If Wall Street truly is the lurking problem President Obama’s populist rhetoric makes it out to be, why is Eric Holder still standing there just holding his member so uncertainly?
Peter J. Boyer and Peter Schweizer on Holder’s curious impotence with respect to Wall Street in the wake of the financial collapse:
Conservative drinking fountain:
Over the past three years, the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against hundreds of ordinary Americans for financial fraud. But no one from the largest banks and firms on Wall Street have been similarly charged for events leading up to the financial crisis. Could that be because those banks are clients of the firms from which top DOJ officials hail?
Despite his populist posturing, the president has failed to pin a single top finance exec on criminal charges since the economic collapse. Are the banks too big to jail—or is Washington’s revolving door at to blame? Peter J. Boyer and Peter Schweizer investigate:
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Potato, Potahto. You knew this would happen. Where is our Mussolini, our Roehm, our Peron? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Probably Obama’s biggest disappointment. How can no-doc loans (liar’s loans) be anything other than fraud? Making loans to people when you dont even know if they have any income does not pass the smell test.
Steve
No-doc loans cannot be presumed to be always fraudulent, nor is it proper to call them liar’s loans without knowing what assertions they have made and whether those assertions were true. But, yes, they’re a bad investment and a bad idea. This deserves a longer post, which I hope to provide this weekend.
Obviously they cannot be presumed to be always fraudulent. However the terms of the loan all but guarantee fraud or bad faith on the part of the borrower. The question that still makes my brain hurt is what was the advantage to the lender to offer such loans?