Who are the protesters behind Occupy Wall Street–and what do they want?

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank and Dodd forced banks to give bad loans. Banks giving bad loans offset risk by selling tranches of CDO’s.

In the end government interference caused the problem.😉
 
Frank and Dodd forced banks to give bad loans. Banks giving bad loans offset risk by selling tranches of CDO’s.
That is a common misconception. Over 80% of sub-prime loans were issued by financial institutions which did not fall under the CRA. In other words, the vast majority of bad loans were issued by banks and other lenders acting on their own free will with 0 government interference.
 
That is a common misconception. Over 80% of sub-prime loans were issued by financial institutions which did not fall under the CRA. In other words, the vast majority of bad loans were issued by banks and other lenders acting on their own free will with 0 government interference.
Yes, they gave out loans under regulations loosened by the government.

And what were the loans for? Mostly for credit card and car loan consolidation, because the interest was less. and who ran up the credit cards? you and me. Not rhe banks, not Wall Street…
 
And what were the loans for? Mostly for credit card and car loan consolidation, because the interest was less. and who ran up the credit cards? you and me. Not rhe banks, not Wall Street…
I dont disagree with that, however, it doesn’t justify the practices of Wall Street firms. Most of the damage wasn’t caused by the individuals who took out those loans and couldn’t pay them back; it was caused by Wall Street firms marketing those debt obligations as good investments when they knew those securities were garbage.
 
I dont disagree with that, however, it doesn’t justify the practices of Wall Street firms. Most of the damage wasn’t caused by the individuals who took out those loans and couldn’t pay them back; it was caused by Wall Street firms marketing those debt obligations as good investments when they knew those securities were garbage.
Almost by definition, the damage was caused by individuals who took out loans which they couldn’t pay back. Without bad loans to begin with, there could be no bad mortgage backed securities. That’s where it started.

Do I blame individuals for taking out bad loans? Especially since they probably had to lie on the loan apps just to get the loan? Not a whole lot. They were, I think, sold homes and sold loans which they had no business buying. And they were, I think, told to lie on the loan apps, at least implicitly.

Should they have known better? Sure. A mid-level casino worker in Vegas making a modest salary had no business buying six high priced houses, yet it happened. At some point shouldn’t the homebuyer back off and say “whoa! this is too crazy!”? Sure. And shouldn’t the secondary loan packagers at some point say, “look, we just can’t turn these sow’s ears into silk purses.” Yes. And shouldn’t Standard & Poors have said, “no way does this get a triple-A rating.”? Yes.
But everyone figured home prices had nowhere to go but up and so it would all work out. Wrong assumptions yield bad decisions.
 
There were laws in place to force the banks to make the bad loans to “underprivaleged” folks. So it is hard to blame the banks.

But there is plenty to blame the banks for otherwise, and how they have been handling the foreclosures is disgraceful.
 
  1. How many of you ever failed to report income while at the same time you voted to allot more govt. revenues for more social programs? If so, do you realize that you are defrauding the very people whom you claim to want to help by not paying your fair share of taxes? Do you realize the hypocrisy?
  2. Is there Social Justice by raising taxes on those who can handle their pleasure and giving it to those who can’t handle their pleasure?
  3. Is there Social Justice when the govt. supremely intrudes into the lives of taxpayers, only to be spent on non-essentials by the recipients?
  4. Is there Social Justice when the govt. can not redistribute work ethic, ability to resist temptation, or frugal spending habits?
  5. Is there Social Justice when the govt. takes from the more responsible and gives it to the less responsible?
  6. Do people realize that Robin Hood was during a monarchy, not a democracy, and that stealing is a crime and breaking the 8th commandment?
  7. Is there Social Justice when married parents pay for 22 years of health, education, and welfare of their own kids, then are additionally taxed to pay for 22 years of health, education, and welfare of unmarried parent’s kids?
  8. Do people realize that not just large corporations NEED to be responsible if democracy has a hope of survival?
cnn.com/2011/10/02/business/wall-street-protests/
 
From what I can see if you go on global media places on Facebook is not just Wall Street.

Many countries and cities around the world are joining in with organized protests against governments and big business moguls. Everybody should pay their fair share in tax.

You would think by now governments could convince the public that everybody shares a fair tax burden according to their income. Apparently not!

Does Capitalism really work or does it favor a select few?
 
From what I can see if you go on global media places on Facebook is not just Wall Street.

Many countries and cities around the world are joining in with organized protests against governments and big business moguls. Everybody should pay their fair share in tax.

You would think by now governments could convince the public that everybody shares a fair tax burden according to their income. Apparently not!

Does Capitalism really work or does it favor a select few?
It really does work…much better than the alternatives.
 
It really does work…much better than the alternatives.
I think what you state here:
“The fact that we’re here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means ‘The buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” - Barack Obama
is true not just for America but many Western countries gripped with debt burdens.
 
There were laws in place to force the banks to make the bad loans to “underprivaleged” folks. So it is hard to blame the banks.

But there is plenty to blame the banks for otherwise, and how they have been handling the foreclosures is disgraceful.
In a true market economy, grumbling about the greed and the stupidity of the bankers would be moot. For the market would have already rewarded their stupidity by folding them like a stack of cards.

By legislating them into social policy of giving loans to people who were bad risks, the government in effect underwrote the banks failure to where market forces were no longer in effect. The government in effect took on the risk from the banks, who were in a no lose kind of situation.
 
From what I can see if you go on global media places on Facebook is not just Wall Street.

Many countries and cities around the world are joining in with organized protests against governments and big business moguls. Everybody should pay their fair share in tax.

You would think by now governments could convince the public that everybody shares a fair tax burden according to their income. Apparently not!

Does Capitalism really work or does it favor a select few?
It seems to have worked quite well in that the more capitalist countries are the ones where the poor are more likely to suffer from obesity.
Take China for instance. Obesity is a bigger problem whereas when it had a communistic economy of central control, famines happened quite regularly.

North and South Korea make another very good example. an artificial line drawn on the map was all that separated a people that had identical cultures and languages only 60 years ago.

And now South Korea has the eleventh largest economy in the world, while North Koreans are perpetually starving to death.

Capitalism works—if it is allowed to work. The greed of the envious nevertheless can kill that goose that lays golden eggs.
Instead of learning about how unprecedented in world history a strong and vibrant middle class is, schools are filling young heads with visions of Marxism, and make the rich pay for our education and a living wage for doing nothing and free everything, while at the same time shutting down the energy industry and whole state economies for the sake of toads or even polar bears 3000 miles away.

Capitalism works at creating wealth. It doesn’t work at creating equality
Those who stress equality of course should know that means 98 % of the people living at starvation level, while two percent have everything.

“Fair share” and “greed” are merely propaganda slogans, as far as I can tell. There is no number here.
 
High debt is inevitable in welfare economies that must borrow in order to pay for the needs of its citizens. Greece and what is happening in Europe really ought to be a wake up call for Americans who are following in the footsteps of Greece at breakneck speed.

But if you must finance your own well-being on the backs of your children and great grandchildren, at least ensure that you bother to have children to pay. The Ponzi scheme of gladly paying tomorrow for what you want today will fall apart way sooner when it is noticed that there is nobody going to be around to pay that bill.
 
1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation. In 1773, agitators blocked the importation of tea by East India Trading Company ships across the country. In Boston harbor, a band of protesters led by Samuel Adams boarded the corporation’s ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. No East India Trading Company employees were harmed, but the destruction of the company’s tea is estimated to be worth up to $2 million in today’s money. The Occupy Wall Street protests have targetedbig banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, as well as multinational corporations like GE with sit-ins and peaceful rallies.

**2.) The Original Boston Tea Party Feared That Corporate Greed Would Destroy America. **As Professor Benjamin Carp has argued, colonists perceived the East India Trading Company as a “fearsome monopolistic company that was going to rob them blind and pave the way maybe for their enslavement.” A popular pamphlet called The Alarm agitated for a revolt against the East India Trading Company by warning that the British corporation would devastate America just as it had devastated South Asian colonies: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. …] And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.”

3.) The Original Boston Tea Party Believed Government Necessary To Protect Against Corporate Excess. Smithsonian historian Barbara Smith has noted that Samuel Adams believed that oppression could occur when governments are too weak. As Adams explained in a Boston newspaper, government should exist “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” Patriots behind the Tea Party revolt believed “rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty,” says Smith. Occupy Wall Street protesters demand a country that invests in education, infrastructure, and jobs.

4.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was Sparked By A Corporate Tax Cut For A British Corporation. The Tea Act, a law by the British Parliament exempting tea imported by the East India Trading Company from taxes and allowing the corporation to directly ship its tea to the colonies for sale, is credited with setting off the Boston Tea Party. The law was perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company by shutting off competition from American shippers. George R.T. Hewes, one of the patriots who boarded the East India Trading Company ships and dumped the tea, told a biographer that the East India Trading Company had twisted the laws so “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity.” Occupy Wall Street demands the end of corporate tax loopholes as well as the enactment of higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires.

**5.) The Original Boston Tea Party Wanted A Stronger Democracy. **There is a common misconception that the Boston Tea Party was simply a revolt against taxation. The truth is much more nuanced, and there were many factors behind the opposition to the East India Company and the British government. Although the colonists resented taxes levied by a distant British Parliament, in the years preceding the Tea Party, the Massachusetts colony had levied taxes several times to pay for local services. The issue at hand was representation and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Patrick Henry and other patriots organized the revolutionary effort by claiming that legitimate laws and taxes could only be passed by legislatures elected by Americans. According to historian Benjamin Carp, the protesters in Boston perceived that the British government’s actions were set by the East India Trading Company. “As Americans learned more about the provisions of the new East India Company laws, they realized that Parliament would sooner lend a hand to the Company than the colonies,” wrote Carp.

crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/why-occupy-wall-street-embodies-real-
 
A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.

TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.

One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.

Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.

Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”

Read more: dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/#ixzz1a4DWUHKw
 
It’s just a left wing mob. But any mob can be dangerous, and this one seems to be unreasonable and anarchic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top