johnnyh
Junior Member
Posts • 4,492
Likes • 2,102
March 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by johnnyh on Oct 8, 2011 9:39:05 GMT 1, Lojack read my posts correctly othercsay I wad blaming bush actually if you look at your recent history since say the 60's in general you vote as a country republican.
Your debt problem is war/ arms based. Big debt increase with regan as arms race with Russia.followed by bush snr and the Iraq war.your debt during Clinton did not reduce but it did in relationship to GDP. Note Clinton was a loving soul and tried to work on peace.bush jar gets in and he goes to war and massive increase in your debt. Obama's debt problem is two fold the big economic collapse and paying for the forces that bush sent out.
So i actually do not blame the republicans but I blame the Americans as you vote for them and if enough of you bothered to vote for an alternative you would probably not be in the mess you are now.
So point being big business regardless of earnings and tax is not the cause of American debt arms spending and war is. That's why I think this protest is incorrect as it does not target the cause of the problem also the American people should vote for a more left or socialist government
You me etc can think what we like however the above is fact go look at USA debt patterns and you will see that this is true.
So please make sure you read my posts and check the data before commenting
Lojack read my posts correctly othercsay I wad blaming bush actually if you look at your recent history since say the 60's in general you vote as a country republican.
Your debt problem is war/ arms based. Big debt increase with regan as arms race with Russia.followed by bush snr and the Iraq war.your debt during Clinton did not reduce but it did in relationship to GDP. Note Clinton was a loving soul and tried to work on peace.bush jar gets in and he goes to war and massive increase in your debt. Obama's debt problem is two fold the big economic collapse and paying for the forces that bush sent out.
So i actually do not blame the republicans but I blame the Americans as you vote for them and if enough of you bothered to vote for an alternative you would probably not be in the mess you are now.
So point being big business regardless of earnings and tax is not the cause of American debt arms spending and war is. That's why I think this protest is incorrect as it does not target the cause of the problem also the American people should vote for a more left or socialist government
You me etc can think what we like however the above is fact go look at USA debt patterns and you will see that this is true.
So please make sure you read my posts and check the data before commenting
|
|
lojack
New Member
Posts • 231
Likes • 0
February 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by lojack on Oct 8, 2011 14:25:44 GMT 1, Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt (although these are CBO figures), but your claim that Obama has "created more debt alone than all former president(s) combined" is questionable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_termsAnd taking one idiotic statement to smear a movement that has legitimate gripes about the way banks and big business have flourished while ordinary Americans are out of work is a bit misleading. Why is it that the media adorns the tea party (a largely "astro-turf" movement) with legitimacy (despite idiotic statements like "No socialized medicine! Hands off my Medicare" while the OWS protesters are slammed for having iPhones?
If the treasury departments numbers aren't right I don't know whose is: www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw
And yes it's one idiotic statement... which perfectly demonstrates what the people there are like. Did you see their "constitution"? Looks just like that quote. Nothing listed in that quote would help anything, but just make things worse. How do they not understand that?
Lojack read my posts correctly othercsay I wad blaming bush actually if you look at your recent history since say the 60's in general you vote as a country republican. Your debt problem is war/ arms based. Big debt increase with regan as arms race with Russia.followed by bush snr and the Iraq war.your debt during Clinton did not reduce but it did in relationship to GDP. Note Clinton was a loving soul and tried to work on peace.bush jar gets in and he goes to war and massive increase in your debt. Obama's debt problem is two fold the big economic collapse and paying for the forces that bush sent out.So i actually do not blame the republicans but I blame the Americans as you vote for them and if enough of you bothered to vote for an alternative you would probably not be in the mess you are now. So point being big business regardless of earnings and tax is not the cause of American debt arms spending and war is. That's why I think this protest is incorrect as it does not target the cause of the problem also the American people should vote for a more left or socialist government You me etc can think what we like however the above is fact go look at USA debt patterns and you will see that this is true. So please make sure you read my posts and check the data before commenting
So wrong. We're in debt from Obama mostly for his "stimulus package" which is a load of horse s**t. It's the most unorganized and unthought out thing I've ever heard of. $650 million for digital television conversion coupons? Right cause we need TV so bad... GO OBAMA!!
And second the troops bush sent out were paid for when they went out, then most were brought back. Why would he be paying for them now? HE might be paying for all the soldiers he sent to Afganistan but he did that on his own, totally bush free
Thanks for your concern but I know I will not be voting for socialism anytime soon. And I can say the same for a lot of the public. This is america, we're not socialists.
BTW Obama wanting universal health care is beyond idiotic. A simple look at past countries and US states that have tried it would show you that it does not work well. i can't tell you how many horror stories I've heard from canadians about their system. Doctors screening new patients to check if they're sick, supply shortages, doctor shortages, doctors not accepting new patients due to a lack of funds, supplies, etc. I know people that drive from canada to the US for medical attention. Tried it in Tennesse and it failed. Tried it in Hawaii and it failed. Tried it in Caliafornia. Failed.
But I will agree with you that these protestors are targeting the wrong people.
Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt (although these are CBO figures), but your claim that Obama has "created more debt alone than all former president(s) combined" is questionable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_termsAnd taking one idiotic statement to smear a movement that has legitimate gripes about the way banks and big business have flourished while ordinary Americans are out of work is a bit misleading. Why is it that the media adorns the tea party (a largely "astro-turf" movement) with legitimacy (despite idiotic statements like "No socialized medicine! Hands off my Medicare" while the OWS protesters are slammed for having iPhones? If the treasury departments numbers aren't right I don't know whose is: www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hwAnd yes it's one idiotic statement... which perfectly demonstrates what the people there are like. Did you see their "constitution"? Looks just like that quote. Nothing listed in that quote would help anything, but just make things worse. How do they not understand that? Lojack read my posts correctly othercsay I wad blaming bush actually if you look at your recent history since say the 60's in general you vote as a country republican. Your debt problem is war/ arms based. Big debt increase with regan as arms race with Russia.followed by bush snr and the Iraq war.your debt during Clinton did not reduce but it did in relationship to GDP. Note Clinton was a loving soul and tried to work on peace.bush jar gets in and he goes to war and massive increase in your debt. Obama's debt problem is two fold the big economic collapse and paying for the forces that bush sent out.So i actually do not blame the republicans but I blame the Americans as you vote for them and if enough of you bothered to vote for an alternative you would probably not be in the mess you are now. So point being big business regardless of earnings and tax is not the cause of American debt arms spending and war is. That's why I think this protest is incorrect as it does not target the cause of the problem also the American people should vote for a more left or socialist government You me etc can think what we like however the above is fact go look at USA debt patterns and you will see that this is true. So please make sure you read my posts and check the data before commenting So wrong. We're in debt from Obama mostly for his "stimulus package" which is a load of horse s**t. It's the most unorganized and unthought out thing I've ever heard of. $650 million for digital television conversion coupons? Right cause we need TV so bad... GO OBAMA!! And second the troops bush sent out were paid for when they went out, then most were brought back. Why would he be paying for them now? HE might be paying for all the soldiers he sent to Afganistan but he did that on his own, totally bush free Thanks for your concern but I know I will not be voting for socialism anytime soon. And I can say the same for a lot of the public. This is america, we're not socialists. BTW Obama wanting universal health care is beyond idiotic. A simple look at past countries and US states that have tried it would show you that it does not work well. i can't tell you how many horror stories I've heard from canadians about their system. Doctors screening new patients to check if they're sick, supply shortages, doctor shortages, doctors not accepting new patients due to a lack of funds, supplies, etc. I know people that drive from canada to the US for medical attention. Tried it in Tennesse and it failed. Tried it in Hawaii and it failed. Tried it in Caliafornia. Failed. But I will agree with you that these protestors are targeting the wrong people.
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
Posts • 4,492
Likes • 2,102
March 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by johnnyh on Oct 8, 2011 16:26:19 GMT 1, Lojack just check the figs. Us debt was massive before Obama went into office. What you do not seem to realize that yes bush paid the soldiers and bought the weapons but it was with Chinese money. You as a country have to service that debt. You have not paid off regains arms race with the Russians yet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Here's a link for you to read and look at.
Actually universal healthcare does work. You have a small amount of high end healthcare but it services too few people and costs too much. It costs too much as everyone involved needs to make a profit so it is out of control rather than outsourcing driving prices down it is now massively
The European healthcare models all vary but are all miles better than your US one. That is a fact!!!
Little bit of socialism may do you good as at the moment you are pretty much owned by the chinese. Whether you like it or not
Lojack just check the figs. Us debt was massive before Obama went into office. What you do not seem to realize that yes bush paid the soldiers and bought the weapons but it was with Chinese money. You as a country have to service that debt. You have not paid off regains arms race with the Russians yet. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debtHere's a link for you to read and look at. Actually universal healthcare does work. You have a small amount of high end healthcare but it services too few people and costs too much. It costs too much as everyone involved needs to make a profit so it is out of control rather than outsourcing driving prices down it is now massively The European healthcare models all vary but are all miles better than your US one. That is a fact!!! Little bit of socialism may do you good as at the moment you are pretty much owned by the chinese. Whether you like it or not
|
|
lojack
New Member
Posts • 231
Likes • 0
February 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by lojack on Oct 8, 2011 18:26:02 GMT 1, Strictly talking about debt: Obama's - $4.212 trillion National debt accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined - $4.1672 trillion
We're not talking about paying people back, we're talking about debt. The debt would have been tacked on to Bush for what Bush "charged", including the soldiers he sent.
And you can't try to compare European health care systems to ours. For starters Europe doesn't have one big healthcare system, meaning that many smaller, separate, systems are much easier to make work then a HUGE one. The bigger you get the more difficult it is to make systems work. We're not like every other country which is a main reason why we don't do things the same way.
And hell no. We may owe the chinese a lot of money but they don't own us and they're certainly not going to control how we think/act. Hahahahahahahhahah you're funny dude.
Strictly talking about debt: Obama's - $4.212 trillion National debt accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined - $4.1672 trillion
We're not talking about paying people back, we're talking about debt. The debt would have been tacked on to Bush for what Bush "charged", including the soldiers he sent.
And you can't try to compare European health care systems to ours. For starters Europe doesn't have one big healthcare system, meaning that many smaller, separate, systems are much easier to make work then a HUGE one. The bigger you get the more difficult it is to make systems work. We're not like every other country which is a main reason why we don't do things the same way.
And hell no. We may owe the chinese a lot of money but they don't own us and they're certainly not going to control how we think/act. Hahahahahahahhahah you're funny dude.
|
|
Lunch Special
Junior Member
Posts • 1,410
Likes • 535
October 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by Lunch Special on Oct 8, 2011 18:49:54 GMT 1, Strictly talking about debt: Obama's - $4.212 trillion National debt accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined - $4.1672 trillion We're not talking about paying people back, we're talking about debt. The debt would have been tacked on to Bush for what Bush "charged", including the soldiers he sent. And you can't try to compare European health care systems to ours. For starters Europe doesn't have one big healthcare system, meaning that many smaller, separate, systems are much easier to make work then a HUGE one. The bigger you get the more difficult it is to make systems work. We're not like every other country which is a main reason why we don't do things the same way. And hell no. We may owe the chinese a lot of money but they don't own us and they're certainly not going to control how we think/act. Hahahahahahahhahah you're funny dude.
and furthermore.. the United States of America whether we flat ass broke, filthy f-ing rich or poor kinfolk sharing quarter waters on the stoop and sunflower seeds..we still the land of opportunity and got an army ready to do what it has to do-to defend that.
