|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 10/19/11 04:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424 |
You know that the US Government bought about 36% of CitiGroup .... right? Then the US Government sold the shares they held, for a profit, right? I wonder if those protesters know that? Citi paid back, as far as I can tell, everything they owed. If they haven't ... then they are still partially owned by the US Government. Further, what did the people in the Citi Branch do? Did they go in to close their accounts in a businesslike fashion..... or did they try to bring the protest in ..... chanting and such ..... or did they try to do some kind of sit in ..... which would be illegal on private property? http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/US-Citigroup-Treasury/2010/03/30/id/354235Government is making money off of bank bailouts: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/Bank of America did not make money last year. According to what I can find, they have lost enough money to keep them in write offs for about 5 years. If they made profit somewhere along the lines, then they also have lost enough to more than make up for anything they have gained. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/25/2170576/no-federal-tax-expense-for-bofa.htmlAs usual .... protests do not always tell the whole story, and should be investigated before given credence. I could protest, saying that Obama is turning the sky pink with orange and purple polka dots ... but that doesn't make it so. If I had a bank .... with lots and lots of money in it .... well, I don't know if I would allow a mob scene of that type to enter. Sorry, but security has to enter the equation somewhere. We cannot hear what was said to the group with the bullhorn, because they didn't pick up that audio. (that I could hear anyway) Perhaps they were told that they would have to go in one at a time, and without bullhorns and other such items that could cause a security breach, or disruption of business. Who knows? I don't. Do you? When I had a problem with a bank I dealt with, I called them to discuss it. When they did not resolve it to my satisfaction, then I told them that they could have one last opportunity to do so. When that failed, I closed my accounts, and moved them to a different bank. No hysteria, no bullhorns ..... I just took my business away. Now they send me letters, and offers .... trying to get my business back ... but I will never deal with them again. I have called them a few times on their offer numbers just to tweak them a little too. I tell them to stop sending me offers in the mail, because I will never do business with them again .... and it is their own fault. That really is the best protest. In the end, that is the protest that will effect banks (and any business) more than anything else. If people just take their money, and business away .... that is the strongest protest ..... and is the protest that works better than any of these will. I told all of my friends about the crappy service I received from my old bank. I told all of my friends about the service I get from the other bank I dealt with at the time ... and who I now deal with exclusively as far as checking/savings/investment vehicles. If you take a mob to a bank branch, you aren't going to accomplish much ... especially if you try to enter the branch. It looks like someone trying to accomplish something ..... and they have the right to protest, within the law, but no business has to allow anyone in, especially if they fear trouble. As always, there is probably more than 1 or 2 sides to every story.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424 |
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20122659-504083.htmlProtester allegedly raped at 'Occupy Cleveland' (CBS/WOIO) CLEVELAND - Cleveland police are investigating an alleged sexual assault incident that occured Saturday at the "Occupy Cleveland" rally involving a 19-year-old female student. According to police reports, the 19-year-old student was instructed by "Occupy Cleveland" personnel to "share a tent with the suspect due to a shortage of tents." The suspect identified himself as "Leland" to the woman. The woman told police that after she thought the suspect went to sleep in his own bed, she slept in a sleeping bag provided to her by the rally, reports CBS station WOIO. The student then went to school Monday and told a teacher about her sexual assault incident, which is now being classified as a "kidnapping/rape." This prompted the teacher to immediately contact the authorities. "Occupy Cleveland" is one of many movements taking place nationwide in the wake of "Occupy Wall Street," which is protesting against corporate greed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
j/c http://www.hulu.com/watch/290660/the-dai...medy#s-p1-sr-i1Thought this had some nice juxtaposing clips . Jon isn't particularly funny here ... sometimes he's on, and sometimes he just gets in the way of the point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
This statement just blew me away: "Industry campaign contributions don't translate into support" Supporting someone then taking contributions from their adversaries makes it appear that you'll do anything for a buck.....in other words, a whore. Politico Rep. Barney Frank might sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but he’s still got friends in the financial world. The Massachusetts Democrat is heading to New York hoping to raise tens of thousands of dollars Thursday at a fundraiser at the home of Charles Myers, a senior investment banking advisor at Evercore Partners. Myers is one of several Wall Street execs listed on the invite soliciting up to $2,500 from attendees for Frank’s reelection committee, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO. Frank, the co-author of the sweeping financial regulatory reform bill signed into law last year, said in a recent interview with POLITICO that he didn’t see any conflict between supporting the protests and taking financial services money. “If you take money from them, but you don’t vote [for] the things they want, how does that put you in conflict?” Frank questioned. Frank said he supports the movement “to the extent that they obey the law” and that he wishes “that kind of energy was around two years ago when we were voting on the financial reform bill. We’d have a tougher bill.” Frank spokesman Harry Gural said the event isn’t exclusively a Wall Street fundraiser, and will include members of the gay and lesbian community and others. The invite lists 15 cohosts, including: Jefferies & Co.’s Bill Derrough, Templeton Investment’s Philippe Brugere-Trelat, Frank Selvaggi, co-chair of the Empire State Pride Agenda and Tim and Nina Zagat, founders of the Zagat survey. Other guests include powerful members of the New York delegation, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer, as well as Reps. Gary Ackerman, Yvette Clarke, Joe Crowley, Carolyn Maloney and Nydia Velazquez. Gural also noted that Frank isn’t counting on Wall Street cash, since the financial reform law, Dodd-Frank, is even named for him. “There are people in the industry who are seriously not happy with him,” and will not be showing up at his fundraisers, Gural said. For example, about six months ago, members of the financial industry declined to attend another Frank fundraiser. “The feedback that one of our people got… was, ‘Barney Frank, are you kidding?‘“Gural said Still, Frank is not avoiding New York entirely. “The fact is in Congress you need to raise money, that’s just the reality of it,” Gural added, noting that his boss could be attacked at any moment by political opposition. Continue Reading Text Size -+reset Listen Frank’s situation is emblematic of the struggle President Barack Obama and other Democratic politicians are facing as they try to support and capitalize on the anti-banking industry fervor, without losing out on campaign checks from the well-heeled industry. Former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), both major recipients of Wall Street money, said that industry campaign contributions don’t translate into political support. “It’s how you vote, it’s what you vote for that matters … But in my judgment, it’s what you fight for and how you vote, it always has been,” Kerry said. That position hasn’t earned Democrats many industry fans. Wall Street executives and financial services lobbyists have complained about Democrats’ recent support of the protestors. A recent Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee email blast endorsing the movement particularly rubbed the industry the wrong way. But the DCCC says it’s gotten an outstanding grassroots response and doesn’t regret its support for the protests. One financial services lobbyist described Democratic fundraising on Wall Street while backing the protests as “hypocritical at best. Look at the major donors to Obama, look at the major donors to the DCCC.” “When you demonize people, it makes them feel like they’re not appreciated and they’re less willing to take out their checkbook and voluntarily write a check for your cause,” the lobbyist added. Frank is not the only Democrat who has gone up to the Big Apple to raise campaign cash in recent weeks. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) held an event there with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last month. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont), along with Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) , also recently headed to New York City to fundraiser for Tester and the Montana Democratic Party.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
“If you take money from them, but you don’t vote [for] the things they want, how does that put you in conflict?” Frank questioned.
They stop giving you money?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
I wonder what they actually are getting for their investment. I can't imagine why they'd be giving support to someone who vows to hurt them without getting something in return.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I wonder what they actually are getting for their investment. I can't imagine why they'd be giving support to someone who vows to hurt them without getting something in return.
They've gotten plenty for their investment.
That guy worked doggedly for the TARP bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 238 |
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder what they actually are getting for their investment. I can't imagine why they'd be giving support to someone who vows to hurt them without getting something in return.
They've gotten plenty for their investment.
That guy worked doggedly for the TARP bill.
And don't forget Dodd-Frank "Financial Regulatory Bill" that reformed the financial industry so that they could continue... well... umm.. oh yeah... business as usual with a little added bureaucracy but essentially toothless regulation.
But clearly he's out to get those guys... 
Original Dawg Talkers Pick'ems Champion
2008
2010
Dawg Talk Member Since: 08/24/01
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder what they actually are getting for their investment. I can't imagine why they'd be giving support to someone who vows to hurt them without getting something in return.
They've gotten plenty for their investment.
That guy worked doggedly for the TARP bill.
And don't forget Dodd-Frank "Financial Regulatory Bill" that reformed the financial industry so that they could continue... well... umm.. oh yeah... business as usual with a little added bureaucracy but essentially toothless regulation.
But clearly he's out to get those guys...
American politics 101: it's what you say, not what you do.
Frank is very good in this regard. Obama, as well.
Reagan was the modern day master.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Protesters really should move their "occupation" to the White House ... the following excerpt from an ABC news story outlines more hope and change - for Finland. ************ Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In FinlandBy MATTHEW MOSK, BRIAN ROSS and RONNIE GREENE ABC NEWS Oct. 20, 2011 With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work. Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department's $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland. "There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here." Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money so far has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive. "We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," Fisker said. "That's why we went to Finland." read more athttp://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
And they are producing a specialized car that will cost $85k. Not exactly something the "average" American will be buying.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
"Typical" Americans won't buy it (unless you consider Leonardo DiCaprio typical) but they could sure use the jobs building it. You would think over half a billion in taxpayer-supplied start-up cash might assure that.
Last edited by Dave; 10/21/11 08:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
yeah, that was kind of my point. Build in another country, a product that isn't even anything that the average American citizen will be able to purchase.
They have to build and sell 6045 units just to break even.
Tesla motors already has a similar product on the market and since 2008 have sold about 1800 units.
And back on that battery technology thread, the Tesla Roadster gets about 200 miles per charge.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
"We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," Fisker said. "That's why we went to Finland."
One of these days, our government and a lot of our people are going to realize that this is how business people think... Until we get over this notion that companies somehow exist solely for the common good, we are screwed.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I agree with their right to move to Finland, as long as they give back the 529M.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
Ok, so a quick tally here.
-Obama gave money to Solyndra and they went under.
-Gave money to another solar company(can't recall the name at the moment), they aren't doing so hot
-there was that plant in PA that Obama touted a year or so ago that is now out business
-now we have this plant going to finland
How much money has Obama spent not creating or saving jobs? And he wonders why people don't want to pass his new plan?
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,424 |
Well ...... maybe those of us not drinking the Obama Kool Aid "can't understand the whole jobs bill all at once."
Maybe we're just not smart enough to see how investing in failed businesses, and investing in businesses that build plants overseas, create "good American jobs".
I admit it ..... I'm not smart enough to see how this works to create permanent, well paying, American jobs.
Maybe the Pres can explain t to us hicks and bumpkins one day ..... if he can tear us away from our guns and Bibles that is.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,311
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,311 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Just scanned through them and didn't have time to fully digest it yet, but a few initial comments. Quote:
CEO Pay
I agree that it has gotten a out of control, especially when a CEO fails and gets a truckload of money for it. If they are successful, by all means pay them as they are responsible for the employment of the entire company. If they fail, boot them and no golden parachute.
Quote:
And, by the way, few people would have a problem with inequality if the American Dream were still fully intact—if it were easy to work your way into that top 1%
Well, of course it's not easy. It shouldn't be. This statement, to me, is the entire problem. People think things should be easy.
Quote:
And remember that huge debt problem we have—with hundreds of millions of Americans indebted up to their eyeballs Well, the top 1% doesn't have that problem. They only own 5% of the country's debt
And whose fault is that? Just because a group of people made good choices it is their fault? People living beyond their means is no fault of anyone but themselves.
Quote:
Taxes
Those slides have nothing to do with the problem. Giving the reason that the rich pay the most just because they make more is a silly argument that they should pay more. They pay enough already IMO.
Quote:
Banks
They should have let them fail. I have a real problem with the bailouts they got and abused.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Columbus, not sure since you said you skimmed it but if you didn't see it, go back into the mid 30s I think and look at the slides at how the banks were allowed to borrow money for basically no interest from the government, then instead of lending it, they took the money and reinvested it back into government bonds for a decent percentage rate profit. That was the most telling part of the whole slide presentation and something I was unaware of and will have to look into. If true, it's an absolute zero risk way of making money with the money they were supposed to be lending to the public to get housing and whatnot going again. Instead they were just milking the American taxpayer for more and more and more.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Just going to address this one item - CEO Pay
You want a say in a CEO's pay?
Buy stock in that company and get a vote. Until then, back the hell off. They are running the company, they are entitled to whatever that company's Board of Directors determines is sufficient.
