world

Protests against Wall Street spread across U.S.

142 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

142 Comments
Login to comment

Lobbyists are SCUM. Bankers get away with fraud and ponzi schemes. All of the scum should get arrested.

I would like to join in on the celebration of fraud and corruption.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want the sacks of gold toooooo !!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

State of California has just turned down a request of criminal immunity of corrupt investment bankers. My state has just received the same request and it is still in pending.

The above action ignited many to demonstrate in Wall Street.

Please read what's going on here in US. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/03/1022369/-WHITE-HOUSE-PETITION:-Prosecute-Goldman-Sachs-and-others-on-Wall-St-whose-fraud-broke-our-economy-

WHITE HOUSE PETITION: Prosecute Goldman Sachs and others on Wall St. whose fraud broke our economy

Investigate, prosecute, and imprison those at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms and banks whose fraud led to our economic collapse. Evidence already in the congressional record shows Goldman Sachs knowingly lied to most of their clients about the value of mortgage based investments while letting a few of the very wealthiest in on their scam.

Fines and grants of criminal immunity you are currently pushing for Wall St. are not enough to stop them from harming us again, and send a message that America has two kinds of justice: one for the rich and one for the rest.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

'I am so sick of the big corporations. Bring your i-pad. Don't worry about food we'll have some pizzas delivered.We can use the restrooms at the nearby McDonald's. We're gonna fight back!'

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is a fraud!! The protest we organized by far left socialist organizations and is for Obama's benefit. They should be blaming Omama & his henchmen who got us into this mess with over regulation and drastic spending for Democratic Party support groups. Al Gore called for an American spring and 2 weeks later this happened. Coincidence? No way!

-11 ( +0 / -12 )

did you notice what group all the people running these corporations are?? check it out and look where all the money went. 780 trillion in notes. not billion. America is bankrupt. Just like Japan 265 % over GNP.When Greece is only 10% over GNP. They are saying Greece is bankrupt. Something doesn't ADD up here. AS the saying goes the SHOT is going to hit the fan very soon.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This is a fraud!! The protest we organized by far left socialist organizations and is for Obama's benefit. They should be blaming Omama & his henchmen who got us into this mess with over regulation and drastic spending for Democratic Party support groups

I am no Obama supporter but this whole financial thing started before Obama was elected President....

7 ( +8 / -1 )

America needs 'ICAC' like Hong Kong to fight corruptions!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sammarthaOct. 05, 2011 - 08:43AM JST

Sammantha, Obama WAS not a President when all of these happend. Let's get the history streight here.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Good to finally see them waking up, it is just too late now unfortunately.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

President Obama happily joined in to bailout big banks at the beginning of his term. It is a fact that TARP didn't end the day that Bush left office. Go back and read the news accounts about how the Obama administration also gave out billions to Wall Street. No one should be surprised - the banks were big Obama supporters during his election campaign.

Both parties are responsible for the mess because both parties like to use the power of government to give out goodies to special interests that support them (ie. Mr. Kaiser and Solyndra). This kind of corruption will continue until government is prevented from using it's power to regulate and tax in a manner that plays favorites. A flat tax with no exemptions would be a good start. When special interests are prevented from using lobbyist to get tax breaks, their will be a lot less opportunities for politicians to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

President Obama happily joined in to bailout big banks at the beginning of his term

Wolfpack, Obama was (reluctantly, not happily) had to bailout big banks. It was a matter of hrs.(less than 24 hrs according to former secretary of finance Paulsen) before everything was ready to go off the cliff. What would you do if you were a president, Walfpack? What Obama was trying to do is to stop possible global depression led by US financial collapse. Little off the topic, I strongly disagree with a flat tax that is so unfair and unreasonable.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Washington, the Feds, Wall Street: zere's evil zere that does not sleep. It's not like there's a way to get out of this scamming system. We're in too deep.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SSDD. Updated costumes and props, but the song remains the same...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

“We want a voice, and our voice has slowly been degraded over time.”

Which in my sense of English you have a voice already, but have not tried to use it until now.

I wonder how many of these protesters don't vote.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

JapanGal, I suppose you are a half Japanese/American living in Japan. I am sure you understand a great American spirit. We are not timid when it comes to a justice and equality. We speak out loud. We stand up tall. We can move mountains. Hope you have inherited that spirit from your parent.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

this isnt about which administration did what. if you keep thinking like that, trying to put the blame on a particular party, you'll get no where. the parties are exactly the same. they serve the same purpose, to keep the rich people rich, and take as much as humanly possible away from the unsuspecting, helpless rest of the population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Folks,

The rich & super rich have been pilfering from the economy since the 80s, really started getting isane from the 90s to present, I and a few others on jt have pointed out many times the problem with the way wealth is distributed, ie way too top heavy, so those lower down have been hammered good for about 20yrs now.

Its not sustainable, surely that shud be obvious tio most, while I dont condone violence etc I do predict that if the rich, filthy rich & corperate america etc dont start changing their ways & FAST those lower down will increasinglyt start to try to take matters into their own hands, ex recently was in Britain.

So you corperate, rich, filthy rich, whatya going to do? This isnt going to go away, choice is yours how it goes down though.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Protest is good but do not burn down stores and shops like the hooligan Brits did. That hurt the very people they were protesting for. Violence is wrong.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Many college students (very expensive) are now gathering in my small city and protesting. It has been spreading like a wild fire all over the US and non-stopable. They are peaceful demonstrators and ordinary people are stopping by donating food, cokes, pizzas, hambergers, popcorns,cake and pies for them. The demonstration here is very civil and peaceful so far. .I am just crossing my fingers for them to stay calm and civil, so that their voice will be heard..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's nice to finally see the media blackout from the supposedly "left-wing" media end on this. The NYT's notoriously pro-bank financial editor Andrew Sorkin finally decided it was worth taking a trip out there to cover it - of course, he did so as snidely and condescendingly as possible.

And @ unreconstructed, What did you expect, exactly? You thought they were going to show up in loincloths and spear pigeons? I have news for you: even the underprivileged and discontent deserve access to modern necessities like cell phone service and a computer, and most of the food is being donated. Also, it's primarily the financial industry they're protesting, not Apple Computers.

They're still a little disorganized, but the two major overall goals seem to be: Put some bankers in jail and repeal Citizens United. I didn't see "abolish hamburgers" anywhere.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I didn't see "abolish hamburgers" anywhere

Maybe not but on a smaller scale, other protests are going on demanding mandatory GMO labeling and it seems to be successful in California.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The rabble protesting on Wall Street,it hardly needs pointing out,is overwhelmingly white. Using what passes for logic on the Left this means the movement is,you know,racist and illegitimate.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

These people suffer from the same problem that afflicts the tea party. They only look at half the picture. All of today's worst problems can be traced to a single commonality, the centralization of power.

The tea party is correct in that the Government has become an overbearing force in the lives of the American public and needs to reduce that influence while relearning how to balance a budget and live within its means. They go wrong on how to solve the issue.

These protestors have another bit, there is a definite over concentration of power in certain areas of the economy. They missed where it's location and cause though. The Federal Reserve has been playing games since it's inception and rarely to anybody's benefit. Then go after Fannie and Freddie. These three pseudo-governmental entities have done more to wreck the global economy than anything investment bankers could ever come up with.

Those three broke the world. Look at its history and you'll find Wall Street is many things, but suicidal it is not. They based much of their dealings on the, at that time, very stable investment of property. The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie through interest rate manipulation, terrible housing practices, and blatant mismanagement of the mortgage industry destroyed the foundation of the economy.

So yes, there is a problem with the economy. And there are people to hold responsible. But neither the tea party nor these squatters seem to be able to see the forest through the trees.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ unreconstructed,

Where are you getting your figures from, exactly? Last I heard, it was a remarkably diverse crowd, comprised of not just different races but different age groups and economic levels.

Now, by necessity, long-term peaceful protests such as this one must be carried out by certain types of people: considering a large number of blacks are underprivileged, I imagine they have a hard time leaving their jobs for 3+ weeks to engage in peaceful protest. Which is exactly why other compassionate people step in to stand up for them.

When the police state cracks down on you, it's difficult to muster support because an arrest record even for a minor violation like blocking the street can be a death sentence for your job opportunities. Not to mention the mace apparently is falling like rain on wall street and one wrong move gets you judo chopped and thrown in a cell - even given all these hazards, the movement is only growing. So I'd say it's very much legitimate.

