Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty much a premature conclusion considering the protests are growing and spreading.

In the sense that more and more people are sitting around being mad at everything, but otherwise doing nothing proactive? Perhaps it is a premature conclusion - but from where in this static do you get the idea that something's going to change because of it?

"So you're mad at Wall Street. What are you going to do about it?"

"I'm going to stand here and hold this sign."

"And then what?"

"Nothing. That's what's so great about the movement! We're different!"

Hoooo....kay.

JihadJane's linked article comparing OWS with the Arab Spring is especially a howler, considering that the Arab Spring movements all have and had very specific demands.

OWS refuses to make specific demands not because of any principle, or as part of some singular "message" in and of itself, but rather because once the demands start getting made, the crowd starts to shrink as those who also "hate the 1%" but have different ideas of what to do about it start splitting off the "movement". Honestly, the attempts by individuals in the movement to spin this cowardly equivocation into "what makes the movement so strong" would be hilarious if they weren't so patronizing.
 
Last edited:
"It's not one thing, it's everything".

Please explain how to fix everything.
The following would go a long way to 'fix' everything:
  • Increase taxes on the rich, use the revenue to invest in infrastructure which we know from history brings a country out of a recession.
  • Take the student loan programs back into the public sector and remove the profit skimming from the loans.
  • Charge the people responsible for lying about financial company assets and those who deceived borrowers with the crimes they've committed then send the guilty ones to jail
  • Require the banks that got bailouts or who were involved in the dishonest housing loans to renegotiate loans down to the same price they could sell the foreclosed homes for instead of foreclosing and leaving the house abandoned and unsellable.
  • Decriminalize pot (at a minimum) and that will decrease the jail populations helping local economies.
  • Make privatized jails illegal since they have a motive to use deceit to populate their buildings and underfund prisoner services.
  • Drastically cut military spending by kicking the military industrial lobbyists out of the loop and by recognizing the limits to what we can do with our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • Pass a Constitutional Amendment rescinding the SCOTUS Citizens United decision.
  • Revise FEC rules to prevent the obvious skirting of campaign finance laws using proxy organizations.
 
We'll see, Checkmite. Time will reveal whose conclusions were premature. I do think it's easy to wait such protests out if you are happy with the status quo. But then, an awful lot of people are unhappy with the status quo.
 
Well I think that most of the items on your list could be accomplished except maybe for this one:

Charge the people responsible for lying about financial company assets and those who deceived borrowers with the crimes they've committed then send the guilty ones to jail.

I heard this mentioned before but I have a few questions about it. Who exactly should be charged and what specific crimes should they be charged with? There is a big difference between doing something criminal and being irresponsible and/or unethical.

And this one:

Drastically cut military spending by kicking the military industrial lobbyists out of the loop and by recognizing the limits to what we can do with our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think it would be unconstitutional to ban lobbying by one (or any industry).
 
And the constitutional amendment rescinding Citizen's United.

As a reminder, these folks consider themselves part of the reality-based community.
:rolleyes:
 
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263894e9b2643b5d7c.jpg[/qimg]

6a00d83451c45669e20153924c0a73970b-550wi
 
Well I think that most of the items on your list could be accomplished except maybe for this one:



I heard this mentioned before but I have a few questions about it. Who exactly should be charged and what specific crimes should they be charged with? There is a big difference between doing something criminal and being irresponsible and/or unethical.
There is a false bit of propaganda circulating that there were no crimes committed and that is why the Obama Department of Justice has not filed any charges. The facts disagree. There was plenty of mortgage and investor fraud committed by the large financial institutions.

And this one:


I think it would be unconstitutional to ban lobbying by one (or any industry).
I'm of the belief it would take a carefully worded amendment to the Constitution to really remove the influence of money in government. I am not of the belief this is simple, easy or likely to actually occur. But by calling attention to the issue, I hope at least there could be a lessening of the influence of money at the federal level.

As for the right to lobby, sure, but there needs to be more daylight and less corruption in the process. It's one of those things that waxes and wanes throughout history and it is time for the pendulum to swing toward 'wane'.
 
And the constitutional amendment rescinding Citizen's United.

As a reminder, these folks consider themselves part of the reality-based community.
:rolleyes:
It's not like that was a unanimous SCOTUS decision. I'm pretty sure from reading your posts that I'm much more reality based than you are. But I digress....
 
