Forum Post: Will this Put to Bed Once and For All the Question: What is #OWS about?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 2:03 p.m. EST by groobiecat2
(746)
from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In a conversation with conservative "humorist" PJ O'Rourke, Rep. Alan Grayson explains what #OWS is talking about. Doesn't get much clearer than this:
Grayson: "Let me tell what they're talking about. They're complaining about the fact the Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody's held responsible for that. Not a single person has been indicted or convicted for destroying twenty percent of our national net worth accumulated over two centuries. They're upset about the fact that wall street have iron control over economic policies of this country and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street and the other party caters to them as well, that's the truth of the matter..."
Here's the video http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/econ-101-alan-grayson-schools-pj-orourke
I wish it would but it will not. At least not on this forum because the anti OWS people are not looking for any rational explanation: they simply want to distract the focus. A sort of elevated troll.
yeah, but there are people who are genuinely trying to sort out the truth vs. the noise. I'm trying to help clarify as much as possible. It's a struggle with some: Whack-a-Mole (Whack-a-Troll?) ;D
the smoking gun is the structure of minimum wage. anybody know why minimum wage is fixed when business and banking adjust for inflation? minimum wage is structured to pacify the people with no real improvement in their lives.
the min wage goes up and all lower level wages go up, then prices go up. nothing. thats the end result and they know it. we need a floating minimum wage evaluated every quarter pegged to inflation and cost.
the true "smoking gun" are/were credit default swaps, which in 2000 were deregulated at the stroke of President Clinton's pen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546583n
Yes, but democrats and republicans were responsible. Alan Greenspan was responsible. Bush was responsible for not seeing the coming tide. Both sides screwed up, big time. But the solution isn't more "pure free markets," because that's what the "smoking gun" you refer to is: zero regulation of these insane, untraceable securities.
I am confused. What did wall street do to wreck the economy 3 years ago?
Do the research. Tired of posting it here, repeatedly. It's publicly available. Who did the bailouts go to? Who had toxic assets?
Who gave the authorization for the tax-payer funded bailout?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
Watch this.
Thanks. I bookmarked it and will watch it this evening.
The real question to ask yourself, is who gave the bail-outs? Who required banks to offer risky sub-prime loans? The answer to both questions is the government. It should be "occupy washington d.c." if you really want to attack the root of the problem.
I agree that the issue is both. But no one forced the banks to offer subprime loans. It wasn't illegal if they didn't. Just as AIG wasn't required to trade increasingly worthless paper. Are Fanny and Freddie partially to blame? Yes, but blaming the government entirely is disingenuous...
Actually, they were required to offer sub prime loans. I was a mortgage consultant during the refinance boom. Just like it was the fed which dropped rates creating a false interest rates in comparison with the times which spurred people to want to borrow & people would get sub prime loans with a somewhat low fixed rate on a two year arm after which their rate would go variable. After two years when they got hit with the true interest on the variable, that's when homes started getting forclosed left & right.
Well, you have a point. I'm not an expert in the field, but I'm learning more and more. The deregulation of the banking industry--where speculation and home finance were conflated--seems to have been a major contributor to the meltdown; so this isn't a simple issue of banks were required to offer subprime loans and that's the problem. One thing I've come to discover is that the real issue is less the mortgages--although that's a huge issue--and more how derivatives were created and traded. These increasingly worthless securities put everyone's money increasingly at risk.
One thing is certain to me: it's not a simple "this group was to blame." Although Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers were key players in bringing the economy to its knees by following the dictates of Ayn Rand. And Clinton picked up where Reagan's team of laissez faireans left off by keeping Greenspan around. This is an increasingly inescapable conclusion.
So, it's not so simple as "who gave the bailouts?" It's also: who created the environment where highly risky securities were allowed to "taint" the "normal" finance and loan markets. That, to me, is the big question.
Good to hear the opinion of someone in the middle of it...
end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message
There was one trillion set aside for bridges and roads. Where did it go?
It takes two to screw us! Politicians to hold us down, so then the Corporations can do the screwing!!! Politicians need better rules to follow to prevent lobbying! We tax payers should fund important elections, so the best person wins and not the one with the most money!!! The movement needs at least these demands!!!!!!!!!!! Pass The Word!!! Lets Get It Together!!!
Yeah, publicly funded campaigns are ultimately the only way to go. Of course, now that the supreme court has ruled that corporations can donate as much as they want, it's game over--unless a constitutional amendment is passed.
Wall Street didnt wreck the economy. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and the housing market crushed it. Blame the right people
Well, it really is a combination of factors; Wall Street most definitely played a prominent role, and there's very little dispute about that. Fanny Mae and Freddie mac did too, but question: Who got bailed out? Who received funds from the government? So, AIG shouldn't be blamed? Is that what you're saying? Lehmann Brothers? Yeah, not so simple...
Every one of these is a company on the exchange. Every one of these uses lobbyists and strong ties to government.
well no one should have gotten money from the government
Indeed. But definitely not the people who helped bring down the economy...
I'm trying to find some middle ground. The truth is that greed is in all of us. Corps want to make more money so they do things that are not right, lobby the gmnt to get their way etc. At the same time, we say we ourselves buy Chinese goods when we can afford the American counterpart, we buy the stocks of crooked companies and take on a bigger house loan than we should.
Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around, but there are ways to hold people accountable--and not just people who too no money down, no credit required mortgages. Transparency into the process is critical. I keep asking #OWS to ensure that the LiveStream records the daily GA meetings. Still not being done--but if this movement wants to be different--and avoid accusations of being co-opted, it's critical. They need learn from folks who worked in Washington, DC (as I did for 25 years), and learn that communications planning is absolutely critical.
They should also record the elections of the delegates--or ask those convening the delegate elections to be recorded. Again, for full transparency.
Check out www.theOnlineGovernment.org a lot of what you're saying is part of my vision.
Okay, read it. I think that's what #OWS is about. If you're interested in fighting fire with additional fire bullets, go here: www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
speaking of PJ:
"We're individuals—unique, disparate, and willful, as anyone raising a houseful of little individuals knows. And not one of these children has ever written a letter to Santa Claus saying, "Please bring me and a bunch of kids I don't know a pony and we'll share."
which is why i have my doubts
Yeah, I don't think it's that simple. Maybe I should start all my posts off with something that will make people feel a little more comfortable: I did well in the US. I live in a great house. I make a good living. I work for a corporation. I think capitalism works, but not pure capitalism, and not unbridled capitalism. I don't think government solves all problems, but it solves some problems. I'm older than most on this board, I'm sure. But I'm an analyst, not a "bullet point repeater," and I write my own shit.
Here's something I wrote today that underscores what I mean by this being more complex than "giving away ponies."
In Finland, they Decided to Eliminate Homelessness. That was a prioritized policy decision: it wasn't wild eyed marxism, it was a choice. They're a capitalist society. They're successful. People aren't lazy and haven't been destroyed by intrusive government. They made a choice and it appears to be working for them. Unlike the rightists in this country, who exalt the individual over the greater good, many countries support their populations. They don't call them entitlements--that's an American construct. Finland? They strive mightily to ensure that their people--whoever they are--have shelter. Are they run by marxists denying freedoms? Um, no, they're very economically successful. They are however, one of the most educated countries on the planet. (source: the liberal rag WSJ). According to the European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless:
Perhaps the most concerted and successful effort to deal with homelessness is in Finland where, after the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless in 1987, the Government devised a multifaceted response to the problem. It included building of social housing, the creation of social welfare and health care services, and setting a target to provide a dwelling of minimum standards for every homeless person. The number of single homeless persons at that time was approximately 18 000. In just 10 years, the number of homeless in Finland was cut in half.
But the Finnish must be miserable, right? Wrong. They're consistently some of the happiest people on the planet, according to the international "happiness index." They just defined what is a basic right and applied that definition to public policy.
In the United States, we Make Choices Too! (Just not very Good Ones.) Instead of focusing on social programs, we focused on fear of the non-existent variety. We decided, for example, to invade a country that didn't attack us based on lies and insidious fear mongering. It cost the country $1 trillion dollars (half of the national debt from WWII to 1980), tens of thousands of lives, and pariah status in much of the world.
The Iraq war was our choice as a country. We could have spent that money on improving education, or to provide housing, or to make healthcare more affordable, but no. Instead? We went to war based on lies and allowed its architects not only to remain free, but to make lots of money. What I don't understand is where the outrage was while the Bush administration was destroying the country. The end of the Bush administration saw the rise of the Tea Party which was, at the outset, mostly an anti-Government, anti-Obama movement--in spite of protestations to the contrary.
