Reply With Quote
As I've said before to you, about 300 of your posts ago, they are protesting the government. They're just not doing it in Washington. Yet, anyway.
How do you know they aren't? I thought you didn't know what they were protesting...
As I've said before to you, about 300 of your posts ago, they are protesting the government. They're just not doing it in Washington. Yet, anyway.
UPDATE: Cities, not countries.
We'll be sure to laugh at your typos in the future. You know, because it's such a classy thing to do, Yoni.
That would still be a massive exaggeration.
My bad, guess they already are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...LQL_story.html
What better way to protest the government than to protest the money changers who actually run it?
That concept seems to be above our resident mega-shill, who, for whatever reason, continues to repeat the meme that OWS should be in Washington DC protesting the ins ution of Government while praising our benevolent financial district.
But there is an occupy DC demonstration.
Cain and his cracker are stupid.
The only element over which they have an control is the elected official. What do they hope to protest out of the 1%?
Seriously, what is it going to look like when they get what they want?
yoni doesn't even want to imagine a world without his corporate overlords.
So only protests toward government have validity now?
Those poor 1%. What's the point of protesting them? It's not like they have any power over government.
Breaking: 1% agrees to ambiguous demands of 0.1% OWS crowd.
Developing...
oops
Fox News Poll Backfires: 70 Percent Support Occupy Wall Street
http://thinkprogress.org/special/201...y-wall-street/
====
Once again, the right-wingers here trashing OWS are in the tiny minority.
I'm tired of explaining to you what protesting is.
Extremely well said, IMO.
I dont see why FoxNews bots have such a hard time with this. Theyre protesting the idea and practices of Wall Street.
Big ing deal. Let them have their voice, even if its uneven and lacking cohesion. A bunch of Americans are pissed off so they decided to cry about it in the streets. Been done a thousand times before with much less reason than this.
If I were a 20-something liberal with crushing student loans and watched as the wealthiest of the wealthy were given free money out of the taxpayers pocket, I might be pissed off, too.
, I'm a 30-something 1%-er who is already pissed off about it. That they decided to sleep on public streets in protest and I did not doesnt make a ing difference to me. I understand the sentiment, I even share it, but priorities are vastly different along with risk vs reward determination.
See, I know protests and community action being able to accomplish....well, anything significant died with MLK. Nothing will change in this country or in the financial system if even 10% of the American population were participating (~15 million).
Its gone. Its dead. It died before I was born. Your system of government and the citizen's ability to affect it were bought and paid for in the 70s. The government, its elected representatives and the wealthiest of the wealthy do not give a if you, your family and everyone you ever encountered died of some curable disease if you couldnt afford the cost-inflated medicine to cure/treat it.
...and really, when you think about what a market system is, why should they? Why should the government care that the majority of its citizens, 70% of whom do not vote or participate in the democracy, are ty life-planners, crushed by debt and finances, living check-to-check who are one bad doctors visit from des ution?
Give me one good, financial, Cons utional or political reason why?
Leave the moral high-ground out of it like "Because its the right thing to do." The "right thing" is a very, very relative term, even from an American perspective.
To what end? Just to vent their spleens?
At least the Tea Party had an agenda to move candidates into Congress and, were -- in large part -- the reason there was such an historic shift from Democrat to Republican in 2010.
I know what protesting is; I'm just wondering what they think is going to happen as a result.
I mean, now, you've got some Flea Bagger in California saying violence will be necessary to achieve their goal. What the is their goal?
Exactly.If I were a 20-something liberal with crushing student loans and watched as the wealthiest of the wealthy were given free money out of the taxpayers pocket, I might be pissed off, too.
One could argue that if everyone is one mistake from being poor, it severely limits our ability to create a functioning economy, as everyone is saving what they can. And if they don't save and get wiped out, then it destroys wealth.Give me one good, financial, Cons utional or political reason why?
Plus, I'm pretty sure there's an argument about how an inefficient health care system is bad for our economy, but I'm not sure if that's even the case or if it's backed up by numbers.
Fwiw, I'm assuming that OWS folks want to get people in Congress that will actually hold these golden-parachute people to strict standards and regulations, along with some sort of plan that will ensure that they never require a bailout again without heavy strings attached.
I sincerely doubt any capability to get those types of people in Congress though.
Yeah, but you're pissed at the wrong people.
Some of the banks didn't want the TARP money but, were forced by Treasury Secretary Paulson and gang to accept it.
Then, the current administration refused to allow them to pay it back.
Again, government is your villain, not the banks.
Actually, debt forgiveness has been around loooong before Columbus landed his ass in the New World.
It is actually extremely healthy for economies to do so because it takes loss in minute packages over time instead of extreme avalanches in an extremely short period.
Point is, loss becomes predictable to an almost exact percentage. Giving an incentive to pay off debt via financial levers and tax exemptions then allows the Treasury to actually be surprised by the less-than forecasted debt relief.
No, debt relief is not an option in our current situation. America gave that option away from day one.
Yes, it would devalue the dollar in the short term. Very true.
Yes, it could have been an actual financial policy of the USA from the beginning and we would have been just fine. Actually, the US would have been the perfect model for it with all the innovation and industry literally invented in these borders. We would have outgrown the loss exponentially.
No, debt forgiveness would not be a yearly/monthly thing where people could "buy a house for one million dollars and not have to pay for it!". First and foremost, in order to buy a one million dollar house, you have to approved for the loan before you could be forgiven of the debt (ie have the means to pay for the house prior to....). Second, debt forgiveness was usually implemented after a hardship (drought, disease in ancient times...most of the time is was associated with the back taxes owed to the State), so one would have to prove hardship (just like taking your 401k out early at a penalty).
Third, and most importantly, loans would have to accounted for differently on a bank balance sheet. Since in this hypothetical, we would exist in a debt forgiveness environment with the expectation of its occurrence at X% of all outstanding loans in the system, all loans would have to be devalued by that same percentage plus a meager security percentage that would be paid back to the payee(s) at year's end if it wasnt used in the fiscal year. Right now, banks account for loans as strictly 100% assets. Meaning, they can borrow, buy and trade under the au e that each and every single loan they hold will be paid back to them 100% + interest. They do account for loss in value and a myriad of other things that devalue their portfolio, but after the events of 2008, its pretty obvious it was never and will never be enough.
IMO, this system then creates an incentive for both the note issuer(s) and note payer(s) to work together much more so than currently if hardship exists. The issuer does not want to give away for free, under law they will have to at some point if the two parties cannot come to agreement on re-payment. If that means taking less than the loan is worth, the issuer (bank) would jump at the chance to renegotiate payment (unlike now). Seeing as every loan a bank makes is insured both federally and privately (even today), recouping any amount is better than forgiveness.
Win/Win. Bank gets something + insured payout + federal payout. Payee doesnt have to claim claim hardship (which devastates credit) and doesnt have to use the limited debt-forgiveness in his lifetime (yet).
Perfect example in modern day. Most people (myself included) have a home that isnt worth anything nearing what they paid for it prior to 2008. I believe the term is "upside down mortgage", where you owe the bank more than the house is worth even if you sold it. Banks today are loving this , loving it like Cookie Monster loves cookies. Why? Because they own the note, regardless of whether you pay it back (repossession). They gave you a loan, which they insured privately and federally, you paid very little of the now-inflated value of it back and can no longer meet the monthly payment. They own the house you live in, right now. Their private insurance company that issued the policy on the loan when it was made will pay the bank X% of the total value should the loan default. The federal government does the same, only much less.
Your principal and interest payments + insurance payment + federal payment + current value of the home = most banks today come out waaaay ahead if they repossess your house and sell it.
The banks and the financial industry won big in 2008. You, the lowly er who actually had to take a loan out to buy a house (poor slob) did not.
Last edited by DarkReign; 10-12-2011 at 04:59 PM.
Please. Lets not retread this bull . I fully realize that SOME banks didnt want TARP money, I saw the TBTF movie, too.
Bottom line: Wealthy mother ers werent happy trading billions, they wanted trillions so they cooked up fancy financial packages of bull , inflated assets and robbed each other of their wealth until the taxpayers had to bail them out wholesale when the markets caught on to the bloated center of junk assets permeating every corner of the financial industry. Are all guilty? No. Are most? Yes.
Dont bother typing to me with a conflicting assessment of the situation. Your point will be fall on very deaf ears.
I wasn't in favor of bailouts. Who represents the taxpayers that "had to bail them out wholesale?" That's right, Government.
They could have let them fail. Why did they force them to take TARP money and why did they then refuse pay back?
Good point. We agree. Politicians are puppets who adhere to their pay-masters. The pay-masters said "Give us the taxpayers money!"
Politicians said "Yes".
They win. We lose. But if you think these same pay-masters wont pull that same lever again given half-a-chance in the near future, thats where our agreement ends.
You choose to blame government solely and let the ers who profited wildly, as in "never before seen wealth consolidation in the history of the planet" off the hook will never make sense.
They are thieves. Extremely wealthy thieves, but thieves nonetheless. Government was put in a precarious position as our nation's entire store of treasure was, is and will always be wrapped up in this overly tangled and con uous web of financial, loosely-controlled chaos we call a stock market/financial system. The captains of financial industry now know who will blink in a game of chicken and it wasnt them.
...and all the " " they caught were 20-something hippies sleeping on their streets. Just another day in Greenwich if you ask me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
