Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How to hurt corrupt banks the most?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 11:31 p.m. EST by Americanhope (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I keep thinking about how different life would be had our fat cat politicians let the corrupt banks die for their evil practices.

How failed is our system that we surrendered our tax dollars for years to come to help the most corrupt put the most ethical out of business?!

I'm not afraid of a little chaos to prove to Wall Street and the world economy that America won't cower to big business or fall for bribes. Nothing could have hurt the corrupt bank owners more than simply letting them face the consequences they created.

27 Comments

27 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Stop using them, pretty much that simple. There's credit unions, local community banks, etc. We don't need Citibank, Bank of America, JP Morgan-Chase, etc. to do our banking.

[-] 1 points by ReubenBaron (47) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You want chaos? Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNO_QJzaQ8 it's sorta satire and sorta not. kill a banker, it all comes tumbling down. I say let em eat cake.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Here's the thing; when you present the two options as the massive bailouts that were handed out under Bush or letting things on Wall Street go to pieces (with serious consequences for the rest of the economy) means that you're basically accepting the Sophie's choice being offered to you by the banks, and choosing the path that takes them down with you. A noble decision, to be sure, but not necessarily the best one given what could have been.

The better decision to have made was to set up an orderly path to receivership for the banks, so that instead of messily going bust all over the rest of the economy, the firms that were headed for failure were unwound in the way that would have the least negative impact on the economy. It's the difference between propping up an infested apple tree while it rots from the inside out and spreads the disease to the entire orchard, letting it fall on your house, or taking a ladder and a chainsaw and dismantling it piece by piece.

[-] 1 points by tslater2 (2) 2 years ago

We are try getting a huge law suite against the lenders for homeowners that have lost their homes, please have anyone that has lost their home and out of the property contact me, I hope this suite settles in the billions....

[-] 1 points by tslater2 (2) 2 years ago

I lost my house in 2006 now I am getting back at the banks. See if this law firm can be of help. http://www.robosignatures.com/

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 2 years ago

Well said!

Here's my 2 cents:

There are a lot of improvements that need to be made. The list of reforms Americans want to see is long and varied depending on who you talk to. That said, I believe there is one reform that would provide the American people the best chances of seeing other meaningful reforms actually happen - that is REAL, loop-hope free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! I have seen others on this site calling this the "fulcrum" or pivotal issue. Right now the current legalized bribery, pay-to-play system of campaign donations and paid lobbyists has disenfranchised the American voter. Until this is fixed, any other reform the politicians may try to placate us with (be it a change to healthcare, clamping down predatory school loans, new financial regulations, etc.) will be about as effective as a farmer putting a new roof on his CHICKEN COOP, but still letting the FOX guard it.

We need to go back to the original political currency. Instead of the current system of who can collect the most money from corporations and special interests it should be who has the BEST IDEAS to EFFECTIVELY RUN THE COUNTRY (we don't need "Wealth Redistribution," what we need is "Political Influence Redistribution")!

For the sake of our children and future generations of Americans, we need to take back our democracy from the rich and powerful who are using their vast sums of money to "speak" as if they represent millions of Americans. This "Corporate Personhood" that has crept into our laws is allowing them to manipulating our policies in their favor at the expense of the average American (the recent "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling is a miscarriage of justice and must be reversed. The $50 or $100 a normal American may give to a political campaign becomes meaningless when corporations or other special interests are handing our millions to buy political access to the decision making process.

For decades now the corporations and special interests have had our "representatives" bought and paid for (both on the right and the left). Concentrating our efforts on getting the money out of our politics is the best way we can create an environment in which further reforms can be realized. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) and paid lobbying our politicians will continue to be the LAP DOGS of the corporations and special interests. What we need first and foremost is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!! If the corruption is not dealt with first, the chance of any other meaningful reforms becoming a reality is almost zero - the special interests will just use their money to buy votes and put forward bills that create loop-holes or otherwise twist the law in their favor. If we want our children to live in a country where there vote matters, we need to get the money out of our politics, otherwise they will increasingly become the 21st century version of the "landless peasant." Spread the word - End the LEGALIZED BRIBERY!!! CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM needs to be THE main goal of the protests!!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Hmmmm.

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

How about how failed our government is when everyone's tax dollars goes towards helping illegal immigrants.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

If those banks had been allowed to die, all the depositors would have lost their money.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

They would not have lost the $100,000 insured by the FDIC. The big losers would have been those with > $100,000 in banks.

Once again, "smartcapitalist" puts the oxy in moron.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

the limit is $250k.and there are lots of people with that kind of deposits. seems like you are fine with people richer than you losing money. never knew america was breeding such a generation of greedy losers.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

You are the greedy loser, avoiding taxes, fucking over the poor and working classes.

The limit was raised in 2009 to calm fears of bank failures.

I'd be perfectly happy to see the rich pay more taxes than I do. I pay a higher rate than Mitt Romeny.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am sure you will be happy seeing others misfortunes, particularly those well off than you. That's what a loser does. Stop worrying about what others make, start making money on your own (if you are capable at all)

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

keep whining

[-] 1 points by proletarian (8) 2 years ago

You call yourself a capitalist and defend a program like TARP? That would be more accurately described as crony capitalism.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I would bet the vast majority of those deposits also belonged to the 1%.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

You would be wrong. You betting on things don't make them true. Retail banks like BOA,Citi serve everybody from the guy making $50000/yr to the one making $50 million. At least have some grasp of facts before commenting.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I could be wrong. Look it up and show me the facts. Do you really think that the 1% don't have the same disproportionate wealth in the banks as well?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

i m not interested in such hollow arguments.an argument for the heck of it

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Isn't that why you are here?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

my arguments have some basis in fact and logic

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Show me your facts and logic.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

He doesn't have any facts, other than those supplied by Rush and Beck.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I see no point in providing facts or logic to someone who says that the failure of retail banks would only affect the 1% . It would be a criminal waste of my time

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Here are the facts. The big four, B of A, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Chase had 3.75 trillion dollars in deposits for March 2011. Just a little under half of all bank deposits of 8.5 trillion. Lets say the 1% have the same 40% share of bank deposits as they do in overall wealth. So $3.4 trillion divided by 3 million rich people equals $1.13 million for each rich person. $5.1 trillion divided by 297 million poor equals $17,171 thousand per poor person. So the rich person will have 66 times the bank deposits as a poor person.

The rich persons deposits would be well above the FDIC limit, the poor persons would be well under the limit. The rich would lose big if they let the banks fail.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

That really depends on your definition of rich and poor. Someone who worked for 10-15 yrs and saved $25k per year could easily end up with $250k in the bank. Further the ratios you assumed would also not hold up because the rich don't just put their money in the bank because it earns low interests, they invest it in mutual funds and hedge funds. However the bigger issue here is you complete unabashed sense of jealousy of rich. You are okay if the rich lose money. You are jealous because someone else is more successful than you. All you care about is you and no one else. All this talk about the 99% is hogwash. The real poor are the people in the third world countries and people living in africa. You are just a whiner that wants more whether you deserve it or not. I wasn't this well off always but I never envied my more well off friends. Even in undergrad I did odd jobs to pay for my upkeep but I didnt envy the rich kids. I never behave like a parasite.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The fact is that on average the rich would have lost the great majority of their deposits that were over the FDIC limit if the banks were not bailed out. Please refute this if you are able.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.