Like welfare, social security? They are not about policy fool. That's a leftist wet deam!

 

[jc456]

and humans who have the power to make laws aren't corruptible ? Think about it.

I did for about three seconds. There are checks and balances in passing a new law, not so in Laissez Faire Capitalsim.

Nor in an Obama dictatorship

Hahaha dude you're clueless

Your single sentence comments are the iterations of a parrot in human attire; find a new hobby, we have enough clowns on this message board who are unable to think for themselves.

Repetitive talking points are platitudinous, and most of which offered are lies, BIG LIES, half-truths, rumors, or something the the far right does which they accuse liberals, progressives or Democrats of doing,

Exactly you should stop that