• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

cpwill said:
and free college! make me pay back the massive loans I took out to study film and navel-gazing!!!??!!! Fascism, i tell you!!!
Click to expand...

Boy are you going to be embarrassed when you actually get caught up in this thread...
 
Redress said:
404, link not found, but it looks as already mentioned to just be some guy on a forum message board.

OK, got a working link: Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

Surprise, it was the Gateway Pundit that pushed this. They have a long history of dishonest "reporting".

Let's look at the opening of the post, which was not surprisingly left out of your post:

Epic fail there guy.
Click to expand...

seems to generally match their Official Statement of Facts; i would hardly be surprised to find strong support for just those demands among the crowd of bozo's wasting daddy's money in the streets.

...As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known....

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices....

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right....

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press....

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil....

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts....
Click to expand...

and so on and so forth.
 
Redress said:
Boy are you going to be embarrassed when you actually get caught up in this thread...
Click to expand...

:) see above. free college is a human right, and expecting us to pay for it, or pay back the people who loaned us money to get our education is mean.
 
cpwill said:
seems to generally match their Official Statement of Facts; i would hardly be surprised to find strong support for just those demands among the crowd of bozo's wasting daddy's money in the streets.



and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Again, not from the groups website. I wonder why that is? I wonder why the actual official site has nothing like that that I can find, but does have this page:About Us | OccupyWallSt.org

You are failing pretty miserably at smearing people with lies. Why not try honesty?
 
whysoserious said:
You are assuming he is actually reading what other people post. I find that slightly unlikely.
Click to expand...

The fact that he is going to conservative websites to find out what a liberal group thinks is pretty telling.
 
Helix said:
may those who are anti-union live to see why we had them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Why unions existed in the first place has nothing to do with why they exist today, to deny that is extremely dishonest. The good intentions of labor protections at inception of unions were dismissed long ago to a political business effort with the sole intention of money movement from one group to political interests. Take any major union today and you should find that most efforts and resources (less what they must hold for union membership reasons) are going to political efforts. It is a cash making operation now with the full intention of further division between those in unions and those that are not, leaving in it's wake any real interest in what unions were created for in the first place.
 
pbrauer said:
It wasn't the labor unions who created the financial meltdown, it was Wall Street and the banks.
Click to expand...

Banks like Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac, pushed by progressive democrats like Barney Frank (who made money off them themselves) and gave people loans they could not afford. The banks will do what congress allowes them to do...our meltdown is coming from a war that will bankrupt us if we don't start minding our own business and stop trying to "buy friendship" with other countries.
 
Redress said:
Again, not from the groups website. I wonder why that is? I wonder why the actual official site has nothing like that that I can find, but does have this page:About Us | OccupyWallSt.org

You are failing pretty miserably at smearing people with lies. Why not try honesty?
Click to expand...

:) well, I heard about this as I was listening to NPR this morning. They were interviewing some of the leadership, who specifically referenced that list (and one made the point again about student loans); which is how I knew how to go find it.

So I suspect you'll have to ask that well-known-right-wing-smear-machine, NPR. :)
 
cpwill said:
:) well, I heard about this as I was listening to NPR this morning. They were interviewing some of the leadership, who specifically referenced that list (and one made the point again about student loans); which is how I knew how to go find it.

So I suspect you'll have to ask that well-known-right-wing-smear-machine, NPR. :)
Click to expand...

Got a link? You have not proven to be a reliable source. Kinda the opposite in fact. Who where these leaders?
 
Come on...when George Soros came out in 'support' of these clowns you had to know where all of this was going.

I am standing firm and resolute with the protesters. I want to see them protesting deep into December...January...camping on the streets and in the parks. Stay the course baby! Walk away from your jobs forever. Walk away from your classes. Keep protesting evil banks and evil corporations...and...well...apparently student loans.
 
KevinKohler said:
Not my point. Labor unions, long known to be bastions of unbridled corruption, calling wall street, or any other orginization, corrupt. Irony.
Click to expand...

