Occupy Wall Street
0
Enek wrote...
In the beginning, it was actually decent, but now it's turned into a Woodstock-like sit-in with drums and marching around in Gaga-esque apparel.I'm not attacking the idea of more regulation, in the least, in fact I support it 100%. I'm angry at the protesters for not delivering a clear and reasonably spoken message in mass unison.
These people are not the poorest of the poor. They're not the lowest of the low. Many of them are college students who didn't pay too much attention to their own finances. They simply blame nearly all of the current financial situation on the banks because they received bailouts from the government initially using tax payer money.
Now, let me point a few things out;
~The banks only received the bailouts because they asked for it and the government was already in preparation to do so. There was no begging or arguing about who should get the money. Only how much.
~You can see a currently updated list, of companies to receive bailouts, here: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
~The financial collapse was not the banks' or the companies' faults.
This entire mess can almost be fully blamed on the government for the following reasons;
1. Not auditing businesses or completing audits, already in process, to the greatest political extent.
2. Due diligence neglected by all parties involved. (key phrase)
3. Removal or misinterpretation of regulations previously set/passed by congress.
4. Grey/blurry lines involving work ethic and morals.
5. Leaving stock holders or those working in the housing and banking sectors of possible/rising risk.
And the list goes on...
Now, my question is, do you get mad at the man for stealing your car or do you get mad at the police who are ignoring it?
-----------------
The above are my views and interpretation of events. I could be entirely wrong, but this is what I've heard and seen in recent years.
um wat.
The mess is 90% ENTIRELY the banks' fault.
The huge real estate bubble was entirely caused by banks selling sub-prime loans to people. They didn't care if people couldn't pay off the loans or had a stable income at all. Anyone could get a loan for a house and this caused a huge demand for housing that really was all based on false credit and not actual money. They exploited the public, and cut all sorts of corners to see to selling as much mortgages as they could to people. It and was never a stable safe system. It was just a quick way for banks to make money through exploitation.
Why should the people have to pay the price of the mistakes their banks did? There's a saying "privatize the profit, socialize the losses". It's a ethical problem of equality we're talking about here.
You're whole argument seems hind sighted. You're practically saying, it's not the criminals fault for shooting that guy, it's the government's fault for not having regulations against guns.
0
Anesthetize wrote...
Enek wrote...
In the beginning, it was actually decent, but now it's turned into a Woodstock-like sit-in with drums and marching around in Gaga-esque apparel.I'm not attacking the idea of more regulation, in the least, in fact I support it 100%. I'm angry at the protesters for not delivering a clear and reasonably spoken message in mass unison.
These people are not the poorest of the poor. They're not the lowest of the low. Many of them are college students who didn't pay too much attention to their own finances. They simply blame nearly all of the current financial situation on the banks because they received bailouts from the government initially using tax payer money.
Now, let me point a few things out;
~The banks only received the bailouts because they asked for it and the government was already in preparation to do so. There was no begging or arguing about who should get the money. Only how much.
~You can see a currently updated list, of companies to receive bailouts, here: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
~The financial collapse was not the banks' or the companies' faults.
This entire mess can almost be fully blamed on the government for the following reasons;
1. Not auditing businesses or completing audits, already in process, to the greatest political extent.
2. Due diligence neglected by all parties involved. (key phrase)
3. Removal or misinterpretation of regulations previously set/passed by congress.
4. Grey/blurry lines involving work ethic and morals.
5. Leaving stock holders or those working in the housing and banking sectors of possible/rising risk.
And the list goes on...
Now, my question is, do you get mad at the man for stealing your car or do you get mad at the police who are ignoring it?
-----------------
The above are my views and interpretation of events. I could be entirely wrong, but this is what I've heard and seen in recent years.
um wat.
The mess is 90% ENTIRELY the banks' fault.
The huge real estate bubble was entirely caused by banks selling sub-prime loans to people. They didn't care if people couldn't pay off the loans or had a stable income at all. Anyone could get a loan for a house and this caused a huge demand for housing that really was all based on false credit and not actual money. They exploited the public, and cut all sorts of corners to see to selling as much mortgages as they could to people. It and was never a stable safe system. It was just a quick way for banks to make money through exploitation.
Why should the people have to pay the price of the mistakes their banks did? There's a saying "privatize the profit, socialize the losses". It's a ethical problem of equality we're talking about here.
You're whole argument seems hind sighted. You're practically saying, it's not the criminals fault for shooting that guy, it's the government's fault for not having regulations against guns.
