"When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?"

[Quantum Windbag]

That's all SENATOR Elizabeth Warren had to ask to get the point across. And now I hear that the Wall Street Banksters are angry.

Warren to regulators: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?

Why? Because FINALLY someone putting your foot to the fire? FINALLY someone is out to get LEGITITAMATE accountability?

She wasn't angry, she wasn't screaming, she didn't have a scowl on her face, she didn't have any of that, as you see from just about every other questioning from Senate (e.g. Benghazi, Obama's appointments, etc.), she just cooly, calmly, but firmly kept repeating the question...."Tell me about the last time you took A Big Wall Street Bank to trial." And the place is up in arms.

Elizabeth Warren presses financial regulators: Why no trials for Wall Street?

What does that tell you?

Well it tells me that A. Elizabeth Warren is doing her damn job, which is what I expected. B. There's been no accountability up to now. C. The Wall Street Banks do NOT want to be accountable for their actions and D. The American People are finally getting some much-needed light and insight on the WSB shenanigans and practices.

This is a BIG WIN for The American People, just like I expected it will.

Heads will roll, as they should.

What say you?

Let me explain the facts of life to you.

When a bank is charged with something, and admits to it all, and then agrees to every demand the government makes regarding making restitution, there is absolutely no reason to take them to trial. The thing is, Elizabeth Warren, unless she is just as stupid and ignorant as you are, knows this. The reason the regulators were left flustered by thisquestion is this is the type of thing that Al Franken or Hank Johnson would ask, not something an intelligent lawyer who was nominated to head a regulatory agency. Only a complete idiot, or someone who is posturing for low information voters, would ever ask the question.

You praising Warren for posturing just shows how little you understand anything, and is indicative of why the Democrats routinely con you into believing that the sky is red.

 

[MarcATL]

That's all SENATOR Elizabeth Warren had to ask to get the point across. And now I hear that the Wall Street Banksters are angry.

Warren to regulators: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?

Why? Because FINALLY someone putting your foot to the fire? FINALLY someone is out to get LEGITITAMATE accountability?

She wasn't angry, she wasn't screaming, she didn't have a scowl on her face, she didn't have any of that, as you see from just about every other questioning from Senate (e.g. Benghazi, Obama's appointments, etc.), she just cooly, calmly, but firmly kept repeating the question...."Tell me about the last time you took A Big Wall Street Bank to trial." And the place is up in arms.

Elizabeth Warren presses financial regulators: Why no trials for Wall Street?

What does that tell you?

Well it tells me that A. Elizabeth Warren is doing her damn job, which is what I expected. B. There's been no accountability up to now. C. The Wall Street Banks do NOT want to be accountable for their actions and D. The American People are finally getting some much-needed light and insight on the WSB shenanigans and practices.

This is a BIG WIN for The American People, just like I expected it will.

Heads will roll, as they should.

What say you?

Let me explain the facts of life to you.

When a bank is charged with something, and admits to it all, and then agrees to every demand the government makes regarding making restitution, there is absolutely no reason to take them to trial. The thing is, Elizabeth Warren, unless she is just as stupid and ignorant as you are, knows this. The reason the regulators were left flustered by thisquestion is this is the type of thing that Al Franken or Hank Johnson would ask, not something an intelligent lawyer who was nominated to head a regulatory agency. Only a complete idiot, or someone who is posturing for low information voters, would ever ask the question.

You praising Warren for posturing just shows how little you understand anything, and is indicative of why the Democrats routinely con you into believing that the sky is red.

OK, you not only support too-big-to-fail, you also support too-big-to-go-to-trial. Got it.

 

[g5000]

I have cited examples of fraud in which the fine was less than what the fraudsters netted from their crimes. Only a complete sucker would believe that is anything approaching "restitution". From where I'm standing, that incentivizes more fraud.

People like that remind me of battered wives. They keep making excuses for the people who have robbed them.

Weird.

 

[Vast LWC]

Moron.

F&F Set the standard for AAA rating.

Total moron.

F&F were given false information to base their packages on. Thus the recent multi-billion dollar lawsuits it won against big banks like BofA over FRAUD, as well as fraud allegations against S&P.

But then of course, that's just a slap on the wrist to big banks, which is the whole point of this thread.

That certainly doesn't mean that F&F were innocent, but it DOES mean that the Banks were guilty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's all SENATOR Elizabeth Warren had to ask to get the point across. And now I hear that the Wall Street Banksters are angry.

Warren to regulators: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial?

Why? Because FINALLY someone putting your foot to the fire? FINALLY someone is out to get LEGITITAMATE accountability?

She wasn't angry, she wasn't screaming, she didn't have a scowl on her face, she didn't have any of that, as you see from just about every other questioning from Senate (e.g. Benghazi, Obama's appointments, etc.), she just cooly, calmly, but firmly kept repeating the question...."Tell me about the last time you took A Big Wall Street Bank to trial." And the place is up in arms.

Elizabeth Warren presses financial regulators: Why no trials for Wall Street?

What does that tell you?

Well it tells me that A. Elizabeth Warren is doing her damn job, which is what I expected. B. There's been no accountability up to now. C. The Wall Street Banks do NOT want to be accountable for their actions and D. The American People are finally getting some much-needed light and insight on the WSB shenanigans and practices.

This is a BIG WIN for The American People, just like I expected it will.

Heads will roll, as they should.

What say you?

Let me explain the facts of life to you.

When a bank is charged with something, and admits to it all, and then agrees to every demand the government makes regarding making restitution, there is absolutely no reason to take them to trial. The thing is, Elizabeth Warren, unless she is just as stupid and ignorant as you are, knows this. The reason the regulators were left flustered by thisquestion is this is the type of thing that Al Franken or Hank Johnson would ask, not something an intelligent lawyer who was nominated to head a regulatory agency. Only a complete idiot, or someone who is posturing for low information voters, would ever ask the question.

You praising Warren for posturing just shows how little you understand anything, and is indicative of why the Democrats routinely con you into believing that the sky is red.

OK, you not only support too-big-to-fail, you also support too-big-to-go-to-trial. Got it.

You are the idiot that supports Odd-Frank, while I oppose it. Since it actually writes the concept of too big to fail into law I can easily point out that means you actually support too big to fail.

Nice way to prove me right about your ignorance though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have cited examples of fraud in which the fine was less than what the fraudsters netted from their crimes. Only a complete sucker would believe that is anything approaching "restitution". From where I'm standing, that incentivizes more fraud.

People like that remind me of battered wives. They keep making excuses for the people who have robbed them.

Weird.

Cite as many as you like. What you need to prove is that the law actually allows fines for these acts of fraud to be higher, until you do that you are just bowing smoke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moron.

F&F Set the standard for AAA rating.

Total moron.

F&F were given false information to base their packages on. Thus the recent multi-billion dollar lawsuits it won against big banks like BofA over FRAUD, as well as fraud allegations against S&P.

But then of course, that's just a slap on the wrist to big banks, which is the whole point of this thread.

That certainly doesn't mean that F&F were innocent, but it DOES mean that the Banks were guilty.

They were given false information? By whom? When? What, exactly, was false about it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Moron.

F&F Set the standard for AAA rating.

Total moron.

F&F were given false information to base their packages on. Thus the recent multi-billion dollar lawsuits it won against big banks like BofA over FRAUD, as well as fraud allegations against S&P.

But then of course, that's just a slap on the wrist to big banks, which is the whole point of this thread.

That certainly doesn't mean that F&F were innocent, but it DOES mean that the Banks were guilty.

Really? F&F said they would accept "No Income No Asset" Loans. How were they "Defrauded"?