What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
78 Comments
- AmnesiacJack, on 07/09/2009, -1/+30Rob a bank with a gun, go to prison for life.
Rob a nation with a pen, profit? - IgorUnchained, on 07/09/2009, -0/+14After all they have put us through, I dont thinks Banks Laughter is appropriate. Have some class....people are losing everything while they yuck it up.
- wonderchemist, on 07/08/2009, -0/+11Actually, running someone over in a car is the easist way to kill someone and get away with it.
- angryfirelord, on 07/09/2009, -2/+12They wouldn't have gotten a multimillion dollar pay package if we didn't bail them out in the first place! What HuffPoo writers need to realize is that the financial crisis was in part caused by a collusion between the government and corporations. The best regulatory system we have is the free market, so if these bastards make crappy decisions, then we should let them fail. If we let the government decide what's the appropirate amount of risk and how good management should be, then you're just setting yourself up for trouble.
- alanocu, on 07/08/2009, -11/+21I’ve been a bit skeptical on how Obama keeps saying he’s “created or saved” different numbers of jobs, but the media seems credulous so I guess “created or saved” is a perfectly fine formulation. We might as well apply the phrase to lots of different things. For instance, I slowed down in the school zone, creating or saving three children. By proper use of braking on the way to work, I created or saved twelve automobiles. Deciding against serial killing, I created or saved upwards of 33 people (I’m very smart and would not be easily caught). And lastly, by controlling my anger, I created or saved your face.
- bakedpajamas, on 07/09/2009, -2/+10Terrorists in every sense of the word. They have purposefully done more damage, and ruined more lives, than any foreign terror group in history.
So, Congress. Obama Administration. Who are you with? The "Terrorists" or the American People.
Your actions speak louder than words. - reedaleddy, on 07/08/2009, -1/+9Get the pichforks and lets find these *****
- InetRoadkill, on 07/09/2009, -0/+8I like the pitchfork idea. But seriously, if a doctor or a lawyer screwed up as bad as these bankers did, they'd have their licenses stripped. It seems to me that the guys responsible for this mess who were engaging in gross financial malfeasance for the sake of greed should be held accountable. Since the lust for money is all they understand, strip them of their salaries, assets, and golden parachutes. In short, tell them that if you put the company and country at financial risk, you place your personal assets at risk as well.
- dougs55, on 07/09/2009, -0/+7See the book "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One" by William K. Black. He was a prosecutor during the S&L cleanup among other things.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/029 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black - Akairenn, on 07/09/2009, -1/+8Please.
Bankers, bankers, bankers. Who has been screwing with the financial world and tossing the pebbles that have lead to the avalanche? Who has sown the wind?
Yeah. That's right. Look no further than Congress. Specifically, look at the guys with a D or an R next to their names. You want to point fingers? They had better be pointed there. - austroLogi, on 07/09/2009, -2/+7oh cut the crap huffpost, if we are going to use that logic how bout obama goes to jail for hijacking the economy with cap and trade, health care, and being against reforming fannie and freddie before we got into this mess. This includes Frank, Dodd, and the rest of the thugs.
Investment bankers take risk with their own capital. Those who do business with them accept counter party risk.. straight down the line to every other business. They shouldn't be any more responsible for the ill fortunes of other americans than a small business owner who makes a bad decision with his own money and has to fire an employee. What responsibility is that?? None... cause nobody has the responsibility to hire anyone or do anything for anyone else unless they so chose to out of their own free will. This is freedom.. this is America. - Divals, on 07/09/2009, -0/+5IT ARE ABOVE OF 100? OH NOES!!!
/facepalm - wc3452, on 07/09/2009, -0/+5Banks laughter?
- emmeron, on 07/09/2009, -0/+4So when FDIC charges the little banks for the big bailouts, would FDIC be held liable for running the little banks into the ground too?
- Abatrour, on 07/09/2009, -1/+5You obviously don't know how the monitory system works.
