This Whole "Occupy Wallstreet" thing seems like theater of the absurd.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by gncnew

 

Call it corporate socialism...because those Wall Street firms received way more than anything the people got. Why? Because they took over the government, which is exactly what the protestors are against. It's beyond me how anyone could argue against that stance.

Not only did they receive massive wellfare checks, the government also bought their bad mortgages which it still holds...just no one's talking about it, hoping people will forget that at one point, that can of worms has to be opened. It unless the protestors succeed, it's gonna be the lower and middle class paying dearly for those toxic mortgages, NOT the companies that caused the issue in the first place...you know, those companies they're protesting against

Tell the WHOLE TRUTH!
The banks paid their money back WITH interest!
They didn't like all of the stupid - strings- attached to the government money.

Truth be told Wells Fargo DID NOT WANT the money!
The CEO of Wells Fargo was told "You are NOT leaving this room until you sign this and take
the money."

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Another myth

They paid back the money they got, but the government still holds trillions in toxic mortgages

Plus, they STILL get money for free (well, 0.5% interest) which is only possible because taxpayers fund it. So essentially, they ran the economy into the ground, infiltrated the government and got an ex-Goldman employee to create the bailouts (it wasn't Bush or Obama...they just signed off on it), got the government to take over a massive amount of toxic mortgages they still hold, on ensured that they can get money from the government (taxpayer funded) for pretty much free for the foreseeable future. And you believe that to be right?? Really?

So yeah, here's the truth, stop drinking the cool aid politicians tell you!

And you know why some companies didn't want all those free wellfare checks? Because at first, there was an important condition attached to them...no boni!! Which made total sense. If you operate at a loss, you shouldn't pay your employees billions in boni funded by taxpayer money. That rule got bent though, so in the end, they were happy to take it. Take Goldman for example, without the bailouts, the company wouldn't exist anymore today. They didn't have a choice...the resistance was merely a front to haggle on some of the conditions like the boni one I mentioned.

And now Wall Street is securing $53b of potentially toxic derivates against $1.1b in deposits from average Joes!!!

Yes, you read correctly. They are taking a £53b gamble, and if it goes wrong, regular deposit holders will lose everything. That's how screwed up the system is! Free market capitalism my ass

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Another myth

They paid back the money they got, but the government still holds trillions in toxic mortgages

Plus, they STILL get money for free (well, 0.5% interest) which is only possible because taxpayers fund it. So essentially, they ran the economy into the ground, infiltrated the government and got an ex-Goldman employee to create the bailouts (it wasn't Bush or Obama...they just signed off on it), got the government to take over a massive amount of toxic mortgages they still hold, on ensured that they can get money from the government (taxpayer funded) for pretty much free for the foreseeable future. And you believe that to be right?? Really?

So yeah, here's the truth, stop drinking the cool aid politicians tell you!

And you know why some companies didn't want all those free wellfare checks? Because at first, there was an important condition attached to them...no boni!! Which made total sense. If you operate at a loss, you shouldn't pay your employees billions in boni funded by taxpayer money. That rule got bent though, so in the end, they were happy to take it. Take Goldman for example, without the bailouts, the company wouldn't exist anymore today. They didn't have a choice...the resistance was merely a front to haggle on some of the conditions like the boni one I mentioned.

edit on 19-10-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Toxic mortgages = Barney Frank

Sell houses to people who cannot afford them.

Owning a house is a privilege not a right.
It was ALL predictable. Barney Frank belongs in prison.
He even admitted he was wrong.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac drove the economy right off the cliff.
Now we have a glut of houses and not enough buyers.
The housing bubble popped and now we millions of people in an underwater position.
I believe it was all orchestrated.
Turning Fannie and Freddie into the George Bailey Building & Loan was doomed to fail.
Warnings were made. Barney Frank response: Everything is just fine. Remember?
President George W. Bush tried to stop the housing disaster. Barney Frank &
Maxine Waters: Everything is fine.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Toxic mortgages = Barney Frank

No, toxic mortgages are the result of years of deregulation that started with Reagan. Every president since that guy is guilty of it. Who put the nail in the coffin of the economy though? BUSH!!

