[Dash Global]

One of the biggest if not the biggest problems out there is

The Federal Reserve....

[Roosh]

American leaders preach about freedom of assembly and protest only when it involves other countries:

[Roosh]

They're getting desperate to attack the Occupy protesters:

http://i.imgur.com/yarZ7.jpg

[Brian]

Wall St does own Congress. but if you want to change that you dont march on Wall St you march on Congress.

[Pusscrook]

At the very least, the Occupy wall street protesters, with no clear vision, have a lot more appeal worldwide than the tea party did. I don't recall the tea party having anyone march in support for their cause in Sweden, Rome, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Hong Kong, Manila, etc. What a strange thing... all these so called dumb, confused "mobs" coming together, internationally, over corporate greed.

[Smitty]

(10-15-2011 12:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

At the very least, the Occupy wall street protesters, with no clear vision, have a lot more appeal worldwide than the tea party did. I don't recall the tea party having anyone march in support for their cause in Sweden, Rome, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Hong Kong, Manila, etc. What a strange thing... all these so called dumb, confused "mobs" coming together, internationally, over corporate greed.

Pusscrook, you'll never find young people protesting around the world because the governments are spending too much money on them (essentially, what the tea party believes). No way, they'd rather protest against what they perceive to be greed and inequality -- just don't take away their free health insurance, unemployment, or college grants.

[Pusscrook]

(10-15-2011 12:29 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 12:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

At the very least, the Occupy wall street protesters, with no clear vision, have a lot more appeal worldwide than the tea party did. I don't recall the tea party having anyone march in support for their cause in Sweden, Rome, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Hong Kong, Manila, etc. What a strange thing... all these so called dumb, confused "mobs" coming together, internationally, over corporate greed.

Pusscrook, you'll never find young people protesting around the world because the governments are spending too much money on them (essentially, what the tea party believes). No way, they'd rather protest against what they perceive to be greed and inequality -- just don't take away their free health insurance, unemployment, or college grants.

How is it just "perception"? What young unemployed, college student caused the financial collapse?

[tenderman100]

[Smitty]

(10-15-2011 12:35 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 12:29 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 12:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

At the very least, the Occupy wall street protesters, with no clear vision, have a lot more appeal worldwide than the tea party did. I don't recall the tea party having anyone march in support for their cause in Sweden, Rome, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Hong Kong, Manila, etc. What a strange thing... all these so called dumb, confused "mobs" coming together, internationally, over corporate greed.

Pusscrook, you'll never find young people protesting around the world because the governments are spending too much money on them (essentially, what the tea party believes). No way, they'd rather protest against what they perceive to be greed and inequality -- just don't take away their free health insurance, unemployment, or college grants.

How is it just "perception"? What young unemployed, college student caused the financial collapse?

Perceive, as in understand or even believe. So they are protesting against what they understand, or even believe, to be greed and inequality. but greed and inequality on Wall St is not fact, it is an opinion or even a perception...hence my use of the word "perceive." Not to get too technical with my comment...

I wonder why they aren't protesting against the government for using taxpayer money to bail out the companies whose reckless behavior contributed to the financial collapse. If we never bailed them out, perhaps many of the companies would have split up, lost their strong grip on the market, and we wouldn't have these problems (whatever problems they are protesting against -- still haven't seen a clear reason behind their cause).

I go back to comments I made in similar threads - why do these protesters care what big corporations do with their money? Who cares if CEOs make $5 billion per year. It's the company's money and the shareholders choose to spend it that way. If not, close your accounts, sell your stock and move on. I could give a fuck about Bank of America because I'm not a customer or shareholder. If their irresponsible behavior causes instability in the market, then the free market will punish them and push them out. But instead the gov't intervenes and artificially floats them when they should have naturally been downsized or punished by the free market.
I believe the majority of these protesters have no clue what they are pissed about, they are just pissed off and so they blame big business because it is a symbol of greed -- as has been the case for hundred of years. But as Gordon Gekko said - Greed is good. Why should it matter if I am greedy so long as it does not affect you. Is it a moral issue? I think banging women and treating them like shit the way we do is far worse, morally speaking, than me hoarding my cash and trying to earn as much as I can in my lifetime and paying as little as possible in taxes for people who milk the system.

[thegmanifesto]

Smitty -

"I wonder why they aren't protesting against the government for using taxpayer money to bail out the companies whose reckless behavior contributed to the financial collapse. If we never bailed them out, perhaps many of the companies would have split up, lost their strong grip on the market, and we wouldn't have these problems (whatever problems they are protesting against -- still haven't seen a clear reason behind their cause)."

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the protesters in DC too?

[Smitty]

(10-15-2011 02:40 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Smitty -

"I wonder why they aren't protesting against the government for using taxpayer money to bail out the companies whose reckless behavior contributed to the financial collapse. If we never bailed them out, perhaps many of the companies would have split up, lost their strong grip on the market, and we wouldn't have these problems (whatever problems they are protesting against -- still haven't seen a clear reason behind their cause)."

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the protesters in DC too?

G- they are in DC, but just as they are in Denver, San Diego, and every other major city in the nation (and the world). Their protests aren't against the gov't in DC -- it's still the Occupy Wall St movement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for citizens taking to the streets when they feel severe injustices occurring. I'm just wondering why the strong reaction against wall st (i.e. greed) and not the gov't -- which grossly mismanages trillions of our dollars.

[Chad Daring]

(10-15-2011 11:09 AM)Brian Wrote:  

Wall St does own Congress. but if you want to change that you dont march on Wall St you march on Congress.

Because you dont yell at a dog thats off its leash when it bites you, you yell at the person who owns it.

[Brian]

(10-15-2011 03:08 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 11:09 AM)Brian Wrote:  

Wall St does own Congress. but if you want to change that you dont march on Wall St you march on Congress.

Because you dont yell at a dog thats off its leash when it bites you, you yell at the person who owns it.

not a fair analogy. in the same way that an animal is psychologically wired to bite/attack a Wall St bank is wired to make as much money as possible. you have to stop the enabler.

[The_CEO]

(10-15-2011 03:21 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 03:08 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 11:09 AM)Brian Wrote:  

Wall St does own Congress. but if you want to change that you dont march on Wall St you march on Congress.

Because you dont yell at a dog thats off its leash when it bites you, you yell at the person who owns it.

not a fair analogy. in the same way that an animal is psychologically wired to bite/attack a Wall St bank is wired to make as much money as possible. you have to stop the enabler.

They're going to the Kings of the Universe...not his secretary.

[Brian]

again, what do you think the 'Kings of the Universe' guys are going to do? do you think they give a flying fuck? no. Do you think Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon are worried about their reelections? No. They already have all the money and power and they are not going to give that up because a bunch of people are camping out in a park down the street. You cant stop Wall St by asking Wall St. You have to cut it off at the source.

[Pusscrook]

(10-15-2011 01:34 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 12:35 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 12:29 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 12:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

How is it just "perception"? What young unemployed, college student caused the financial collapse?

Perceive, as in understand or even believe. So they are protesting against what they understand, or even believe, to be greed and inequality. but greed and inequality on Wall St is not fact, it is an opinion or even a perception...hence my use of the word "perceive." Not to get too technical with my comment...

I wonder why they aren't protesting against the government for using taxpayer money to bail out the companies whose reckless behavior contributed to the financial collapse. If we never bailed them out, perhaps many of the companies would have split up, lost their strong grip on the market, and we wouldn't have these problems (whatever problems they are protesting against -- still haven't seen a clear reason behind their cause).

I go back to comments I made in similar threads - why do these protesters care what big corporations do with their money? Who cares if CEOs make $5 billion per year. It's the company's money and the shareholders choose to spend it that way. If not, close your accounts, sell your stock and move on. I could give a fuck about Bank of America because I'm not a customer or shareholder. If their irresponsible behavior causes instability in the market, then the free market will punish them and push them out. But instead the gov't intervenes and artificially floats them when they should have naturally been downsized or punished by the free market.
I believe the majority of these protesters have no clue what they are pissed about, they are just pissed off and so they blame big business because it is a symbol of greed -- as has been the case for hundred of years. But as Gordon Gekko said - Greed is good. Why should it matter if I am greedy so long as it does not affect you. Is it a moral issue? I think banging women and treating them like shit the way we do is far worse, morally speaking, than me hoarding my cash and trying to earn as much as I can in my lifetime and paying as little as possible in taxes for people who milk the system.

Smitty,

All very good points. We can have a healthy discussion because your points are well-founded. Let's examine it with a bit more specifics even though I agree that perception may be what they "understand". If were to push the envelope in terms of "perception"... and how it relates to what the Tea Party has done and what the OWS is now doing it can be said that different people see different similarities, and yet, similar differences. This is the glaring difference between the Tea Party and this 30-day old movement called OWS.

You proposed a question as to "why the OWS protestors are not protesting against the government for using taxpayer money to bail out those who cause the financial crisis....

The protest may in fact lead to that, but we do know for a fact that the perpetrators of the collapse, was not the government, but here are the specialized firms that devised the scheme to cause the worldwide financial collapse. Your first group ,are those who were betting on homeowners,... Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan ,AIG ,Citi, Bear Stearns, just to name a few. The other group was betting on home owner default ratios : That would be the Hedge fund managers. Hedge fund managers already know that the default rates were going to be high, but allowed the paper to be securitized after infecting the secondary market . They understood that if the these mortgages could be bundled up with "A" paper, it would be better to bet on the entire portfolio being worthless by the time the world figures it out.. What may be perceived as protesting against the wrong institution , I would argue for quite the opposite, simply because, this is why we are here.

So, why are they angry you ask?

Well, perhaps they to are angry that we had to bail out the very institutions that hoodwinked the entire world. Just because it hasn't been mentioned by the 50 or so people that have been interviewed, doesn't mean they are not protesters that are not angry about that. The government had no choice, but protesting against the government for using our tax payer dollars to bail out these institutions is secondary to what the institutions did to the entire world. Why is that such a bad thing to protest against that which you know to be the original source of the world's pain? I don't think we can pin-point exactly when the government knew about the fraud, but we do know for a fact ,who , where , and when this fraud was committed.

Your next question is: why do these protesters care what corporations do with there money:

Well, they shouldn't care, and yes, you do have protesters with numerous excuses for blaming corporations ,but , when these same corporations manipulate goods and services, or debt instruments for the good of a select few, all the while delivering a crushing blow to the rest of the world, we should all care. There is no need to guess, we know that this is exactly what happened. The world economy did not come to a screeching halt because small businesses were not able to hire, E.P.A. regulations, D.A.D.T, or health care. THe very animal created by Phil Gramm (via deregulating the housing industry),is the same rabid dog that bit all of us in the ass. No one would have predicted the amount of abuse that would be allowed, yet, we are here, because corporations/institutions,are responsible, and took advantage of that regulation.

As you stated , the majority of these protesters may not know why they are there and that may be attributed to a host of things. Age, educational level, financial situation, or some other ulterior motive. WHether they are there because big corporations is a symbol of greed or not is inconsequential, because the facts are, big corporations( see the ones I mentioned above) are the ones that caused this crisis.

WHen you ask "why should it matter if I am greedy if it doesn't affect you"?
Well, what in your opinion is the one thing that has the world in this shit-hole? My answer is greed.

So out of these OWS protests, light is shed on what is truth, and unlike the tea party, whose primary argument was/is with government spending , and do not perceive Wall Street to be the cause of this crisis, perhaps it all depends on where you are in life. I have a thought on why the Tea Party and OWS protesters are different , yet similar.

[JayMillz]

[Chad Daring]

(10-15-2011 03:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  

again, what do you think the 'Kings of the Universe' guys are going to do? do you think they give a flying fuck? no. Do you think Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon are worried about their reelections? No. They already have all the money and power and they are not going to give that up because a bunch of people are camping out in a park down the street. You cant stop Wall St by asking Wall St. You have to cut it off at the source.

The occupation isn't about getting things changed, its about getting a message out. Sitting in a drum circle and camping on a sidewalk isn't going to change at thing, but it WILL make people take notice and once enough people have taken notice then the actions towards change will happen.

If you were to occupy the government (which IS happening in DC) you'd be asking them to change things under their rules. Well, the government answers to wall street when it comes to playing by the rules, so Wall Street IS the source.

[Smitty]

(10-15-2011 04:52 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

So, why are they angry you ask?

Well, perhaps they to are angry that we had to bail out the very institutions that hoodwinked the entire world.
Just because it hasn't been mentioned by the 50 or so people that have been interviewed, doesn't mean they are not protesters that are not angry about that. The government had no choice, but protesting against the government for using our tax payer dollars to bail out these institutions is secondary to what the institutions did to the entire world. Why is that such a bad thing to protest against that which you know to be the original source of the world's pain? I don't think we can pin-point exactly when the government knew about the fraud, but we do know for a fact ,who , where , and when this fraud was committed.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. The government did not have to bail out the banks. It could have let the banks fail to clean out the system of that which had become corrupt - excise the tumor so to speak. I do not think these banks are the source of the world's pain. I believe the root cause is people spending and living beyond their means. This creates bubbles - housing and credit. Some people blame the banks because they relaxed the credit standards, but the gov't had long ago determined that owning a home was the American dream and Freddie and Fannie have been guaranteeing loans for years. I don't blame the lender, I blame the person taking the loan...the consumer who overloaded himself and could not pay back his debt. Look at the personal debt charts (here) and you'll see a consistent climb over the past 30 years. How can we blame Wall St. for that? The credit bubble is a product of our society insisting that they should be able to have whatever they want - 3000 sq ft home, Cadillac SUV, nice clothes, cell phones, laptops, and two vacations every year, on a $60k/year salary.

Your next question is: why do these protesters care what corporations do with there money:

Well, they shouldn't care, and yes, you do have protesters with numerous excuses for blaming corporations ,but , when these same corporations manipulate goods and services, or debt instruments for the good of a select few, all the while delivering a crushing blow to the rest of the world, we should all care. There is no need to guess, we know that this is exactly what happened. The world economy did not come to a screeching halt because small businesses were not able to hire, E.P.A. regulations, D.A.D.T, or health care. THe very animal created by Phil Gramm (via deregulating the housing industry),is the same rabid dog that bit all of us in the ass. No one would have predicted the amount of abuse that would be allowed, yet, we are here, because corporations/institutions,are responsible, and took advantage of that regulation.

As you stated , the majority of these protesters may not know why they are there and that may be attributed to a host of things. Age, educational level, financial situation, or some other ulterior motive. WHether they are there because big corporations is a symbol of greed or not is inconsequential, because the facts are, big corporations( see the ones I mentioned above) are the ones that caused this crisis.
Again, I disagree that these are the facts. I am not disputing that there was bad behavior by the investment bankers, etc, but I do not believe one bit that they are the group that solely caused this crisis. Look around the world and we see financial crises throughout the U.S., Europe, and Japan. What is the root cause of these crises? Too much debt. Each country in trouble - the U.S., Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece, Japan - has a problem of not enough income relative to the amount they are spending. Now, it's debatable where each country should be spending their money (defense, entitlements, etc), but the simple fact is there is not enough money coming in relative to the amount being spent on the nation. The big corporations have not caused this issue. They may be part of it insomuch as they have laid people off and contributed to the unemployment, but we have record numbers on food stamps in the U.S. We have people on unemployment for two years now. How is this related to people on Wall St. being greedy. Even Pelosi and Obama have not said, to my knowledge, the global crisis was caused by the banks. They simply believe that it is unfair that the bankers are making so much money while the majority of the people in the nation are hurting. They want to "spread the wealth around" and have the banks "pay their fair share."
I think you and I are by and large in agreement on many things, but I do have to disagree that it is indisputable that Wall St has caused the global crisis, when, in fact, nations are simply spending more than they are bringing in. For the record, I am not a wall st fanboy or brainwashed like some around will default to as their argument. I am simply a capitalist who believes in the free market and limited gov't. I'm not a republican or democrat, but I will not argue against being frugal, and the U.S. gov't is not frugal. There are more freeloaders now than ever in our history.

[Smitty]

(10-15-2011 05:04 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Well, the government answers to wall street when it comes to playing by the rules, so Wall Street IS the source.

How so?

[thegmanifesto]

(10-15-2011 07:39 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 05:04 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Well, the government answers to wall street when it comes to playing by the rules, so Wall Street IS the source.

How so?

Smitty, you just answered your own question in your post above.

The Bailouts.

You said, "The government did not have to bail out the banks."

But they did.

Why?

Because Wall Street and the banks own the government.

I can't understand why you don't see this.

You have two pieces of a puzzle in front of you and you can't figure out how they fit together.

[Smitty]

(10-15-2011 07:46 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 07:39 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 05:04 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Well, the government answers to wall street when it comes to playing by the rules, so Wall Street IS the source.

How so?

Smitty, you just answered your own question in your post above.

The Bailouts.

You said, "The government did not have to bail out the banks."

But they did.

Why?

Because Wall Street and the banks own the government.

I can't understand why you don't see this.

You have two pieces of a puzzle in front of you and you can't figure out how they fit together.

G- you're right, I am failing to see how wall st owns the gov't. If the gov't bailed out wall st, wouldn't it be opposite - the gov't now owns wall st? Such was the case when they bailed out GM and became a shareholder in the company. But I don't see how wall st owns the gov't. I'm sure there is corruption and the bankers have politicians in their pockets - but what specific actions point to that being the case?

I dislike wall st as much as i dislike gov't...but the corruption of gov't is clear to me and I can point out many examples to back up my argument. I cannot find solid examples of how wall st owns washington though.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-15-2011 07:57 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 07:46 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 07:39 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 05:04 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Well, the government answers to wall street when it comes to playing by the rules, so Wall Street IS the source.

How so?

Smitty, you just answered your own question in your post above.

The Bailouts.

You said, "The government did not have to bail out the banks."

But they did.

Why?

Because Wall Street and the banks own the government.

I can't understand why you don't see this.

You have two pieces of a puzzle in front of you and you can't figure out how they fit together.

G- you're right, I am failing to see how wall st owns the gov't. If the gov't bailed out wall st, wouldn't it be opposite - the gov't now owns wall st? Such was the case when they bailed out GM and became a shareholder in the company. But I don't see how wall st owns the gov't. I'm sure there is corruption and the bankers have politicians in their pockets - but what specific actions point to that being the case?

I dislike wall st as much as i dislike gov't...but the corruption of gov't is clear to me and I can point out many examples to back up my argument. I cannot find solid examples of how wall st owns washington though.

"I cannot find solid examples of how wall st owns washington though."

Look at the people involved and see where they worked. And follow the money.

You will find your answers there.

[Chad Daring]

G got it

The government is "In charge" "officially" but they do what big money tells them to do, so we peacefully protest DC and say "hey guys change these things" They then do it their way, which is legislatively, but we're asking them to fix themselves by their means. See the common linkage? Its all internal, its self governing, this is why the system is to far fucked to come back.

I agree, protesting wall street wont do a thing, but the act of doing so is already setting off a chain of events that might eventually get things done.

Quote:

"If the gov't bailed out wall st, wouldn't it be opposite"

Not when the bail outs are akin to a thug saying "give me your money or I"ll fuck you up" The thug is clearly in control, even though he's the one getting the money.

[speakeasy]

We need something like this on the Washington Mall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...jUIEAZr4Yo

This is an austerity protest in Madrid today. They know how to make a statement. If half the shit that goes on in America were to happen in Spain you'd see 10x as many people there.