Occupy Wall Street

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:21 pm

protobuilder wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:Why do you insist on giving the politicians a big fucking pass? The reason we're in the mess we're in is the the government bailed everyone out. The politicians encouraged banks to loan money to those that couldn't afford them, implied the government would back the loans via Freddie mack and fanny mae etc, and then bailed everyone out.
Where have you been the past decade? I have never given politicians a pass, your statement is baseless. Nevertheless, the corporations must also be held no less accountable.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Instead of letting the free market punish the shit out of those involved, the USA tax payer came to rescue.
Illogical. It was unregulated free market which created this situation. The cure for poison is not more poison, no matter how much it would serve your ideological needs.

Batboy2/75 wrote:And it's not over, the next bubble is the education bubble and these protests are the first symptom of the upcoming bust. Again, dumb ass politicians are encouraging people to go to college, don't really care if study something useful, and have backed the student loans that pay for the whole scheme.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I agree that getting overextended for a pointless degree is wasteful, on the other hand a well educated population serves the needs of the country. At any rate, it is the topic of another discussion.

Batboy2/75 wrote:The main reason the cost of a college education is out of fucking control and far far outpaced inflation is the Federal government is backing the entire system with taxpayer backed student loans and grants. Why should higher education control costs etc, the federal government keeps on providing an endless stream of students and taxpayer money to fund everything? However, no one ever rails against the greedy ass higher education industrial complex executives that are ripping off the average american taxpayer.
Again, you've decided to talk about what you want to talk about, rather than the discussion at hand. Also, federal student loans are non-defaultable, meaning you can't get out of paying them back plus interest even if you declare bankruptcy.

Batboy2/75 wrote:The sad sack hipster douchebags protesting are the end result of this failed everyone go to college fantasy the USA has been engaging in since the end of WWII. The occupy wallstreet dip shits are just the tip of the iceburg. All these sad sack gender studies, art, leisure studies, african american or (insert victim group) studies majors in debt up to their eyeballs, have no marketable skills, no work ethic, and are are royaly fucked. The hister douches are just the canaries in the coal mine, wait until the economy is so bad, people with actual skills can't pay their student loans.
It is easy to demonize people rather than listen to them, that's your choice, but simply saying "hipster douchbags" doesn't make it so, and "hipster douchbags" are part of the American political landscape whether you like it or not.

Batboy2/75 wrote:The politicians and their investment banker friends engage in gangster/crony capitalism amd socialism,the exact opposite of a free market, and then blame free markets for the mess. It's almost comical, if it wasn't so fucking sad.
Yes, and what drives it is corporate personhood and the way your beloved conservative supreme court allows corporations to pour unlimited money into the political process. Here's what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about that: "Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly." As it stands, corporations like Goldman Sachs and Barclay's have all the rights and freedoms of individuals, but none of the responsibilities. Does it really sit well with you that Exxon and GE pay no income taxes while posting $19 billion in profits last year?

See: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03 ... oidin.html

Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- fuck this 99% BS. Fully 50% or more of this country believes in a free ride and spending other people money on fantasies. They're just pissed that we're running out of other peoples money (tax payers money and those still stupid/desperate enough to by our debt) to fund their fantasy socialist lifestyles. They don't want to fix anything. They want the ride to continue.
Nonsense. Most of the people in this country DO believe that corporate money should not dominate the political process and that they should be held accountable. At least politicians can and do get voted out of office.
very exciting post, Fat Cat!

Thank you for your kind words comrade!

Songjabong · Post by **Songjabong** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:23 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:Instead of letting the free market punish the shit out of those involved, the USA tax payer came to rescue.
Illogical. It was unregulated free market which created this situation. The cure for poison is not more poison, no matter how much it would serve your ideological needs.

You really have no idea how the monetary system in this country operates, do you. All rates (and thus all flow of capital) is slavishly tied to the fed, and the mortgage industry was (and is) beholden to the whims congress and fannie/freddy. Blaming the "unregulated free market" exposes you for the democrat-talking-point-swallowing fool you are. You like to tell yourself you're a free-thinker, but you've bought their story hook, line, and sinker.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:25 pm

Perhaps so. Since you clearly understand all of this, please explain it to me.

Songjabong · Post by **Songjabong** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:27 pm

Fat Cat wrote:Perhaps so. Since you clearly understand all of this, please explain it to me.

Read a book. "The Big Short" would be a good starting point.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:32 pm

No, you explain it to me. You've clearly indicated your superior grasp of the subject, so I await your exposition.

Thatcher II · Post by **Thatcher II** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:38 pm

High Velocity Lie-Nap! wrote:I

Let me stop you there.

Songjabong · Post by **Songjabong** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote:No, you explain it to me. You've clearly indicated your superior grasp of the subject, so I await your exposition.