[source: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/laissez-unfaire-thoughts-on-national.html]
america is really over-rated. you're taught in school its the greatest country on earth but in reality there a lot of countries that are better, more interesting and relaxed. i live in switzerland now and i'm not afraid of the police here at all, they're mostly nice. but when i come home i'm suddenly paranoid for absolutely no reason, crazy
Absolutely. Ironically, the United States' major allies are socialistic--the UK and Canada. They're not perfect, either, but we really don't like to look beyond our borders, which is nuts. Why not borrow the best ideas and incorporate them, rather than rely on wild-eyed ideological orthodoxy?
That's just common sense, to me. The government isn't evil, but it's incompetent. Here's the thing: So are corporations!! Why? Because they're both comprised of flawed people. The difference is that corporations have a profit motive; the government doesn't.
The United States is lurching back and forth. If things don't change, I'm going to take my capitalist-generated savings, and head out. (I'm sure a lot of folks on this board would be sad to see me go, too...! ;))
greed and the delusion that you are better when you're richer is a major flaw all over the planet.
check out other countries if you can, i haven't lived in the u.s. since 1986 and i don't regret it at all!!!
its a great planet we have, it just has fleas
LOL. So true...
When President Obama hires the son of Bank Of Americas former CEO to be his finance director for his re-election bid????? Remember, Chad Gifford is one of those CEO's who created this mess and now sits back eating his pie, whilst sitting on his GOLDEN PARACHUTE.
Wall Street did no such thing. It was the collapse of the housing market, brought on by the demands of the CBC that banks make unsecured loans to minorities unable to pay them back.
Disagree. The market collapsed precisely because Wall Street bought and re-packaged those loans and fraudulantly resold them to other investors. If there had been no "outlet" (Wall Street) for the originators to flip the bad loans, the bad loan market would have dried up quickly.
The fact that you use the word "minorities" just goes to show how ignorant you are. Sad.
Yeah, "No Credit? No Cash? No Problem!" loans weren't the result of a de-regulated free market, they were the result, erm, something else!
But your comment is just racist, and that is the result of stupidity, bad education, ignorant parents, or, more likely, a combination of all three.
Can't wait for someone on this board who's a conservative who actually knows how to debate. Or knows how to find a different site to troll...
I see you know the problem, You can debate the issues, and you've been on both sides of the street. Your worse than the rest of them because you won't contribute or propose a solutions. Therefore I summarize you are with the 1% and just like to sell snake oil.
No, that's not true. I've proposed a number of solutions. One of them? Make legislation understandable so we can all know what's governing our lives. But more, since most conversations are about philosophical differences, I also have posited that it's not just capitalism or socialism, and that, in fact, some countries are successful hybrids of both:
In Finland, they Decided to Eliminate Homelessness. That was a prioritized policy decision: it wasn't wild eyed marxism, it was a choice. They're a capitalist society. They're successful. People aren't lazy and haven't been destroyed by intrusive government. They made a choice and it appears to be working for them. Unlike the rightists in this country, who exalt the individual over the greater good, many countries support their populations. They don't call them entitlements--that's an American construct. Finland? They strive mightily to ensure that their people--whoever they are--have shelter. Are they run by marxists denying freedoms? Um, no, they're very economically successful. They are however, one of the most educated countries on the planet. (source: the liberal rag WSJ). According to the European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless:
Perhaps the most concerted and successful effort to deal with homelessness is in Finland where, after the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless in 1987, the Government devised a multifaceted response to the problem. It included building of social housing, the creation of social welfare and health care services, and setting a target to provide a dwelling of minimum standards for every homeless person. The number of single homeless persons at that time was approximately 18 000. In just 10 years, the number of homeless in Finland was cut in half.
But the Finnish must be miserable, right? Wrong. They're consistently some of the happiest people on the planet, according to the international "happiness index." They just defined what is a basic right and applied that definition to public policy.
In the United States, we Make Choices Too! (Just not very Good Ones.) Instead of focusing on social programs or projects that benefit everyone, we focused on fear of non-existent enemies. We decided, for example, to invade a country that didn't attack us based on lies and insidious fear mongering. It cost the country at least $1 trillion dollars (half of the national debt from WWII to 1980), tens of thousands of lives, and pariah status in much of the world.
The Iraq war was our choice as a country. We could have spent that money on improving education, or to provide housing, or to make healthcare more affordable, but no. Instead? We went to war based on lies and allowed its architects not only to remain free, but to make lots of money. What I don't understand is where the outrage was while the Bush administration was destroying the country. The end of the Bush administration saw the rise of the Tea Party which was, at the outset, mostly an anti-Government, anti-Obama movement--in spite of protestations to the contrary.
This argument--all of these arguments--are about priorities.
The right: prioritizes individual interest and initiative above all else and posits that if you are in trouble or somehow unsuccessful it must be a character flaw (most recently posited by Herman "I hate #OWS hippies" Cain.)
The Left: prioritizes common interest over the interest of the individual, and posits that if you are in trouble or somehow unsuccessful, you should be helped out.
Do people abuse the system? Absolutely. But the system is already being abused--mainly by the 1%!
So, thanks for the comment, but unless you address my points, I think your outrage is unfounded. That said, I'd love to discuss the issues, specifically, and how to get there!
:D
Peace.
Thanks for the reply, Although I had requested a stance on issues before and what you would recommend as a solution with no reply. Thus, I felt you were just stoking the flame. Besides I couldn't find much of anything on many of your posts that I could sink my teeth into. This was my outrage. I will address your points in due time and I do see you love to discuss and educate on the issues. I would rather stick to the specifics......I'm more interested in how to get there and I usually enjoy the trip.
Well, it's not "stoking the flame" if you're debating philosophical differences. it's rather open-ended. Solutions come after the high level issues are addressed, so I've tried to discuss the philosophical differences between laissez faire and laissez unfaire. You don't want to address the philosophical issues; that's fine. That's what I've been doing however, and have tried to prove that the United States government isn't inherently evil, and that corporations aren't inherently good--before addressing specifics. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. For example...
On the issues of finance...I have suggested appropriate regulations on banks--no more zero down loans. And as for credit default swaps and derivatives--the value of which is impossible to track--they should be made illegal. Speculation on esoteric bullshit securities should be terminated. Now. They contributed to the house of cards crumbling in no uncertain terms. This is one thing that both sides tend to agree on.
On the issues of taxation...the tax rate is the lowest it's been in years (source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/) and tax loopholes for the wealthiest should be closed, as even Reagan suggested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA) Tax incentives for oil companies should be terminated. They're rich. They're going to drill. They don't need 'em anymore (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html).
Student loans should be regulated...Students are encumbered by huge quantities of debt at usurious rates. And so, while Wall Street received bailouts, students get sold out. This is wrong. And Eric Cantor is a shithead for suggesting that students start paying interest on their loans now. That bastard has a war against anything that isn't corporate--including students--and that's completely fucked up. (source: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/07/students-dont-have-enough-money-worries.html). Student loans should be forgiven or somehow decreased, and frankly, we should make the bailout recipients pay for it, instead of getting bonuses. (source: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/03/am-occupy-wall-street-focuses-on-rising-student-debt-in-us/)
On corporate money in politics...The supreme court, who Bush ensured would be conservative for a long time, recently killed off any decent chance of getting corporate money out of politics. Thanks old dumbass conservatives on the bench! So, now, corporations can contribute as much as they'd like to politicians, without limits! How to undo this? Constitutional amendment, probably. Ugh.
On healthcare...I believe it should be a basic right for people to have medical assistance. Laissez faireans do not. They believe that corporations (corps!) should provide this, but they don't address the fact that corporations have an inherent disincentive to provide healthcare. The profit motive prevents corporations from meeting basic needs. In addition, they're not less bureaucratic than the government--and both have the most flawed element running the programs. These are known as humans....
On wars...US out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. And the people who got us into Iraq should be publicly excoriated. Instead of spending money on war--and the contractors that profit from it--that money should go toward improving schools and paying teachers a living wage. Teachers are treated like dirt in our society, and that should stop. Now. Conservatives love to hate teachers for some reason, when they do a thankless and incredibly important job. It's surreal. But they know that an informed, questioning populace is their worst enemy.
