In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

We've finally reached a point where the blame is being assigned to the right
people. The destructive credit-swap and subprime mortgage games created the
financial crisis. There's a clear trail of blood that leads back to the
early deregulation of the 1980s when the middle class started taking the
hits that have led to their stagnant economic position and to the OWS.
You mean when the Dems were in charge of Congress? (Although in the
interests of fairness, I should point out that all of the Nastiness
pointed to in the laws were passed by large bipartisan majorities. As
has much deviltry over the years.


Finally, we're beginning to see economists and upcoming politicos like
Elizabeth Warren decimate Republican arguments that rebalancing the tax
burden means class warfare. The uber-wealthy didn't get rich entirely by
themselves. They benefited from roads, courts, public safety agencies, the
military and an education system paid for by taxes. Those who have
benefited the most should give back more than they have. Instead, they
continue to whine that "the rich paying less is good for everyone." The
trickle down BS of the 80's may finally be put to rest as people realize
that Wall Street's game is to privatize profits and socialize losses and the
only thing that trickles down is economic sewage.
And they pay for them. The top 20% (actually) pay a greater %age of
the income taxes than their %age of income.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 17, 6:30*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

We've finally reached a point where the blame is being assigned to the right
people. *The destructive credit-swap and subprime mortgage games created the
financial crisis. *There's a clear trail of blood that leads back to the
early deregulation of the 1980s when the middle class started taking the
hits that have led to their stagnant economic position and to the OWS.

* You mean when the Dems were in charge of Congress? (Although in the
interests of fairness, I should point out that all of the Nastiness
pointed to in the laws were passed by large bipartisan majorities. As
has much deviltry over the years.

It's funny how the resident lib knows only one place
to place all the blame.
He's as clueless about economics and the real world as those
smelly skunks stinking up the park at Wall Street. Booms and
busts have occured in free markets throughout history without
much regard to how much regulation there was or wasn't.
The list of those responsible for the current one includes some
on Wall Street. But it also includes pleny on main street too.
Those were the people all too willing to buy houses with little
or nothing down. Houses that had gone up drastically in
price in the last decade. If Wall Street is guilty, so too are
all the people who thought house prices only go up and
they were the perfect invesment.
That includes all those who bought them on flimsy
financing. And how about all those greedy real estate
agents? lawyers, are they not to blame too?

How about Congress? Barney Frank was proclaiming
FNMA, Freddie to still be OK only a couple monts
before they failed. And isn't it the govt that subsidizes
buying houses by making mortgage interest and
taxes deductible? Are they not responsible for creating
artificial demand?

And why is it that libs want more regulation, more
laws from Congress, when Congress has an approval
rating of 13%? How have they shown themselves to
be capable of running Wall Street? They can't even
pass a budget. Where was the #1 govt creation
with regard to this bubble, ie the FED? Why they
had interest rates very low, feeding that housing
bubble and ignoring it. In other words, the regulators
failed as much or more than anyone else.







Finally, we're beginning to see economists and upcoming politicos like
Elizabeth Warren decimate Republican arguments that rebalancing the tax
burden means class warfare. *

Sure. That's why Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's district.
Why the Dems lost the House in the best ass whooping in 75 years.
Why they just lost Anthony SeeMy Weiner's district in NYC, where
it had been in Democrat hands like Geraldine Ferraro and Chucky
Schumer for 90 years. Keep that decimation coming baby!




The uber-wealthy didn't get rich entirely by
themselves. *They benefited from roads, courts, public safety agencies, the
military and an education system paid for by taxes.

Does a rich guy use the roads more than Joe Six Pack?
The military? The police? I think not. In fact, they are
more likely to have less kids and those might be in
private school. Now, those on welfare, puking out
5 kids with no father to support them, that's an
example of abusing resources.


*Those who have
benefited the most should give back more than they have.

Which they do, but of course the lib can't get that right
either. The top 1% of incomes in this country carry
40% of the income tax burden. I've seen libs asked
many times the following:

A rich guy makes $100. How much of that should
go to the govt? I've yet to hear one give an answer.



*Instead, they
continue to whine that "the rich paying less is good for everyone."

No, because per the above, the rich pay MORE, fool.




*The
trickle down BS of the 80's may finally be put to rest as people realize
that Wall Street's game is to privatize profits

Of course Wall Street is there to privatize profits.


and socialize losses

That's Obama and the libs plan.


and the
only thing that trickles down is economic sewage.

What a crock. Like the 80s and 90s were decades
of despair? I just need to look around the neighborhood
to see vast numbers of middle class people living better
today than they ever did.





* *And they pay for them. The top 20% (actually) pay a greater %age of
the income taxes than their %age of income.

Damn right they do. The top 20% pay 86% of all income
tax, but the shrill voices of the libs pretend it just isn't so.

I was listening to one particularly stupid lib on the radio
this afternoon. Claiming how awful Google and Apple
were because they are shipping jobs and money overseas
to avoid paying any taxes. I mean good grief, how stupid
can you be? They are classic American success stories
offering hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs right
here.

And had she been capable of
using Google to pull a 10K, she'd have learned that
google earned $10.8bil in profit and paid taxes of $2.3bil
on it. That's about 21%. Apple paid about 25%. Those
rates are typical. How much more do you libs want?

And the libs just never get the other part of it. If
the price of corn goes up for General Foods, what
does economics 101 tell us they will do? Like
all their competitors, they will raise the price of
corn flakes and a new higher equilibrium price
in the market will result. Now, I ask the libs,
if you raise the taxes on GF, what do you think will
be the result? This is an easy economics
101 question. Think about it.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

I think what you're engaging in here is mental
masturbation actually.

On Oct 17, 4:24*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. *

I have yet to hear a single suggestion or even a position of what
they want. What I have heard is:

The Jews control the economy
I don't want a $7hr job
Monsanto is changing your DNA with genetically engineered foods.
Eliminate the FED
End capitalism....







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.

The last one is worth considering.





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.