You might be thinking of that other "movement"... the Tea Party? They are racist because they mindlessly support blatantly racist policies and actively and vehemently deny any kind of equal opportunity for the underprivileged. They are illegitimate because they were bought long ago by the Republican party and now exist only to serve its (and the Koch brothers') purposes.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Now, by necessity, long-term peaceful protests such as this one must be carried out by certain types of people: considering a large number of blacks are underprivileged, I imagine they have a hard time leaving their jobs for 3+ weeks to engage in peaceful protest. Which is exactly why other compassionate people step in to stand up for them.

Ummm,

The black youth unemployment rate in August was 46.5 [percent].............I do not think "leaving their jobs" to join a pretty much lily white spoiled brat college youth protest movement is the reason here. Since most of them don't have one to leave in the first place.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sailwind,

I'm aware the black unemployment rate is higher than it is for whites. Would you be willing to classify the Tea Party as a "lily white spoiled old people movement", then?

Or shall we just accept the fact that African Americans are reluctant to join certain types of protests (could be the mace and brutal police tactics, which poor African Americans are frequently on the recieving end of) for reasons that may or may not escape the comprehension of us white folks?

That said, the few news outlets that deign to report on this (most are blacking it out at the behest of their corporate overlords) have unequivically stated that Occupy Wall Street is (as I said before) remarkably diverse and rather difficult to caricature.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Human Target

"Where are you getting your figures from, exactly?"

I'm troubled by your use of words like 'figures' and 'exactly.' We can't trust any figures that the OccupyWallSt organization would give out. After all, numbers are for recording,measuring and comparing - too closely associated with logic and rationality, which the modern Left believe to be little more than the sluttish handmaidens to Power.

I went to the Washington Post. The 40-photo slideshow is a collection of hundreds of angry protesters, mostly white males. Not much diversity there! I think in all I counted about 15 people of color, or whatever the SWPL term of the day is.

If you don't like or trust a dependably pro-Democrat organ like WaPo you could go to

http://www.occupytogether.org/photos/

but the 26 photos from the San Francisco and Chicago protests, I must warn you, contain exactly one non-white person.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"pro-Democrat" does not equal "progressive", sir. As I have stated several times here and in other threads, the mainstream media is corporate owned (this isn't conspiracy, it's solid fact), and is reluctant to cover stories that portray corporations (especially the ones they serve) in a negative light. This is just as true for the Post as it is for Fox News.

Trust me. I studied this in college... I know, right? How "elitist" of me to seek higher learning.

I'm willing to accept that blacks are under-represented in these protests, but they are there and I guarantee you their numbers will grow. And I really hope you can get me something more solid than a bunch of photos that you apparently went through with a magnifying glass yourself.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama took more money from Wall St than any candidate in history. But in interviews I have come across with the people playing protester the majority say they voted for him and want him re-elected. I regard most of these people as useful idiots. Solyndra, GunWalker, FastandFurious, Holder's perjury, these are all just too toxic to this administration and they are using the Wall St protests to divert people's attention.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

http://www.occupytogether.org/photos/

The second picture has a Hispanic looking man, and the third has a black man. I did not bother to continue. Please open your eyes unreconstructed before posting.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

You're descending into irrationality. I too plan on voting for Obama, but not because I want him in office, but because he's the lesser of several evils sure to be on the ballot.

Now, Solyndra was a fiasco, but it was Bush that got the ball rolling on it, and let's be realistic: You and I both know that Obama himself was unaware of what was happening in the ATF during Fast and Furious and Gun Walker (which are basically the same thing.. I don't know why you present them as two separate arguments) and it was a result of curroption in the ATF that doubtless benefited NRA interests in the past.

And, again, I will say: how can you use Occupy Wall Street to divert people's attention when the media refuses to cover it?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The people playing protester hate more than just the corporations

http://www.breitbart.tv/youre-a-bum-jew-man-berated-by-occupy-wall-street-protester/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Human Target,

You might be thinking of that other "movement"... the Tea Party? They are racist because they mindlessly support blatantly racist policies and actively and vehemently deny any kind of equal opportunity for the underprivileged.

Those "racists" Tea Party types now support Mr. Cain as the number one choice for the Republican nomination according to the latest polls.

Cain is also the top choice of Republican primary voters who support the Tea Party, polling at 24 percent to Romney’s 17 percent, Gingrich’s 13 percent and Perry’s 12 percent…CBS news poll just released today.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Those "racists" Tea Party types now support Mr. Cain as the number one choice for the Republican nomination according to the latest polls."

I'm sure the professional Left has a conspiracy in the works on that one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Still laughing about that list of demands. Saw a few pictures of these protesters with Mac books, I can't even afford one of those things. Maybe I should join these guys, its fun asking for stuff you haven't earned.

They are illegitimate because they were bought long ago by the Republican party and now exist only to serve its (and the Koch brothers') purposes.

And these new protesters are totally different. They most certainly don't heavily lean towards one party over the other.

You're descending into irrationality. I too plan on voting for Obama, but not because I want him in office, but because he's the lesser of several evils sure to be on the ballot.

Why? I haven't voted for either major political party in the presidential election in all my years of voting. I've voted for libertarians and constitutionalists and a few write-ins. It's like saying 'I'll settle for one of the two huge piles of crap that smells less' and then you keep wondering why everything reeks.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Now all of us in this world at present were honoured to see the demise and chaotic America which is going to yield her power to China! This is a historic moment!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I admire the protestors' gallant but I wish them beware of that cunning NYC mayor Bloomberg, he threatened these protests are numbered! Maybe he is considering to call out the National guard to carry cleasing mission in Wall street!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It took two weeks for the media to start reporting on this. Will the "liberal media" claim ever get dropped?

HumanTarget, allow me to offer my support of your position. Those against you are just not being honest.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There have been many interesting thoughts expressed here. Two strike me: one, the centralization of power; the other, how to combat it.

Tea Partiers tend to equate small government with localized power, while in reality, the opposite is often the case: government, when properly employed, is a tool to give the common citizen a voice against the corporate entity. Both parties are at fault for the relative tilt towards the corporations - but the Republicans more. For example, the TARP itself was not bad as a desperate measure against financial meltdown, but the followup was pathetic: where was the legislation against consolidated banking power that would ensure such an event would not reoccur?

The Tea Party has given excessive voice to the far right, making Obama - a clear centrist - seem leftish. A counterweight from the left will serve to unveil Obama for what he really is: a moderate with leftish leanings. This will serve to help him swerve to the left when faced with difficult decisions, as opposed to the right as he has done so far.

Certainly, both parties bear grave responsibility for the situation the US finds itself in, but the Democratic party is genetically more disposed towards rectification: while the Republicans continue to call for self-policing, the Democrats realize that the people, through the government, need to have a larger voice in how the resources of the country are handled.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Those "racists" Tea Party types now support Mr. Cain as the number one choice for the Republican nomination according to the latest polls.

LOL! Yeah, only about a quarter of all those folks support him. At first they supported Trump, then Bachmann, then Perry, and then it looked like Christie, and now Cain who, as we know in Atlanta, is quite a bit nutty. Who's up next? Where's Willard?

When Cain meets the reality of Tea Party and gets tossed under the bus, maybe Rick Perry can take him out to that little piece of land he owns ... what was it? ...somethingHead? .... and enjoy some quality time together.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Saw a few pictures of these protesters with Mac books, I can't even afford one of those things.

Wow....you're here for ages giving out economic advice and you can't afford a Macbook?

Really, I think you should head down to one of those gatherings and offer some of your ideas. See if you can effectively and/or persuasively gain anyone to support your point of view that your ideas are superior in every way.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Cain who, as we know in Atlanta, is quite a bit nutty"

Is he? Quite a bit nutty? He'd be a vast improvement over your boy Obama.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yabits,

I see you have a low opinion of Herman Cain. I'd like to offer you little advice though. Suggesting that an African American visit a piece of land that once bore a name that is now considered to be the most extreme insult to all African Americans doesn't say much for your sensitivity at all toward any African Americans liberal or conservative..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

once bore a name that is now considered to be the most extreme insult to all African Americans doesn't say much for your sensitivity at all toward any African Americans

Nope. That would be you. The term nappy is not in itself offensive at all. And the fact that you don't realize that indicates your level of sensitivity. Nappy simply refers to a natural afro hairstyle.