There you go. I believe countries have choices and can prioritize what's important. We can decide what is a basic right--not some faceless economic orthodoxy, as the laissez faire folks would have you believe. There is no pure system. The people define what is important and what isn't: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/laissez-unfaire-thoughts-on-national.html
Is this what you were looking for?
Thanks for obliging my request for your stance on some of the issues. I think we had a few disagreement and misunderstandings in the past.
We can keep debating philosophical differences forever if you have the time. I must admit that this is a bigger class room than at a University. As you can tell, I would rather address the issues and come up with solutions. It's like have a discussion about putting the cart before the horse or which came first the chicken or the egg.
I agree that the United States Government is founded on good principles yet still finds a way to screw things up and corporations will not stay in business if they keep screwing their customers. Our Government is not all evil as well as all businesses are not all good. It still amazes me how just about ever elected official changes drastically in his philosophies after taking office. Corporation seem to be having a greater and greater influence on our Government than the People they have sworn to represent. This has become more that just a simple observation, but a growing rant of the People. A theme that keeps reoccurring in most of the conversation within the #OWS forum. I would even suggest that I see this within your own list of issues.
On Financial Institution: There is great influence of these institution on our government on how they should be regulated or not (with more financial gains on both sides and conflict of interest). To much Business in Government, Govt should regulate to protect the People.
On Taxation: It's way to complex, to costly to administer, punish those that can't figure out how to file, forces corporation to be a tax collector for the government and worst yet corporate lobbyist looking for tax breaks and incentive that smaller business don't get. To much Business in Government. Govt. should not Tax Corporations (People pay taxes, not corporation! No tax is better for business, creates jobs, helps keep business out of Government, and would is Fair for all Business). Corporation should not collect taxes that's the Governments responsibility.
On Student Loans: Corporation should not take advantage of those that do not have a job or means to pay off a loan or credit card without some source of collateral or promise of a job. The credit card companies are lined up at College and University handing out unsecured credit. This is no different than the low credit mortgage loans. The Government should regulate to protect the People.
On Corporate Money in Government: Yes, again keep Corporate (campaign contributions) out of Government and their influence on tax incentives, Govt contracts, etc., etc. OMG it's a no Brain-er. Corporations are not People and do not vote in any election.
On Health care: Keep Corporation out of Government! Doctors have sworn to an oath. The people should decide how health care should be provided and payed for. Health Care is big business and Growing by leaps and bounds and the insurance companies are shysters. They hide billing of services and test performed using codes that the patients can't compare to what the hospital, doctors, or labs have performed. There is no transparency what so ever.
On War: It's still all about the money, controling oil, and other resouces. It first started out as a War on Terrorizm and grew to something bigger and targeted at countries of interest. Interesting how they slipped it in to a different type of War without a confirmation from the House and Senate.
I commend your effort, wisdom, and fortitude. There does come a time to stand up for what you believe in. I believe the time is near!
Keep up the Good fight......and may I call you "Friend".
Heh, absolutely you may call me "friend'! I could use all the friends I can get! ;) Thanks for the kind words of encouragement and keep fighting; this is the wave we must all now ride to effect real change--not political promises uttered by people applying for powerful jobs!
groobiecat
www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
Please explain what was racist about my comments. It's just like a liberal to yell "RACIST" every time they are confronted with the facts.
It had NOTHING to do with deregulated free markets. Left to their own devices, there is no way those lending institutions would have made those under-secured loans. It is pure fact, not conjecture that the CBC was responsible for pressuring the banks into issuing worthless mortgages.
As for my intelligence. I'm sure there are many here, much brighter than I. You are not one of them.
Well, you got the first two sentences right. As for being smarter than you, well, that could be, but on the racist front, I'm pretty sure I've got you beat there, sport. It's not a "liberal" thing to call someone racist when they blame the country's economic crisis on "minorities" who were unable to pay back their loans. It doesn't get much more racist than that, but if you don't get it, well, that doesn't really surprise me. Enjoy the popcorn, and I hope you enjoy this board, because this is about as close to being part of the #OWS as you and your ilk will get. And if you're trying to divide it, well, this only makes the movement's resolve that much stronger.
Go back to the Tea Party, whichever one is legitimate, that is...
LOL I can't be racist. I'm a minority! Ha.
Dude, you're definitely a minority, but not because of your ethnicity...
Peace.
hands out popcorn and waits for the flames
extra butter please.