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
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 851
Occupy Wall StreetPage 35 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)
Hoops, sorry I missed your question about Scott Olsen, I read some other posts and failed to verify his condition for myself, my mistake.

"will inevitably vote to make GOVERNMENT even BIGGER!!!"

I'm a liberal! Did you read my earlier post on a flat tax, AND cutting the size of government? Sorry not all liberals are alike, it just seems like it.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 852
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 12:42:42 AM
The biggest difference between the far right and OWS is that the far right is content to let corporations and money run big government, where the OWS crowd prefers democracy. The corporations want less regulation and are willing to buy it at the expense of the people who will suffer from the ensuing pollution. For every dollar spent to comply with the Clean Air Act, we all benefit in $4 worth of avoided health care costs.

As for the OWS labels so readily applied by the far right, they are not so easy to pin down and more diverse than the right wishes to acknowledge.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-27/occupy-wall-street-protesters-defy-simple-description/51429518/1
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 853
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 4:22:49 AM

where the OWS crowd prefers democracy.
Really? If that is the case then why do they give up so many of their rights to the Unions?From the interviews that they have shown of OWS participants it seems that they just hate Corporations and think that profits are evil and that life isn't fair and that they are entitled to a fair share without contributing anything...just read online that some of them started a petition about pledging to not pay back their outstanding student loans...



we all benefit in $4 worth of avoided health care costs.
Really? How much more do we pay for goods and services because of it, how much do we lose in production and jobs that are done off shore due to it?
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 854
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 4:58:22 AM
halfa....




Sure. I'm all for the Huxtables paying the same rate they were paying in the 80's. He could afford his cool sweaters under the onerous tax burden he was under at the time.

Great idea!


I guess because Hux was supposed to have been a US citizen, how about this: federal spending is rolled back to 1986 levels as well. Maybe even government regulations are rolled back to 1986? Immediately. Kind of "Back to the Future", but not in a battery powered flaming Gov't Motors Volt. It would putz out after 40mi of time travel.

Great idea?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 855
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 6:22:03 AM

we all benefit in $4 worth of avoided health care costs.
Really? How much more do we pay for goods and services because of it, how much do we lose in production and jobs that are done off shore due to it?


Since children and the elderly are the most affected by dirty air, how much money are you willing to grub at the expense of others? What's a life worth to you? Corporate controlled Republican politicians insist on using industry funded lies to promote an anti-environmental agenda and rely on good foot soldiers to bray the mantra of jobs vs. the environment. Yes, repealing the CAA will create jobs in the health care and mortuary industries.
http://www.edf.org/news/clean-air-act-rules-save-country-82-billion-health-care-costs-over-next-decade-according-new-an

As for the contention that jobs vs. environment is some sort of issue, the EPA white paper on the subject begs to differ.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11517

As has been the case for decades, significant rules promulgated by agencies under mandates from Congress almost always result in economic benefits exceeding costs.
This cost-benefit analysis has been a key part of the federal regulatory process. In the case of the CAA, the white paper concludes that:

The public health protections that have resulted from the act have produced "tremendous economic benefits"

The standards implementing the act have created jobs in some sectors of the economy that offset job losses by regulated entities

Because pollution abatement costs are such a small part of overall manufacturing costs, they have a very small impact on plant location decisions and employment

http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html
20 years ago, before the complete corporate coup on America, a bi-partisan congress and G. H. W, Bush signed into law the 1990 ammendments to the CAA that prevented in 2010 alone...
•160,000 cases of premature mortality
•130,000 heart attacks
•13 million lost work days
•1.7 million asthma attacks
http://tiny.cc/8h0m3

We've also reduced acid rain and mercury that would have been in our fish and other foods.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 856
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 9:04:04 AM
Hahahaha!

Gotta love when they talk out of both sides of their mouth!

"but not in a battery powered flaming Gov't Motors Volt."

Ahh the Volt was designed, tested and production began by GM long before any government involvement, nice try though. As for the tests, the results didn't seem so bad, and they are working to correct the defect, unlike ford who produced Pinto's that exploded for YEARS and the problems were never looked at.

Both firms, have made great strides now, in owning their mistakes, just not reopening production fast enough in our country.

As for your roll-back of federal spending, before we discuss it, why don't you explain how you will roll back 25 years of inflation, then we can talk.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 857
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 11:41:02 AM
A recent court ruling makes one wonder if the heat being applied by OWS isn't having some effect:

Judge Blocks Citigroup Settlement With S.E.C.

By EDWARD WYATT


WASHINGTON — A federal judge in New York on Monday threw out a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.

The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the S.E.C.’s $285 million settlement, announced last month, is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.

The ruling could throw the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud cases and other actions that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it.

