Why isn't Wall Street in Jail?

[44nutman]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=6

A long but interesting read.

I have stated numerous times our elected officials have sold out the middle class. The Bankers and Wall Street rip us off because they know darn well nothing will happen to them. If the financial crisis was so bad, them why isn't anyone doing jail time? These CEO's pay a fine which is usually a portion of the money they stole, they don't have to admit any guilt and go about there merry way. Disgusting!

[Howey]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=6

A long but interesting read.

I have stated numerous times our elected officials have sold out the middle class. The Bankers and Wall Street rip us off because they know darn well nothing will happen to them. If the financial crisis was so bad, them why isn't anyone doing jail time? These CEO's pay a fine which is usually a portion of the money they stole, they don't have to admit any guilt and go about there merry way. Disgusting!

the irrepressible pull of riches and power

Your answer in seven words.

All of this paints a disturbing picture of a closed and corrupt system, a timeless circle of friends that virtually guarantees a collegial approach to the policing of high finance. Even before the corruption starts, the state is crippled by economic reality: Since law enforcement on Wall Street requires serious intellectual firepower, the banks seize a huge advantage from the start by hiring away the top talent.

Your answer in more words.

http://theparagraph.com/2009/06/bush-ii-slowed-sec-during-financial-fraud-fury/

Your answer in a hell of a lot more words:

“It was like someone poured molasses on the enforcement division,” said one manager about the Bush II Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the chairmanship of Christopher Cox.20 As financial fraud raged on Wall Street, Cox’s management slowed financial law enforcement at every stage of a case.212223 To open a case, an investigator had to wait, sometimes for months, for the five-person (Republican majority) commission to review and approve it. To research a case, an investigator had to deal with lousy support facilities. For example, the old, patchwork data system often forced an investigator to go outside the agency for real-time trading information. And the lack of administrative help left an investigator to spend hours a day on tasks such as scanning documents and making ones own travel arrangements. To bring a case to court (an enforcement action), an investigator had to get it through eight levels of review before placing it before the commission for approval. Some cases were dropped during this review process because they had become so old. To settle a case where the corporate culprit would pay a penalty, again the investigator had to send it to the commission, which would often slash or wipe out the fine. In one case, the commission set the penalty below that which the company itself had proposed, leaving the investigator to go back to the company to explain the lower amount. Seeing one’s work undercut at the final stage, swayed investigators away from taking up difficult cases of big financial fraud, and towards easier cases, such as small Ponzi schemes and insider trading. For example, cases of naked short selling — an illegal practice rife for big fraud — were not pursued, with 5000 complaints over 15 months resulting in zero enforcement actions.24 Under these conditions investigators left the agency, further slowing enforcement. So here we see one way that the pro-corporate Bush regime fought corporate regulation: by hindering civil servants from doing the job.

[Howey]

Your answer in a few more words...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/political_economy

In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich. To put this slightly differently, we all know rich people on the left side of the political spectrum who care passionately about the poor and have no problem supporting policies that aren't necessarily in their own direct interest. These people exist. But the Democrats who end up in Congress tend not to be these people; they're the kind of people who respond to the preferences of the rich. Who knows what their motivations for doing so are; perhaps they view concessions to rich priorities as necessary in order to survive in Washington to fight for other priorities some other day. And it should be noted that the priorities of middle and low income voters are occasionally heard and addressed.

The solution? Ain't none. Not until we take our country back from the greedy grasp of the rich.

[lil mike]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=6

A long but interesting read.

I have stated numerous times our elected officials have sold out the middle class. The Bankers and Wall Street rip us off because they know darn well nothing will happen to them. If the financial crisis was so bad, them why isn't anyone doing jail time? These CEO's pay a fine which is usually a portion of the money they stole, they don't have to admit any guilt and go about there merry way. Disgusting!

It's worse than that.  There industry had gotten too big and bloated, and rather than let the free market shrink the financial industry back to a reasonable size during the recession, we saved it in it's bloated form, making sure that the next recession will hurt even worse.

[Howey]

making sure that the next recession will hurt even worse.

The argument has been made that is the goal of the GOP. 

[lil mike]

The argument has been made that is the goal of the GOP. 

If so, the GOP did a great job of manipulating Obama and the dems to save Wall Street.  Real puppet masters!

[Howey]

If so, the GOP did a great job of manipulating Obama and the dems to save Wall Street.  Real puppet masters!

First off, that's not what I meant. However, to clear up a few facts: The original Wall Street bailout was orchestrated by Dubya.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/econ-s20.shtml

The Bush administration on Friday announced plans for a massive and unprecedented federal bailout of the US banking system. In separate appearances Friday morning, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and President Bush announced a series of measures to shore up collapsing financial markets and called on Congress to pass legislation next week to use, in Paulson’s words, “hundreds of billions” of taxpayer dollars to buy virtually worthless mortgage-backed assets that cannot be sold on the market from banks and other financial institutions.

Paulson said he would meet over the weekend with congressional leaders to lay out the details of the government plan.

With this plan, the full cost of the immense debts piled up by the banks will be imposed on the American people. It will shift the banks’ liabilities onto the federal government, sharply increasing government budget deficits and the US debt, a process that can only further erode the creditworthiness of the United States and place a bigger question mark on the value of the US dollar.

Secondly, the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent further regulation of the crooks:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/14/4426186-congress-whos-bailing-out-wall-street

"Senate Republicans unveiled a fresh attack yesterday against a regulatory revamping of the US banking industry, contending that Democrats' proposals to curb the reckless practices that contributed to the 2008 economic meltdown would create a 'perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks,'" the Boston Globe reports

[Howey]

First off, that's not what I meant.

This is what I meant:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal

If the Republicans were so hell-bent on improving the economy, they'd work with the President on creating jobs as opposed to trying to pass new legislation intent on killing or funding old legislation that created jobs.

[FooFa]

It's fox's guarding the hen house. That's what the brilliance of the founding father's was. The principles of the country and constitution were not just the inherent common sense of separation of powers but that money had to be in a form that meant something like gold and silver. The expression about robbing Paul to pay Peter comes to mind only about a 100 billion times worse.

[lil mike]

First off, that's not what I meant. However, to clear up a few facts: The original Wall Street bailout was orchestrated by Dubya.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/econ-s20.shtml

Oh I know that.  But as you know, I opposed it then.  And who continued it when Dubya left office?  I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

Secondly, the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent further regulation of the crooks:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/14/4426186-congress-whos-bailing-out-wall-street

You seem to think the financial "reform" bill was actually about reform.  Don't you remember who wrote it? I thought it was a fraud, and still do.  The bill enshrined and created a continuing bailout.  Great job at "reform!"

[Howey]

Oh I know that.  But as you know, I opposed it then.  And who continued it when Dubya left office?  I shouldn't have to remind you of that.


You seem to think the financial "reform" bill was actually about reform.  Don't you remember who wrote it? I thought it was a fraud, and still do.  The bill enshrined and created a continuing bailout.  Great job at "reform!"

I never said the financial crooks were just on the republican side. Just more, lots more, of them. Occasionally, a democrat has the ballz to stand up and say "No!" as opposed to the republicans standing in a line with their hands out waiting for Boehner to hand them the latest check from (Name lobbyist group here).

Proof:

In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich. To put this slightly differently, we all know rich people on the left side of the political spectrum who care passionately about the poor and have no problem supporting policies that aren't necessarily in their own direct interest. These people exist. But the Democrats who end up in Congress tend not to be these people; they're the kind of people who respond to the preferences of the rich.