Last edited:
There is a false bit of propaganda circulating that there were no crimes committed and that is why the Obama Department of Justice has not filed any charges. The facts disagree. There was plenty of mortgage and investor fraud committed by the large financial institutions.

By who? Who specifically committed what crimes? Here's a good explaination as to why there have been only 2 prosecutions:

Prosecutors seem to have reached the same thought about the Wall Street honchos, concluding that they can’t pin a crime even on such seemingly culpable figures as Joe Cassano (head of the AIG’s derivatives business), Angelo Mozilo (whose Countrywide Lending mortgages were the embodiment of toxic loans) and Richard Fuld (the CEO of Lehman Brothers). Yes, there was plenty of intentional fraud in this crisis, notes Joe Nocera in his New York Times column, but it happened streetside, between mortgage brokers and often naïve borrowers, not in the executive suite. The evidence, according to testimony in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission records, suggests that the white collar offenders Ferguson wants jailed were greedy, arrogant, inattentive, and oblivious. But not criminal.
 
Here's another place to start with fixing "everything":

American Legislative Exchange Council
Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit huge corporations. Through ALEC, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state. DO YOU?

I wonder if a thread has been started on this yet? Anyone know?
 
Increase taxes on the rich, use the revenue to invest in infrastructure which we know from history brings a country out of a recession.

This isn't a recession and we're not getting out of it anytime soon. I don't mind if we raise taxes, especially capital gains, on millionaires but we can't grow debt, prices, or the size of the government forever at a faster pace than the growth of the underlying economy. We need to admit that economic growth over the last couple decades has not been enough to justify the growth in government spending, or in the costs of things like housing, health care and tuition. 2008 was just the tip of the icebubble. Toxic debt is still held at face value all through the economy, promises which cannot be kept have not yet been broken.

Insolvent entities, whether they're banks, borrowers, or students, need to be allowed to go bankrupt. Currently the government won't allow either banks or students to enter bankruptcy, and the banks are terrified to foreclose on the borrowers because if those properties hit the market home prices would fall to a level that reflects the organic home demand of people who actually have income/capital.

When we do this there will be an economic depression, don't freak out, default and bankruptcy are vital components of capitalism. We can't have capitalism only when it's "fun", the system can only be kept in balance if there are consequences for unwise decisions and unsustainable business models. The people who caused this haven't been allowed to suffer the capitalistic consequences of what they've done (and I'm not talking legal consequences this time), and the markets will remain uncertain, distorted, and distinctly un-capitalistic until that is done.

Take the student loan programs back into the public sector and remove the profit skimming from the loans.

I say make student loans dischargeable and don't federally backstop the lenders. These student loans/tuitions are as inflated as house prices ever were, colleges and lenders are getting rich gouging the government with the students as proxies (now also debt serfs thanks to government preventing bankruptcy).

Charge the people responsible for lying about financial company assets and those who deceived borrowers with the crimes they've committed then send the guilty ones to jail

I agree with Respect in that criminal liability could sometimes be difficult to prove, though I disagree with his apparent "resistance is futile, it would be a complete waste of time to even try" stance.

Require the banks that got bailouts or who were involved in the dishonest housing loans to renegotiate loans down to the same price they could sell the foreclosed homes for instead of foreclosing and leaving the house abandoned and unsellable.

The entire bubble was dishonest, make lenders mark to market and allow them to go bankrupt if that makes them insolvent.

Decriminalize pot (at a minimum) and that will decrease the jail populations helping local economies.

Well, obviously. (edit) Good luck convincing anyone in the establishment, especially Obama.

Make privatized jails illegal since they have a motive to use deceit to populate their buildings and underfund prisoner services.

Would be hard to prove but yes I suppose they do have a motive. The government gets ripped off by corporations all the time and we need to be more watchful for that.

Drastically cut military spending by kicking the military industrial lobbyists out of the loop and by recognizing the limits to what we can do with our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For now I'd be content with bringing as many troops (and mercenaries) home, from as many places as possible, and give unelected generals more power over how the military budget is to be allocated rather than letting congress and lobbyists micromanage the military legislatively.

Pass a Constitutional Amendment rescinding the SCOTUS Citizens United decision.[*]Revise FEC rules to prevent the obvious skirting of campaign finance laws using proxy organizations.[/list]

This one really depends on whether we're really going to treat them like people, or give them the benefits of being people but not the drawbacks. One drawback to being a person is that when a person is caught doing something like laundering money for cartels or scamming their counterparties they can go to prison, their freedom to participate in society and the economy is often revoked for some period. If we were serious about corporate personhood, we'd revoke charters over behavior like that of Wachovia or Citi. We wouldn't need further proof, as organizations they were caught and admitted to the crimes. They got off with fines, which is not how we treat individual people at all. Fannie Mae hasn't even moved to cease robo-signing while negotiating the settlement for the last time they were caught.

The way we do corporate personhood reminds me more of Tron Carter from Dave Chappelle's Law & Order sketch than the way actual "persons" are prosecuted:

*Warning, violence and offensive language ahead* (also assertions of systemic racism, while backed by statistical evidence, are OT so overlook that)

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219426
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
By who? Who specifically committed what crimes?

Let's assume for a moment the asserted futility of individual criminal cases, in that case let's say the corporation committed the crime, and in many cases admitted it after being caught. Since that corporation is a person, punish them in a manner as analogous to individual incarceration as possible, seize any ill-gotten gains and revoke their charters, thereby suspending their right to operate in this country as free entities. If individual people who appear to have committed crimes can't be pinned with those crimes this is the next best solution IMO.
 
Last edited:
It's not like that was a unanimous SCOTUS decision.

Moving the goalposts already? Let's remember your suggestion was a constitutional amendment, not simply overturning a decision by ignoring stare decisis.

I'm pretty sure from reading your posts that I'm much more reality based than you are. But I digress....

A constitutional amendment?:D
 
Let's assume for a moment the asserted futility of individual criminal cases, in that case let's say the corporation committed the crime, and in many cases admitted it after being caught. Since that corporation is a person, punish them in a manner as analogous to individual incarceration as possible, seize any ill-gotten gains and revoke their charters. If individual people who appear to have committed crimes can't be pinned with those crimes this is the next best solution.

Can you be more specific? Which corporations committed which specific crimes? Which corporations admitted criminal activity?
 
Can you be more specific? Which corporations committed which specific crimes? Which corporations admitted criminal activity?

I already did earlier in the thread, Wachovia was caught laundering Mexican drug cartel money, Citi withheld material information about the contents of it's loans while selling MBS (we have sworn testimony that the higher-ups had been informed by 2007), Fannie and others are currently in settlement negotiations for document fraud (robo-signing). Let's start with that. We have three crimes, the facts of which are uncontroversial (even if as you say no specific individual can be tied to these acts), committed by corporations. In an effort to treat corporations like "people" I suggest that we revoke their charters, launch investigations to determine the amount of financial gain resulting from those crimes, then seize those ill-gotten gains before any assets are liquidated to bond and stock holders. Then maybe next time everyone involved will think twice.

We need banks and lending, but we don't need these specific criminal banks for the economy to function, so get rid of them.. completely. Get them "off the streets" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
This one really depends on whether we're really going to treat them like people,

(snip)

...The way we do corporate personhood
Citizens United wasn't about corporate personhood. It was about freedon of speech, and freedom of speech won.

I have yet to see someone against the Citizens United decision who has the slightest clue as to what it was actually about.
 
I already did earlier in the thread, Wachovia was caught laundering Mexican drug cartel money, Citi withheld material information about the contents of it's loans while selling MBS (we have sworn testimony that the higher-ups had been informed by 2007), Fannie and others are currently in settlement negotiations for document fraud (robo-signing). Let's start with that. We have three crimes, the facts of which are uncontroversial (even if as you say no specific individual can be tied to these acts), committed by corporations. In an effort to treat corporations like "people" I suggest that we revoke their charters, launch investigations to determine the amount of financial gain resulting from those crimes, then seize those ill-gotten gains before any assets are liquidated to bond and stock holders. Then maybe next time everyone involved will think twice.

We need banks and lending, but we don't need these specific criminal banks for the economy to function, so get rid of them.. completely. Get them "off the streets" so to speak.
Do you understand the difference between negligence and criminality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom