Tiberius Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 http://time.com/4061043/ben-bernanke-fed-bankers-jail/ VW will probably get a free pass as well for polluting the environment http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/opinions/schneier-vw-cheating-software/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I doing disagree that if you break the law, you should be charged and go through the process. But people certainly didn't seem to question behavior or practices when the getting was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I doing disagree that if you break the law, you should be charged and go through the process. But people certainly didn't seem to question behavior or practices when the getting was good. People don't even understand the practices. They just think bad outcomes should be punished, regardless of practices. Hell, people think B of A's executives should be in jail for what Countrywide did. And if people really wanted to combat fraud and abuse in the real estate markets (including lending), they'd investigate things at the local level. The major Wall Street banks are goddamn saints compared to what my wife sees daily ("Oh, we don't provide the paperwork to the borrower until a half-hour after closing starts, so they can't back out of the deal." That was Countrywide, by the way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why isn't anyone in the EPA fired/ locked up for polluting that river? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why isn't anyone in the EPA fired/ locked up for polluting that river? I could tell you, but you won't like the answer. Well maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why isn't anyone in the EPA fired/ locked up for polluting that river? The same reason the feds aren't held accountable along with BP for the massive oil spill in the gulf. Federal inspectors supposedly signed off on the drilling operation, but when it went bad it was all BP's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) The same reason the feds aren't held accountable along with BP for the massive oil spill in the gulf. Federal inspectors supposedly signed off on the drilling operation, but when it went bad it was all BP's fault. The Feds can only do what is written in the law. It is much different than say BP. BP can do anything they want as long as it isn't against the law. Do you see the difference? To answer the question above. The two are held to a totally different standard. The gov't and business are simply not equal. The burden falls more on the private sector. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Say you're the gov't and follow the law. You can only do what the law says you can do, you can't do more, because that would be breaking the law. I then do what you allow me to do and break said other law. Guess who swings? Me of course! Yet, each side is afforded benefits with what they can do? Take the good w/the bad. How would you like to operate? Do anything you want, just don't break the law? Or, only do what the law says you can do? Judging from your personality, I bet you prefer the first option along w/the risk it has. To sum up my mother and simplify this: The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Edited October 6, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 The Feds can only do what is written in the law. It is much different than say BP. BP can do anything they want as long as it isn't against the law. Do you see the difference? "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 People don't even understand the practices. They just think bad outcomes should be punished, regardless of practices. Hell, people think B of A's executives should be in jail for what Countrywide did. And if people really wanted to combat fraud and abuse in the real estate markets (including lending), they'd investigate things at the local level. The major Wall Street banks are goddamn saints compared to what my wife sees daily ("Oh, we don't provide the paperwork to the borrower until a half-hour after closing starts, so they can't back out of the deal." That was Countrywide, by the way.) Yep. And let's not forget big corporate wrongdoers do face consequences, i.e. Tyco, Enron, AA... Maybe some bankers should have been charged and put in jail, let's not forget Obama was the one who essentially decided not to press the issue. At 25 of the US economy and a juicy donors class, don't look to politicians to look gift horses in the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 The Feds can only do what is written in the law. It is much different than say BP. BP can do anything they want as long as it isn't against the law. Do you see the difference? To answer the question above. The two are held to a totally different standard. The gov't and business are simply not equal. The burden falls more on the private sector. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Say you're the gov't and follow the law. You can only do what the law says you can do, you can't do more, because that would be breaking the law. I then do what you allow me to do and break said other law. Guess who swings? Me of course! Yet, each side is afforded benefits with what they can do? Take the good w/the bad. How would you like to operate? Do anything you want, just don't break the law? Or, only do what the law says you can do? Judging from your personality, I bet you prefer the first option along w/the risk it has. To sum up my mother and simplify this: The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. With all due respect, that's bullcrap. If the federal government is going to take a regulatory role via enforced standards and inspections, then once they sign off saying that the company in question meets federal compliance, then they bear just as much responsibility for the fallout should anything happen. They should be held accountable the same as anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 With all due respect, that's bullcrap. If the federal government is going to take a regulatory role via enforced standards and inspections, then once they sign off saying that the company in question meets federal compliance, then they bear just as much responsibility for the fallout should anything happen. They should be held accountable the same as anyone else. Failure usually doesn't happen because of enforced standards and inspections. Failure usually happens because the fed in control of that regulatory role gives in to business and lowers the standards. It's like the role of mommy & daddy, they can't watch the child every waking second. You'd be the first one to complain if that was the case: Overbearing gov't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts