independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 30th Jul 2014 12:14pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Wall St. Protests: Panic of the Plutocrats
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 19 123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/10/11 1:21pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

Wall St. Protests: Panic of the Plutocrats

Beyond conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, both parties are the parties of Wall Street. And maybe to an extent rightfully so. But the Wall St. protests have yet to be co-opted, despite what the talking heads say.

OP-ED NY Times

Panic of the Plutocrats

http://www.nytimes.com/20...;seid=auto

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the

tart seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”

What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.

[Edited 10/10/11 13:58pm]

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/10/11 1:46pm

Dauphin

avatar

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All Glory To the Hypno-Toad! eek

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/10/11 2:10pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

I don't think the people are protesting "THE" 200 billion given to the banks, from what I understand, they are protesting "WHY" no one has been held accountable for all of the wrongdoing, and "WHY" such aid is not as forthcoming to the working class. Making Obama jump through hoops, and making extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy as a condition to getting the unemployed more assistance for example.

I think these are valid concerns.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:51pm]

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/10/11 2:13pm

Spinlight

avatar

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

Do you have no idea what the hell actually is going on? Seems to me you think its merely about dollars and cents when real, actual lives are being destroyed. Where's my 200 billion? Where's bailouts for people sitting over on Wall Street? Nowhere. That's where. razz

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/10/11 2:15pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Cornel West will be on Morning Joe tomorrow, look for it.

wildsign Wave your wildsigns high!! wildsign
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/10/11 2:43pm

rudedog

avatar

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

No one on wallstreet has been held accountable for their devious actions. Stronger regulations from preventing a repeat of 2008 Financial collapse have not been implemented either. In terms of paying a price, that's a start right there.

The bailouts helped banks from going under, but they haven't helped the ppl that are losing homes because of their greedy decisions that need help now. Or have invested money given to them for free from the bailouts back into a struggling economy. Wallstreet hasn't done anything to help our economy bounced back.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/10/11 4:02pm

babynoz

avatar

Oh snap! I was just going to post this! biggrin

The demonization scheme just might backfire. There are occupation groups springing up abroad now, not just here in the US.

spelling edit

[Edited 10/10/11 17:02pm]

"Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men"....Demosthenes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/10/11 4:31pm

Smittyrock70

Notice how the corporate media, and NOT JUST Fox Snooze try desperately to downplay this movement. It's funny how just a couple of years ago Fox sponsored, supported, and pushed the "Tea Party" down our throats (and how the rest of corporate media played along).

From Randi Rhodes' Blog

CNBC has been trying to tear down the Occupy Wall Street movement almost as hard as Fox News built up the Tea Party movement. So far the biggest beef the rightwing media seems to have about the protestors is grooming. Nicely done—if you just talk about the way someone looks, you don’t have to discuss their ideas. The rest of the corporate media isn’t doing much better at covering the protests, though they are doing a decent job of covering them up.

Congressman Peter King
fears that the protests will bring back the 60’s. King says that back then, “the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen!” In other words—we must not let public opinion shape public policy… if it conflicts with Peter King’s opinion, that is. If it weren’t for those stupid 60’s protestors, we could still be in Vietnam! And we’d still be winning! We’d still be just a few steps away from final victory! A lot of people who lived through the 60’s don’t remember them. Peter King remembers the 60’s... he just doesn’t get the 60’s.

Then on Bill Maher’s show,
Alan Grayson dismantled PJ O’Rourke the way Michele Bachmann wants to dismantle the EPA. Grayson made point after point about Wall Street greed, income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class. PJ O’Rourke responded with comments about bongo drums. PJ O’Rourke is commonly called a “humorist.” At this point in his career, PJ is a humorist in the same sense that Gretchen Carlson is a journalist. PJ used to be with the National Lampoon. Now he’s with the Cato Institute, and he’s probably not even the funniest person there.

Finally,
Herman Cain said that he doesn’t believe that racism “holds anybody back in a big way today.” Really, Herman? Try putting on some workman’s overalls and hailing a cab. Mr. Cain, maybe you can be the head of a pizza company. But try to deliver a pizza to a rich white neighborhood in a car without a pizza company logo on it, and you’re getting pulled over.

http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html?22

[Edited 10/10/11 16:32pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/10/11 4:53pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

Smittyrock70 said:

Notice how the corporate media, and NOT JUST Fox Snooze try desperately to downplay this movement. It's funny how just a couple of years ago Fox sponsored, supported, and pushed the "Tea Party" down our throats (and how the rest of corporate media played along).

From Randi Rhodes' Blog

CNBC has been trying to tear down the Occupy Wall Street movement almost as hard as Fox News built up the Tea Party movement. So far the biggest beef the rightwing media seems to have about the protestors is grooming. Nicely done—if you just talk about the way someone looks, you don’t have to discuss their ideas. The rest of the corporate media isn’t doing much better at covering the protests, though they are doing a decent job of covering them up.

Congressman Peter King
fears that the protests will bring back the 60’s. King says that back then, “the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen!” In other words—we must not let public opinion shape public policy… if it conflicts with Peter King’s opinion, that is. If it weren’t for those stupid 60’s protestors, we could still be in Vietnam! And we’d still be winning! We’d still be just a few steps away from final victory! A lot of people who lived through the 60’s don’t remember them. Peter King remembers the 60’s... he just doesn’t get the 60’s.

Then on Bill Maher’s show,
Alan Grayson dismantled PJ O’Rourke the way Michele Bachmann wants to dismantle the EPA. Grayson made point after point about Wall Street greed, income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class. PJ O’Rourke responded with comments about bongo drums. PJ O’Rourke is commonly called a “humorist.” At this point in his career, PJ is a humorist in the same sense that Gretchen Carlson is a journalist. PJ used to be with the National Lampoon. Now he’s with the Cato Institute, and he’s probably not even the funniest person there.

Finally,
Herman Cain said that he doesn’t believe that racism “holds anybody back in a big way today.” Really, Herman? Try putting on some workman’s overalls and hailing a cab. Mr. Cain, maybe you can be the head of a pizza company. But try to deliver a pizza to a rich white neighborhood in a car without a pizza company logo on it, and you’re getting pulled over.

http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html?22

[Edited 10/10/11 16:32pm]

Great post.

I really like Alan and O'Rourke, but Alan mopped the floor with PJ. To me it's funny becasue I thought PJ was the quicker wit. Alan made great points and made PJ look like and out of touch flunky.

[Edited 10/10/11 16:54pm]

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/10/11 4:55pm

Smittyrock70

[Edited 10/10/11 17:04pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/10/11 5:02pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

The video does not play.

neutral

Smittyrock70 said:

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/10/11 5:27pm

babynoz

avatar

That link doesn't show up for me...let's try this one,

Grayson put that clown in his place.

[Edited 10/10/11 17:32pm]

"Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men"....Demosthenes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/10/11 5:29pm

babynoz

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

Smittyrock70 said:

Notice how the corporate media, and NOT JUST Fox Snooze try desperately to downplay this movement. It's funny how just a couple of years ago Fox sponsored, supported, and pushed the "Tea Party" down our throats (and how the rest of corporate media played along).

From Randi Rhodes' Blog

CNBC has been trying to tear down the Occupy Wall Street movement almost as hard as Fox News built up the Tea Party movement. So far the biggest beef the rightwing media seems to have about the protestors is grooming. Nicely done—if you just talk about the way someone looks, you don’t have to discuss their ideas. The rest of the corporate media isn’t doing much better at covering the protests, though they are doing a decent job of covering them up.

Congressman Peter King
fears that the protests will bring back the 60’s. King says that back then, “the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen!” In other words—we must not let public opinion shape public policy… if it conflicts with Peter King’s opinion, that is. If it weren’t for those stupid 60’s protestors, we could still be in Vietnam! And we’d still be winning! We’d still be just a few steps away from final victory! A lot of people who lived through the 60’s don’t remember them. Peter King remembers the 60’s... he just doesn’t get the 60’s.

Then on Bill Maher’s show,
Alan Grayson dismantled PJ O’Rourke the way Michele Bachmann wants to dismantle the EPA. Grayson made point after point about Wall Street greed, income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class. PJ O’Rourke responded with comments about bongo drums. PJ O’Rourke is commonly called a “humorist.” At this point in his career, PJ is a humorist in the same sense that Gretchen Carlson is a journalist. PJ used to be with the National Lampoon. Now he’s with the Cato Institute, and he’s probably not even the funniest person there.