No, I've demonstrated you're a democrat party shill, who repeats talking points like "the unregulated free market caused this." I'm not falling for stupid internet debate techniques like "explain the entire world to me" when I tell you one thing you've said is moronic.

Or do you dispute you're moronic for implying we have an unregulated free market? Do you know who alan greenspan is? How about chris dodd? Are you familiar with the Federal Housing Enterprise Reform Act of 2005, or any of the other debates in congress over whether the fanny/freddie system needed an overhaul? It's a market, but it's a long fucking way from free.

It's a complex subject, experts disagree about the nuances, but no one who understands anything about our economy says things like "the unregulated free market" caused this. That's the kind of shit you hear from those unwashed idiots "occupying" wall street.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:54 pm

This seems like a good list of demands.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20111012

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:55 pm

It'd be more accurate to say that the financial sector was poorly regulated, not unregulated. The banks also had less incentive to behave conservatively because they knew they would likely be bailed out. Meanwhile people in the market for a home were also encouraged to take on excessive debt by government mortgage subsidies.

Freki · Post by **Freki** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:04 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:This seems like a good list of demands.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20111012

Funny you post that Troy and the first one, I was just about to ask the assembly, and Pinky specifically, how much of this mess could be traced back to the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act?

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:10 pm

Songjabong wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:No, you explain it to me. You've clearly indicated your superior grasp of the subject, so I await your exposition.
No, I've demonstrated you're a democrat party shill, who repeats talking points like "the unregulated free market caused this." I'm not falling for stupid internet debate techniques like "explain the entire world to me" when I tell you one thing you've said is moronic.

You haven't demonstrated anything midget. I'm not a democrat and have not ever supported a democratic candidate for office. Why do you feel compelled to humiliate yourself like this? You're still mad about the historic analysis of Jewry I made and it's clouding your already anemic judgment.

Songjabong wrote:Or do you dispute you're moronic for implying we have an unregulated free market? Do you know who alan greenspan is? How about chris dodd? Are you familiar with the Federal Housing Enterprise Reform Act of 2005, or any of the other debates in congress over whether the fanny/freddie system needed an overhaul? It's a market, but it's a long fucking way from free.

I never suggested that we have a completely unregulated market. What I did was accurately point out that some of the problems we now face are the result of deregulation my dear ideologue.

Songjabong wrote:It's a complex subject, experts disagree about the nuances, but no one who understands anything about our economy says things like "the unregulated free market" caused this. That's the kind of shit you hear from those unwashed idiots "occupying" wall street.

Wow, you're really distinguishing yourself from the "unwashed idiots" with your highbrow vector analysis. LOL at you kid.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:17 pm

Pinky wrote:It'd be more accurate to say that the financial sector was poorly regulated, not unregulated. The banks also had less incentive to behave conservatively because they knew they would likely be bailed out. Meanwhile people in the market for a home were also encouraged to take on excessive debt by government mortgage subsidies.

Bingo-
(1)politicians want everyone to own a house, despite their credit worthiness or ability to pay.
(2)Corporations are pressured to make loans to all the usual suspects that should not get a loan.
(3)Greedy Corporations see an opening to exploit this shit sandwich and get explicit and implicit promises and or gurantees from politicians to back the bad loans with tax payer dollars if things go tits up.
(4)Since the politicians have eliminated the risk in making these bad loans, lenders go ape shit crazy
(5)Corporations make huge bag loads of $$$$$$$ in the short term
(6) use huge bag loads of $$$$ to pay off and reward politician buddies
(7) politicians are happy because race hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse jackson are happy and leve them alone about afforable housing.
(8) Politicians print out nice glossy campaign material about how they, and they alone arranged for affordable housing for the needy, but financially uncredit worthy.
(9) politicians get re-elected etc.
(10)Finally someone points to the pink elephant in the room- Javier, the illegal gardener from Gardena CA should not be able to borrow half a million dollars and can in no way pay the money back on his $2,000.00 a month gardener job.
(11)Market crashed and the bubble bursts
(12)politicians bail out buddies and try to hide what they've done
(13) FatCat buys the lie that the free market cause the entire fiasco, when it's about as far from the truth as one can get. Calls for more of what caused the problem in the first place.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:18 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:This seems like a good list of demands.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20111012

Except this.

5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company's long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:19 pm

Accountability caused the problem in the first place? Really? It's a bit early in the day to be drinking.

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:22 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:This seems like a good list of demands.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20111012

1. Calling for the re-institution of the parts of Glass-Steagall repealed by GLB is a sure sign of "education" via the progressive blogosphere, and it would still leave us with plenty of companies that are "too big to fail".

2. I've never heard a good argument for the financial transactions tax, and this guy certainly doesn't provide one.

3. OK. But why not ban political contributions from everyone receiving money from the government? Let's start with all public employee unions. They do nothing but lobby against the taxpayer.

4. I'm all for taxing capital gains income the same as any other income, but you have to understand where the incidence of corporate income taxes falls when you do that. It's not clear that this guy understands that. Certainly none of the people who have been repeating Buffet's statements about taxes do.

5. Except for the passing a law making it mandatory, this is a good idea. That's why a lot of executives are already paid with stocks.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:27 pm

Mak,

To get to the heart of one of your arguements, we're in agreement on the legal status of corporations.

I believe that corporations; public, private, non profit, unions, etc. should not be able to contribute a dime of money. Only individual citizens should be able to contribute money to political campaigns etc. and that they should be able to contribute as little or as much as they want, so long as this info publicly disclosed.

I also believe that corporations should not pay corporate income taxes. Only indiviual citizens should pay taxes.

Testiclaw · Post by **Testiclaw** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:38 pm

I also believe that corporations should not pay corporate income taxes. Only indiviual citizens should pay taxes.

I might be able to get behind that if corporations also weren't able to protect the individuals who own the corporation from liability of their effects on others/environment/financial markets and stability.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:56 pm

Batboy2/75 wrote:Mak,

To get to the heart of one of your arguements, we're in agreement on the legal status of corporations.

I believe that corporations; public, private, non profit, unions, etc. should not be able to contribute a dime of money. Only individual citizens should be able to contribute money to political campaigns etc. and that they should be able to contribute as little or as much as they want, so long as this info publicly disclosed.

The only caveat I have to what you say here is this: why should a rich person have more influence than a poor person in the political process. Why not just give rich people more votes? I'm not so much disagreeing as I am asking for your rationale for allowing unlimited personal contributions.

Batboy2/75 wrote:I also believe that corporations should not pay corporate income taxes. Only indiviual citizens should pay taxes.

Again, why? Corporations are allowed to accrue corporate profits, not merely individuals, so if they are allowed the same privileges shouldn't they be accorded the same responsibilities? What is the advantage you perceive in your way?

Testiclaw · Post by **Testiclaw** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:58 pm

Only indiviual citizens should pay taxes

Also, Romney for the win... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

The Venerable Bogatir X · Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:44 pm

Fat Cat wrote: but don't you feel some level of resentment towards multimillionaire accountants who have damaged the nation in the service of short term greed?

Sure, but they are third on my list:

1. the consumer
2. ACORN and all who supported it from the political side
3. the accountants you referenced above

People have choices and it was intuitively wrong for them to buy more than they can afford. And if they did not 'get it', they certainly didn't deserve that level of financial responsibility in the first place. On paper, I certainly did not deserve the level of loan I was qualified for and acted accordingly. The consumer who chose to do the wrong thing is at the top of the list. The idiot politicians who felt like everyone deserves to own a home are number two. Three, are the greedy financial institutions who said if this is what Uncle Sam wants us to do, let's run like hell with it. I might be wrong, but not all banks/lenders dealt in B/ACORN paper.

Also, factually speaking, you cannot "choose not to be the 99%", you are and you will pay for the damages they have incurred.

IMO, the damages created are a shared by a small fraction of that alleged 1%, Barney Frank and a handful of politicians driving ACORN and last but not least, a fairly large fraction of consumers who allowed themselves to get in over their heads. It wasn't just a core group of mega rich who caused the mess. The 99%'ers we are talking about today are looking for safety in masses and I don't lump myself in with them.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:59 pm

Let me be the first to say that people SHOULD be held accountable for their choices. I certainly try to pay my debts. But that includes corporations, and they made an entire industry out of predatory lending practices, such as (to quote from Ameriquest Mortgage's own $325 million plea agreement): "deceiving borrowers about the terms of their loans, forging documents, falsifying appraisals and fabricating borrowers' income to qualify them for loans they couldn't afford." How are ignorant lower income people supposed to make well informed decisions if their creditors are lying to them?

TomFurman · Post by **TomFurman** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:03 am

So, Where does this go? Flat Tax? Fair Tax? 9/9/9?

What would be balanced structure to get business back in America and provide a method to reduce the debt?

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:11 am

i strongly endorse the suggestion of ''The Big Short" by Mike Lewis of "Moneyball" fame.

i also submit check on the history, cause, and effect of "Stated Income" policies.

Then look and see who Wall Street has contributed the most to...i will leave it to you to figure out but will give you a hint...his wife's nickname is Moochelle

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 am

Shafman wrote:It's interesting Rant is writing the same things you are, Pac.

Heh.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:42 am

Fat Cat wrote:Let me be the first to say that people SHOULD be held accountable for their choices. I certainly try to pay my debts.

Welcome to the 1%.

IGX

Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street