That condition gives a company or individual an advantage in subsequent civil litigation for damages, because cases in which no facts are established cannot be used in evidence in other cases, like shareholder lawsuits seeking recovery of losses or damages.

The S.E.C.’s policy — “hallowed by history, but not by reason,” Judge Rakoff wrote — creates substantial potential for abuse, the judge said, because “it asks the court to employ its power and assert its authority when it does not know the facts.”

Judge Rakoff also refers at one point to Citigroup as “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, which has violated the antifraud provisions of the nation’s securities laws many times. The company knew that the S.E.C.’s proposed judgment – that it cease and desist from violating the antifraud laws – had not been enforced in at least 10 years, the judge wrote.

The S.E.C. did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the judge’s decision, which was released Monday morning. A Citigroup spokesman said the company was studying the decision and had no immediate comment.

Citigroup was charged with negligence in its selling to customers a billion-dollar mortgage securities fund, known as Class V Funding III. The S.E.C. alleged that Citigroup picked the securities to be included in the fund without telling investors, claiming that the securities were being chosen by an independent entity. Citigroup then bet against the investments because it believed that they would lose value, the S.E.C. said.

Investors lost $700 million in the fund, according to the S.E.C., while Citigroup gained about $160 million in profits.

The settlement established none of those allegations as fact, thereby making it impossible for the court to properly judge whether the settlement meets the required standard of being fair, adequate and in the public interest.

“An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous,” Judge Rakoff wrote in the case, S.E.C. v. Citigroup Global Markets. “In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth.”

The S.E.C. in particular, he added, “has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 858
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 12:36:13 PM
And "THAT" Irish, is what I have been saying for the last 10 pages. THAT is what I meant when I said they continue to break the SAME law over and over!

The SEC, just wanting to get the fine, and put one in the win column, has repeatedly allowed these entities, in order to continue their breaking of the law, and limit their liability in civil cases that would naturally follow, allow that language.

That simple phrase "neither admit nor deny", gives them a do-over everytime. It is nothing more than a lawyers(bloodsuckers) trick. But with their budget being curtailed, the SEC is forced to not take the case to the courts, as these massive trials costs hundreds of thousands in man hours and millions of dollars.

So instead of stopping wrong on many fronts, they can only stop a few, when a court action is required. So the very thing that was wrong with the criminal justice system against recidivist offenders, they then were able to create the 3 strike rule, to meet out longer sentences, is blunted by this phrase, that then allows them to break the very same law over and over and over. In some cases banks have broken the same statute over 10 times in 7 years, with more than 100 occuraces by less than 10 defendents.

Talk about a stacked deck. In this case it becomes fool me once shame on you, fool me 8 more times...well there is no phrase for that!

Now if that curled your shorts, what about the Bloomberg report?

Bloomberg has sought to open the record of off-balance sheet records of the FED!

It seems if you are pissed about TARP, hold onto your hat. Off balance sheet loans from the FED to banks tops 7 TRILLION! That's right trillion with a T!! That would make it 10 TIMES larger than the TARP bailout to banks! Bloomberg has sought to open the records under th freedom of information act.

The FED is resisting fearing a run on certain banks and a huge selloff in their stock prices, with the loss of confidence it would create.

This bears watching closely.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 859
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 1:48:20 PM
^^^^^ and you wonder why I have no faith in the SEC, Regulatory bodies, rating agencies, Government bureaucrats that spews crap about how they are going to fix the problems?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 860
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 3:18:07 PM

Simply require at least 25% down, and higher as the numbers go higher, in order to buy stocks on margin. If you want to buy $100,000.00 of a stock on margin, you have to kick in at least $25K. When the amount purchased goes higher, the percentage of the reqsuired down goes up......................


Somehow, I don't think insufficient funds to cover margin-call is the problem with wall street....the problems with wall street generally aren't driven by the individual investor...they are driven by hedge funds, mutual funds, investment houses, and investment banks...these guys aren't trading on margin.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 861
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 3:28:26 PM
"I don't think insufficient funds to cover margin-call"

As investment banks, no margin is involved, they pay the money in advance to buy the assets. In this case though, since the defendent was CitiGroup, a division of CitiBank the real funny part maybe that WE lent them the money against other assets, through the FED window.

Simple solution, no more deals with the phrase "without admitting or denying guilt"!
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 862
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 3:50:57 PM

You missed the point.............. Leading up to the crash, some were controlling huge positions with as little as 4% of the purchase value............ So, why not gamble? When you have more money that YOU can lose, you will be a little more circuspect in pushing the "buy" button. Maybe the answer would be have to have at least 40% of the purchase value.


It's not that I doubt the voracity of the statement...but proof please...because I've never heard that insufficient funds/margin call was an issue in any way shape or form with the current CDO mess.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 863
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 3:58:28 PM
None are so blind as those who will not see.

"led by the left, with the right ambling right along right behind them."

Hmmmm, Bush was elected in 2000, at the time Greenspan was head of the FED, later Bernake was appointed head of the FED, with Paulson as head of the Tresuary. Since the case cited was from 2007, these would have to be new mortgages, written after Mr. Greenspan loosened money to encourage the economy after 9/11.

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but that doesn't sound like "ambling right along right behind" anybody! It sounds like Greenspan subcumbed to pressure from Shrub who was leading the parade!

Some would like to do more revisionist history, and I get it. For those who wish to believe their fearless leader shrub, led them over the cliff, it must pain them grately, but the dates don't lie. Nor do they allow for anybody BUT them(the republicans) to have called the shots.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 864
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 4:23:12 PM
There are a lot of assumptions that Bush was actually elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A5dsrHBfyc&feature=share

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how. "
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 865
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 4:28:40 PM

Hmmmm, Bush was elected in 2000, at the time Greenspan was head of the FED, later Bernake was appointed head of the FED, with Paulson as head of the Tresuary. Since the case cited was from 2007, these would have to be new mortgages, written after Mr. Greenspan loosened money to encourage the economy after 9/11.


Yes, let's do discuss the case I've sited


Citigroup was charged with negligence in its selling to customers a billion-dollar mortgage securities fund, known as Class V Funding III. The S.E.C. alleged that Citigroup picked the securities to be included in the fund without telling investors, claiming that the securities were being chosen by an independent entity. Citigroup then bet against the investments because it believed that they would lose value, the S.E.C. said.


Oh pleeaaaase defend Citi's actions...pleeeaaaaase...because blaming this mess on margin issues is feckin lame....and new arguments are required to keep all this heat going.


Judge Rakoff also refers at one point to Citigroup as “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, which has violated the antifraud provisions of the nation’s securities laws many times. The company knew that the S.E.C.’s proposed judgment – that it cease and desist from violating the antifraud laws – had not been enforced in at least 10 years, the judge wrote.


No really...margins are the real issue OY...raise the margins and all will be better...
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 866
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 4:30:27 PM
A lot of assumptions that Bush was actually elected? does it matter he spent 8 years in the white house didn't he? He did beat Senator Kerry right?

If you really believe elections are being rigged, do you really think America's elite and power brokers would let a black man into the white house? do you not think the Elite would have their own people in the White house? Heck Gates, Buffet, Ellison and the Walton's could have their people in there they certainly have the money.

I don't believe in conspiracies , I don't know if the Mob whacked President Kennedy, or the CIA, or if Bin Laden is alive and rotting in some secret CIA cell.

Not sure what this has to do with OWS protesters though?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 867
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 4:56:57 PM
So if the 1% are controlling everything... Instead of floundering around saying it is everyone making some arbitrary $. Wouldn't it be these guys:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20010.html

If you’re going to have a witch hunt may as well start off with actual names that can be investigated.

http://bilderberg2011.com/bilderberg-members/leaked-attendee-list-bilderberg-conference-june-9-12-2011-in-suvretta-house-hotel-st-moritz-switzerland/

Or would it be unfair to say that these specific people have anything to do with the state of things today :)

Thought it was interesting that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and LinkedIn made the cut. I guess they are finally getting recognized for the power they have.

Ahhh, the new world order. Can’t wait for 12/21/2012
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 868
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 5:24:24 PM
I knew I shouldn't get into this. Always the innuendo's and no facts, just garbage!

This will be my last word on this, obviously some will never admit when they are wrong, or at least lay blame where blame is due.

In 1992 GHW Bush signed the Housing and Community Devlopment Act of 1992. It contained a phrase, affirmative obligation to facilitate financing for low and moderate income families. Yes it was passed by a democratic held congress, I suppose he could have vetoed it, but like all presidents, he wanted to encourage home ownership.

Now while that in and of itself doesn't lay out "what" the price of those homes might be, they are far from the ones that caused the problem later.

The ratio of bad subprime mortgages for the early period of Shrub's presidency was 8%.(2001-2002) By 2003 that rate of bad sub-primes had begun to rise. By the years 2004 through 2006 the ratio of bad sub-primes had risen to 20%. In 2006 the mortgage industry had moved most sub-primes to adjustable rate mortgages, in fact about 90%. By 2007 the rates began to reset to a higher rate, which of course meant much higher payments.

Unfortunately disposable income remained the same or went down in this period for the majority of the population. It was the banks and mortgage companies who moved the standards to adjustable rates, and no-doc mortgages. Not many bankers in the democratic party, they are mostly republicans ya know.

