[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

No such thing as fair. You get more, you pay more. Not as much more as you get, but some more.

No like? Find a better deal. The ultimate consumerism.

Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either. Do you also endorse that?

How about homosexuals? Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"

Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.

Libs are suppose to be for equality. I suppose they "pick and choose what is equal". I say equal percentage across the bored.

Doesn't accomplish everything that taxes must.

 

[Gadawg73]

"full employment" LOL
There are millions in America THAT DO NOT WANT TO WORK.

 

[johnwk]

No such thing as fair. You get more, you pay more. Not as much more as you get, but some more.

No like? Find a better deal. The ultimate consumerism.

Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either. Do you also endorse that?

How about homosexuals? Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"

Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.

Libs are suppose to be for equality. I suppose they "pick and choose what is equal". I say equal percentage across the bored.

If you want equality whenever a direct tax is levied upon the people of the United States, an idea which is in harmony with our Constitution’s original tax plan, I would suggest adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would put an end to the tyranny allowed under the socialist inspired tax calculated from “incomes”.

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Adding these words to our Constitution would accomplish a number of essential goals necessary for good government:

If imposts, duties and internal excise taxes imposed upon specifically chosen articles of consumption were found insufficient to fund the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government, and Congress decided to lay a direct tax to raise emergency revenue, our Constitution’s fair share formula would control the apportionment of the burden as follows:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


Keep in mind our Constitution also applies a similar formula for apportioning each State’s number of votes in the House of Representatives:


State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. total pop


Our wise founding fathers tied direct taxation and representation by the same rule of apportionment to prevent an evil of “democracy” in which people are free to use their vote to directly tax those who they may outvote while avoiding an equal contribution into the federal treasury!

Under the rule of apportioning a direct tax, our founders intended Congress to determine a specific sum needed, and then calculate each states fair share of the burden after which they would send a bill to the Governors and Legislatures of each state demanding payment in a set time period. A state failing to meet their apportioned share of the burden in the time period set would then allow Congress to enter the State and collect the tax directly from the people, e.g., an apportioned tax upon real and personal property within the state.


Congress would also have the option to lay a capitation tax directly upon the people, and if such a tax is levied, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a “progressive” representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program, his immediate constituents will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state ___ everyone pays the same fair share!

In any event, let our founding fathers speak for themselves regarding direct taxation:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


JWK


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[Gadawg73]

Here's the simple truth. I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way. You never will. Dream on.

That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "**** YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.

I agree that long term should be our goal. That’s the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable. We need solutions, not do nothing. We owe that to future generations.

Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.

 

[PMZ]

"full employment" LOL
There are millions in America THAT DO NOT WANT TO WORK.

Your evidence of that is.....,?

 

[PMZ]

That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "**** YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.

I agree that long term should be our goal. That’s the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable. We need solutions, not do nothing. We owe that to future generations.

Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I agree that long term should be our goal. That’s the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable. We need solutions, not do nothing. We owe that to future generations.

Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

 

[PMZ]

Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

You, apparently, are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt. While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion, it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.

In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative, what did he do instead? Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.

Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies. So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.

Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.

Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.

It's a problem that only business, the cause, can fix.

We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving, not contributing, to that problem.

 

[PMZ]

Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

You, apparently, are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt. While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion, it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.

In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative, what did he do instead? Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.

Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies. So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.

Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.

Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.

It's a problem that only business, the cause, can fix.

We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving, not contributing, to that problem.

You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.

Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.

 

[bripat9643]

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers." In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."

That's how left-wing propaganda works: take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.

 

[Gadawg73]

"full employment" LOL
There are millions in America THAT DO NOT WANT TO WORK.

Your evidence of that is.....,?

If I have to show you evidence of that you are in serious denial.
Workers comp and social security disability fraud at all time highs.
Millions in this country DO NOT WANT TO WORK.
And they don't all the while drawing a check that you support giving them.
One can have minor "anxiety" and get full social security disability benefits.
Real world. Please join us in it.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree that long term should be our goal. That’s the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable. We need solutions, not do nothing. We owe that to future generations.

Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.

Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government. Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing. Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.

Government can't fix that. Consumers can. We just need to do our job of country first.

The Republican Congress gets the credit for keeping the cost of government down. Clinton wanted to spend a lot more than the budgets that were actually passed. Furthermore, the peace dividend that Reagan bestowed on Clinton allowed him to drastically cut the size of the military.

One thing is certain, Obama certainly hasn't cut the cost of government.

 

[Indeependent]

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers." In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."

That's how left-wing propaganda works: take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.

Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.

In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.

And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
How did he get this job?
He never approved a loan without the software.

Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!

 

[bripat9643]

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers." In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."

That's how left-wing propaganda works: take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.

Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.

Bullshit. There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.

In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.

And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
How did he get this job?
He never approved a loan without the software.

Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!

Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA. If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.

Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?

That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.

 

[PMZ]

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

You, apparently, are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt. While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion, it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.

In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative, what did he do instead? Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.

Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies. So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.

Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.

Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.

It's a problem that only business, the cause, can fix.

We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving, not contributing, to that problem.

You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.

Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.

I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when, in fact, businesses deserve the credit. But I think very often the opposite is also true. There are many factors that help or hurt the economy. The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession. Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.

That having been said, a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics, that cutting taxes raises revenue. The two, especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy, especially capital gains taxes, sometimes correlate in time, sometimes not, proving that they are independent variables.

 

[PMZ]

Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining", an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank much less nearly all of them.

Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.

That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers." In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."

That's how left-wing propaganda works: take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.

Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.

Bullshit. There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.

In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.

And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
How did he get this job?
He never approved a loan without the software.

Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!

Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA. If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.

Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?

That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.

" Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?"

Because they could disguise the risk and sell it as a mortgage backed derivative. The due diligence standard for banks was never changed. But their due diligence was compromised by their ability to dump the risk and obtain assets for more loans.

 

[Indeependent]

"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers." In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."

That's how left-wing propaganda works: take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.

Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.

Bullshit. There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.

In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.

And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
How did he get this job?
He never approved a loan without the software.

Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!

Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA. If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.

Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?

That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.

Ever hear of Fees and Commissions?
I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and all I ever heard from MBAs was, "By the time the sh!t hits the fan, I'll be gone.".
GW, by 2006, knew the economy was NOT recovering from the DOT COM bust so his administration ignored any and all warnings of bad loans and shady investments.
Please provide a list of CEOs who, during the GW years, were approving loans left and right, who were prosecuted; heck...investigated.

Your ideology is blinding you to what actually occurred.