2freaky4church1 said:

Greed and competition are immoral contructs. This is why capitalism as it is practiced now, has to go.

???

Both are human behavior.

It's always been a case of he who dies with the most toys (wives, cows, land, power, soldiers, etc) wins.

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.

OP-ED NY Times

Panic of the Plutocrats

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

By PAUL KRUGMAN

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]

Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street”

Written by Alex Newman

Labor unions, communists, “community organizers,” socialists, and anti-capitalist agitators have all joined together to “Occupy Wall Street” and protest against “greed,” corporations, and bankers. But despite efforts to portray the movement as “leaderless” or “grassroots,” it is becoming obvious that there is much more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.

Billionaire financier George Soros’ fingerprints, for example, have been all over the anti-Wall Street campaign from the very beginning. And this week, the infamous hedge-fund boss publicly announced his sympathy for the protesters and their complaints about bailouts — despite the fact that he lobbied for even greater unconstitutional handouts to bankers in 2009.

“Actually I can understand their sentiment, frankly,” he told reporters while announcing a large donation to the United Nations. “I can sympathize with their grievances.”

But Soros’ support for the protesters goes far beyond his tepid public statements. In fact, the original call to “Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

Other Soros-backed outfits promoting big government — some with myriad ties to the Obama administration — are also publicly driving the occupation campaign. MoveOn.org, for instance, has received millions of dollars from the billionaire banker. And now, the group is urging its supporters to join the Occupy Wall Street movement as well.

“Over the last two weeks, an amazing wave of protest against Wall Street and the big banks has erupted across the country,” MoveOn said in a recent e-mail to supporters, praising the “brave” demonstrators. “On Wednesday, MoveOn members will join labor and community groups in New York City for a huge march down to the protest site — the biggest yet.”

On top of supplying activists to join the demonstrations, MoveOn is also staging what it calls a “massive ‘Virtual March on Wall Street’ online.” The Internet-based demonstrations are a collaborative effort with another radical and well-connected outfit tied to Soros called Rebuild the Dream.

Led by self-described communist and former Obama administration czar Van Jones, the “Dream” movement is a partnership between a host of Soros-financed “progressive” groups. Big Labor and even Planned Parenthood — the largest abortion provider in America, which receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year — are partners, too.

“Together, we'll add hundreds of thousands of voices of solidarity from the American Dream Movement for the protests across the country and show just how widespread outrage at the Wall Street banks really is,” MoveOn boasted in its e-mail.

Other groups working with Rebuild the Dream are also publicly hyping the demonstrations. And more than a few of them are on the Soros payroll as well. Some examples include People For The American Way, Planned Parenthood, Campaign For America's Future, Democracy For America, Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, Common Cause, Public Campaign, and many more.

Soros, of course, has a long history of financing organizations targeting the American system of government. He has also served on the board of the immensely influential global-governance-promoting Council on Foreign Relations.

Just last year, Soros claimed that the brutal communist dictatorship ruling mainland China should lead what he calls the “New World Order.” The Chinese tyrants, meanwhile, have also been touting Occupy Wall Street through the regime’s propaganda organs.

But Soros does not love the despots in Beijing for their commitment to “equality” or “democracy.” As The New American reported, behind Soros and his tens of billions lies even more wealth and power: the unimaginably vast Rothschild banking empire.

One of the richest men in the world today, Soros has been in legal trouble for corruption before — in France, for instance, he was fined more than $2 million for his illegal scheming. So, critics noted, it might seem ironic that the textbook example of a “corrupt financier” would finance a protest supposedly aimed at corrupt financiers. But the irony hardly ends there.

Union bosses and others intimately linked to President Obama — whose top campaign contributors included Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and other big banks — are also playing a key role in the Wall Street protests. The protesters are even recycling administration talking points such as the old “the rich should be forced to pay their 'fair share'" — despite the fact that the “Buffett rule” tax proposal being advanced would almost exclusively soak what remains of the middle class.

But that might be the point. According to reports and analysts, the whole anti-Wall Street movement has been carefully orchestrated by the Obama-linked anti-capitalist union titans and tax-funded “community organizers.” A troubling plot to essentially finish off capitalism was exposed earlier this year, and at the time it was blasted as “economic terrorism.” Even more disturbing: It was uncannily similar to the growing Wall Street demonstrations.

Community organizer Stephen Lerner of the SEIU, a regular White House guest, was caught on video in March discussing the scheme to “bring down the stock market” and "destabilize" the nation — all with the stated goal of "redistributing wealth." And while the whole conspiracy was not revealed because Lerner suspected police were present, the strategies he mentioned included civil disobedience and mass anti-banker protests.

Another conspirator said to be pulling the strings, disgraced ACORN founder and union boss Wade Rathke, was advocating massive “Day of Rage” protests targeting bankers earlier this year. And he is also closely tied to Obama, who actually used to work for Rathke’s “community organizing” outfit.

ACORN, of course, was recently exposed engaging in widespread criminal activity while receiving millions of federal tax dollars. But after the organization filed for bankruptcy, its tentacles are taking over under new names — and still receiving government handouts.

Rathke is also a founding board member of the Soros-funded Tides Foundation, a key source of money for AdBusters magazine (which first called for the Wall Street occupation) and countless other anti-business groups. And he is directly tied to more than a few unions including the SEIU.

Beyond Big Labor and Soros “front groups,” as critics call them, is also a vast collection of socialist and Marxist organizations supporting the demonstrations. The Socialist Party USA, the Marxist-oriented Workers World Party, the International Committee of the Fourth International, and the Communist Party USA-affiliated People’s World are all publicly and openly backing the movement.

While the occupation movement purports to be “leaderless,” in reality, critics say its leaders and financiers are barely concealed. According to analysts, the protests — which are quickly spreading to cities across the United States, Canada, and Europe — actually represent a well-orchestrated operation being used by the very same elite “one percent” supposedly being protested against.

The “official” goals remain murky so far, almost certainly not by chance. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that liberty and honest money are not among the demands. Rather, bigger government, higher taxes, and an end to what remains of the free market system seem to be at the top of the list. (end of article)

If you think George Soros, and these other people and organizations are pro-American then your just a being a useful idiot with no common sense. All the information is out there if you would just decide to seek it out, but I guess you would prefer just to think I'm stupid rather than to do your own homework.

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]

So, I decided to do a this simple google search "American Nazi Party Occupy Wall Street", and here are the first 10 results that I got.

01 American Nazi Party Endorses Occupy Wall Street's 'Courage,' Tells ...
02 Communist Party | Nazi Party | Occupy Wall Street | The Daily Caller
03 American Nazi Party Declares Its Full Support For Occupy Wall Street
04 American Nazi Party supports Occupy Wall Street | The Right Scoop
05 Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall ...
06 Nazi Party Supports Occupy Wall Street - Katie Pavlich
07 WhiteHonor » The 'Occupy Wall Street' Movement
08 American Nazi Party endorses Occupy Wall Street street – to fight .
09 Occupy Wall Street: endorsed by the American Nazi Party! « Sister ...
10 Occupy Wall Street: endorsed by the American Nazi Party! « Public ...

I then decided to do this google search "Communist Party USA Occupy Wall Street" and here are the first 11 results that I got.

01 News for Communist Party USA occupy wall street
02 Communist Party heralds Occupy Wall Street movement » cpusa
03 Solidarity with “Occupy Wall Street” » cpusa - Communist Party USA
04 Communist Party USA
Communist Party heralds Occupy Wall Street movement ... We greet the Occupy ...
05 Communist Party | Nazi Party | Occupy Wall Street | The Daily Caller
06 Nazi Party and Communist Party Support Occupy Wall Street ...
07 Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall ...
08 Nazi Party Endorses Occupy Wall Street - ...as does the Communist ...
09 Solid Evidence That Occupy Wall Street Is A Communist Movement ...
10 Occupy Chicago Gives Rousing Welcome to Communist Party USA
11 Occupy Wall Street Goes Global | FrontPage Magazine

Why don't you all do these simple google searches and read some of these articles and get informed.
Here is my original post, and I stick by it.

The "Occupy Wall St. Campaign" people are not friends of America. These protest are being organized and funded by George Soros, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, and many other Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Progressive organizations. I've been a Prince fan since 1981, but just because you're Prince fans doesn't mean you also have to be uninformed useful idiot pawns for these anti-American organizations. Do your homework and get a clue, before your freedom is taken away from you. Just because your young, it doesn't also mean you have to be dumb.

Aijahlon 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]

So, I decided to do a this simple google search "American Nazi Party Occupy Wall Street", and here are the first 10 results that I got.

01 American Nazi Party Endorses Occupy Wall Street's 'Courage,' Tells ...
02 Communist Party | Nazi Party | Occupy Wall Street | The Daily Caller
03 American Nazi Party Declares Its Full Support For Occupy Wall Street
04 American Nazi Party supports Occupy Wall Street | The Right Scoop
05 Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall ...
06 Nazi Party Supports Occupy Wall Street - Katie Pavlich
07 WhiteHonor » The 'Occupy Wall Street' Movement
08 American Nazi Party endorses Occupy Wall Street street – to fight .
09 Occupy Wall Street: endorsed by the American Nazi Party! « Sister ...
10 Occupy Wall Street: endorsed by the American Nazi Party! « Public ...

I then decided to do this google search "Communist Party USA Occupy Wall Street" and here are the first 11 results that I got.

01 News for Communist Party USA occupy wall street
02 Communist Party heralds Occupy Wall Street movement » cpusa
03 Solidarity with “Occupy Wall Street” » cpusa - Communist Party USA
04 Communist Party USA
Communist Party heralds Occupy Wall Street movement ... We greet the Occupy ...
05 Communist Party | Nazi Party | Occupy Wall Street | The Daily Caller
06 Nazi Party and Communist Party Support Occupy Wall Street ...
07 Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall ...
08 Nazi Party Endorses Occupy Wall Street - ...as does the Communist ...
09 Solid Evidence That Occupy Wall Street Is A Communist Movement ...
10 Occupy Chicago Gives Rousing Welcome to Communist Party USA
11 Occupy Wall Street Goes Global | FrontPage Magazine

Why don't you all do these simple google searches and read some of these articles and get informed.
Here is my original post, and I stick by it.

The "Occupy Wall St. Campaign" people are not friends of America. These protest are being organized and funded by George Soros, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, and many other Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Progressive organizations. I've been a Prince fan since 1981, but just because you're Prince fans doesn't mean you also have to be uninformed useful idiot pawns for these anti-American organizations. Do your homework and get a clue, before your freedom is taken away from you. Just because your young, it doesn't also mean you have to be dumb.

Profit is the problem. And a whole social/cultural/economic/political system based on accumulating profit, through the extraction of natural resources and the exploitation of labor.

We have an enemy. I’ll go ahead and name it: global capitalism.

Capitalism is not a thing, but a process: the conversion of life into commodities into toxic waste.

