OWS

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

Most of those I've known who would meet the definition of "fat cats" would rather go to jail and keep most of their money than to lose all their money. I'd think it would be possible to craft a sentence that pretty much guarantees a life of modest means. That way, they would risk more than "someone else's money" and the money (fines, forfeitures) taken from them could be put to some good work.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:I'm cool with big fines, forfeitures and jail.

Some legal questions:
Do forfeitures require civil judgements?
Are there fines big enough in the penal code and, if not, wouldn't the laws need to be rewritten?
Rewritten laws can't be applied retroactively, right?
If the laws were rewritten would there then be an equality issue if fat cats got bigger fines then the penny ante embezzler just because they are fat cats?
1. I don't know.
2. Well, they take away your houses, cars, and impound your bank accounts for drug offenses. That's pretty big. Might take some new/revised law, but it's surely workable if Congress weren't also either fat cats or indebted to fat cats.
3. Right.
4. They wouldn't be getting bigger fines because they are fat cats. They would be getting bigger fines because of the size of the financial harm they've caused to others. A fat cat who was only a penny ante embezzler would still get a penny ante fine.

All IMNVHO, of course.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

It seems to be a moot issue. No human "persons" have been charged yet and I'm guessing they won't be. But, as part of a flight of fantasy, we could look at Bernie Madoff as an example. He was sentenced to the ridiculous number of 150 years in prison and was ordered to forfeit $170 billion (which apparently he didn't have anywhere close), and the "innocent" (nudge-nudge) wife agreed to forfeit about $80 million in assets.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:True, Obama and Holder wimped out on us, just like with the torturers and war criminals.

I don't know but that may be different since that was his personal scam and he personally reaped the rewards. Would the Madoff solution work for a criminal banker that gets salary, stock options, bonuses, etc. rather than the direct proceeds of illegal activity? I'm okay with the ridiculous number of years in prison.
There are a lot of things people can do "in their capacity" as an employee/manager of a company that doesn't get them personally charged. For example, in my world, a manager or company owner can be held personally accountable for flagrant wage-hour violations, but it rarely happens. Likewise, a manager who is unlawfully harassing an employee can be held individually liable, but usually isn't - at least in part because of not-so-deep pockets. Frequently the harassing asshole is named in a civil suit, but that's usually just to split his defense from the company and doesn't amount to much. I'm thinking there is enough fuzziness in the distinction between the actions of the individual fat cats as executive and the actions of the corporate "person" (who has been convicted and fined) to make it difficult to prosecute.

On the related topic, I understand that an unrealistic sentence may be reasonable as a means of assuring the person doesn't get out. Sentence a guy to 20 years, and he may be restricted on the street in less than 10. But Madoff was 70-something. Wouldn't "life without parole" be sufficient?

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

I've mentioned before that all I know about criminal law I learned on TV, but it seems part of the reason no criminal charges have been filed is that no criminal offenses were committed. Sleazy yes, dishonest, unethical, downright shitty, but I don't know about the criminal. Exactly what charges do you think apply?

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

So Burger King is going to Canada, eh? Effort to boycott is on the way. I guess I'd join except how does one boycott a place s/he's not been in in years, if not decades? Show up at the door and then turn away?

User avatar
Wneglia
Midshipman
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by Wneglia »

O Really wrote:So Burger King is going to Canada, eh? Effort to boycott is on the way. I guess I'd join except how does one boycott a place s/he's not been in in years, if not decades? Show up at the door and then turn away?
I don't think I've ever eaten in Burger King, and don't plan to start now, but I may follow Warren Buffet's lead in investing in a company that makes wise business decisions. Why pay the confiscatory US corporate tax rates that are the highest in the world economy, when the law allows them to do exactly what Burger King did? Either lower corporate rates to become competitive, or close the loophole of inversions. Boycotting is a silly waste of time that may make a few people feel like they are doing something.

:mrgreen:

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:
O Really wrote:I've mentioned before that all I know about criminal law I learned on TV, but it seems part of the reason no criminal charges have been filed is that no criminal offenses were committed. Sleazy yes, dishonest, unethical, downright shitty, but I don't know about the criminal. Exactly what charges do you think apply?
Off the top of my head, massive fraud. They knew the derivatives were shaky and some even hedged against them. Folks more knowledgeable than me think criminal offenses were committed, or at least that a jury should decide.
It's not inherently illegal to deal in risky investments. It's not illegal to sell stock in a potential gold mine that hasn't been dug yet and may never yield one nugget. Now, if you haven't dug the mine and you tell the investors you're digging out a million a week, then that's another thing. I'm certainly not saying they didn't commit some crime, but I have yet to see anybody - more knowledgeable than us or not - to express specifically what crimes they should be charged with.

User avatar
Wneglia
Midshipman
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by Wneglia »


User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: OWS

Unread post by neoplacebo »

O Really wrote:
Vrede wrote:
O Really wrote:I've mentioned before that all I know about criminal law I learned on TV, but it seems part of the reason no criminal charges have been filed is that no criminal offenses were committed. Sleazy yes, dishonest, unethical, downright shitty, but I don't know about the criminal. Exactly what charges do you think apply?
Off the top of my head, massive fraud. They knew the derivatives were shaky and some even hedged against them. Folks more knowledgeable than me think criminal offenses were committed, or at least that a jury should decide.
It's not inherently illegal to deal in risky investments. It's not illegal to sell stock in a potential gold mine that hasn't been dug yet and may never yield one nugget. Now, if you haven't dug the mine and you tell the investors you're digging out a million a week, then that's another thing. I'm certainly not saying they didn't commit some crime, but I have yet to see anybody - more knowledgeable than us or not - to express specifically what crimes they should be charged with.
I know little about criminal law, but it seems to me that any of these charges could be made: conspiracy, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Hell, they could probably be charged collectively and individually under the RICO statutes. From what I've read, those laws can get you big prison terms even if you're only guilty by association. And then there's my favorite charge; being a greedy sleazebag bastard. Bang! (that was my gavel falling onto the floor).

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by O Really »

One perspective here from the NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... ood-reason

With interesting comments.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: OWS

Unread post by neoplacebo »

O Really wrote:One perspective here from the NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... ood-reason

With interesting comments.
The author seems to torpedo his point when he wrote "More importantly, corporations are not people; they have no consciences independent of those belonging to the people that run them." So, indeed, what is the function of the high priced bank president? I think it's sort of like Jethro when he took a job at Mr. Drysdale's bank as a vice president; all he did was sharpen new pencils all the way down to the end until it was time to go. That in itself isn't illegal, but it's certainly stupid. As for the big fines, I have no problem with it; money is all these pinheads understand. Perhaps an appropriate punishment for the big bankers involved would be to force them to live in New Orleans ninth ward for oh, say, three years without making any improvements to their house (they have to pretend they can't afford to). It might provide them a sense of reality they would otherwise miss; and it would certainly be educational for the ones involved in it. I'm all for creative punishment.

User avatar
Wneglia
Midshipman
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: OWS

Unread post by Wneglia »

Vrede wrote:
Michael Barone

Michael Barone is a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor...
So, it's all Obama's fault.
You can dinegrate the messenger, but you can't change the facts. Obama had control of both houses of congress, and if he had wanted to pass the legislation to address the problem, he could have. On the other hand, the end product might have been as screwed up as Obamacare, so perhaps his inaction should be appreciated rather than criticized. :lol:

:mrgreen:

User avatar
bannination
Captain
Posts: 5502
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:58 am
Location: Hendersonville
Contact:

Re: OWS

Unread post by bannination »

For once I'm not sure who the bigger dick is in the story, the billionaire, or the pope that wants 180 million to restore a cathedral. Doesn't seem like either one is truly concerned for the welfare of the poor.

User avatar
Boatrocker
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Southeast of Disorder

Re: OWS

Unread post by Boatrocker »

"Rich people in one country don't act the same as rich people in another country . . . .:

Riiiiigghhtt . . . .
I will not lie down.
I will not go quietly.

User avatar
Boatrocker
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Southeast of Disorder

Re: OWS

Unread post by Boatrocker »

Vietnam is sentencing corrupt bankers to death, by firing squad
For the most part, American bankers whose rash pursuit of profit brought on the 2008 global financial collapse didn’t get indicted. They got bonuses.
Odds are that scandal would have played out differently in Vietnam, another nation struggling with misbehaving bankers.

. . . It’s still unclear how the bankers will be killed. Vietnam’s traditional means of execution involves binding perpetrators to a wooden post, stuffing their mouths with lemons and calling in a firing squad
Might sound draconian to some, but I'd not lose sleep over it . . . .
I will not lie down.
I will not go quietly.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: OWS

Unread post by rstrong »

This was in the town of Dauphin. I lived there for two years while the program was running.

I hadn't heard of the program until a couple months ago when the internet discovered it, so I asked my mom about it at Christmas dinner. Our neighbor was in the program. Her husband was killed in a rollover car accident, leaving her to raise two kids alone.

edit: Love the aerial photo. They had just announced construction of the "tall" building in the middle before we left. The big empty right-of-way running diagonally through town used to have more rail lines and some grain elevators. (The elevators are shown in a picture further down.) A whole lot of rail lines have been removed in Manitoba over the last couple of decades.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: OWS

Unread post by neoplacebo »

An interesting story, and an apparently pretty successful program. Looks like a good way to end the sort of perpetual dependence the US social system fosters. I also thought it ironic that "Dr. Forget" is the one who put this back in the light since it's evident the government since then want to forget it. And this is what Mark Meadows and Richard Burr and the majority of the GOP would think of it. :shock: :shock:

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: OWS

Unread post by rstrong »


User avatar
Boatrocker
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Southeast of Disorder

Re: OWS

Unread post by Boatrocker »

Way too much common sense to ever pass in this congress.
I will not lie down.
I will not go quietly.

Post Reply