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
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 901
Occupy Wall StreetPage 37 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)
... when legislation was pending in 1999 to permit banks to diversify into selling investment securities, the White House urged "that banks given unsatisfactory ratings under the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act be prohibited from enjoying the new diversification privileges" of this legislation.

-"The Housing Boom and Bust" by Thomas Sowell

That pending legislation was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which in large part repealed protections from the Glass-Stegall Act enacted to prevent another depression. So, it would seem that banks had to make dangerous loans in order to benefit from dangerous legislation.

Good God, we will never learn from our mistakes...
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 902
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 6:44:10 PM

BUT........ Had not the politicians.... (spit on the ground here, PUTUWEEE), FORCED the loans to be made, all of the above who were all sort of wrong, would never had the "opportunity" to make the series of mistakes that led to where we are now.


Yes PK, the government for most of the decade of the 2000's allowed all the stops to be pulled out, never righted the government "meddling" of the past and allowed the banksters to run wild. They let them bundle up the basically fraudulent rated investments into AAA securities and use them as capital to leveler up investing 30 to 40 times. Then because they were now considered to be part of the financial framework of the country, they got a shady deal of being "implicitly" backed by the government. So when they failed and came running hat in hand, the government handed them piles of taxpayer cash- no strings attached.

The most reprehensible action was the fact that the executives of these firms, the masters of the universe, beating their chests about how accountable they were for all the years of the good times,, also collected huge bonuses despite crashing their companies and the financial systems. They somehow wrote themselves iron clad irrevocable contracts with their firms and even after they screwed up, they could not be held to account either financially or legally.

Somehow that seems all wrong to come to the government looking for cash but totally unwilling to suffer one iota from their mistakes. The whole situation reeks of injustice. This is why folks are upset and protesting in parks all around the world. Some of that got conflated in other issues but much of this is at the heart of the problem.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 903
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 6:59:42 PM

That pending legislation was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which in large part repealed protections from the Glass-Steagall Act enacted to prevent another depression. So, it would seem that banks had to make dangerous loans in order to benefit from dangerous legislation.

Good God, we will never learn from our mistakes...
I urge you to read that book, it will open your eyes to a lot of things.

Fly guy , Ive recommended that book by Doctor Sowell, he backs up every thing with actual facts, from the congressional record, he's even mentioned his staff who is paid to do the research for a living because Ordinary folks don't have the time and patience to go through the congressional hearing.

Guys like Earth Puppy can provide links but those are opinions, and most of it is not backed up by facts.

For every crisis America has gone through there is a act that is responsible for it, what people don't seem to understand is , the more regulations you have out there , the more the lawyers figure a way around it.

How did you think they figured out the tax loopholes eg: the " double Irish tax strategy" employed by the Google's, Face book, Microsoft etc

How about the tax strategy for Hedge fund Managers deferring taxes by "carried interest" and it looks like they pay no taxes eg" John Paulson when it was reported he paid no taxes.

Check this out Fly, I posted this before in another thread
Hedge fund managers are supposed to pay 15 %t tax , because profits from hedge funds is considered capital gains, not ordinary income.

Most Hedge fund managers don't even pay 15 % at least not right now so long as they leave their money, known as "carried interest," in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay taxes when they cash out, which could be mega years from now.

When ever Hedge fund managers Needs money to live on or what ever they do that By borrowing against the carried interest, most times at absurdly low rates which is currently about 2 to 2.5 % This is it " seems" like they are paying no taxes, and their firms are paying taxes on the retained earnings .

And the best part is?????? Congress was the one that passed that law for the hedge fund managers in the first place, isn't politics wonderful? and you think life isn't fair for the poor and we need more legislation?-CDN_ICEMAN
And you wonder why the fine folks in the financial sector are despised but they are smart enough to know this, instead of listening to Uncle Sam and telling you folks to top up your 401K, I.R.A's, and spend spend spend, even on Credit it keeps the economy going.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 904
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 7:01:26 PM
As usual, my pal wah wah, has it all wrong!

Yes the government made banks consider and make loans for "affordable housing" BUT for low and moderate incomes. Like I've been saying ALL ALONG, what does that mean? It means (well at least it used too) rule of thumb can range from 1.5 to 3 times your annual income(the 1.5 is a credit union, the 3 comes from a number of sources, "money" has it at 2.5).

