Can we talk about prosecuting Wall St? No link, just talking here...

One of the top links right now is a diatribe about how it's criminal that no Wall St. bankers have been prosecuted over the financial crisis. For some reason (Don't ask me why), this is the president's responsibility.

I'll skip the part where he somehow attributes the British government with single-handedly making the CEO of Barclays resign, and at the same time passing over the blatant fact that companies and their shareholders, not the government, should be and are the ones holding executives accountable (note that Barclays is the one paying $450 million as punishment, not the CEO).

I jump right into why it's ludicrous to even expect a presidential administration to prosecute Wall St. bankers. Firstly, there is virtually no law that bankers could be prosecuted for breaking. To expect a government to prosecute anyone for breaking laws that don't exist is ludicrous and would be a huge breach of legal power.

Hate it when Kim Dot Com gets fucked for no valid legal reason? Why let other people, even if deserving, get worse treatment?

"But Kensai," you say, "they should make new laws that would hold them accountable." Wrong, that's called an ex post facto law and is quite illegal for extremely rational reasons.

What you should be angry about is the massive deregulation that's been ongoing over the past thirty years. The government has lengthened the leash on the financial sector again and again and again and again and all we've gotten for it is less security, more money for the super rich, and our very own great depression.

What you should want from Obama is not inane prosecutions and mob justice, but hard line legislation to curtail lobbying and get the banks back in line. That way, hopefully, crap like this won't happen again.

Alright, rant over.

TL/DR: It's not that long