Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 751
view profile
History
Occupy Wall StreetPage 31 of 53    (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)

Can you get it now?


I guess not. You just want rope.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 752
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:01:04 PM

You want a start, get corporate money out of politics.


And just how would you do that? Maybe you'd like to see a federal law saying corporations are not persons, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to make laws to enforce the Amendment's provisions. But the Supreme Court has made clear section 5 only gives Congress power to adopt remedies consistent with the Court's 14th Am. decisions.

The 1st Amendment only applies to states through the 14th Amendment. So when Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to further limit the power of state governments to restrict the free exercise of religion, it had to rely on its section 5 authority.

In City of Boerne v. Flores, a 1997 decision, the Court held the RFRA exceeded that authority. It said Congress had tried to substitute its interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment for the Court's.

A similar problem would come up if Congress made a law changing the 14th Amendment's definition of "persons" to exclude corporations, so that the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment no longer protected their campaign contributions as political speech.

For those who loathe corporations (and capitalism), it gets even worse. The Supreme Court has recognized corporations as legal persons, for 14th Amendment purposes, for at least 125 years. And it's only been a year or so since it once again affirmed that corporate campaign contributions are political speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

The Constitution is such a frustrating thing for statists, with their authoritarian urges.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 753
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:11:29 PM
Oh...by all means the 14th amendment interpretations granted personage to corporations and created anchor babies...what a marvelous piece of legalise.


The Constitution is such a frustrating thing for statists, with their authoritarian urges.


My exact thought about all the extremist GOPbagger types.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 754
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:22:30 PM
I don't loathe capitalism OR corporations, but I AM frustrated that the Court seems to have scuttled any way that we had to require them to be open about their political machinations.

Since it IS believed strongly that money buys influence, it makes sense that a democratic society ought to be able to SEE where money is being spent, and by who.

Any suggestions, from your knowledge of Constitutional law, as to how we COULD know what influence-buying might be going on, WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 755
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:37:00 PM
My exact thought about all the extremist GOPbagger types.


Think what you like, but you're being incoherent. Anyone who knows even the basics of the Constitution knows it was designed to prevent concentrated, arbitrary authority, and to guarantee instead the rule of law. As a conservative, the Constitution never frustrates me in the least. And I support ALL of it.


and created anchor babies


I thought you'd be all in favor of them. Mr. Obama and his faithful look at illegal immigration and see millions of votes, to be bought with money other people earned.


Any suggestions, from your knowledge of Constitutional law, as to how we COULD know what influence-buying might be going on


I think the best place to start is probably to read Citizens United. The Court goes into the history of its decisions on this general subject, and as I remember it also discusses the federal laws which regulate campaign contributions. Labor unions and other associations also have the right to contribute to political campaigns.

It's not easy to balance the need to keep things above board against the right to have a fair say in a democratic republic. The Court has always protected political speech about as strictly as anything in the Constitution. It's obviously related to the right to vote itself, which is also a very strongly protected fundamental right.

The most flagrant influence-buying I see is what this administration has been engaged in. It has done a number of things that interfere with the constitutional process, including politicizing the Justice Dept. in several ways and granting hundreds of probably unconstitutional dispensations from the health care law to favored businesses.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 756
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:43:48 PM

I thought you'd be all in favor of them. Mr. Obama and his faithful look at illegal immigration and see millions of votes, to be bought with money other people earned.


Apparently, with the 14th amendment you get what you get....yet, you bytche about the part you don't like....


As a conservative, the Constitution never frustrates me in the least. And I support ALL of it.


Then you do support anchor babies...and the rights of unions to also control elections with capital.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 757
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 6:02:23 PM

Then you do support anchor babies


No, I do not. Is there an "anchor baby" clause in your copy of the Constitution? I don't want to get into the history of the Court's interpretation--I think MIS-interpretation--of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Am. in the late 1800's, a mistake it dumbly compounded in Plyler v. Doe in 1967. As a result, states like California are going broke giving children of illegal aliens a K-12 education at $11,000-plus each per year.

I think the children of aliens illegally in the U.S. should not become citizens just by being born here. I don't believe they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., which would be required to make them citizens.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 758
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 6:14:21 PM

I think the children of aliens illegally in the U.S. should not become citizens just by being born here. I don't believe they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., which would be required to make them citizens.


I agree on some level...

Yet, you feel Santa Clara is the right ruling...hmmmm...thereby, creating a situation where the few can exert undue influence in all aspects of government thru copropate coffers....that viewpoint differes from your stated view that:


Anyone who knows even the basics of the Constitution knows it was designed to prevent concentrated, arbitrary authority

Oh, I know that you're speaking about elected officials...yet, the wealthy few, under the guise of corporate personage guide many of our legislators decisions.
 Home_for_30
Joined: 2/6/2010
Msg: 759
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 6:23:11 PM
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t3

The OWS websites are asking the protesters to occupy or boycott major retailers on Black Friday. Not sure what the end goal of this is....if it's just to noise and get arrested, I think will happen. The end result is further p!ssing of people...just like blocking streets and bridges. If you want more people on your side, try not to annoy them in the process. Boycotts are the best option. But I don't think any retailers got a bail out. Actually many went under in the early-2000's. And I am sure all the Occupiers that show up will have iPhones and iPads bought at their local Apple store or online.

"We are NOT anti-capitalist, just anti-crapitalist" Finally, a message!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 760
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 6:49:54 PM

Yet, you feel Santa Clara is the right ruling...hmmmm...thereby, creating a situation where the few can exert undue influence in all aspects of government thru copropate coffers....that viewpoint differes from your stated view that:


Have you ever considered how to write an incorruptible law? What words to use that can't be turned into permitting the opposite of intention.

It’s just about nearly impossible to say a single sentence, declare it as law, and not have that sentence turned to say, "So what you’re really saying is..."

We are dependent on the 'interpretation' of the courts. Is there any other possible way this could happen? It's not 100% perfect. It never will be. So the short answer is to take it to court. To take it to court you need to show damages. Then that court needs to f* up the ruling so that it gets sent to a higher court. That higher court then needs to f* up the ruling again. And by F* up the ruling I just mean that one side really doesn't agree. Someone has to have the final say.

It's a pretty cool system. It's hard though. Meeting the qualification is hard. Is there another way?
Corporations have the funds to survive the qualification process. That’s the sticking point. So they do have the ability to keep on pushing until the other side gives.

Not having politicians and judges at the disposal of the corporations helps keep this at bay but how do you do that. It’s already illegal. Who checks the legal system. If you can’t keep the judges and politicians out of the corporate pocket then the only alternatives are stricter governments. Stricter governments are then no less susceptible to corruption but now harder to deal with because they have a wider scope of influence.

It is a continues circle that always seems to lead to a government corrupting. So, how do you prevent the government from corrupting? You limit its power by law. Start again.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 761
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 7:37:05 PM
except for which direction the attention/money is going toward

That'd pretty much be it.

 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 762
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 7:41:21 PM
There is a lot of loose talk about corporate corruption, and far less evidence of people getting away with it. Every state has a corporations code, and there are also some federal laws regulating corporations.

There have been many thousands of cases where corporations have been prohibited from doing things, where shareholders have either sued directors and officers for bad behavior or fired them, where people within corporations have gone to jail for crimes, and so on. And incorporation is only a shield against *some* kinds of liability. If you're caught running a phone scam to sell old folks new roofs you never install, you can expect to be charged with federal crimes, and the fact you're incorporated won't help you.

The fact some people in corporations get away with wrongdoing no more shows that the law ignores that wrongdoing, than the fact some people commit robbery and arson shows the law ignores those crimes.

The real crooks behind the economic mess we are in have names like Corzine, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, and Emmanuel. If any of these people had done the same things as a private citizen, they'd be in a federal prison.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 763
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/23/2011 7:43:13 PM
"Now you may have a problem with that"

(sigh) Paul I'm liberal, not an anarchist! No I don't believe(much as this pains you) that anyone who isn't a citizen should vote in our elections. Yes it is one of the MOST important duties as a citizen.

You seem very confused Paul "You talk of morality, and then you seem to not care if the people voting have the RIGHT to do so."

That statement seems at odds with what I said. I want the legitimate citizens of our country(NOT illegal aliens) to have the right to vote. Because you live in California, they embrace making registration easy(no not for illegal aliens, but for citizens). The part you are lost in, is that these other 16 states would change that process, to make it harder to register.

Now I don't want to accuse you of being obtuse or obstinent. I am just pointing out, the rules these states wish to embrace will make it harder for LEGITIMATE citizens of the USA to register. What may have been your experience years ago in college, are becoming far different under these new regulations. Reduced number of registration sites, reduced hours of operation, increased documentation.

