• 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'

KevinKohler said:
A confidence booster, exactly. And why would one need a confidence booster? Why not let banks fight among themselves over how best to keep customer confidence high about their services they offer? Competition, to put it another way. But no, instead, people don't think too much, nor care, about what the bank does with your money after you deposit it, because uncle sam promises that, no matter what, it'll be there when you want to take it back out. I want to open a business where I can put government backed guarantee on my product...

As it is, it is ONLY a confidence booster. As we saw at the beginning of the housing crisis, bank runs still ruin banks, regardless of the FDIC.
Click to expand...

I get it. However, no bank can withstand a "run." When people got nervous, they went to their banks demanding their money. Well, guess what? Your money's not at your bank. It's been lent out (to within the reserve requirements set by the Federal government). The domino effect completely destroyed our banking system. We cannot ever afford for that to happen again; so....."Insured by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States Government."

Now. When banks make risky loans and the FDIC has to step up (oh, and btw, banks pay insurance premiums, 1/12% of their deposits), my personal question is: "What happened?" When the FDIC steps in to take over a bank, is it thoroughly investigated for fraud? Malfeasance? Stupid loans to family/friends? In 2010, the FDIC opened criminal investigations on 50 failed banks. Where are the prosecutions? That's the real question we ought to be asking. A Wave of Bank Prosecutions Is Unlikely - NYTimes.com
 
haymarket said:
The alternative was much worse - to allow GM and Chrysler to go belly up putting millions more out of work and provide the push necessary to take a recession over the cliff into a full fledged depression.
Click to expand...

Only temporarily, and VERY temporary at that. Nature abhors a vacuum. Look at all the cars GM and Chrysler were selling at the time. Granted, not enough to pay off all the union pensions and other concessions garnered over the years...but still, a LOT of personal transportation being sold there. Now, imagine where all these people would have gone if those cars were not available on the market. The competitors. Most all of whom build their cars right here in the good ol US of A.
 
cpwill said:
:lamo Congratulations, guys. You could not have picked a more inchoate, idiot group of hippies to tie your public image too. Half these people want to destroy your jobs... but you can't help yourself, and rush to join in with anyone yelling about the rich.


:) alternate headline for this story: Unions Jump Shark.
Click to expand...
It is just another way to meet babes...what could be better? Drugs, sex, and smashing things in the name of, uh, oh, hmmm. Well not really in the name of anything.
 
MaggieD said:
I get it. However, no bank can withstand a "run." When people got nervous, they went to their banks demanding their money. Well, guess what? Your money's not at your bank. It's been lent out (to within the reserve requirements set by the Federal government). The domino effect completely destroyed our banking system. We cannot ever afford for that to happen again; so....."Insured by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States Government."

Now. When banks make risky loans and the FDIC has to step up (oh, and btw, banks pay insurance premiums, 1/12% of their deposits), my personal question is: "What happened?" When the FDIC steps in to take over a bank, is it thoroughly investigated for fraud? Malfeasance? Stupid loans to family/friends? In 2010, the FDIC opened criminal investigations on 50 failed banks. Where are the prosecutions? That's the real question we ought to be asking. A Wave of Bank Prosecutions Is Unlikely - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

I totally agree about the investigations that WILL NEVER put anyone behind bars, unless it's someone low on the ladder...BUT. Why would we accept that NO bank could withstand a bank run? Is not their advertised service that they will hold my money and keep it safe? Why, then, do they get a federal prop to ensure that advertisement is not false? Again, why can't MY business get a federal seal of promise, like banks do? Their job is to hold my money. That's what I pay them to do. I guess what I'm saying is, I hold the FDIC partly responsible for this "cowboy" attitude that leads banks to make investments with money that is not their own that does not have a 100% geurantee of yield.
 
megaprogman said:
And that certainly helps, but when people are opposing the very infrastructure that makes this country great, such as public schooling, our retirement system, necessary changes to our health system, and other things that allow people to focus on what makes them successful as opposed to just getting by day to day, they are not performing their responsibilities.
Click to expand...

interesting. that's what makes this country great? not... you know... the Constitution, limited government, popular sovereignty, the sovereign indivisible rights of man..... but dependency on big government? that's what has made us great? why is Europe risking collapsing into chaos, then, instead of beating our pants off at every turn?
 
KevinKohler said:
I totally agree about the investigations that WILL NEVER put anyone behind bars, unless it's someone low on the ladder...BUT. Why would we accept that NO bank could withstand a bank run? Is not their advertised service that they will hold my money and keep it safe? Why, then, do they get a federal prop to ensure that advertisement is not false? Again, why can't MY business get a federal seal of promise, like banks do? Their job is to hold my money. That's what I pay them to do. I guess what I'm saying is, I hold the FDIC partly responsible for this "cowboy" attitude that leads banks to make investments with money that is not their own that does not have a 100% geurantee of yield.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is their "implied" promise to keep our money safe; but, actually, there's no such promise. Banks are lending institutions. The money they lend is only as safe as the borrower. I'm not willing to go back to the days when people's savings could be wiped out by improper/imprudent behavior on the part of bank personnel. I understand why you would question it, but it ain't goin' anywhere.
 
cpwill said:
interesting. that's what makes this country great? not... you know... the Constitution, limited government, popular sovereignty, the sovereign indivisible rights of man..... but dependency on big government? that's what has made us great? why is Europe risking collapsing into chaos, then, instead of beating our pants off at every turn?
Click to expand...

Those things certainly help, however, a modern economy requires infrastructure to support it or else it won't happen. However, the best expression of freedom is people being able to do what they want and this requires physical resources.

Second, mere freedom without the means and resources to utilize it is not useful.
 
haymarket said:
........
I believe that statement is misleading. It is somewhat truthful - in a limited way - in that the Republicans did provide votes necessary for its passage. However, the way you stated it leaves one with the impression that the Republicans were the principal party responsible for Congress passing the bill. Perhaps that was not your intention but that is how I read your comments. In reality, passage of the 64 Civil Rights Act was a bipartisan effort in which both parties contributed greatly to the bills passage. One cannot demonize either party nor credit just one party. It was a true bipartisan effort in which both parties made the passage possible.

One could also say that it was the Democrats who gave Johnson the support he needed to pass the bill and that would also be somewhat truthful - in a limited way - in that the Democrats did provide votes necessary for its passage. But I think that too would be misleading.
Click to expand...

My statement was accurate. It was response to someone misinformed about the role that the GOP in Congress played in passing LBJ's Civil Rights Act. It is not uncommon to have liberals mischaracterize the efforts of the GOP on that piece of legislation. I take issue when I see liberals talking out of their ass.
 
KevinKohler said:
Where? All the places I have ever rented required a credit check, and before I built any up, had to have a cosigner. Unless you save up, like, a huge sweaty wad of cash, you're not buying a car without credit, and if you have the sorta job that pays well enough to do this, you're not going to qualify for bankruptcy anyway.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is a result of the electronic mass-communication age. I do not see a way to stop it. Like everything else, supply and demand will adjust. Perhaps charging higher resnts or requiring larger deposits, where poorer credit is involved.

I do not think you mentioned it, but one of the newer zingers is auto insurance and credit ratings. Many companies will now charge you a higher insurance premium if you have a lesser credit rating. Perhaps somewhere there is an actuarial stat that says lesser credit folks crash more cars. Again, the market will adjust. And you may pay more regardless.
 
megaprogman said:
Those things certainly help, however, a modern economy requires infrastructure to support it or else it won't happen. However, the best expression of freedom is people being able to do what they want and this requires physical resources.

Second, mere freedom without the means and resources to utilize it is not useful.
Click to expand...

"Mere" freedom ? Mere freedom will create the means and develop the resources. Better than anything besides freedom.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
"Mere" freedom ? Mere freedom will create the means and develop the resources. Better than anything besides freedom.
Click to expand...

It is but one component. It is certainly important, but its not the only thing that is important.
 
conservativeguy said:
I absolutely want these useful idiots on TV. Conservative parents can use the protestors brain dead rantings as a tool to educate their children on what happens when people are told there is a free lunch.
Click to expand...

According to you the demonstrators are idiots, why because you do not agree with them, when the tea parters were demonstrating where they a bunch of idiots? Are you afraid that these "idiots" are going to change the outcome of the 2012 elections
 
EarlzP said:
According to you the demonstrators are idiots, why because you do not agree with them, when the tea parters were demonstrating where they a bunch of idiots? Are you afraid that these "idiots" are going to change the outcome of the 2012 elections
Click to expand...

tea party members are against the government taking more of THEIR money

the scum in wall street are demonstrating in favor of the government taking more money of OTHERS

the TP are the dogs tired of being flea-bitten. The Wall Street scum are the fleas
 
EarlzP said:
According to you the demonstrators are idiots, why because you do not agree with them, when the tea parters were demonstrating where they a bunch of idiots? Are you afraid that these "idiots" are going to change the outcome of the 2012 elections
Click to expand...

Did the Tea Party "demonstrate" ? Did they occupy city streets and block traffic anywhere ? These free-loader idiots have over 700 arrests already, and there will be more as this last-gasp by the losers spreads. But more to the point, has the Tea Party even had 7 arrests ?

These free-stuff idiots will not change the 2012 election to their favor. All they are doing is pissing off more of the middle. Obama and all his cronies are despicable for taking so much to the gutter as they have. Most polarizing President ever. Worst President ever. Most of us **** better than that inept fool.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Important ?

Try "vital".
Click to expand...

Important, it is equal in importance with other considerations, all are necessary for a prosperous and civil society.
 
TurtleDude said:
tea party members are against the government taking more of THEIR money

the scum in wall street are demonstrating in favor of the government taking more money of OTHERS

the TP are the dogs tired of being flea-bitten. The Wall Street scum are the fleas
Click to expand...

Keep your slanderous thoughts coming I love it, do you think you are a good representive of the libetarian party? There is nothing as good as watching some one open their mouth up and swallowing their foot.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Did the Tea Party "demonstrate" ? Did they occupy city streets and block traffic anywhere ? These free-loader idiots have over 700 arrests already, and there will be more as this last-gasp by the losers spreads. But more to the point, has the Tea Party even had 7 arrests ?

These free-stuff idiots will not change the 2012 election to their favor. All they are doing is pissing off more of the middle. Obama and all his cronies are despicable for taking so much to the gutter as they have. Most polarizing President ever. Worst President ever. Most of us **** better than that inept fool.
Click to expand...

I am not going to get into a rock throwing p-ssing contest with you. Keep your slanderous thoughts coming I love it, do you think you are a good representive of the conservative party? There is nothing as good as watching some one open their mouth up and swallowing their foot.
 
justabubba said:
i believe it is this inequitable distribution which is being addressed:
View attachment 67116488
Click to expand...
Ignoring of course the reality that a great number of people in this country have in no way been 'left out' of ****, do quite well for themselves and their families, and are more focused in life on how to continue to succeed than run around blaming everyone else for their own failings.
 
VanceMack said:
Ignoring of course the reality that a great number of people in this country have in no way been 'left out' of ****, do quite well for themselves and their families, and are more focused in life on how to continue to succeed than run around blaming everyone else for their own failings.
Click to expand...

i guess that is one way to explain why 50% of our nation owns but 2.5% of its wealth
while 1% of the nation owns 33.8% of all assets

what other industrialized nations displays such a wealth disparity?
 
Misterveritis said:
It is just another way to meet babes...what could be better? Drugs, sex, and smashing things in the name of, uh, oh, hmmm. Well not really in the name of anything.
Click to expand...

[video]http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies[/video]
 
megaprogman said:
It is but one component. It is certainly important, but its not the only thing that is important.
Click to expand...

that, of course, is correct. as John Adams pointed out: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

once we begin to lose our moral sense, our sense of self-responsibility, our unwillingness to take from others, well, as Thomas Jefferson said: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it... I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

once we lose that sense, then our representative government becomes a death-trap; for a representative government will hardly be better than it's people.
 
cpwill said:
interesting. that's what makes this country great? not... you know... the Constitution, limited government, popular sovereignty, the sovereign indivisible rights of man..... but dependency on big government? that's what has made us great? why is Europe risking collapsing into chaos, then, instead of beating our pants off at every turn?
Click to expand...

Global repercussions of financial shenanigans on Wall St.?:mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
that's correct - they are currently camping out in the street somewhere.

so let's see if we have this right:

thus far, you have accused me of making stuff up, so I cited NPR. then you offered that i could be lying, but it was linked. Then you argued that we were linking right wing sites to give off left-wing talking points, so maybe those sites were making things up. Then it turned out that the site linked was a left wing site which had put up the Statement of Facts because they were excited about and supported the OWS protests...

your continued attempts to deny that they released this are getting bizzare. as it is precisely the kind of mumbo-jumbo that you'd expect out of these crowds, i'll admit I'm confused as to why you persist.
Click to expand...

Worth noting Redress: they've now put out a paper, which includes the exact bit that I posted for you.


or, perhaps, the Occupy Wall Street movement is just a right wing smear machine trying to mislead the public about the Occupy Wall Street movement :roll:
 
What if...? said:
Global repercussions of financial shenanigans on Wall St.?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah, i'm sure that global repercussions from our mortgage bubble is what caused the Greeks to spend not only their future, but their kids' futures giving themselves 14 months worth of pay a year, and retiring in their 50's after going to school into their late 20's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom