Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So your complaint isn't with banks or wall street, it is with the government then? If you agree with that article, then you should be out protesting the SEC, not wall street.
Besides, are you really saying that settling should not be allowed in trial cases? Settling out of court is commonplace in the American legal system. Why is it OK for everyone EXCEPT big banks?
Actually, you've twisted it around. The complaint is with Wall Street, in this case Citigroup. That would be why the SEC forged a settlement with them where CITIGROUP agreed to pay a $285 million fine. Who passed off toxic debt without full disclosure? Citigroup.
Settling out of court is commonplace in the American legal system. And so is having the matter resolved in court. The SEC says they have neither the funds nor the resources to actually take big banks to court. Why is it okay for the rest of us to have to resolve matters in court, but banks getting a pass?
As the judge noted, the out-of-court settlements where banks admit no wrongdoing may be a matter of tradition, but is not a matter of reason. Banks prefer it because it makes it harder for shareholders and customers to sue them. The government should not be complicit in that strategy.
So if I throw a baseball through my neighbor's window and we both agree that I will pay him $200 so he doesn't sue me, I should still be charged with destruction of property?
That is the precedent you are proposing.
So you are just angry and looking to lash out at someone? Emotional decision making like this has no place in politics or business.
And actually, this comparison is false.
The comparison should be, you throw a baseball through your neighbor's window, and the police come and you agree to pay a fine, but refuse to accept responsibility for the broken window. The neighbor can take you to court for the broken window, but since the police are now on record as not holding you responsible for the broken window, the neighbor has a much harder time convincing the jury. Your lawyer keeps pointing out to them, if you were to blame, the police would have arrested you. And yet they didn't. In this case, the police accept money, and then are complicit in helping you avoid taking responsibility for your actions.
Actually, you've twisted it around. The complaint is with Wall Street, in this case Citigroup. That would be why the SEC forged a settlement with them where CITIGROUP agreed to pay a $285 million fine. Who passed off toxic debt without full disclosure? Citigroup.
Settling out of court is commonplace in the American legal system. And so is having the matter resolved in court. The SEC says they have neither the funds nor the resources to actually take big banks to court. Why is it okay for the rest of us to have to resolve matters in court, but banks getting a pass?
As the judge noted, the out-of-court settlements where banks admit no wrongdoing may be a matter of tradition, but is not a matter of reason. Banks prefer it because it makes it harder for shareholders and customers to sue them. The government should not be complicit in that strategy.
The comparison should be, you throw a baseball through your neighbor's window, and the police come and you agree to pay a fine, but refuse to accept responsibility for the broken window. The neighbor can take you to court for the broken window, but since the police are now on record as not holding you responsible for the broken window, the neighbor has a much harder time convincing the jury. Your lawyer keeps pointing out to them, if you were to blame, the police would have arrested you. And yet they didn't. In this case, the police accept money, and then are complicit in helping you avoid taking responsibility for your actions.
See how that works?
I understand your analogy, but do not agree that you have it correctly. Your analogy is not an adequate correlation to the situation at hand. Once consideration is given though restitution, blame is immaterial from a legal perspective.
I guess my request for specifics and substance is going to be ignored.
Your post started off like this "Perhaps you would be kind enough to focus on a specific example rather than making empty-headed accusations and relying on hackneyed insults". I did not read beyond that. Why would I? If you want to ask an intelligent question without the insults and personal attacks, I would be happy to respond.
Hotair2, as usual you seem to have targeted a portion of the problem but refuse to address the aid given to guys like this by the politicians. Now certainly, if Bush were it office you'd be railing about Bush and the Banks.
Ever heard of Corzine?
Just pointing out that a whole bunch of people are refusing to assign any blame to other parties to this debacle out of pure politics....or in the case of some trying to pin the whole thing on Obama purely out of politics.
The politicians enabledhe banks to take risks by removing checks and balances. In exchange they got political contributions aka bribes and also got to juice the economy via private debt instead of real growth. The US citizens area also to blame....whom speculated on housing and spent way beyond thier means. It's a shame we have people that can't grasp or even admit to the basic facts because their party is always right and the other party is always wrong.
(Clinton and Bush II prime examples).
I understand your analogy, but do not agree that you have it correctly. Your analogy is not an adequate correlation to the situation at hand. Once consideration is given though restitution, blame is immaterial from a legal perspective.
I appreciate the way you want to spin it. But the judge's ruling to refuse to allow the SEC to settle with Citigroup is an assertion that from a legal perspective or any other perspective, that accountability, blame, responsibility, whatever you want to call it, is not immaterial.
Accountability is MAJOR. Just bcs Goldman Sachs and SEC knew how to push derivatives to the trillion dollar amount through legal loopholes KNOWING there was no legislation against it
Dodd-Frank HMA Bill is a prime example of fraud foisted on the American people, and no not all Americans are in 600k houses underwater, plus some cannot sell now due to the trashed R.E. market...I am beyond enraged at politicos who sold out to JPMorgan Chase and others....
Ive worked for B of A (unfortunately) and know what they are capable of. I blame banks and Congress in collusion, and yes its been going on since the 70's. Its an economic issue, NOT partisan.
And its a serious issue they cannot cover up with moose chili and idiots yammering on MSM...Intelligent Americans have had it, and yet again, are being underestimated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
