Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[mudwhistle]

The money leads to the 1%.

Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...

Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:

"'This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'”

Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer

Which side are you on?
OWS or Goldman Sachs?

NEITHER! I am on the side of the rule of law and the constitution. That means, that whoever you are, you play by the laws and the constitution, and by what they actually say, NOT what you think they ought to say. If you foment, create, or advocate, insurrection and/or civil disorder in this Republic for whatever purpose, I will oppose you! PERIOD!

Do you oppose this sentiment from a convicted financial criminal?

"We have no respect for the laws.

"We consider your codes of ethics, and your laws, weaknesses to be exploited in the execution of our crimes.

"So the prosecutors, hopefully most prosecutors, are honest if they're playing by the set of the rules; they're hampered by the illegal constraints.

"The white-collar criminal has no legal constraints. You subpoena documents, we destroy documents; you subpoena witnesses, we lie. So you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the white-collared criminal.

"In effect, we're economic predators. We're serial economic predators; we impose a collective harm on society; time is always on our side, not on, not on the side of justice, unfortunately.”

The Wall Street Crime Syndrome: Ten Reasons Why the Banksters "Get Away With It"

Do you believe ethics and laws are weaknesses?

Do the crimes of the 1% qualify as insurrection or civil disorder?

Do the people ever have an obligation to dissolve government and create a new one?

Not it you don't want to get shot in the attempt.

 

[editec]

Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?

Excellent question.

One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.

Yep. How about demanding answers from their supporters in D.C.?

At least SOME of the OWS folks are doing exactly that.

I can tell you one thing based on the lefties I know.

NOne of them are especially fond of Obama.

Few of them think the DEM party gives much hope for change in this economy.

The LEFT, that is to say the REAL left, not those liberal Dems, hasn't supported the DNC since the Kennedy Administration.

I think that in the l;ast election most of those lefties voted for Obama, not so much expecting hope or change, but merely because the alternative seemed so much worse than Obama.

And based on how Obama responded when the economy collapsed, given for example the fact that he DID help out a lot of Americans with food stamps and extentions of unemployment insurance, I guess they were right about that.

When it comes to domestic social welfare policies, the Dems are marginally less offensive than the GOP.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, that.

 

[Dragon]

I was responding to what was written.

Of course you weren't; you never do. At least not with anything pertinent, not with anything that could be called a direct statement.

You just didn't understand my point.

You don't make points. You create diversions, you make threats, you erect straw men, you employ logical fallacies. You never make points. Here, I'll demonstrate:

I don't think the GOP is controlling this in any shape or form.

Straw man; this isn't about the Republican Party.

There are some who are playing along with the socialists from the left primarily because they themselves are left-leaning socialist running as conservatives.

Diversion; nothing to do with what is being discussed at all.

The Masters as you call them are all socialists. If the RINOs were to try to split from them they'd become targets of a smear campaign like Herman Cain. They want Mitt Romney because he plays their game.

Diversion; nothing to do with what is being discussed at all. (Again, this is not about the Republican Party.)

The mess going on in Greece is just like the mess Obama brought to America. Socialist countries using Greece as a pawn to play their Wealth Distribution games, sucking cash from their own countries in effect robbing their own people of trillions.

Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all.

Didn't it look familiar? Didn't it look the same as the mess that hit us when Obama was elected

Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, no, it didn't look familiar and in fact it wasn't.)

You saw what happened to the Greek President when he tried to ask the people what they thought of the bailouts through referendum. They had him go in front of his own government and go through the insult of a confidence vote. He barely squeaked by. Now he's resigning in disgrace. Count that as another one of Obama's government take-downs and add it to Egypt, Libya, and several others.

Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, a totally bizarre and irrational conspiracy theory without foundation.)

Soon Syria's President will come under the knife. No big loss, but governments are falling all over the place. There are no honest brokers in the world anymore. Obama is trying to bring down renegade governors in America. Wisconsin, Alabama, Arizona, anyone who bucks his plan becomes a focus of protests and lawsuits.

Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, a totally bizarre and irrational conspiracy theory without foundation.)

This is the threat we face when you have an irresponsible jerk in our White House. Our Presidents have been holding off the dogs and now Obama is just letting all of this happen. He doesn't give a damn. He figures he's safe. The next GOP president will catch hell going through the massive struggle it will be to clean this mess up, and the press is ready to tie into ass.

Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, a totally bizarre and irrational conspiracy theory without foundation.) This isn't about Obama or the Democrats anymore than it is about the Republicans.

Nothing there, Muddy. Nothing but formless goo and weirdness. You make no points.

 

[georgephillip]

NEITHER! I am on the side of the rule of law and the constitution. That means, that whoever you are, you play by the laws and the constitution, and by what they actually say, NOT what you think they ought to say. If you foment, create, or advocate, insurrection and/or civil disorder in this Republic for whatever purpose, I will oppose you! PERIOD!

Do you oppose this sentiment from a convicted financial criminal?

"We have no respect for the laws.

"We consider your codes of ethics, and your laws, weaknesses to be exploited in the execution of our crimes.

"So the prosecutors, hopefully most prosecutors, are honest if they're playing by the set of the rules; they're hampered by the illegal constraints.

"The white-collar criminal has no legal constraints. You subpoena documents, we destroy documents; you subpoena witnesses, we lie. So you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the white-collared criminal.

"In effect, we're economic predators. We're serial economic predators; we impose a collective harm on society; time is always on our side, not on, not on the side of justice, unfortunately.”

The Wall Street Crime Syndrome: Ten Reasons Why the Banksters "Get Away With It"

Do you believe ethics and laws are weaknesses?

Do the crimes of the 1% qualify as insurrection or civil disorder?

Do the people ever have an obligation to dissolve government and create a new one?

Not it you don't want to get shot in the attempt.

Are you assuming the only way to dissolve this government is through violence?

If millions of US voters go into the polls next November and FLUSH hundreds of incumbents, Republicans AND Democrats alike, from DC in a single news cycle, who is going to shoot them?

David Rockefeller or George Soros?

 

[Katzndogz]

And replace those ousted incumbents with who?

Largely you will get more of the same. The liberals will still want more liberalism. The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.

The problem isn't with the politicians. It's with the people. The nation is too fractured to continue whole. It needs to break up. Those states that demand honesty will get it. Those states that will sacrifice honesty for promises of more public benefits will get politicians that promise to rob Peter to pay Paul, after they get their cut.

 

[Divine Wind]

And replace those ousted incumbents with who?

Largely you will get more of the same. The liberals will still want more liberalism. The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.

The problem isn't with the politicians. It's with the people. .

Agreed "it's with the people". Disagreed breaking up the Union is the best way to resolve our problems. Georgephillip has the right idea, more voters need to become involved from local elections on up. Consider the 2008 Presidential election; one of the most controversial elections in memory of those voting in it yet only 56.8% of voters bothered to get off their asses to vote? WTF?

The problem is indeed "We, the People". Once we realize it and, more of us decide to do something about it be it protesting, contacting our Congressional representatives, voting and/or contacting others to become equally more involved, then the better things will become. It's the way our system was set up and it works.....but it only works if we do our part as citizens.

 

[Katzndogz]

You say that because you firmly believe that the majority would vote for new or expansion of social programs. If millions of people got off their butts and voted to end welfare programs and social safety nets you would not be imagining that increasing the number of voters is such a good idea. When people are generally satisfied with the way things are going, they are least likely to vote. I have not voted in a school board election in 30 years. I don't care. Let someone who cares vote. Someone with kids. They can vote.

Low voter turnout only means that whatever side they are on, the voter is generally satisfied with the way things are going. When the Judges who voted for same sex marriage in Iowa came up for reelection there was a large voter turnout, and those Judges lost. Get people something they care about and they are likely to vote. Hopefully the OWS protests will motivate more people to oust the democrats because they OWN these protests.

 

[Intense]

The money leads to the 1%.

Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...

Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:

"'This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'”

Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer

Which side are you on?
OWS or Goldman Sachs?

Yep, allot of it does, but you are missing the trail. What if your diversion is just another channel to the same end? Take charge of your Life, your Resources, your choices. Get liberated. Join the Free Market of small Enterprise, and take a break from the Bullshit. Imposing on others is not exactly taking a break, just to be clear.

Just to be clear, are you saying Goldman Sachs and other investment banks should not face prosecution for control accounting fraud? Can you answer that simple question without deflection or extraneous capitalization?

The Law applies to Everyone without Partiality. Serving Justice is not about seeking Sides, it is about fair, honest, and reasonable, resolution.

Each Side has Rights, Each Side has Fault. Resolution is not that simple, Government involvement effects the equation in multiple ways, at different levels.

We seek to Establish Justice, Maintain, and Service It. Our Allegiance is to doing the Right thing, in the Right Measure, at the Right time. When We fail to do that, things get more complicated. Claiming to Be Just, while at the same time Obstructing it, seems to be what Government is getting really good at. That promotes both Ill Will and Cheating. Image is nothing compared to Substance.

 

[Intense]

And replace those ousted incumbents with who?

Largely you will get more of the same. The liberals will still want more liberalism. The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.

The problem isn't with the politicians. It's with the people. .

Agreed "it's with the people". Disagreed breaking up the Union is the best way to resolve our problems. Georgephillip has the right idea, more voters need to become involved from local elections on up. Consider the 2008 Presidential election; one of the most controversial elections in memory of those voting in it yet only 56.8% of voters bothered to get off their asses to vote? WTF?

The problem is indeed "We, the People". Once we realize it and, more of us decide to do something about it be it protesting, contacting our Congressional representatives, voting and/or contacting others to become equally more involved, then the better things will become. It's the way our system was set up and it works.....but it only works if we do our part as citizens.

We are Each Human Beings First, both Citizens and Non-citizens. for some of us, that comes before Special Interest. The rest, need to learn that Truth.

 

[georgephillip]

And replace those ousted incumbents with who?

Largely you will get more of the same. The liberals will still want more liberalism. The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.

The problem isn't with the politicians. It's with the people. The nation is too fractured to continue whole. It needs to break up. Those states that demand honesty will get it. Those states that will sacrifice honesty for promises of more public benefits will get politicians that promise to rob Peter to pay Paul, after they get their cut.

Replace the incumbents with Greens, Libertarians, Independents...whatever. Wall Street and the richest 1% of Americans use campaign contributions to control both corporate parties. Some of those third party replacements will probably succumb to corporate bribes. Others won't. Continuing to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat is guaranteed to change nothing as far as Wall Street or the Pentagon are concerned; if your happy with the status quo, vote Republican OR Democrat.

How are you defining "honesty" and "public benefits"?

Where's the conflict between the two?

 

[Katzndogz]

I vote for those who indicate a willingness to end social programs, social engineering and nudge people into taking care of themselves. In addition, I ask that they lie to me as little as possible and stay out of my way. Do what the government is supposed to do, provide for the national defense.

Ideally, it would be someone who would end the various forms of social programming like National Endownment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, the EPA, and all those federal outreach programs as well as the Department of Education. Housing and Urban Development.

I don't see many Greenies, Libertarians or democrats interested.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?

 

[Dragon]

Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?

Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?

Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.

Thanks for the correction.

It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.

Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?

 

[The Gadfly]

The money leads to the 1%.

Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...

Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:

"'This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'”

Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer

Which side are you on?
OWS or Goldman Sachs?

Yep, allot of it does, but you are missing the trail. What if your diversion is just another channel to the same end? Take charge of your Life, your Resources, your choices. Get liberated. Join the Free Market of small Enterprise, and take a break from the Bullshit. Imposing on others is not exactly taking a break, just to be clear.

Just to be clear, are you saying Goldman Sachs and other investment banks should not face prosecution for control accounting fraud? Can you answer that simple question without deflection or extraneous capitalization?

IF there is sufficient probative evidence that people have broken the law, then by all means, indict them, prosecute them and convict them in a court of law as the facts warrant.We have laws and regulations that govern the conduct of Wall Street firms, and the banks. If there is evidence these have been violated, and by whom, then produce it. If on the other hand, you want to try people for "crimes" you think they "must" have committed, and there is not sufficient evidence that any actual crimes occurred to be presented to a federal grand jury for indictment, you are making false accusations, and should shut up. We have a functioning system of jurisprudence for the purpose; we have investigative agencies and prosecutors whose function it is to pursue any individual on Wall St. or elsewhere who has committed financial crimes, and bring them before the bar of justice. Anyone so accused has the same rights to due process as anyone else; no more, and no less. YOU, however, have exactly ZERO standing to demand political "Show trials" for imagined crimes which do not meet the standard for prosecution under existing law. We are going to have justice under the law here, NOT a lynch mob!

 

[georgephillip]

"And William K. Black - the senior regulator during the S&L crisis, and an Associate Professor of both Economics and Law at the University of Missouri - says that the Prompt Corrective Action Law (PCA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831o, not only authorizes the government to seize insolvent banks, it mandates it, and that the Bush and Obama administrations broke the law by refusing to close insolvent banks.

"Why Wall Street Reforms Have Stalled by William K. Black, New York Times, Sept 11, 2009..."

The Money party

In case you haven't noticed, the richest 1% have bought enough elected Republicans AND Democrats over the last thirty years to make your childish squeals about a "functioning system of jurisprudence" less meaningful than Hope and Change.

According to Bill Black the FBI began warning of an "epidemic of mortgage fraud...with 80% of the fraud coming from lenders" as early as 2004. Bush and Obama obviously couldn't care less. Maybe that's because they serve the same (criminal) 1% base?

 

[Katzndogz]

A night at Occupy Wall Street.

It's over. All but the mopping up.

New York Post reporter spends night with Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park - NYPOST.com

“Every single night it’s the same thing. I mean, some guy was a victim of rape!” an officer snarls. “There comes a time when it’s over. This is a disaster. It’s all we’re doing, every two seconds, is locking somebody up every time. It’s done.

“It’s done,” he repeats. “Occupy Wall Street is no longer a protest.”

Scenes like this -- and far worse -- have been playing out since the Zuccotti Park “occupation” began on Sept. 17.

The parcel is now a sliver of madness, rife with sex attacks, robberies and vigilante justice.


Read more: New York Post reporter spends night with Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park - NYPOST.com

 

[georgephillip]

"Occupy Wall Street Agenda
Monday, November 7

Showing events after 11/7. Look for earlier events
Monday, November 7
9:00am
This is What Democracy Looks Like -- Art Exhibition
10:30am
Washington Heights to Harlem to Wall Street March
12:00pm
Think Tank Discussion
12:00pm
Non-Violent ..."

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?

Of course.

Violence and the threat of violence are the core of the left.

There is Nothing Noble in that Editec. I know influence through Reason and valid argument is tough for a group so unfocused, with so many contradictory claims and denials, but it is the High Road. We the People, have a Right to be Concerned about Riot and Insurrection. Why would you even question that?

Reason is the domain of the right. The left seeks change through violence, always.

 

[Intense]

Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?

Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.

Thanks for the correction.

It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.

Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?

Why?

How about starting by listing your top 3 Grievances, why they are unjust, and what you propose to remedy them.