But even though I presented facts, I'm sure somebody on this thread will argue Barney Frank did it all himself, or maybe it was Kennedy before he was shot, anybody but a republican.

Once again, since the one poster will only resort to innuendo and lies, I will cease to answer or reply to his posts, as he lends nothing to the discussion.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 869
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 5:30:17 PM
For whatever reasons, the Community Reinvestment Act and Dodd and Frank's part are well mentioned here, but not the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. However, when one apportions the D's and R's, some of the reasons start to become more apparent. The SEC was asleep at the switch-- and considering the tone of the administration at the time, it was pretty much purposefully so. History has repeated itself, and still we seem to have learned little from it. Another recession (beyond any double-dip possibility) is waiting in the distance, sadly enough.

This disaster was a team effort. The Dems poked the hole in the ship, the Reps and Clinton enlarged it and Bush commanded the helm when the ship started sinking and didn't recognize it. Wall Street was on the upper decks dancing, gambling, and doing coke when it should have been getting in the lifeboats.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 870
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 5:39:19 PM

This disaster was a team effort. The Dems poked the hole in the ship, the Reps and Clinton enlarged it and Bush commanded the helm when the ship started sinking and didn't recognize it. Wall Street was on the upper decks dancing, gambling, and doing coke when it should have been getting in the lifeboats


So, you mean these guys? I am all for 'freedom of assembly' and all but the appearance of impropriety is supposed to mean something also.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#United_States
Financial institutions
Ben Bernanke (2008,[95] 2009),[69] Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve
Wim Duisenberg, former European Central Bank President[28] (deceased)
Gordon Richardson,[99](1966, 1975) former Governor of the Bank of England
William J McDonough (1997),[1] former President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Antonio Nogueira Leite (Portuguese) (2011), Economist [89]
Jean-Claude Trichet (2009,[100] 2010[3]) President of the European Central Bank 2003-2011
Paul Volcker (1982, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1997),[1] former Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Siegmund Warburg (1977)[99] (deceased)
Andreas Treichl (2009),[101] CEO of Erste Bank
Rudolf Scholten (2010),[16] Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
David Rockefeller, Sr. Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank [102]
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 871
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 6:03:36 PM

Always the innuendo's and no facts, just garbage!


And bullshyte that is backed by no basis of fact..OY, I can see why this shyte gets yer goat...just once I'd like to see a couple of posters actually cite the souce of their dis-information so that a legitimate argument can be engaged.

I actually don't care who, what, when , or where the mortgage meltdown started...at this point all the finger pointing about who started what is meaningless bullshyte....it's the government, the bulls n bears, and sec that tneed to work in unison to get us out of this mess...and as the Federal courts decided today...it's time to light a fire under all of these guys...and my guess is that OWS had a part in that.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 872
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 6:16:08 PM
Absolutely Irish, they appeared on the cover of several magazines this week. Not to mention numerous articles about what it all means.

The point being this isn't a local phenon, it is sprouting up everywhere. One thing's for sure, it's much harder for the politico's to pretend it isn't there, when it's in your face all the time from everywhere.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 873
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 6:56:43 PM

There are already SC justices who refer to laws outside the US when making decisions, and now according to you guys, the desires of the occupy movement are also taken into consideration


A troll is a troll is a troll is a troll....perhaps providing some rightous proof that's been asked of you on your bullshyte margin craype would be in order at this point.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 874
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 7:39:44 PM
So, due to US EXCEPTIONALISM, we are not obliged in any way to comply with international laws that we signed onto, including the Geneva Convention?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 875
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/28/2011 7:43:08 PM
You don't read so good:



paulk:You missed the point.............. Leading up to the crash, some were controlling huge positions with as little as 4% of the purchase value............ So, why not gamble? When you have more money that YOU can lose, you will be a little more circuspect in pushing the "buy" button. Maybe the answer would be have to have at least 40% of the purchase value.

Irish:
It's not that I doubt the voracity of the statement...but proof please...because I've never heard that insufficient funds/margin call was an issue in any way shape or form with the current CDO mess.


Your having trouble understanding what you've read:

paulk: You and another stated that the courts actually took some things from occupy into account when they handed down their decisions



Irish:
and my guess is that OWS had a part in that


OY:
Absolutely Irish, they appeared on the cover of several magazines this week. Not to mention numerous articles about what it all means.

The point being this isn't a local phenon, it is sprouting up everywhere. One thing's for sure, it's much harder for the politico's to pretend it isn't there, when it's in your face all the time from everywhere.


Let me splain it so you can understand...It's called the court of public opinion...and to further clear this up for you:

the court of public opinion refers to using the news media to influence public support for one side or the other in a court case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_public_opinion



So, once again...how about some supportiung documentation about your bullshyte margin craype third request
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street