rialb 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]

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.

See, you did what Krugman wouldn't do. You called out Goldman Sachs and specifically brought up something. Krugman, in contrast, simply stated that "Wall Street's Masters of the Universe" "yet they have paid no price."

Who? Who is he talking about? He rants about TARP and AARA and throws all banks under the bus. ?Call them out, Krugman" is all I'm saying.

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.

Jesus Christ you're partisan. Just because I am criticising left wing lobby groups doesn't mean I'm praising right-wing lobby groups. it doesn't even mean I'm attacking the left. These are just labels they slap on themselves while they push bills that extend wars. Real, genuine people who describe themselves as "left-wing" or "progressive", I don't think are truly represented by the Obama front groups who have co-opted OWS.The same groups that also fund the same politicians that Wall Street funds. Ha ha! It's so funny!

Let me lay it out for you since all you want to do is laugh about it, and I'll tell you about the right-wing advocacy groups and their role in it too. Understand that it's not a conspiracy, left-wing lobby groups do not work with corporate lobby groups to increase taxes and regulations on small business. It just works out that way and I'm going to explain how.

With perfectly good intentions, left-wing lobby groups will advocate for higher taxes and more regulations on big banks and big corporations. Obviously they get the general left-wing populice behind this because they genuinely do agree with that. So then they will raise money and donate it to the Democrats so that they can raise the taxes and increase regulations. But then corporate lobby groups come in fund the same Democratic politicians. So now they have to answer to two groups, one wants them to raise taxes and regulations, the other only wants them raise on their competitors. They achieve this through other well-intentioned things their left wing sponsors advocate. Such as incentives for green technology, which end up giving GE a zero dollar tax bill. On the regulation side they get involved in the legislative process to come with rules that would basically make their smaller competitors implement the expensive health and safety standards the big corporations already have. E.g. Mattell got involved in writing the legislation to regulate lead in toys and ended up making it so that their smaller competitors had to implement the expensive lead screening equipment that Mattell was already using. In effect Mattell was exempt from the law because the law mandated they do things that Mattell were already doing.

But the problem is it will not always work out this nicely for them. Not everything the left-wing groups advocate can inadvertently help big corporations, and Democrats wont do everything the corporate lobbies want because they also have voter bases to keep happy. Not everything can be as subversive as raising taxes on the rich but exempting the megarich (so in effect raising taxes on small business owners). So that's where the right-wing advocacy groups come in handy, and boy do they. They are already advocating things the corporate lobbies want, except that they do want them on their competitors. The good thing is that the taxes megacorporations actually pay are so low compared to their smaller competitors who pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and Republicans will always advocate to keep it that way. The wont advocate to raise taxes on their competitors, but Democrats will. So it's all good. What right-wing groups are good for is pushing free trade agreements, corporate rights (corporate personhood), right to work, and things I think are actually good.

So you can begin to see how it works. Corporate lobby groups put their feet in both camps for different reasons. They make left-wing tax hikes apply only to their competitors, they make right-wing tax cuts apply only to themselves. They same principles applies for regulations. When Democrats want to increase regulations they end up applying to smaller competitors. When Republicans want to deregulate it only applies to the big corporations and somehow the small businesses are still being raided. They get tax deductions from the left that "give incentves for green technology and green jobs", and they get tax deductions from the right that "give incentives for small businesses and private sector job creation", lol! It's fucking funny. You should keep laughing about it. This is how they have co-opted capitalism. We do not have capitalism. We have crony capitalism. Yet you have the self-propelled stomach Michael Moore, multi-millionaire Michael Moore, shouting "end capitalism!" Can we start with his movies then, please?

[Edited 10/12/11 7:43am]

DarlingDiana said:

V10LETBLUES said:

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.

Jesus Christ you're partisan. Just because I am criticising left wing lobby groups doesn't not mean I'm praising right-wing lobby groups.

Well it would help if you would ALSO mentioned the many failings of right once in a while, which you rarely do. You did't do that on that post. Which I found funny. In fact, the way your post reads, I thought you joking becasue it sounded like you were putting ALL the blame of lobbying for big bussiness on the left (or the "leftists" as you like to call them )

At least call out the shenanigans on the right once in a while so you wont come off as such a partisan. I know you do not like being called out as a partisan, but you are, and there is nothing wrong with it unless you come off as paranoid and seem to only see the world through BS colored glasses.

V10LETBLUES said:

DarlingDiana said:

Jesus Christ you're partisan. Just because I am criticising left wing lobby groups doesn't mean I'm praising right-wing lobby groups.

Well it would help if you would ALSO mentioned the many failings of right once in a while, which you rarely do. You did't do that on that post. Which I found funny. In fact, the way your post reads, I thought you joking becasue it sounded like you were putting ALL the blame of lobbying for big bussiness on the left (or the "leftists" as you like to call them )

At least call out the shenanigans on the right once in a while so you wont come off as such a partisan. I know you do not like being called out as a partisan, but you are, and there is nothing wrong with it unless you come off as paranoid and seem to only see the world through BS colored glasses.

I don't see shit through the same left-right paradigm you do. I don't see some criticizing left-wing/Democrat/Obama/whatever you want to call them lobby groups and say "they must be a Republican". That's stupid. That's the same side vs side bullshit that has destroyed political discourse. It's the same bullshit that the Democrat establishment who have co-opted OWS and the Republican establishment who co-opted the Tea Party want you to buy into because it keeps the political football game going. The right and the left are the same thing. Hitler and Stalin are no polar opposites even though you were taught in school that one was far right and the other was far left. But I'm forced to use these bullshit terms because they've already been established in the political discourse. For example, you don't like that I use the term "leftist". Well I can't use "liberal", that's even more inaccurate. I can't use "Democrat" because they don't claim to be partisan. OWS is beautiful, magical, "post-partisan" movement after all. A post-partisan movement supported by Obama/Democrat front groups who financially back the same candidates who are in the pocket with Wall Street, who OWS is protesting against!

This is a thread about Occupy Wall Street, a left-wing/Democrat/pro-Obama movement. So let's irrelevantly bring up right-wing lobby groups for the sake of fake balance. That makes sense. This forum is dominate by leftists/Democrats/Obama supporters/whatever you want me to call them, Sir. I have zero interest in pandering to the populice here and telling them everything they've already read on left-wing/Democrat/pro-Obama/whatever you want me to call them, blogs. I'm a lot more interested in telling people the truth about the people/the party/the side/the ideology that they support. People here, who think Occupy Wall Street is going to change the world, have to know that OWS has been co-opted by Democrat/Obama front groups who have received political favors from Obama (e.g. MoveOn.org, American Federation of Teachers), Obama being the same guy who is bought by Wall Street (received more money from Goldman Sachs than the evil, Republican, pro-corporate McCain in 2008) whose Secretary of Treasury is Tim Geithner, the man Wall Street calls their man in the White House.

The worst thing about is they (OWS) blame all the problems on capitalism yet it's their organization support who have helped co-opt capitalism by advocating for higher taxes and more regulations, while paying Democrats to do that for them, while those same Democrats are receiving funding from the big corporations who the left-wing groups want to pay higher taxes and be regulated more. The end result is that the corporations use that to their advantage to get the higher taxes and regulations applied to their competitors while they claim exemptions that the left-wing groups also advocated for but for different reasons (e.g. incentives for green technology). And I'll keep explaining that until you get it, until you stop laughing about it, until you stop ignoring it.

[Edited 10/12/11 8:28am]

It took a lot, but Hannity actually found a few inarticulate protesters.

http://www.foxnews.com/on...t_id=86924

Here's the truth:

http://www.democracynow.o...st_expands

http://www.democracynow.o...den_heuvel

The fact there are smart individuals there, and I know there are because there's actually been some fair and decent coverage of the Occupy movement. I've been watching Adam Kokesh's coverage of Occupy DC and October 2011. So I've seen the evidence, there are smart individuals involved in this, and that just makes it more dissapointing. It sucks to see intelligent people being duped by Obama front groups.

So many people are involved in this it's crazy. Adbusters received funding from Soros, the people who own the park where protesters are occupying in NY were recently given a government loan, oh and the Mayor's sister-in-law happens to be on the board of that company and suddenly he's out saying "yeah, stay there all you want."

It's telling that all the Koch-cryers are sitting on their hands with this one.

V10LETBLUES said:

PurpleJedi said:

They've paid it all back????

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]

No one who has a net worth of less than $6 million should ever vote a Republican into office. There are clear ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats, and that difference is very stark if you look at Congressional voting records. There are always exceptions (the recent vote on the jobs bill is a good example, where some Senate Dems voted against it due to interests in their own state, such as Nelson of Nebraska who carries big oil in his back pocket).

At the root of the problem are the campaign finance laws. These laws really need to be reformed, to reduce corruption and influence peddling. Maybe then Congres would start passing legislation that reflects the will of the people (e.g., single payer health care as an option, which polls showed the majority wanted).

Editing here to add this: I thought we loaned all this money to the banks at below market interests rates (something like 3% below), which resulted in an outright gift of $30billion plus if you look at that as a lost revenue opportunity. The banks made out like bandits. During the Savings and Loan crisis, scores of financial cheats went to PRISON! Contrast that with the what happened to the top people that many in the media said were responsible in 2008. Pretty much nothing, or, worse, they actually profited from the meltdown. Like Joe Cassano, the AIG executive widely regarded as the mastermind behind credit default swaps (CDS's). He resigned in Feb. of 2008, and was rehired as a multi-million dollar consultant, to help explain to the industry how his invention (CDS's) work (so they could unravel the toxic mess). The last news story I read siad that he lives in a swank flat in London. No telling how many millions he got when he resigned.

25 People to Blame (Time Magazine)

[Edited 10/12/11 9:54am]

Dang, obviously Hannity was extremely biased and did nothing to show that there are legitimate gripes and of course if you shoot enough footage you can twist it to meet your opinion but, yuck, all those hippies! It pisses me off that if only these people would be slightly more moderate they would attract much more support but these people are so far to the left that they are turning me off and I generally support what they are trying to do. I can see this movement being used as a huge fund raiser for Republicans.

Where is Eric Cartman when he is really needed?

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.

And neither has Barney Frank, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac....what do you propose we do with them?

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]

You are right, Obama and the Democrats received more money from Wall Street than the Republicans during the presidential elections. They also immediately after the election shifted from the "inclusive" rhetoric of the election to the serving of the interests of big business, as they always do. As long as you accept to manage a capitalism in crisis, the interests of working people and youth will end up at the bottom of the pile...

But this doesn't mean that these protests shouldn't be supported. Support for the Democrats - the second party of big business - should be criticized imo. But you can do that as a part of the movement, whose main thrust anyway is an anger against the "system" as a whole, and the injustices it causes. It's positive that union members are present though. It means working people and youth can start to discuss an alternative to both wings of big business. To include a broader layer of working people, and the unions, I think these Occupy collectives can call for bigger demonstrations on Saturday's for example. There is surely a broader support and I think such a movement can become bigger if it focuses on the issues broader layers of working class people face (visiting and showing solidarity with workers in companies where lay offs were announced, protesting foreclosures, formulating demands around public, single payer healthcare,...).

[Edited 10/12/11 12:19pm]

DarlingDiana said:

The fact there are smart individuals there, and I know there are because there's actually been some fair and decent coverage of the Occupy movement. I've been watching Adam Kokesh's coverage of Occupy DC and October 2011. So I've seen the evidence, there are smart individuals involved in this, and that just makes it more dissapointing. It sucks to see intelligent people being duped by Obama front groups.

So your heart is really bleeding for this movement, DarlingDiana? Except that they need to grow out of the '60s hippie slogans you seem to have discovered and the other red (!!) herrings of misguided leftism? As you seem to be deeply aware of what this movement is really about why don't you go out and visit some of these manifestations, and a camp or two? Instead of limiting yourself to repetitive - bordering on mild obsession - anti-Obama posting on what is just a website. You're doing a disservice to the sincerity, the anger and the diversity - with regard to its broad concerns - of this movement by turning it into an electoral game between Democrats and Republicans. I personally think Obama and the Democrats offer no way forward at all for working people. I think a broad party for workers and youth should be built in the US, independant of the influence of big business. So again, if you think the issue is not "too much free market", but instead that we have too little of the pure, unrestricted and ideal capitalism you espouse, please put on your Libertarian coat, try to put together and print a little pamphlet (don't forget some quotes from Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul of course, and the great Milton Friedman), go out to these Occupy initiatives and try to convince the people - intelligent people - you clearly sympathize so much with, and want to save from the Obama (fair enough I guess...) and anti-capitalist cohorts.

[Edited 10/12/11 13:13pm]

Believe me, adbusters gets no money.

Why is Adam Kokesh being a hater?

Kokesh, we are the government, you motherfucker!

Government has to protect us from Wall Street terror.

Another conspiracy theory is that George Soros is funding Adbusters. Don't believe it:

http://www.huffingtonpost...86493.html

babynoz said:

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]

Nice.

Guys, try not to fall for this Iran story. Just because the State Department said it does not make it true. According to a guest on Democracy Now today, why would Iran be so brazen as to kill someone on American soil? Good point. This is a way to distract. Unless there is hard evidence I am skeptical.

2freaky4church1 said:

Another conspiracy theory is that George Soros is funding Adbusters. Don't believe it:

http://www.huffingtonpost...86493.html

Pay no mind, it's panic driven hysteria. No one on the right or left paid any attention to the occupiers for nearly two weeks while the media tried to ignore them completely hoping they would go away. Now that the cops made the story unavoidable by busting a few heads there's all manner of pundits and operatives trying to spin the occupation story in their favor...SSDD.

You're gonna see a whole lot more conspiracy theories before this is over.

V10LETBLUES 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]

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]

Lehman Brothers went out of business and unemployed thousands. I think they paid a price.

Acting immorally is not necessarily illegal.

What assistance to the working class? Who would determine who received what? Because someone else gets something, everyone does? How does that work?

2freaky4church1 said:

Guys, try not to fall for this Iran story. Just because the State Department said it does not make it true. According to a guest on Democracy Now today, why would Iran be so brazen as to kill someone on American soil? Good point. This is a way to distract. Unless there is hard evidence I am skeptical.

Why would Americans be so brazen as to kill someone on American soil?

Because the opportunity is there.

Iran as a country can't be charged in a court with murder. (Individuals murder.) They can be a conspirator and likely civillly sued, but good luck collecting on a judgment.

babynoz said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Another conspiracy theory is that George Soros is funding Adbusters. Don't believe it:

http://www.huffingtonpost...86493.html

Pay no mind, it's panic driven hysteria. No one on the right or left paid any attention to the occupiers for nearly two weeks while the media tried to ignore them completely hoping they would go away. Now that the cops made the story unavoidable by busting a few heads there's all manner of pundits and operatives trying to spin the occupation story in their favor...SSDD.

You're gonna see a whole lot more conspiracy theories before this is over.

You're saying that the Tides Foundation has nothing to do with Adbusters?

If you're going to pull the curtain back on the TEA Parties and point fingers at the Kochs, why flinch when we see Soros involved at high levels of these "dream" movements?

2freaky4church1 said:

Guys, try not to fall for this Iran story. Just because the State Department said it does not make it true. According to a guest on Democracy Now today, why would Iran be so brazen as to kill someone on American soil? Good point. This is a way to distract. Unless there is hard evidence I am skeptical.

autopost error

[Edited 10/12/11 23:20pm]

marxisreal said:

DarlingDiana said:

The fact there are smart individuals there, and I know there are because there's actually been some fair and decent coverage of the Occupy movement. I've been watching Adam Kokesh's coverage of Occupy DC and October 2011. So I've seen the evidence, there are smart individuals involved in this, and that just makes it more dissapointing. It sucks to see intelligent people being duped by Obama front groups.

So your heart is really bleeding for this movement, DarlingDiana? Except that they need to grow out of the '60s hippie slogans you seem to have discovered and the other red (!!) herrings of misguided leftism? As you seem to be deeply aware of what this movement is really about why don't you go out and visit some of these manifestations, and a camp or two? Instead of limiting yourself to repetitive - bordering on mild obsession - anti-Obama posting on what is just a website. You're doing a disservice to the sincerity, the anger and the diversity - with regard to its broad concerns - of this movement by turning it into an electoral game between Democrats and Republicans. I personally think Obama and the Democrats offer no way forward at all for working people. I think a broad party for workers and youth should be built in the US, independant of the influence of big business. So again, if you think the issue is not "too much free market", but instead that we have too little of the pure, unrestricted and ideal capitalism you espouse, please put on your Libertarian coat, try to put together and print a little pamphlet (don't forget some quotes from Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul of course, and the great Milton Friedman), go out to these Occupy initiatives and try to convince the people - intelligent people - you clearly sympathize so much with, and want to save from the Obama (fair enough I guess...) and anti-capitalist cohorts.

I'm not really an activist. At least not in the sense of shouting in the streets with signs. Have I been involved in some protests or rallies? Yes. But they have had very different message than OWS, such as End the Fed. Anyway, people like Adam Kokesh are at Occupy DC and from what I can tell every participant of ODC has been warned about him, so speaking to him has been delegated to the more senior members of the organization, and if anyone but a leader of the organization speaks to him it's just to yell at him, be sarcastic, mock Ron Paul and libertarianism. I can't be dealing with that. Why would I? They clearly have their minds made up. They aren't just poor, out-of-work people with no political agenda just a sense that something aint right. They are far left people who have dedicated themselves to that side of politics for a very long time. So, no I'm not going to OWS. I don't want to be a part of it, I don't support their agenda, and I don't care to try to change their minds to no avail. Have you been to OWS? Are you participating in the occupation?

Btw, what's a "libertarian coat"?

SUPRMAN said:

V10LETBLUES said:

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]

Lehman Brothers went out of business and unemployed thousands. I think they paid a price.

Acting immorally is not necessarily illegal.

What assistance to the working class? Who would determine who received what? Because someone else gets something, everyone does? How does that work?

Some people think they crossed the line from immoral to criminal. And going out of business is not "paying the price". If you go out of business by doing shady business, that's only the beginning of most business owners problems.

They got bailed by taxpayer money and a lot of people that worked there would want nothing better than for this go away quietly. But hopefully that is not the case. Hopefully a lot of the practices that led to this mess go through the microscope. And hopefully work to see to it that the same type of meltdown never happens again.

And again, the act of going out of business is not paying the price...in the real world, that's only the beginning.

[Edited 10/13/11 4:41am]

DarlingDiana said:

marxisreal said:

So your heart is really bleeding for this movement, DarlingDiana? Except that they need to grow out of the '60s hippie slogans you seem to have discovered and the other red (!!) herrings of misguided leftism? As you seem to be deeply aware of what this movement is really about why don't you go out and visit some of these manifestations, and a camp or two? Instead of limiting yourself to repetitive - bordering on mild obsession - anti-Obama posting on what is just a website. You're doing a disservice to the sincerity, the anger and the diversity - with regard to its broad concerns - of this movement by turning it into an electoral game between Democrats and Republicans. I personally think Obama and the Democrats offer no way forward at all for working people. I think a broad party for workers and youth should be built in the US, independant of the influence of big business. So again, if you think the issue is not "too much free market", but instead that we have too little of the pure, unrestricted and ideal capitalism you espouse, please put on your Libertarian coat, try to put together and print a little pamphlet (don't forget some quotes from Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul of course, and the great Milton Friedman), go out to these Occupy initiatives and try to convince the people - intelligent people - you clearly sympathize so much with, and want to save from the Obama (fair enough I guess...) and anti-capitalist cohorts.

I'm not really an activist. At least not in the sense of shouting in the streets with signs. Have I been involved in some protests or rallies? Yes. But they have had very different message than OWS, such as End the Fed. Anyway, people like Adam Kokesh are at Occupy DC and from what I can tell every participant of ODC has been warned about him, so speaking to him has been delegated to the more senior members of the organization, and if anyone but a leader of the organization speaks to him it's just to yell at him, be sarcastic, mock Ron Paul and libertarianism. I can't be dealing with that. Why would I? They clearly have their minds made up. They aren't just poor, out-of-work people with no political agenda just a sense that something aint right. They are far left people who have dedicated themselves to that side of politics for a very long time. So, no I'm not going to OWS. I don't want to be a part of it, I don't support their agenda, and I don't care to try to change their minds to no avail. Have you been to OWS? Are you participating in the occupation?

Btw, what's a "libertarian coat"?

Well at least it's not a turncoat, even if it stays "in the closet". Well, if you believe in your ideas you should confront them with real people and real movements in society, not only stuffy books or Prince.org. I think socialists/marxists should have discussed with representatives of the Tea Party, as I think there were a lot of people there who were not simply Republican operatives. One should critically engage with a populist phenomenon as the Tea Party, in order to expose the right wing, anti-working class nature of this movement and offer some real anti-establishment alternatives. And no, I live in Belgium, we're not occupied yet - mmm, I could have phrased that somewhat differently...

V10LETBLUES said:

SUPRMAN said:

Lehman Brothers went out of business and unemployed thousands. I think they paid a price.

Acting immorally is not necessarily illegal.

What assistance to the working class? Who would determine who received what? Because someone else gets something, everyone does? How does that work?

Some people think they crossed the line from immoral to criminal. And going out of business is not "paying the price". If you go out of business by doing shady business, that's only the beginning of most business owners problems.

They got bailed by taxpayer money and a lot of people that worked there would want nothing better than for this go away quietly. But hopefully that is not the case. Hopefully a lot of the practices that led to this mess go through the microscope. And hopefully work to see to it that the same type of meltdown never happens again.

And again, the act of going out of business is not paying the price...in the real world, that's only the beginning.

[Edited 10/13/11 4:41am]

I'm afraid that if you examine President Obama's recent "reform" of Wall Street you will see that virtually nothing concrete was done. It's business as usual.

rialb said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Some people think they crossed the line from immoral to criminal. And going out of business is not "paying the price". If you go out of business by doing shady business, that's only the beginning of most business owners problems.

They got bailed by taxpayer money and a lot of people that worked there would want nothing better than for this go away quietly. But hopefully that is not the case. Hopefully a lot of the practices that led to this mess go through the microscope. And hopefully work to see to it that the same type of meltdown never happens again.

And again, the act of going out of business is not paying the price...in the real world, that's only the beginning.

[Edited 10/13/11 4:41am]

I'm afraid that if you examine President Obama's recent "reform" of Wall Street you will see that virtually nothing concrete was done. It's business as usual.

I completely agree. Likewise the protesters on Wall St.

V10LETBLUES said:

SUPRMAN said:

Lehman Brothers went out of business and unemployed thousands. I think they paid a price.

Acting immorally is not necessarily illegal.

What assistance to the working class? Who would determine who received what? Because someone else gets something, everyone does? How does that work?

Some people think they crossed the line from immoral to criminal. And going out of business is not "paying the price". If you go out of business by doing shady business, that's only the beginning of most business owners problems.

They got bailed by taxpayer money and a lot of people that worked there would want nothing better than for this go away quietly. But hopefully that is not the case. Hopefully a lot of the practices that led to this mess go through the microscope. And hopefully work to see to it that the same type of meltdown never happens again.

And again, the act of going out of business is not paying the price...in the real world, that's only the beginning.

[Edited 10/13/11 4:41am]

It is nevertheless a price. Not the amount you want though obviously.

The same type of meltdown can and likely will happen again because it is caused by human behavior.

This wasn't the first credit crisis or first confidence crisis.

Lehmans Brothers wasn't bailed out by taxpayers money. Bush's refusal to do so is what led to the confidence crisis which triggered the credit crisis which triggered the need for bailouts.

Shady business, is not necessarily illegal business. Businesses fail. People aren't breaking the law simply because the business failed.