Strictly talking about debt: Obama's - $4.212 trillion National debt accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined - $4.1672 trillion We're not talking about paying people back, we're talking about debt. The debt would have been tacked on to Bush for what Bush "charged", including the soldiers he sent. And you can't try to compare European health care systems to ours. For starters Europe doesn't have one big healthcare system, meaning that many smaller, separate, systems are much easier to make work then a HUGE one. The bigger you get the more difficult it is to make systems work. We're not like every other country which is a main reason why we don't do things the same way. And hell no. We may owe the chinese a lot of money but they don't own us and they're certainly not going to control how we think/act. Hahahahahahahhahah you're funny dude. and furthermore.. the United States of America whether we flat ass broke, filthy f-ing rich or poor kinfolk sharing quarter waters on the stoop and sunflower seeds..we still the land of opportunity and got an army ready to do what it has to do-to defend that.
|
|
BROOKLYNITE
Art Gallery
Junior Member
Posts • 1,054
Likes • 137
June 2008
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by BROOKLYNITE on Oct 8, 2011 18:55:18 GMT 1, Some great points here:
_______________________________________________
Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."
(CNN) -- "An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 1964
It's downright disgusting to listen to conservative and Republican lawmakers, presidential candidates, business owners and media commentators use such vitriol to describe the Occupy Wall Street protesters as hell-bent on destroying America.
How in the world can anyone even form their lips to say such a thing when this very country was founded on the basis of dissent?
Self-professed rodeo clown Glenn Beck castigates the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but he's always running off at the mouth about the Founding Fathers and how brilliant they were.
Without dissent and protest, there is no United States of America! It's as if these folks never picked up a history book to understand how this nation was formed. The very notion of a United States of America started with someone saying, writing and screaming, "Enough is enough!" And when more and more of the early settlers became enraged at the heavy-handed actions of the British, that's when we were on our path to the American Revolution.
Do any of these so-called strict constructionists even read the very U.S. Constitution they love to wave in the faces of their critics?
Every American, no matter if you're young or old; rich or poor; red state or blue state; Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native American; has the freedom to assemble and freedom of speech, which is at the heart of these protests.
In this same space, I praised the tea party for not sitting around and complaining. Instead, they organized and mobilized to affect the political discourse in the Republican Party and have definitely had their voices heard. I may disagree with a number of things the tea party advocates, but there is no way I would condemn them for doing it. As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, "The right to revolt has sources deep in our history."
It's increasingly clear that some Americans love to talk a good game about protests, yet hate it when someone who opposes their views decides to stand up and be heard.
Remember all of those political voices championing the people of Iran taking to the streets to protest? How about Tunisia? Egypt? Libya? Bahrain? What would this world be without protest?
We would have never seen freedom in Eastern Europe were it not without the people there, in the words of civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, being "sick and tired of being sick and tired." Praise God that the children of South Africa, led by the African National Congress, didn't ignore the calls of history. If so, Nelson Mandela would be dying in jail and freedom would have never ended apartheid.
This nation would not have been forced to make real the very principles cited in the Declaration of Independence, or treat every human being as an equal, were it not for the civil rights movement. Those brave men, women and children chose not to accept the status quo, and this nation and the world are much better off because they did.
As a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, I understand fully the sentiment that is being expressed. The massive corporate greed that has devastated the wages of the common worker, and seen the pay of a bunch on Wall Street go through the stratosphere for literally making nothing tangible, has been immoral and obscene.
Wall Street and their protectors in Washington -- Democrat and Republican -- say nothing is wrong with making a profit. That is absolutely true. But what is shameful and outlandish is to watch the American taxpayer save the jobs (and big bonuses) of these financial miscreants, only to see them jack up fees left and right. Without the American people they would have had to pack up their belongings and hit the pavement. Instead, they refuse to work with homeowners struggling to meet the big mortgage payments that Wall Street helped underwrite; then sell in exotic transactions that wrecked this nation's financial infrastructure.
Conservatives call this an assault on capitalism. No, Occupy Wall Street is about trying to bring some decency and honesty back to an industry that used to have some. Instead, what we have today are literal financial pirates trying to take the largest booty they can find. They don't care about the long-term health of this country. It's all about the next quarterly earnings reports and their massive year-end bonuses.
This fight that Occupy Wall Street is engaged in is nothing short of a battle for the soul of this nation. Are we going to continue to allow ourselves to be held hostage by the big banks? Will we continue to allow them to trample over us with their "too big to fail" attitude?
No, no, and hell no. It's time to bring these Goliaths to their knees by any means necessary. That mean the young and righteous Davids must protest, march, sit-in, work the halls of Congress and state capitals nationwide, and make it clear that as long as Wall Street, its lobbyists and political protectors continue to mistreat the common man and woman, they are our mortal enemy.
Now is not the time to dismiss the protesters as a bunch of lefty college students with no guidance, no substance and no mission. Instead of listening to politicians pimp the next generation, these folks are saying in the words of the founders of the nation's first black newspaper, Freedom's Journal: "We wish to plead our own cause; too long have others spoken for us."
Some great points here:
_______________________________________________
Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."
(CNN) -- "An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 1964
It's downright disgusting to listen to conservative and Republican lawmakers, presidential candidates, business owners and media commentators use such vitriol to describe the Occupy Wall Street protesters as hell-bent on destroying America.
How in the world can anyone even form their lips to say such a thing when this very country was founded on the basis of dissent?
Self-professed rodeo clown Glenn Beck castigates the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but he's always running off at the mouth about the Founding Fathers and how brilliant they were.
Without dissent and protest, there is no United States of America! It's as if these folks never picked up a history book to understand how this nation was formed. The very notion of a United States of America started with someone saying, writing and screaming, "Enough is enough!" And when more and more of the early settlers became enraged at the heavy-handed actions of the British, that's when we were on our path to the American Revolution.
Do any of these so-called strict constructionists even read the very U.S. Constitution they love to wave in the faces of their critics?
Every American, no matter if you're young or old; rich or poor; red state or blue state; Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native American; has the freedom to assemble and freedom of speech, which is at the heart of these protests.
