I'm just gonna leave this here for Jim, Meade and oldr

[MajGenl.Meade]

Bring back the days when banks/mortgage companies could not issue a mortgage unless the monthly payments were 25% or less of the total family income.

[Gob]

That may not work in Blighty Meade.

The average home in England and Wales cost a record 8.8 times the typical local salary in 2014, according to analysis by the Office for National Statistics that reveals prices in some areas have reached 20 times local incomes.

The ONS compared house prices, private rents and social rents across England and Wales with data for local incomes.

House prices in Westminster are now 24 times local salaries (compared to 12 times in 2002) while the average rent there will eat up 78% of the relatively high local earnings. The boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham and Camden also suffer from a house-price multiple above 20 times local incomes.

The 15 least affordable areas for private renting were all London boroughs, with tenants in those such as Newham and Brent expected to hand over 65% of their pay for the average private flat. Newham also had the highest average rent for socially provided housing at £128.90 a week. The most affordable London borough was Bexley, but even there the average private rent took 40% of monthly salary, according to the ONS.

[Long Run]

Wouldn't work here either. We already have enough people living in tents:

[BoSoxGal]

LJ, where are all the Republicans screaming for the bankers to be prosecuted? Both parties are equally culpable in giving Wall Street a pass.

[Lord Jim]

LJ, where are all the Republicans screaming for the bankers to be prosecuted?

How many Republicans are in charge of the current Justice Department? How many Republicans have been running this Justice Department for the past seven years?

"Screaming" doesn't matter; what matters is having the power and authority to do something...

Which Barack Obama has had for seven years... and no one else...

Has someone other than Obama been in charge of the Executive branch of government for the past seven years?

Some Cylon Republican imposter perhaps?

Both parties are equally culpable in giving Wall Street a pass.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

As for blame--there is plenty to go around

I will stipulate that when it comes to blame for letting things get to the point they got from a legislative and regulatory standpoint, (and for the failure to to take firmer legislative and regulatory action to prevent another banking meltdown from occurring...which I have mentioned before I support) there is indeed "plenty to go around"...

But I have to take issue with this:

Obama and his DOJ certainly deserves a lot of the blame for the recent failure to prosecute

I take issue with the words "a lot"...

The correct word would be "all"...

Obama has had no problem at all acting unilaterally in areas where the Executive authority to do so is highly dubious...

In this case, the authority is crystal clear and indisputable...

Conducting federal criminal investigations, and determining whether or not to bring federal prosecutions, is a process where the legal authority exists solely and wholly within the DOJ...

In fact the exercise of this responsibility is the main reason we even have a Department of Justice...

When it comes to a decision regarding federal criminal prosecutions (if indeed they are justified) for violations under existing federal criminal law, that decision rests in one place, and one place only...

With the Department Of Justice...(And of course the sitting Administration that has put the leadership for the department in place... )

It doesn't matter how much anybody outside that process, (on either side) "screams"...

[THBR]

Hey Lord Jim! How are you, and how is your family? (Wife and at least ONE daughter, who has got to be ... 10? 12? 13?)

"There's a man who leads a life of danger ...."

I'm just starting to catch up on this place, so pardon me if I'm ignorant of all the details ....

[Lord Jim]

Hey Lord Jim! How are you, and how is your family? (Wife and at least ONE daughter, who has got to be ... 10? 12? 13?)

16 now...and a 6 year old son...Time marches on....

"There's a man who leads a life of danger ...."

Ahh, you remember my incredible rendition of Secret Agent Man at our DC FtF back in the late 90's...

"They're givin' you a number, and takin' away your name..."

The only other one still around here who is a veteran of that epic meet-up is Guin, and shes gone on sabbatical...(though I'm sure she'd be happy to hear from you )

Great to see you here, Hip Bob...

ETA:

Check your PM box.

[RayThom]

... I'm just starting to catch up on this place, so pardon me if I'm ignorant of all the details ....

Well, there you go, THBR. I knew you'd eventually make your presence known.

As you'll find out, there is an overwhelming amount to read here when you first logon. You might just want to stick with the current events and then over the course of time slowly check out the myriad of topics you'll uncover. One thing for sure, this ain't LeChatHouse. You'll need to check your sensitivity at the door. With rare exception almost anything goes. See ya' around the campus.

[Sue U]

Conducting federal criminal investigations, and determining whether or not to bring federal prosecutions, is a process where the legal authority exists solely and wholly within the DOJ...

In fact the exercise of this responsibility is the main reason we even have a Department of Justice...

When it comes to a decision regarding federal criminal prosecutions (if indeed they are justified) for violations under existing federal criminal law, that decision rests in one place, and one place only...

With the Department Of Justice...(And of course the sitting Administration that has put the leadership for the department in place... )

It doesn't matter how much anybody outside that process, (on either side) "screams"...

Of course, the actual reasons for the lack of criminal prosecutions are a lot more complicated than that, and largely the result of the DOJ's choice to devote its limited prosecutorial resources to obtaining civil settlements rather than criminal convictions. Personally, I find it a rather unsatisfying choice. But either way, I'll never vote for that Obama guy again.

[Long Run]

Good article, Sue. The key points:

Many assume that the federal authorities simply lacked the guts to go after powerful Wall Street bankers, but that obscures a far more complicated dynamic. During the past decade, the Justice Department suffered a series of corporate prosecutorial fiascos, which led to critical changes in how it approached white-collar crime. The department began to focus on reaching settlements rather than seeking prison sentences, which over time unintentionally deprived its ranks of the experience needed to win trials against the most formidable law firms.

Also, they didn't want to harm hundreds or thousands of innocents, or actually create a financial industry dive, by going after firms as opposed to individuals.

On the other hand, the criticism is still valid -- unlike in the S&L crisis or the Enron/dot.com bubble excesses where there were numerous convictions -- the Obama Administration failed to get a reasonable number of convictions. Clearly, there were a lot of bad actors who got off with, at most, settlements paid by their investors and those defrauded.