I would be most interested in reading the factual evidence you can present to support this assertion.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Why unions existed in the first place has nothing to do with why they exist today, to deny that is extremely dishonest. The good intentions of labor protections at inception of unions were dismissed long ago to a political business effort with the sole intention of money movement from one group to political interests. Take any major union today and you should find that most efforts and resources (less what they must hold for union membership reasons) are going to political efforts. It is a cash making operation now with the full intention of further division between those in unions and those that are not, leaving in it's wake any real interest in what unions were created for in the first place.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in reading actual verifiable evidence of your claims and assertions. Please do present it.
 
Wow, such a large collection of DNA-challenged miscreants in the same area at the same time.

What a great chance to thin the herd.

I guess that would be wrong. Oh well.
 
MoveOn.org + Sorros = meyhem...which is exactly as the rabble-rousers want it, but guess what...it won't make a tinkers da*n what they want
 
It's good that the Wallstreet protest has a broad enough message that it can encompass different kinds of people. It's what has allowed their numbers to grow.

And unlike the tea party, we won't see politicians giving speeches anytime soon, or trying to hijack the movement. People wouldn't stand for it. They are against Republican and Democrat alike, as long as they support the financial cartels of Wallstreet.
 
coolwalker said:
MoveOn.org + Sorros = meyhem...which is exactly as the rabble-rousers want it, but guess what...it won't make a tinkers da*n what they want
Click to expand...

Some one else expressed this better than I would have in another thread on another topic. Let me quote:

spud_meister said:
Here's a tip, guilt by association is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
 
coolwalker said:
Banks like Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac, pushed by progressive democrats like Barney Frank (who made money off them themselves) and gave people loans they could not afford. The banks will do what congress allowes them to do...our meltdown is coming from a war that will bankrupt us if we don't start minding our own business and stop trying to "buy friendship" with other countries.
Click to expand...
i so enjoy replying to ignorant tripe such as that found above
sarcasm.gif

fannie and freddie were privatized during the nixon administration. yes, that dick
trouble was, it was structured so that the new private owners enjoyed the profits (lots and lots of profits). but the taxpayers were liable for the losses (lots and lots of losses)

most of the loans that went south during the financial meltdown fall into the category of ... wait for it ... 'non-conforming' loans
the term 'non-conforming' means the loans did NOT meet the credit criteria established by fannie and freddie such that those secondary markets would be able to buy them
as a result, those non-conforming loans were packaged as collateralized debt instruments and sold to eager buyers on wall street
those non-conforming loans - because of their high risk - provided higher returns to the equity buyers

fannie and freddie were now being by-passed because of this new way lenders could sell their mortgage paper. these more risky, higher yield 'non-conforming' loans now had another market such that freddie and fannie were losing business
so, while freddie and fannie, by regulation, could not buy the loans that were 'non-conforming' they were able to spend their (taxpayer backed) money on the collateralized debt instruments. that is where most of fannie's and freddie's losses were sustained

during the dicknbush era, it was learned that fannie mae had cooked its books. that should have alerted the administration. and it did. this report was presented: http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/747/FNMSPECIALEXAM.pdf
(at least read the third page, 'summary of report')
and still nothing was done

fannie and freddie were returned to government oversight after the meltdown
presently, we notice that at about ten month intervals the congress will increase the amount of monies to fannie mae by half a trillion dollars, give or take a hundred billion
this is the government propping up the banks via the back door
fannie is being funded to buy the underwater mortgages held by the too-big-to-fail lenders




and then we read such stupid statements as is found quoted above. but here is my challenge to the author. show us anything which requires lenders to make non-creditworthy loans. provide anything proving such requirement existed and i will publicly apologize to you in this thread
 
Temporal said:
It's good that the Wallstreet protest has a broad enough message that it can encompass different kinds of people. It's what has allowed their numbers to grow.

And unlike the tea party, we won't see politicians giving speeches anytime soon, or trying to hijack the movement. People wouldn't stand for it. They are against Republican and Democrat alike, as long as they support the financial cartels of Wallstreet.
Click to expand...
Its just precious that you believe that. :lamo
 
justabubba said:
i so enjoy replying to ignorant tripe such as that found above
View attachment 67116450

fannie and freddie were privatized during the nixon administration. yes, that dick
trouble was, it was structured so that the new private owners enjoyed the profits (lots and lots of profits). but the taxpayers were liable for the losses (lots and lots of losses)

most of the loans that went south during the financial meltdown fall into the category of ... wait for it ... 'non-conforming' loans
the term 'non-conforming' means the loans did NOT meet the credit criteria established by fannie and freddie such that those secondary markets would be able to buy them
as a result, those non-conforming loans were packaged as collateralized debt instruments and sold to eager buyers on wall street
those non-conforming loans - because of their high risk - provided higher returns to the equity buyers

fannie and freddie were now being by-passed because of this new way lenders could sell their mortgage paper. these more risky, higher yield 'non-conforming' loans now had another market such that freddie and fannie were losing business
so, while freddie and fannie, by regulation, could not buy the loans that were 'non-conforming' they were able to spend their (taxpayer backed) money on the collateralized debt instruments. that is where most of fannie's and freddie's losses were sustained

during the dicknbush era, it was learned that fannie mae had cooked its books. that should have alerted the administration. and it did. this report was presented: http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/747/FNMSPECIALEXAM.pdf
(at least read the third page, 'summary of report')
and still nothing was done

fannie and freddie were returned to government oversight after the meltdown
presently, we notice that at about ten month intervals the congress will increase the amount of monies to fannie mae by half a trillion dollars, give or take a hundred billion
this is the government propping up the banks via the back door
fannie is being funded to buy the underwater mortgages held by the too-big-to-fail lenders




and then we read such stupid statements as is found quoted above. but here is my challenge to the author. show us anything which requires lenders to make non-creditworthy loans. provide anything proving such requirement existed and i will publicly apologize to you in this thread
Click to expand...

Your post missesd a big part of the boat. You note "loans that went south during the meltdown", when in fact the meltdown was the bursting of the inflationary bubble, not that this loan went bad, or that loan went bad. The bubble had to burst. When it did, every portfolio, derivative, piece of land, etc, went underwater.

Fannie and Freddie strted the inflationary bubble, and this bubble enabled ALL the stupidity that followed. If you want to make it seem as a contest of who wrote the dumbest loans, then knock yourself out. Fact is that all loans were written on an inflationary bubble.

As to your challenge "show us anything which requires lenders to make non-creditworthy loans. provide anything proving such requirement existed and i will publicly apologize to you in this thread". The DoJ and HUD sued majoe mortgage lenders in the mid-90's to make more "sub-prime" loans. So I guess we can debate whether the private lenders not thinking sub-prime was credit-worthy enough, and the government deciding, all day long. But the government certainly struck a deal to have the banks make loans they did not want to make ....... with the arrangement that Fannie and Feddie would underwrite.

Watch this BS. Jump to 2:15, to the Q and A, and pay attention. "higher risk, with a higher default rate" is how Cuomo characterized the new loans. You can call it whatever you want, but how do you like your crow ?

How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Fannie and Freddie strted the inflationary bubble, and this bubble enabled ALL the stupidity that followed. If you want to make it seem as a contest of who wrote the dumbest loans, then knock yourself out. Fact is that all loans were written on an inflationary bubble.
Click to expand...
The bubble was global. If Fannie and Freddie as well as the CRA was responsible the housing bubble would only be in the US. Now it's possible the banking failure would spread due to how the banks are intereconnected but that is not the case.
Real estate bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was a supply side bubble based on CDO's mislabeled as AAA, causing massive amounts of capital to pour into housing...globally. Even places where Freddie and fannie and the CRA were non-existent.

The only people that consistently state that CRA or Fannie and Freddie are the cause are those with an agenda. Everybody else says that the cause was a failure in ratings agencies and failures in financial organizations.
 
Unions will never face the truth that they are part of the problem by forcing costs up and driving jobs out of the country and States and the Nation into economic situations they can no longer handle.


These fools are protesting because Obama is playing the calls warfare game they Will never win.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Your post missesd a big part of the boat. You note "loans that went south during the meltdown", when in fact the meltdown was the bursting of the inflationary bubble, not that this loan went bad, or that loan went bad. The bubble had to burst. When it did, every portfolio, derivative, piece of land, etc, went underwater.
Click to expand...
nope
lots of good paper survived the meltdown
high end assets held their value
my personal residence has done nothing but appreciate since the bubble burst (but at a lower rate)

Fannie and Freddie strted the inflationary bubble,
Click to expand...
no they didn't
fannie and freddie required loans to conform to their regulations
that's why they were bypassed when the makers of non-conforming loans found a way to sell them on wall street instead of to the traditional secondary lender, fannie mae
interest rates were low
those high risk non-conforming loans were generating substantially higher yields than would be realized with conforming loans
that demand on wall street for high yield paper is what sparked the bubble

... and this bubble enabled ALL the stupidity that followed. If you want to make it seem as a contest of who wrote the dumbest loans, then knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
fannie made stupid investments, by buying the CDOs in an effort to enjoy the gains other lenders were realizing because those other lenders did not have to make conforming loans ... at least as long as wall street was buying them
but fannie's and freddie's regulatory restrictions prohibiting non-conforming loans prevented them from being a substantial party to the bubble
their investments in CDO's caused them (and the taxpayers who backed their losses) to be the victim of the bubble

Fact is that all loans were written on an inflationary bubble.
Click to expand...
not true. there were the usual number of creditworthy borrowers receiving loans. at the time, i was underwriting lots of them

As to your challenge "show us anything which requires lenders to make non-creditworthy loans. provide anything proving such requirement existed and i will publicly apologize to you in this thread". The DoJ and HUD sued majoe mortgage lenders in the mid-90's to make more "sub-prime" loans.
Click to expand...
i missed seeing your cite which would show us that lenders were required to make non-creditworthy loans
offer that up and i will make good on my promise - now to the both of you

So I guess we can debate whether the private lenders not thinking sub-prime was credit-worthy enough, and the government deciding, all day long.
Click to expand...
again, offer a cite showing that lenders were required to make non-creditworthy loans and i will make a public apology to both of you
now, banks were expected to make creditworthy loans in any neighborhood from which it was accepting deposits. previously, banks would accept deposits from low end communities while refusing to make ANY loans within those communities. that failure by the banks to make legitimate, creditworthy loans instigated the Community Reinvestment Act. neither that act, nor its regulations, required banks to make non-creditworthy loans

But the government certainly struck a deal to have the banks make loans they did not want to make ....... with the arrangement that Fannie and Feddie would underwrite.
Click to expand...
you keep insisting this and yet you cannot offer anything to prove it. prove it. prove me wrong by proving the government required lenders to issue non-creditworthy loans

Watch this BS. Jump to 2:15, to the Q and A, and pay attention. "higher risk, with a higher default rate" is how Cuomo characterized the new loans. You can call it whatever you want, but how do you like your crow ?

How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube
Click to expand...

there is no crow to be eaten
i await your showing any evidence that the government required lenders to issue non-creditworthy loans
and a heavily edited faux news video railing against Obama prior to the presidential election is no such evidence

i will continue to await evidence that lenders were required to make non-creditworthy loans
 
iliveonramen said:
The bubble was global. If Fannie and Freddie as well as the CRA was responsible the housing bubble would only be in the US. Now it's possible the banking failure would spread due to how the banks are intereconnected but that is not the case.
Real estate bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was a supply side bubble based on CDO's mislabeled as AAA, causing massive amounts of capital to pour into housing...globally. Even places where Freddie and fannie and the CRA were non-existent.

The only people that consistently state that CRA or Fannie and Freddie are the cause are those with an agenda. Everybody else says that the cause was a failure in ratings agencies and failures in financial organizations.
Click to expand...

That is whacked logic. Housing inflation spread from the US, for sure. But it spread the same way there as here, that being banks started making lousy loans, bringing more buyers in. That downgrading of loan standards began right here in the USA. See Cuomo's exact words in the video.

This statement by you is bass ackwards: "This was a supply side bubble based on CDO's mislabeled as AAA, causing massive amounts of capital to pour into housing". CDO's did not drive money into housing. Mortgage Backed Securities did not buy the houses. It was the demand for housing, with more folks buying, that drove up the price of the actual houses, not CDO's. That these mortgages could then be bundled and sold certainly got many more financial institutions into chasing the profits, but the inflation impetus in housing comes from the bottom. From what folks were willing to pay, and the loans they could get. It was truly simple supply and demand. New buyers, ultimately backed by FF, started to drive up demand, and prices.

As for the CRE, that is almost insignificant to the debate, although I know folks like to throw it in there. It did not mean much until Fannie and Freddie began to underwrite all those sub-prime mortgages that the Clinton Administration compelled on the lenders. That is what opened the floodgates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom