On Oct 18, 10:48*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:56*am, "
wrote:





On Oct 18, 9:19*am, RickH wrote:

On Oct 17, 3:24*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
*"Robert Green" wrote:

It seems very odd to dismiss the current, ever-growing OWS protests
because
they're allegedly so untidy. If that's the worst their critics can heap
on
them . . .

* *MUCH easier to dismiss them because they have no purpose or
suggestions for change. They are just sorta existing and getting upset
yet offering nothing to add to the debate.

The Tea Party was similarly amorphous in the beginning. *However, I think
the point of the OWS protests is actually much more clear than the right
acknowledges. *They believe that Wall St. has too much influence over
politics in the world, which I agree with. *They believe that the average
wage earner has been taking it on the chin because of the unregulated credit
default swaps, over-leveraging and much more while Wall Streeters are raking
in multi-million dollar salaries and commissions.

I disagree strongly that they're not offering suggestions or that their main
objectives are unclear. *They want to return to an era when Wall St. was far
more closely regulated. *They want to see businesses that are too big to
fail broken up into pieces where failure doesn't require their tax dollars
for bailouts. Capping outrageous CEO salaries is on their agenda (and mine)
as well as returning the taxation of the super-wealthy that apparently has
only benefited them, not the common man.

If lowering taxes on the rich was such a super good thing for everyone, why
are so many non-Wall Streeters suffering? *The Tea Party shot its load
during the mid-terms. *The OWS folks are poised to make their impact at the
much more important 2012 elections. *By then, I am sure that they will begin
to agree on the major points of reform needed. *You know those damn
Democrats. *If there's anything they excel at, it's organizing the common
man. *As my journo prof said: *The pendulum swings and it's swinging now.
Oddly enough, the Tea Party may even join in once they realize it wasn't the
government that screwed them, but the machinations of the Wall St. "titans"
that forced the government to bail them out.

Wall Street needs to return to being a place where capital is raised for
legitimate investments, not to give working people with 401K's "haircuts" by
flash trading, saddling companies that employ thousands of American workers
with so much debt that they go bankrupt and much, much more. *If Wall Street
were functional, it would not have needed billions of dollars of taxpayer
money to right itself after the staggering events of 2008.

There's something wrong with our system and the OWS is starting to shine a
very bright light to find out where the problems are and what we can do to
fix them. *The Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, huge
jail sentences for insider trading and many other changes are already afoot.
As the Mad Max movie said: "The dice are rolling, I can feel it." *The Tea
Party barely gets any news coverage anymore while the coverage of OWS is
skyrocketing by comparison.

Even Bloomberg, the patron saint of Wall St. who used his enormous Wall St.
wealth to buy the NYC mayor's job, had to back down from clearing the park
because he eventually (with much help) realized that making them martyrs
would only accelerate the movement. *That doesn't mean that other panicked
leaders won't provide the movement with a Kent State moment that catapults
the OWS into high gear.

The protesters know that while Wall St. salaries have rebounded quickly to
the stratosphere, the average worker is still losing ground. *While the Tea
Party was a US animal, the OWS protests are now lighting up across the
world. *There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear . .
. but it will become clear in the coming months as leaders emerge and
strategies are decided upon.

One thing's for su *as more people lose their houses and jobs, they are
much more likely to join the OWS instead of the Tea Party. *I predict that
soon boycotts will start of companies that pay no US taxes or that have
CEO's that earn obscenely huge salaries. *Once people discover that they can
have a serious effect on companies that are perceived as rapacious, there's
potentially no end to the OWS movement.

Wall Street will actually help the OWS when the stocks of such companies
start to fall on the perception that they won't be able to meet their sales
forecasts because of boycotts. *Even die-hard conservatives will become
unintended "helpers" as they pull their money out of what they see as
"sinking ships" and accelerate the downward spiral. *One thing's for sure.
Interesting times lie ahead.