It’s also a social relation, where a small minority owns and controls our means of subsistence and uses this to dominate and exploit the majority of people and the world. Those in power start out by seizing land and destroying traditional land-based and indigenous communities. They push people into labor camps (commonly known as cities), and make them work for food and shelter. Would anyone consent to work in a factory or mine if they had any other way to survive? Would you? I wouldn’t.

Capitalism is based on constant expansion, on ever-increasing rates of private accumulation. This means it’s structurally unreformable. The nicest capitalist in the world might want to change that, but wouldn’t be able to. They must make profit or go out of business.

IshmaelB said:

Profit is the problem. And a whole social/cultural/economic/political system based on accumulating profit, through the extraction of natural resources and the exploitation of labor.

We have an enemy. I’ll go ahead and name it: global capitalism.

Capitalism is not a thing, but a process: the conversion of life into commodities into toxic waste.

It’s also a social relation, where a small minority owns and controls our means of subsistence and uses this to dominate and exploit the majority of people and the world. Those in power start out by seizing land and destroying traditional land-based and indigenous communities. They push people into labor camps (commonly known as cities), and make them work for food and shelter. Would anyone consent to work in a factory or mine if they had any other way to survive? Would you? I wouldn’t.

Capitalism is based on constant expansion, on ever-increasing rates of private accumulation. This means it’s structurally unreformable. The nicest capitalist in the world might want to change that, but wouldn’t be able to. They must make profit or go out of business.

If we were just living to survive we wouldn't have air conditioning, cars, internet, cell phones or television. None are essential to surviving.

SUPRMAN said:

IshmaelB said:

Profit is the problem. And a whole social/cultural/economic/political system based on accumulating profit, through the extraction of natural resources and the exploitation of labor.

We have an enemy. I’ll go ahead and name it: global capitalism.

Capitalism is not a thing, but a process: the conversion of life into commodities into toxic waste.

It’s also a social relation, where a small minority owns and controls our means of subsistence and uses this to dominate and exploit the majority of people and the world. Those in power start out by seizing land and destroying traditional land-based and indigenous communities. They push people into labor camps (commonly known as cities), and make them work for food and shelter. Would anyone consent to work in a factory or mine if they had any other way to survive? Would you? I wouldn’t.

Capitalism is based on constant expansion, on ever-increasing rates of private accumulation. This means it’s structurally unreformable. The nicest capitalist in the world might want to change that, but wouldn’t be able to. They must make profit or go out of business.

If we were just living to survive we wouldn't have air conditioning, cars, internet, cell phones or television. None are essential to surviving.

Lies! Air conditioning is absolutely essential to surviving for those that live in the American Southwest.

New rule: People within the 'Occupy' movement have to stop speaking on behalf of the entire movement. I keep hearing people within the 'Occupy' movement say "we are not against capitalism", to refute the perception that Occupy Wall Street is anti-capitalist. But then I'll hear other people within the 'Occupy' movement say that capitalism is the problem and we should abolish it as the economic order of this country and the world at large. Clearly some of you are against capitalism. Some of you are also completely in favor of capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists/volunteerists at Occupy Wall Street. So the criticism that this movement lacks a unifying message or vision is completely accurate and I wish people would stop trying to duck that characterization and pretend that the movement does have unified message and that message is not "end capitalism".

IshmaelB said:

Profit is the problem. And a whole social/cultural/economic/political system based on accumulating profit, through the extraction of natural resources and the exploitation of labor.

We have an enemy. I’ll go ahead and name it: global capitalism.

Capitalism is not a thing, but a process: the conversion of life into commodities into toxic waste.

It’s also a social relation, where a small minority owns and controls our means of subsistence and uses this to dominate and exploit the majority of people and the world. Those in power start out by seizing land and destroying traditional land-based and indigenous communities. They push people into labor camps (commonly known as cities), and make them work for food and shelter. Would anyone consent to work in a factory or mine if they had any other way to survive? Would you? I wouldn’t.

Capitalism is based on constant expansion, on ever-increasing rates of private accumulation. This means it’s structurally unreformable. The nicest capitalist in the world might want to change that, but wouldn’t be able to. They must make profit or go out of business.

ROOT CAUSES OF THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN

By CK Young

1) THE CREATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE [FED]. This is centralized banking as practiced in the U.S. The birth of the FED was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson (D) on Dec. 24, 1913. Reflecting on this he later said, “I am a most unhappy man; unwittingly I have ruined my country….” The FED is a private consortium of bankers the heads of which are appointed by the executive branch of government. Many people believe that their first loyalty lies with bankers—including Wall Street bankers and foreign bankers—more than with the American people. All money in the U.S. originated as gold or silver coin, including former Federal Reserve Notes [FRNs]. Originally, gold or silver was held in reserve against dollar bills, or notes. The FED creates all U.S. money in the form of FRNs, but today there is no actual reserve and these ‘Notes’ are no longer redeemable in gold or silver, which is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution: “nothing but gold and silver coin shall be used as tender” (Art. II, Sec. 10, Cl. 1).

2) THEFT OF THE PEOPLE’S GOLD by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) in 1933. This is arguably the greatest plunder in the history of the world, including the escapades of conquistador Cortez, and the sacking by the Mongol warlord Genghis Khan. FDR threatened American citizens with 10 years in jail and a $10,000 fine if they did not turn in their gold savings to the government. Due to inflation, $10,000 is $425,000 in today’s ‘money,’ an increase by a factor of 42.5. After seizing the people’s gold, Roosevelt paid 20 paper dollars per ounce, and then promptly revalued the gold to $34. His edict and subsequent larceny took gold out of circulation in America and artificially drove its value down due to its absence of circulation. Nevertheless, at this writing, gold is $850 per ounce, and even at this, it is likely undervalued minimally by a factor of eight. See: (4). FDR’s violations of the U.S. Constitution: The right to contract shall not be impaired, and, gold and silver coin as tender, see: Art. II, Sec. 10, Clause 1. A further transgressed Right: to be justly compensated when private property is seized by the government. Initially, the Supreme Court would not support Roosevelt’s treason. However, in response to FDR’s threats to ‘pack’ the court with many new judges—judges to be handpicked by him to support his crime—the Supreme Court capitulated and conspired with him in the exploitation of the American people. NOTE: Historically, there have been many countries whose fiat paper currency (unbacked by gold or silver) crashed as an inevitable result of inflation leading to hyperinflation. Not infrequently, the government itself collapsed along with its junk currency as a result of the ensuing violence. Notable examples are the German Weimar Inflation of 1921 where German Marks depreciated 3 trillion to 1 against gold, and Zimbabwe today, where a roll of toilet paper costs more than 500,000 of their dollars, and where savings, pensions, and other financial assets have been completely destroyed.

3) INFLATION IS CAUSED BY GOVERNMENTS—IT IS TAXATION IN STEALTH. The FED prints Federal Reserve Notes [FRNs]. The only ‘reserve’ is the electricity to run their printing presses, and an adequate supply of blank paper and ink. While the electricity is on, there is no practical limit to the supply of paper ‘money’ that can be printed. Since 1971, FRNs (AKA dollars), are pure fiat currency fabricated by the government. FRNs are not real money. They are government counterfeit certificates. They are certified by the authority of a gun wielded by the police of a nation. The FED’s printing presses are the floodgates of paper ‘money’ that inundate the American economy with crisp new dollars of constantly diminishing value. Unbacked paper dollars are a Ponzi scheme in and of themselves. More and more need to be printed to support the ever-increasing distortions in the political economy. Currency that is not a consistent store of value destroys the efficient allocation of resources. Merely printing fiat paper and calling it ‘money’ is destructive of that efficient allocation. Consequently, in such a monetary system, every aspect of human commerce is not reliably quantifiable and is therefore corrupted. Inevitably, the system will crumble as it succumbs to the poisons of its own toxic excesses. Why and where does all this phony ‘money’ go? It feeds the insatiable appetite of Congress’ pork projects and the unchecked expenditures of the executive branch that counterfeit money sponsors. It slides into the pockets of politicians in the form of campaign contributions; it is skimmed by investment bankers from the obscene profits of financial derivatives. NOTE: For almost 100 years, from 1835 to 1933 (ending with FDR’s gold confiscation) prices remained virtually stable under the gold standard.

4) EXCESSIVE SPENDING BY POLITICIANS to curry favor with the electorate. Politicians promise the moon to get elected. By selfishly placing their own political interests above the welfare of their country, these costly and fatuous promises continually increase the national debt. Over a prolonged period of time deficit spending enormously reduces the value of the dollar. The dollar in 2008 is worth approximately 2.35% of what it was worth in 1933. This is the percentage ratio of gold at $20 per ounce and at $850. The true ratio is undoubtedly much greater due to the government’s manipulation of the price of gold, and that gold is no longer used as a medium of exchange, i.e., as backing for paper money. Otherwise, a more realistic figure would be 0.33% with gold priced at $6,000 per ounce in today’s moribund dollars. Foreign nations, aware of the monetary fraud perpetrated by the U.S. government, began demanding gold in exchange for the bags of depreciating paper dollars filling their vaults. They did not want to be victimized by the inflation tax. As a consequence, the supply of gold at Fort Knox was slowly evaporating like summer rain on a hot roof. In 1971 with the French in particular demanding gold for paper dollars, Richard Nixon (R) had little choice in the matter since American gold ‘reserves’ were running a bit thin. He dug in his heels and “just said no” to French President Charles de Gaulle who was demanding “gold for dollars.” At this point, paper currencies of various countries simply began to be traded for paper currencies of other countries with no good way to keep government spending in check. While printing money may be an effective way to tax people in stealth, there is no free lunch forever; imbalances began to appear, and pressures began to build. If, to illustrate, one nation begins to counterfeit currency more rapidly than another, the more monetarily conservative countries will reject that currency. Then hyperinflation will ordinarily follow in the profligate country. Thus continual deficit spending by politicians inevitably results in the destruction of their country’s fiat currency and ultimately leads to government insolvency, i.e., total bankruptcy and the death of that currency.

5) THE MAINLINE MEDIA DOES NOT ADVISE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE of our unsound financial situation, i.e., our government’s reckless spending and the potential consequences thereto. The media could, but does not, print the names of those in Congress who attach their pet pork projects to otherwise important bills. Thus, with printing press ‘money,’ in contrast to real money (gold, or gold backed), there are few constraints to deficit spending, and Congress’ inflation tax. Without media exposure and attendant accountability, the spending practices of the rule-makers, which is causing the destruction of the dollar, continues unabated.

6) THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT In 1977, President Carter, in company with Congressional Democrats, passed a bill with noble intentions: the Community Reinvestment Act. Over strong industry objections, it mandated that all banks and savings institutions make loans to lower-income individuals in the broad outlying areas in which they had branches. In 1995, President Clinton imposed even stronger regulations and performance tests that coerced banks to substantially increase loans to low-income, poverty-area borrowers, or face fines or possible restrictions on expansion. These revisions included securitization of these subprime mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which collapsed fourteen years later resulting in a mandated 75 billion dollar bailout by taxpayers. By 1997, pioneered by Bear Stearns, good loans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and making more of these highly profitable subprime products. Under two, presumably well-intentioned presidents, big-government plans and mandates played a significant role in the current subprime mortgage crisis and its catastrophic consequences for the U.S. and international economies. Source: http://www.communityinves...mp;type=98

7) REPEAL OF THE 1933 GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. In 1929 the stock market bubble burst ushering in the Great Depression. Then, as today, enormous amount of ‘money’ was created, which in turn powered the stock market feeding frenzy just as blood in the water draws sharks. Learning from the debacle, and hoping to prevent this devastation from ever revisiting our country, Congress created the Glass-Steagall Act to separate less regulated investment banks, from more tightly supervised commercial banks which are required to have a higher percentage of ‘reserve’ currency in order to meet unexpected setbacks. Senator Phil Gramm (R), and Congressman James Leach (R) introduced the bill to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. On Nov. 12, 1999 President Bill Clinton (D) signed this bill into law. This permitted banks to agglomerate into monopolist new super-banks with less regulation. Reckless lending inspired by greed proceeded forthright.

8) ALAN GREENSPAN KEPT THE FED’S RATE OF INTEREST ARTIFICIALLY LOW, well below the rate of inflation, for too long. He probably was afraid to end the house-flipping party on his watch by raising interest rates to protect the dollar believing the American people, who for the most part do not understand economics, would blame his successor, or the President, for the problem he created. This encouraged people to spend rather than save as their money in ‘savings’ accounts was being consumed far more rapidly by the government’s corrupt practice of deficit spending (inflation) than moldy wood is consumed by termites. There are reputedly 200 PhDs in economics working at the FED. Greenspan had to know what was going to happen when the interest rates were necessarily raised to protect the dollar from decimation. Greenspan acted in an absolutely irresponsible, deplorable, and extraordinarily selfish manner.

9) BANKER’S GREED. Standard & Poor, Moody’s and Fitch were being paid by the banker’s to rate the mortgages that they were selling. These mortgages were ‘bundled’ in groups of differing qualities, i.e., from ostensibly the very safe (AAA) to don’t ask don’t tell. The rating agencies bestowed the highest rating (AAA) on all of these bundled mortgages. This was criminal fraud and the FBI should pursue this. The banks, with the bogus high ratings on their investment instruments, were then able to sell these packaged mortgages for a premium, both domestically and internationally, to buyers who trusted them and the rating agencies. The bankers, of course, charged a fee for fleecing the trusting purchasers of these defective instruments. It’s a twist on old fashioned bank robbery; in this instance it was an inside job.

10) LACK OF SUPERVISION BY CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH of banker’s lending and investing practices. Oversight of investment banking operations was virtually non-existent. Some of this lack of oversight was undoubtedly due to ignorance of basic economics by those in government, or lack of time. But one does wonder what part ignorance played, and what, if any part, was engineered by conspirators with vested interests. Part of the lack of oversight apparently was not ascribable to innocent neglect, but the avarice inspired by ‘campaign contributions,’ and the reciprocity thereto. See: http://www.youtube.com/us...MouthPeace Be that as it may, because lending standards were ignored in conjunction with the rate of interest being held unrealistically low, the Ponzi-scheme of ‘flipping’ houses dramatically accelerated. The situation that was developing was patently obvious, and could not go on for ever. But before it popped, the largest financial bubble the world has ever seen was created. The collapsing housing bubble not only is devastating the value of the paper dollar, it is also destabilizing commerce, domestically as well as internationally.

11) CITIZEN SLOTH INDUCED IGNORANCE. American citizens hope that the government will perform due diligence and look out for them. Most people would rather spend their time watching TV, or playing computer games, or taking drugs than studying economics or keeping abreast of world events. The average citizen, when asked on the street, or in stores, and restaurants if he or she knows what the root cause of inflation is (The government printing ‘money’), or even what the population is of the country, not more than one in fifteen will know. In their naiveté, most citizens believe that the government is here to protect them, rather than the primary concern of most government operatives is to protect their own interests. Now, in these perilous economic times, more citizens are beginning to pay attention to the political environment, as they come to see that things are getting out of control.

12) BERNANKE RAISED INTEREST RATES. In an effort to prevent people, and especially foreign banks, from abandoning the dollar, which would quickly lead to hyper-inflation, (Google: Zimbabwe inflation). Bernanke hoping to preserve a modicum of respect and value for the dollar, raised interest rates to partially offset the theft by the inflation tax. This of course popped the housing bubble, but also contributed to the collapse of the economy that Greenspan’s ‘froth,’ and the investment bankers created.

13) THE COMMERCIAL BANKS that are authorized to issue ‘money’ to other banks are (as mentioned) required to maintain a ‘cash’ (FRN) reserve in order to lend ‘money.’ Due to bad mortgage loans (and associated derivatives) caused by the collapsing housing market, many banks are under water. As a consequence, these banks do not have an adequate reserve, cannot lend ‘money,’ and are failing. While many banks have no ‘money’ to lend, others do not want to lend to other banks—even on a short term basis—for fear that the borrowing bank may go bankrupt, sucking the lender into a black-hole of insufficient funds and bankruptcy. As a result, banks are collapsing round the world. The bailout, (in politically correct spin, ‘rescue package’) is an attempt to pump more Federal Reserve Notes—they call it liquidity—into various FRN starved banks. This highly inflationary practice is what has lead us to financial chaos in the first place. It is akin to giving a meth addict down in energy, more meth to reinvigorate him.

Therefore, when the term ‘root cause’ is used in reference to the slumping house sales, or lack of credit, and the economic meltdown that began in 2005, it is not the root cause, but rather a symptom, a branch high up on the tree. It is a overmature tree of many branches with roots of greed, corruption, ignorance, and naive thinking rotting far below. —CK Young

Anti-Constitutional Progressive policies have always been the problem, and will continue to be, unless people stop voting Progressives in to positions of power.

Gen Y sick of the bullshit?? Well, OWS-ers are sick of free market thuggery. Case in point: Hermain Cain. As the NY Times points out today, Cain runs on an 'outsider' theme, but not so long ago, was, in fact, the ultimate insider, a Washington "special interest" lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association. He, and lobbyists just like him, are major contributors to the systemic problems in governance that the OWSers are against. If it were up to Cain and his cohort thugs, we would allow smoking in restaurants, have more drunk drivers on the road, institute a lower minimum wage, and offer diminished healthcare plans. Herman Cain and the Repbublicans are NO friends of America.

From the New York Times:

"From 1996, when he left the pizza company, until 1999, Mr. Cain ran the National Restaurant Association, a once-sleepy trade group that he transformed into a lobbying powerhouse. He allied himself closely with cigarette makers fighting restaurant smoking bans, spoke out against lowering blood-alcohol limits as a way to prevent drunken driving, fought an increase in the minimum wage and opposed a patients’ bill of rights — all in keeping with the interests of the industry he represented. It was a role that gave him an intimate view of the way Washington works, putting him in close proximity to Republican leaders at the time, including Newt Gingrich, now one of his presidential rivals, and John A. Boehner, now speaker of the House. And it helped Mr. Cain lay the groundwork for the next chapter in his life, his entry into electoral politics, beginning with a short-lived bid for the White House in 2000. Those who knew him then could see his ambitions developing. Rob Meyne, an official at the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, which contributed handsomely to the restaurant group..."

DarlingDiana said:

New rule: People within the 'Occupy' movement have to stop speaking on behalf of the entire movement. I keep hearing people within the 'Occupy' movement say "we are not against capitalism", to refute the perception that Occupy Wall Street is anti-capitalist. But then I'll hear other people within the 'Occupy' movement say that capitalism is the problem and we should abolish it as the economic order of this country and the world at large. Clearly some of you are against capitalism. Some of you are also completely in favor of capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists/volunteerists at Occupy Wall Street. So the criticism that this movement lacks a unifying message or vision is completely accurate and I wish people would stop trying to duck that characterization and pretend that the movement does have unified message and that message is not "end capitalism".

Tea Party faced a similar set of criticisms early on becasue of prevalence of racist signs and uneducated opinions spouted by the protesters themselves.

People had to stand out and speak out for the movement to refute that aspect of the movement even though it was clear many were clearly racist. It was the right thing to do.

Early on, at first glance people got the impression that the Tea Party was a hodgepodge group of racists and the ignorant. It wasn't untlill much later that they came to coalesce into being an organization against "big government"

The criticisms for both movements are fair, but of course everyone wants to marginalize their political opponents and demonize them. National politics is not for the faint of heart.

The Tea Party took their anger and put their people in office to make change that mattered. Sadly I do not see the Occupy Movement getting it's act together like the Tea Party did. But we'll see, I hope I am proven wrong.

[Edited 10/23/11 8:53am]

FIGURE IT OUT!!!

"When the legislature sets the rules for buying and selling, the first thing that will be bought and sold is the legislature." - P.J. O'Rourke

"The problem isn't abuse of power, it's power to abuse. If government can reward its friends and punish its enemies then everybody's going to be showering money on it trying to get on the good side of government rather than the bad side. But if government doesn't have that power, if politicians can't do anything to tamper with your life, then people are going to be uninterested in slipping money under the table to politicians." - Brilliant!

DarlingDiana said:

"When the legislature sets the rules for buying and selling, the first thing that will be bought and sold is the legislature." - P.J. O'Rourke

"The problem isn't abuse of power, it's power to abuse. If government can reward its friends and punish its enemies then everybody's going to be showering money on it trying to get on the good side of government rather than the bad side. But if government doesn't have that power, if politicians can't do anything to tamper with your life, then people are going to be uninterested in slipping money under the table to politicians." - Brilliant!

Harry Browne is very well spoken and very intelligent man. But notice how he did not get specific? Notice how everything he said was in vague terms? Notice how at the Republican debates whenever they asked the contestants what they would do to solve today's problems they either went into generalities or blamed Obama but never offered any solutions?

Cain certainly tried that and got eaten up and shat out already. That smell lingers and follows him around now.

I support regulation to protect consumers, health, safety, transportation, banking etc.... I have to wonder, are these the things you and Browne want government to get out of the way of?

I have no doubt Browne is highly intelligent man, but as an investment analyst, I do not think he has the best interests of anyone but the 1% in mind. It's a matter of once again, desperate people seeking solace in people and movements that only use you but have no interest in helping anyone but themselves.

Just like the foolhardy Teabaggers who let their racism lead them to be so easily conned into supporting big business interests by the Koch brothers, people like Browne will eat you and shit you out before you know why you smell so bad.

[Edited 10/24/11 7:06am]

V10LETBLUES said:

Harry Browne is very well spoken and very intelligent man. But notice how he did not get specific? Notice how everything he said was in vague terms? Notice how at the Republican debates whenever they asked the contestants what they would do to solve today's problems they either went into generalities or blamed Obama but never offered any solutions?

Cain certainly tried that and got eaten up and shat out already. That smell lingers and follows him around now.

I support regulation to protect consumers, health, safety, transportation, banking etc.... I have to wonder, are these the things you and Browne want government to get out of the way of?

I have no doubt Browne is highly intelligent man, but as an investment analyst, I do not think he has the best interests of anyone but the 1% in mind. It's a matter of once again, desperate people seeking solace in people and movements that only use you but have no interest in helping anyone but themselves.

Just like the foolhardy Teabaggers who let their racism lead them to be so easily conned into supporting big business interests by the Koch brothers, people like Browne will eat you and shit you out before you know why you smell so bad.

Harry Browne was not a Republican, he was a Libertarian and that video is taken from an interview he did during the 2000 election in which he was the Libertarian candidate for President.

What's wrong with speaking in "vague" terms, as you describe it? You can either make very articulate, sustinct points in an interview, which encapulate your broad view, or you can write a 1000-page book getting into specifics, which Harry Browne did many times.

I think it's better to speak in "vague" terms than to speak in irrelevant terms. What has the Republican debate or Harry Browne's pre-political profession have to do with what was said, and what do you say about what was said? How about you be specific and tell me whether you think the point he made about government corruption specifically is right or wrong, no matter whose lips it comes from. I'm saying it. I agree with every word and I am but a modest middle-classer, well and truly in the 99%.

DarlingDiana said:

Harry Browne was not a Republican, he was a Libertarian and that video is taken from an interview he did during the 2000 election in which he was the Libertarian candidate for President.

What's wrong with speaking in "vague" terms, as you describe it? You can either make very articulate, sustinct points in an interview, which encapulate your broad view, or you can write a 1000-page book getting into specifics, which Harry Browne did many times.

I think it's better to speak in "vague" terms than to speak in irrelevant terms. What has the Republican debate or Harry Browne's pre-political profession have to do with what was said, and what do you say about what was said? How about you be specific and tell me whether you think the point he made about government corruption specifically is right or wrong, no matter whose lips it comes from. I'm saying it. I agree with every word and I am but a modest middle-classer, well and truly in the 99%.

I know he was a libertarian, I was just comparing Tea Party supporters to Libertarian supporters.

As to speaking in generalities,...nothing wrong with it. I am against cancer, diabetes, world hunger, and skinny jeans. Get what I mean? So what?

It's easier to sucker people for donations, hawk books, campaign, speak about the flaws in others but much harder to offer focused solutions. Generalities do jack shit.

What exactly do libertarians propose to do? If I know exactly what you want and how you'll do it, and back it up with something concrete, I may decide to support the Libertarian movement. But talk is cheap.

Ron Paul offered a bill to end the Fed, I admire him for his integrity and his follow through. That's all I am asking.

[Edited 10/24/11 8:56am]

V10LETBLUES said:

I know he was a libertarian, I was just comparing Tea Party supporters to Libertarian supporters.

As to speaking in generalities,...nothing wrong with it. I am against cancer, diabetes, world hunger, and skinny jeans. Get what I mean? So what?

It's easier to sucker people for donations, hawk books, campaign, speak about the flaws in others but much harder to offer focused solutions. Generalities do jack shit.

What exactly do libertarians propose to do? If I know exactly what you want and how you'll do it, and back it up with something concrete, I may decide to support the Libertarian movement. But talk is cheap.

Ron Paul offered a bill to end the Fed, I admire him for his integrity and his follow through. That's all I am asking.

He's not talking about proposals or policies. He's identifying a problem and his conclusion to what the cause may be. It's called discussion. Why does one person have to tell you the problem, the cause and the solution before you will engage in the discussion. How can we propose solution before we've discussed the causes of the problems we are solving? I'm asking your opinion on his diagnosis of the problem and you have no interest in obliging me. Why is that?

DarlingDiana said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I know he was a libertarian, I was just comparing Tea Party supporters to Libertarian supporters.

As to speaking in generalities,...nothing wrong with it. I am against cancer, diabetes, world hunger, and skinny jeans. Get what I mean? So what?

It's easier to sucker people for donations, hawk books, campaign, speak about the flaws in others but much harder to offer focused solutions. Generalities do jack shit.

What exactly do libertarians propose to do? If I know exactly what you want and how you'll do it, and back it up with something concrete, I may decide to support the Libertarian movement. But talk is cheap.

Ron Paul offered a bill to end the Fed, I admire him for his integrity and his follow through. That's all I am asking.

He's not talking about proposals or policies. He's identifying a problem and his conclusion to what the cause may be. It's called discussion. Why does one person have to tell you the problem, the cause and the solution before you will engage in the discussion. How can we propose solution before we've discussed the causes of the problems we are solving? I'm asking your opinion on his diagnosis of the problem and you have no interest in obliging me. Why is that?

I already answered that question three posts above. He vaguely says politicians and laws tell people what to do? Come on what is there to discuss?

Against big government and "laws" by "politicians" C'mon really. I am game in a discussion but that in itself is just BS and I think you know that too.

[Edited 10/24/11 9:49am]

V10LETBLUES said:

DarlingDiana said:

He's not talking about proposals or policies. He's identifying a problem and his conclusion to what the cause may be. It's called discussion. Why does one person have to tell you the problem, the cause and the solution before you will engage in the discussion. How can we propose solution before we've discussed the causes of the problems we are solving? I'm asking your opinion on his diagnosis of the problem and you have no interest in obliging me. Why is that?

I already answered that question three posts above. He vaguely says politicians and laws tell people what to do? Come on what is there to discuss?

Against big government and "laws" by "politicians" C'mon really. I am game in a discussion but that in itself is just BS and I think you know that too.

I think you are doing everything in your power to ignore the point for your convenience. Think about what he said and try to understand it. It's a valid point and considering it strikes at the heart of what Occupy Wall Street (the topic of the thread you started) is about, I think it's definitely worth more attention than you are giving it. There is an incentive to buy out politicians because of the favors they can do for you and the scorn they can lay upon you if you aren't in bed with them. It's not an argument that politicians should have no power, no ability to do anything. It's simply an argument that the power they do have is very enticing as much as it is fearsome. Some private interests want to utilize the power the government has for their own advantage, others just don't want it to be utilized against them, and so they both need to get in bed with government for their own self interest. And if that is your diagnosis of the problem, to demand specific proposals to combat that else it warrants no attention, is to ask the impossible.

That's no task for one man. You've got to know why each lobbyist is lobbying government, what they are lobbying for, and nullify their need to lobby by removing, minimizing, or levelling out the hand the government has in their industry. By levelling out I mean many lobbyists representing certain industries are trying to combat the favorable treatment other industries or leaders in their industry are getting by lobbying for their own special treatment, tax exemptions, government contracts, subsidies, etc. So by 'levelling out' I mean playing fair, making taxes and regulations flatter and more universal. For example, you mentioned earlier that you favor regulations on banking and you asked would libertarians or Libertarians such as the late Harry Browne do away with those. Well advocates of free banking such as myself only ask why banks need special regulations beyond those applicable to most enterprises.

Dylan Ratigan, who is a host on MSNBC and a definite left-leaning progressive, said something very interesting during a podcast interview with Ron Paul. Something I was surprised to hear come out the mouth of someone who self-identifies as progressive. Perhaps he was simply pandering to Ron Paul, who he seems to have a man-crush on, but he was explaining his approach to the "free market" and how he would be totally in favor of a free market if "free market" meant one that is not rigged, one where every business is treated the same by government, and here's the important bit, one where regulations are the same for everyone and not different for friends and foes of government. My god, if that's progressive then I'm in.

[Edited 10/24/11 10:23am]

DarlingDiana said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I already answered that question three posts above. He vaguely says politicians and laws tell people what to do? Come on what is there to discuss?

Against big government and "laws" by "politicians" C'mon really. I am game in a discussion but that in itself is just BS and I think you know that too.

I think you are doing everything in your power to ignore the point for your convenience. Think about what he said and try to understand it. It's a valid point and considering it strikes at the heart of what Occupy Wall Street (the topic of the thread you started) is about, I think it's definitely worth more attention than you are giving it. There is an incentive to buy out politicians because of the favors they can do for you and the scorn they can lay upon you if you aren't in bed with them. It's not an argument that politicians should have no power, no ability to do anything. It's simply an argument that the power they do have is very enticing as much as it is fearsome. Some private interests want to utilize the power the government has for their own advantage, others just don't want it to be utilized against them, and so they both need to get in bed with government for their own self interest. And if that is your diagnosis of the problem, to demand specific proposals to combat that else it warrants no attention, is to ask the impossible. That's no task for one man. You've got to know why each lobbyist is lobbying government, what they are lobbying for, and nullify their need to lobby by removing, minimizing, or levelling out the hand the government has in their industry. By levelling out I mean many lobbyists representing certain industries are trying to combat the favorable treatment other industries or leaders in their industry are getting by lobbying for their own special treatment, tax exemptions, government contracts, subsidies, etc.

You were probably upset to see McCain-Feingold overturned.

rialb said:

SUPRMAN said:

If we were just living to survive we wouldn't have air conditioning, cars, internet, cell phones or television. None are essential to surviving.

Lies! Air conditioning is absolutely essential to surviving for those that live in the American Southwest.

People were living there before the advent of air conditioning.

Man up.

SUPRMAN said:

rialb said:

Lies! Air conditioning is absolutely essential to surviving for those that live in the American Southwest.

People were living there before the advent of air conditioning.

Man up.

I didn't claim that I lived in the American Southwest.

I actually live in Nova Scotia and have never owned an air conditioner.

^^Thanks for the vid Breezy...here's another good one,

@babynoz. That is an amazing vid! Had not seen that one, so thanks back at you. Going to listen to it again...plan to followup on some of the books he mentioned.

NiceNBreezy said:

@babynoz. That is an amazing vid! Had not seen that one, so thanks back at you. Going to listen to it again...plan to followup on some of the books he mentioned.

Ain't it? I'm spreading this around.

It's like he's inside my head channeling my thoughts. As soon as I finish Mike's new book I'm gonna follow up too.

Why Occupy Wallstreet? It's personal!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/08/opinion/cardona-why-occupy/index.html

You know the plutocrats must be getting nervous, since they're sending their underlings to teargas the protestors. Shame on the Oakland PD! This is not a problem that billy clubs or tear gas will solve.

I echo these words as this falls in line with what I think about the "Occupy" movements:
"Those who created the problem, use your reaction, to put in place a "solution", that increases their power even more".

The top 1% goes to Occupy Wall Street...

[Edited 10/27/11 9:20am]

LOL!