To be clear Washington Mutual(one that is no longer with us had it at 5 times your annual income). Private mortgage companies were the skies the limit.

So let's look at it from those POV's, take 30K and 50K, even at WM rule, that would be a 150K home for the low income and 250K for the high.

So if banks or brokers were giving a guy with a 30 or 35K income a loan on a 350K home, they were WRONG! I doubt the government was in anybody's business enough to say "hey make that loan!" That was all on the entity making the loan and the stupid broker who showed somebody a house at 10 TIMES their annual income!

But maybe wah wah wah has proof that they did, he knows so many bankers doncha know!

As for your question Irish, you should know the answer by now "wah wah wa wa wah wah wah"!!! How could you expect more?

edit to add: Ice, you forgot the car that's written off as a business expense, and they would NEVER write off a dinner that had nothing to do with business, or the cell phone that the company pays for, or...whatever the expenses they can pad!
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 905
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 7:20:43 PM

For every crisis America has gone through there is a act that is responsible for it

It's not quite so simple. The GLB Act was a deregulating act, not a regulating act as you make it sound.

Although I did quote from it, I will reserve comment about Sowell's book because I wish to avoid a thread tangent.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 906
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 7:33:20 PM
Fly it wasn't a deregulating act in the traditional sense either, nor a regulation act

The purpose of the act was to remove barriers in the market among banking companies Insurance companies etc, The commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to merge into one company eg:" Citigroup/Travellers group"
 carptopus
Joined: 11/9/2011
Msg: 907
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:05:34 PM

so they all simply IGNORED it. Government then repealed the law because it had obviously failed. It let me know at a young age who really makes the rules.

The law and situation was more complex than that.
A lot of the insurance companies left the state or threatened to leave or dropped specific coverage because of the law.
That law drove business away.

The ones that stayed had to increase rates because they had to take up the slack of the companies that left (because they couldn't make money there due to the laws) simply because the risk was less spread around, fewer companies were taking on more risk, which means higher premiums.
i.e. if 2 firms insure 50,000 homes each in a neighborhood the risk (aka costs) is higher per company than if 100 firms insure 1,000 homes each in a neighborhood.

So in order to entice insurance firms to come back, to actually lower premiums, they had to get rid of the law.

They did not ignore the law.
They left. They escaped the law.
And the ones that stayed did conform to the law, but because of what was happening in the bigger picture it meant premiums still had to rise.

Insurance companies can not ignore laws.
Insurance companies do not ignore laws.
A lot of why insurance companies do what they do, charge what they charge, and policies read like they do is because of the law.
Insurance companies have been heavily influenced by bench laws.
Why do you think mold is handled by insurance how it is currently handled?

Insurance companies are seen as deep pockets. They can not ignore laws. You stick them into any courtroom with a jury the sad sack that cuts his foot off with the lawnmower because he used it as a hedge trimmer while drunk and dropped it on his foot is seen as the victim.
One guy get's his foot cut off, gets paid 500 million, and next thing you know your premiums rise because the "spirit" of a homeowners policy means it's covered, which means more specific language in every insurance policy, more things added or paid for a la carte, means more people need to be hired or people need to work longer to update existing policies to include what the judge decreed the insurance policy includes.

Saying insurance companies "IGNORED" a law is extremely disingenuous.
Especially in the California situation.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 908
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:03:22 PM
John Cassidy writes this today on the New Yorker site:

On a day when Barney Frank, the feisty Democrat who co-authored the 2009 financial-reform bill, announced that he will be stepping down from Congress, it was fitting that the fallout from the financial crisis of 2007-2008 was back in the headlines. In refusing to accept the $285 million proposed settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over the sale of toxic mortgage securities, Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the U.S. District Court, did the American public a great service.

At issue is not just the $700 million in losses that investors suffered as a result of purchasing a particularly unwholesome credit default obligation (C.D.O.) that Citi put together, marketed, and bet against just as the housing market was collapsing. What is at stake is the government’s overall failure to bring to book Wall Street for its conduct during the credit bubble. More than three years after the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, none of the other Wall Street firms involved in creating and selling subprime securities has received anything more than a slap on the wrists. And so far the Justice Department hasn’t brought criminal charges against anybody.

