Occupy Wall Street

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, that's not being anti-banking. It's being anti-corruption, anti-plutocracy.

As long as banks are people (like corporations) they will be evil. Separation of corruption and lending is never going to happen. The acts are intertwined and always have been.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

As long as banks are people (like corporations) they will be evil.

They also want a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Separation of corruption and lending is never going to happen. The acts are intertwined and always have been.

They think differently than you do. That is exactly what they are trying to change. You think it is inevitable - they do not.

You can continue to mock their efforts, or you can support them if you believe as they do: that corruption and lending have to be separated.

Add: The Daily Show, Jon Oliver, had a funny segment when he went down to visit Occupy Wall Street, regarding who "comprises" the "movement".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...calvin-trillin

[Danzig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act


read up, on glass- steagall. of course you read quite often these days that republicans introduced legislation to repeal G/S, but you don't see many who mention it was clinton who signed it into law. actually, i didn't know who was president when it was repealed, til reading this.

[Danzig]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_201557.html


"Sooner or later, perhaps starting with the next serious economic downturn," he wrote, "the US will have to confront one of the great challenges of our times: how does a sovereign nation govern itself effectively when politics are national and business is global?"

Consumer protection advocate Ralph Nader, meanwhile, was far more succinct in his skepticism. "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep," he said at the time. "It's just a nightmare."

When the Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8, it reversed what was, for more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp. The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks now would sell insurance and stock.

Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation -- forged during the Great Depression -- was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry. Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm.

"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).

"The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."

Looking back, members of Congress have tried to downplay the significance of their support. One high-ranking Hill aide notes that his boss, who voted for the bill, did so because banks were already beginning to merge with investment houses. It should be noted, additionally, that Dodd and Schumer were able to hammer out, as part of the legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to extend lines of credit to predominantly minority areas.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

read up, on glass- steagall. of course you read quite often these days that republicans introduced legislation to repeal G/S, but you don't see many who mention it was clinton who signed it into law. actually, i didn't know who was president when it was repealed, til reading this.

The first minute of this video is very powerful and simplistic and perfectly explainatory, regarding financial regulation and "how we got here" as the US industrialized:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

The first minute of this video is very powerful and simplistic and perfectly explainatory, regarding financial regulation and "how we got here" as the US industrialized:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI

and this story explains even better 'how we got here'

an adult baby, fully able to work, living with a now deceased obese women, whining. WAAAAAAHHHHH

In a much larger sense we got here because of government programs not the ability or desire of Americans' to work. And to think SSI money this whining piglet was receiving comes out of the SS fund, that citizens pay into but were worried they wouldn't receive is disgraceful! Fully fund the SS reserve account with actual investments YESTERDAY!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

and this story explains even better 'how we got here'

an adult baby, fully able to work, living with a now deceased obese women, whining. WAAAAAAHHHHH

In a much larger sense we got here because of government programs not the ability or desire of Americans' to work. And to think SSI money this whining piglet was receiving comes out of the SS fund, that citizens pay into but were worried they wouldn't receive is disgraceful! Fully fund the SS reserve account with actual investments YESTERDAY!

Sorry, no. SSI funds are paid, quoting your own article, "The funds are paid out of general taxpayer revenues, not from payroll taxes."

You really should read what you get angry about.

[clyde]

Grout Bags and Fabriform are made and sold by the Intrusion Prepakt Company.These are woven nylon containers into which specially formulated cement mixtures are pumped.

Their use is many fold and does include revetments as well as knee walls for bridge abutment protection by water.

Fabriform is also used as an erosion control method under bridges on the slopes at each end.It has a "waffle" appearance.

Perhaps some of you have seen them.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sorry, no. SSI funds are paid, quoting your own article, "The funds are paid out of general taxpayer revenues, not from payroll taxes."

You really should read what you get angry about.

SS funds are also paid out of general taxpayer revenues. As soon as payroll taxes get to the treasury they get marked down and thrown into the same pile. The treasury supposedly holds over a trillion and a half of IOU's in the name of SS and a short time ago was in danger of missing a payment? No this adult 'baby' is stealing from the country and you're predictably making excuses for him.

well done

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sorry, no. SSI funds are paid, quoting your own article, "The funds are paid out of general taxpayer revenues, not from payroll taxes."

You really should read what you get angry about.

exactly what is your point about nitpicking on this? either way, taxpayers are paying for this fellow to pretend to be a baby. exactly what is his disability?
whether thru payroll taxes, or general revenue, those of us working are supporting this guy. absolutely ridiculous.

edit-ssdi, from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...lity_Insurance

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a payroll tax-funded, federal insurance program of the United States government. It is managed by the Social Security Administration and is designed to provide income supplements to people who are physically restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability, usually a physical disability. SSD can be supplied on either a temporary or permanent basis, usually directly correlated to whether the person's disability is temporary or permanent.

Unlike Supplemental Security Income (SSI), SSD does not depend on the income of the disabled individual receiving it. A "legitimately" (i.e. according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and via other similar legal and medical backing) disabled person of any income level can theoretically receive SSD. Most SSI recipients are below an administratively-mandated income threshold, and indeed these individuals must in fact stay below that threshold to continue receiving SSI; but this is not the case with SSD.

Informal names for SSDI include Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Title II benefits, named for the chapter title of the governing section of the Social Security Act.