Are you defending what went on on Wall Street?

Wall Street is a big place. You, as well as the protesters are painting with a very broad brush.

I'm wondering how many of these Wall Street freedom fighters want money and benefits for nothing.

It isn't a left-right thing or a 99%-1% thing, because many of the 1% legitimately made their money by serving the consumer better than others or by working harder than others or by being more innovative than others. Those in the 1% should be commended.

The problem is how the rest of the 1% got there. They got there with corporate welfare, handouts and tax incentives from the government. Government subsidies and regulations to prevent competition. And they got there gambling with cheap Federal Reserve credit and freshly printed money. They are all in bed with each other.

These companies are doing what almost anyone else would do, which is whatever they can get away with. The Wall Street firms that committed fraud should be prosecuted and shut down, but they won't because they buy the politicians that are in office or running for office. Government subsidies, handouts, tax incentives, and regulations must end and allow for competition and a level playing field. and the biggest problem of them all, the moral hazard of having an institution that will print the money to bail you out, must come to an end. If a bank or car maker or any company knows that they can or will be bailed out when they fail, you know it is going to affect their behavior. You also have to put a stop to the endless supply of cheap money which does nothing but create bubbles and allow for speculative mania in these bubbles by the bankers who know a bailout will come when the bubble breaks.

The solution is not more government. More government is what causes the problems. If you have sound money, market interest rates, no bailouts, no moral hazard, and a level playing field for all businesses, that is when you can have real growth and prosperity for the whole 100%.

pmoney25;926013 wrote:If you truly believe in the Free Market and Capitallism, you cannot believe in bailouts. It amazes how fellow conservatives will fight to the death to protect and defend these corporations and banks who have done everything possible to screw you over just like the Federal Government. They are both in it together and you have some Liberals on the side of the government and you have some conservatives on the side of the Banks.

Things will not get better until the people realize they are the ones who have the power. They are the ones who employ the politicians and the ones who decide what businesses should succeed or fail.

Mooney is right in the fact that Wall Street is a big reason as to why we are in this mess. They purposely committed fraud and practiced unethical business practices, however the blame doesnt stop there.

Washington is also to blame because of providing a safety net for these companies and creating a To Big to fail enviroment, along with wanting to impose way too many regulations which does hinder business.

And then the last one, The American People are also to blame. Taking out bad loans or loans you know you can't afford is not the Banks fault or the Governments fault. It is your fault. Ignorance is not an excuse. I understand that many people put trust in people who were suppose to be looking out for them, but at the end of the day, you owe it to yourself to make sure you are doing what is best for you.


The common theme? Accountability. As you can see from the past 4-5 years, there has been absolutely none taken by any of the parties involved. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else instead of pointing at yourself.

You wont find too many conservatives who disagree with this. Individuals, banks, and the government are all to blame for the defaulted loans. They also share this blame equally.

You will not find too many conservatives who supported ANY of the bailouts banks or otherwise.

Mooney is off base because if he sees a conservative calling the protesters retarded (which overall they are) he translates that into us saying we are defending the banks which is not true at all. That is a huge logical leap he is taking and a bad one at that.

Cleveland Buck;926072 wrote:It isn't a left-right thing or a 99%-1% thing, because many of the 1% legitimately made their money by serving the consumer better than others or by working harder than others or by being more innovative than others. Those in the 1% should be commended.

The problem is how the rest of the 1% got there. They got there with corporate welfare, handouts and tax incentives from the government. Government subsidies and regulations to prevent competition. And they got there gambling with cheap Federal Reserve credit and freshly printed money. They are all in bed with each other.

These companies are doing what almost anyone else would do, which is whatever they can get away with. The Wall Street firms that committed fraud should be prosecuted and shut down, but they won't because they buy the politicians that are in office or running for office. Government subsidies, handouts, tax incentives, and regulations must end and allow for competition and a level playing field. and the biggest problem of them all, the moral hazard of having an institution that will print the money to bail you out, must come to an end. If a bank or car maker or any company knows that they can or will be bailed out when they fail, you know it is going to affect their behavior. You also have to put a stop to the endless supply of cheap money which does nothing but create bubbles and allow for speculative mania in these bubbles by the bankers who know a bailout will come when the bubble breaks.

The solution is not more government. More government is what causes the problems. If you have sound money, market interest rates, no bailouts, no moral hazard, and a level playing field for all businesses, that is when you can have real growth and prosperity for the whole 100%.

Agree with this 100%. The status quo cannot continue. 2012 has to be a time when we get it right. Not just with the president.

bigdaddy2003;926052 wrote:I'm wondering how many of these Wall Street freedom fighters want money and benefits for nothing.