The S.E.C.’s case against Citi was a civil one, and Judge Rakoff, in his ruling (pdf), summarized it admirably:

After Citigroup realized in 2007 that the market for mortgage-backed securities was beginning to weaken, Citigroup created a billion-dollar Fund (known as “Class v Funding IIIU”) that allowed it to dump some dubious assets on misinformed investors. This was accomplished by Citigroup’s misrepresenting that the Fund’s assets were attractive investments rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser, whereas in fact Citigroup had arranged to include in the portfolio a substantial percentage of negative projected assets and had then taken a short position in those very assets it had helped select. Having structured the fund as a vehicle for unloading these assets, dubious assets on unwitting investors, Citigroup realized net profits of around $160 million, whereas the investors, the S.E.C. later revealed, lost more than $700 million.

In a stinging fifteen pages, Judge Rakoff called the settlement between the S.E.C. and Citigroup, which was agreed to in October, a sop to the troubled megabank, noting that it was charged only with negligence rather than fraudulent intent; it didn’t admit any wrongdoing; and it received a fine that was “pocket change” to such a huge institution. “If the allegations of the complaint are true, this is a very good deal for Citigroup; and, even if they are untrue, it is a mild and modest cost of doing business,” Rakoff wrote.

If this were a one-off it would be worrying enough. But this is the third such settlement that the S.E.C. has reached with Wall Street banks. In July of last year, Goldman Sachs paid $550 million to settle a case relating to the notorious Abacus deal, in which the investment bank secretly allowed the billionaire hedge-fund manager John Paulson to select some of the mortgage securities underpinning a C.D.O. even though he was planning to short it once the deal closed. In July of this year, JPMorgan Chase settled a C.D.O. case involving a different hedge fund, Magnetar, for $153.6 million. As in the Citi case, the government allowed both Goldman and Morgan to settle without admitting any wrongdoing.

In seeking to settle cases of this nature, banks have three primary aims: to avoid admitting any wrongdoing (such an admission could be used against them in subsequent lawsuits); to avoid going court, where emails and other embarrassing internal documents would be made public; and to persuade the government not to investigate similar deals the firm was responsible for, thus capping its overall liability. In the Citi case, and in the two previous ones, the banks achieved all of their objectives. While the S.E.C. hasn’t said publicly that it has agreed not to pursue further investigations of Citi, Goldman, and Morgan, the banks’ lawyers have said as much, and the government hasn’t contested their statements.

If Judge Rakoff smelt a rat, he wasn’t the only one. Ordinary criminals rarely get the chance to settle charges against them without admitting they have done wrong and violated the law. Why does the S.E.C. treat Wall Street firms any differently? Judge Rakoff pointed out that in a civil complaint filed against an individual who worked at Citi, Brian Stoker, the S.E.C. did accuse Citi of knowingly misleading investors, which, in Rakoff’s words, “would appear to be tantamount to an allegation of knowing and fraudulent intent.” But in settling with the bank as a whole, the S.E.C. invoked the much lesser charge of negligence.

The head of enforcement at the S.E.C., Robert Khuzami, released a lengthy statement saying Judge Rakoff’s judgement “ignores decades of established practice throughout federal agencies and decisions of the federal courts.” That may well be true, but that only raises larger questions about the cozy relationship between Wall Street and its primary regulator. Khuzami is, by all accounts, a tough and able lawyer, who earlier in his career worked for more than a decade in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. But he subsequently spent seven years in a highly remunerated position at Deutsche Bank, one of the firms that the S.E.C. is now investigating. After that experience, Khuzami would hardly be human if he hadn’t come to view the world at least partly through the lens of Wall Street.

I say all this as someone who argued in my 2009 book, “How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities,” that misaligned incentives and over-optimism rather than outright crookery were at the heart of the subprime meltdown. Back then, I wrote,

My perhaps controversial suggestion is that Chuck Prince, Stan O’Neal, John Thain, and the rest of the Wall Street executives whose financial blundering and multi-million dollar pay packages have featured on the front pages during the past two years are neither sociopaths, nor idiots, nor felons…. Some of these men, perhaps many of them, harbored doubts about what was happening, but the competitive environment they operated in provided them with no incentive to pull back.

I stick by those words. But in 2009 I wasn’t aware that, as the subprime market was crumbling, Citi, Goldman, and other firms were cooking up deals with hedge funds that made a killing from shorting the securities that other, less informed, clients of the firms ended up holding. Was Prince, Citi’s C.E.O. at the time, aware of what his employees were doing? If not, why not? Did Lloyd Blankfein know that Goldman was doing roughly the same thing? How much did Jamie Dimon, who has largely escaped criticism, know about the Magnetar deal and similar ventures that JPMorgan was involved in?

Since none of the S.E.C.’s cases has gone to court, and the government has published only a minimal amount of factual evidence to support its case, it is impossible to tell how widespread the misconduct was, or how high up it went. Above all else, it was the S.E.C.’s failure to pursue its investigation to the point where it could shed light on these sorts of matters that prompted Judge Rakoff to take the action he did. “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 judge wrote.

To which I can only add: Amen.

This is one of the things that has brought people out into the streets. We live in Prohibition era Chicago and the cops are on the payroll of the crooks. Thank God one judge has recognized that justice isn't served by allowing the crooks to make sweetheart deals. And I wouldn't be surprised if the outrage expressed by the 99% strengthened his resolve.
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 909
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:14:05 PM
halfa....



We live in Prohibition era Chicago and the cops are on the payroll of the crooks.


From one who actually LIVES in Chicago and has seen up close and very much impersonal the guy in charge (Obama) of the top cop in the nation (Holder), you can bet that the "take" has increased many fold. Wait until the sludge and crap is unearthed from the Obama administration, the most "transparent" administration ever. Where is the outrage of the Fake 99% of this man's total failure and conning. Remember, Obama learned the Chicago Way from the feet of King Daley II and the Dem political dictatorship.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 910
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:20:34 PM
Seriously dude? This is what you come up with?

The investment banks nearly plunged the world into a depression, all the while making money for the insiders. And you have vague and stupid comments about Obama? He did save your country from a complete frickin' meltdown. Then saved the auto industry. Then killed Osama and toppled Gadaffi. Is there any President since Roosevelt who has a record that good? (The answer is no)
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 911
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:20:47 PM
Carptopus:

Thanks for the clarification on that situation. I was going on my limited 20+ year memory of it in the news reports and the cynical comments of my uncle at the time. I stand corrected and, even better, educated.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 912
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 4:22:03 AM

He did save your country from a complete frickin' meltdown.
Really..Prove it, I means specifically what has he done that saved the country from a complete meltdown exactly...I hear you guys say this all the time, Unemployment is still over 9%, GDP suck,s housing sucks, every economic indicator sucks and has since after he took over...what policy has he implemented that actually effected a long term positive effect on the economy?
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 913
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 4:40:16 AM
well the protest in edinburgh has ground to a halt.
i was up the toon yesterday and st andrews square (once THE business capital in scotland)
was virtually empty of tents.

to be honest and im not decrying the protestors here (honest) the fact that
edinburgh zoo is getting 2 pandas on sunday is generating far more interest

(in fact they should be banned those pandas as when visitors are allowed to see them edinburgh will grind to a halt)

still this is a good thread for throwing insults eh?

lol oy thought ny state allowed all to speak freely?
that soon went down like a stuka during the battle of britain eh?

keeps the fangs out folks this is a boss thread

vlad dracul (stuck in his own unanalyticaly minded world)
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 914
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:04:14 AM
halfa...


The investment banks nearly plunged the world into a depression, all the while making money for the insiders.


Brrrrr.... I detect a winter chill blowing down and a Man Crush switching from the peanut farmer the most unpopular president since Jimmy Carter --The One, himself. Can't believe you're turning your affection from the Goober. Maybe it's because Obama is younger and --gad-- a smoker and way active on the golf course? Thing is, halfa, what may seem like a vague and stupid comment to you resonates with anybody who has seen The One in action or inaction. So sorry Obama couldn't grace Canada and hold political office up there (if only he could). While the banks were spreading mayhem because of the genius of Barney Frank, the biggest winches in the problem, Freddie and Fannie, were being defended from audit and inspection by one BO himself.



He did save your country from a complete frickin' meltdown. Then saved the auto industry. Then killed Osama and toppled Gadaffi. Is there any President since Roosevelt who has a record that good? (The answer is no)


I think you mean "F-ing" meltdown, no? I have changed my mind about you, halfa, you do have a sense of humor. And was it not Navy Seal Team 6 that killed Osama, or did I miss our Commander-in-Chief leading from behind? If poor Osama were snuffed by GWB it would most likely be an act of a war criminal. Oh, the hypocrisy. You would have wanted the bearded, stinky one, Osama, dragged back to a US court and put on trial, because, after all, he was just defending his seventh century way of life against the infidel. The Gadaffi thing would have been called "imperialism". But, hey, when you're in love, you see only what you want. Ain't love grand?

Oh, yes, Obama "saved" the auto industry. He screwed bondholders in favor of union toadies who also have Man Crushes and will vote for anybody who keeps their honey pot sweet. Again, love. Now if he can only find a way for the damned Chevy Volt batteries from exploding. GM has promised loaner cars to all 200 people or so who also had the Obama crush and bought the wind up toys.

I will give you that no president since FDR, with the possible exception of LBJ, has done so much to change the character of the country. But he did promise to do that, and in another thread about BHO being a total failure, I opposed this sentiment and said that he is probably the most successful president since FDR in flouting the law and making the US the next USSR.

So, to relate this to Occupy Drum Bang, and their not seeing that BHO is part of the problem and not the solution, I can boil it down only to the same thing that has so many posters on here star-crossed . Yes, that four letter word.

BHO is leading from behind and has told us to "eat our peas" and bend over. Love is love.

PS, that is "timedude" to you, sir.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 915
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 6:26:46 AM
Good Lord Halftimedad, what is with this love for President Obama? I really don't understand it, look...... Im sure he's a nice guy and you believe He doesn't deserve to be thrown under the bus, but the reality is America is worse off ( sorry for the bad grammar) today under his administration.

Oh the Auto Industry was saved, bad move there, yes some jobs were saved and Within 7 to 12 years GM and Chrysler will be bankrupt again, so our children, grandchildren and godchildren will be paying for it instead of us.

Gaddafi and Bin Laden is dead, and so what? that doesn't create jobs, Wall Street is still a mess, Unemployment 9% and rising, U.S credit rating Dropped, government spending is becoming a drag on growth. While there was much attention on the 2009 federal government stimulus program, total government spending was flat, because the federal spending only offset the cutbacks at the state and local levels.

I think you need to look at the whole picture , its like the guy that eats fried chicken every night, sure it may fill you up and you don't go hungry but eventually it will catch up to you , clog your arteries and then you might have a heart attack.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 916
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:40:42 AM
It was reported that 5 million auto related jobs were saved by the bailout of the auto industry...I wonder how many banker/securities bonuses were saved by BUSH's TARP.

Oh and I almost forgot...the republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class and lower them for the rich:

As the Senate considers an extension of the payroll tax holiday, the big question is: why in the world would Republicans in Congress consider raising middle class taxes by $1,000 to $1,500 per household in the midst of an economic downturn and an election year?

This is a particularly vexing question when you recall the ardor with which the GOP has campaigned against raising the taxes paid by millionaires and billionaires by even one dime.

At the beginning of the week it appeared that virtually every Republican in the Senate was prepared to vote no on a Democratic proposal to extend and broaden the current payroll tax holiday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/does-gop-really-want-to-i_b_1120258.html
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 917
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 7:59:12 AM
I don't know If I believe those numbers Irish Contrary to popular belief, bankruptcy does not mean companies close their doors and send employees home. President Obama tried to sell this is the false message on his victory tour of Detroit. If General Motors had gone through a normal bankruptcy without taxpayer bailouts, there would still be GM jobs, who knows according to some leading economist maybe even more than there are now,We do not know because that was the road not taken.

Lets stick to what We do know,the airlines that went through bankruptcy, Their planes kept flying, and pilots, mechanics and flight attendants reported to work, even if there were fewer of them.

The Geniuses in Washington estimates approximately $14 billion price tag for the GM and Chrysler bailouts. What has the $14 billion bought us? It certainly hasn't saved millions of jobs--more like under 5,000, and probably fewer, If we dig deeper, we find that most of the taxpayer money went to protecting members of the United Auto Workers.

When GM filed its taxpayer-funded bankruptcy, it had 92,000 employees. After bankruptcy it shrunk to 77,000, for a 16% loss of jobs. The GM job loss was only four percentage points lower than the airlines, which were in much worse shape, My guess is that a regular bankruptcy would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs at GM as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.

Government intervention is a terrible precedent because it fosters corruption and political favoritism,It allows the current government to reward contributors to its political campaigns and, perhaps more significantly, to scare others into costly political activities. All of this lowers the productivity of the economy and makes all of us poorer. If GM and Chrysler becomes the precedent, we are headed toward as shift closer to third world status and a loss of rule of law IMO.

Sorry for the long rant.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 918
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 8:55:28 AM
Good morning to all, he11uva rally today! Couple of things:

"Insurance Companies can not ignore the law."

No, but they ignore their customers all the time! No business model is perfect, and I get insurance, but before we sing the praises of these companies,lest we forget some of their faults.

It took the healthcare bill, to eliminate "pre-existing conditions", I'm sure that the insurance companies are pouring a ton into their lobbyists to get back to business as usual and get this rescinded.

Have you ever fought an insurance company about an auto, health or home claim? It's like fighting an 800 pound gorilla. They have tons of gate keepers, work arounds, adjusters and of course freakin lawyers! They don't care what they promised you when they sold you the policy, it's about collecting the most, while paying the least, even when you are right and have a valid claim.

Lest we forget, the guy running United Healthcare makes 87 million! Now is that his business, did he start it, did he put his money up first to start it??? No he was hired to run it by the board, who are spending the shareholders dough to pay him!

As for the other comments on GM and the auto bailout. Yep the bondholders got screwed, as did the stockholders, as did the unions. The bondholders took it on the chin. The unions made out on stock in the company but had to give on wages. The stockholders ended up with bupkis, so to speak.

Now while all are claiming that a bankruptcy filing without government stepping in would have resulted in the same, I doubt it. It would have taken longer, more negoiatations, more freakin lawyers, on all sides. Lost wages, lost production and maybe a much smaller company when it emerged from bankruptcy.

What everyone forgets is the outside jobs, not only of suppliers, but ancilary jobs around the area of all. Dealers, mechanics, people who ran restaurants around these businesses and a slew of others. While I can't attest to the accuracy of the numbers, it was said and widely accepted, that for every plant job, 4 other jobs would be affected.

At any rate, the deal was swallowed to the detriment of all, except the freakin executives who ran this company into the ground. Even now I'm sure these folks running it are hardly doing an Iacoca and taking a $1 a year till it turns profitable!

As for my pal Vlad, glad to hear from you buddy! Yes NY people let others have their say, WHEN they have something to contribute, other wise(yawn) it just gets boring hearing "wah wah wa-wah" all the time! I'm not stopping anybody from posting their opinion, I just am more passionate about mine!

edit to add: As to my buddy Irish's point, gee I thought the republican'ts were all about not raising taxes? They even signed a pledge with their buddy Norville to that effect. Why would they not pass the tax bill now before them on payroll taxes? Becuase the simple answer is they don't want to give Obama a win, so they will stick it to 120 million american families!
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 919
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:05:22 AM
indeed you are passionate oy

and fair play to you

im passionate about mine as well but i just cant get these
keeping on about one thing without flying away on a tangent right

still the good thing about debate is the passion it arouses no matter what side
we be on.

as i said the pandas coming to edinburgh zoo have attracted more publicity
than the ows protest thing so although the protestors may be passionate
the public, in edinburgh at least are not.

so i still dont think they ahve achieved much mate
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 920
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 9:08:40 AM

I'm not stopping anybody from posting their opinion, I just am more passionate about mine!


But yanno OY...opinions are like azzholes-everyone's got one...how about backing up some of these lame azzed opinions with more than "because I said so"...???...how about providing some proof...some third party validation...(well maybe not from the russian media)...something more than wah wah wah wah and trolling for a rise????
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 921
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 3:33:05 PM

edit to add: As to my buddy Irish's point, gee I thought the republican'ts were all about not raising taxes? They even signed a pledge with their buddy Norville to that effect. Why would they not pass the tax bill now before them on payroll taxes? Becuase the simple answer is they don't want to give Obama a win, so they will stick it to 120 million american families!


Because it raises taxes and is just another stimulus bill.

Here is the NY Times comments on the bill....and we know they lean to the far left.


Obama Jobs Bill — 2011

After Republicans took control of the House in January 2011 after their big midterm victories, the debate in Washington focused on spending cuts, not stimulus. But with economic growth stalling in the late summer of 2011, unemployment still stubbornly high and the risk of a “double dip’' recession rising, Mr. Obama went before Congress in September to push for a $447 billion package of tax cuts and new government spending.

The centerpiece of the bill, known as the American Jobs Act, is an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes, worth $240 billion, under which the tax paid by employees would be cut in half through 2012. Smaller businesses would also get a cut in their payroll taxes, as well as a tax holiday for hiring new employees. The plan also provides $140 billion for modernizing schools and repairing roads and bridges — spending that Mr. Obama portrayed as critical to maintaining America’s competitiveness.

The bulk of the plan –- some $400 billion over ten years — would be paid for by tax changes that would limit itemized deductions, such as those for charitable contributions and other expenditures, that may be taken by individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making over $250,000 a year. In Mr. Obama’s proposal, the rest would come from provisions affecting oil and gas companies, hedge funds, and the owners of corporate jets.

In October, Democratic leaders in the Senate replaced Mr. Obama’s proposed tax changes with a “millionaires tax,’' a 5.6 percent surtax on income over that level, but Republicans blocked the package from coming to a vote.


So they are keeping their promise to NOT raise taxes.

A;so as the bill points out the payroll tax is not a new tax but a ending of a tax reduction that was set to expire this year.

Most democrats opposed the extension for tax reduction Obama pushed for and signed into law so why would they want to extend this one if they opposed the last one.

If you would like to read the bill for yourself here is a link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.674:
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 922
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 3:36:25 PM

A;so as the bill points out the payroll tax is not a new tax but a ending of a tax reduction that was set to expire this year


That is so bullshyte!!! If that is the case then why all the GOP craype about keeping the BUSH tax breaks that were set to expire in 2011 and now are set to expire in 2012...well the simple answer is that the wealthy are the only ones to benefit from the Bush tax cuts...and the payroll tax only benefits we po working slobs.

Add to edit:


So if the tax reduction was so harmful why did he make it law.


Apparently you do not read too much....I wonder why he would have signed such an extension myself....as do many democrats...it is one of the reasons many democrats are not happy with President Obama.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 923
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 3:44:43 PM

That is so bullshyte!!! If that is the case then why all the GOP craype about keeping the BUSH tax breaks that were set to expire in 2011 and now are set to expire in 2012...well the simple answer is that the wealthy are the only ones to benefit from the Bush tax cuts...and the payroll tax only benefits we po working slobs.


No BS here your illustrious president singed the extension you mentioned into law....Thus the 2012 expiration the law now has.

So if the tax reduction was so harmful why did he make it law.

Go read the bill before congress now it spends more than it cuts by billions of dollars.

So anyway you want to slice it the bill the GOP is not voting for is raising taxes as well as it is another stimulus.....That spends more borrowed money the country(taxpayers) don't have.

Edit to add...


Apparently you do not read too much....I wonder why he would have signed such an extension myself....as do many democrats...it is one of the reasons many democrats are not happy with President Obama.


Actually I read a good bit.....That is why I know this bill is a tax increase not a tax reduction as claimed by the dems.

Well that is one thing we can agree on, as I am not happy with obozo either and the reason he will be out of a job come 2013.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 924
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 4:31:29 PM
What a difference a year makes. Last year it was the Republican Party that used Christmas as a weapon against the president as they held unemployment benefits hostage in exchange for an extension of the Bush tax cuts. This year, it is the president who using the holiday season to put pressure on vulnerable congressional incumbents in order to get unemployment insurance extended. Many congressional Republicans might be more than happy to throw two million Americans into dire poverty this holiday season, but it would not be a wise move for a party that wishes to win the White House next year to raise taxes and impoverish millions over the holidays.

Obama also delivered his message in the simplest way possible. If Republicans vote no taxes for millions of Americans will go up. If they vote yes, millions of working Americans will have an extra $1,500 next year. It really doesn’t get an easier than that. The ideological far left was outraged last year that Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts, but what they didn’t see is the damage that would have been done to both this president and the Democratic Party if Obama would have taken a stand that would have gravely damaged millions of Americans over the holidays.

This year the GOP has no Christmas hostage to threaten, so the pressure is on them. They can raise taxes on working class Americans and ruin the holidays for millions, or they can show the nation how much they really value their ideology and put electoral politics first. Either way, Obama is likely to keep up the political pressure through the holiday season.

No one is asking Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s hearts to grow ten sizes overnight, but America will not forgive them or their party if they raise taxes and let the unemployed plunge deeper into poverty this holiday season.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-gop-grinch

And a Quinnipiac poll puts the GOP approval rating at 19%
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 925
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/30/2011 5:20:45 PM

And a Quinnipiac poll puts the GOP approval rating at 19%


All of congress has that same number.....BTW.....If you want us to take your stats seriously you need to use unbiased sources.

That is a far left university at best.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street