Occupy Wall Street

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:51 pm

296392_2138746549376_1267514034_32128401_427199004_n.jpg

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:32 pm

“Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation. How does George Soros financially back and publicly support "Occupy Wall Street" when they are protesting everything he is and stands for. There is more to this "movement" that meets the eye.

Soros Loses Bid to Overturn Insider Trading Conviction.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:46 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:
3. Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress voted for and passed all of the bailouts, this was 100% their doing.

Don't forget Obama wasn't even in office when this process started. President Bush was the one who got the ball rolling and did most of it. It's actually a subject he discusses in his memoir.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:07 pm

Roody wrote:Don't forget Obama wasn't even in office when this process started. President Bush was the one who got the ball rolling and did most of it. It's actually a subject he discusses in his memoir.

Doesn't matter who started it, it matters who finished it.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:23 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:[ATTACH=CONFIG]780[/ATTACH]

I have to admit that's funny and sad at the same time... amazing what people take for granted each day but complain while using the objects.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:31 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Doesn't matter who started it, it matters who finished it.

my point is that party affiliation didn't matter

RaisinCain · Post by **RaisinCain** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:57 pm

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/676648/occupy_wall_street_spreads_to_853_cities:_bernie_sanders%27_support,_bloomberg%27s_slam_--_latest_updates_from_the_99/

Unholy · Post by **Unholy** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:09 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:[ATTACH=CONFIG]780[/ATTACH]

The guy on the bottom looks like he didn't use any razors.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:43 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Doesn't matter who started it, it matters who finished it.

Would McCain and Palin done things differently?

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:23 pm

JawZ wrote:Would McCain and Palin done things differently?

of course no one knows the answer to that question, so why ask it

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:22 pm

JawZ wrote:Would McCain and Palin done things differently?

Who knows, but I hope so.

On your post earlier Jawz about money funding elections, I agree, I have always believed that there should be the same spending limit for each candidate so that it's a level playing field and "big money" has no effect on politics. I do think corporations big or small should be allowed to contribute to the candidate they support just like you or I can contribute to the candidate we choose, but there should be a limit, a predefined amount that each candidate is allowed to receive and spend. I also think that every debate should be equal, every candidate asked the same question with the same amount of time to answer so that it removes the media from choosing for us who and what they want us to hear. I also believe that if a current President wants to run for reelection then he should not be able to campaign, we already know what he stands for and intends to do so he needs to do the job he was elected to do rather than go out and waste time and money. Let his actions and what he accomplished for the past 4 years be his campaign.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:30 pm

294860_2139985420347_1267514034_32129372_697835634_n.jpg

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:28 pm

Mark wrote:of course no one knows the answer to that question, so why ask it

Senator McCain supported the bailout as a Presidential contender AND as a seated Senator. Of course he now recants saying he was misled by Hank Paulson lol.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/22/mccai ... bailout-su

So the answer is...No. Things wouldn't be different. Bush started the bailout and no matter who became President, it would have ended the same way. What I'm trying to impress upon you is that the process itself was never democratized...it was institutional. Americans, both GOP and Dems never wanted TARP, never wanted a bailout of Wall Street. So why didn't our REPRESENTATIVES do our bidding?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:42 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Who knows, but I hope so.

On your post earlier Jawz about money funding elections, I agree, I have always believed that there should be the same spending limit for each candidate so that it's a level playing field and "big money" has no effect on politics. I do think corporations big or small should be allowed to contribute to the candidate they support just like you or I can contribute to the candidate we choose, but there should be a limit, a predefined amount that each candidate is allowed to receive and spend. I also think that every debate should be equal, every candidate asked the same question with the same amount of time to answer so that it removes the media from choosing for us who and what they want us to hear. I also believe that if a current President wants to run for reelection then he should not be able to campaign, we already know what he stands for and intends to do so he needs to do the job he was elected to do rather than go out and waste time and money. Let his actions and what he accomplished for the past 4 years be his campaign.

Corporations don't vote. That's the issue for me. IMO, we shouldn't allow those who can't vote to donate money to campaigns.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:42 pm

Abolish student loan debt? Free cell phones and internet since it's a "right"? Dictate the pay of CEO's of private companies? Are these clowns serious?