Well they do have the "free" part right in their "freedom fighters" moniker.

majorspark;925887 wrote:#14 in no way states that learning English should be forced on its citizens. Requiring it to be a "core" language in my opinion in no way implies it to be forced on anyone. Its not "the" language. It being the "core" language merely states its De facto use as the language of commerce in the United States. Requiring the De facto language to remain the "core" of commerce and official business makes sense. Thats all #14 is saying. We are the United States and one of the basic tenants of unity is the ability to communicate with each other. Now how this "core" is required and under what level of governance and authority I would need to know more.

#14 is nothing greater that making English the official language. Like I said above it makes sense to require a "core" language. The federal government has no power under the constitution to require current US citizens to learn English. Under article 1 section 8 the federal congress does have the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". With that power congress could require any potential immigrants seeking citizen ship to have a working knowledge of the current De facto language of commerce in the USA in order to become a citizen.

Under article 1 section 8 congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". IMO this power would grant the federal congress the authority to establish English as the official language of commerce between the states. Internal state commerce would fall to the states.

HR 997 in which Ron Paul is a co sponsor pretty much follows what I laid out above. #14 would fit in that mold. The only way it would fall out is if it forces states to conduct internal state commerce in English. The "father" of the tea party approves. Add it to the list.

Review the bill for yourself.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.997:#

If that's the case, then our only disagreement stems from how we've read the question. When I read that English as a core is a requirement, I tended to think it was going to be required of the population to speak it in order to live here. If I misread it, then I recant my beef with the position itself.

I still DO maintain that it wasn't what the Tea Party was started to be about, and as such, was an additive tenet after one of the main parties began to overrun many of the rallies.

majorspark;925905 wrote:First off let me state that the federal government has no authority to spend tax dollars to encourage or discourage any activity. I get my daily fill of this via the ad council.

We agree on all points.

majorspark;925905 wrote:That said if states and localities want to fund public address campaigns to encourage its citizens to not do drugs, don't have sex outside of marriage, tobacco is bad, vegan is a more healthy lifestyle, or humping trees is cool (for those on the left coast). Go for it. If you want to spend money on these encouragements fine. Just don't try to subject me to it via the central government.

I'm not sure we disagree on anything here. States and local bodies are, of course, allowed to endorse these things. I suppose my verbiage of "any governing entity" was incorrect in a legal sense, so I recant it. I do hold that to be a personal view ... that even a local government SHOULDN'T do that ... but they're certainly allowed to. However, again, this isn't even indirectly related to the point of why the Tea Party was created, which is why I said it was added.

I said it early on in this topic, but my beef is not with those tenets themselves, but with the fact that they were added by a party who overran the movement and turned it into a partisan movement, when the initial purpose was to keep it from being a partisan movement.

majorspark;925905 wrote:Most Americans are not libertarians.

I'm not sure most know what they are, anymore. However, given the fact that we keep electing Federal officials that spend recklessly and try to intrude into individual rights, it's VERY obvious that most are not Libertarians.

majorspark;925905 wrote:Keep it to yourselves and we can live in peace.

Why? I don't expect any Republican or Democrat to keep it to themselves, and it's a good thing, because most of them don't.

O-Trap;926299 wrote:If that's the case, then our only disagreement stems from how we've read the question. When I read that English as a core is a requirement, I tended to think it was going to be required of the population to speak it in order to live here. If I misread it, then I recant my beef with the position itself.

That is the case. Its pretty hard sometimes to get the full intent of a thought or idea based on a short phrase.

majorspark;926304 wrote:That is the case. Its pretty hard sometimes to get the full intent of a thought or idea based on a short phrase.

Indeed.

bigdaddy2003;926052 wrote:I'm wondering how many of these Wall Street freedom fighters want money and benefits for nothing.

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-6-2011/wall-street-occupied?xrs=share_copy[/video]

I can't wait for the weather to turn cold and watch all these little wannabe Bolsheviks scurry back into their holes.

Manhattan Buckeye; wrote:
The government did a lot more than that, which isn't common in bankruptcy. They allowed GM to carry over their losses which normally would be reduced by the amount of debt forgone in the bankruptcy, which some economists claim provides an additional $40B tax benefit to GM.

GM was a bailout because the govt took an equity stake that will nev recoup their investment. The banks were not a bailout, bridge loan or whatever you want to call it- nothing was subsidized and the govt made money.

bailout is a popular term because it has a certain poloiticized meaning, and everyone knows tha is free money and a handout, Which is specifically why much of TARP and the companies benefitting have Ben mischaracterized. Saying the govt made money on a loan to BofA doesn't have nearly hinted political effect.