Since this does not allign with your experience, that doesn't mean it isn't happening if these states pass these new voter registration rules. I would suggest you read up on the changes proposed in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and other places. Or don't since you might not agree, your choice. If you ARE as strong an advocate of legitimate citizens voting, I would think you would have as much a problem with it as I do.

As for the CBO report(sigh again) I have never said, represented or endorsed, that stimulus was or ever will be a substitute for the private sector. The phrase "kick start the economy" was meant as a way to employ people until the private sector reinvigorated and began to hire again. Perhaps it would have been better for the million or half a million jobs, to have never been created, so that many more people could have been out of work this entire time. Is that how you feel?

Major corporations are sitting on 2 trillion in retained earnings, not spending them on new products, plant expansions, plant reopenings or any job growth. They are buying their stock back and I guess that keeps a number of brokers and bankers employed, but hardly reinvigorates the economy.

Let's put it another way shall we? Paul aside from taking Obama out and lynching him from a tree what would make you happy? Or better still, what would you rather do to jump start the economy? You seem to know what will not work, let's hear your ideas of what will? Your the man with the gripes of what is wrong, so what would be right?

Side note Plurtsy, of course it's ok to pitch a tent to buy foreign shit and not complain. That makes sense to those selling foreign shit, someone complaining or trying to change the system only causes waves, why would we want that. Corporate america and government muh prefers our citizens be DDB! Deaf, dumb and blind.

edit to add: matchlight, please show me where ANY of the officers of any financial corporation have been sanctioned, tried, or imprisoned with the exception of outright crooks like Madoff or ones like him are. There are over 100 violations just in the last 10 years by all major financial corporations, aside from a slap on the wrist and a fine, NOT ONE has been imprisoned despite violating the same laws dozens of times.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 764
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 12:18:08 AM
i think immigrants to any country should pay taxes and show that they
can be decent citizens before having the right to vote or recieve benefits
from the state. i think 10 years or 15 years would suffice. pay in before you can take.

small misdemenour crimes would result in an extra year added to their
'citizen' fruition.

yep let the protestors pitch tents anywhere, but, if they stop folk going
about THEIR lawful business then yep arrest them.

as for voting i think voting should be compulsory in major elections as
long as the ballot paper has a NONE OF THE ABOVE box to tick.

if you dont vote in 2 maybe 3 elections then you lose the right to vote
completly for the rest of your days

also introduce the swiss system where if you can get enough signatures
for something a referendum is held.

none of the above will ever be introduced in the uk because the people who
do not vote are predominantly white working class who live in the shithole
housing schemes around the uk.

if they voted politics would change forever in the uk and that would not
suit our current politicos because the non voters are by and large proud of their
heritage and proud of their country but feel their vote counts for nothing
when all they hold dear is totally ignored
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 765
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 4:29:29 AM
match:

The real crooks behind the economic mess we are in have names like Corzine, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, and Emmanuel. If any of these people had done the same things as a private citizen, they'd be in a federal prison.


I am loathe to take this side trip in any detail, but that's a rather hefty, and extremely vague accusation for you to make. I keep hearing from some talkers on the right, that because some Democrats urged lending institutions to help more people to buy houses, that THEY are responsible for the incredibly reckless MANNER that those institutions chose to accomplish this.

Prove THAT. Quote the law that reads "You are directed to lend money to people who can not possibly repay it, and then hide those stupid loans inside of relatively-newly-invented, and unregulated disguises (derivatives), in order to kite the bad loans into vast, unsupported monstrosities of debt. "

I work hard every day. My employer OFTEN demands that I accomplish the impossible, it's the nature of people in charge to do so. However, if I choose to employ illegal, or dangerous means to try to accomplish my employers desires, THEY are not legally responsible for MY choices.


We are in the mess we are in, because the lenders and manipulators decided to lie, and to ignore each others lies, until all those lies snowballed out of control. The lenders and derivative gamers are to blame, not the people who called upon them to "expand home ownership."
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 766
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 4:56:34 AM

wish to embrace will make it harder for LEGITIMATE citizens of the USA to register
How? You all argue that it will make it difficult for Citizens how exactly..most states that propose or have these laws have thought of most scenarios that a Citizen might face complying with the laws...even give free ID's to those who can't afford them..Have you really actually read any of the Laws in question? I have and there really is no evidence that the laws would prevent CITIZENS from voting...