But if a black man named his ranch "Blondehead", it would raise your eyebrows I should think. Doubly so if it was entirely possible his great great grandad had blonde slaves.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I see you have a low opinion of Herman Cain.

On the contrary, I think he runs fast food franchises quite well. But not much else, I'm afraid. Some Tea Party types -- all 24% of them -- are simply using him as their token to say: "See? Look at how racist we are not!"

Suggesting that an African American visit a piece of land...

Ah. Certainly not without being invited and escorted by the Tea Party favorite who owns it. Mister T would pity 'da fool who showed up uninvited.

doesn't say much for your sensitivity

Oh, I'm very sensitive to it. I want all Americans who haven't completely lost their rational thought process to take a good, hard look at these destructive clowns.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nope. That would be you. The term nappy is not in itself offensive at all. And the fact that you don't realize that indicates your level of sensitivity. Nappy simply refers to a natural afro hairstyle.

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe the land that is being referred here in this discussion was ever called "Nappy Head".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the contrary, I think he runs fast food franchises quite well. But not much else, I'm afraid. Some Tea Party types -- all 24% of them -- are simply using him as their token to say: "See? Look at how racist we are not!"

Got it. Vast a cover-up and Mr. Cain is just getting Tea Party "pity votes" while they go about their real behind the scenes nefarious plots.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But if a black man named his ranch "Blondehead"

Or his Republican debating venue, the "Crackerbox."

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The essential message of Herman Cain:

"Work hard enough and all you 99% can be in the top 1%."

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Vast a cover-up and Mr. Cain is just getting Tea Party "pity votes" while they go about their real behind the scenes nefarious plots.

Don't know what word we'd have for a rooster who thinks Col. Sanders is the greatest guy ever. Duped? Stupid?

Well, the Tea Party dupes sense their country has been taken from them. "We want our country back!!" many of them scream. The reality is that more than 70% of the total wealth of the United States is controlled by 1% of its population. So if any sane, intelligent person were to inquire as to where the country has gone, the best place to look for it might be in the direction of those who control most of it.

The now infamous Citibank memo that tells its top officers that the United States is no longer anything but a plutonomy -- a nation controlled by a relative handful of the most wealthy -- is not something that seems to bother the Tea Party dupes. Those idiots actually think the country is being taken away by the poor and the migrants. And there's the pathetic figure of Herman Cain....

No, these Wall Street protesters are on the right track.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I'm with Sammartha in that this is a fraud and has been organised by far left organisations. I'm sure many of the protesters are well meaning but are being misled.

This movement has been set up to deflect attention away from the real money power, that is the central banks and owners. It's not the first time this has happened. Back in the 30s during the Depression people's anger was channeled towards the Wall St banks. There were bankruptcies and prosecutions (read sacrifices) of Wall St corporations but the fractional reserve system that the central banks employ was kept out of the fray and flourished to where we are today.

As it says in one of the articles below, the Wall St banks "provide a transactional functional and wouldn't exist without the larger economic system of the Western world driven by central banking."

Links to support this.

http://www.thedailybell.com/3015/Anthony-Wile-Blaming-Wall-Street-Is-Wrong

http://www.thedailybell.com/3022/Breathing-Life-Into-Phony-Wall-Street-Meme

http://www.thedailybell.com/3029/Wall-Street-Off-With-Their-Heads

http://america20xy.com/blog6/?p=28744

Not everyone is off-track though. This guys got it right. ‪Occupy Wall Street Protester End the Fed - Best Rant!‬ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQow0Fhua1A>

Misguided ‪Obama Supporters "Occupy" DC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That said, the few news outlets that deign to report on this (most are blacking it out at the behest of their corporate overlords) have unequivically stated that Occupy Wall Street is (as I said before) remarkably diverse and rather difficult to caricature.

Though a few representatives of minority groups have appeared among the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in New York City, photos and videos of the left-wing mini-throngs indicate they suffer from a serious lack of diversity. And the protesters themselves told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that they are conscious of the issue, if not the inconsistency it demonstrates. A 40-photo Washington Post slideshow showing hundreds of angry protesters in New York and other cities includes no more than 15 clearly identifiable minority protesters, and just six African-Americans. The rest of the protesters shown are white, and most are male. In 26 photos from San Francisco and Chicago gatherings posted on OccupyTogether.org, only one person from a minority group is clearly visible, and it’s unclear whether he is a protester or a bystander. Minority groups are similarly underrepresented in photos and videos posted on OccupyWallSt.org, the self-described “unofficial de facto online resource for the ongoing protests happening on Wall Street.”

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wow....you're here for ages giving out economic advice and you can't afford a Macbook?

Oh no, the inability of text based forum posts to convey a sarcastic or joking tone, my one weakness. Unless this is sarcasm in response to sarcasm, I guess we'll never know.

Really, I think you should head down to one of those gatherings and offer some of your ideas. See if you can effectively and/or persuasively gain anyone to support your point of view that your ideas are superior in every way.

Actually that sounds like fun. Maybe we'd be able to clarify our positions to promote reasonable discourse, maybe this time I can get a few minutes in before being called a fear monger or a bigot for no particular reason. I certainly don't think my positions are all that unreasonable. If I'm ever in an area with a group of them maybe I'll stop on by.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The rabble protesting on Wall Street,it hardly needs pointing out,is overwhelmingly white. Using what passes for logic on the Left this means the movement is,you know,racist and illegitimate.

That is a lie and the person who posted it is a liar. I stand by my words.

Taka

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Actually that sounds like fun. Maybe we'd be able to clarify our positions to promote reasonable discourse, maybe this time I can get a few minutes in before being called a fear monger or a bigot for no particular reason.

You get that too? Dirty Freaking Hippie. Unamerican. My personal favorite was when I was called a traitor by lieberman and romeoramen here at JT. Yeah, I'm a veteran of the war they wanted fought (but didn't fight themselves)and they call me a traitor to my country.

So yeah, it cuts both ways.

Taka

0 ( +2 / -2 )

With greater numbers of union members coming out to join the politically diverse group of OccupyWallStreeters, the pictures show ever greater ethnic and gender diversity.

No one but a complete liar -- with a nod to Taka313 -- would try to imply that anyone would ever be excluded from joining the gatherings on a basis of race or gender. As the American Solidarity movement grows, anyone who feels sympatico with taking this action will surely be welcomed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

These protesting groups are quite different. They have a clear objectives and goals in mind. They are not looking for troubles.

I am sharing weblink here, so you can read the most updated news about it.

Academics Help Wall Street Protests Gain Credibility

Nobel-winning economist, Harvard law prof among those attempting to articulate demonstrators'

goals.http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/05/occupy_wall_street_stiglitz_lessig_west_lend_protests_intellectu.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The news I watched just this morning showed a much more diverse group of demonstrators than the Washington Post has led on. And, I will say again for the thousandth time, the so-called "liberal media" has a vested interest in portraying the protests negatively. Just look at normally reasonable Erin Burnett's "Seriously?!" segment yesterday for proof, or look to Fox News's hand picked interviews with protestors (hint: They left interviews with intelligent people on the cutting room floor.. but some of them got leaked anyway, thank God).

Also, the discussion seems to have moved on, but let's be realistic: The Tea Party supporting Herman Cain is not tantamount to "the Tea Party is not racist". That's just like the old, "Seriously, one of my best friends is black" argument. To the Tea Party, Herman Cain is nothing more than the "magic negro" of 1940s cinema. He serves their purpose and he's "pretty good... for a black guy". Some Tea Party-sponsored politicians even have gasp! gay people on their staff... doesn't mean the Tea Party or those politicians are suddenly going to come out against DOMA.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

yabits - With greater numbers of union members coming out to join the politically diverse group of OccupyWallStreeters, the pictures show ever greater ethnic and gender diversity.

No one but a complete liar -- with a nod to Taka313 -- would try to imply that anyone would ever be excluded from joining the gatherings on a basis of race or gender.

I see you are still resorting to personal insults to make up for your lack of persuasive argument.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

grammefriday - I am no Obama supporter but this whole financial thing started before Obama was elected President....

Obama was a U.S. Senator for 4 years. It was the Progressive Democrat Caucus that promoted and defended the poorly regulated, no-money-down, sub-prime ARM's that became 40% of the U.S. mortgage market in 2006. It was the sub-primes that created the financial bubble that caused the recession when it burst. Senator Obama did nothing to stop it and President Obama has done nothing to solve it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Tea Party supporting Herman Cain is not tantamount to "the Tea Party is not racist". That's just like the old, "Seriously, one of my best friends is black" argument. To the Tea Party, Herman Cain is nothing more than the "magic negro" of 1940s cinema. He serves their purpose and he's "pretty good... for a black guy".

Got it. So if he wins the Republican nomination and goes on to win the White House the joke will be on the Tea Party after all for supporting a black guy in the first place to prove they are not "racists".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul decries the lack of persuasive argument and then posts this foolish tripe:

It was the Progressive Democrat Caucus that promoted and defended the poorly regulated, no-money-down, sub-prime ARM's that became 40% of the U.S. mortgage market in 2006

Tell us, arrestpaul, in your most persuasive argumentative method just how a small segment of a Senate controlled by the Republican Party got this "defense" of "sub-prime ARM's" past the Republican leadership AND the White House.

And how does that explain the basic fact that the majority of sub-prime mortgages were sold by finance companies (like Countrywide) not prone to federal regulation -- and therefore not subject to anything Congress did?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Got it. So if he wins the Republican nomination and goes on to win the White House the joke will be on the Tea Party after all for supporting a black guy in the first place to prove they are not "racists"

That sword cuts both ways, sailwind.

That's a pretty big IF there. So if Cain gets thrown under the bus -- I should say when he gets thrown under since he's nowhere near getting a majority of the right-wing -- are you going to admit that those of us claiming he's being used as a "get-out-of-race-jail-free" token have made our point? Eh?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That's a pretty big IF there. So if Cain gets thrown under the bus -- I should say when he gets thrown under since he's nowhere near getting a majority of the right-wing -- are you going to admit that those of us claiming he's being used as a "get-out-of-race-jail-free" token have made our point? Eh?

@yabits: The same goes for Obama. When he doesn't get the Dem nomination are you going to say the same?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's a pretty big IF there. So if Cain gets thrown under the bus -- I should say when he gets thrown under since he's nowhere near getting a majority of the right-wing -- are you going to admit that those of us claiming he's being used as a "get-out-of-race-jail-free" token have made our point? Eh?

Yabits,

I'd work on getting your smears on the Mr. Cain instead. The Liberal Huffington Post had this little tid bit in an article about his latest rise in the republican polls.

The Post/ABC poll finds that Cain made a similarly positive impression on the roughly half of Republicans who say they watched the recent debates. Seventy percent say that the more they hear about Cain, the more they like him, while only 12 percent say they like him less. Cain's impression was far more positive than that made by Romney or Perry.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'd work on getting your smears on the Mr. Cain instead.

That's right. Duck the question.

If Cain is making that much of a positive impression, his failure to capture the nomination will open the issue to precisely what you want to duck.

AlphaApe writes this gem: "The same goes for Obama. When he doesn't get the Dem nomination are you going to say the same?"

Whoo, that was funny. The situation would only be equal after Cain wins the Republican nomination, is elected president, and is running for re-election. Hey, that's where President Obama is today, thanks to the Democratic Party.

I understand you keep blubbering and blathering about the Democrats putting up someone to challenge their president, but prospect is just as distant now as when you first brought it up. Time is growing very, very late and if the Democrats don't put up someone now, they will not do it at all. You do understand that, right?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

To the Tea Party, Herman Cain is nothing more than the "magic negro" of 1940s cinema.

What a disgusting, racist attempt there by 'human target' to convince himself and others here that the left's shameful identity politics is still a viable leverage in American politics. I suppose we will next be smugly assured that when online folks in the TaxedEnoughAlready movement only link to philosophers like Thomas Sowell or economists like Walter Williams or writers like Michelle Malkin because, though no one obviously sees this, doing so nonetheless provides us with some kind of "get-out-of-race-jail-free" token, as fellow identity politics proponent 'yabits' would say.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That's right. Duck the question.

Got it. I'm suppose to answer some hypothetical question based on some future "fact" that you've already determined will happen, and that is called ducking the question.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Time is growing very, very late and if the Democrats don't put up someone now, they will not do it at all.

Let us hope they do not. It would be best for Obama to seek a second term. Really, trust me on this one. Democrat candidates in virtually every senate or house race will be tied to the disastrous policies inflicted upon America by the Obama administration.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sailwind,

I never said that the Tea Party's backing of Cain was a calculated political move to deflect accusations of racism. My point is, just because they back him does not acquit them (or even he) of racism, deeply racist beliefs, and advocation of deeply racist social and economic policies. A "flat tax" or whatever else the Tea Party and the right wing are advocating these days disportionately places a burden on blacks and other underprivileged people. Before you argue with me on that, go talk to an economist or read up on it - you will find no legitimate economists that back a "flat tax".

and, @unreconstructed,

What would you have us do, then, if acknowledging racism exists is itself somehow racist? By the way, the "disastrous" policies of the Obama administration have more or less favored the right wing and the rich... and yet, you and the "Repub Party" (see what I did there? I shortened their official party name, because apparently that somehow makes them less legitimate. I learned it from Rush Limbaugh.) still want to chase him out of town with flaming torches. Obama has been good to you, and you won't admit it because you hate black men whose middle names are "Hussein"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama has been good to you, and you won't admit it because you hate black men whose middle names are "Hussein"

I'm sorry, but I do not debate children.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Please, please, please sir, enlighten us with what I'm sure is your incredibly informed opinion on why Obama's administration has been "disastrous", especially as it relates to conservatives and the rich.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm suppose to answer some hypothetical question based on some future "fact" that you've already determined will happen, and that is called ducking the question.

I don't determine the event of Cain getting rejected. I'm confident that the Republicans will take care of that. It was you who presented the hypothetical scenario of Cain getting the nomination -- and what you think that indicates. So, yeah, presented the same situation going the other way and refusing to consider what that means is playing Shrinking Violet.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I never said that the Tea Party's backing of Cain was a calculated political move to deflect accusations of racism.

Exactly. It's much more opportunistic than that. As soon as Cain entered the race, you just knew that some right-wingers would attempt to use his candidacy in that way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What a disgusting, racist attempt there by 'human target' to convince himself and others here that the left's shameful identity politics is still a viable leverage in American politics.

Don't you just love it when loony right-wingers react to a taste of their own medicine? Oh, thou dost protest far too much.

Those of us liberals sense all too clearly the degree of hatred that is smoldering on the right wing. Observe how there is next to zero goodwill and good faith among them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Those of us liberals sense all too clearly the degree of hatred that is smoldering on the right wing.

I suppose that is as close as we will get to an admission by one of them that the hollow, knee-jerk charges of racism are little more than an exercise in psychological projection by 'liberals' - quotation marks because you co-opted the term liberal; you should call yourself a 'progressive.'

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Huh? co-opted the term "liberal"? "Liberal" became a dirty word when right wing slander artists started using it to villify and deride the left. "Progressive" arose out of a necessity to come up with a different label, since "liberal" had suddenly become a derogatory term. They are one in the same. And since the Right has been historically, proveably, unmovably racist for 80-plus years, I would hardly call accusations of racism "knee-jerk".

Exactly how detached from reality are you?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Liberal" became a dirty word when right wing slander artists started using it to villify and deride the left.

To understand the error here you need only compare the meaning of the word in other democracies that,as repugnant as this may be to you, also trace their political traditions to England: 'Liberal' still retains in places like Canada and Australia the meaning it once had in England. It was co-opted by the Left in America.

"Progressive" arose out of a necessity to come up with a different label,

"Progressive" dates from the late 19th century. The modern term, which denotes people and policies advocating the lunacy of equal outcomes, dates from the Wilson era. Yeah, the same Democrat president who segregated the armed forces,demonized ethnic groups as enemies of the state and jailed his opponents.

And since the Right has been historically, proveably, unmovably racist for 80-plus years, I would hardly call accusations of racism "knee-jerk".

Until LBJ's disastrous Great Society most African Americans voted Republican.How can any American be so ignorant of this?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's obvious the words "liberal" and "progressive" existed before they took on their current political meanings. That's not the point.