HitsRus;926039 wrote:

Are you defending what went on on Wall Street?

Wall Street is a big place. You, as well as the protesters are painting with a very broad brush.

Precisely. It's more of an incentive problem, and even more too much reliance/confidence on flawed models. I don't think Wall Street is any more evil or crooked than doctors, lawyers or your avg businessman and ESPECIALLY politicians. Wall Street is just a great target though because it's become shorthand for the group the liberals want to target when playing class warfare.

Take that Bank of America.

I don't know what to make of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. I understand what they are upset about, but I don't see how they can accomplish anything. They would be better served by organizing and using the ballot box to get their message across.

Some would like to characterize them as similar to the Arab Spring uprisings. I don't see how, as the folks in the Middle East were prepared to shut down their countries to get their point across. Is there anything or any issue which would get our populace angry enough to have national strikes, etc. which would paralyze the country. I can't really think of any.

Have they announced when Obama is going to show up at the protest to rally his disciples. This will go down as one of the most well orchestrated election rallys to ever take place. Mr. Obama is sitting back and watching this whole thing take hold, he has already started to side with them and he agrees that they have a right to be unhappy with our government, as he is also unhappy with it and with their help he will be able to fix the problems. He will blame the Republicans in office even more for the problems and try to rally the protesters around him with more promises as he continues to march forward with his ultimate goal of anarchy. I do believe he would like nothing better than to have our current government dismantled and turn the United States in to a country that is controlled by his regime where he would be appointed king and do away with elections so he could have full control of our way of life.

stlouiedipalma;927406 wrote: Is there anything or any issue which would get our populace angry enough to have national strikes, etc. which would paralyze the country. I can't really think of any.

Piss off the Teamsters...or the UAW...or the teacher's union enough and they'd organize a riot.

Something that I never saw written about...Had GM been allowed to go bankrupt, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp would have assumed the unfunded liability for the pension, probably at about 60 cents on the dollar. So, in reality, GM wasn't bailed out so much as the UAW was, which is mainly why the UAW got a big equity stake that should have otherwise gone to the govt and other debt holders.

stlouiedipalma;927406 wrote:Is there anything or any issue which would get our populace angry enough to have national strikes, etc. which would paralyze the country. I can't really think of any.

Neither can I at this time, but I would attribute that as much to the apathy of the general population as anything.

password;927409 wrote:... march forward with his ultimate goal of anarchy.

More government and monarchy is the antithesis of anarchy.

password;927409 wrote:I do believe he would like nothing better than to have our current government dismantled and turn the United States in to a country that is controlled by his regime where he would be appointed king and do away with elections so he could have full control of our way of life.

Not gonna lie, dude. I would love to be King of America.

However, that would never happen (for him, me, or anyone), as Congress (both houses) would oppose that strongly, and I doubt he would ever try that anyway.

password;927409 wrote:Have they announced when Obama is going to show up at the protest to rally his disciples. This will go down as one of the most well orchestrated election rallys to ever take place. Mr. Obama is sitting back and watching this whole thing take hold, he has already started to side with them and he agrees that they have a right to be unhappy with our government, as he is also unhappy with it and with their help he will be able to fix the problems. He will blame the Republicans in office even more for the problems and try to rally the protesters around him with more promises as he continues to march forward with his ultimate goal of anarchy. I do believe he would like nothing better than to have our current government dismantled and turn the United States in to a country that is controlled by his regime where he would be appointed king and do away with elections so he could have full control of our way of life.

You're insane.

majorspark;927141 wrote:

Take that Bank of America.

man is he looking for a beat down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI

Some more of America's finest. This is practically a parody.

Manhattan Buckeye;927572 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI

Some more of America's finest. This is practically a parody.

WTF was that? What a pack of loons.

I Wear Pants;927467 wrote:You're insane.

Why is it insane? You need to go back and look at every appointment he has made and every position he has created in his government without any regard for the peoples needs except what he wants. He cries and whines like a 1st grader if he doesn't get his way and then goes on tv and attends rallys telling the people that he is the only one who cares and our government is hold him back from being able to help. He can bash every member of the government at will, but if anyone even insinuates that he is wrong or evil, his people demand silence. That is the beginning of a regime in the making.

Maybe you need to read what is going on at the White House and how the Democrats feel about it. The protesters now want to have a beer summit with Obama.

http://www.wtov9.com/news/29431533/detail.html

Manhattan Buckeye;927572 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI

Some more of America's finest. This is practically a parody.

These people should be sterilized.