Exactly what I'm saying.
And going back to what you said here, "It and was never a stable safe system. It was just a quick way for banks to make money through exploitation." the fact that the government wasn't regulating this or taking any really effective actions against the banks brings me back to my argument above. Yes, the banks DID do this, but it's the government's fault for not preventing it from happening in the first place.
Whether or not it was just negligence or completely unexpected before the collapse, something should have been done while these things were happening by the government. Many red flags shot up and major reports had been filed by people. One, for example, (I need to find a link and I'll post it) had listed every major red flag regarding the trading practices of Goldman Sachs or Fannie Mae. (I can't remember, but I'll look for it.)
EDIT: Can't find it. :(
0
Well the U.S government forced companies into it by making the banks give out loans to people who should have been denied and then they offered to buy the debt. This practice is what led to the housing collaspe and eventually the whole economy taking a dump.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
chriton wrote...
Well the U.S government forced companies into it by making the banks give out loans to people who should have been denied and then they offered to buy the debt. This practice is what led to the housing collaspe and eventually the whole economy taking a dump.What the fuck are you two smoking? Since when can a government force any business institution into making any deal? You two have it all backwards.
The banks pretty much did every dirty deed in the book, but the one word that best described their conduct is FRAUD. There's a reason why fore-closures are being handled in kangaroo courts and hushed through as fast as possible... because often times the paperwork is very suspect. They sold rotten deals even when the home owner could've qualified for a decent one. They sold these deals to people who clearly didn't understand what was at stake... because they had nothing to loose, since they were going to sell the deed soon enough and wash their hands of it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110
Next these "investment banks" called these rotten deals sure winner investments... and sold them to unsuspecting investors. Finally to add insult to injury they took out a credit default insurance on these rotten deals, so *when* they defaulted - not *if!* - the investment bank would be sure to make a tidy profit. It's like I sell you a car that's about to explode, then I take out an insurance with me as a beneficiary when you die.
...and you say it was all just the governments fault (Enek) or that actually the government forced things to be this way (chriton)?
You two need a reality check.
1. Even if the government is at fault for not catching a criminal, the person committing the crime is still just as guilty! In fact Wall Street has been lobbying for 20 years, claiming that since they're such a responsible institution such things would never happen... except the very moment government started de-regulating (Reagen himself said, that he was in the "deregulating business") they did exactly that.
2. ...how the fuck would the government actually force these banks to do all these illegal things? Let me make this clear, just because no one was convicted yet, doesn't mean there was no crime... it just means America is so fucked up, corporations can't be made to account for anything.
3. Finally said banks had the nerve to actually ransom the nation. This is how it actually went down:
"Unless you bail us out, the economy is going to collapse!"
...and so the tax payers were made to ponny up, and make sure these bastards got ever richer.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-bailout-hustle-20100217
0
Brittany
FAKKU Production Mngr
Fpod and I went down to Occupy Atlanta yesterday to check it out, also because of a "End the Fed" march
When we went down there, compared to what you see and hear about Occupy Wallstreet in New York - the park where everyone was camped remained very clean. There were tons of campers there and people but not a spot of trash on the ground.
The problem from what we've seen is everyone has a different issue. Some signs talked about starving children, others talked about jobs. A lot of college students were down there with signs demanding to forgive student loans. There were signs talking about End the Fed and Ron Paul folks there, who I'm 99% positive were the only republicans there, and there were people about immigration there.
You have this big pot full of problems people are fed up about, and they don't know what to do about it.
We marched down to the Atlanta Federal Reserve bank, Fpod and I were shouting to end the fed, but people besides us also shouting the same thing, but with signs we didn't support at all, which is why nobody is taking this protest seriously.
They're all shouting at the problems, but don't know the source of the problems and don't know which tree to bark up.
They shouldn't be standing in a park yelling at Wallstreet, they should be at the Federal Reserve Bank shouting at them.
When we went down there, compared to what you see and hear about Occupy Wallstreet in New York - the park where everyone was camped remained very clean. There were tons of campers there and people but not a spot of trash on the ground.
The problem from what we've seen is everyone has a different issue. Some signs talked about starving children, others talked about jobs. A lot of college students were down there with signs demanding to forgive student loans. There were signs talking about End the Fed and Ron Paul folks there, who I'm 99% positive were the only republicans there, and there were people about immigration there.
You have this big pot full of problems people are fed up about, and they don't know what to do about it.
We marched down to the Atlanta Federal Reserve bank, Fpod and I were shouting to end the fed, but people besides us also shouting the same thing, but with signs we didn't support at all, which is why nobody is taking this protest seriously.
They're all shouting at the problems, but don't know the source of the problems and don't know which tree to bark up.
They shouldn't be standing in a park yelling at Wallstreet, they should be at the Federal Reserve Bank shouting at them.
1
Flaser wrote...
chriton wrote...
Well the U.S government forced companies into it by making the banks give out loans to people who should have been denied and then they offered to buy the debt. This practice is what led to the housing collaspe and eventually the whole economy taking a dump.What the fuck are you two smoking? Since when can a government force any business institution into making any deal? You two have it all backwards.
The banks pretty much did every dirty deed in the book, but the one word that best described their conduct is FRAUD. There's a reason why fore-closures are being handled in kangaroo courts and hushed through as fast as possible... because often times the paperwork is very suspect. They sold rotten deals even when the home owner could've qualified for a decent one. They sold these deals to people who clearly didn't understand what was at stake... because they had nothing to loose, since they were going to sell the deed soon enough and wash their hands of it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110
Next these "investment banks" called these rotten deals sure winner investments... and sold them to unsuspecting investors. Finally to add insult to injury they took out a credit default insurance on these rotten deals, so *when* they defaulted - not *if!* - the investment bank would be sure to make a tidy profit. It's like I sell you a car that's about to explode, then I take out an insurance with me as a beneficiary when you die.
...and you say it was all just the governments fault (Enek) or that actually the government forced things to be this way (chriton)?
You two need a reality check.
1. Even if the government is at fault for not catching a criminal, the person committing the crime is still just as guilty! In fact Wall Street has been lobbying for 20 years, claiming that since they're such a responsible institution such things would never happen... except the very moment government started de-regulating (Reagen himself said, that he was in the "deregulating business") they did exactly that.
2. ...how the fuck would the government actually force these banks to do all these illegal things? Let me make this clear, just because no one was convicted yet, doesn't mean there was no crime... it just means America is so fucked up, corporations can't be made to account for anything.
3. Finally said banks had the nerve to actually ransom the nation. This is how it actually went down:
"Unless you bail us out, the economy is going to collapse!"
...and so the tax payers were made to ponny up, and make sure these bastards got ever richer.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-bailout-hustle-20100217
Do you even know the history of annie mae and freddie mac? Read this article form 2003. Then get back to me. Frannie mae and freddie mac
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Why am I not surprised that you're trying to sidetrack the discussion?
You haven't addressed any of the issues I've mentioned earlier.
Moreover the article you pulled in doesn't validate your stand et all: Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968. It's disruptive behavior can be dated from the very same moment. In other words, Lyndon B. Johnson created yet another beast like the FED, an institution not really controlled by the government, yet having an exempted status that puts it above the normal prudence of law.
You might argue that the government should have regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, but the fact still stands that these are private corporations that acted fraudulently and not direct government policy.
...so your basic premise, that the "government is to blame for all of this" is categorically false.
Once again, it has a share of the blame, but the distinct core of the problem was the sociopathic greed of a privatized institution that has slipped the reins of government regulation.
You haven't addressed any of the issues I've mentioned earlier.
Moreover the article you pulled in doesn't validate your stand et all: Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968. It's disruptive behavior can be dated from the very same moment. In other words, Lyndon B. Johnson created yet another beast like the FED, an institution not really controlled by the government, yet having an exempted status that puts it above the normal prudence of law.
You might argue that the government should have regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, but the fact still stands that these are private corporations that acted fraudulently and not direct government policy.
...so your basic premise, that the "government is to blame for all of this" is categorically false.
Once again, it has a share of the blame, but the distinct core of the problem was the sociopathic greed of a privatized institution that has slipped the reins of government regulation.
1
Flaser wrote...
What the fuck are you two smoking? Since when can a government force any business institution into making any deal? You two have it all backwards.The egalitarian policies of government through such legislation as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 "persuaded" lenders, Mafioso style, to lend to low-income borrowers, against their better judgment. Government lawyers made it clear that the consequences of failing to meet politically imposed targets and quotas could be dire. Then we have government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized mortgages for people who, under more-prudent rules of borrowing, would never have qualified for a loan from a conservative banking institution. Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 stated in a moment of candor,
"
Barney Frank wrote...
I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing.Well he certainly did, at the same time accepting with gratitude campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.
The banks pretty much did every dirty deed in the book, but the one word that best described their conduct is FRAUD. There's a reason why fore-closures are being handled in kangaroo courts and hushed through as fast as possible... because often times the paperwork is very suspect. They sold rotten deals even when the home owner could've qualified for a decent one. They sold these deals to people who clearly didn't understand what was at stake... because they had nothing to loose, since they were going to sell the deed soon enough and wash their hands of it.
The whole system is corrupt from top to bottom. Everyone from the Government, to the Banks to the people are at fault. It was a massive cluster fuck. Quit ignoring the fact that more than just the banks were at fault. Government isn't perfect so please stop insulting us by acting like it is. People in America aren't brainwashed to worship government as some infallible entity.
1. Even if the government is at fault for not catching a criminal, the person committing the crime is still just as guilty! In fact Wall Street has been lobbying for 20 years, claiming that since they're such a responsible institution such things would never happen... except the very moment government started de-regulating (Reagen himself said, that he was in the "deregulating business") they did exactly that.
2. ...how the fuck would the government actually force these banks to do all these illegal things? Let me make this clear, just because no one was convicted yet, doesn't mean there was no crime... it just means America is so fucked up, corporations can't be made to account for anything.
2. ...how the fuck would the government actually force these banks to do all these illegal things? Let me make this clear, just because no one was convicted yet, doesn't mean there was no crime... it just means America is so fucked up, corporations can't be made to account for anything.
1: Government forced a change in loaning practice through the community reinvestment act to "help" the poor get into home ownership. What this caused was a distortion in the market and gave incentive to predatory lending practices. Wall Street further complicated matters by lobbying against regulations in the 80's leading to a free for all.
Banks are guilty of fraud and the Government is guilty of failing to protect the American people.
2: By mandating unhealthy business practices (Community reinvestment act) and placing incentives for businesses to commit crimes. Government is guilty of providing the incentive and the banks are guilty of pursuing those crimes. It's called being an accomplice to a crime.
corporations can't be made to account for anything.
If you weren't so stubborn and actually listened to others you'd realize that nobody except for the NeoCons are trying to say that corporations are not accountable. The original T.E.A. Party formed because they were against the bailouts and wanted the banks to fail, the Occupy Wallstreet crowds (and off shoot branches) want the banks to be held accountable for their actions and want caps on insurance company profits. What, amongst any of that leads you to believe that Americans think companies should not be accountable?
I have a request flaser. I'm curious if you are capable of saying that government isn't perfect. Just type "The Government is capable of mistakes". Go on, type it. I believe in you.
0
Flaser wrote...
Why am I not surprised that you're trying to sidetrack the discussion?You haven't addressed any of the issues I've mentioned earlier.
Moreover the article you pulled in doesn't validate your stand et all: Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968. It's disruptive behavior can be dated from the very same moment. In other words, Lyndon B. Johnson created yet another beast like the FED, an institution not really controlled by the government, yet having an exempted status that puts it above the normal prudence of law.
You might argue that the government should have regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, but the fact still stands that these are private corporations that acted fraudulently and not direct government policy.
...so your basic premise, that the "government is to blame for all of this" is categorically false.
Once again, it has a share of the blame, but the distinct core of the problem was the sociopathic greed of a privatized institution that has slipped the reins of government regulation.
Again your ignorence and inability to reason beyond those ideas that were beat into your head by whoever brainwashed you into believing that government is god shows. Next time read the whole article.
0
chriton wrote...
Again your ignorence and inability to reason beyond those ideas that were beat into your head by whoever brainwashed you into believing that government is god shows. Next time read the whole article.
I don't know jack shit about governmental policies, law, or what the government is and is not allowed to do concerning business. but holy fucking shit, that was the worst counter to an argument that ADDRESSED your argument completely.
Here, let me counter what YOU just said, with JUST as much validity.
Again, your ignorance and inability to reason beyond those ideas that were beat into your head by whoever brainwashed you into believing the governmnet is an evil conspiracy shows. Next time, take the time to understand his post.
Feel good?
0
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
Again your ignorence and inability to reason beyond those ideas that were beat into your head by whoever brainwashed you into believing that government is god shows. Next time read the whole article.
I don't know jack shit about governmental policies, law, or what the government is and is not allowed to do concerning business. but holy fucking shit, that was the worst counter to an argument that ADDRESSED your argument completely.
Here, let me counter what YOU just said, with JUST as much validity.
Again, your ignorance and inability to reason beyond those ideas that were beat into your head by whoever brainwashed you into believing the governmnet is an evil conspiracy shows. Next time, take the time to understand his post.
Feel good?
I do because I proved flaser wrong because the government does control mae and mac and he still wishes to deny it. Know I can keep this agruement up but it just turn into a pointless back and forth between a two people with highly different view points. If he wishes to continue to believe that bigger government is the answer that's fine but let him speak up for himself we're all adults here.
Though when he stated that the government created a monster he was correct. A company that was able to rampage through the economy for the past 40 years. But it had government backing and was indirectly under it's control. With people like Barney Frank's boyfriend running it. I'm surprised it didn't ruin the economy sooner.
0
chriton wrote...
I do because I proved flaser wrong because the government does control mae and mac and he still wishes to deny it. Know I can keep this agruement up but it just turn into a pointless back and forth between a two people with highly different view points. If he wishes to continue to believe that bigger government is the answer that's fine but let him speak up for himself we're all adults here.
Though when he stated that the government created a monster he was correct. A company that was able to rampage through the economy for the past 40 years. But it had government backing and was indirectly under it's control. With people like Barney Frank's boyfriend running it. I'm surprised it didn't ruin the economy sooner.
Again, I don't know jack fucking shit about Bernie or Mae or whatever the fuck, and I honestly don't care. My problem with you was your inability to argue like an adult.
You didn't 'prove flaser wrong' .You gave him n article, essentially said, "This article proves I'm right and you're wrong." Flaser then countered the article with his own argument, and WHAT DID YOU DO?
You said, quite simply, "Nope, you're bias. Government's evil and you're blind to it. Bai." You didn't prove anything other than that you cannot argue for shit. What I did in my quote, was not argue in defense of Flaser, nor even argue your point, but point out that you are a horrible debater, and your response to the counter argument Flaser took the time to write wasn't even worth reading. you offered no new information, just an ad hominem attack, and an "I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm done."
You argued like a child. Plain and simple. And the fact tht you're HAPPY about it...is just fucking pathetic.
0
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
I do because I proved flaser wrong because the government does control mae and mac and he still wishes to deny it. Know I can keep this agruement up but it just turn into a pointless back and forth between a two people with highly different view points. If he wishes to continue to believe that bigger government is the answer that's fine but let him speak up for himself we're all adults here.
Though when he stated that the government created a monster he was correct. A company that was able to rampage through the economy for the past 40 years. But it had government backing and was indirectly under it's control. With people like Barney Frank's boyfriend running it. I'm surprised it didn't ruin the economy sooner.
Again, I don't know jack fucking shit about Bernie or Mae or whatever the fuck, and I honestly don't care. My problem with you was your inability to argue like an adult.
You didn't 'prove flaser wrong' .You gave him n article, essentially said, "This article proves I'm right and you're wrong." Flaser then countered the article with his own argument, and WHAT DID YOU DO?
You said, quite simply, "Nope, you're bias. Government's evil and you're blind to it. Bai." You didn't prove anything other than that you cannot argue for shit. What I did in my quote, was not argue in defense of Flaser, nor even argue your point, but point out that you are a horrible debater, and your response to the counter argument Flaser took the time to write wasn't even worth reading. you offered no new information, just an ad hominem attack, and an "I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm done."
You argued like a child. Plain and simple. And the fact tht you're HAPPY about it...is just fucking pathetic.
Like a child says the one who resorts to cursing in a debate, and why are you even butting in if you don't know about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Though we might disagree on why it's corrupt we both agree that it is corrupt. Though he is a marxist and I believe in capitalism it has still been civil for the most part. And someone someone doesn't know how to sense sarcasm on the interwebz with emoticans.
0
chriton wrote...
Like a child says the one who resorts to cursing in a debate, and why are you even butting in if you don't know about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Though we might disagree on why it's corrupt we both agree that it is corrupt. Though he is a marxist and I believe in capitalism it has still been civil for the most part. And someone someone doesn't know how to sense sarcasm on the interwebz with emoticans.
Someone else doesn't know a single thing about grammar and spelling.
Also, really? You're going to criticize me for cursing?
comparing cursing to your exceedingly childish tactic of, "I don't care what you say, you're wrong, I'm right, nyah nyah." Is...it's like comparing a skid mark to an entire truck full of cow manure. You WEREN'T being civil with that comment that set me off, you were being an assholish child. Plain. And. Simple.
0
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
Like a child says the one who resorts to cursing in a debate, and why are you even butting in if you don't know about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Though we might disagree on why it's corrupt we both agree that it is corrupt. Though he is a marxist and I believe in capitalism it has still been civil for the most part. And someone someone doesn't know how to sense sarcasm on the interwebz with emoticans.
Someone else doesn't know a single thing about grammar and spelling.
Also, really? You're going to criticize me for cursing?
comparing cursing to your exceedingly childish tactic of, "I don't care what you say, you're wrong, I'm right, nyah nyah." Is...it's like comparing a skid mark to an entire truck full of cow manure. You WEREN'T being civil with that comment that set me off, you were being an assholish child. Plain. And. Simple.
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
-1
BigLundi, i'd be happy if refrain from you posting in this thread if you have no business here. Take it to PM, we don't care about your irrelevant hypocrisy.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Flaser wrote...
What the fuck are you two smoking? Since when can a government force any business institution into making any deal? You two have it all backwards.The egalitarian policies of government through such legislation as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 "persuaded" lenders, Mafioso style, to lend to low-income borrowers, against their better judgment. Government lawyers made it clear that the consequences of failing to meet politically imposed targets and quotas could be dire. Then we have government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized mortgages for people who, under more-prudent rules of borrowing, would never have qualified for a loan from a conservative banking institution. Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 stated in a moment of candor,
"
Barney Frank wrote...
I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing.Well he certainly did, at the same time accepting with gratitude campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.
I'm not sure these programs would've turned into the clusterfucks they are if there was more government regulation (and enforcement) in place, however I do have to concede that the policy was fundamentally wrong.
I also have to accept - though I never claimed it wasn't so - that government intervention can be harmful.
However I have an interesting question: Who was behind the Community Reinvestment Act?
I have a nagging suspicion that beyond the socialist leaning of the Democrat party, there was some corporate interest in the back pushing for what's effectively yet another government subsidy, like how you have agriculture subsidies today that are pretty much wealthfare.
Since this is just suspicion I have to accept that these government policies were at fault and are proof that socialist policies can be harmful on their own without outside "corruption". (Though the same could be said of any political ideology, no party/school of thought has monopoly on stupidity or ignorance). I wrote this down to show that I'm capable of criticizing and accepting criticism of my "own side" as well.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The banks pretty much did every dirty deed in the book, but the one word that best described their conduct is FRAUD. There's a reason why fore-closures are being handled in kangaroo courts and hushed through as fast as possible... because often times the paperwork is very suspect. They sold rotten deals even when the home owner could've qualified for a decent one. They sold these deals to people who clearly didn't understand what was at stake... because they had nothing to loose, since they were going to sell the deed soon enough and wash their hands of it.
The whole system is corrupt from top to bottom. Everyone from the Government, to the Banks to the people are at fault. It was a massive cluster fuck. Quit ignoring the fact that more than just the banks were at fault. Government isn't perfect so please stop insulting us by acting like it is. People in America aren't brainwashed to worship government as some infallible entity.
I'm not ignoring that the government was *also* at fault. Granted this must've been lost in my crusade against chriton hard line libertarian jihad that would lay the blame *solely* on the government.
What I want to do is point out is that the basis of the crisis is the parasitic enmeshment between government institutions and corporate money.
Right now, the true masters of the system are those with the money. They control elections through lobbying. They also have vested power in institutions like the FED which act like a state within the state with only limited oversight from actual elected officials. Nominally the public still has power through officials nominated by the president, but he's under so much lobbying pressure that no candidate with a true regulatory agenda ever gets the nomination.
Corporate interest has also come to control the academia through think tanks and research grants that come with the implicit demand for ideological compliance. This has lead to the domination of neoliberal policies and the prevalence of the Austiran schools of economics.
I'm not arguing that the government is not at fault - it very much is!
What I *AM* arguing though, is whether this corruption is an inherent quality of governance or something that has been achieved through decades of work by corporate interest... I'm inclined for the later and believe that this overtake could've been thwarted by more political involvement from the public.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
1. Even if the government is at fault for not catching a criminal, the person committing the crime is still just as guilty! In fact Wall Street has been lobbying for 20 years, claiming that since they're such a responsible institution such things would never happen... except the very moment government started de-regulating (Reagen himself said, that he was in the "deregulating business") they did exactly that.
2. ...how the fuck would the government actually force these banks to do all these illegal things? Let me make this clear, just because no one was convicted yet, doesn't mean there was no crime... it just means America is so fucked up, corporations can't be made to account for anything.
2. ...how the fuck would the government actually force these banks to do all these illegal things? Let me make this clear, just because no one was convicted yet, doesn't mean there was no crime... it just means America is so fucked up, corporations can't be made to account for anything.
1: Government forced a change in loaning practice through the community reinvestment act to "help" the poor get into home ownership. What this caused was a distortion in the market and gave incentive to predatory lending practices. Wall Street further complicated matters by lobbying against regulations in the 80's leading to a free for all.
Banks are guilty of fraud and the Government is guilty of failing to protect the American people.
2: By mandating unhealthy business practices (Community reinvestment act) and placing incentives for businesses to commit crimes. Government is guilty of providing the incentive and the banks are guilty of pursuing those crimes. It's called being an accomplice to a crime.
corporations can't be made to account for anything.
If you weren't so stubborn and actually listened to others you'd realize that nobody except for the NeoCons are trying to say that corporations are not accountable. The original T.E.A. Party formed because they were against the bailouts and wanted the banks to fail, the Occupy Wallstreet crowds (and off shoot branches) want the banks to be held accountable for their actions and want caps on insurance company profits. What, amongst any of that leads you to believe that Americans think companies should not be accountable?
I have a request flaser. I'm curious if you are capable of saying that government isn't perfect. Just type "The Government is capable of mistakes". Go on, type it. I believe in you.
The government is capable of mistakes. There I typed it out... and I believe it too. Once again, I believe we're not on the same page, since I wasn't arguing that government was infallible. What I *am* trying to say, is that corruption by corporate forces is a bigger reason for the situation than an inherent, structural failing of government.
Can the government solve the situation? Not without massive reform that'd replace key players. Maybe the current government can't be saved since it's too corrupt and enmeshed with corporations.
I can actually agree with moderate libertarians/liberals that want to solve the problem by putting more power into state/local hands, especially since these would increase political involvement from the public at large.
What I can't agree to is getting rid of all government regulation, hoping for the invisible hand to fix it all, as this would only exacerbate the current situation.
0
Well Flaser I never said the government is solely to blame. In fact I believe I agree that banks are greedy who take advantage of people who are unaware of certain laws and/careless with money. Though I give you points on how your description of me keeps changing. First a republican pundit now a hard line libertarian jihad. Whats next I can't wait to hear it buddy.
0
Flaser wrote...
The government is capable of mistakes.I have to accept that these government policies were at fault and are proof that socialist policies can be harmful on their own without outside "corruption".
Hallelujah, we have a miracle!
I also have to accept - though I never claimed it wasn't so - that government intervention can be harmful.
However I have an interesting question: Who was behind the Community Reinvestment Act?
I have a nagging suspicion that beyond the socialist leaning of the Democrat party, there was some corporate interest in the back pushing for what's effectively yet another government subsidy, like how you have agriculture subsidies today that are pretty much wealthfare.
However I have an interesting question: Who was behind the Community Reinvestment Act?
I have a nagging suspicion that beyond the socialist leaning of the Democrat party, there was some corporate interest in the back pushing for what's effectively yet another government subsidy, like how you have agriculture subsidies today that are pretty much wealthfare.
Lydon B Johnson formed the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1965 as a step toward the "Great Society". Later the the Community Reinvestment Act was proposed in 1974 after pressure from activist groups such as National People's Action about the "deteriorating conditions" facing lower income neighborhoods. Unfortunately, I can not find any information on the original authors or the date the bill was proposed and passed but, I can tell you it was passed originally during the Carter administration with revisions or amendments occuring in 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 99, 05, 07 and 08. So you have revisions during the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. Administrations.
To throw you a mindfuck. The Federal Reserve is on record stating that the Community Reinvestment act is not responsible for the financial Crisis.
I'm not ignoring that the government was *also* at fault. Granted this must've been lost in my crusade against chriton hard line libertarian jihad that would lay the blame *solely* on the government.
I've argued with you long enough to see a pattern over the last year or two. Criticism of government has been...lacking in your posts. I don't expect an anti-government tirade since that's my personal shtick but, if I can admit government can occasionally do something right. I expect you to occasionally admit that government can fuck up.
What I want to do is point out is that the basis of the crisis is the parasitic enmeshment between government institutions and corporate money.
Right now, the true masters of the system are those with the money. They control elections through lobbying. They also have vested power in institutions like the FED which act like a state within the state with only limited oversight from actual elected officials. Nominally the public still has power through officials nominated by the president, but he's under so much lobbying pressure that no candidate with a true regulatory agenda ever gets the nomination.
Right now, the true masters of the system are those with the money. They control elections through lobbying. They also have vested power in institutions like the FED which act like a state within the state with only limited oversight from actual elected officials. Nominally the public still has power through officials nominated by the president, but he's under so much lobbying pressure that no candidate with a true regulatory agenda ever gets the nomination.
Won't hear an argument from me here. The system is corrupt to the core which is why I want to nerf the Federal Government. Kind of an "eggs in one basket" kind of deal. Concentrate power in one institution and they only have to corrupt one institution to wreck the system.
Corporate interest has also come to control the academia through think tanks and research grants that come with the implicit demand for ideological compliance. This has lead to the domination of neoliberal policies and the prevalence of the Austiran schools of economics.
This clashes a bit with the general sentiment that University professors are generally Progressives or former socialists/Marxists. Granted corporations have money and think tanks want that money. I also find it odd to hear "Prevalence" and Austrian school of Economics in the same sentence. You say "I believe in Austrian Economics" and people give you a look similar to the "weird moon landing denier guy" look. The Keynesian school is all the rage nowadays.
What I *AM* arguing though, is whether this corruption is an inherent quality of governance or something that has been achieved through decades of work by corporate interest... I'm inclined for the later and believe that this overtake could've been thwarted by more political involvement from the public.
The corruption, at least from my perspective is inherent to governing. Every governing body from Rome to the Soviet Union to the U.S has had to deal with corruption. Governing means power, that power attracts greedy and selfish men. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. I blame voter apathy for the level of corruption in the U.S government and the ones who aren't apathetic are usually misinformed by one side or the other.
Can the government solve the situation? Not without massive reform that'd replace key players. Maybe the current government can't be saved since it's too corrupt and enmeshed with corporations.
I hate to play the doomsday card but, from what I have witnessed and learned in the past 10 years I can only come to one conclusion. The United States will fall and it will be in my lifetime. Deteriorating infrastructure, declining middle class, declining education, build up of law enforcement by the military, the erosion of civil liberties, the political circus designed to instigate infighting amongst the people pitting one group against another. rich vs poor, black vs white, citizen vs immigrants, Republican Vs Democrat, the rampant corruption of the political process by special interest money from Unions, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Multinational Corporations. The constant bombardment of the American people with distractions so they don't realize the system is falling apart.
I can actually agree with moderate libertarians/liberals that want to solve the problem by putting more power into state/local hands, especially since these would increase political involvement from the public at large.
What I can't agree to is getting rid of all government regulation, hoping for the invisible hand to fix it all, as this would only exacerbate the current situation.
What I can't agree to is getting rid of all government regulation, hoping for the invisible hand to fix it all, as this would only exacerbate the current situation.
This is why I'm not a Libertarian, because I don't believe in Laissez Faire capitalism at least, not right now. Laissez Faire capitalism can work but, this isn't the time to implement such a policy. It would, as you said, exacerbate the situation.
0
OMG guys ever since the wall street news Germany has been going crazy as hell here..
Over 20,000 protestant here in Germany all over blaming the banks for being crooks..
Americans are really moving the world.....
I really hope the situation is in favor of the people so that way we can get paid normally like we used to before the Euro crisis....
Greek is getting out of control again as usual....
and Europe is gonna get F***** up if they don't do something fast otherwise they are gonna have to give up the Euro idea and go back to DM (Deutsche mark) which also means the Eu will also get demolished and then we have to go back to the old government ( which people miss actually) but then again Euro was created to save Europe from being poor.....
Wow so much going behind the curtains....
I hope this helped you guys with some info about Europe and Germany.
Oh and this is my 100th post... show some love here :)
Over 20,000 protestant here in Germany all over blaming the banks for being crooks..
Americans are really moving the world.....
I really hope the situation is in favor of the people so that way we can get paid normally like we used to before the Euro crisis....
Greek is getting out of control again as usual....
and Europe is gonna get F***** up if they don't do something fast otherwise they are gonna have to give up the Euro idea and go back to DM (Deutsche mark) which also means the Eu will also get demolished and then we have to go back to the old government ( which people miss actually) but then again Euro was created to save Europe from being poor.....
Wow so much going behind the curtains....
I hope this helped you guys with some info about Europe and Germany.
Oh and this is my 100th post... show some love here :)