The saddest part is that all Wall Streeters and the right can say is "they
are not very tidy" or "they are not very well-organized." *It's roughly akin
to saying "that baby can't talk and poops in its diapers." *Most movements
and children start out that way, but most eventually grow up. *"Not tidy."
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. *One of the most telling signs I can
think of lately that a big change is coming was a Nationwide insurance
commercial I just saw that said: "We're a cooperative and NOT beholden to
Wall Street." *America has found a new target to demonize, and if there's
anything Americans excel at, it's finding someone to blame for things. *Will
Wall St. wake up in time and self-regulate? *I don't think so. It's got
"anti-regulation" built into its DNA which could very well be its undoing.

--
Bobby G.

I think the country is sick of sending all their money to NY state all
the time. *Sure with 911 they needed a helping hand and we sent them
billions. *Then the financial businesses needed help and we sent them
trillions. *Other states are broke. *

You do realize that money sent for the financial crisis
*was in the form of loans
and most of it has been paid back, don't you? *And
that money sent to states is just spent and never
paid back?

NY just aint gonna be treated so
special anymore. *You're gonna think may argument is foolish "these
are international companies being bailed out, not local". *The money
still flowed into NY state and the vast majority of the employees in
those companies live and work and shop in NY. *I'm from Chicago, I
know how to follow the money.

What do you think would have happened to Chicago if
the financial core of the US collapsed? *What about all
the money loaned/invested in Detroit? *I'll bet if you look
at those NYC financial companies that received loans,
every one of them has substantial businesses in Chicago,
eg, the futures exchanges. *Not as many employees for
sure, but to say Chicago didn't benefit by making those
loans is untrue. *We all benefitted throughout the
country by avoiding a bigger calamity.

*And NY state has benefited greatly at
the expense of the rest of the country. *Even if just a few percentage
points of the trillions that have been given to NY businesses,
infrastructure, finance and insurance industries made it into the
local economy (which it does) would be enough to eliminate the debt of
many other states.

I think that was done too. *It was the Obama $830bil
stimulus plan. *It was LARGER than TARP and unlike
TARP, none of it will ever be paid back.

*Bloomberg knows best how mush "other peoples

money" has helped his domain. *At some point people will realize there
is a whole other country to the left of NY on the map.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A state that gets money to keep tens of thousands of it's residents
from losing their jobs IS a contribution directly to the coffers of
that state. *Those financial companies should have been forced to
downsize like every other company that needs to survive a downturn.

Many of them did downsize. But unfortunately you can't
solve a problem where $100bil of your assets turn out to
be compromised by firing people.



The dirty little secret of all the financial bailout is that it was a
bailout of NY state, and people and bankers with political influence
and lives in NY state saving their butts at the expense of the "fly
over" states.

The facts say otherwise. Here's a list of all the bailed out
companies. Note two things:

They are headquartered all over the USA. Going down the
list in decreasing size of the bailout:

Fannie DC
AIG NY
Freddie VA
GM MI
Bank of America NC
Citigroup NY
JP Morgan NY
Wells Fargo CA

Most of the money from other than Fannie and Freddie
has been REPAID.

What you fail to grasp is that if any of these companies,
say Citigroup, went under there would be a huge ripple
effect because it would then spread to other companies
that have exposure to Citigroup. And people doing
business with that other company, lets call it company B
would potentially
pull back financing, not renew loans, etc because
they fear that company B is going under too because
of Citibank. Hence you would have a factory closing in
North Carolina because company B has to cancel
their short term loan.

I don't see how anyone can rail against the NYC
specific part of it. Most of that money has already
been paid back. On the other hand, Fannie and
Freedie, located in the DC area and quasi govt
agencies have paid back nada.



*Do you honestly believe that anyone in Montana can
wield influence with the federal govt like the influential in NY state
can? *They LIVE there, the money WENT there, what do you not
understand about that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, it's not NY state, it's the financial companies, SOME
of which have most of all of their presence in NYC that
received the bailouts. And almost
all that money has been paid back. What do you not
understand?

As for the difference in federal aid to govts, as opposed to
businesses bailouts, it's hard to argue that Montana should
be getting the same aid for homeland security as Manhattan.
If anything, there has been documentation of widespread
handouts of unreasonable amounts of eqpt and special
gear to remote small towns with little chance of them
being the target of a terrorist attack.