And it's extremely well documented and understand that the Republican party and Democratic party essentially swapped large portions of their ideologies, as well as the geographical locations of their voting bases, during and shortly after the Civil Rights movement. GIven that this is widely understood, the conservative talking point that "Republicans abolished slavery!" and "Blacks used to love Republicans!" is becoming increasingly tired and ignorant sounding.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Sorry, sorry, I meant "Democrat Party" and "Rpblcn PaRtIIIII"

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"And it's extremely well documented and understand that the Republican party and Democratic party essentially swapped large portions of their ideologies, as well as the geographical locations of their voting bases, during and shortly after the Civil Rights movement."

Sorry there, 'Human Target', you can change labels, corrupt the meaning of words like 'liberal', call yourselves 'progressives' when in fact you wish to take the nation backwards, but you cannot have it both ways on the civil rights issue, trying to give credit for the advances made in the 50's, 60's and 70's to the same party that under Wilson and FDR denied them to minorities in America. Truman ended segregation in the armed forces! Yeah, well, Wilson started it. FDR is a 'progressive' icon! FDR put patriotic American citizens in prison camps for the crime of being Japanese. Obama ended DADT! Yeah, well, Clinton put it into effect.

"Swapped ideologies"? When ObamaCare was imposed upon the nation in 2009 'progressives' were cheering and congratulating themselves for finally putting in place something they insisted the Democrat Party had been fighting for since Wilson's day.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I didn't say "swapped ideologies". I said "swapped large portions of their ideologies".

And let me remind you, "Un Re Con Structed" that Albert Johnson, pretty much the epitome of a Republican past and present, was the main architect of the "Oriental Exclusion Law" that preceded Japanese internment, and is described as "an unusually energetic and vehement racist and nativist" and who referred to Jews as, "filthy, un-American and often dangerous in their habits" (sounds an awful lot like the current conservative talking point about Muslims.... coincidence?)

And I know that you know that Clinton put DADT into effect as a compromise to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military despite vehement opposition from conservatives. You might also be surprised to learn that in the DADT bill was wording prohibiting harrassment of gay and lesbian service members, which before DADT was essentially allowed if not condoned.

We can compare sizes all day long, it doesn't change the fact that "conservative" has historically meant "racist" and still often does today.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And let me remind you, "Un Re Con Structed" that Albert Johnson, pretty much the epitome of a Republican past and present, was the main architect of the "Oriental Exclusion Law" that preceded Japanese internment,

Quite a stretch there, 'Human target', from the Oriental Exclusion Act in the 20's and the end of Johnson's career in D.C. (1932) to FDR's internment (executive order, no less) of Japanese Americans in camps in 1942. The Supreme Court, with former Ku Klux Klansman Hugo Black presiding - having been appointed by FDR - approved the whole travesty.

Relevance? I'd say close to zero...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Until LBJ's disastrous Great Society most African Americans voted Republican.How can any American be so ignorant of this?

LOL! To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it was the Republican Party that left African-Americans. They started leaving as soon as folks like arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond rejected the Democrats and was welcomed into the GOP with open arms.

We see the unions now coming out in support of the Wall Street protests. Republicans have always hated unions. But African-American civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. increasingly embraced and supported them. (He was in Memphis to support a protest and strike of sanitation workers when he was killed.)

Only someone with the spirit of a hateful segregationist would call a program that lifted millions of Americans out of poverty a "disaster." It was only a disaster to the Republicans who wanted to keep people in poverty. Which is why the 99% -- as the protesters refer to their movement -- is taking action.

A number of leading Republicans back in the 1960s supported the Voting Rights act. Now, it is clear to everyone how the Republicans want to remove the ability of poor and lower class people to vote through voterID laws which effectively impose a poll tax on those who don't have driver's licenses. Some Republicans have suggested that if a person doesn't pay an income tax, they should forfeit their right to vote.

And you expect African-Americans to support that kind of party?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

message for taka313

Dirty Freaking Hippie. Unamerican. My personal favorite was when I was called a traitor by lieberman and romeoramen here at JT. Yeah, I'm a veteran of the war they wanted fought (but didn't fight themselves)and they call me a traitor to my country.

I have never called anyone here a traitor .Feel free to check my posts and correct me if I am wrong. I don't even recall addressing you about the Iraq war.Maybe you have me confused with people on other websites who have attacked you,the type who claim our men and women in uniform would shoot unarmed Americans if told to do so.They give us Democrats a bad name.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@unreconstructed

re: FDR's internment [by executive order] of Japanese Americans in camps

Who were the Republicans who went on record as being in opposition to that great injustice? (Many prominent liberals of the time opposed it.)

What people keep forgetting is that, no matter how awful some of the policies enacted by Democrats have been, the Republicans have been far worse. Which swings us back to the topic at hand: The Republican attacks on organized labor reached a key point when they took the teeth out of the Wagner Act by enacting Taft-Hartley. The seeds were sown for a long, steady triumph of Capital over Labor and the slow destruction of the American middle class.

As it took an organized labor movement to bring down communist regimes in more than one eastern European country, the movement is slowly gathering which will start to swing the pendulum back the other way in the United States.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So yeah, it cuts both ways.

And it's unnecessary both ways. I think I've been fairly civil, less a few time when I've posted on the bottle.

Otherwise I should be in the state when one of these occupation things are going on in Lansing Michigan, maybe I can try out my little experiment there. Should be fun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Otherwise I should be in the state when one of these occupation things are going on in Lansing Michigan, maybe I can try out my little experiment there. Should be fun.

Well, from the other end of the spectrum, when I tried going to a tea party rally (held at the armory, so they wouldn't have to pay, without a hint of irony), I tried the experiment you talked about.

It wasn't fun. I doubt it will be for you either. We're a country too divided. I would say it's bush's fault, you might say it's Obama's. But the fact is, we're a country divided. It won't be fun. You'll be yelled at and called names, just like I was. I don't doubt that my fellow "lefties" will let you have it instead of civil discourse. Boy I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. We're just too divided.

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The second picture has a Hispanic looking man, and the third has a black man. I did not bother to continue. Please open your eyes unreconstructed before posting.

You looked at two photos and made your own conclusion??

Now all of us in this world at present were honoured to see the demise and chaotic America which is going to yield her power to China! This is a historic moment!

Yaay - yeah, given China's human rights record you should be dancing in the streets to see them take over # 1 from the old demon USA.

Really, I think you should head down to one of those gatherings and offer some of your ideas. See if you can effectively and/or persuasively gain anyone to support your point of view that your ideas are superior in every way.

Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You looked at two photos and made your own conclusion??

I'm not sure you know the whole story behind that. A poster stated that these protests were lilly white and that by some strange set of some strange logic, that it should be considered racist and that he had proof of the "whiteness" that could be seen in a set of pictures.

The guy was saying you could go through the whole picture set and only find one or two minorities. She found that many in the first two pictures she saw and concluded that if that's what she saw with that little sampling, in all liklihood, there would be more of the same in the rest of the pictures.

That's the back story on that one.

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It won't be fun. You'll be yelled at and called names, just like I was. I don't doubt that my fellow "lefties" will let you have it instead of civil discourse. Boy I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. We're just too divided.

Kind of figured. I used to go to afscme rallies when I was a janitor at my college and argue with my own co-workers over policies that I thought made sense, I'm no stranger to group aggression. Ah well, only thing there is to do is grab what sources you can, enter the fray, and try to meet anger with placidity. Then we can argue about whose side was more offensive in the end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Question,

The thing that got people all riled up at the tea party rally I attended was, I was just asking questions that they knew the answer to, but didn't want to answer, such as (pretty approximate):

me: You have been taxed enough, right?

TBer: Hell Yeah! We're fed up!

me: So that's why you're having this rally here at the armory, right? Because you've been taxed enough?

TBer: That's what we said.

me: You know, taxes pay for a lot of cool stuff. Without taxes, you would have had to pay to use the armory, right? Without taxes, you would have to pay to use the roads, right? Without taxes, you would have to have paid to go to school, right? Without taxes, you couldn't use the armory as a free place to hold an event to protest taxes! You know this, right?

TBer: %C#@ you commie.

me: I'm a veteran. I fought in the war.

TBer: I don't believe you.

me: (remembering I was in Kentucky) Well...bless your heart.

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Last week they're a bunch of disorganized, dirty hippies. This week, it's suddenly a far-reaching conspiracy paid for by rich, nameless leftist organizations.

Oh, and look at that... tons of minorities present. So many even Fox News's cameras couldn't hide them.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/2/UILvHyvCkAg

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I am confident that our president Barack Obama will soon voice his full support for the occupation of Wall Street.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The occupy people are a little more unfocused so I might have to reach. I'd like to focus on how the Fed and my dear friends at Fannie May and Freddie Mac made all this lovely turmoil possible but I'm willing to work with the crowd. It's Lansing so I'm going to assume there will be something about the recent union legislation.

Difference is I actually feel that the occupiers' anger is justified, I just feel it's placed in the wrong areas of the economy and that their solutions would lead to even more problems than we already have. I'm even willing to entertain the idea of a tax rate revamp despite my long standing preferences. I don't expect them to engage or even listen, but maybe they will. Won't know until I go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JermiahW I agree with. That's all it really takes to beat he Republicans. They would stop a bill that creates job and hurt the American people.

Some might argue that it might create more debt but, hey, America was deep in debt when Obama took office. It wasn't even a proper handover. It's like Bush took the car for spin and didn't put any gas in it. (Throwing the keys to Obama).

Go Obama, side with the 99% that are true Americans. No more outsourcing. Tax the rich. You can't sit at home and drive your BMWs and Benz while you send Americans off to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you it's time for them to be taxed. If they didn't pick up a gun and / or stand watch for our nations security and freedoms then they need to be taxed cause that's all they can do for this country.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The conservatives on this thread are going to HATE this clip from Ed Schultz's show:

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/06/justin_elliott_talks_to_ed_schultz_about_occupy_wall_street/

Thousands of demonstrators! Many different races! Clearly spoken, legitimate demands! A lot of people who aren't, in fact, Obama supporters!

Democracy is wonderful when you participate in it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

HumanTarget - Thousands of demonstrators! Many different races! Clearly spoken, legitimate demands! A lot of people who aren't, in fact, Obama supporters!

Obama supporters are getting harder and harder to find.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

yabits - Tell us how a small segment of a Senate controlled by the Republican Party got this "defense" of "sub-prime ARM's" past the Republican leadership AND the White House.

And how does that explain the basic fact that the majority of sub-prime mortgages were sold by finance companies (like Countrywide) not prone to federal regulation -- and therefore not subject to anything Congress did?

The United States House Committee on Financial Services oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries. The Committee also oversees the work of the Federal Reserve, the United States Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and other financial services regulators. I'm not surprised you don't know this.

The groundwork for the mortgage bubble was laid in 1999 under Clinton and Barney Frank and the other Banking Committee members let the sub-primes remain unregulated in order to allow more people to obtain mortgages to buy homes regardless of whether or not they could actually afford to pay back the loans. After Barney Frank became the Banking Committee chairman he said that he preferred to "roll the dice some more" because he saw no problem with the sub-prime market. Barney rolled the dice and the U.S. economy lost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I fear it all ends like Chicago in 68.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Arrestpaul,

Good one. Brilliant. Are one-liners the only thing your party is good at? Because I've seen what they have been doing with their House majority and it amounts to... nothing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The mainstream media has their work cut out for them if they think they can portray the people playing protester as heroes of some sort.

http://www.breitbart.tv/capitalism-thumbs-up-or-thumbs-down-andrew-breitbarts-journey-through-occupyla/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The conservatives on this thread are going to HATE this clip from Ed Schultz's show:

I pretty much hate any clip from his show.He's an idiot.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The United States House Committee on Financial Services oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries. The Committee also oversees the work of the Federal Reserve, the United States Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and other financial services regulators.

But committee leaderships are given to the party with the majority in Congress. In 2006, that would have been the Republicans. I am rather surprised that you don't seem to be aware of that. So, how did any legislation in "defense" of sub-prime ARMs make it past committees led by Republicans?

How could any legislation of this type make it through a House and Senate with Republican majorities?

You mentioned 1999. It was the 106th Congress and the Republicans held majorities in both houses then too. The House Banking Committee that Frank was a member of had a total of 60 members, most of whom were Republicans. (Paul Ryan was on the committee, to name but one example.) It was led by Republican Jim Leach of Iowa.

So how was it that all the Republicans and their leadership allowed what you are trying to blame on Democrats to happen?

Leach was succeeded as chairman of the Banking Committee by Mike Oxley (R), who held the position until the 110th congress began in 2009 -- long after the housing bubble burst.

After Barney Frank became the Banking Committee chairman he said that he preferred to "roll the dice some more" because he saw no problem with the sub-prime market.

Barney Frank did not become the chairman of the Banking Committee until the 110th Congress, which was sworn in in 2009 -- long after the problems with the sub-prime market manifested themselves.

Can you see how even modestly informed people will be able to quickly determine that you can't back up what you say with facts?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I fear it all ends like Chicago in 68.

A police riot?

I don't think so. Krispy Kreme didn't come along until much later.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I fear it all ends like Chicago in 68.

Hoping that a lot of people get beaten by the police. THAT'S my boy!

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

me: You know, taxes pay for a lot of cool stuff. Without taxes, you would have had to pay to use the armory, right? Without taxes, you would have to pay to use the roads, right? Without taxes, you would have to have paid to go to school, right? Without taxes, you couldn't use the armory as a free place to hold an event to protest taxes! You know this, right?

Taka - I'm not in any way/shape/form siding with the Tea Party members. But two things strike me about your paraphrased conversation with the folks in Kentucky. And I have to tread lightly here with the first point as I don't want to come across as supporting or confirming the liberal elitist horn honking that many of you have spouted on about with openly declaring how intelligent liberals are in comparison with their conservative counterparts. But you were in Kentucky, and you might not have chosen the most eloquent and knowledgeable of the representative crowd to address. It's sort of like the tv interviews that inevitably come out of any organized event. They always seem to interview the dumbest and most embarrassing representative in the crowd. But the second thing that comes to mind is your over-simplification of the tax issue. I have to admit a good deal of ignorance on even paying much attention to the Tea Party's exact beliefs in the matter, but I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no taxes collected to support basic infrastructure, such as the building of roads, police and fire services, eduction, etc. but rather the amount and purpose of the taxation. Every time a conservative talks about the tax issue it is immediately shouted out that 'you wouldn't have roads, a police force, blahblahblah'. The reaction that set about the formation of the Tea Party was more from things like an inevitable tax increase to pay for the healthcare bill. Paying for everyone to have health care is apples and oranges when compared to paying for a road or having a fire department. Particularly in the manner in which said bill was pushed through.

For being such supposed Poindexters in the brains department I'm unclear why liberals cannot see the distinction.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Won't know until I go.

Best of luck to you.

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

HumanTarget - Good one. Brilliant.

Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - But committee leaderships are given to the party with the majority in Congress. In 2006, that would have been the Republicans. I am rather surprised that you don't seem to be aware of that. So, how did any legislation in "defense" of sub-prime ARMs make it past committees led by Republicans?

Barney Frank became chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007.

In 2003, while the bubble was still growing and he was the ranking minority member on the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank fought against transferring oversight of the scandle-riddled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac away from Congress (and Barney) and HUD to a new agency within the Treasury Department. Barney Frank (with a straight face) said, "These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"Affordable" housing that the homeowners couldn't pay back.

It was also in 2003 that Barney Frank said, "I do not want the same kind of focus (ie embarresing questions) on safety and soundness that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing.

These homeless protestors should be protesting Barney and the Financial Services Committee. And Senator Obama for not looking out for the taxpayers best interest.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Barney Frank became chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007.

You are right. I stand corrected.

But the housing bubble began long before that, as you note in your next statement.

In 2003, while the bubble was still growing and he was the ranking minority member on the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank fought against transferring oversight of the scandle-riddled Fannie Mae

Frank may well have opposed transferring oversight, but he was a minority member taking a minority position. How could the responsibility be on the minority party and not on the majority Republicans who controlled the Financial Services Committee, as well as the entire House and Senate?

Why won't you address that question in a direct and straightforward manner?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - Frank may well have opposed transferring oversight, but he was a minority member taking a minority position. How could the responsibility be on the minority party and not on the majority Republicans who controlled the Financial Services Committee, as well as the entire House and Senate?

Again, the stage was set for the creation of the no-money-down, sub-primes at the end of 1999. It was the Progressive Democrat Caucus that then pushed and protected the unregulated sub-primes to promote what they called subsidised or affordable housing. Several Congressional hearings were held over several years to correct the glaring faults and dangers of the sub-primes but Barney Frank and the Progressive Democrat Caucus fought tooth and nail to keep the sub-primes available which eventually led to the recession.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, the stage was set for the creation of the no-money-down, sub-primes at the end of 1999. It was the Progressive Democrat Caucus that then pushed and protected the unregulated sub-primes to promote what they called subsidised or affordable housing.

In 1999, the congressional legislative agenda was controlled by the majority party -- the Republicans. The Progressive Caucus doesn't encompass anywhere near a majority among Democrats, who themselves were the minority party at the time. They simply didn't have the power to accomplish anything IF the majority party was in opposition to it.

So how could this small faction push or protect anything in Congress that the majority party might oppose?

I believe that is a fair and reasonable question. Why can't you address the role of the majority party during the time you describe as "setting the stage" for the sub-primes?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - In 1999, the congressional legislative agenda was controlled by the majority party -- the Republicans. The Progressive Caucus doesn't encompass anywhere near a majority among Democrats, who themselves were the minority party at the time. They simply didn't have the power to accomplish anything IF the majority party was in opposition to it.

Towards the end of 1999, legislation altered the Community Reinvestment Act which set the stage for reducing the credit requirements on sub-prime loans. The pilot program didn't start until 2000 in limited markets and then became a nationwide program. Congress told Fannie Mae to expanded the types of loans it would buy (secondary market) and mortgage issuing companies started providing those types of mortgages. No-money-down, sub-prime ARM's. Just sign your name and you bought a house. Fannie turned those poorly secured loans into the mortgage-backed securities that became the darling of the investment community. After all, who would suspect that a security, created thru and backed by a government agency and promoted by the House Banking Committee would be a bad investment?

Alan Greenspan tried to get Congress to act and Elizabeth Dole, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, and John Sununu held hearings. The Progressive Democrat Caucus constantly played the race card and cried foul. The hearing accomplished nothing and the bubble continued to grow.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sacramento has a small group of protesters. Many don't know why they are in the park. But they have a 'message team' that will have an answer by tomorrow.

http://www.breitbart.tv/occupy-sacramento-protesters-have-no-idea-why-theyre-there-badger-reporter-for-asking-questions/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

arrestpaul - "Towards the end of 1999, legislation altered the Community Reinvestment Act which set the stage for reducing the credit requirements on sub-prime loans."

But that legislation was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Its authors were Phil Gramm, a conservative Republican senator from Texas; Jim Leach, a Republican representative from Iowa, and Thomas Bliley, Jr., a conservative Republican representative from Virginia. When you say "legislation altered" the CRA, that legislation was created and passed by a Republican congress. How is it that Barney Frank can be assigned a major portion of the blame for it? Was he holding a gun to their heads?

The Progressive Democrat Caucus constantly played the race card and cried foul.

It seems very clear that, like your inability or unwillingness to accept the fact that the Republicans were in charge of Congress during the time you mention, you just want to concoct baseless statements so as to absolve them of all responsibility. How does a caucus play a "race card" and prevent Republican leadership from crafting legislation it deems necessary? Especially when they ended up controlling the White House as well as Congress after 2000.

The housing crisis didn't hit full bore until 2005-2006. How could the Republican leadership have allowed it to happen like that? That's over 5 full years. Is "playing a race card" some legislative maneuver like a filibuster? How does it technically work to prevent those who are leaders from taking necessary action?

Fannie turned those poorly secured loans into the mortgage-backed securities

The first mortgage-backed securities were issued by Fannie and Freddie in the early 1980s, under the administration of Ronald Reagan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - But that legislation was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

The housing crisis didn't hit full bore until 2005-2006. How could the Republican leadership have allowed it to happen like that? That's over 5 full years. Is "playing a race card" some legislative maneuver like a filibuster? How does it technically work to prevent those who are leaders from taking necessary action?

Progressive Barney Frank and the banking committee now had the tools they needed to push HUD to offer even more "affordable housing" to people who didn't meet the original "affordable housing" requirements. HUD threatened Fannie with fines and heavy oversite if it didn't meet HUD increasing quotas to buy faulty "affordable housing" loans. The head of Fannie, Franklin Raines, increased the stupidity by pushing zero down payments. He pushed mortgage bankers to create even more faulty subprime loans that Fannie could then buy which fueled even more risky lending. Anyone who questioned Franklin Raines ability and accounting practices was publically harrassed as a racist even by members of the Progressive Democrat Caucus at Congressional hearings that had been called by Republicans.

Congress was too busy NOT reading the bills they were voting on and ignoring the many Congressional committees warning that the sub-prime market was basically unregulated and a sub-prime bubble had been created and would eventually pop. Everyone was making money, why rock the boat?

"Under Raines, a Clinton appointee, Fannie loaded up on subprime securities while gutting the underwriting standards it set for the entire mortgage industry. It was under his leadership - 1999-2005 - that the bubble of making loans to people who would have a tough time paying them off got supersized."

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Progressive Barney Frank and the banking committee now had the tools they needed to push HUD to offer even more "affordable housing" to people...

How could that be in 2001~2005 -- the main years the housing bubble expanded. Republicans controlled the banking committee, not Barney Frank. HUD is an executive branch agency, which means it reported to then-President George W. Bush. You haven't explained at all how a handful of Democratic representatives were able to force their will on the Republican leadership.

The head of Fannie, Franklin Raines

President Bush could have had him replaced at any time.

Anyone who questioned Franklin Raines ability and accounting practices was publically harrassed as a racist even by members of the Progressive Democrat Caucus at Congressional hearings that had been called by Republicans.

It sounds like you're making things up. Can you cite one example of a person who was publicly harassed as a racist for questioning Raines's ability?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

yabits - How could that be in 2001~2005 -- the main years the housing bubble expanded. Republicans controlled the banking committee, not Barney Frank. HUD is an executive branch agency, which means it reported to then-President George W. Bush. You haven't explained at all how a handful of Democratic representatives were able to force their will on the Republican leadership.

There are several videos of Waters, Frank, and other Democtats trashing the government investigators at various Congressional hearings while defending Barnes, Fannie, Freddie, and the GSE's. Try searching - "Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that" or this link if JT allows it to stay - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The "shocking" video does not explain how a handful of Democrats could have successfully blocked anything from happening in a House of Representatives controlled by a Republican majority. You haven't been able to explain that either. (What is shocking about the video is all the editing done to it to show a very distorted and filtered part of the real story.)

What is most shocking is that the Republicans in the video did not exert any leadership at all. It's as if they were actually agreeing with Frank, Waters, and the other minority Democrats when it came time to take action. Since there is no filibuster rule in the House, the Republicans could have passed anything that Tom DeLay wanted to throw his support behind. It would not have been possible for Frank or any other Democrat to have stopped it; as they didn't have a majority!

You also haven't explained or shown anyone who was harassed as a "racist" for questioning Raines's ability. Which Republican was so accused, and who made the accusation?

It was actually President Bush who called out for the goal of every American who wants one to be able own a home.

So the reality is that you can't solidly back up most of what you have claimed to this point, and are simply engaged in scapegoating the party that did not have the power to implement anything IF a Republican-led Congress and White House were actually opposed to it. (Bill O'Reilly pointed this out on his show of Feb. 24, 2009.)

In 2004, Barney Frank and then Finance Committee chairman worked out a compromise bill that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It actually passed the committee. But it was the Republicans who did not want the bill to pass on the floor. So, when it was time for actual legislation to be put to a vote, it was the Republicans who killed it.

It appears that this is yet another example of the Big Lie tactic of many conservatives who want to paint a picture that tries to con the gullible into thinking that it was actually the Democrats who were running things in the years preceding the collapse of the housing industry. Of course, everyone knows it was the Republicans who were in charge in Congress and the White House.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In 2004, Barney Frank and then Finance Committee chairman worked out a compromise bill

It should read: "In 2004, Barney Frank and then Finance Committee chairman Mike Oxley (R) worked out a compromise bill....

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

yabits - The "shocking" video does not explain how a handful of Democrats could have successfully blocked anything from happening in a House of Representatives controlled by a Republican majority. You haven't been able to explain that either. (What is shocking about the video is all the editing done to it to show a very distorted and filtered part of the real story.)

"Shocking" is just the title of the video. There are others. You could check C-SPAN video liberary for the full versions of the various hearings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Shocking" is just the title of the video. There are others. You could check C-SPAN video liberary for the full versions of the various hearings.

"Shocking" is the title put on the video by the people who edited it and presented it to show a distorted picture of the reality of the situation.

Nobody needs to consult a library as long as they keep in mind that Republicans ran the Congress from 1995 to 2007, and the White House for 8 years between 2001 and 2009. As the leaders of Congress and the White House, they had "the watch" for most of the years leading to the second greatest financial collapse of our nation's history. (Republicans presided over the greatest one as well.)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

yabits - Nobody needs to consult a library as long as they keep in mind that Republicans ran the Congress from 1995 to 2007, and the White House for 8 years between 2001 and 2009. As the leaders of Congress and the White House, they had "the watch" for most of the years leading to the second greatest financial collapse of our nation's history.

Congress passed the law. The banking committee made the regulations. HUD pressured Fannie and the banks to buy up billions of bad loans. Unscruplous mortgage companies offered no-money-down loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back and people bought them.

Who defended this growing bubble of "affordable housing" in the various Congressional hearings? The Progressive Democrat Caucus and Barney Frank was the primary voice of that debacle.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Congress passed the law.

The Republican-controlled Congress, in which no laws could pass without Republicans' support.

The banking committee made the regulations.

The banking committee was majority Republican with a Republican as its chairman until 2007.

HUD pressured Fannie and the banks to buy up

HUD is a cabinet-level agency which reported directly to the Republican president from 2001 to 2009.

Who defended this growing bubble of "affordable housing" in the various Congressional hearings? The Progressive Democrat Caucus and Barney Frank was the primary voice of that debacle.

A "voice" of the debacle? Then you are claiming that the Republicans were so weak that they could not resist the awesome power and influence of the minority-party congressman from Massachusetts.

Maybe you buy all that, but I doubt if many people of average common sense and reasoning ability would.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The people playing protester are receiving up to 650$ per week from from an ACORN- and Soros-affiliated group called Working Families.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2011/10/craigs-list-ad-working-families-party.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Too little too late sheepies.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The people playing protester are receiving up to 650$ per week from from an ACORN

This is the biggest lie you have tried and failed flat.

Under desperation, many try to lie to the teeth and start believing their own lies like many criminal offenders do.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

While valiant, these protesters are wasting their time. Do they actually think something will come out of protesting? This isn't Egypt or any other Middle Eastern country who protested and 'won' (mind you not because of the actual protesters, but powers within their respective militaries and/or governments). This is the United States of America. If the banks and whoever else control the nation, that's how it's going to be, and some random ass protesters aren't ever going to change that.

What's going to happen is that these people are going to keep protesting for however many days, and guess what? Absolutely nothing will change and they will go back to their homes to continue complaining with like-minded individuals.

Am I saying they are wrong? No. What I'm saying is that their whining is futile. No one other than people just like you (people with no power whatsoever) care what you think. Deal with it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

yabits - A "voice" of the debacle? Then you are claiming that the Republicans were so weak that they could not resist the awesome power and influence of the minority-party congressman from Massachusetts.

Maybe you buy all that, but I doubt if many people of average common sense and reasoning ability would.

Chris Dodd apologised for his part in decieving the public. Barney Frank has yet to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher - This is the biggest lie you have tried and failed flat.

I'd be interested in knowing how you know the Working Families Party story is a lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's quite disturbing to see video of police beating the Veterans for Peace and desecrating the U.S. flag in Boston.

It was like I was watching Bizarro World.

Quite a few Occupy cities are getting shut down tonight. Kind of a coinkidink there.

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Chris Dodd apologised for his part in decieving the public.

There is no record anywhere of former Senator Christopher Dodd apologizing for what you claim. Perhaps you can cite the date and circumstances of when he supposedly did this.

Barney Frank has yet to do so.

Since the Republicans held key leadership positions in the House and Senate, as well as the White House, which of them should apologize for allowing Barney Frank to control them?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

unreconstructedOCT. 10, 2011 - 04:08PM JST The people playing protester are receiving up to 650$ per week from from an ACORN- and Soros-affiliated group called Working Families.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2011/10/craigs-list-ad-working-families-party.html

I did some researching into this one. It started as a blog post from a right wing blogger SPECULATING as to what he thought he was reading into a Craigslist ad. It mushroomed on the right wing blogosphere from there. It's pure horsesh#t.

It's nothing more than one man's speculation, run rampid on the blogosphere.

Here's the link to his manical rantings:

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to Monday - Working Families for proof that the above is not true but speculation and that my good friend, unreconstructed is either making stuff up or is really bad at researching things on the internet (either way, kind of a bummer for him).

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Between unreconstructed and Paul, it's like a tag team in the liar's corner.

yabits, agreed.

Sacramento has a small group of protesters

posted by unreconstructed from Sacramento; a mecca for tea baggers.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We will see if the Senate can pass the entire American Jobs Act tonight. No actual proposal from the Rep side yet and still blocking. That's one of another reason of the Wall Street protest. They want that Acts to be passed. They need jobs.

If not successful and the Rep still wants to block it, then Senete needs to break it into many pieces, so that they can pass each piece one at the time. That is all they need to do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'd be interested in knowing how you know the Working Families Party story is a lie.

arrestpaul, I have a problem with people who cannot compartmentlizs the issue. It is irrelevant to this topic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

globalwatcher - I have a problem with people who cannot compartmentlizs the issue. It is irrelevant to this topic.

I'm sad to hear you have a problem. I wanted to know how you knew the story wasn't true. That is a relevant question.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaul, you cannot take an open criticism, can't you? I noticed your opportunity in many of your posts.

All successful people are very well gifted with an ability to articulate and compartmentlize every issue in debate and negotiations.

Their heads are very clear and organized. People worked with me only had a 5 minutes in front of me. I only accepted one page resume. My interview question was always "you are here today, but why should I hire you?" I do not deal with lie and B.S. as I am a streight shooter. Apprently, most Japanese cannot take a constructive criticism as their pride are too high. That's their problem, not mine.

1)Strong opening 2)Use Rules of Three (opening-reasoning-conclusion) 3)Classic structure with main themes

Hope the above rule will help you, arrestpaul.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What these clowns do not understand is that the "rich" aren't as rich as they think they are. Take Bill Gates, for instance. He is "worth" $56.0 billion. Is that money lying around in some bank account with his name on it? No. It is the total of ALL of his assets including Microsoft.

So let's say that the $56.0 billion was to be confiscated and given to every man, woman and child in the United States. There are ~312 million Americans so that means that each person would get 56,000,000,000 / 312,000,000 = $179.49 per person ONE TIME. That number can only be accomplished by selling off EVERY ASSET Bill Gates owns. There would be no more Microsoft because all of its assets would have to be sold off to meet the demand. Everyone who works at Microsoft would be thrown out of work. Everyone who specializes in Microsoft products would be thrown out of work. All of those taxpaying people who feed the system these clown eschew would then go on the dole creating even greater need for other people's money.

Since all of Bill Gates' assets are now gone, the $56.0 billion would not be available next years as those assets no longer exist.

The protesters are simply lazy good-for-nothings who want to exist for nothing and be supported by the sweat of other people's brow. They think socialism would be a great thing; but they don't consider what happens when they run out of other people's money.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

globalwatcher - All successful people are very well gifted with an ability to articulate and compartmentlize every issue in debate and negotiations.

Their heads are very clear and organized. People worked with me only had a 5 minutes in front of me. I only accepted one page resume. My interview question was always "you are here today, but why should I hire you?" I do not deal with lie and B.S. as I am a streight shooter. Apprently, most Japanese cannot take a constructive criticism as their pride are too high. That's their problem, not mine.

Are you saying you interview protestors for the "Protests against Wall Street spread across U.S." mentioned in the JT article above this thread? ? ? ?

Why do "People who worked with you" leave after only 5 minutes? Are they schedualed to make protest signs or is it more of a personal bias?

FYI - I only asked you, "How you knew the story was false".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites