Zone1 Why Does The GOP Work So Hard To Let Psychopaths In Suits Get Away With Murder

Status
Not open for further replies.

skews13

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2017
9,433
11,856
2,265
Ever since our nation’s founding, capitalism in America has been played in ways that protect stone cold killers. Psychopaths in suits. But it’s gotten particularly bad since Big Tobacco was outed in the 1990s.

There was a time when we used to prosecute these criminals.

In the 1980s, Reagan deregulated the Savings & Loan industry; predictably, within a few years, a handful of executives had made themselves multimillionaires while hundreds of thousands of families across America were wiped out.

The Justice Department stepped in and prosecuted 1100 banksters, 839 were convicted, and over a hundred went to prison.

When the so-called “Dot-com Bubble” burst around the turn of the century, dozens of bigshot executives from Enron, WorldCom, Qwest and Tyco, among others, were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. We were still occasionally sending executives to prison as late as 2005.

Not anymore.

After Glass-Steagal was repealed in 1999, banksters spent the next decade lying to investors around the world about the value of their “Collateralized Debt Obligations” and other recently legalized “exotic” financial instruments that were packed full of “liar loans” and bad mortgages.

That led straight to the Bush Crash of 2008, when guys like Steve Mnuchin (who threw over 30,000 California families out of their homes) got fabulously richer. America bailed out the Wall Street banksters to the tune of over a trillion dollars.

 
The GOP? Under Obama, Timmy Geithner said that yes, many laws had been broken but it would be risking harm to the economy to have prosecuted those who committed those crimes.
 
Ever since our nation’s founding, capitalism in America has been played in ways that protect stone cold killers. Psychopaths in suits. But it’s gotten particularly bad since Big Tobacco was outed in the 1990s.

There was a time when we used to prosecute these criminals.

In the 1980s, Reagan deregulated the Savings & Loan industry; predictably, within a few years, a handful of executives had made themselves multimillionaires while hundreds of thousands of families across America were wiped out.

The Justice Department stepped in and prosecuted 1100 banksters, 839 were convicted, and over a hundred went to prison.

When the so-called “Dot-com Bubble” burst around the turn of the century, dozens of bigshot executives from Enron, WorldCom, Qwest and Tyco, among others, were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. We were still occasionally sending executives to prison as late as 2005.

Not anymore.

After Glass-Steagal was repealed in 1999, banksters spent the next decade lying to investors around the world about the value of their “Collateralized Debt Obligations” and other recently legalized “exotic” financial instruments that were packed full of “liar loans” and bad mortgages.

That led straight to the Bush Crash of 2008, when guys like Steve Mnuchin (who threw over 30,000 California families out of their homes) got fabulously richer. America bailed out the Wall Street banksters to the tune of over a trillion dollars.

BrainOnDrugs_egg-fried-egg.gif
 
The "Bush Crash" as you are attempting to name it came about because of the Dems loosening mortgage loan qualifications to allow subprime lending. Giving 100%, no down payment loans to people that had never paid back anything was a really bad idea & that was all on the Dems.
Sorry to crash your BS with facts.
And the idea of too big to fail was supported by both wings of the UNiparty.
Partisan attacks when both sides are to blame is gaslighting at it's worst
 
The "Bush Crash" as you are attempting to name it came about because of the Dems loosening mortgage loan qualifications to allow subprime lending.

That was a very bipartisan issue. Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp? Both parties are the same party overall. They work for the corporations. They divide themselves with a few social issues.


Giving 100%, no down payment loans to people that had never paid back anything was a really bad idea & that was all on the Dems.

No it wasn't.


Sorry to crash your BS with facts.
And the idea of too big to fail was supported by both wings of the UNiparty.
Partisan attacks when both sides are to blame is gaslighting at it's worst

So stop it.
 
That was a very bipartisan issue. Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp? Both parties are the same party overall. They work for the corporations. They divide themselves with a few social issues.




No it wasn't.




So stop it.
Learn the facts before you pop off.
Numerous Republicans were warning of the consequences & the Dems said "Roll the dice"

Repubs should have done more but the driving force was Dems

So panicked is the response from Congressman “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing” Frank that he forgets that from May 2001 to the end of 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate and Dodd was the second-ranking Democrat on the committee after chairman Paul Sarbanes.

It is also revealing that Frank believes that Bush-administration assent to policies he supported means that the consequences of those policies are, ipso facto, “Republican failures.” As Peter Wallison lays out on the Journal’s op-ed page, you can blame Wall Street for reckless gambling on mortgage-backed securities all you want, but the risk of the mortgage-backed securities never takes off unless the federal government starts pushing lenders to lower their standards for worthy borrowers. Sure, the big-bank investors never should have gone dancing in the minefield, but the minefield was set up by federal policies that encouraged massive loans to “borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.”



 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top