Did you know that the banks in America can lend 10x the money they actually have.. and then charge INTEREST on that imaginary fiat money which they don't even have? Here is Canada its even worse. The banks here can lend 15x what they actually have.
And I'm so damn tired of this terrorist word. It's just a word made up by the US government to scare people into submission which is ironic because to be a terrorist is to terrorise (scare) people.
Technically the mainstream media is terrorists because they keep trying to scare people about everything.. like the swine flu which is less deadly than the seasonal flu... but that doesn't stop them from ramming it into our heads every time someone dies from it.
And technically the US and Canadian governments are terrorists because they kept trying to scare us by saying that if they don't give HALF YOUR MONEY to the RICHEST BANKERS IN THE WORLD the economy is going to be destroyed.. when in reality the thing that is going to destroy the economy is the printing of money...
All fiat currencies are doomed to fail because it allows the government to create money out of thin air. - heliumflash, on 07/09/2009, -1/+5And how should we punish politicians who ***** up the entire country?
- Myztry, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3Corporations are considered 'legal' persons which grants them many of the rights and obligations of a natural person. These rights and obligations should also include things such as duty of care and being able to be incarcerated for crimes.
Corporate crime should not just come down to profit/loss entries. Either the persons authorizing the actions should be liable to jail, or the whole Corporation should be liable to have it's right to conduct freely removed.
Illegal acts by Corporation would cease if people where actually held responsible instead of merely the leader. All too often Corporate crime results in profit despite fiscal penalties IF they happen to get caught. - Midtowner, on 07/09/2009, -1/+4No, the only answer here is for institutional investors to man up and start demanding accountability from corporate boards which could in turn demand accountability from officers. The trouble is that our market is geared towards the short term dips and spikes which institutional investors think they can beat when long term growth is what's in everyone's long-term best interests.
The trouble is that these institutional investors are demanding immediate results and these officers are delivering at all costs because that's what they're paid millions to do.
We shouldn't be looking at the bankers. We should be looking up the food chain at the folks pulling the bankers' strings. Look at your mutual funds, look at investment banks and retirement funds, look at insurers and hedge funds if you want.
Bankers and banks are the easy low hanging fruit. They are a symptom, but they are not the sickness. - momouchi, on 07/09/2009, -0/+31. Get pen
2. Rob nation with it
3. ?????
4. Profit - vbullinger, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3In the description, the OP says that these execs' "management decisions remove[d] billions of dollars of wealth from the economy."
Not true. You can't destroy wealth. In times of economic bust, wealth is transferred from the poor and middle class to the ultra wealthy. Most of the time, they knew it was coming all along and positioned themselves well. I.e. the richest people in the country backed out the stock markets just a few weeks before the 1929 stock market crash, and when the market tanked, they bought up everything they sold for pennies on the dollar. Happens all the time. You may have lost your 401k, but it went somewhere. Also, when economies crash, currency usually does well because there's every bit as much of a demand, but less of a supply (because banks tend to be a little tighter with their purses). That's why the dollar has bounced back a bit (you might remember that it was tanking). Don't worry, though, it will soon re-enter its freefall. - Shananra, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3That depends on your credit limit.
- deathandtaverns, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3No, terrorists have principals worth fighting for. The thieves who cause this were only in it for themselves. At least terrorists have some sense of honor.
- Mothrog, on 07/09/2009, -1/+4Just when I thought the crap spewed out of the ***** that is the Puffington Post couldn't get any dumber, they go and prove me wrong.
- smemily, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3Do you ever think about how this "convert the US currency back to silver / gold" thing would work?
First is there actually enough silver in the world to back all US currency? (I know there's not enough gold..)
Second what happens as soon as the Fed starts buying huge quantities of silver? Prices go way up.. meaning US currency's value goes way way the ***** down. Last thing we need right now is to devalue our currency in world markets. - LokitheComplex, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2Yeah but the government wasn't gaining in this. The bankers told everyone they knew better AND they stood to gain.
- airfabio, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3Implementing silver standard would grant silver producers control over US currency. Hello amero.
At the same time China would remain on fiat currency and continue, with greater ease, currency manipulation designed to boost exports.
If you would like to know the consequences of such imbalance, please study economic relationship between France and Great Britain after WW I.
You tax proposals are mostly ineffective. Business taxes are paid on profits, and if you have no profits the tax rate is irrelevant. The solution you are looking for is something like Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and we all know how that worked out.
I don't know what you problem with Fed is. As the lender of last resort, Fed has been superb.
Other than that, I have no objections. - johndavidjack, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2We did?
- Abatrour, on 07/09/2009, -4/+6The small businesses don't have to go out of business. Here is my idea.
1. End the Federal Reserve, stop printing money and back the US dollar by silver.
2. End all unnecessary spending like ALL wars and ending the "war on drugs"
3. Ending prohibition will cut off all the gangs main supply of cash, essentially putting them out of business. With less gangs, we will need less police officers.
4. Allow the US citizens to exercise their right to own guns, and allow them to be their first line of defence when it comes to robberies.
5. Remove ALL business taxes on any US owned and operated business which leave their profits inside the US, that will allow the small companies to keep competitive by being able to lower their prices to compete with other countries like China who basically use slave labour to manufacture goods.
6. Encourage all citizens to buy locally, supporting their local economy instead of giving all their money to China for their cheap Walmart goods. (I know it will end up being a little more expensive but it will create a ***** load of jobs in America.. And I'm Canadian and I'm suggesting this even though it will hurt Canada as well)
7. Create hundreds of thousands of jobs by allowing people to legally grow and sell marijuana. (Just like alcohol prohibition)
8. Shrink the size of the Federal Government and uphold the constitution and the 10th Amendment which states that any laws not assigned to the Federal government is reserved to each individual state or their citizens.
If anyone else has some suggestions just reply with them. - Dauntless1, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2Then you thank the constituents who elected you.
- CaptOblivious, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2Boilerup8986,
First NO ONE that had a house for more than six months had a loan they could not afford.
Second, SIXTY percent of people that qualified for "Prime" fixed rate loans were actually sold non prime adjustable rate loans because the brokers and loan officers got bigger bonuses for SELLING those loans
Adjustable rate loans were sold as a way for the homeowners to take advantage of FALLING interest rates.
Interest rates fell and fell and are now at historic lows. However I defy you to find ANY bank that has lowered the rate on any of it's adjustable loans, ever.
Lets think a bit,
You go to the bank (or a broker) to get a home loan, you find out that because of your income and the current interest rate you can buy a 150k home and comfortably pay the mortgage.
Then the loan officer (broker) advises you that these great new adjustable rate mortgages will LOWER your payments when interest rates go down in the future AND that they have a lower starting interest rate that will give you the same payment on a 200k home.
During this sales process (cause that's what it is) the stress is always on the rate going down, and they explain how the loan has caps that limit how much the interest can go up, but none for going down.
That loan officer (broker) is supposed to be YOUR expert, telling you what is safe and reasonable and likely to happen.
At some point we all have to rely on the EXPERTS to tell us what is safe.
When the experts are motivated by their own profit more than doing the job they are supposed to do they go from experts to salesmen. - johndavidjack, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3@scriptcoder
"It doesn't matter what the Constitution says."
Wow. How exactly would you like that if all of our rights were treated like that?
What's worse, is your argument wasn't about average people handling robberies with guns, it was the amendment itself, hence the "it don't care what the...".
Sorry, average people own guns, a lot of them ( average people). The average person is responsible, and the average person isn't committing all of the crimes you like to pin on guns themselves. The average person isn't going to use a cooking knife to cut someone's throat, but an insane person is. Isn't a knife specifically designed to cut things up, including people?
My bow was designed to kill, should it be taken away? Oh wait, it doesn't have a collapsing stock and a shorter barrel, so I guess it's all right. I could put a few nails into a baseball bat, and it's specifically designed to kill; ban bats and nails? I still have to kill someone with it before it becomes a murder weapon.
