On 8/12/13 4:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/12/13 3:45 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:21:17 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/12/13 12:14 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:59:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/12/13 11:56 AM, wrote:

Government owned prisons don't really have that good a record either.


Yeah, I know that, but they typically are better than private
hell-holes, and they are answerable to the taxpayers and their
officials. That's many steps up the ladder from being answerable to
shareholders.

At a certain point the crime victims think prison should be
uncomfortable even miserable.
A prisoner should have a worse life than the person on the lowest rung
on the economic ladder outside.
Otherwise why fear prison?

Think about a victim of Bernie Madoff who knows they are buying Bernie
room, board and health care when they may not to be able to afford it
for themselves.
Then you have the Cleveland 3. I bet they have some ideas about how
Castro should spend the rest of his miserable life. I bet getting fat
watching TV ain't it.




"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Of course, that didn't prevent
a backwards state like Florida from executing an obviously deranged
prisoner -John Ferguson- last week.


Oh...the United States has about 5% of the world's population and about
25% of the world's incarcerated population. It's good we're still the
leader in something, eh?

On 8/12/13 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:06:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Oh...the United States has about 5% of the world's population and about
25% of the world's incarcerated population. It's good we're still the
leader in something, eh?

We have more crime although I agree the stupid drug laws contribute
to that number in a great way, particularly in the federal system.
You like to talk about various" X/industrial complexes" but the
DEA/industrial complex is one of the worst.
They are fueled with massive budgets plus all the personal property
they can take in forfeitures and seizures.
Most of the privacy concerns we have with NSA are trivial compared to
what the DEA does to "targets", guilty or not.



We have more crimes, and therefore we have more crime, I think, would be
a more apt way of putting it.

On 8/12/13 5:29 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:36:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/12/13 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:06:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Oh...the United States has about 5% of the world's population and about
25% of the world's incarcerated population. It's good we're still the
leader in something, eh?

We have more crime although I agree the stupid drug laws contribute
to that number in a great way, particularly in the federal system.
You like to talk about various" X/industrial complexes" but the
DEA/industrial complex is one of the worst.
They are fueled with massive budgets plus all the personal property
they can take in forfeitures and seizures.
Most of the privacy concerns we have with NSA are trivial compared to
what the DEA does to "targets", guilty or not.



We have more crimes, and therefore we have more crime, I think, would be
a more apt way of putting it.

I suppose the question would be, if you let all of the people
convicted of drug crimes out today, how big would the prison
population be?

Which other crimes would you pardon people for?

We can start a list.

There have to be people in prison who we would be better off putting
somewhere else.


It's not just a matter of pardoning people, although sentence reduction
for the non-violent would work, too; it's also a matter of not
continuously adding to the enormous list of crimes in this country, a
far greater list than other countries have, and many of them are pretty
esoteric.

Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the
Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything.
When, let's say, 10,000 banksters are tried, convicted, and imprisoned
for ruining this country's economy, we'll have room for them in the
privately owned prison of their choice.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the
Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything.

------------------------------

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be
more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.

On 8/12/13 6:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the
Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything.

------------------------------

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more
accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.



Oh? Was Frank the one knowingly lending hundreds of billions of dollars
against worthless financial instruments, or engaging in predatory
lending? Was Frank responsible for the irresponsible and greedy
banksters putting themselves ahead of their responsibilities to their
shareholders, who, sadly, are too numerous and scattered to exert much
control.

There's no legal sting for the banksters. They'll do what they did
before, finding new loopholes to line their personal pockets.

On 8/12/13 8:51 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:22:20 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/12/13 6:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the
Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything.

------------------------------

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more
accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.



Oh? Was Frank the one knowingly lending hundreds of billions of dollars
against worthless financial instruments, or engaging in predatory
lending? Was Frank responsible for the irresponsible and greedy
banksters putting themselves ahead of their responsibilities to their
shareholders, who, sadly, are too numerous and scattered to exert much
control.

There's no legal sting for the banksters. They'll do what they did
before, finding new loopholes to line their personal pockets.

Frank/Dodd did loosen up lending requirements. Clinton encouraged and
signed BOTH pieces of legislation that "unchained" Wall Street.
Nobody was complaining when the bubble was inflating and their house
tripled in value. Unemployment in the construction industry was 0.5%
Nobody complained about that either.
It was sort of like the Dot Com bubble a half decade before.
Nobody complained about that either ... until the crash.


The Wall Street banksters did everything they could to line their
pockets at the expense of virtually everyone else. True American patriots.

On 8/12/2013 5:51 PM, wrote:

Frank/Dodd did loosen up lending requirements. Clinton encouraged and
signed BOTH pieces of legislation that "unchained" Wall Street.

He was too centrist in that regard.

Nobody was complaining when the bubble was inflating and their house
tripled in value. Unemployment in the construction industry was 0.5%
Nobody complained about that either.
It was sort of like the Dot Com bubble a half decade before.
Nobody complained about that either ... until the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born

In article
,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the
Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything.

------------------------------

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be
more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.

Wow. Talk about partisan politics.
I'll remind you that the massive abuse of mortgage
lending "due diligence" requirements occurred when there
was a Republican President, Republican Senate, and
Republican House of Representatives.
Here's Barney Franks' pal in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63odt264pR8
Pretty cool when he says "Put your mind to it that first-
time home buyers or low-income home buyers can have just
as nice a house as anybody else."
What a prince of a man.

Funny, this guy says it's primarily the "bankster's"
fault.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-
blame.asp

I look at it a bit differently. The "banksters" will
steal everything they can. That's evident.
If breaking the law and paying a fine when caught leads
to more profit than NOT breaking the law - they will
break the law.
It's the American Way.
Only prison time will prevent that.

It's always been the "bankster's" responsibility to make
only sound loans. That's his fiduciary duty.
He failed. Miserably. But fiduciary duty to others means
nothing if you can violate it and escape prison of other
big hurt. Banksters also have a fiduciary duty to enrich
themselves as much as possible, while avoiding prison.
It's the American Way.

Since it's a well-founded principle that banksters will
steal other people's money if not sent to prison for
doing it, one other thing is obvious.
The lawmakers and banking/mortgage regulators failed.

Every single one of them that didn't write a bill to
prevent it from happening, or in the case of regulators,
allow it to happen without raising holy hell.

They should have all been tossed out when the **** hit
the fan.
But nearly all of the lawmakers and regulators are
millionaires, so they followed the fiduciary duty to
themselves.
It's the American Way.
Millionaires write the laws. They run the country.
What party label they attach to themselves means nothing
if their primary goal is to attain more wealth.
Follow the money.
It sure as hell didn't go to the middle class or poor
people.

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article
,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the
Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything.

------------------------------

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be
more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.

Wow. Talk about partisan politics.
I'll remind you that the massive abuse of mortgage
lending "due diligence" requirements occurred when there
was a Republican President, Republican Senate, and
Republican House of Representatives.
Here's Barney Franks' pal in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63odt264pR8
Pretty cool when he says "Put your mind to it that first-
time home buyers or low-income home buyers can have just
as nice a house as anybody else."
What a prince of a man.

Funny, this guy says it's primarily the "bankster's"
fault.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-
blame.asp

I look at it a bit differently. The "banksters" will
steal everything they can. That's evident.
If breaking the law and paying a fine when caught leads
to more profit than NOT breaking the law - they will
break the law.
It's the American Way.
Only prison time will prevent that.

It's always been the "bankster's" responsibility to make
only sound loans. That's his fiduciary duty.
He failed. Miserably. But fiduciary duty to others means
nothing if you can violate it and escape prison of other
big hurt. Banksters also have a fiduciary duty to enrich
themselves as much as possible, while avoiding prison.
It's the American Way.

Since it's a well-founded principle that banksters will
steal other people's money if not sent to prison for
doing it, one other thing is obvious.
The lawmakers and banking/mortgage regulators failed.

Every single one of them that didn't write a bill to
prevent it from happening, or in the case of regulators,
allow it to happen without raising holy hell.

They should have all been tossed out when the **** hit
the fan.
But nearly all of the lawmakers and regulators are
millionaires, so they followed the fiduciary duty to
themselves.
It's the American Way.
Millionaires write the laws. They run the country.
What party label they attach to themselves means nothing
if their primary goal is to attain more wealth.
Follow the money.
It sure as hell didn't go to the middle class or poor
people.

--------------------------

My complaint about Barney Frank is based on him being the prime
advocate to establish quotas for mortgages obtained through Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Before 1992 the Fair Housing Act only required them
to approve loans that institutional mortgage lenders would make, i.e.
qualified applicants who met the down payment, work history and
income levels to qualify for the amount of the loan.

The 1992 amendment successfully lobbied for by Frank established a
quota system whereby 30 percent of the loans *must* be made to those
who were at or below the medium income level in the community. This
quota was raised to 50 percent at the end of Clinton's administration
and raised again to 55 percent during the Bush administration in 2007.
The result was the creation of so called "sub-prime" loans and the
eventual collapse of the housing market and home values.

This is what caused the recession.

In article fq2dnb7y8r3ErZfPnZ2dnUVZ_q-
, says...


My complaint about Barney Frank is based on him being the prime
advocate to establish quotas for mortgages obtained through Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Before 1992 the Fair Housing Act only required them
to approve loans that institutional mortgage lenders would make, i.e.
qualified applicants who met the down payment, work history and
income levels to qualify for the amount of the loan.

The 1992 amendment successfully lobbied for by Frank established a
quota system whereby 30 percent of the loans *must* be made to those
who were at or below the medium income level in the community. This
quota was raised to 50 percent at the end of Clinton's administration
and raised again to 55 percent during the Bush administration in 2007.
The result was the creation of so called "sub-prime" loans and the
eventual collapse of the housing market and home values.

This is what caused the recession.


Right, ignore all other evidence to the contrary, which
is readily available, and just blame Barney Frank.
Give everybody else, other lawmakers, mortgage brokers,
banksters, Wall Street, home-flippers, 2nd mortgage
takers to buy that F-250, etc, a free pass.
It's all Barney Franks' fault. He was secretly mind-
controlling the entire U.S. Government, and those I
mention above starting from - what, 1992?
He must be the anti-Christ.
Like I said, "Wow. Talk about partisan politics."
Whatever floats your boat, Mr "Independent."