Perhaps it would have been better for the million or half a million jobs, to have never been created,
Government jobs? Just curious cause there is no proof any jobs were created in the private sector..so if these jobs are Government they do little to help the Economy..

Making Profits is not a CRIME....

Funny to see so many vilify Corporations yet turn a Blind eye to the Trillions wasted by the Government...

I love this thread because it shines light on all the Socialists pretending to be Democrats/Liberals...

What we do know is that what Obama is doing is not working Two Stimulus packages ,investments made with tax revenue in failed Green Companies..etc...threatening higher taxes causing reluctance in businesses to expand...hurting businesses that can expand through regulation...Obamacare, businesses don't fully understand the impact it will have so they are waiting to expand...Obama is failing because he places his ideology above the good of America...
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 767
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 5:17:19 AM


Perhaps it would have been better for the million or half a million jobs, to have never been created,

Government jobs? Just curious cause there is no proof any jobs were created in the private sector..so if these jobs are Government they do little to help the Economy..


It is obvious from this quote that this poster either does not read/comprend as well as one should or he's just blatantly misquoting to prove some obscure point....because this is what the origional point was:


have never said, represented or endorsed, that stimulus was or ever will be a substitute for the private sector. The phrase "kick start the economy" was meant as a way to employ people until the private sector reinvigorated and began to hire again. Perhaps it would have been better for the million or half a million jobs, to have never been created, so that many more people could have been out of work this entire time. Is that how you feel?


It must be that because I'm one of those liberal democrat's, and not some facist, racist, bigoted, stastist, free market, conservatives, that I can see that this comment was not about creating a million or a half a million private sector jobs...it was about creating jobs that would fill the void till businesses recovered enough to resume hiring...i.e. government backed jobs....infrastructure jobs...

 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 768
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 5:24:15 AM

Prove THAT. Quote the law that reads "You are directed to lend money to people who can not possibly repay it, and then hide those stupid loans inside of relatively-newly-invented, and unregulated disguises (derivatives), in order to kite the bad loans into vast, unsupported monstrosities of debt. "
Igor this why Ive said you don't understand how financing works, I'm not trying to be a ass hole here( Im sure you think I am) but you asked this question a while back and I gave you a answer and its still the same

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was used to intimidate banks and other mortgage lenders into making loans,such as sub-prime loans in low and moderate-income neighborhoods across America giving out loans to people who cannot afford them is a risky and a bad decision, not every one should own a home, although its a wonderful idea but theory isn't always a sound or profitable practice.

You know the difference between Canadian and American Banks is, we up here dont sell mortgages to Investments banks that create a special entity purpose and uses CDO to minimized the risk, every American bank that did that Got in trouble hence the derivatives problem you see today and the over leveraging didnt help either but back to the topic.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, enterprises created by the government to increase mortgage lending, foster irresponsible borrowing and lending by purchasing mortgage loans from lenders. Fannie and Freddie have been able to purchase large amounts of loans because, since their creation, they had the implicit financial backing of the government. Now that the government has taken them over, that backing is now explicit. Federal Home Loan Banks also engage in and foster irresponsible and excessive borrowing and lending. They can do this only because, as stated by The Wall Street Journal 2004, they "benefit from a widespread belief the government would bail them out in a crisis."

In 1995, the Clinton administration revised the CRA to increase pressure on banks to make more loans to risky borrowers. In 1997, the first pool of sub-prime mortgages was securitized (by Bear Stearns!).

The law regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was rewritten to reduce their capital requirements, meaning they would become riskier. Some critics were concerned about the risk, but here is what Congressman Barney Frank had to say at the time:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." "source New York Times, September 11, 2003"

At the height of the real estate boom, the United States set record home ownership rates. Politicians, including then President Bush, bragged about their success at getting Americans into their own homes , President Bush bragged that he was helping Americans get homes with lower down payments and higher loan limits. He also signed a law making it easier for homeowners to walk away from their mortgage obligations.
Would more regulation have reduced the number of bad loans made? Most likely, more regulation would have increased the problem.

You want proof of this Look through some of the Congressional records , but then again most people don't have time to spend digging into the Congressional Record and other sources to find out the ugly truth being covered up by the blizzard of lies coming out of Washington and echoed in much of the media. There is a excellent book called "The Housing Boom and Bust is a 2009 book written by Thomas Sowell" that presents facts and figures and guess what he does produces proof from the congressional record because his research assistants does that for a living, Im going to pull a Earth Puppy on you and plug the book that shows FACTS and PROOF.

Thank goodness for the congressional record too, In 2003 Frank said: "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals." He added: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."

In other words, when things were looking good, he was happy to acknowledge the role of the federal government in pushing the housing market in a direction it would not have taken on its own. But, after the risky mortgage-lending practices fostered by government intervention led to massive defaults and foreclosures that caused financial institutions to collapse or be bailed out, Congressman Frank changed his tune completely.

By 2007, his line was now that "the sub-prime crisis demonstrates the serious negative economic and social consequences that result from too little regulation." By 2008, his line was that the financial crisis was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector."

When television financial reporter Maria Bartiromo reminded Congressman Frank of his statements in earlier years, he simply denied making the statements she quoted and blamed "right-wing Republicans who took the position that regulation was always bad."
Regulation is of course not always bad, and it would be hard to find anyone of any party who says that it is. Moreover, Congressman Frank had some Republican collaborators in pushing regulators to push banks into risky mortgage lending.

Igor this is why Im not a fan of government intervention, Im not a fan of most of Wall Street either, I fight for Main street any day any time, I don't fight for corporations in bed with the government and I certainly don't believe or place my faith in government " doing the right thing" If the government would actually do its job and stop meddling and create legislation that make sense and has transparency among other things I would be the first to stand in their corner.

Although this is the biggest housing disaster the government has ever produced, it is by no means the first. Republicans intervened in the housing markets to promote more home ownership in the 1920s, Democrats in the 1930s and both parties after World War II. All of these interventions led to massive foreclosures.

Don't politicians ever learn? Why should they? What they have learned all too well is how easy it is to get credit for promoting home ownership and how easy it is to escape blame for the later foreclosures and other economic disasters that follow.

Sorry for the long post and I haven't had my espresso this morning .
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 769
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 5:43:58 AM

t was about creating jobs that would fill the void till businesses recovered enough to resume hiring...i.e. government backed jobs....infrastructure jobs...
Ok then..how did that work out? so he put together two stimulus packages at over a trillion dollars..what effect did that have on the Economy? Unemployment is over 9% still actual number is much higher...businesses are still not hiring and many of those Government employees are being laid off...

There is no evidence that things would have been worse if he had not passed either stimulus ...

Great with the labels aren't you?.... I have no idea what you are all In know is that we disagree about most things...no hard feelings though you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine...

Truth is Obama policies are not working..hard for many to understand but reality is a B'ch sometimes...
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 770
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 7:16:23 AM
(cdn iceman) Well I for one understand why the OWS protesters are angry and attempting to make a point but I think personally It sends the wrong message to the wrong people, making a point is one thing disrupting other peoples lives is another.


I agree. The Occupy Ottawa crowd, those that had an inkling of what they were there for, seemed to think that whoever could be the most miserable for the longest, was obviously the most committed to "the Cause". I'm saddened that the legitimate concerns were drowned out by opportunists.


Yeah I can see there is a visceral anger, but those folks have no clear policy agenda, for the poster that said its a movement like Civil rights or the Viet nam war ...


I think that was a base insult to the Civil Rights/Vietnam War protesters. Not everybody who screams, "DOWN WITH THE MAN!!!" is a valid protester. Most people have enough common sense to know when a "protester" is really an opportunist...


(BigBadNIrish) There was a simple answer to the civil rights movement...equality.

There was a simple answer to the Viet Nam war...end it.

Please don't give me the simple answer for fixing wall street and the government...because believe me...if there were some Einstein would have already done it.


Right. So, if the problems of Wall Street dishonesty are different than the problems of the Civil Rights/Vietnam War, why do the protesters seem to think that the same tactics will succeed?

Arlo...
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 771
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 8:04:15 AM
vlad...



here timetogo

your not saying that there are people on here who snitch (or the uk word grass, as in whispering grass) are you? lol

its been mentioned on the uk forums about groups of shrieking harpies
roaming the forums trying to find something, anything to be offended about.

but im the same as you mate i wouldnt be a pc stasi sneaky tell tale snitch.


Yeah, it's worse than grade school here for some. "Say one more word, and I'm gonna tell!"
I like the use of the word "grass". I'd modify it to "stasi a-s-s", though.

They dish; they can't take.

Same with Occupy Drum Bang. They dish out the disturbances but can't take it when they are disturbed out of their squalor and made to move.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 772
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 8:08:40 AM

Right. So, if the problems of Wall Street dishonesty are different than the problems of the Civil Rights/Vietnam War, why do the protesters seem to think that the same tactics will succeed?

What's the alternative? The real issues simply weren't being discussed before the 99% took to the streets. Yeah, most of the coverage is about how much of a nuisance people in tents are, but wealth inequality is actually sneaking into the occasional story. And every once in a while a Republican does get asked how deregulating the financial sector will drive the crooks out of Wall Street.

But your point about the Canadian protests is valid. Here in Vancouver the focus changed from the original goals to the usual mishmash of whining. Adbusters and the Media Foundation are based here. I've been reading it since the second issue. They have consistently talked about issues that nobody else does.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 773
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 9:04:52 AM
I wish all my buddies a happy thanksgiving and will post some tonight, but today is for family.

OT: I don't think the sub-prime loan per se in low and middle income neighborhoods was the total problem with the real estate collapse. The exposure was minimal, especially in low income neighborhoods. Houses there cost 35,000 and even in the more expensive areas never went above 105,000.

Remember when wall street gets involved, the rule of thumb is "more is better"! That isn't a critique just an observation on their business model. More stocks, means more trading, means more commissions. More volume or volitility, means more trading, mean more commissions. More mortgages, means more CDO/MBO's, means more trading, more profit and more commissions.

When we extended the sub-prime loan to 200K to 6 or 700K houses, now the risk grew exponetially. A house foreclosed at 50K did have far to fall to find a buyer. A house at 600K had a lot of room to fall and the loss would be incremental in relation to demand and risk.

Add to this, the no-doc mortgage or 1, 2 or 5% down mortgages and the risk transfered entirely to the note holder. Compounding the problem was the holder bundled them and sold them to an investment bank, who sliced and diced them intoCDO's that were sold as AAA, when no such rating should have been given.

THAT produced the land slide of prices and foreclosures.

Oh and nice slide back in to my buddy time, guess he didn't feel the "dirt" discussion didn't merit a response. Hahahahaha!!!

Happy thanksgiving to all!
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 774
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 9:17:28 AM

Add to this, the no-doc mortgage or 1, 2 or 5% down mortgages and the risk transfered entirely to the note holder. Compounding the problem was the holder bundled them and sold them to an investment bank, who sliced and diced them intoCDO's that were sold as AAA, when no such rating should have been given.
yeppers OyVay, rating agencies , regulators pffttttt, part of the problem too you and I and a few others understand this and this is why we say there is no easy solution to fix this problem.

Its going to take a serious over haul and someone or a party with Guts, balls and umpph to say we need to seriously change this structure or its going to going to repeat it self decades from now.

Systemic risk is going to be the same in 10 months, 5 years or 10 years if the fundamental problem is not solved IMO.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 775
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/24/2011 10:19:10 AM
With respect, Ice, again, nothing in that post answers what I was talking about. I appreciate your efforts, but you didn't bring the proof I asked for.

Flat out false statement:


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, enterprises created by the government to increase mortgage lending, foster irresponsible borrowing and lending by purchasing mortgage loans from lenders.


That is a lie. If you want to make it true, you have to take out the "foster irresponsible borrowing and lending by purchasing mortgage loans from lenders" part.

Entirely unrelated quote: Barney Frank, talking about SUBSIDIZING housing, but making no mention of FORCING LENDERS TO GIVE OUT LARGE LOANS AGAINST OVER_PRICED PROPERTIES.

None of the other stuff contains anything but unsubstantiated allegations. No laws quoted, no administrative directives that included the instructions to over-price things, etc.

All of the mentioned pressures from the Democrats, are talking about housing for the lower classes. All of the stupid lending and "derivative" mess, was based on loaning large amounts against wildly over-priced UPPER MIDDLE CLASS AND ABOVE housing.

My relative ignorance about the lingo and games of finance, has nothing to do with whether or not a law or a directive was put out that told them to do what they did.

If nothing else, I am VERY sure, that ALL of the accused lenders would be jumping up and down every day, handing out printed COPIES of that regulation to defend themselves.

They re not, because it isn't true. It's an attempt to cover up the facts, and rewrite history to show that the people who CAUSED the problems, were actually the heroes.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street