Source: Mystic Politics

Category: Bailouts, Humor

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

22 Responses to “The Lizards of Wall Street”

  1. 873450 says:

    Here’s to the tens of millions of American taxpayers we defrauded and financially destroyed for being misled by their elected, corrupted, captured government into unknowingly, unwillingly keeping us undeservedly employed, immune from civil and criminal liability and paying our excessive, unearned salaries and obscene bonuses after our bailed out employers we financially destroyed could not.

  2. A says:

    And no one is going to jail….

  3. formerlawyer says:

    This cartoon is disrespectful… of lizards. Pond scum anyone?

  4. ReductiMat says:

    “Disarmament is the necessary precursor to tyranny”.

    Oops, guess you found another way.

    Good thing Americans fought so hard to keep their guns. Guess this is as good a time as any to go and get your country back…

  5. Cato says:

    When you think about the countless crimes that have just been waived in order to keep a corrupt, bloated and inefficient financial system afloat, on taxpayer’s money, you can start to get really upset about poor people, particularly non-white poor people, getting absurdly excessive jail terms for low-level drug offences, or indeed federal drug ‘offences’ for acts in-line with state law.

  6. [...] (Cartoon found at The Big Picture). [...]

  7. gordo365 says:

    Why does HSBC not have it’s license to do business in US revoked for treason? Money laundering for state enemy Iran? And drug lords. Good lord.

  8. NoKidding says:

    Of course I agree with the sentiment that more (any?) bankers should be jailed for a crisis that could not have occurred without systematic fraud.

    However the first lizard’s comment about wrongful foreclosure misses the mark. I think readers here would generally agree that the robosigning crime was against municipalities collecting documentation fees, not against homeowners. Correct me if I remember wrong, but I believe BR himself wrote several 2009/2010 articles with a theme that forclosure on those who could not pay would be a positive development.

  9. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    An infographic of a similar vein.

  10. Jim67545 says:

    Not to sound ignorant but.. what is a bank? Is the local community or regional bank or S&L the same as Goldman or Lehman or Wamu or Countrywide? What about the mortgage broker arms of the home builders? What about privately owned mortgage brokers/bankers? Let’s be a bit focused here and direct our ire at those who caused the problem. Hint: it was NOT 95% of those who legitimately can be called “banks”.

    I like the large (hopefully large enough to be painful) government and civil penalties being levied. My only complaints are: 1. the fines actually penalize the stockholders, 2. the proceeds are not always being used to help those harmed and 3. money penalties need to be levied on the board members. This is not unprecedented. They are in legal control and responsibility for the corporation (not Blankfien, Dimon, et al.) I see no reason that they should float along above the fray.

  11. Here’s to the tens of millions of American taxpayers we defrauded and financially destroyed for being misled by their elected, corrupted, captured government into unknowingly, unwillingly keeping us undeservedly employed, immune from civil and criminal liability and paying our excessive, unearned salaries and obscene bonuses after our bailed out employers we financially destroyed could not.

  12. Julia Chestnut says:

    I agree, this slanders innocent lizards everywhere. But in the cartoonist’s defense, those look like komodo dragons to me, or possibly dinosaurs. Either one would be quite fitting: komodos often kill by dint of their poisonous mouths. A small wound is sufficient to kill most prey in a day or two by septicemia. The dragon just follows around and waits for the wounded animal to drop. By the time the end is near, a large group of dragons is standing just out of reach waiting. . .

    Dinosaurs, I hope, speaks to the fact that these critters should be extinct rather than living high on the tax payer.

  13. Lugnut says:


    Its 2013 and Jon Corzine is still walking around a free man, sipping his morning coffee at the local shops in the Hamptons, with nary an indictment in sight to moisten his brow with sweat.

    The NRA is making a strategic mistake IMHO. He should be their poster child. The fact that Corzine is both free AND alive should be ample evidence that gun owning Americans can exhibit restraint and responible behavior with their firearms.

  14. DeDude says:


    ““Disarmament is the necessary precursor to tyranny””

    What 3′rd world hole in the ground are you living in? Or do you really want to tell me that you could succeed in fighting the US military (commanded by some future “tyran”) using semiautomatic weapons against drones and M1A1 Abrams tanks? The idea that “the people” could protect democracy if they have semiautomatic guns, but not if they don’t have them, is moronic if you begin to lay out the scenarios in the context of a modern military. The only way “the people” ever win over a military (with armor and airpower) willing to crush them, is by part of that military defecting and starting to fight with the people (or an outside power delivering serious arms and/or air support).

  15. Beerhat761 says:


    Didn’t the Afghans drive out the Soviets?

  16. formerlawyer says:

    @DeDude Says:

    Verily. Another requirement for a successful insurgency are safe havens from which the insurgents (I hate the pc term “militant”) can retreat to re-arm. Safe havens with accessible borders across which the counter-insurgency forces cannot or will not interfere effectively eg. Pakistan for the Taliban & Al-Quaeda, Cambodia for the Vietnamese, Communist China for the North Koreans. I don’t think Canada or Mexico would look fondly on any insurgency bases in their territory.

    BTW have you seen the non-sequitur cartoon today?

  17. ReductiMat says:


  18. DeDude says:

    @Beerhat; there is a huge difference between driving out a foreign invader and getting rid of your own homegrown tyran. Taking you serious I will presume that you do not think that we would be taken over by some foreign invader “tyran”. However, even in the Afghan situation they did not drive out anybody until they had been supplied with sophisticated weapons by the US and other sympathetic governments. Furthermore, it is actually a lot easier to get rid of a foreign “tyran” than the homegrown kind, because you just have to inflict enough pain to make them decide that it is time to go home (the homegrown and his troops does not have the option of “going home”). As mentioned by “formerlawyer”, the ability to retract to safe havens and to get support from outside is essential, and its doubtful to appear in a US “tyranny” scenario.

  19. DeDude says:

    Also note that the places where, in recent times, there has been armed resistance to stationed US troops (Afghanistan and Iraq), the weapons used with some success were not machine guns (or any other guns). Furthermore, the reason those US troops are going home is not a military defeat, but because the cost/benefit ratio of staying is not worth it, because it is not their home – which is also why they actually CAN leave the place and go home.

  20. Lugnut says:


    Nonetheless. It is most certainly easier to fight an insurgency with a large clip semi auto, than it is with a WW1 single shot bolt action rifle.

    As Syria demonstrates, the goal isnt necessarily to win outright, but sometimes just last long enough to let the spotlight of the media pressure the tyran into considering alternative options.

    Certainly, when viewed through the prism of history and the circumstances surrounding the British efforts at Lexington and Concorde to confiscate all weapons and black powder, the founders were looking at the 2nd amendment as another check and balance against the future Federal government, with the expectation that the people would be able to arm themselves in a like manner, or by whatever means available, to a potential oppressor.
    The Federal government on the other hand, has as its implicit goal, the boiled frog strategy of eventual disarmament, with the idea to minimize the capability of Joe 6Pak to such an extent that the prevailing view of the prospect of facing down the government would be similar to the one you posted.

  21. cognos says:

    Eh, blah.

    AIG has profusely thanked the American people. Key large shareholders (Hank Greenberg) had their stakes takes from $15bln to $500mln in worth (Down 80-90%…mainly bc of govt dilution).

    Oh and then the US has a PROFIT of some $50bln.

    And this is LARGELY due to silly “mark-to-market” rules… where bonds were “marked” to 5 or 25… that are now 75-100. Uh, seems like a BAD system that regulators put in place.

    The REAL PROBLEM lies with the regulators. Not bankers (or people who bought homes).

  22. cognos says:

    But… everybody loves a racist witch hunt.

    Bankers… get a rope!