Finally,
Herman Cain said that he doesn’t believe that racism “holds anybody back in a big way today.” Really, Herman? Try putting on some workman’s overalls and hailing a cab. Mr. Cain, maybe you can be the head of a pizza company. But try to deliver a pizza to a rich white neighborhood in a car without a pizza company logo on it, and you’re getting pulled over.

http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html?22

[Edited 10/10/11 16:32pm]

Great post.

I really like Alan and O'Rourke, but Alan mopped the floor with PJ. To me it's funny becasue I thought PJ was the quicker wit. Alan made great points and made PJ look like and out of touch flunky.

[Edited 10/10/11 16:54pm]

LOL! I was listening to Randi today...she went IN!

Good lookin' out Smitty,

"Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men"....Demosthenes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/10/11 5:55pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

That puke Glenn Beck actually said today that the movement would start grabbing people from Wall Street and kill them! He is an evil man. He's lucky we are non violent.

wildsign Wave your wildsigns high!! wildsign
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/10/11 6:39pm

rialb

avatar

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that, for example, Goldman Sachs got rich by defrauding their own investors and then perjured themselves when called before a congressional committee. If that is true surely someone should be held accountable? Instead they were given billions of dollars and paid virtually no price for the part they played in destroying billions of dollars of wealth.

People should be screaming bloody murder about what Goldman Sachs have gotten away with but the vast majority does not seem to care.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/10/11 11:54pm

DarlingDiana

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

Beyond conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, both parties are the parties of Wall Street. And maybe to an extent rightfully so. But the Wall St. protests have yet to be co-opted, despite what the talking heads say.

Occupy Wall Street is anything but post-partisan (beyond Republican/Democrat) and it has certainly been co-opted.

The American Federation of Teachers has officially endorsed the Occupy Wall Street organization [1]. The AFT is the 10th biggest political contributor in the country, donating over $31 million since 1989, of which 91% went to Democrats [2]. The AFT spent $1.9 million on Obama's 2008 campaign and was rewarded for their contributions with an Obamacare waiver for the union representing New York's public school teachers, the United Federation of Teachers, a sub-chapter of the AFT[3]. Interesting. I thought Occupy Wall Street was against that kind of thing. But they haven't been co-opted.

It's also well known, and publicly celebrated by the Occupy Wall Street organization, that they are endorsed by MoveOn.org, perhaps the leading lobby group for Obama's and the Democrat's policies behind Obama's own Organizing For America [4]. When MoveOn.org raised $320,000 for Obama through an organized online donation drive, he rewarded them by paying off their $18,000 in "credit card processing fees" [5]. MoveOn.org proved to be totally partisan and not a bit principled when they advocated Nancy Pelosi's funding bill which prolonged the War in Iraq and prevented the troops from being brought home [6]. Yet despite all this the official Occupy Wall Street website announced "Together we will protest this great injustice. We stand in solidarity with the honest workers of MoveOn.org" [7]. They stand in solidarity, but they haven't been co-opted.

The Occupy Wall Street organization also "stands in solidarity" with the AFL-CIO [8], who say "chances are" they will endorse Obama (Wall Street's President) for re-election [9]. Occupy Wall Street has also been endorsed by the SEIU [10], who spent $28 million electing Wall Street's President [11].

Among Obama's top fianancers of his 2008 campaign were Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citigroup, then banks OWS is supposed to be protesting against [12]. Wall Street of course is lining up again to support his re-election bid [13]. Obama's cabinet is loaded with Wall Street people [14]. Yet this apparently post-partisan group who are protesting against Wall Street are organized, endorsed, supported and backed by Obama front groups. many of whom have corrupted politics with money in great amounts themselves, to elect a President who has been bought by Wall Street. It's a farce!

[Edited 10/11/11 0:00am]

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/11/11 2:57am

rialb

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Beyond conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, both parties are the parties of Wall Street. And maybe to an extent rightfully so. But the Wall St. protests have yet to be co-opted, despite what the talking heads say.

Occupy Wall Street is anything but post-partisan (beyond Republican/Democrat) and it has certainly been co-opted.

The American Federation of Teachers has officially endorsed the Occupy Wall Street organization [1]. The AFT is the 10th biggest political contributor in the country, donating over $31 million since 1989, of which 91% went to Democrats [2]. The AFT spent $1.9 million on Obama's 2008 campaign and was rewarded for their contributions with an Obamacare waiver for the union representing New York's public school teachers, the United Federation of Teachers, a sub-chapter of the AFT[3]. Interesting. I thought Occupy Wall Street was against that kind of thing. But they haven't been co-opted.

It's also well known, and publicly celebrated by the Occupy Wall Street organization, that they are endorsed by MoveOn.org, perhaps the leading lobby group for Obama's and the Democrat's policies behind Obama's own Organizing For America [4]. When MoveOn.org raised $320,000 for Obama through an organized online donation drive, he rewarded them by paying off their $18,000 in "credit card processing fees" [5]. MoveOn.org proved to be totally partisan and not a bit principled when they advocated Nancy Pelosi's funding bill which prolonged the War in Iraq and prevented the troops from being brought home [6]. Yet despite all this the official Occupy Wall Street website announced "Together we will protest this great injustice. We stand in solidarity with the honest workers of MoveOn.org" [7]. They stand in solidarity, but they haven't been co-opted.

The Occupy Wall Street organization also "stands in solidarity" with the AFL-CIO [8], who say "chances are" they will endorse Obama (Wall Street's President) for re-election [9]. Occupy Wall Street has also been endorsed by the SEIU [10], who spent $28 million electing Wall Street's President [11].

Among Obama's top fianancers of his 2008 campaign were Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citigroup, then banks OWS is supposed to be protesting against [12]. Wall Street of course is lining up again to support his re-election bid [13]. Obama's cabinet is loaded with Wall Street people [14]. Yet this apparently post-partisan group who are protesting against Wall Street are organized, endorsed, supported and backed by Obama front groups. many of whom have corrupted politics with money in great amounts themselves, to elect a President who has been bought by Wall Street. It's a farce!

[Edited 10/11/11 0:00am]

It is extremely disappointing, all the more so when you consider that as far as the two parties go there is no difference. Supposedly the Democrats are the party of the working class but the second that President Obama appointed Tim Geithner to be the Secretary of the Treasury he made it clear that he had been bought and paid for by Wall Street. With the Tea Party movement the Republicans are supposedly bowing to the wishes of a grassroots, power to the people movement but by their actions it is clear that they have merely co-opted the movement for their own political advantage.

I feel the same way about the Occupy Wall Street movement as I do about the Tea Party. Both sides have valid points and the other side should be willing to support them but due to the extremely partisan nature of both movements they attract far less support than they otherwise would. The Powers That Be have always done a fantastic job of pitting the little people against each other in order to get what they want.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/11/11 4:21am

DarlingDiana

avatar

rialb said:

It is extremely disappointing, all the more so when you consider that as far as the two parties go there is no difference. Supposedly the Democrats are the party of the working class but the second that President Obama appointed Tim Geithner to be the Secretary of the Treasury he made it clear that he had been bought and paid for by Wall Street. With the Tea Party movement the Republicans are supposedly bowing to the wishes of a grassroots, power to the people movement but by their actions it is clear that they have merely co-opted the movement for their own political advantage.

I feel the same way about the Occupy Wall Street movement as I do about the Tea Party. Both sides have valid points and the other side should be willing to support them but due to the extremely partisan nature of both movements they attract far less support than they otherwise would. The Powers That Be have always done a fantastic job of pitting the little people against each other in order to get what they want.

It is extremely dissapointing, in fact it's so dissapointing that people who support the movement are in denial about how it has been co-opted. It was such a good thing and now it's been taken over by the very thing it was supposed to be against. I know how that feels, trust me, I like the original Tea Party movement before it got co-opted, and in the first stages of the co-opting I denied it too. But it's not completely hopeless. Just like there are still Tea Partiers who still are angry about the bailouts, the Federal Reserve, the PATRIOT act, crony capitalism, even after the corporate influences made it about Obamacare, I assume there will still remain a lot of people who are a part of OWS who will hold true to their original issues (political corruption, banker takeover) even after it is turned into Obama's re-election campaign.

The Republican establishment successfully turned the Tea Party into a movement to elect more Republican to congress (although there were a few good cases of Tea Party primarying establishment candidates with their one - Rand Paul, Deborah Medina). The Democrat establishment is doing the same with Occupy Wall Street, and like you said they are one in the same. Both sides do it because it nuetralizes the anti-establishment elements of both sides. Take their anger with the status quo and channel it towards elections and typical Republican vs Democrat issues so they can stay within the safe confines of the political football game (Democrats vs Republicans) that keeps the "radicals" distracted from real issues.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just the self-preservationist streak both parties have. It serves Republicans well to sense right-wing dissent and turn it into "we are on your side, vote for us" through utilizing lobby groups and think tanks that already support them, radio and TV presenters who already support them etc. It serves Democrats just as well to sense left-wing dissent and turn it into "we are on you side, vote for us" by utilizing lobby groups that support them. MoveOn.org, and all the Obama front groups now involved in OWS, are going to try their hardest to convince Occupy Wall Street that to achieve their objectives Democrats need to win back the house and have a super majority in the Senate. The will make re-electing Obama (which they'll call "blocking the election of a Republican") the most important thing. It's so obvious that's their strategy.

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/11/11 6:55am

PurpleJedi

avatar

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

They've paid it all back????

hmmm

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/11/11 6:57am

PurpleJedi

avatar

rudedog said:

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

No one on wallstreet has been held accountable for their devious actions. Stronger regulations from preventing a repeat of 2008 Financial collapse have not been implemented either. In terms of paying a price, that's a start right there.

The bailouts helped banks from going under, but they haven't helped the ppl that are losing homes because of their greedy decisions that need help now. Or have invested money given to them for free from the bailouts back into a struggling economy. Wallstreet hasn't done anything to help our economy bounced back.

I know plenty of people who have applied for MHA assistance, and NONE have been approved. Income too high, income too low, bad debt, yadda yadda...it's like "business as usual" ignoring th efact that the Feds supplied this cash.

shrug

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/11/11 7:23am

V10LETBLUES

avatar

PurpleJedi said:

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

They've paid it all back????

hmmm

Last I read that they HAD paid most of it back, that they were well on the road to fully paying all of it off. And that the US might even make a profit on the loan. Same with the car bailout.

So the Tea Party and Republicans can't talk shit about this matter either way. Wall St. NEEDED a bail-out and NEEDED government welfare. Likewise the car industry.

Nobody seems to care as much about the American people. When the unemployed, the people laid off as a direct consequence of the economic catastrophe needed extensions to their unemployment insureance, Obama was one of the few who stuck his political neck out for them. But in the end, it stalled and it would only pass on condition that the Republicans could attach more welfare for the rich by extending the temporary Bush Nation destruction act Tax cuts.

Something is wayy off the scale here in America.






[Edited 10/11/11 13:03pm]

[Edited 10/11/11 13:04pm]

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/11/11 10:15am

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

How quaint that we like to think we have a free market, yet certain companies received bailouts that no small business would be able to get.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/11/11 10:41am

DarlingDiana

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

How quaint that we like to think we have a free market, yet certain companies received bailouts that no small business would be able to get.

That's just the beginning of it. Certain companies also get subsidies and grants from the government if their shareholders are related to members of congress. Giant corporations pay no taxes because they claim deductions they put into the tax code while smaller incorporated businesses pay the highest tax rates in the world. Giant corporations lobby for and often write regulations that get their smaller competitors raided and shut down. But left-wing/progressive lobby groups, who financially support the same politicians who are also financially supported by megabanks and giant corporations, advocate for more taxes and more regulations citing the fact that the same corporations who support the same politicians they support don't pay enough taxes and aren't regulated enough. So these big corporations use left-wing lobby groups as a tool to garner support for higher taxes and more regulations on themselves in theory, but in practice they end up getting taxes raised and regulations imposed on their smaller competitors because they financially support the same politicians the left-wing groups lobby for. And the people support it because they think taxes and regulations have been increased on these giant corporations when in fact they are making profits offshore and claiming deductions that were also lobbies for by left-wing groups on the grounds of promoting green technology. Ha ha! They've got this thing figured out man. It's genius!

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 10/11/11 1:10pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

guitarslinger44 said:

How quaint that we like to think we have a free market, yet certain companies received bailouts that no small business would be able to get.

That's just the beginning of it. Certain companies also get subsidies and grants from the government if their shareholders are related to members of congress. Giant corporations pay no taxes because they claim deductions they put into the tax code while smaller incorporated businesses pay the highest tax rates in the world. Giant corporations lobby for and often write regulations that get their smaller competitors raided and shut down. But left-wing/progressive lobby groups, who financially support the same politicians who are also financially supported by megabanks and giant corporations, advocate for more taxes and more regulations citing the fact that the same corporations who support the same politicians they support don't pay enough taxes and aren't regulated enough. So these big corporations use left-wing lobby groups as a tool to garner support for higher taxes and more regulations on themselves in theory, but in practice they end up getting taxes raised and regulations imposed on their smaller competitors because they financially support the same politicians the left-wing groups lobby for. And the people support it because they think taxes and regulations have been increased on these giant corporations when in fact they are making profits offshore and claiming deductions that were also lobbies for by left-wing groups on the grounds of promoting green technology. Ha ha! They've got this thing figured out man. It's genius!

Yes the far-left IS the group lobbying for big corporations, making sure they are recognized as people too. Good thing the far-right is looking out for us, the common folk. Good one.

lol

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 10/11/11 3:33pm

lastdecember

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

DarlingDiana said:

That's just the beginning of it. Certain companies also get subsidies and grants from the government if their shareholders are related to members of congress. Giant corporations pay no taxes because they claim deductions they put into the tax code while smaller incorporated businesses pay the highest tax rates in the world. Giant corporations lobby for and often write regulations that get their smaller competitors raided and shut down. But left-wing/progressive lobby groups, who financially support the same politicians who are also financially supported by megabanks and giant corporations, advocate for more taxes and more regulations citing the fact that the same corporations who support the same politicians they support don't pay enough taxes and aren't regulated enough. So these big corporations use left-wing lobby groups as a tool to garner support for higher taxes and more regulations on themselves in theory, but in practice they end up getting taxes raised and regulations imposed on their smaller competitors because they financially support the same politicians the left-wing groups lobby for. And the people support it because they think taxes and regulations have been increased on these giant corporations when in fact they are making profits offshore and claiming deductions that were also lobbies for by left-wing groups on the grounds of promoting green technology. Ha ha! They've got this thing figured out man. It's genius!

Yes the far-left IS the group lobbying for big corporations, making sure they are recognized as people too. Good thing the far-right is looking out for us, the common folk. Good one.

lol

But the idea of protesting WALL STREET as if its some sort of being its not. Its an illusion just like the idea that everyone can be rich is an illusion. Now granted the establishment are crooks but they always were, the problem this time isnt so much GREED its the fact that no one regulated anything, all regulations of everything were removed under Bush and his regime. Also 2 wars, illegal ones i might add, were started and funded by america. Honestly i never believed in either war and my feeling is that anyone who wanted those wars should have to pay for them not me. Also bankrupting this country is the IDEA of terrorism. Lets get this straight no matter how many people we take out, terrorism is never going away, its like any other crime, its another BOGUS thing to throw money into, so whether its a War on Drugs,Cancer,Aids,Terrorism etc...we like to throw money we dont have at things with no organization at all. And thats my complaint about the Occupying Wall Street, no purpose, great to be unified, but for what? there needs to be someone running the show, their like a band with a different lead singer everyday, trust me, its a great thing to stand up but even better when you know what u are standing up for. Protesting a "symbol" like Wall Street is like protesting Kim Kardashians Ass. There are plenty of things to be mad about in NYC, like the fact that Rents have double in the last decade, and thats on shitty apartments, also 31% of NYC is from NYC, the other 69% are from out of town but almost 2/3 of that 69% are from out of the country that got rich and paid shit loads for property in NYC, NYC was sold about a decade ago in case anyway didnt notice, right around 2001 after 9/11 there was a silent take over of this city, while everyone was underground worried about another attack we lost this city to rich fucks from overseas, that is a reason to be angry, thats also why jobs are gone, anyone who says that Tourism benefits NYC doesnt know economics, the tourism in the last decade is not joe schmo visting from LA and spending his check on the theatre here, tourism now is Joe Schmo coming to NYC and buying property, raising rents and forcing people out, but making all his cash overseas where he doesnt pay anything on it. So if u want to organize, find a theme and spokesperson before you just walk a street and sit in a park.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 10/11/11 4:06pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I saw a conservative writer on MSNBC who said he camped out with the protesters and actually was impressed by much of it. Take that righties.

wildsign Wave your wildsigns high!! wildsign
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 10/11/11 5:16pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Rick Santorum: "Business didn't want to bring jobs overseas."

lol lol lol lol lol

Thanks for the laugh, Rick.

wildsign Wave your wildsigns high!! wildsign
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 10/11/11 5:26pm

rialb

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Rick Santorum: "Business didn't want to bring jobs overseas."

lol lol lol lol lol

Thanks for the laugh, Rick.

I just shake my head at the stupidity of the things the GOP candidates are saying about how they will bring jobs back. Yes, taxes are one component but there is a huge factor that none of them are talking about: wages! If a company can set up in another country and pay their workers a tiny fraction of what they would need to pay an American to do the same job the goverment can give them all the tax incentives in the world but it will not work.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 10/11/11 5:49pm

lastdecember

avatar

rialb said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Rick Santorum: "Business didn't want to bring jobs overseas."

lol lol lol lol lol

Thanks for the laugh, Rick.

I just shake my head at the stupidity of the things the GOP candidates are saying about how they will bring jobs back. Yes, taxes are one component but there is a huge factor that none of them are talking about: wages! If a company can set up in another country and pay their workers a tiny fraction of what they would need to pay an American to do the same job the goverment can give them all the tax incentives in the world but it will not work.

Exactly its not going away, companies are gonna use countries like CHINA that pay about $1 minimum wage to do the same things we do for more, i mean will americans accept that as the minimum wage? of course not, but since there is no regulation, there is also NO penalty for sending jobs away and there is no break to a business hiring and making shit here as opposed to overseas, there is no where to go with this. Also as Bill Maher pointed out, and thank god someone is REAL with this, maybe we are just too damn over populated and jobs are running out, this is something that no one ever talks about, but i looked into it and the USA is alot more populated than it was say 10 years ago, people live about 5-8 years longer than 10 years ago, it used to be 70 now the average is 78, and soon im sure its going to be over 80 years old, thats money being paid and dont get me wrong im glad i have loved ones living longer, but the picture is where is the money coming from? You cant have 3 wars, a BLOATED fake homeland security that is more wasted than good, and all the other things and at the same time no investment in your country, sorry but its a much bigger picture than Wall Street and Banks, they are about 1% of the problem. ALso on the overpopulation, believe it or not, despite marriage declining in this country, having kids has risen at least 2 per household in 10 years, so, all im saying is something has got to give here and people are not gonna like it, but its got to be.

And last but not least....WHY is no one angry at the fact that, alright, i understand being angry about bailing out Banks etc....and yet no one bitches about ATM fees??? I mean 3-5dollars to get MY MONEY! Why is there no march for this shit, fuck bailouts, this is a bigger racket. Ask yourself if everyone is broke or struggling, why is there a bank on every corner? or everytime a store closes down a bank opens up? GUESS


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 10/11/11 6:55pm

Dauphin

avatar

Spinlight said:

Dauphin said:

My understanding is that banks were paid $200 Billion in TARP bailouts and that they have paid back $200 Billion.

I don't support the bailouts, but did they work? What is Krugman talking about "They have paid no price"?

Oops, when you include the additional TARP funding under the AARA and the additional bailouts to BoA/AIG, GM, Etc., the govt put out $415 and have taken in (as of August) $315.

A 2010 NYTimes article says that expected losses have been dropping, almost minimized to the $50 Billion HAMP fund that was never intended to paid off.

[Edited 10/10/11 14:00pm]

Do you have no idea what the hell actually is going on? Seems to me you think its merely about dollars and cents when real, actual lives are being destroyed. Where's my 200 billion? Where's bailouts for people sitting over on Wall Street? Nowhere. That's where. razz

Actually I do have an idea what the hell is actually going on. We have a hack economist/journalist named Paul Krugman taking advantage of the Occupy Wall Street movement to further his agenda that includes the idea that Banks Got Away Scott Free.

No. "Banks" did not get away "paying no price." A select few number of banks were given favoritism by the Government. And they were given further favoritism by the current administration by a) not spending all the the money right away so that banks that received money early would have an advantage, b) being lax in enforcing laws on select banks, and c) allowing banks to pay shareholders before paying back america.

Instead of being specific and calling out BoA, AIG, etc, he lumps all the banks in together. A tactic. A tactic used by pundits to further their political agendas.

And please tell me that you don't think the Occupy Wall Street movement is about hand-outs. It's a anti-consumerist movement that all sorts of left wing agendas have latched onto. Some have valid points. Some don't.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All Glory To the Hypno-Toad! eek

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 19 123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Wall St. Protests: Panic of the Plutocrats