A letter to the New York City protesters

[ElNono]

Were you ffor or against the bailout?

I was against, If I recall, you were for...

You recall wrong. But ultimately it matters little, since neither you or I matter. And that's exactly what those protests are about.

[Agloco]

Eerily similar to your suggestion, in another thread, that it is okay to throw the Wall Street baby out with the bathwater by condemning the whole because you have grievances with a few.

In my defense, I did qualify my exaggeration.

I've stated that clearer goals would be desirable. Meanwhile, you could have gone with an example which didn't require an exaggeration no?

Wait a minute, I was merely putting the lie to your assertion wealth can only be created by those who have it. There are literally thousands (maybe millions globally) that have succeeded in the same manner; Steve Jobs is just an example fresh on our minds.

Unless everyone on the planet wants to be responsible for all of their own needs and desires, there will always be commercial interests there to sell them the things they want and need.

Fair enough. I think I got off track here. I'm in the middle of auditing a new radiation facility. My apologies.

However, you can't say that Jobs is an example of how the system usually works. Wealth is created, for the most part, by those who already possess it. I stand by that assertion.

I guess I'm still missing your point, I'm sorry.

From this:

At the very least, wealth can be created and is not something that requires government redistribution.

To which I responded that if government redistribution does not occur to a large extent, we're now reliant on people doing the right thing (morality). You had previously stated that morality was an issue no matter the system in question. This leaves us in a bit of a conundrum.

In the current climate, it's Obama. They had no problem investing and creating jobs during the Bush administration.

Of course they didn't. That was before "the crisis" though which Obama had nothing to do with. "The crisis" is the real reason money continues to sit on the sidelines, and "the crisis" can be ascribed directly to practices by Wall Street.

[Yonivore]

Wall Street wouldn't have been able to screw over America if there weren't so many re ed dumb s who took out an adjustable rate loan they had no shot in of being able to pay off down the road. Both sides are at fault.

Except, you forget the banks didn't originally want to loan them the money.

All of a sudden, the government and ACORN made it a matter of racial and social justice.

[Wild Cobra]

You recall wrong. But ultimately it matters little, since neither you or I matter. And that's exactly what those protests are about.

Yes I know. It seems all the protesters simply rallied around who liberal pundits told them what as fault. They seem to all have different individual reasons, except to have to vent somewhere.

[Wild Cobra]

Except, you forget the banks didn't originally want to loan them the money.

All of a sudden, the government and ACORN made it a matter of racial and social justice.

I think liberals conveniently forget this.

I believe that banks would have continued resisting to provide high risk loans, without government regulations changing to allow the bundling and sell off the banks books.

Wish I was a fly on the wall seeing those regulation and law changes being made.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL I just drove by the San Antonio protestors...all 40 of them.

And that includes the usual 10-15 jotos that always hang around the statue...

[Yonivore]

I've stated that clearer goals would be desirable. Meanwhile, you could have gone with an example which didn't require an exaggeration no?

Fine, not a point in which it's worth getting mired. I shouldn't have used the word infinite.

Fair enough. I think I got off track here. I'm in the middle of auditing a new radiation facility. My apologies.

By all means, pay attention to that! (Unless, of course, you're auditing a facility in Tehran.)

However, you can't say that Jobs is an example of how the system usually works. Wealth is created, for the most part, by those who already possess it. I stand by that assertion.

I think it's a reasonable position to take, I just think it's wrong. Legacy wealth is on the decline. There aren't as many Rockefellers, DuPonts, or Hiltons as their used to be and those that are left are, in great part, wasting the wealth left them on transient and superficial things.

I suppose we could look at the Fortune 500 and see how many of the largest companies are new (less than a generation old) and how many are multi-generational companies where wealth is passed along.

Most companies were begun with very little more than a pocketful of change and an idea. Pick one. Pick any of the big tech companies, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, etc...

To which I responded that if government redistribution does not occur to a large extent, we're now reliant on people doing the right thing (morality). You had previously stated that morality was an issue no matter the system in question. This leaves us in a bit of a conundrum.

Now I understand.

To which I would respond economic systems are amoral but, that doesn't mean those engaged in it are, as well.

Government is awful at charity. We've literally thrown trillions of dollars at poverty, since LBJ's Great Society experiment began, and we're worse off than before. Government wastes, steals, and mismanages our money to no end. My dollar would go further if I gave it to a charitable organization, providing whatever service you want the government to provide, than your tax dollar.

Americans are, as a whole, the most generous people on the face of the planet. If you believe government -- even with the fraud, waste, and abuse -- could better provide services, with my money, than I could, that's a pretty flawed piece of logic.

Of course they didn't. That was before "the crisis" though which Obama had nothing to do with. "The crisis" is the real reason money continues to sit on the sidelines, and "the crisis" can be ascribed directly to practices by Wall Street.

I disagree.

From his community organizer activities with ACORN, during the time when they were extorting banks into loaning money to people that could not afford them to his lobbying the President, as a Senator from Illinois, to sign off on TARP, to his protection of the idiots that lied us into a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac catastrophe, to his union cronyism that changes bankruptcy rules to favor his cronies over legitimate investors; Obama's fingerprints are all over this crisis.

Again, we disagree; Wall Street responded to an unreasonable risk by created a mechanism that failed. Had Government never imposed the risk, I doubt credit default swaps and mortgage-based derivatives would have ever become the overwhelming catastrophe they did.

[Th'Pusher]

Credit default swaps and mortgage-back derivatives were a creation (legal, mind you) of the financial industry to cover the risk they took on by lending money to people they knew would not be able to pay it back.

Sounds kind of like insurance. Yet is wasn't being regulated like insurance so there was actually no money backing up that insurance. I take it you find no issue with that?

[Yonivore]

Sounds kind of like insurance. Yet is wasn't being regulated like insurance so there was actually no money backing up that insurance. I take it you find no issue with that?

Seeing as how the government so thoroughly ed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'm not sure government regulation would have mattered.

The government should have stayed out of the mortgaged industry altogether. Then, much of this would not have happened.

[Th'Pusher]

Again, we disagree; Wall Street responded to an unreasonable risk by created a mechanism that failed. Had Government never imposed the risk, I doubt credit default swaps and mortgage-based derivatives would have ever become the overwhelming catastrophe they did.

You do realize TARP was signed by GWB, right? Also, I've asked you this before (with no answer), but exactly how many jobs were created under the Bush administration as compared to previous administrations.

[Th'Pusher]

Seeing as how the government so thoroughly ed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'm not sure government regulation would have mattered.

The government should have stayed out of the mortgaged industry altogether. Then, much of this would not have happened.

Don't evade the question. Why should the financial sector be able to conjure up a CDS which is effectively insurance, without reserving the capital to pay out in the event of a default?

[ElNono]

Except, you forget the banks didn't originally want to loan them the money.

Baloney. About 1% of the toxic loans were the Acorn-sponsored loans.

crofl liar

[Wild Cobra]

Baloney. About 1% of the toxic loans were the Acorn-sponsored loans.

crofl liar

Are you defending ACORN, or attempting to keep the truth strait?

When I try to keep the truth strait, you accuse me of one thing or another.

[ElNono]

Yes I know. It seems all the protesters simply rallied around who liberal pundits told them what as fault. They seem to all have different individual reasons, except to have to vent somewhere.

I thought you were against the bailout. You just vent here

[ElNono]

Are you defending ACORN, or attempting to keep the truth strait?

When I try to keep the truth strait, you accuse me of one thing or another.

Can you read? You mean 'straight'? lmao English

[Wild Cobra]

Can you read? You mean 'straight'? lmao English

LOL...

True to form, find something to change the topic over and not answer the question.

Yes, English was my worse subject in school. I have admitted that several times. Why do you bother with something I admit to and everyone knows?