One more time, the top 1% of taxpayers are paying 40% of
all income tax. How much is enough for you? What gives
you the right to determine what someone else makes?
It's the stockholder's issue, not yours.



If lowering taxes on the rich was such a super good thing for everyone, why
are so many non-Wall Streeters suffering? *

Another lib distortion. Taxes were lowered at the same time
on ALL Americans.



The Tea Party shot its load
during the mid-terms. *

Dream on....



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.

I see no chance of them agreeing on anything. They are
very much like the angry mobs that show up at G8
meetings, just mad as hell, but they don't even know
about what.


*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.

Sure is. That's why the Republicans control the House.



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.

The Tea Party join those smelly skunks sleepins and ****ting in
the park? I think not.




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.

Legitimate investments according to whom? You and those
smelly protestors? Or some govt bureaucrat, just like the other
bureaucrats who have been there all along, yet we had the meltdown
anyhow. BTW, once again, almost all that money has been paid
back to the govt. I know, you'd rather destroy Wall Street by
punsihing them and having them all fail when that business just
moves offshore to friendlier marketplaces.




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.

Well of course. Watching hippies have sex in a park and
get arrested by the scores is more amusing.



Even Bloomberg, the patron saint of Wall St. who used his enormous Wall St.

On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:19*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:



* *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.

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

R

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

On Oct 17, 10:34*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?


One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. *Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. * Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? Social plan? How's
the war going (pick one)?

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are
just dandy? I'm guessing not one.

Things have to change. That much is clear. So we can all start
pulling our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in
unison.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people
names and listening.

R

On 10/7/2011 2:50 AM, harry wrote:
Can hardly find a mention of it on American news channels.
Yet hundreds are being arrested and the polic eare beating up woman
and spraying them with gas.
All reported on foriegn news channels.
Clearly th American media are inthe pockest of the rich.

JP Morgan have given the NYPD $4.6M to help with suppression of
dissent.

http://occupywallst.org/

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...544595588.html

http://rt.com/news/wall-street-city-hall-977/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...street-protest

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/...eet-protester/

I survived the sixties, with memories of sit-ins, occupation of college
deans' offices, love-ins, marches. Didn't participate because I was too
poor and too busy...going to school, getting married, getting hubby
through school, etc. I've been wondering when the younger generation
was going to wake-the-hell-up and yell and shout! Strangely, I haven't
heard of any Chicago cops busting skulls...but, then, there ain't no
Mayor Daley. Borrowing money to get an education is absurd on many
levels...especially when teachers aren't educated. We need something
like Parris Island to teach teachers, then might get something done;
also might be able to get parents to do their jobs. Buyin' iPods and
iPads and iThis and iThat doesn't do it. It's also time to quit feeding
our young people to IEDs..drop a ****ing bunker buster on the bad guys
and get it over with.

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.

I was listening to Sean Hannity, last night. He had Jay
Seculow, a conservative man, and another guest who was a
female far left liberal. Jay was asking her for specific
answer to specific question. I think the question was did
she support redistribution of wealth. She was more and more
anxiety, and finaly declared that she doesn't want to answer
his questions. She ran on and on with vague outrage about
greedy corporations, and outrage about moving money over
seas, and never did provide any specifics.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

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.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

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 -

On Oct 18, 9:44*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I was listening to Sean Hannity, last night. He had Jay
Seculow, a conservative man, and another guest who was a
female far left liberal. Jay was asking her for specific
answer to specific question. I think the question was did
she support redistribution of wealth. She was more and more
anxiety, and finaly declared that she doesn't want to answer
his questions. She ran on and on with vague outrage about
greedy corporations, and outrage about *moving money over
seas, and never did provide any specifics.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.


This is something I've noticed for a long time. With
liberals, its almost always all emotion and no facts.
If they do have any facts, they can't organize or
compare them in any reasonable fashion.

I think I may have heard this same lib on Hannity's
radio show. I didn't hear it from the beginning, but
it was the same thing. She was ragging on about
American companies not paying any tax, moving
assets and jobs overseas, etc. When pressed for
specifics she brought up Google and Apple.
WTF? These are examples?

It took me a couple mins to actually use Google
to pull up the 10K on Google. They had profits
of like $10bil and paid 21% in tax. Apple had
much larger profit and paid 25% in tax. And
any rational person knows that both of these
companies have created tremendous numbers
of high paying jobs here in the USA.

In short, she obviously didn't care about any
of the facts. It was just all emotion and an
attempt to villify the kinds of companies we
should be using as role models. While
listening, I was hoping Hannity would have
a staffer pull up the reports on those two
companies to totally discredit her.

Yes, that's the same totally outraged, and totally clueless
woman. I thought it was really indication, that she refused
to answer the question Jay kept asking. I think she knew
she'd brand herself as a socialist.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

This is something I've noticed for a long time. With
liberals, its almost always all emotion and no facts.
If they do have any facts, they can't organize or
compare them in any reasonable fashion.

I think I may have heard this same lib on Hannity's
radio show. I didn't hear it from the beginning, but
it was the same thing. She was ragging on about
American companies not paying any tax, moving
assets and jobs overseas, etc. When pressed for
specifics she brought up Google and Apple.
WTF? These are examples?

It took me a couple mins to actually use Google
to pull up the 10K on Google. They had profits
of like $10bil and paid 21% in tax. Apple had
much larger profit and paid 25% in tax. And
any rational person knows that both of these
companies have created tremendous numbers
of high paying jobs here in the USA.

In short, she obviously didn't care about any
of the facts. It was just all emotion and an
attempt to villify the kinds of companies we
should be using as role models. While
listening, I was hoping Hannity would have
a staffer pull up the reports on those two
companies to totally discredit her.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:56:59 -0700 (PDT), "
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?

Sure, it was loaned, paid back, and then spent again. Don't forget that last
part.

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.

He also spent the returns from the TARP money. The debt didn't go down when
that money was repaid to the treasury.

On Oct 18, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Yes, that's the same totally outraged, and totally clueless
woman. I thought it was really indication, that she refused
to answer the question Jay kept asking. I think she knew
she'd brand herself as a socialist.

Didn't see the show, but it sounds like you enjoyed your
entertainment. That's good.

Watching Hannity, or any teevee show with a slant may be fun, but it's
not educational nor meaningful. It's exactly the same as watching
Maury or Springer to get a read on how normal people behave. You
won't find the answer there.

What you will find is that your personal predilection, the one that
caused you to tune in that particular program in the first place, will
be confirmed. All will be right with the world.

If it works for you...

R

PS Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert - comedians - would destroy anybody
in a televised debate. They'd even let you pick the side they should
be on.

On Oct 17, 10:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:34*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. *Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. * Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. *What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?


If you make a plan with a definate goal and stay the course then you
have little to complain about. If it wasn't your plan then get your
own, just being along for the ride is your choice.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? *Social plan? *How's
the war going (pick one)?


My current economic plan is working and so is my social plan. The
plan and the goal were set a long time ago and while there have been
some detours along the way, the plan and goal are still on track.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are
just dandy? *I'm guessing not one.


You would be guessing wrong which is the real issue when people start
claiming they represent the 99%. They DON"T.

Things have to change. *That much is clear. *So we can all start
pulling our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in
unison.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people
names and listening.


I can agree with that but must also include taking responsibility for
yourself first before attempting to direct others. The one thing that
has been obvious from all the news coverage and interviews is that
everyone is demanding that they get this and they get that but not one
seems to be willing to give anything in return.

R

On Oct 18, 11:45*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 18, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:



Yes, that's the same totally outraged, and totally clueless
woman. I thought it was really indication, that she refused
to answer the question Jay kept asking. I think she knew
she'd brand herself as a socialist.

Didn't see the show, but it sounds like you enjoyed your
entertainment. *That's good.

Watching Hannity, or any teevee show with a slant may be fun,

Where is there a TV news program that doesn't have a slant?
At least Hannity, unlike NBC, CBS, etc is honest about it.
And he does regularly have on well known liberals who
disagree with him.



but it's
not educational nor meaningful.

While I'm not a big fan of Hannity, I have to disagree
that it's not educational.




*It's exactly the same as watching
Maury or Springer to get a read on how normal people behave. *You
won't find the answer there.

I don't see how you can compare Hannity, where they
are debating budget deficits to Springer having on
sluts talking about having sex with their uncle.




What you will find is that your personal predilection, the one that
caused you to tune in that particular program in the first place, will
be confirmed. *All will be right with the world.

If it works for you...

R

PS *Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert - comedians - would destroy anybody
in a televised debate. *They'd even let you pick the side they should
be on.

I've seen Stewart engage Bill O'Reilly and he sure didn't come close
to destroying him. Gee, funny that you criticize Hannity, but
obviously
watch those two. If Hannity is Springer, then what are those two
clowns?

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 17, 10:34*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. *Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. * Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. *What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

If you make a plan with a definate goal and stay the course then you
have little to complain about. *If it wasn't your plan then get your
own, just being along for the ride is your choice.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? *Social plan? *How's
the war going (pick one)?

My current economic plan is working and so is my social plan. *The
plan and the goal were set a long time ago and while there have been
some detours along the way, the plan and goal are still on track.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are
just dandy? *I'm guessing not one.

You would be guessing wrong which is the real issue when people start
claiming they represent the 99%. *They DON"T.

Things have to change. *That much is clear. *So we can all start
pulling our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in
unison.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people
names and listening.

I can agree with that but must also include taking responsibility for
yourself first before attempting to direct others. *The one thing that
has been obvious from all the news coverage and interviews is that
everyone is demanding that they get this and they get that but not one
seems to be willing to give anything in return.



R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But their future have been stolen. That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks".

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

We've finally reached a point where the blame is being assigned to the
right
people. The destructive credit-swap and subprime mortgage games created
the
financial crisis. There's a clear trail of blood that leads back to the
early deregulation of the 1980s when the middle class started taking the
hits that have led to their stagnant economic position and to the OWS.

You mean when the Dems were in charge of Congress?

You'll note that I didn't say the Republicans did it. At least in that
paragraph. (-: But you'd have to be living in a deep, dark cave not to
know that they generally support less regulation and believe that the free
market is the perfect solution to all our woes. And yet their hands were
out to Uncle Sam when the free market threatened to collapse the entire
system. Still, they are pushing to roll back or neutralize every attempt at
reform. Why? Because an unreformed market lets them get away with robbery
of the middle class with almost nothing to stop them. People are realizing
this all over the globe.

(Although in the
interests of fairness, I should point out that all of the Nastiness
pointed to in the laws were passed by large bipartisan majorities. As
has much deviltry over the years.

The laws were eased because the big campaign contributors on both sides
demanded it, to be "more competitive with Europe and its far more lax
regulation of high finance. Of course, looking at the European Union these
days shows that it didn't work out too well for them, either. That's what
OWS is all about - changing the system so that corporations and the
uber-rich don't run the government, but that "we the people" do. There was
a very disturbing article in the NYT today where a Wall St. money manager
said:

that New York's two Democratic senators aren't on his side, declaring that
"They need to understand who their constituency is." Actually, they surely
know very well who their constituency is.

They believe that their money gives them a bigger say in how the country is
run - perhaps the ONLY say in how the country is run. OWS is challenging
those perceptions and may, indeed, change the way things are. Only in
America can people give other people (politicians) money by the boatload and
then claim they're not buying influence with it. That's preposterous and I
hope it's one of the things that will be corrected, eventually.

Finally, we're beginning to see economists and upcoming politicos like
Elizabeth Warren decimate Republican arguments that rebalancing the tax
burden means class warfare. The uber-wealthy didn't get rich entirely
by
themselves. They benefited from roads, courts, public safety agencies,
the
military and an education system paid for by taxes. Those who have
benefited the most should give back more than they have. Instead, they
continue to whine that "the rich paying less is good for everyone." The
trickle down BS of the 80's may finally be put to rest as people realize
that Wall Street's game is to privatize profits and socialize losses and
the
only thing that trickles down is economic sewage.

And they pay for them. The top 20% (actually) pay a greater %age of
the income taxes than their %age of income.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Kurt. Much more of the wealthy's
income derives not from paychecks, but from investments so fair comparisons
are hard to make. But just like HeyBub claiming our corporate tax rate is
among the highest in the world, the truth is that it's only on paper. GE
pays NO taxes along with a boatload of companies, some of whom even get
money back from the government.

It's a complicated picture, but the bottom line is that people at the bottom
are doing a hell of a lot worse, percentage-wise in nearly every economic
measure while the wealthy get even richer. They pay a greater proportion of
their income in taxes, payroll taxes and sales taxes than the rich. That's
why Cain's 9-9-9 proposal is going to fall flat on its face. It gives the
rich an even GREATER break than they've been getting. That's a recipe for
disaster and widespread social unrest. Ironically, his campaign will
probably fail because he can't raise enough money to be an actual player.

The money came out of the stock market in 2008 because a lot of people (like
me) think it's no longer an investment in America but a way for the
uber-rich to amass even more wealth through means that do not help the
country's economy grow in a productive way. With their access to high speed
trading and other "unfair" maneuvers, they can exit a bear market with far
more skin than the mom and pop investors of the country, who get stuck with
the largest percentage of the loss. Until there's some serious reform on
Wall St. our economy is going to stay flat - or worse.

I want to see Wall St. and Big Business get out of the "how we did this last
quarter" mindset and start thinking about where this sort of thinking had
led us. I want to see them stop rewarding failure and giving outgoing CEO's
enormous golden parachutes when the company's workers haven't gotten raises
in two, three and even five years. I think the OWS has the potential to
shine enough light on such abuses and return the US to functioning as the
world's business leader. Right now, we're heading down the drain, fast.

--
Bobby G.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Didn't see the show, but it sounds like you enjoyed your
entertainment. *That's good.

Watching Hannity, or any teevee show with a slant may be fun,

Where is there a TV news program that doesn't have a slant?
At least Hannity, unlike NBC, CBS, etc is honest about it.
And he does regularly have on well known liberals who
disagree with him.

I'd LOVE to see Obama go on the Hannity show.

One of them will walk away with two black eyes. Like a boxing match,
and then a fight breaks out.

LMAO...

On Oct 18, 12:18*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:45*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 18, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Yes, that's the same totally outraged, and totally clueless
woman. I thought it was really indication, that she refused
to answer the question Jay kept asking. I think she knew
she'd brand herself as a socialist.

Didn't see the show, but it sounds like you enjoyed your
entertainment. *That's good.

Watching Hannity, or any teevee show with a slant may be fun,

Where is there a TV news program that doesn't have a slant?
At least Hannity, unlike NBC, CBS, etc *is honest about it.
And he does regularly have on well known liberals who
disagree with him.

That's why I don't watch TV for news and insight. There are better
ways to get information.

but it's
not educational nor meaningful.

While I'm not a big fan of Hannity, I have to disagree
that it's not educational.

Okay, fair enough. On any particular topic I read news sources from
around the world. People in other countries bring up stuff that isn't
brought up in the home country, for whatever reason. Different ways
of looking at things is always superior to looking at it from just one
perspective.

So I agree that we can learn from anybody, and even from TV. It's the
part about only watching TV, and only one particular program that
seems odd to me. In that situation I think that someone has found
someone who agrees with their way of thinking. It makes it easier to
digest. It doesn't mean it's better information.

But learning is not supposed to be easy. The only things I've learned
that were easy, I already knew a lot about. The difficult things I've
learned caused me to grow more.

*It's exactly the same as watching
Maury or Springer to get a read on how normal people behave. *You
won't find the answer there.

I don't see how you can compare Hannity, where they
are debating budget deficits to Springer having on
sluts talking about having sex with their uncle.

They both represent a subset and pander to an audience.

What you will find is that your personal predilection, the one that
caused you to tune in that particular program in the first place, will
be confirmed. *All will be right with the world.

If it works for you...

R

PS *Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert - comedians - would destroy anybody
in a televised debate. *They'd even let you pick the side they should
be on.

I've seen Stewart engage Bill O'Reilly and he sure didn't come close
to destroying him. * Gee, funny that you criticize Hannity, but
obviously watch those two. If *Hannity is Springer, then what are those two
clowns?

Comedians. Smart comedians who point out idiocy wherever it is
found. I guess you haven't heard Stewart go off on Obama, huh?

BTW, there's very little in this world that should cause someone to
entirely lose their sense of humor. Loved one got cancer? Really bad
time to lose your sense of humor. Like the saying goes - you either
laugh or you cry. I prefer to laugh even when I feel like crying.

R

On Oct 18, 3:24*pm, Oren wrote:

I'd LOVE to see Obama go on the Hannity show.

I'd rather see Obama go on Stewart's show. He'd ask the tougher
questions that would penetrate the politician armor. Stewart's the
one that feels let down by Obama _after_ working so hard to get him
elected. Hannity was let down when Obama got elected. Big
difference.

R

On Oct 18, 12:18*pm, "
wrote:

I've seen Stewart engage Bill O'Reilly and he sure didn't come close
to destroying him.

Bill O'Reilly lives in my hometown. I now live in the next town
over. His reputation is far better the further away from him you
are. He talks a great game, he just doesn't live it.

R

On 10/18/11 03:42 pm, RicodJour wrote:

I'd LOVE to see Obama go on the Hannity show.

I'd rather see Obama go on Stewart's show. He'd ask the tougher
questions that would penetrate the politician armor. Stewart's the
one that feels let down by Obama _after_ working so hard to get him
elected. Hannity was let down when Obama got elected. Big
difference.

Many people who voted for Obama feel let down -- nothing of significance
has changed. The same big donors who pull the strings of the puppet
members of Congress are still the ones really in charge.

Perce

wrote in message
...
stuff snipped

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do.

I respectfully submit that may be backwards. I think it was the government
that was doing what Wall St. told it to do. The system was set up so that
Wall St. made money even when a house was sold to someone who probably
couldn't make the payments. They got fees, commissions and more fees.
Sadly, the states made loads of money in real estate transfer fees, real
estate taxes, etc.

--
Bobby G.

Hannity played a obvious cut and snip of O'mumble commenting
on the theft of his teleprompter.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I think Hannity would
wrap O'bumble in a tight little ball, and shoot baskets with
the president. Because Hannity is from the party of No.
Hannity wants his grand mother to eat dog food. But, Obama
wants to give you health care, paid for by a tax on the
wealthiest Americans who didn't pay their fair share.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Oren" wrote in message
...

I'd LOVE to see Obama go on the Hannity show.

One of them will walk away with two black eyes. Like a
boxing match,
and then a fight breaks out.

LMAO...

Plenty has changed. Regulation and taxes and spending are
up. Business are idle, for fear of the new regulations.
Unemployment has gone way up. Change it back!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote in message ...

Many people who voted for Obama feel let down -- nothing of
significance
has changed. The same big donors who pull the strings of the
puppet
members of Congress are still the ones really in charge.

Perce

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:30:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:13:37 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/18/11 03:42 pm, RicodJour wrote:

I'd LOVE to see Obama go on the Hannity show.

I'd rather see Obama go on Stewart's show. He'd ask the tougher
questions that would penetrate the politician armor. Stewart's the
one that feels let down by Obama _after_ working so hard to get him
elected. Hannity was let down when Obama got elected. Big
difference.

Many people who voted for Obama feel let down -- nothing of significance
has changed. The same big donors who pull the strings of the puppet
members of Congress are still the ones really in charge.

Perce

Obama took $16 million from Wall Street in 2008. Why would we expect
anything to change.

Minor correction. Obama has taken $18.xM dollars from Wall Street. The
biggest contributions in modern politics for a president.

These people protest?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:
WS.

You mean when the Dems were in charge of Congress?

You'll note that I didn't say the Republicans did it. At least in that
paragraph.
(That's a pre-emptive strike (g).

(-: But you'd have to be living in a deep, dark cave not to
know that they generally support less regulation and believe that the free
market is the perfect solution to all our woes. And yet their hands were
out to Uncle Sam when the free market threatened to collapse the entire
system. Still, they are pushing to roll back or neutralize every attempt at
reform. Why? Because an unreformed market lets them get away with robbery
of the middle class with almost nothing to stop them. People are realizing
this all over the globe.

As do the Dems until it comes out to bite their asses and then they
Take Great Amounts Of Umbrage and blame the GOP. The ONLY Dem to my
mind who has any credibility in this is Barney Frank who was the only
currently serving Dem in either House that voted against ALL the
changes. The Dems voted in overwhelming numbers for all of the bills
that made this possible.
"We don't have a crisis at Freddie Mac and especially at Fannie
Mae", Maxine Waters in 2004.
Gregory Meeks is actually ****ed off (his words) at the GOP for
bringing this up since he sees no problems with the GSEs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Never have been able to figure out if this is plain old selective
perception or Soviet-style rewriting of history.





And they pay for them. The top 20% (actually) pay a greater %age of
the income taxes than their %age of income.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Kurt. Much more of the wealthy's
income derives not from paychecks, but from investments so fair comparisons
are hard to make. But just like HeyBub claiming our corporate tax rate is
among the highest in the world, the truth is that it's only on paper. GE
pays NO taxes along with a boatload of companies, some of whom even get
money back from the government.
Nonsense this the amount of taxes paid. The amount of income they
get and the amount of taxes they pay. The top 1% get 16% of the income
yet pay 34.3% of income taxes. This is income on their income taxes. The
top 1% pay an effective rate of 20.4% while the two lowest quintiles
have a negative rate because they get more back than they put in
(credits over and above whatever they get back in withholding). If you
do the total effective rate (including SS and excise taxes (the rate
runs around 31% and 4.5% respectively.
Those in the top 1% who pay no taxes at all ran to much less than
1/10 of a percent of the total. IRS records show over the last few years
the middle class is the group that has seen the highest growth (in
numbers anyway) of those paying no income taxes. (All of these are from
readily available IRS tables if you want to look around.)


It's a complicated picture, but the bottom line is that people at the bottom
are doing a hell of a lot worse, percentage-wise in nearly every economic
measure while the wealthy get even richer. They pay a greater proportion of
their income in taxes, payroll taxes and sales taxes than the rich. That's
why Cain's 9-9-9 proposal is going to fall flat on its face. It gives the
rich an even GREATER break than they've been getting. That's a recipe for
disaster and widespread social unrest. Ironically, his campaign will
probably fail because he can't raise enough money to be an actual player.

But they don't pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes, as
the effective rates show. The Total shows that doesn't even occur when
you fold in SS and excise taxes.

The money came out of the stock market in 2008 because a lot of people (like
me) think it's no longer an investment in America but a way for the
uber-rich to amass even more wealth through means that do not help the
country's economy grow in a productive way. With their access to high speed
trading and other "unfair" maneuvers, they can exit a bear market with far
more skin than the mom and pop investors of the country, who get stuck with
the largest percentage of the loss. Until there's some serious reform on
Wall St. our economy is going to stay flat - or worse.
Too bad. I started buying and am WAY up since then, even with the
pullbacks. There has never been a 10-year period (including this one)
where the S&P has returned less than 8% on an annualized basis. Not my
fault (or the bankers for that matter) that most people pull their money
out at exactly the wrong time.
You don't get out of bear markets by high speed trading, or other
unfair methods. Bear markets are by definition falls of 10% or more. You
get out of them by paying attention, and selling for cash when you think
it is time. This is psychology (one of the things I am fighting is the
fact that people often wed their ideas more strongly than their spouses.
I hate to sell my children and when that happens I hold on longer than I
KNOW I should. THat is what messes people up.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle29436.htm

On Oct 18, 12:00*pm, harry wrote:
On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 17, 10:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:34*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. *Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. * Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. *What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

If you make a plan with a definate goal and stay the course then you
have little to complain about. *If it wasn't your plan then get your
own, just being along for the ride is your choice.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? *Social plan? *How's
the war going (pick one)?

My current economic plan is working and so is my social plan. *The
plan and the goal were set a long time ago and while there have been
some detours along the way, the plan and goal are still on track.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are
just dandy? *I'm guessing not one.

You would be guessing wrong which is the real issue when people start
claiming they represent the 99%. *They DON"T.

Things have to change. *That much is clear. *So we can all start
pulling our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in
unison.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people
names and listening.

I can agree with that but must also include taking responsibility for
yourself first before attempting to direct others. *The one thing that
has been obvious from all the news coverage and interviews is that
everyone is demanding that they get this and they get that but not one
seems to be willing to give anything in return.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks.

What they are really complaining about is that they have suddenly
discovered that it ain't as easy as they want and that ****es them
off. Their future hasn't been stolen at all but it might just mean
that they actually have to work for it instead of having it handed to
them on a silver and glod platter. The damn economy is now and has
always been an up and down moving target. Everybody thinks it will
always go up with out end and without the occasional correction. They
get greedy and start betting on making a killing in the market or land
or some other wild bet. You gamble, you may win or you may loose.

On Oct 18, 12:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks".

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.

As it has many times before and due to ignorance and greed it will
again.

The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do. Create a
booming housing market among buyers who were too broke to actually
afford houses.. It was the government that operated Fannie, Freddie,
The Federal Reserve and who repealed virtually all of the New Deal
regulation. You could not have had the derivatives without the CFMA of
2000.

It's like saying that Bill Gates is worth n-billion dollars based on
the paper value of his stock. Sounds good but if Gates decided to try
and cash in all of that stock his billions would evaporate pretty
quickly. The same is true in the housing market and any other market
that you can name. The value is totally dependent on what people are
willing to pay and if they suddenly decide they can't pay as much, the
market is going to go down. It can almost be guaranteed that any
market that goes up to fast, or goes up continously for too long is
headed for a crash unless there is some true growth to drive that
market. There was no real growth driving the housing market and like
it did in the 70's, the speculation reached a saturation point and
down it came. The banks might have made it easier than it should have
been but they were obviously just as stupid as were the public that
was buying more than they knew they could afford in the belief it was
easy money.

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.
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. 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?

On Oct 18, 11:01*pm, wrote:

They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.
The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped. The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.

....and did what? Hid it in their mattresses?

I view it as little different than drug dealing. An unsustainable
business model that appears to be #winning for a while, but can't
last.

As long as corporations are considered to be people and have the same
rights, and campaign contributions pour in from business - again, akin
to protection money - it will be bad business as usual. A campaign
contribution is a bribe, pure and simple, regardless of where it comes
from.

My next windmill to tilt at will be the free advertising that
politicians get to stick up and pollute the landscape as election time
rolls around, as if political office should be a popularity contest
based on brand recognition. Time to shake some cages...

R

On Oct 18, 6:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks".

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do. Create a
booming housing market among buyers who were too broke to actually
afford houses.. It was the government that operated Fannie, Freddie,
The Federal Reserve and who repealed virtually all of the New Deal
regulation. You could not have had the derivatives without the CFMA of
2000.

What you are talking about is the difference between money and wealth.
It has been looted to the extent that what was once general wealth has
been transferred to the pockets of the rich by means of the housing
scam and the fraudulent sale of worthless financial products.
With malice aforethought I think you call it over there.
Collusion between a crooked political system and the "financial
industry"

On Oct 19, 12:03*am, BobR wrote:
On Oct 18, 12:00*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:34*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. *Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. * Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. *What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

If you make a plan with a definate goal and stay the course then you
have little to complain about. *If it wasn't your plan then get your
own, just being along for the ride is your choice.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? *Social plan? *How's
the war going (pick one)?

My current economic plan is working and so is my social plan. *The
plan and the goal were set a long time ago and while there have been
some detours along the way, the plan and goal are still on track.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are
just dandy? *I'm guessing not one.

You would be guessing wrong which is the real issue when people start
claiming they represent the 99%. *They DON"T.

Things have to change. *That much is clear. *So we can all start
pulling our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in
unison.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people
names and listening.

I can agree with that but must also include taking responsibility for
yourself first before attempting to direct others. *The one thing that
has been obvious from all the news coverage and interviews is that
everyone is demanding that they get this and they get that but not one
seems to be willing to give anything in return.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks.

What they are really complaining about is that they have suddenly
discovered that it ain't as easy as they want and that ****es them
off. *Their future hasn't been stolen at all but it might just mean
that they actually have to work for it instead of having it handed to
them on a silver and glod platter. *The damn economy is now and has
always been an up and down moving target. *Everybody thinks it will
always go up with out end and without the occasional correction. *They
get greedy and start betting on making a killing in the market or land
or some other wild bet. *You gamble, you may win or you may loose.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is not how normal people live.
We now have a rich elite and thay gamble and if they win they keep. If
they lose they coming running to the taxpayer.

On Oct 19, 12:15*am, BobR wrote:
On Oct 18, 12:58*pm, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks".

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.

As it has many times before and due to ignorance and greed it will
again.

The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do. Create a
booming housing market among buyers who were too broke to actually
afford houses.. It was the government that operated Fannie, Freddie,
The Federal Reserve and who repealed virtually all of the New Deal
regulation. You could not have had the derivatives without the CFMA of
2000.

It's like saying that Bill Gates is worth n-billion dollars based on
the paper value of his stock. *Sounds good but if Gates decided to try
and cash in all of that stock his billions would evaporate pretty
quickly. *The same is true in the housing market and any other market
that you can name. *The value is totally dependent on what people are
willing to pay and if they suddenly decide they can't pay as much, the
market is going to go down. *It can almost be guaranteed that any
market that goes up to fast, or goes up continously for too long is
headed for a crash unless there is some true growth to drive that
market. *There was no real growth driving the housing market and like
it did in the 70's, the speculation reached a saturation point and
down it came. *The banks might have made it easier than it should have
been but they were obviously just as stupid as were the public that
was buying more than they knew they could afford in the belief it was
easy money.

It was when they could sell their worthless loans to someone else.
(Including the EU/UK banks.)
It was all part of a plan. They knew what they were about.
But what goes around comes around.

On Oct 19, 4:01*am, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:23:21 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
stuff snipped

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do.

I respectfully submit that may be backwards. *I think it was the government
that was doing what Wall St. told it to do. *The system was set up so that
Wall St. made money even when a house was sold to someone who probably
couldn't make the payments. *They got fees, commissions and more fees.
Sadly, the states made loads of money in real estate transfer fees, real
estate taxes, etc.

They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.
The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped. The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. It was circle. The loans were sold on the other banks.
When the bubble collapsed, everybody lost out.
But the only ones to be bailed out were the banks.
Nobody helped the poor homeowner in negative equity and no job (the
99%)
That is the injustice.

On Oct 19, 4:25*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:01*pm, wrote:



They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.
The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped. The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.

...and did what? *Hid it in their mattresses?

I view it as little different than drug dealing. *An unsustainable
business model that appears to be #winning for a while, but can't
last.

As long as corporations are considered to be people and have the same
rights, and campaign contributions pour in from business - again, akin
to protection money - it will be bad business as usual. *A campaign
contribution is a bribe, pure and simple, regardless of where it comes
from.

My next windmill to tilt at will be the free advertising that
politicians get to stick up and pollute the landscape as election time
rolls around, as if political office should be a popularity contest
based on brand recognition. *Time to shake some cages...

R

Time to mount heads on poles in fact.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:15:02 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Lobbyists get a bad rap; they are absolutely necessary to a
functioning government.

In sum, lobbyists provide FREE expert advice on pending legislation.
Would you want your local congress-critter to vote for the rail tariff
on hydrogenated yak-fat? Hell, he probably doesn't even know what a
yak is, let alone what the fifty-cents per hdwt tariff would do to the
struggling yak-fat business.

Very true. But it isn't totally out of the goodness of their hearts that
the lobbyists give "free" advice. They are PAID to skew legislation to
their patrons' advantage. Whether the congresscritters can always figure
that out AND act in the coomon interest is very doubtful.

Although HB mentioned yak fat lobbyists, and thus sorta steered the
conversation toward the business side, if you look at contributions, the
biggest as of last year was ATT (before the T-Mobile merger so I can
only guess what they are spending now). But the next 5 were unions, a
couple of environmental groups and then the next business group (the
Chamber of Commerce). The lobbyists lists were a little different, but
still not exactly heavily laded with business people in the top 20.
Anyway, business lobbying and contributions are not the only bad
influence on CC's.


Went to a meeting with my Rep this PM. He says that he was surprised
to find that the single largest group of lobbyists are those of
various GVT Agencies (FBI, Yak Fat Board, etc) and Levels of Gvt
(state, city, county, etc)

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:
WS.

You mean when the Dems were in charge of Congress?

You'll note that I didn't say the Republicans did it. At least in that
paragraph.

(That's a pre-emptive strike (g).

g

(-: But you'd have to be living in a deep, dark cave not to
know that they generally support less regulation and believe that the
free
market is the perfect solution to all our woes. And yet their hands
were
out to Uncle Sam when the free market threatened to collapse the entire
system. Still, they are pushing to roll back or neutralize every
attempt at
reform. Why? Because an unreformed market lets them get away with
robbery
of the middle class with almost nothing to stop them. People are
realizing
this all over the globe.

As do the Dems until it comes out to bite their asses and then they
Take Great Amounts Of Umbrage and blame the GOP. The ONLY Dem to my
mind who has any credibility in this is Barney Frank who was the only
currently serving Dem in either House that voted against ALL the
changes. The Dems voted in overwhelming numbers for all of the bills
that made this possible.

As he's so fond of saying "Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants
to die."

"We don't have a crisis at Freddie Mac and especially at Fannie
Mae", Maxine Waters in 2004.
Gregory Meeks is actually ****ed off (his words) at the GOP for
bringing this up since he sees no problems with the GSEs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

YouTube doesn't work so well with dial-up.

Never have been able to figure out if this is plain old selective
perception or Soviet-style rewriting of history.

The whole world's engaged in Soviet-style rewriting of history. That's why
Wikipedia finally had to put a stop to the "everyone can edit" mode for the
more controversial subjects. It's a form of political Alzheimer's where
people don't remember the sins of their own party but never forget the sins
of the opposition. When I owned a small business, I was a die-hard
Republican but the belief that the free market can solve all the world's
problems eventually drove me wild. Corporations have no social conscience
or sense of morality. It has to be imposed externally as business has shown
time and time again. That's not a bad thing, it's just a fact of life.
Even the founding fathers realized that every process had to have checks and
balances. Government balances the interests of businesses against the
interests of citizens.

I laughed when Ron Paul suggested we abolish the Interior Dept. Who's going
to manage oil and gas leasing? The IRS? Speaking of which, the latest
interesting example is how a Canadian company, TransCanada is trying to
condemn American properties on the route of the proposed pipelines. In
Texas, it was a cinch for a foreign company to ram the pipeline through
anywhere they wanted. Texas laws, as you might imagine, favor oil companies
over citizen's rights. In other states, the routing has not been quite so
easy.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/articl...Canadian-Twist

http://tinyurl.com/65trhl6

"In addition to enraging those along the proposed pipeline's 1,700-mile
path, the tactics have many people questioning whether a foreign company can
pressure landowners without a permit from the State Department - the agency
charged with determining whether the project is in the "national
interest."

And they pay for them. The top 20% (actually) pay a greater %age of
the income taxes than their %age of income.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Kurt. Much more of the
wealthy's
income derives not from paychecks, but from investments so fair comparis
ons
are hard to make. But just like HeyBub claiming our corporate tax rate
is
among the highest in the world, the truth is that it's only on paper.
GE
pays NO taxes along with a boatload of companies, some of whom even get
money back from the government.

Nonsense this the amount of taxes paid.

Are you *sure* you were a journalist? (-: I really do have some serious
trouble figuring out what you're trying to say at times. This is one of
them. I pasted the above sentence into Word and even it's confused. Please
say again.

The amount of income they get and the amount of taxes they pay.

Ditto. Do you post these messages during or after cocktail hour. g

The top 1% get 16% of the income yet pay 34.3% of income taxes.

What's the problem? They have made the most of the system's many benefits.
While I can understand, in principle, that people should get to keep
everything they've earned, in reality, it doesn't bother me much that a
hedge fund boss earning $100M gets to part with a lot of it especially since
I'm pretty sure part of it came from MY pension fund. When wealth gets
overconcentrated, the whole economy suffers and social unrest begins to
form, especially if they just sit on the cash and don't invest in productive
AMERICAN businesses. If that money helps build up China's manufacturing
prowess, I'm for having them pay 50% or more of their income in taxes. As
HomeGuy's post noted, the uber-rich make lots of money just by having money.

This is income on their income taxes. The top 1% pay an effective rate
of 20.4% while the two lowest
quintiles have a negative rate because they get more back than they put in
(credits over and above whatever they get back in withholding). If you
do the total effective rate (including SS and excise taxes (the rate
runs around 31% and 4.5% respectively.

I can only assume from your familiarity with how the rich are taxed that
you're among them. More power to you. If that's true, it can't be from
working as a nurse for the VA. I assume it's family money. The question I
have is this: Which quintiles would you rather be in, even with the
egregious tax rates?

Those in the top 1% who pay no taxes at all ran to much less than
1/10 of a percent of the total. IRS records show over the last few years
the middle class is the group that has seen the highest growth (in
numbers anyway) of those paying no income taxes. (All of these are from
readily available IRS tables if you want to look around.)

All of which sadly supports my premise that the middle class is losing so
much ground that they're dropping into the well where the government helps
them instead of vice-versa. That's not good.

It's a complicated picture, but the bottom line is that people at the
bottom
are doing a hell of a lot worse, percentage-wise in nearly every
economic
measure while the wealthy get even richer. They pay a greater
proportion of
their income in taxes, payroll taxes and sales taxes than the rich.
That's
why Cain's 9-9-9 proposal is going to fall flat on its face. It gives
the
rich an even GREATER break than they've been getting. That's a recipe
for
disaster and widespread social unrest. Ironically, his campaign will
probably fail because he can't raise enough money to be an actual
player.

But they don't pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes, as
the effective rates show.

Poor pronoun reference. I am going to send the ghost of my seventh grade
English teacher, Miss Mayefsky to haunt your PC. Which 'they' are you
referring to?

The Total shows that doesn't even occur when you fold in SS and excise
taxes.

The Total? Is that like that guy from the Jersey Shore, the "Situation?"
(-:

The money came out of the stock market in 2008 because a lot of people
(like
me) think it's no longer an investment in America but a way for the
uber-rich to amass even more wealth through means that do not help the
country's economy grow in a productive way. With their access to high
speed
trading and other "unfair" maneuvers, they can exit a bear market with
far
more skin than the mom and pop investors of the country, who get stuck
with
the largest percentage of the loss. Until there's some serious reform
on
Wall St. our economy is going to stay flat - or worse.

Too bad. I started buying and am WAY up since then, even with the
pullbacks. There has never been a 10-year period (including this one)
where the S&P has returned less than 8% on an annualized basis. Not my
fault (or the bankers for that matter) that most people pull their money
out at exactly the wrong time.

My pension's in CREF stock. I cashed out all my other stock. CREF's down a
Ferrari's worth but fortunately my cash out, even though it was a little
early, preserved my principle. Cashing out a little too early is still a
lot better than being a little late. The problem with that adage about
"never been a 10 year period" is that people who invest in the market can
get, as Hank Paulson so glibly said, "zeroed out." When you get to your
sixties, 10 year averages don't mean quite so much as when you're in your
thirties and can ride out the valleys.

What I was trying to say is that when GM stockholders lose everything, they
lose confidence in the market as a whole. Same with Enron. That has an
effect. I think the OWS protests might have an initial bad effect as well.
In the long run, much needed reform that restores confidence in the market
could be very helpful.

You don't get out of bear markets by high speed trading, or other
unfair methods.

Why are they so enormously popular and under the scrutiny of the SEC, then?
If you see trouble coming and you can execute trades faster than most other
people, you have an advantage and the recent closing and rolling back of a
stock whose name I can't remember shows how fast the bottom can fall out
with automated trading that reacts to falling prices. If my sell order
beats yours to the floor, I'm in much better shape. Brokerages are always
going to favor their richest customers. The stock market needs some serious
reform and I am hoping OWS triggers some of it.

Bear markets are by definition falls of 10% or more. You
get out of them by paying attention, and selling for cash when you think
it is time. This is psychology (one of the things I am fighting is the
fact that people often wed their ideas more strongly than their spouses.
I hate to sell my children and when that happens I hold on longer than I
KNOW I should. THat is what messes people up.

My gut churned for weeks after I closed out my non-pension related holdings.
Ironically, when my CREF account dropped like a paralyzed falcon this
quarter I actually felt GOOD about it because I still had the cash from my
big sell-off although chasing even a mediocre return outside the market is
getting difficult. I'm starting a real estate venture with my god-daughter
using some of that cash on the belief that getting her started, even at a
loss, means that she'll be able to hit the ground running with a lot of
experience under her belt when the market returns.

I've discovered a secret - bidding super low on empty, foreclosed properties
and then reporting all the code violations I can find on that property to
the county. I assume that sooner or later the bank is going to think "it's
costing us a LOT of money to hold this property so we might as well take the
lowball offer." I think we're coming close to acquiring a house for an
outrageously low price as a result. (-:

--
Bobby G.

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.