Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[JihadJane]

"Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you're wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you...they're Marxist radicals...these guys are worse than Robespierre from the French Revolution...they'll kill everybody." - Glenn Beck goes Godwin.

 

[Neally]

If you are saying that Obama's politics are not discussed by the protestors, then you are wrong.

Well then do provide a sampling of all the outrage they have for BO, because in the media I've seen it is conspicuously absent. Indeed, I doubt Peliosi would be voicing her support if there was a significant message coming from them that was against BO.

I'll let Chris Hedges respond to your naive plea [my bold]:

They know the economy serves the oligarchs, so they formed their own communal system. This movement is an effort to take our country back.

This is a goal the power elite cannot comprehend."

Nor apparently anyone else without explaining exactly what "take our country back" means and how they propose to do that. Sitting around in drum circles certainly won't cut it.

 

[respect]

We'd also need you to point out where I said any of that. I don't see what the FBI, ATF, DEA, European Banks, or Warren Buffet have to do with anything. SEC and DOJ seem to be negligent, and perhaps the Treasury has some notion what the banks are/have been doing (being mostly from those same banks).

If drug cartels are involved, a lot more agencies need to be involved in the alleged cover ups.

Here's today's criminal allegation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122300990479090.html

Give it time, see what happens.

 

[respect]

'FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic'' (CNN, September 17, 2004).


'The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis ', - William K Black, 2009:

Control (adjective) fraud:

"...the S&P document demonstrates that the investment and commercial banks that purchased nonprime loans, pooled them to create financial derivatives, and sold them to others engaged in the same willful blindness. They did not review samples of loan files because doing so would have exposed the toxic nature of the assets they were buying and selling.

The entire business was premised on a massive lie -- that fraudulent, toxic nonprime mortgage loans were virtually risk-free. The lie was so blatant that the banks even pooled loans that were known in the trade as "liar's loans" and obtained AAA ratings despite FBI warnings that mortgage fraud was "epidemic."

The supposedly most financially sophisticated entities in the world -- in the core of their expertise, evaluating credit risk -- did not undertake the most basic and essential step to evaluate the most dangerous credit risk. They did not review the loan files. In the short and intermediate-term this optimized their accounting fraud but it was also certain to destroy the corporation if it purchased or retained significant nonprime paper."

Interesting, although not that relevant to what I said. It should be noted that your articles mention borrower fraud as well, which is also a big problem, and oddly enough, discuss people getting arrested for mortgage fraud despite the complaint earlier in the thread about how no one ever gets in trouble for this stuff.

 

[respect]

What I'm trying to find out is whether those were merely "internal" standards or if those standards were actually represented outside the company (for example to the buyers of the CMBS). So far I dunno I'll get back to you.

Here's some more detail on how they covered up the bad mortgages and how the top people at Citi knew damn well there was a problem in 2007.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/07/citi-the-mortgage-underwriters-tale/

Again, proving that such acts were deliberate would be quite difficult to do when the accused could simply claim that they were incompetent.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

If drug cartels are involved, a lot more agencies need to be involved in the alleged cover ups.

What cover up? They were caught. It wasn't covered up there's just no one going to jail. The only agencies that need be involved are the ones who decide who gets prosecuted criminally or settles for a slap-on-the-wrist fine with no criminal proceedings at all.

Again, proving that such acts were deliberate would be quite difficult to do when the accused could simply claim that they were incompetent.

We know they were informed by 2007 from the link I gave. Incompetent or no they possessed that information when they did what they did from that point forward.

 

[respect]

What cover up? They were caught. It wasn't covered up there's just no one going to jail. The only agencies that need be involved are the ones who decide who gets prosecuted criminally or settles for a slap-on-the-wrist fine with no criminal proceedings at all.

Your links did discuss cases where people were locked up for laundering money. And other cases where the companies paid fines, which is considerably different than proving that individuals knowingly laundered money.

Is it that you want everyone involved in anyway locked up even if they did not know what was going on, from the tellers to the executives?

We know they were informed by 2007 from the link I gave. Incompetent or no they possessed that information when they did what they did from that point forward.

And if they say they didn't read the memo or thought that the guy who wrote it was an idiot wasting their time? What then? Getting convictions here would require a much higher degree of proof than you seem to think.

 

[Stout]

I'm not convinced you're not just trolling but I'll respond anyway. Your voice appears perfectly intact.

What's stopping you speaking out for some other percentage? How have these demonstrations usurped your power to speak? What power did you have before they started demonstrating that you don't have now?

JANE !!! Put down the weirdness, just drop it at your feet and gently kick it in my direction. We both know I have a loaded dictionary definition here and if I need to, I'll post it. I know what you're thinking, you're thinking "you don't have the guts to post the definition" Well, Jane, I'll give you a few moments to check my posting history, you'll see I've posted a lot of dictionary definitions, in fact once in religion and philosophy, I posted a dictionary definition just to watch my post count go up.

Is that your only response to having read numerous links outlining the various demands (including "there is no demand big enough")?

Don't worry, we'll get through this together, take my hand. Comfy ? want a nice cup of tea ? Here you go ? I'll put this as gently as possible. I'll even whisper it.

I read the thread, including all the links as well as a few other threads and a whole bunch of stuff that hasn't been posted on here, I even visit a progressive forum on a daily basis so I have a pretty good idea of what's going on.

By linking the dollar to oil and making the dollar the de facto reserve currency of the world, Nixon enabled the US to indulge in decades of bubble blowing, creating the illusion of prosperity and facilitating the extraction of the country's wealth by "the 1%".

Ah so it's American empire building then. Well that's one of the demands..USA out of ( insert country here )

The former, if I lived in the USA, but I'm happy enough not owning a digital camera.

Excellent! that's the spirit ! Demand locally produced goods and hopefully, if enough people do it the marketing departments of various corporations will realize that the people want locally produced goods and are willing to pay to keep jobs at home.

 

[Stout]

Good advice, perhaps, to someone who wants to bring corporations to their knees. Since I highly doubt that's what the typical OWS'er wants, I call strawman again.

People can be unhappy with the way corporate America is today, and yet still buy from corporations the clothes they wear at the protests, without being inconsistent, hypocritical, or whatever it is you're criticizing them for.

Similarly, people can be unhappy with the way government is today, and yet still drive on the interstate to the Tea Party protest, without being inconsistent, hypocritical, or other similar form of criticism.

Say what ?

All this complaining about corporate power isn't really about corporate power ? How do you know what the average OWSer wants, they don't even know themselves the list of demands is still being added to, daily.

That's a strange comparison though, People don't really have the choice to avoid paying for government ( otherwise it's jail time for tax evasion ) in they way they have the choice of opting out of consumerism. That picture I posted above has to do with luxury goods, things people want because they want them, Had it said bread my wonder, vegetables by green giant, chicken by lilydale, I wouldn't have posted it.

 

[leftysergeant]

People can be unhappy with the way corporate America is today, and yet still buy from corporations the clothes they wear at the protests, without being inconsistent, hypocritical, or whatever it is you're criticizing them for.

Considering that not buying at least some of the crap that the corporate swine import from slave states is to go naked and unable to comunicate with people out of voice range...

 

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, keeping the 30s alive.

What the pissed-off workers and those people in government who got their message brought forth in this country made us an ecconomic powerhouse with a decent standard of living for most citizens even in time of war.

Too bad for your kind.

There is no reason for us to let the greedy class tear it all down now.

 

[Beat]

Say what ?

All this complaining about corporate power isn't really about corporate power ? How do you know what the average OWSer wants, they don't even know themselves the list of demands is still being added to, daily.

That's a strange comparison though, People don't really have the choice to avoid paying for government ( otherwise it's jail time for tax evasion ) in they way they have the choice of opting out of consumerism. That picture I posted above has to do with luxury goods, things people want because they want them, Had it said bread my wonder, vegetables by green giant, chicken by lilydale, I wouldn't have posted it.

It is about corporate tyranny. This is just a pettifog.

Why would owning a camera, computer, smartphone, etc. disqualify anyone from criticizing the companies that make them anyway? How does that disqualify them from criticizing corporate influence in America's democracy in any way? Asking these people to not buy any of the products that you call "luxury" is like asking black people during the civil rights era to just choose restaurants that served them, bus drivers that let them ride, etc. In the end, it gets nothing done, and it is a blatant attempt to shift the responsibility of fixing the problem to the people who are not responsible for the problems and have less power.

 

[Beat]

The main problem with the protests in my opinion is the fact that they do not have a any real demands. A demand like "overturn Citizens United" or "abolish corporate personhood" would be better than demanding that corporations not lobby elections. As long as the law allows them to, they will.

 

[Stout]

It is about corporate tyranny. This is just a pettifog.

Why would owning a camera, computer, smartphone, etc. disqualify anyone from criticizing the companies that make them anyway? How does that disqualify them from criticizing corporate influence in America's democracy in any way? Asking these people to not buy any of the products that you call "luxury" is like asking black people during the civil rights era to just choose restaurants that served them, bus drivers that let them ride, etc. In the end, it gets nothing done, and it is a blatant attempt to shift the responsibility of fixing the problem to the people who are not responsible for the problems and have less power.

Consumers are not responsible for causing corporations to become wealthy and powerful ? OK now.

Bad comparison on the Black and buses/restaurants thing. It's like saying black people are responsible for being black.

 

[Neally]

Why would owning a camera, computer, smartphone, etc. disqualify anyone from criticizing the companies that make them anyway?

It doesn't "disqualify them. Just makes 'em hypocrites by supporting the very institutions that they want to eliminate and provides further evidence that they are only there to be part of the scene rather than delivering any kind of legitimate political message.

Asking these people to not buy any of the products that you call "luxury" is like asking black people during the civil rights era to just choose restaurants that served them, bus drivers that let them ride, etc.

Um, no. Analogy fail.

 

[Beat]

Consumers are not responsible for causing corporations to become wealthy and powerful ? OK now.

Bad comparison on the Black and buses/restaurants thing. It's like saying black people are responsible for being black.

I don't think you understand what the protest is about. People are not angry about the corporations being merely being wealthy. They are angry that corporations use that money to lobby their interest over people's interests.
So, in the light of what the movement is actually about, yes, my example does make sense -- and also because it's almost inevitable that people are going to own devices like phones with video capture capabilities, computers, etc.
Why should regular people have to sacrifice for something that is not their fault? That is shifting the responsibility to them.

 

[Beat]

It doesn't "disqualify them. Just makes 'em hypocrites by supporting the very institutions that they want to eliminate and provides further evidence that they are only there to be part of the scene rather than delivering any kind of legitimate political message.
Um, no. Analogy fail.

Like I said in my previous post, the protest is not about eliminating corporations, it's about stopping them from using money as speech. Now do you get it? The people who started the protest were not angry about corporations being wealthy, just how they used the wealth in elections.

I'm sure there are some people who are saying "END ALL CORPORATIONS!" at the protest, but that is not the premise it was started on.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Your links did discuss cases where people were locked up for laundering money.

Where? In Mexico? I know you're not talking about the U.S.

Is it that you want everyone involved in anyway locked up even if they did not know what was going on, from the tellers to the executives?

I want any investigation at all into who knew what, not just "oops", settle and admit no wrongdoing, never hear about it again (til they do it again).

And if they say they didn't read the memo or thought that the guy who wrote it was an idiot wasting their time? What then? Getting convictions here would require a much higher degree of proof than you seem to think.

I'd be satisfied with indictments for now.

 

[WildCat]

Those damn corporations and their government influence!

At least eight Chicago labor leaders who are eligible for inflated city pensions also stand to receive union pensions covering the same work period, thanks to a charitable interpretation of state law by officials representing two city pension funds, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation has found.

By double and even triple dipping on pensions, these union officials stand to reap millions more in retirement while thousands of rank-and-file union members face hard times and city pension funds stagger toward insolvency.

...One labor leader stands to reap more than $400,000 a year from three pensions — the city laborers fund, a union district council fund and a national union fund — all covering the same time period. During his expected lifetime, he stands to receive approximately $9 million, according to an analysis based on the funds' actuarial assumptions.

Union officials are accumulating these benefits even though the state pension code includes language aimed at preventing double dipping.

...Among those in line to reap multiple pensions with the blessing of city pension fund officials is Liberato "Al" Naimoli, president of Cement Workers Local 76.

Naimoli retired in 2010 from a $15,000-a-year city job that he hadn't worked at in a quarter-century. He now receives a city pension, based on his union salary, that pays him about $158,000 a year, more than any other annuitant in the city laborers' pension fund.

Pension Games

I'm so glad the labor unions are showing up to co-opt the OWS rallies! Those Wall Street bankers are destroying their pensions!

 

[Neally]

Like I said in my previous post, the protest is not about eliminating corporations, it's about stopping them from using money as speech. Now do you get it? The people who started the protest were not angry about corporations being wealthy, just how they used the wealth in elections.

I'm sure there are some people who are saying "END ALL CORPORATIONS!" at the protest, but that is not the premise it was started on.

Okay, do support these claims. Show me where the consensus of the protests throughout the US is about "using money as speech" and how the "corporations = evil therefore eliminate corporations" is not a dominate meme pervading the protests.