In this same space, I praised the tea party for not sitting around and complaining. Instead, they organized and mobilized to affect the political discourse in the Republican Party and have definitely had their voices heard. I may disagree with a number of things the tea party advocates, but there is no way I would condemn them for doing it. As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, "The right to revolt has sources deep in our history."
It's increasingly clear that some Americans love to talk a good game about protests, yet hate it when someone who opposes their views decides to stand up and be heard.
Remember all of those political voices championing the people of Iran taking to the streets to protest? How about Tunisia? Egypt? Libya? Bahrain? What would this world be without protest?
We would have never seen freedom in Eastern Europe were it not without the people there, in the words of civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, being "sick and tired of being sick and tired." Praise God that the children of South Africa, led by the African National Congress, didn't ignore the calls of history. If so, Nelson Mandela would be dying in jail and freedom would have never ended apartheid.
This nation would not have been forced to make real the very principles cited in the Declaration of Independence, or treat every human being as an equal, were it not for the civil rights movement. Those brave men, women and children chose not to accept the status quo, and this nation and the world are much better off because they did.
As a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, I understand fully the sentiment that is being expressed. The massive corporate greed that has devastated the wages of the common worker, and seen the pay of a bunch on Wall Street go through the stratosphere for literally making nothing tangible, has been immoral and obscene.
Wall Street and their protectors in Washington -- Democrat and Republican -- say nothing is wrong with making a profit. That is absolutely true. But what is shameful and outlandish is to watch the American taxpayer save the jobs (and big bonuses) of these financial miscreants, only to see them jack up fees left and right. Without the American people they would have had to pack up their belongings and hit the pavement. Instead, they refuse to work with homeowners struggling to meet the big mortgage payments that Wall Street helped underwrite; then sell in exotic transactions that wrecked this nation's financial infrastructure.
Conservatives call this an assault on capitalism. No, Occupy Wall Street is about trying to bring some decency and honesty back to an industry that used to have some. Instead, what we have today are literal financial pirates trying to take the largest booty they can find. They don't care about the long-term health of this country. It's all about the next quarterly earnings reports and their massive year-end bonuses.
This fight that Occupy Wall Street is engaged in is nothing short of a battle for the soul of this nation. Are we going to continue to allow ourselves to be held hostage by the big banks? Will we continue to allow them to trample over us with their "too big to fail" attitude?
No, no, and hell no. It's time to bring these Goliaths to their knees by any means necessary. That mean the young and righteous Davids must protest, march, sit-in, work the halls of Congress and state capitals nationwide, and make it clear that as long as Wall Street, its lobbyists and political protectors continue to mistreat the common man and woman, they are our mortal enemy.
Now is not the time to dismiss the protesters as a bunch of lefty college students with no guidance, no substance and no mission. Instead of listening to politicians pimp the next generation, these folks are saying in the words of the founders of the nation's first black newspaper, Freedom's Journal: "We wish to plead our own cause; too long have others spoken for us."
|
|
|
walawak
New Member
Posts • 39
Likes • 6
January 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by walawak on Oct 8, 2011 19:03:27 GMT 1, Until the Chinese stop lending you money to pay for it.
Until the Chinese stop lending you money to pay for it.
|
|
pcant
Junior Member
Posts • 1,669
Likes • 681
July 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by pcant on Oct 8, 2011 20:16:49 GMT 1, I'm a bit stunned to see people on an urban art board criticizing folks for taking a stand against the establishment. Isn't street art, by its very nature, about speaking out against the establishment and the status quo? If you would hang Golf Sale or Festival on your wall, how can you side with big business over the masses in the street? Yes, it takes all kinds and all that. But do you think the Banksy Tesco Petrol Bomb poster was intended to laud Tesco?
I'm a bit stunned to see people on an urban art board criticizing folks for taking a stand against the establishment. Isn't street art, by its very nature, about speaking out against the establishment and the status quo? If you would hang Golf Sale or Festival on your wall, how can you side with big business over the masses in the street? Yes, it takes all kinds and all that. But do you think the Banksy Tesco Petrol Bomb poster was intended to laud Tesco?
|
|
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by boatyy on Oct 8, 2011 20:52:11 GMT 1, the for-profit banks got themselves and the financial markets in a mess... and the taxpayers (via govt officials) bailed out the banks (who luckily largely paid back with considerable interest)...
but, a couple of things to keep in mind:
-when banks loan money to consumers (taxpayers), it is largely collateralized (e.g. by homes etc.) - if the consumer defaults, that collateral is most often taken from them;
-the considerable taxpayer loans (approx 650B, if i recall) given to the banks (as bailouts) were largely uncollateralized - meaning if the banks had defaulted on those loans, the taxpayer really would have had limited to no recourse; the probability of default on those loans to the banks was very high, given market conditions (banks were falling like flies at the time); as such many may see this as a huge speculative financial bet by the govt using taxpayer funds to prop up entities (banks) whose sole purpose is to make money; personally, i think it was a reasonable move by the govt - otherwise we may be in even worse shape; nonetheless, there was gambling with considerable taxpayer funds;
-now, there is a high rate of foreclosures and workforce reductions etc. and not alot of love for the consumers/taxpayers by the banks... the response you're getting from the banks is we're here to make a profit and provide value to our shareholders (which is their job); the govt who took big bets with taxpayer funds are not showing alot of love either (lame ducks at the mo); people are wondering about reciprocity, given the bailouts etc;
this is only one small example of a reason for dissent and it is reasonable people are upset and feeling taken advantage of... and in the absence of power, in democratic societies, people often resort to protest - even if it results in nothing but being heard... and btw, it's election time
but, bottom line is the financial system needs overhauling... and alot of people are not feeling the change...
just my humble 2 cents...
the for-profit banks got themselves and the financial markets in a mess... and the taxpayers (via govt officials) bailed out the banks (who luckily largely paid back with considerable interest)... but, a couple of things to keep in mind: -when banks loan money to consumers (taxpayers), it is largely collateralized (e.g. by homes etc.) - if the consumer defaults, that collateral is most often taken from them; -the considerable taxpayer loans (approx 650B, if i recall) given to the banks (as bailouts) were largely uncollateralized - meaning if the banks had defaulted on those loans, the taxpayer really would have had limited to no recourse; the probability of default on those loans to the banks was very high, given market conditions (banks were falling like flies at the time); as such many may see this as a huge speculative financial bet by the govt using taxpayer funds to prop up entities (banks) whose sole purpose is to make money; personally, i think it was a reasonable move by the govt - otherwise we may be in even worse shape; nonetheless, there was gambling with considerable taxpayer funds; -now, there is a high rate of foreclosures and workforce reductions etc. and not alot of love for the consumers/taxpayers by the banks... the response you're getting from the banks is we're here to make a profit and provide value to our shareholders (which is their job); the govt who took big bets with taxpayer funds are not showing alot of love either (lame ducks at the mo); people are wondering about reciprocity, given the bailouts etc; this is only one small example of a reason for dissent and it is reasonable people are upset and feeling taken advantage of... and in the absence of power, in democratic societies, people often resort to protest - even if it results in nothing but being heard... and btw, it's election time but, bottom line is the financial system needs overhauling... and alot of people are not feeling the change... just my humble 2 cents...
|
|
pcant
Junior Member
Posts • 1,669
Likes • 681
July 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by pcant on Oct 8, 2011 20:54:10 GMT 1, the for-profit banks got themselves and the financial markets in a mess... and the taxpayers (via govt officials) bailed out the banks (who luckily largely paid back with considerable interest)... but, a couple of things to keep in mind: -when banks loan money to consumers (taxpayers), it is largely collateralized (e.g. by homes etc.) - if the consumer defaults, that collateral is most often taken from them; -the considerable taxpayer loans (approx 650B, if i recall) given to the banks (as bailouts) were largely uncollateralized - meaning if the banks had defaulted on those loans, the taxpayer really would have had limited to no recourse; the probability of default on those loans to the banks was very high, given market conditions (banks were falling like flies at the time); as such many may see this as a huge speculative financial bet by the govt using taxpayer funds to prop up entities (banks) whose sole purpose is to make money; personally, i think it was a reasonable move by the govt - otherwise we may be in even worse shape; nonetheless, there was gambling with considerable taxpayer funds; -now, there is a high rate of foreclosures and workforce reductions etc. and not alot of love for the consumers/taxpayers by the banks... the response you're getting from the banks is we're here to make a profit and provide value to our shareholders (which is their job); the govt who took big bets with taxpayer funds are not showing alot of love either (lame ducks at the mo); people are wondering about reciprocity, given the bailouts etc; this is only one small example of a reason for dissent and it is reasonable people are upset and feeling taken advantage of... and in the absence of power, in democratic societies, people often resort to protest - even if it results in nothing but being heard... and btw, it's election time but, bottom line is the financial system needs overhauling... and alot of people are not feeling the change... just my humble 2 cents...
+1
the for-profit banks got themselves and the financial markets in a mess... and the taxpayers (via govt officials) bailed out the banks (who luckily largely paid back with considerable interest)... but, a couple of things to keep in mind: -when banks loan money to consumers (taxpayers), it is largely collateralized (e.g. by homes etc.) - if the consumer defaults, that collateral is most often taken from them; -the considerable taxpayer loans (approx 650B, if i recall) given to the banks (as bailouts) were largely uncollateralized - meaning if the banks had defaulted on those loans, the taxpayer really would have had limited to no recourse; the probability of default on those loans to the banks was very high, given market conditions (banks were falling like flies at the time); as such many may see this as a huge speculative financial bet by the govt using taxpayer funds to prop up entities (banks) whose sole purpose is to make money; personally, i think it was a reasonable move by the govt - otherwise we may be in even worse shape; nonetheless, there was gambling with considerable taxpayer funds; -now, there is a high rate of foreclosures and workforce reductions etc. and not alot of love for the consumers/taxpayers by the banks... the response you're getting from the banks is we're here to make a profit and provide value to our shareholders (which is their job); the govt who took big bets with taxpayer funds are not showing alot of love either (lame ducks at the mo); people are wondering about reciprocity, given the bailouts etc; this is only one small example of a reason for dissent and it is reasonable people are upset and feeling taken advantage of... and in the absence of power, in democratic societies, people often resort to protest - even if it results in nothing but being heard... and btw, it's election time but, bottom line is the financial system needs overhauling... and alot of people are not feeling the change... just my humble 2 cents... +1
|
|
simonf
New Member
Posts • 418
Likes • 46
February 2009
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by simonf on Oct 8, 2011 22:05:23 GMT 1, I find that video of the occupation quite moving.
So many people coming together, and seeing them all working together. Food distribution, free medical care, with lots of American flags. The tea party movement is endlessly proclaiming anyone who's views they don't like as un American or un patriotic.
But seeing these protesters holding flags.. that's the first time as a Brit I thought the flag looked good.. a symbol of resistance and solidarity...
IMO these guys are the real Americans, and I'll even salute their flag
I find that video of the occupation quite moving. So many people coming together, and seeing them all working together. Food distribution, free medical care, with lots of American flags. The tea party movement is endlessly proclaiming anyone who's views they don't like as un American or un patriotic. But seeing these protesters holding flags.. that's the first time as a Brit I thought the flag looked good.. a symbol of resistance and solidarity... IMO these guys are the real Americans, and I'll even salute their flag
|
|
Wearology
Junior Member
Staff at FatFreeArt
Posts • 3,564
Likes • 4,398
April 2008
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by Wearology on Oct 9, 2011 2:58:02 GMT 1, It would be great if BANKSY would lend his voice to a worthy cause like Occupy Wall Street. A few stencils around lower Manhattan would give this movement a bit more legitimacy and additional international attention. Please BANKSY - these protesters are just the sort of humans that would que for you.
It would be great if BANKSY would lend his voice to a worthy cause like Occupy Wall Street. A few stencils around lower Manhattan would give this movement a bit more legitimacy and additional international attention. Please BANKSY - these protesters are just the sort of humans that would que for you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 3:50:39 GMT 1, Don't know if this has been posted yet...
1xRUN have a new(ish) print up by Detroit print outfit Wet House called "#OccupyWallStreet"
More details here...
1xrun.com/runs/OccupyWallStreet
Don't know if this has been posted yet... 1xRUN have a new(ish) print up by Detroit print outfit Wet House called "#OccupyWallStreet" More details here... 1xrun.com/runs/OccupyWallStreet
|
|
simonf
New Member
Posts • 418
Likes • 46
February 2009
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by simonf on Oct 9, 2011 13:01:19 GMT 1, LONDON — A young woman spray-paints the final letter on a floral-patterned sheet. Unfurled it reads: "Occupy London, 15 Oct, www.occupylsx.org." The small group of assembled activists applaud its look. “I love the kitschiness of it. It’s so ‘Laura Ashley’ English — perfect for a protest,” one says, namechecking the British brand known for its prim-and-proper fashions. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protests on the other side of the Atlantic, demonstrators plan to establish a tent city in London’s City financial district next weekend.
LONDON — A young woman spray-paints the final letter on a floral-patterned sheet. Unfurled it reads: "Occupy London, 15 Oct, www.occupylsx.org." The small group of assembled activists applaud its look. “I love the kitschiness of it. It’s so ‘Laura Ashley’ English — perfect for a protest,” one says, namechecking the British brand known for its prim-and-proper fashions. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protests on the other side of the Atlantic, demonstrators plan to establish a tent city in London’s City financial district next weekend.
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 13:14:12 GMT 1, “I love the kitschiness of it. It’s so ‘Laura Ashley’ English — perfect for a protest,” one says, namechecking the British brand known for its prim-and-proper fashions. That is soooo funny! Cheers for that ;D
“I love the kitschiness of it. It’s so ‘Laura Ashley’ English — perfect for a protest,” one says, namechecking the British brand known for its prim-and-proper fashions. That is soooo funny! Cheers for that ;D
|
|
|
simonf
New Member
Posts • 418
Likes • 46
February 2009
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by simonf on Oct 10, 2011 0:37:10 GMT 1, cheers for that boaty. v interesting article.
I've heard it's several thousand protesters now occupying the centre on NY... and not a single word on the BBC rolling news headlines.
It really is astonishing it really appears to be a total news blackout.
To find out any reporting of it at all I have been watching Al Jezeera and Russian TV.
British median (and I have also heard mainstream US media) seem to be totally ignoring a thousands strong demonstration in the heart of Wall Street.
cheers for that boaty. v interesting article.
I've heard it's several thousand protesters now occupying the centre on NY... and not a single word on the BBC rolling news headlines.
It really is astonishing it really appears to be a total news blackout.
To find out any reporting of it at all I have been watching Al Jezeera and Russian TV.
British median (and I have also heard mainstream US media) seem to be totally ignoring a thousands strong demonstration in the heart of Wall Street.
|
|
mmmike
Junior Member
Posts • 2,420
Likes • 759
March 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by mmmike on Oct 10, 2011 0:48:01 GMT 1, cheers for that boaty. v interesting article. I've heard it's several thousand protesters now occupying the centre on NY... and not a single word on the BBC rolling news headlines. It really is astonishing it really appears to be a total news blackout. To find out any reporting of it at all I have been watching Al Jezeera and Russian TV. British median (and I have also heard mainstream US media) seem to be totally ignoring a thousands strong demonstration in the heart of Wall Street.
I don't doubt the british media are doing a poor job of covering OWS but take it from someone who lives close to the US and constantly sees US news, British news is infinitely better. I do manage to watch BBC from time to time and FT is my go to newspaper for world events.
You can't imagine how bad the US media is. I don't know how those people sleep at night. The terrible state we are all in could not have happened if it wasn't for the media shoveling the shit for the politicians.
cheers for that boaty. v interesting article. I've heard it's several thousand protesters now occupying the centre on NY... and not a single word on the BBC rolling news headlines. It really is astonishing it really appears to be a total news blackout. To find out any reporting of it at all I have been watching Al Jezeera and Russian TV. British median (and I have also heard mainstream US media) seem to be totally ignoring a thousands strong demonstration in the heart of Wall Street. I don't doubt the british media are doing a poor job of covering OWS but take it from someone who lives close to the US and constantly sees US news, British news is infinitely better. I do manage to watch BBC from time to time and FT is my go to newspaper for world events. You can't imagine how bad the US media is. I don't know how those people sleep at night. The terrible state we are all in could not have happened if it wasn't for the media shoveling the shit for the politicians.
|
|
simonf
New Member
Posts • 418
Likes • 46
February 2009
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by simonf on Oct 10, 2011 1:10:22 GMT 1, cheers for that boaty. v interesting article. I've heard it's several thousand protesters now occupying the centre on NY... and not a single word on the BBC rolling news headlines. It really is astonishing it really appears to be a total news blackout. To find out any reporting of it at all I have been watching Al Jezeera and Russian TV. British median (and I have also heard mainstream US media) seem to be totally ignoring a thousands strong demonstration in the heart of Wall Street. I don't doubt the british media are doing a poor job of covering OWS but take it from someone who lives close to the US and constantly sees US news, British news is infinitely better. I do manage to watch BBC from time to time and FT is my go to newspaper for world events. You can't imagine how bad the US media is. I don't know how those people sleep at night. The terrible state we are all in could not have happened if it wasn't for the media shoveling the s**t for the politicians.
I agree the brit media is probably better... the US news seems to be more of a propaganda machine rather than an investigative tool.
RT (Russian) is clearly biased in a completely different direction.. but gives a totally different take on the situation in the middle east for example. As does Al jazeera, which i have become a real fan of. Tonight They were covering the protests in NY, The rebellions in Syria, and the horrific conflict in the occupied territories that is happening this very second, in great detail.
I turned over to BBC and saw that everyones favourite multi -billionaire Paul McCartney is getting married again
cheers for that boaty. v interesting article. I've heard it's several thousand protesters now occupying the centre on NY... and not a single word on the BBC rolling news headlines. It really is astonishing it really appears to be a total news blackout. To find out any reporting of it at all I have been watching Al Jezeera and Russian TV. British median (and I have also heard mainstream US media) seem to be totally ignoring a thousands strong demonstration in the heart of Wall Street. I don't doubt the british media are doing a poor job of covering OWS but take it from someone who lives close to the US and constantly sees US news, British news is infinitely better. I do manage to watch BBC from time to time and FT is my go to newspaper for world events. You can't imagine how bad the US media is. I don't know how those people sleep at night. The terrible state we are all in could not have happened if it wasn't for the media shoveling the s**t for the politicians. I agree the brit media is probably better... the US news seems to be more of a propaganda machine rather than an investigative tool. RT (Russian) is clearly biased in a completely different direction.. but gives a totally different take on the situation in the middle east for example. As does Al jazeera, which i have become a real fan of. Tonight They were covering the protests in NY, The rebellions in Syria, and the horrific conflict in the occupied territories that is happening this very second, in great detail. I turned over to BBC and saw that everyones favourite multi -billionaire Paul McCartney is getting married again
|
|
pcant
Junior Member
Posts • 1,669
Likes • 681
July 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by pcant on Oct 10, 2011 2:18:38 GMT 1, Not sure about the rest of the British media, but the Guardian has been on this almost since the beginning and the BBC World Service has been giving it a bit of attention.
Not sure about the rest of the British media, but the Guardian has been on this almost since the beginning and the BBC World Service has been giving it a bit of attention.
|
|
schnulli
New Member
Posts • 735
Likes • 13
February 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by schnulli on Oct 10, 2011 3:02:45 GMT 1, It would be great if BANKSY would lend his voice to a worthy cause like Occupy Wall Street. A few stencils around lower Manhattan would give this movement a bit more legitimacy and additional international attention.
Like this maybe?
It would be great if BANKSY would lend his voice to a worthy cause like Occupy Wall Street. A few stencils around lower Manhattan would give this movement a bit more legitimacy and additional international attention. Like this maybe?
|
|
enomeks
Artist
New Member
Posts • 38
Likes • 0
June 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by enomeks on Oct 10, 2011 8:23:29 GMT 1, Boaty was pretty spot on with what he wrote, but the fact is banks knew their lending on loans were bad and got bailed out on tax payers dime. They turned themselves around and are now trying new tactics ie. monthly fees to become more profitable. While trying to fleece the average joe out of more of their hard earned cash to for one increase the crazy bonuses they get yearly by taking more from the common person.
I myself am a disabled veteran and for one do not blame Bush for the state of this nation, it goes much further than one person to blame and many of them are protected by "running" so.called businesses
Boaty was pretty spot on with what he wrote, but the fact is banks knew their lending on loans were bad and got bailed out on tax payers dime. They turned themselves around and are now trying new tactics ie. monthly fees to become more profitable. While trying to fleece the average joe out of more of their hard earned cash to for one increase the crazy bonuses they get yearly by taking more from the common person.
I myself am a disabled veteran and for one do not blame Bush for the state of this nation, it goes much further than one person to blame and many of them are protected by "running" so.called businesses
|
|
|
simonf
New Member
Posts • 418
Likes • 46
February 2009
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by simonf on Oct 10, 2011 12:30:03 GMT 1, As I understand it the US national debt went through the roof between 2001 and 2008.
Not only because Bush kept cutting taxes, but also launching two wars which will probably never be paid for... Oil from Iraq and a pipeline through Afghanistan to thwart the Russian control of resources.. I think that's was the real plan.... But trying to turn Afghanistan into a western democracy?... good luck with that one! It could never work, and the money would have been better spent by both the US and the UK on looking after it's own citizens IMO.
It may go further than one person... but in terms of national debt Bush is a very good place to start.
Also of course the gap between the richest 1% and the 99%rest of the population who can't afford their housing or healthcare is the worst it's been since the 1930.
So something is definitely wrong!
As I understand it the US national debt went through the roof between 2001 and 2008.
Not only because Bush kept cutting taxes, but also launching two wars which will probably never be paid for... Oil from Iraq and a pipeline through Afghanistan to thwart the Russian control of resources.. I think that's was the real plan.... But trying to turn Afghanistan into a western democracy?... good luck with that one! It could never work, and the money would have been better spent by both the US and the UK on looking after it's own citizens IMO.
It may go further than one person... but in terms of national debt Bush is a very good place to start.
Also of course the gap between the richest 1% and the 99%rest of the population who can't afford their housing or healthcare is the worst it's been since the 1930.
So something is definitely wrong!
|
|
dasium
New Member
Posts • 591
Likes • 75
January 2011
|
|
|
fnord
New Member
Posts • 283
Likes • 62
April 2011
|
|
|
nrgball
Junior Member
Posts • 1,224
Likes • 646
January 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by nrgball on Oct 10, 2011 18:16:39 GMT 1, Here's a story for ya.
The federal reserve printed 3.7 Trillion dollars since 2008. Most of this money has been loaned(handed) to Large Banks at 0% interest. The Banks hoard most of money to pad their books because they began lending at a rate of anywhere from 38:1 to 45:1 in the last 20 years, when the legal lending rate is 8:1 or 9:1. In other words, careless, lawless greed.
The money that the banks ARE lending is to the gov't in the form of treasury bonds. The banks lend billions to the federal gov't with the promise that they will receive 1-2% back in anywhere from 5-10 years (which is considered a good investment when most markets are extremely volatile and sinking fast). The problem is that the gov't is bankrupt(debt & deficit) and can't afford to pay the matured treasury bonds(nor much else for that matter). So the gov't hits up the taxable middle and lower class to cover the gov't debt and pay back the banks. So the banks make 1-2% on billions they were handed by the FED. Or you could look at it as the FED steals from every american by expanding the money supply, thus devaluing every dollar - Then gives to the banks for free to capitalize again. What we are seeing is the quiet, sneaky shifting of debt around to all the different financial sectors in order to squeeze every last dime out of each. All done in the name of profits for a handful of overstuffed banking execs.
Essentially, the FED prints money devaluing every dollar in circulation. It is the official policy of the FED to inflate the currency at a rate of 2.3% per year for 10 years starting in 2008. At the end of 10 years, your dollars will be worth 23% less than they were in 2008 by policy alone. Purchasing goods, food, gas, tolls, electricity and so on and so forth is getting more expensive due to demand and inflation. This does not even take into account the effect of 3.7 trillion cash influx.
One tricky problem with the US economy is that deflation is happening at the same time as inflation. All the excessive & expensive loans that the bank offered up in the last 10-15 years have either been defaulted or are worth less than when this all started. For instance, a bank lends $1million on a house and then the economy crashes and the house is worth $600,000 plus the owner lost his job and defaults. So now the bank is sitting on a loss of money and a property worth less and no one with the cash to buy it. The original loan value has been deflated. Add up millions of such toxic debt and you get an entire industry printing money to deflate the value of every dollar in circulation so that both Banks & Govt can even begin to pay off toxic debt.
One should argue that the deflation was brought on by poor/short term choices of banking & big business. And now the Banking system,Corporations & Govt Policy have created the perfect storm to dump their losses on the 99%. This is where Occupy Wall street comes into play. Big business makes mistakes that the rest of the country is paying for. And we are sick of it all. (BTW Gov't needs deflation just to begin tackling its debt.)
In summary, all big business/banks are dealing with deflation and all the poor/middle class are dealing with inflation. The Gov't longs for inflation. The FED is offering up every solution to pave a smooth road for big banks (they have to protect their own). And doing it all on the backs of the middle lower class.
Here's a story for ya.
The federal reserve printed 3.7 Trillion dollars since 2008. Most of this money has been loaned(handed) to Large Banks at 0% interest. The Banks hoard most of money to pad their books because they began lending at a rate of anywhere from 38:1 to 45:1 in the last 20 years, when the legal lending rate is 8:1 or 9:1. In other words, careless, lawless greed.
The money that the banks ARE lending is to the gov't in the form of treasury bonds. The banks lend billions to the federal gov't with the promise that they will receive 1-2% back in anywhere from 5-10 years (which is considered a good investment when most markets are extremely volatile and sinking fast). The problem is that the gov't is bankrupt(debt & deficit) and can't afford to pay the matured treasury bonds(nor much else for that matter). So the gov't hits up the taxable middle and lower class to cover the gov't debt and pay back the banks. So the banks make 1-2% on billions they were handed by the FED. Or you could look at it as the FED steals from every american by expanding the money supply, thus devaluing every dollar - Then gives to the banks for free to capitalize again. What we are seeing is the quiet, sneaky shifting of debt around to all the different financial sectors in order to squeeze every last dime out of each. All done in the name of profits for a handful of overstuffed banking execs.
Essentially, the FED prints money devaluing every dollar in circulation. It is the official policy of the FED to inflate the currency at a rate of 2.3% per year for 10 years starting in 2008. At the end of 10 years, your dollars will be worth 23% less than they were in 2008 by policy alone. Purchasing goods, food, gas, tolls, electricity and so on and so forth is getting more expensive due to demand and inflation. This does not even take into account the effect of 3.7 trillion cash influx.
One tricky problem with the US economy is that deflation is happening at the same time as inflation. All the excessive & expensive loans that the bank offered up in the last 10-15 years have either been defaulted or are worth less than when this all started. For instance, a bank lends $1million on a house and then the economy crashes and the house is worth $600,000 plus the owner lost his job and defaults. So now the bank is sitting on a loss of money and a property worth less and no one with the cash to buy it. The original loan value has been deflated. Add up millions of such toxic debt and you get an entire industry printing money to deflate the value of every dollar in circulation so that both Banks & Govt can even begin to pay off toxic debt.
One should argue that the deflation was brought on by poor/short term choices of banking & big business. And now the Banking system,Corporations & Govt Policy have created the perfect storm to dump their losses on the 99%. This is where Occupy Wall street comes into play. Big business makes mistakes that the rest of the country is paying for. And we are sick of it all. (BTW Gov't needs deflation just to begin tackling its debt.)
In summary, all big business/banks are dealing with deflation and all the poor/middle class are dealing with inflation. The Gov't longs for inflation. The FED is offering up every solution to pave a smooth road for big banks (they have to protect their own). And doing it all on the backs of the middle lower class.
|
|
simonf
New Member
Posts • 418
Likes • 46
February 2009
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by simonf on Oct 10, 2011 23:45:44 GMT 1, This is an interesting one... and I take my hat off to the arrested woman... amazing
This is an interesting one... and I take my hat off to the arrested woman... amazing
|
|
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by maumau93 on Oct 10, 2011 23:52:23 GMT 1, im not to sure but i THINK all she did was asked to not be touched and didnt get her rights read to her
im not to sure but i THINK all she did was asked to not be touched and didnt get her rights read to her
|
|
nrgball
Junior Member
Posts • 1,224
Likes • 646
January 2011
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by nrgball on Oct 13, 2011 6:20:07 GMT 1,
|
|
mmmike
Junior Member
Posts • 2,420
Likes • 759
March 2010
|
OCCUPY WALL STREET, by mmmike on Oct 14, 2011 3:08:21 GMT 1,
thanks for posting this.
|
|