The uninvested public at large absolutely DOES NOT deserve a say in any way, shape or form.... and Gov't CERTAINLY DOES NOT.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Oh I totally agree that CEO pay should certainly not have any intervention from government. The market determines the pay; I have no problem with what they make; they basically give their lives up for a job. They should be paid well. There are not many people with the intelligence and fortitude to run a multi-billion dollar global company. I've never had a problem with CEO pay. I have a really big problem with a CEO that runs a company into the ground and gets a nice bonus to leave after destroying jobs, shareholder equity, etc. I know that is standard, and you won't be able to hire a quality CEO without some sort of golden parachute, I just have a problem with it. I don't think that is part of the overall issue with the economy anyhow, it's just something that bothers me. As far as voting goes with owning shares, sure you can vote (and I do), but I doubt my 1000 shares of Ford or my 300 shares of McDonalds or my 250 shares if Intel will allow me to have much leverage on ousting a CEO 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
prpl.. in theory I agree with every word but don't you get a little frustrated with the system? CEO's making questionable decisions, borderline illegal decisions, running a company far off course and then leaving with their $40 million golden parachute package?
And I would love to trust the BoD but these guys are also very wealthy, in many cases they are CEO's of smaller companies (still large but not as large).. are they going to be the ones who start a trend of reducing CEO pay or writing in performance stipulations? Other CEOs? I doubt it.
I understand that the only two ways for people to make a difference is to buy shares or avoid their products and that's great, but for these big multi-nationals, you and I might as well pizz in the ocean than think our small amount of influence is going to change anything. I'm not advocating for government control or regulate salaries, just expressing my frustration with how the system seems to have gotten away from itself, in large part because companies have become SOOOOO big, that they don't feel any sense of responsibility any more, they don't feel any sense of community any more.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Quote:
prpl.. in theory I agree with every word but don't you get a little frustrated with the system? CEO's making questionable decisions, borderline illegal decisions, running a company far off course and then leaving with their $40 million golden parachute package?
And I would love to trust the BoD but these guys are also very wealthy, in many cases they are CEO's of smaller companies (still large but not as large).. are they going to be the ones who start a trend of reducing CEO pay or writing in performance stipulations? Other CEOs? I doubt it.
I understand that the only two ways for people to make a difference is to buy shares or avoid their products and that's great, but for these big multi-nationals, you and I might as well pizz in the ocean than think our small amount of influence is going to change anything. I'm not advocating for government control or regulate salaries, just expressing my frustration with how the system seems to have gotten away from itself, in large part because companies have become SOOOOO big, that they don't feel any sense of responsibility any more, they don't feel any sense of community any more.
Nope. I don't get frustrated. I get jealous and wonder why I'm not in a position to make that much. Where the heck did I go so wrong to marginalize myself so severely?
I do wonder, though, why more of them don't have lots of serious, mysterious accidents.
Sure, those things totally suck, but it is what it is.... not for me to worry about. Why? Because it isn't my place to worry about it. I have no right to even think that I have a say in it.
As for whether or not you should "trust" the BoD... you say that like you have a choice in the matter. You don't. It is their place and responsibility. It is your and my place to simply accept it and move along. Why does there need to be a trend of reducing CEO pay?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
Very good presentation! But sadly it won't go over good on this board because it's based in fact, it's not a Rebuplican or Tea Party message and doesn't taste like the koolaide...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
Quote:
Very good presentation! But sadly it won't go over good on this board because it's based in fact, it's not a Rebuplican or Tea Party message and doesn't taste like the koolaide...
true
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Very good presentation! But sadly it won't go over good on this board because it's based in fact, it's not a Rebuplican or Tea Party message and doesn't taste like the koolaide...
This is where communication breaks down, because your implication is that the left, the liberals, the OWP folks are so much better at accepting facts that don't support their preconceived beliefs... how many ways would you like me to prove that false? and the wheels on the bus go round and round... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,867 |
Quote:
Just going to address this one item - CEO Pay
You want a say in a CEO's pay?
Buy stock in that company and get a vote. Until then, back the hell off. They are running the company, they are entitled to whatever that company's Board of Directors determines is sufficient.
The uninvested public at large absolutely DOES NOT deserve a say in any way, shape or form.... and Gov't CERTAINLY DOES NOT.
I agree with you except in the case where a CEO is found responsible for the downfall of a corporation and the loss of thousands of jobs in the process. Then walks away with a golden parachute worth tens of millions.
It erks me. I don't believe I have the right to do anything about it, but I do have the right to hate it.. and I do.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
LOL! No DC this was just me stirring the pot. We have a lot of good debates on this board, but I have to admit that Dem's and Liberals are outnumbered 200 to 1.
I'm independent, so I just put my 2 cents out there and to hell with the party lines! I just wish others could do more of the same.
This slide show was full of stats and good info, yet I don't see much support for the OWS yet...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
This slide show was full of stats and good info, yet I don't see much support for the OWS yet...
They are the 99%.. and 99% of them have no idea what those stats mean, what we CAN fix, or how we SHOULD fix it. 
Banks and CEO's make a lot of money and they don't and that's not fair so the rich should give a bunch of their money to us.... that seems to be the heart of their message.  Then they have a bunch of submessages about solar energy and spending on infrastructure... It's an incoherent message... Look, I can agree that I'm no big fan of what some banks are doing, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support these whack jobs.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Look, I can agree that I'm no big fan of what some banks are doing, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support these whack jobs.
Thought this was great:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/290664/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-99
And I wouldn't be doing my due diligence if I didn't point it out -
You know, the Tea Party is filled with kooks wearing tri-cornered hats and dressed like it was colonial times, talking about how Obama is leading us on a path to Soviet-style totalitarianism.
And yet, perusing your posts on the movement, you don't exactly pound the drum, but you cite it as a powerful movement that deserves time.
Yet here, you can't get behind it because it's populated with loons.
I actually understand completely what you're saying, but in one instance you're willing to forget the kooks and say 'hey, there's something here', and in another instance you're saying 'they have some points, but they're so kooky I can't support it.'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I thought it was: "OWS".........what's "OWP"?
I would like for people to realize that there have been poor people and rich people since forever. It will continue.
As a general rule of thumb, those with education earn more than those without education. In the educated subset, you have higher levels, and lower levels. The higher the education, generally speaking, the higher the income. (sorry, a masters in college studies doesn't count)
What is your answer? I hear you saying CEO's shouldn't be making the money they do - and in some situations I would agree. But let me ask you - the multi millionaire Ceo is generally the head of a company that employs thousands.
Pay that CEO zero - what would that do to the "workers".........ya know, the ones that want upper pay for low level jobs. How would it benefit them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And yet, perusing your posts on the movement, you don't exactly pound the drum, but you cite it as a powerful movement that deserves time.
Yet here, you can't get behind it because it's populated with loons.
Not exactly, I've said I believe the Tea Party COULD BE a powerful movement if it can find the right leadership... and Bachman and Palin are not the right leadership.
I support some of the ideals behind both of these movements but allow me to explain why I would rather associate myself with the Tea Party than these people (and keep in mind, there is a lot about the Tea Party that I cannot support also)...
The tea party (and I'm talking about what I view as your average tea party member) is more in favor of radically changing government, giving them less power, less tax money, putting them on a strict budget, defending the second amendment...
The average OWS person seems to champion radically changing corporations by giving government MORE power to control salaries, confiscate an obscene percentage of income from the wealthy, continue to spend and borrow, set totally unworkable regulations that corporations would have to meet to "satisfy" the working class...
So if you want to break it down to its base elements and not discuss every thing that I can find right or wrong with both movements... that is the over-riding principle... while the Tea Party has a bunch of things I don't like, I agree with the underlying principle... and while OWS has some concepts I can get behind, I completely disagree with the underlying principle...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
Arch, that was a copy and paste OOPS.
As for your question, I'm not sure what I want done. I would like to see a change that levels the playing field but I doubt that happens. I really don't care how much anybody makes as long as I can make as much as I want. Problem is, this economy does not allow that. Small Business and average America is all but broke... and these are my customers. Hard to make a living when nobody is buying. Sure you can always make a little, but if you want to get rich anytime soon it just IS NOT going to happen.
Take the power to hoard money away from the 1% and create problems, let them keep hoarding money and the economy continues to fail... What's your answer?
Right now people are discussing it and bitching, this will turn into action sooner rather than later. But I still have no idea what that action will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The tea party (and I'm talking about what I view as your average tea party member) is more in favor of radically changing government, giving them less power, less tax money, putting them on a strict budget, defending the second amendment...
The average OWS person seems to champion radically changing corporations by giving government MORE power to control salaries, confiscate an obscene percentage of income from the wealthy, continue to spend and borrow, set totally unworkable regulations that corporations would have to meet to "satisfy" the working class...
Fair enough, but you don't you're sugarcoating one a little more than the other here?
I mean, you lay out the Tea Party principles, and then leave them at that, so they sound logical and respectable. But then you leave out the action that makes it seem silly. Their path to these goals are to elect GOP candidates who have proven to be catalysts of the antithesis to their goals, and to let private business do as it pleases, another idea that has been proven time and time again to be a failure.
I can respect your ideological differences, but it seems to me that these two groups and those who defend/denounce them should probably get together. The root of their movements pretty much started for the same reason - the TARP and stimulus packages in the face of economic collapse.
One side blamed the government and defended business and one blamed business and defended the government.
Now you can say that the Tea Party didn't like what business was up to either, or that the Wall Street folks don't trust government, either, but there's an ideological split that seems arbitrary to me.
Both entities - government and private business were in collusion together. Seems odd to blame one or the other, and suggest that either are the solution to our problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Arch, that was a copy and paste OOPS.
Cool - I just thought maybe I was missing something.
Quote:
As for your question, I'm not sure what I want done. I would like to see a change that levels the playing field but I doubt that happens. I really don't care how much anybody makes as long as I can make as much as I want.
Well, that would be neat, wouldn't it? Making as much as we want.
Quote:
Problem is, this economy does not allow that. Small Business and average America is all but broke... and these are my customers. Hard to make a living when nobody is buying. Sure you can always make a little, but if you want to get rich anytime soon it just IS NOT going to happen.[/qkuote]
Dude, I AM small business. I've seen my gross income drop $30,000.00. My customers are not all rich - by any stretch. Thing is, I"m not looking to get "rich". Not today, not anytime soon. More than likely, I'll never be rich. And I'm fine with that. If getting "rich" is the goal - well, I'm not headed for that endzone. If it happens, great, I won't shove it away. But I'm not counting on it. I work to make a living and hopefully build some equity in my business so someday I can sell it. But I know full well I'll never be "rich", and I'm fine with that.
What I want is to earn my keep, so to speak. I don't need the millionaires and billionaires to do that. What other people make doesn't concern me really.
I know families where dad works, makes, at top, $35,000 a year. Surprisingly, those are some of the happiest and most well adjusted people I know.
I know several people that are millionaires many many times over. Even have an uncle that is "worth" (I use the word worth tongue in cheek) well over $80 million. He's no happier than any old joe schmuck. In fact, I would think he's less happy. The guy spends money like you can't believe, but he's always wanting to show people what he has...........like he gets some value out of that.
I want, and need, the economy to improve. But the dudes sitting on wall street? What's that do for me?
How about we address the jobs issue - not with some new spending bill, let's really address it. That's the only way to dig out of this recession.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Just going to address this one item - CEO Pay
You want a say in a CEO's pay?
Buy stock in that company and get a vote. Until then, back the hell off. They are running the company, they are entitled to whatever that company's Board of Directors determines is sufficient.
The uninvested public at large absolutely DOES NOT deserve a say in any way, shape or form.... and Gov't CERTAINLY DOES NOT.
If the financial firms had been doing business on a smaller scale that wasn't systemically dangerous to every single American, I would say your sentiment above is right. However, once they require taxpayer bailout money, then every single American should get a say.
As far as what I want done, I agree with your sentiment to an extent. I don't want direct redistribution or salary caps or anything like that. I also understand that Wall St. is an important cog in the American economy. But it is clear that failures of corporate governance at these firms have set the stage for this housing bubble.
These financial firms have rigged it so that there is essentially no consequence for negligence, trusting instead that each executive will govern themselves appropriately. CEOs at many firms also double as Chair of the Board of Directors, so they essentially sit at the head of the body that determines their own compensation. Compensation became uncoupled from failure (i.e. - no consequence to executives for failure), and also dependent only on short term performance, which creates incentives for outright fraud and bubbles that create enormous short term profits, but catastrophic long term failures.
When these firms met risk limits (that should be placed on firms that are too big to fail), they simply used accounting tricks to increase their limits. These banks in many cases owned the small, unregulated subsidiaries that were originating very risky subprime loans. These banks were warned time and again about the risk inherent in these loans, and in many cases fired employees who rocked the boat. These banks used accounting tricks to label "Alt-A" loans (which independent audits found more than 50% fraud in!) as prime, thus misleading investors about the soundness of their holdings. All this stuff is in the link I provided earlier from the testimony of an expert who worked on the S&L crisis of the late 80's.
No one should be able to set limits on CEO pay, but I see this as a symptom of a bigger problem, not the problem itself. We absolutely have to make changes to strengthen regulations and corporate law. Care should be taken to make sure that boards of directors are an independent check on CEO power, not just a rubber stamp for executive decisions. Otherwise, all of these perverse incentives will just lead us down the same path again and again. Its no accident that rollback of regulation and weakening of corporate law at financial firms over the last 20-25 years has been characterized by several large bubbles (S&L, tech, housing).
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Re: People Should Occupy Wall
Street
|
|