It was Bush with his housing speech removing the last regulations, therefore allowing greedy companies to sell mortgages to people who clearly can't afford it. Because of him, people didn't even have to prove their income when applying for mortgages. Because of him, ridiculous stuff like no-amortization loans exist.

Here's his speech:



But yeah, the rating agencies are guilty too, they should have been more critical. But how could they? They are run by Wall Street too!! Look at the CVs of people running those rating agencies and you notice it's all former Goldman and Wall Street employees. The head of S&P got sacked (officially he left on his own accord, lol) because he dared to speak the truth and downgrade the US credit rating when it should have happened 3 years ago.

Fact is, Wall Street has infiltrated the media, the government, and even the very organizations who are supposed to oversee the entire industry...they are essentially the spectator, player, and referee all in one. Anyone with a brain should realize that this results in a house of cards that when it collapses, pulls down everything with it...which is EXACTLY what happened. And the OWS movement is protesting against it...and rightfully so.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Funny how it didn't cause a financial disaster until Barney Frank put out a new
policy: No money down? No problem.

What ever happened to common sense? If you cannot afford to buy a house, then......don't
buy one!!!

It was all a set up that was all doomed to fail.

Barney Frank belongs in prison! The management teams at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
also belong in prison. Throw in the AIG losers also.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Funny how it didn't cause a financial disaster until Barney Frank put out a new
policy: No money down? No problem.

What ever happened to common sense? If you cannot afford to buy a house, then......don't
buy one!!!

It was all a set up that was all doomed to fail.

Barney Frank belongs in prison!

Bush started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. In fact, BF tried to introduce some regulations to limit this horrible trend...but he was stopped by the GOP. He almost got one important regulation through working with Mike Oxley (GOP), but guess who vetoed it...BUSH!!

In short, when you're looking for a scapegoat for recklessly deregulating the mortgage market, no one comes even close to Bush. Listen to his speech for crying out loud!

BF was one of the few people opposing Bush's "let's give loans to EVERYONE" nonsense:LINK

In the end, it doesn't matter, what caused the crisis was breaking down the wall between normal and investment banks...and we all know who repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. Yup, the GOP

reply to post by MrXYZ


President George W. Bush has his speech warning about the coming financial crisis
with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Everyone saw what was happening. It's no mystery.
Barney Frank response: Don't worry about it.

The housing mess has Barney Frank and Maxine Waters fingerprints all over it
and you know it.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

President George W. Bush has his speech warning about the coming financial crisis
with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Everyone saw what was happening. It's no mystery.
Barney Frank response: Don't worry about it.

The housing mess has Barney Frank and Maxine Waters fingerprints all over it
and you know it.

Clearly, you haven't watched Bush's housing speech

If you had, you'd know that Bush did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're saying...but who cares about facts, right?

Also, you claiming he warned people is ridiculous given that he was still removing necessary regulations up until 3mo before the crisis officially started. Warning people AFTER something bad happens isn't "warning" them...he was playing captain hindsight

reply to post by MrXYZ


He gave another speech warning about the coming crisis of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You just love to cherry pick the YouTube videos.

Seek the truth.

Barney Frank is guilty as charged and belongs in prison.
-----------
Everyone knows the truth. You are wasting your time.
Even Barney Frank admitted he was wrong.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

He gave another speech warning about the coming crisis of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You just love to cherry pick the YouTube videos.

Seek the truth.

Barney Frank is guilty as charged and belongs in prison.
-----------
Everyone knows the truth. You are wasting your time.
Even Barney Frank admitted he was wrong.

Like I said, he gave that speech AFTER the start of the crisis!! That's NOT a warning, it's stating the obvious after the event

And I don't cherry pick stuff, at least I bother posting sources and proof instead of just making DEMONSTRABLY wrong statements like you

Originally posted by Shamatt
Take the time to read the whole article

i did and now i'm wondering if you stopped reading after that paragraph?
just in case you missed some of the "important" details of the article, i'll share ...

I believe the prefigurationists' strategy is wrong on several counts. First of all, it underestimates the importance that reforms like those listed above would have in people's lives. The prefigurationists also base their ideas on several false assumptions --about how revolutionary movements have developed in the past and about the ability of any individual or group to remain "autonomous" from the state and the economy.

If followed to its conclusions, their strategy risks limiting the movement's potential to grow and reach the widest possible audience.

AS FOR the idea that demands retard the struggle for change, even a quick look at the history of actual revolutions shows this isn't true--in fact, the opposite is the case. Clearly articulated demands are essential to drawing large numbers of people into struggle.

One could examine any revolution and see that demands have been central to building revolutionary struggle. Thus, there isn't a contradiction between demanding reforms and building a revolutionary movement. In fact, the two things are intertwined.

i am not disagreeing with the points of the article or the paragraph you quoted ... however, the article itself does.
this is also evidenced by the perpetual theft experienced by the "upper ranks" of the protests themselves. it would seem even the participating "collective" isn't satisfied with the "distribution" methods / ie, their ration.

reply to post by Shamatt

this is the internet, courtesy reigns. (at least it should)
compassion has nothing to do with courtesy.
not sure i understand why you are 'bothered' ... dyslexia is a challenge, not a disability ... although some consider it such.
i never questioned your IT performance, why are you?

spelling to the best of one's ability is always a courtesy to everyone who chooses to read it.
well guess what? now, you're being told it IS more than a "small distraction" ... so, what is your point?

"out of order" ??? are you freaking nutso or what?
this is no court ... not even a "court of opinion" ... who do you think you are to claim anyone is "out of order"

apparently you are "crippled" in your own mind because dyslexia is no disability ... it is a condition.
a condition which provides a unique challenge, one which is unavailable to those who are not dyslexic.
dyslexia is its own challenge, nothing more.

as for capital letters, on a professional form, i tend to use them ... in simple conversation, not so much.
you don't care for my writing "syle" that's one thing but it has nothing to do with a dyslexic inability nor would i stoop so low as to infer my own laziness was due to an imagined disability.

hmmmmm, one typo and you're on it like flys on sh!t ... typical.

so, if business shouldn't do it for profit, then what?

psssssst ... here's a hint for you --- spell check doesn't fix typos, especially when they are spelled correctly
ohhhh, but .... it WILL correct ... "nonsensicle" ... nonsensical

my compassion is my own to distribute as i see fit ... checking it is really none of your concern.
whatever, communication is a two-way street ... and on that note, you have no clue of what i may or may not lack, but thanks for pretending you do.

truthfully, no dyslexic i personally know goes out of their way to promote their "condition" quite like you do.
what's up with that?

and, if you think dyslexia is confined to language skills, you should read up on it more ... that is only the beginning.

so, now that we've clarified that you are an over40 person who preferences personal attack rather substantial debate material, could we get back to the topic now?

i should be ashamed ?? well ok, if you say so.
i am ashamed that i have wasted such a precious resource (my time) on such insolence.
there, does that make you feel better?

well then, from one dy(p)slexic to another ... your "best" effort isn't deserving future response.
have a nice day.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

But all the top shots at the federal reserve are sock puppets of the major Wall Street companies!!! They don't act independently, they are sock puppets.

To prove my point: Goldman's recent reports stipulate that they WANT QE3, which would be a disaster for the US$. If you listened to Bernake's latest speech, you realize that QE3 WILL happen, they will pull through with it, even though the previous ones haven't helped anyone but the big corporations on Wall Street...help them to cover up how much they screw up and cost the tax payer money.

and the part you're ignoring is that Goldman Sachs is one of the current owners and one of the founding families of the FR ... is this news to you?
along with, JP Morgan and Citibank (and all their subsidiaries that skim off the top), Rockefeller, Rothschild ... they're all owners of the FR ... not the govt, not the citizens and certainly not wall street.
and, Soros is tied to most of them, directly. need more ???