I don't know if I've read a more ignorant statement tonight, but it was the constitution comment that just made it rank up there... - Dauntless1, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3@johndavidjack.
Not exactly. We just put term limits into place back in the day to limit the amount of fail coming from the presidency to only 8 years of retardedness before the next guy gets a shot. I think term limits should be on every governmental position however. - johndavidjack, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3Suggestion: run for office
Anyways though...
Not that I don't agree 100%, but exactly is this going to benefit the people in power? It won't, so I doubt you see any of this; ever... - acdcfanbill, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2@scriptcoder
So the average person is too stupid to be responsible for their own safety but you have no problem with them voting? - Atario, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2"The best regulatory system we have is the free market"
Not even close. Free markets tend to generate huge concentrations of wealth and power -- massive companies. This has happened for far longer than our most recent problem with banks. Teddy Roosevelt's "trust buster" moniker comes from his attempts to break up the Goliath companies of his day, and that's still a recent example.
The real regulatory answer is, if you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist, and you need to be broken into smaller companies. - Dauntless1, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2See, you could sue these people, but with caps on personal lawsuits they'd never feel they sting of what you took. And the point of what they're doing is that they do have to start from scratch because they ran the business into the ground. They don't care about starting over, because rich ***** never use their own money when they can get the bank to finance things.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2But WE did not want the bail outs to happen...WE complained to the powers that be...The powers that be ignored us and did it anyway,so it's not our fault.
- Dauntless1, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3Yes, and right now only around a few percent of executives are doing this. Let's turn the free market loose, so we can get that percentage up to 50!
- Dauntless1, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2Sickness in this case defined by "***** the future, my company needs to make 50 billion this year because I deserve it, and I don't care how badly we ***** everyone around us to do it!!" Otherwise known as greed.
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/09/2009, -2/+4What if you're running a mutli-trillion dollar government and throw away our future on pointless spending and power grabs?
- bdbr, on 07/09/2009, -2/+4Banks failing and taking all their customers down with them is the best regulatory system you can come up with? Isn't that the same regulatory system (or lack thereof) that created the great depression? How about a REAL regulatory system that doesn't allow them to do this ***** in the first place?
- Shananra, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2For me that would be more like
1. Get pen
2. ?????
3. Rob nation with it
4. Profit - LokitheComplex, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2Yes but Libertarians were also against laws preventing merging investment banks with high street banks.
- secrity, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Many years ago, we had a much better regulatory system in place, but the regulations become severely eroded over the years. Keeping the prohibitions against branch banking and out of state banking are just two former regulations that would have helped keep banks from being "too large to fail". Banks also used to be required to keep much larger reserves than they do now.
- poprocksandsoda, on 07/09/2009, -2/+3Finally something I can agree with HuffPo on.
- Cyris12, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Yes.
- CaptOblivious, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1@alanocu
First off,
Why don't you try to stay on topic. I understand that you are full of faux generated hate and need to spew it somewhere but please do that in a thread that is better related to the vitrol they fed you tonight OK? Thanks.
Second (got your hands ready to cover your eyes? Get your cursor near the bury button),
It wasn't President Obama that removed the LAWS that protected the economy from the banks doing EXACTLY what they have done, again (Yes, again, read some history).
The laws that regulated banks were put into place to keep them (and therefore the economy) stable and did a fine job of it until the Republicans, at the behest of their banker lobbiest friends removed them, slowly bit by bit. It started with President Regan and now the banks have grown so much and been managed for short term profit for so long that we are in the boat we are in.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. - solid12345, on 07/09/2009, -1/+2Corporate CEO's blowing their financial wealth is not as much of a crime as the government bailing them out. What moral of the story are we supposed to get, that if you screw up the government will come to fix your broken company?
- hoisonsauce, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Wait, they should be held liable for prohibiting killing? Seems a bit harsh.
- secrity, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1The FDIC would have covered the losses of most depositors. If somebody has more than the FDIC covered amount in a bank, they should know that they are at risk in the event of a bank failure.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is