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:03 am

Whether we agree with the people picketing is irrelevant. The facts are it's their right to do so. The beauty of our system is it allows for demonstrations just like this. It also shows that people care. I think it's cool if for no other reason than people are getting involved to make their views known.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:40 am

They have a right to demonstrate not break the law....and that's exactly what they are doing on many occasions such as walking in large batches over a bridge, standing in traffic, littering and littering and littering and... smoking the reefer!

But yeah they are breaking many laws...trashing the area's they are hanging out in - I'm all for democracy and using my OWN voice, not the voice from some social media site telling me I should go here, make a stupid looking sign and stand around so I can get on mainstream news in the evening.

ohh and this made me really laugh

mnosteele52 wrote:[ATTACH=CONFIG]781[/ATTACH]

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:01 am

JawZ wrote:Corporations don't vote. That's the issue for me. IMO, we shouldn't allow those who can't vote to donate money to campaigns.

I never said corporations vote, I said who they support. I also agree with you about the bailout being started by Bush and it would have likely been passed by whomever was in office. This is why I love Herman Cain, he's not a lying cheating politician who panders to corporations and such, he would be real change.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:25 am

mnosteele52 wrote:I never said corporations vote, I said who they support. I also agree with you about the bailout being started by Bush and it would have likely been passed by whomever was in office. This is why I love Herman Cain, he's not a lying cheating politician who panders to corporations and such, he would be real change.

I was just saying that as it's my litmus test. If you can't vote, you can't donate. TBH, at this moment, there isn't any candidate I'd vote for to include Cain especially after he made these remarks...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... rself.html

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO declared.

I can name at least 25 people I personally know who have tenfold the intelligence of Cain and are all dirt poor. Why do we always gauge success by money? What politicians have advanced society?

What put the icing on the cake for me was this bit by Cain...

Cain acknowledged that the banking industry played a role in the 2008 economic meltdown, but argued they were no longer responsible. "They did have something to do with the crisis that we went into in 2008, but we're not in 2008, we're in 2011," Cain said."

Ummm, NOT responsible??? WTF???? LEt me ask you this, can you name or cite on one hand, 5 people who were prosecuted for the financial crisis? The derivatives market is wholly responsible for this mess and AFAIK, only 1 person has been prosecuted all the while another bubble is being created because NOTHING has been done to reign this even though Dodd-Frank was passed a year ago!!!!

But I'll be damned, the average Joe's who got defrauded are sure as hell still responsible for their debt lol!

At this time we are doomed to repeat the past.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:27 am

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:49 am

The President and Congress are at fault for the economic meltdown (I am referring to Clinton, Bush and Obama) they are the ones who started the whole meltdown, they were the enablers that allowed the banks to do what they did. They were all in this together, that is why Cain is different, he has had nothing to do with this and would not support it if he was in office.

He's also 100% right about don't blame Wall Street, 99% of these protesters are your modern day hippies. They have this sense of entitlement and act as if everything is owed to them for doing nothing in return, a bunch or morons. They don't understand what hard work and sacrifice is, they expect everything right now and for free. I see this ALL the time with the younger generation, people in their 20's. Not all 20 something year olds are like this, but the VAST majority are. For example, in the Fire Dept, they are a bunch of sissies who want to sit around and play video games all day instead of actually working, as we say.... the "New Breed".

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:34 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:The President and Congress are at fault for the economic meltdown (I am referring to Clinton, Bush and Obama) they are the ones who started the whole meltdown, they were the enablers that allowed the banks to do what they did. They were all in this together, that is why Cain is different, he has had nothing to do with this and would not support it if he was in office.

He's also 100% right about don't blame Wall Street, 99% of these protesters are your modern day hippies. They have this sense of entitlement and act as if everything is owed to them for doing nothing in return, a bunch or morons. They don't understand what hard work and sacrifice is, they expect everything right now and for free. I see this ALL the time with the younger generation, people in their 20's. Not all 20 something year olds are like this, but the VAST majority are. For example, in the Fire Dept, they are a bunch of sissies who want to sit around and play video games all day instead of actually working, as we say.... the "New Breed".

The government had ZERO to do with creating the derivatives market. It's a wholly unregulated beast because the trades occur between banks. there was never any transparency. Even the regulators at the FTC had no idea of the size and scope of the problem. So Clinton, nor Bush, nor Obama created this mess. I can say that both Bush and Obama didn't make the right decisions as to how to rectify the problem once it reared it's ugly head. Why should the taxpayers FIX BAD BUSINESS DECISIONS????????

IMO, we're still trying to politicize an institutional meltdown. What purpose does that serve? I already have the answer, it's self serving. Why in the hell would any politician burn the coffers that line their campaign war chests? This is why we desperately need DRACONIAN campaign finance reform so that our representatives are free to do the right thing. As it stands now, if you do the morally and ethically right thing, you don't get re-elected. That's fine by me because we have tons of people to put into office.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:16 pm

My point is the government bailed them out, should have never been an option, let them fail.... which they wouldn't have.

"In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families."For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and approved by Congress. The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases and increased to 55% by 2007.
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977. Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits."

As you know they basically gave loans to people who could not afford the loans knowing this all along they did it anyways. The President and Congress were totally involved in this by passing these Acts which in return enabled Fannie Mae to actually loan the money, then when it all failed and the bubble burst they bailed them out.... total BS. Created by politicians and bankers and funded by politicians with our tax money.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:33 pm

JawZ wrote:Ummm, NOT responsible??? WTF???? LEt me ask you this, can you name or cite on one hand, 5 people who were prosecuted for the financial crisis? The derivatives market is wholly responsible for this mess and AFAIK, only 1 person has been prosecuted all the while another bubble is being created because NOTHING has been done to reign this even though Dodd-Frank was passed a year ago!!!!

But I'll be damned, the average Joe's who got defrauded are sure as hell still responsible for their debt lol!

At this time we are doomed to repeat the past.

Don't misquote Cain, he said they are no longer responsible. What I get out of that is politicians are now responsible because the mess was started and they bailed them out, but that started on 2008 and is in the past and you can't change it, it's now 2011 so let's fix it. And about prosecuted.... what they did wasn't illegal it was corrupt and unethical, once again the laws with the loopholes in place protected them.... laws that who put into place..... politicians.

RaisinCain · Post by **RaisinCain** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:12 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Don't misquote Cain, he said they are no longer responsible. What I get out of that is politicians are now responsible because the mess was started and they bailed them out, but that started on 2008 and is in the past and you can't change it, it's now 2011 so let's fix it. And about prosecuted.... what they did wasn't illegal it was corrupt and unethical, once again the laws with the loopholes in place protected them.... laws that who put into place..... politicians.

Clue has not been gotten. That is all. LoL

JC · Post by JC » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:49 pm

JawZ wrote:I'll stop right there. The US was established as a democracy.

Really? I thought we were a republic. I don't believe the word "democracy" is found in any of our founding documents.

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:15 pm

I haven't even read through this entire thread, but I can tell you this, those that are the drivers are the ones that are going to kill all of us whether you like it or not. It's a planned, well thought out plan, to destroy the World economy as we know it. It's not just ours, it's everyone's.

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:19 pm

Roody wrote:Don't forget Obama wasn't even in office when this process started. President Bush was the one who got the ball rolling and did most of it. It's actually a subject he discusses in his memoir.

Perhaps, but show me one damn thing Obama has done to change any of it, besides throw 420 some more governerment regulations and committees.

Want to know, look up Bilderburg.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:31 pm

RaisinCain, since it's very obvious you are a staunch Democrat and strong Obama supporter, name anything he has done since he has been in office that has benefited this country and the people in it?

I'm not so anti Democrat, Clinton wasn't a bad President, I'm just VERY anti Obama, he has run this country into the ground and done his best to push his socialistic policies on us.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:33 pm

blebs wrote:Perhaps, but show me one damn thing Obama has done to change any of it, besides throw 420 some more governerment regulations and committees.

Want to know, look up Bilderburg.

No perhaps about it. It did in fact start with Bush. That said Obama has done nothing to change it. He's been a big part of the problem himself.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:34 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:RaisinCain, since it's very obvious you are a staunch Democrat and strong Obama supporter, name anything he has done since he has been in office that has benefited this country and the people in it?

I'm not so anti Democrat, Clinton wasn't a bad President, I'm just VERY anti Obama, he has run this country into the ground and done his best to push his socialistic policies on us.

I can answer that question. He has increased drone presence in Afghanistan and had the balls to give the order to take out Osama. That said by and large he hasn't done much to make me feel good about voting for him in 2008 and I'm not sure I will next year.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:46 pm

Sorry Roody, didn't ask you, I really want a legit answer from RaisinCain.

I'm glad he did accomplish that on his watch, but that really isn't much. That's more timing that they had good intel to know where Osama was while he was in office, I think any President would have made that call.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:50 pm

Roody wrote:No perhaps about it. It did in fact start with Bush. That said Obama has done nothing to change it. He's been a big part of the problem himself.

Obama added more to the national debt in his first 18 months in office than all Presidents combined in the history of the United States, he isn't a big part of the problem, he IS the problem.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:07 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Sorry Roody, didn't ask you, I really want a legit answer from RaisinCain.

I'm glad he did accomplish that on his watch, but that really isn't much. That's more timing that they had good intel to know where Osama was while he was in office, I think any President would have made that call.

Yes, probably so with Osama, but the drone thing is huge and that was Obama's call and he deserves credit for it.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:08 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Obama added more to the national debt in his first 18 months in office than all Presidents combined in the history of the United States, he isn't a big part of the problem, he IS the problem.

He's part of the problem. Congress is another part of the problem. It used to be people disliked every congressman except their own. Now people even think their own congressman sucks. Of course, we are a part of the problem also. We keep voting these clowns back in office.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:31 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:Don't misquote Cain, he said they are no longer responsible. What I get out of that is politicians are now responsible because the mess was started and they bailed them out, but that started on 2008 and is in the past and you can't change it, it's now 2011 so let's fix it. And about prosecuted.... what they did wasn't illegal it was corrupt and unethical, once again the laws with the loopholes in place protected them.... laws that who put into place..... politicians.

Laws that corporate lawyers found loopholes in. Corporations have entire armies of lawyers looking to exploit the law. IS this a fault of the lawmakers?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:46 pm

JC wrote:Really? I thought we were a republic. I don't believe the word "democracy" is found in any of our founding documents.

Are we or are we not a representative democracy? And btw, a republic is where the supreme control of the government lies with the people!!! Please don't throw the word republic around because there are many republics where this is not true...like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Our republic in the US is specifically rooted in democracy.

However if you look at how our government functions currently, it is not a republic. It's a Corporatocracy. Corporatocracy, in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning (notwithstanding the "free market" label).[1]

Did the founding fathers mention anything about a Corporatocracy?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:50 pm

JawZ wrote:Laws that corporate lawyers found loopholes in. Corporations have entire armies of lawyers looking to exploit the law. IS this a fault of the lawmakers?

Also, I didn't misquote Cain. No longer responsible? Why? Just because it's been 3 years? So why is responsibility being absolved?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:08 am

mnosteele52 wrote:Obama added more to the national debt in his first 18 months in office than all Presidents combined in the history of the United States, he isn't a big part of the problem, he IS the problem.

I don't believe this but even if it's true, I disagree because imo, it's our own apathy that allows it to happen. when someone says that any President did such and such "X" thing...well...let's be honest...we are giving up our supreme control. It's like we've been programmed over time to relinquish control to the top vote getter when the bottom line is this...they are nothing more than servants of the people. They are representatives, NOT kings.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:39 am

You know Jawz, you should be a politician, because you know everything and are never wrong...... at least you never admit when your wrong.

In your own words "'ll stop right there. The US was established as a democracy." WRONG, We were established as a Republic, then you change tactics "Are we or are we not a representative democracy?", the question was not what we currently are, it was what we were established as and you were simply wrong.

You always put words in people mouths, misquote them, change your story to fit your needs and NEVER admit fault..... your a politician.