[Yonivore]

You do realize TARP was signed by GWB, right?

I do. An act for which I loudly criticized him.

Also, I've asked you this before (with no answer), but exactly how many jobs were created under the Bush administration as compared to previous administrations.

if I know.

But, he left Obama with a pretty decent unemployment rate in 2009, after our economy took two major hits just prior to and early in his presidency; the tech bubble bursting and 9/11.

[Th'Pusher]

if I know.

But, he left Obama with a pretty decent unemployment rate in 2009, after our economy took two major hits just prior to and early in his presidency; the tech bubble bursting and 9/11.

I'll help you. 1.1M jobs were created under GWB, 22.7M were created under Clinton, 2.6M created under GHWB, 16.1M created under Reagan and 10.3M created under Carter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cr...idential_terms

And LOL at Bush leaving Obama a pretty decent unemployment rate. The economy was in a tailspin loosing 600K jobs per month and only started to turnaround after Obama's stimulus, which in hindsight was too small.

[Th'Pusher]

Job Losses by Month

Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <---- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <---- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <---- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

[ChumpDumper]

lol ACORN

lol sex slaves

[ElNono]

LOL...

True to form, find something to change the topic over and not answer the question.

How have I changed the topic? I said 1% of toxic loans were Acorn-sponsored.

Don't know how you interpolate that to some kind of defense of Acorn. Loving or hating Acorn is irrelevant to the discussion of toxic loans.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That said, only the scammers got bailed out

I agree completely, either both sides or neither side shoulda gotten bailed out. That's why I'm not voting for o'spearchucker again

[MannyIsGod]

Seeing as how the government so thoroughly ed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'm not sure government regulation would have mattered.

The government should have stayed out of the mortgaged industry altogether. Then, much of this would not have happened.

Um, no. This is the flat out false meme you've seen for years not but has no basis in fact. The percentage of sub prime loans processed on the order of government help or whatever you want to call it are not even close to the majority of the bad loans these companies wrote.

Futhermore, its wasn't the loans that really ed this country but the repackaging of these loans and incredibly poor financial tactics used to make money off these loans. Had the MBS and CDS mess not happend on the backs of these loans then we wouldn't have had the crisis we did.

The nail in the coffin is how these s on Wall St. bet against the very ing securities that they were selling. Why package these securities and sell them? Well, the ratings agencies were making them all look like a pile of gold and at the same time you could make money from the CDS when they failed. Win mother ing WIN for these corps.

Oh wait, but when AIG goes under you're not going to get any money from those CDS or at best you're going to get pennies on the dollar, right? Wrong, you're mother ing Wall St! You've got enough influence within the government so that when the bailout for AIG comes you make sure they have to pay you in full for the securities that you knowingly sold as good when they were toxic.

Man, this was definitely the fault of poor people and ACORN. yeah!

[MannyIsGod]

How have I changed the topic? I said 1% of toxic loans were Acorn-sponsored.

Don't know how you interpolate that to some kind of defense of Acorn. Loving or hating Acorn is irrelevant to the discussion of toxic loans.

the loans. The loans weren't the real problem. The real problem were the way they sold and leveraged themselves against the loans and bet on the loans they sold failing. THAT is what caused thee cascading loss of confidence and failures.

Its the equivilant of me being able to buy life insurance on anyone then not being prosecuted when I go kill them and collect that life insurance. Biggest ing scam we'll ever see.

So yeah, occupy that mother er and protest away.

[ElNono]

the loans. The loans weren't the real problem. The real problem were the way they sold and leveraged themselves against the loans and bet on the loans they sold failing. THAT is what caused thee cascading loss of confidence and failures.

Its the equivilant of me being able to buy life insurance on anyone then not being prosecuted when I go kill them and collect that life insurance. Biggest ing scam we'll ever see.

So yeah, occupy that mother er and protest away.

Plus it has little to nothing to do with what's being discussed. The people taking those loans (ill advised or not), were not the ones getting bailed out.