I said Wall Street (aka Goldman, etc) are the owners of the Fed, so not sure what your point is? They're the puppet masters, which is EXACTLY the problem. Glad you agree with the OWS protestors though

i agree with some of the protesters, not all.
attacking wall street or demanding anything other than the destruction of the Fed Reserve is futile.
do you even know what a good day on WS was in 1905? (before the Fed)
how 'bout in 1896? linky

you are confusing the monster with its mess. yes, they both reek of stank but cleaning up the mess does nothing to stop the monster from creating another.

And more proof of corporations infiltrating the government to boost their profits...2025, NOT 2014/15!! Why? Because Lockhead needs that sweet sweet sweeeeeeeet $$$, doesn't matter what the people want...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cinaed

 

You know just well that the world "retard" is nowadays used not only in the literal sense, I could have used "idiot", "uneducated fools", or "dumbwit", or any other world if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, being against those protests is foolish given the actual economic figures backing them up

actually, being involved in these protests is foolish given ...
the agenda of the funding backing them up.
their failure to produce any demands
their incompetence regarding "solidarity"
the actual participants refuse to govern themselves

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Funny how it didn't cause a financial disaster until Barney Frank put out a new
policy: No money down? No problem.

What ever happened to common sense? If you cannot afford to buy a house, then......don't
buy one!!!

It was all a set up that was all doomed to fail.

Barney Frank belongs in prison!

Bush started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. In fact, BF tried to introduce some regulations to limit this horrible trend...but he was stopped by the GOP. He almost got one important regulation through working with Mike Oxley (GOP), but guess who vetoed it...BUSH!!

In short, when you're looking for a scapegoat for recklessly deregulating the mortgage market, no one comes even close to Bush. Listen to his speech for crying out loud!

BF was one of the few people opposing Bush's "let's give loans to EVERYONE" nonsense:LINK

In the end, it doesn't matter, what caused the crisis was breaking down the wall between normal and investment banks...and we all know who repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. Yup, the GOP

edit on 19-10-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

You know what...this is not the whole truth....although the Grahamleachbliley bill was sponsored by Republicans, Clinton signed it into law, plus Democrats passed the bill after demanding concessions from Republicans, so it is not like all Repubs were for it and Democrats against it. If Clinton thought it was so horrible why didn't he veto? Because the banks wanted this legislation. And also only 69 out of 138 House Democrats opposed the bill.

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on 1 July 1999 by a bipartisan vote of 343-86

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[9][13] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[14][15] and by the House 362-57.[16][17] The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999.[18]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cinaed

 

You know just well that the world "retard" is nowadays used not only in the literal sense, I could have used "idiot", "uneducated fools", or "dumbwit", or any other world if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, being against those protests is foolish given the actual economic figures backing them up

actually, being involved in these protests is foolish given ...
the agenda of the funding backing them up.

their failure to produce any demands
their incompetence regarding "solidarity"

the actual participants refuse to govern themselves

And did you see the vid someone posted last night on the identity of some of the OWSers? Family members of Greenberg were there,

Maurice Raymond "Hank" Greenberg (born May 4, 1925) is an American businessman and former chairman and CEO of American International Group (AIG), which was the world's 18th largest public company and its largest insurance and financial services corporation.

en.wikipedia.org...
and one of them was the guy who appeared as if he was Ron Paul supporter, as well as the girl who testified about a hospital where Iraqi soldiers reportedly took babies out of incubators. , and Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

en.wikipedia.org...(testimony)

that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has since largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.

The Greenbergs are wealthy 1 % ers so what are their family members doing protesting?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Where I come from we like to just call things what they are and bypass all the socially and politically correct BS... so in a nutshell to answer your closing question with a simple Alaskan answer...

Stirring the pot!

Saddest to me is the sincere OWS protestors have zero clue they are just the odds and ends tossed into the pot, DESIGNED to boil over...

I was looking for that vid and ran across this

reply to post by Honor93


lol i think i angered the little sweetheart. And if you read my post, you would know those arent My definitions of of the words, but rather, THE definition of the words, and provided by numerous online websites where you can check such things.

justice != communism != socialism
plain and simple.
go back to your left right paradigm, monkey boy