Occupy Wall Street Rant (Ron Paul Supporter)

[huevonkiller]

Obama spent half the money. The implosion is going on in front of you but you refuse to acknowledge it.

If the TARP money was given to home owners to pay down their mortgages:

1. There would be far fewer foreclosures.

2. The banks would have gotten those same dollars.

3. Far fewer home owners would have underwater mortgages.

4. Housing prices would have stabilized a long time ago.

5. Lower mortgage payments mean more dollars to spend, spurring some needed demand.

But you're in good shape. Let them eat cake!

Barfo is the biggest Greece and Obama cheerleader on this board.

He acknowledges barely anything is wrong with his policies. He also supported the financial mess we are now in and wants even more money to bail out his friends.

Would it really be a good thing for housing prices to have stabilized where they were? By everyone's estimation, housing was vastly overpriced. Giving money to homeowners wouldn't have changed that. You'd just ensure the pricing bubble would've lingered on for several more years, pricing many potential homeowners out of the market. A lot of people bought houses they couldn't afford while I bought something in my budget. Why should my tax money go to subsidize the irresponsible into retaining their much more expensive homes?

On top of that, if you give money to homeowners, what's to ensure they actually spend it on repaying their mortgages? A lot of that money would never be repaid, as many of these homeowners have clearly proven that paying for stuff they owe on isn't always a big priority. The feds send them a fat check, and they turn around and buy a new car and a big TV and a vacation in Cancun. Do you want to devote a lot of our federal government's resources into making sure that doesn't happen? Because monitoring that shit is expensive too, and the feds will still fuck it up.

Of the $245 billion given to US banks, $169 billion has been repaid, including $13.7b in dividends/interest. Think homeowners would've been that good about repaying the Feds within 3 years? These banks had lots of reasons to be responsible borrowers (unlike homeowners) to get themselves out of this deep fucking hole. For one, if they didn't they knew they were out of jobs.

I was plenty pissed off about the bailouts. But in hindsight I'm starting to understand the logic behind it. I still feel outraged that we didn't negotiate more penalties, that we haven't implemented serious regulatory reform, and that nobody has gone to jail. And I'm putting my money where my mouth is--I'm shifting my personal and business banking out of a major bank to a local credit union because all this bullshit still pisses me off. But I have to admit it worked out better than I thought it would, given the disaster we were facing.

Well you don't know how bailouts work. If I gave you 50 billion dollars to fix your business you could easily do that. But you're stealing from other people that could use that money more efficiently.

The point is we should not be stealing from taxpayers, and we should allow them to choose which businesses fail or succeed.

 

[barfo]

He acknowledges barely anything is wrong with his policies.

Of course I acknowledge that there is barely anything wrong with my policies.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Of course I acknowledge that there is barely anything wrong with my policies.

barfo

Too bad that's not all I said about you, so your context is weak.

 

[mook]

Well you don't know how bailouts work. If I gave you 50 billion dollars to fix your business you could easily do that. But you're stealing from other people that could use that money more efficiently.

The point is we should not be stealing from taxpayers, and we should allow them to choose which businesses fail or succeed.

Denny's point is that if we're going to steal from taxpayers, we might as well then give the money away, mostly forever, to homeowners.

My point is that if we're going to steal from taxpayers, we might as well give the money to people who are likely to give it back.

Anyway, I think once the market tumbled when we did indeed let Lehman Brothers fall, it opened the Bush administration's eyes to the fact that they were extraordinary times, and letting the market run its course was simply not an option.

When you think about it, the bailouts have been the most bipartisan (and least publicly popular) major policy initiative since....hmmm, maybe the invasion of Iraq? I mean both parties have railed against it to score points with voters, but when the shit really hit the fan and there was no time to posture, both the Bush and Obama administrations were basically on the same page, along with both the House and Senate.

 

[huevonkiller]

Denny's point is that if we're going to steal from taxpayers, we might as well then give the money away, mostly forever, to homeowners.

My point is that if we're going to steal from taxpayers, we might as well give the money to people who are likely to give it back.

Anyway, I think once the market tumbled when we did indeed let Lehman Brothers fall, it opened the Bush administration's eyes to the fact that they were extraordinary times, and letting the market run its course was simply not an option.

When you think about it, the bailouts have been the most bipartisan (and least publicly popular) major policy initiative since....hmmm, maybe the invasion of Iraq? I mean both parties have railed against it to score points with voters, but when the shit really hit the fan and there was no time to posture, both the Bush and Obama administrations were basically on the same page, along with both the House and Senate.

You still have "too big to fail", in fact it is a lot worse now. And good luck trying to print a bunch of money again.

Your timeline is messed up too. The Tea Party didn't exist during Bush's tenure and Bush was a Big government enthusiast.

 

[mook]

What's the Tea Party got to do with anything I said?

I agree that the "too big to fail" issue is bigger than ever. But I also am coming around to the idea that the time to fix it wasn't in 2008. At that point we were staring down a massive depression.

What I'd like to see is some payback to those massive too-big-to-fail companies now. I'd like to see anti-trust regulation imposed to limit their size and break them apart. It's shit like this right here that needs to be reversed:

I just think we need to do this in an orderly process over a couple of years. Not over a few weeks in 2008 when our economy was melting down.

 

[tlongII]

Looks like ACORN is the driving force between Occupy Wall St. I knew this couldn't be an organic movement.

ACORN connection

 

[huevonkiller]

I see a lot of troubling contradictions in what you just said.

What's the Tea Party got to do with anything I said?

Your timeline is erroneous. There was little ANTI-spending sentiment when Bush did his bailouts, and then the Socialist Obama got elected remember? Barry wasn't under heavy fire from the media either.

Bush's M.O. is Spending.

I agree that the "too big to fail" issue is bigger than ever. But I also am coming around to the idea that the time to fix it wasn't in 2008. At that point we were staring down a massive depression.

At that point Obama wanted to increase the Nation's Debt and cut nothing.

You just realized "too big to fail" is worse now, yet you refuse to criticize TARP. This is why you need to stay out of people's lives. You make the problem much worse down the road.

What I'd like to see is some payback to those massive too-big-to-fail companies now. I'd like to see anti-trust regulation imposed to limit their size and break them apart. It's shit like this right here that needs to be reversed:

I just think we need to do this in an orderly process over a couple of years. Not over a few weeks in 2008 when our economy was melting down.

I'd like to see some anti-trust litigation imposed on the government, since they're the ones that gave them TARP and trillions of dollars.

 

[mook]

Trillions? You kind of rambled all over the place, so I'm not going to even bother trying to understand your point. But what "trillions" are you talking about?

If you follow the link I highlighted:

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion,[1]. By March 3, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $432 billion and estimated the total cost would be $19 billion,[2]. This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. The cost of that crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the current crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[3] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[3] Of the $245 billion invested in U.S. banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.[3] In March 2010, GM repaid more than $2 billion to the U.S. and Canadian governments and on April 21, GM announced the entire loan portion of the U.S. and Canadian governments' investments had been paid back in full, with interest, for a total of $8.1 billion.[4]

 

[huevonkiller]

Trillions? You kind of rambled all over the place, so I'm not going to even bother trying to understand your point. But what "trillions" are you talking about?

If you follow the link I highlighted:

I love it that you don't know the facts of this story. The only reason it looks like rambling is because you're simply ignorant.

The government gave them 6 trillion dollars actually, you simply are confused and unaware of reality. Google CRA, Fannie, and Freddie. Pure silliness on your part.

 

[mook]

The interesting thing to me about TARP was just how much it actually didn't balloon out of control. I mean, more out of control than it was at the outset.

I remember at the time a lot of libertarians knowingly nodding and saying, "Yeah, and that's just for starters! Those pigs will eat all that up, then come back for more, and Obama will just keep feeding them! Because that's all government does--always over budget, always out of control!"

And yet this whole program seems like it's getting wound up way under budget. It all still stinks, but in the end it's not nearly as catastrophic as it seemed at the time.

I'd still like to see more steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Which is where the whole anti-trust stuff comes in. One of the main points of antitrust regulation is to prevent "too big to fail" situations from arising.

 

[huevonkiller]

Buddy, the shit hit the fan and the government spent money like it always does.

"I mean both parties have railed against it to score points with voters, but when the shit really hit the fan and there was no time to posture, both the Bush and Obama administrations were basically on the same page, along with both the House and Senate."

They didn't make the right move, nor where they pressured to stop spending money. You made it sound like there was some bi-partisan sentiment against the bailouts but your timeline was fucked up.

 

[huevonkiller]

The interesting thing to me about TARP was just how much it actually didn't balloon out of control. I mean, more out of control than it was at the outset.

I remember at the time a lot of libertarians knowingly nodding and saying, "Yeah, and that's just for starters! Those pigs will eat all that up, then come back for more, and Obama will just keep feeding them! Because that's all government does--always over budget, always out of control!"

Coming from an Obama disciple I'm pretty sure you don't have any room to talk.

And yet this whole program seems like it's getting wound up way under budget. It all still stinks, but in the end it's not nearly as catastrophic as it seemed at the time.

I'd still like to see more steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Which is where the whole anti-trust stuff comes in. One of the main points of antitrust regulation is to prevent "too big to fail" situations from arising.

Wtf does anti-trust regulation have to do with the government's failed policies? You're one of these people that loves Government College Loans and Public education right? You're part of the problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

Would it really be a good thing for housing prices to have stabilized where they were? By everyone's estimation, housing was vastly overpriced. Giving money to homeowners wouldn't have changed that. You'd just ensure the pricing bubble would've lingered on for several more years, pricing many potential homeowners out of the market. A lot of people bought houses they couldn't afford while I bought something in my budget. Why should my tax money go to subsidize the irresponsible into retaining their much more expensive homes?

On top of that, if you give money to homeowners, what's to ensure they actually spend it on repaying their mortgages? A lot of that money would never be repaid, as many of these homeowners have clearly proven that paying for stuff they owe on isn't always a big priority. The feds send them a fat check, and they turn around and buy a new car and a big TV and a vacation in Cancun. Do you want to devote a lot of our federal government's resources into making sure that doesn't happen? Because monitoring that shit is expensive too, and the feds will still fuck it up.

Of the $245 billion given to US banks, $169 billion has been repaid, including $13.7b in dividends/interest. Think homeowners would've been that good about repaying the Feds within 3 years? These banks had lots of reasons to be responsible borrowers (unlike homeowners) to get themselves out of this deep fucking hole. For one, if they didn't they knew they were out of jobs.

I was plenty pissed off about the bailouts. But in hindsight I'm starting to understand the logic behind it. I still feel outraged that we didn't negotiate more penalties, that we haven't implemented serious regulatory reform, and that nobody has gone to jail. And I'm putting my money where my mouth is--I'm shifting my personal and business banking out of a major bank to a local credit union because all this bullshit still pisses me off. But I have to admit it worked out better than I thought it would, given the disaster we were facing.

The main reason housing prices declined is there is a glut of foreclosures and short sales on the market. By definition, those are being sold cheap. The effect on you, the good buyer/borrower is your home is losing value. At some point, you're likely to be underwater if the slide doesn't stop.

So you'd advocate putting more of your neighbors on the street while putting the homes around yours up for sale at a huge discount from what you paid? All so the banks can be made whole!

TARP has not been paid off by any stretch. The Fed has been buying up bad mortgages, the govt. nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and has been subsidizing huge and continuing losses for both. Again, the banks are made whole, but the bad shit on their books are on the taxpayers' balance sheet now.

Why shouldn't the taxpayer be bailed out at the same time the banks were? As I pointed out, you'd have benefitted by having a smaller mortgage and fewer neighbors foreclosed on, and fewer property fire sales hurting your net worth further.

 

[mook]

The main reason housing prices declined is there is a glut of foreclosures and short sales on the market. By definition, those are being sold cheap. The effect on you, the good buyer/borrower is your home is losing value. At some point, you're likely to be underwater if the slide doesn't stop.

So you'd advocate putting more of your neighbors on the street while putting the homes around yours up for sale at a huge discount from what you paid? All so the banks can be made whole!

TARP has not been paid off by any stretch. The Fed has been buying up bad mortgages, the govt. nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and has been subsidizing huge and continuing losses for both. Again, the banks are made whole, but the bad shit on their books are on the taxpayers' balance sheet now.

Why shouldn't the taxpayer be bailed out at the same time the banks were? As I pointed out, you'd have benefitted by having a smaller mortgage and fewer neighbors foreclosed on, and fewer property fire sales hurting your net worth further.

The slide has stopped, at least in my neighborhood. My home value is now almost exactly the same price it would've been if housing prices had risen by 3% since 2002 (the year I bought it). So actually, although I've been hurt on paper, it hasn't affected me in any meaningful way. My home was cheap, then ridiculously expensive by 2007, and now cheap again.

The glut of foreclosures and short sales are actually great for me. I'm not underwater. I've managed my debts carefully. I've got an outstanding credit rating. Thanks to all the foreclosures I could buy twice the house I have right now and easily afford it. (Of course I'm too cheap to do that, but anyway.) For guys like me, it's a fantastic time to snatch up rental properties. Because while there's a glut of houses for sale, reasonably priced houses for rent in my neighborhood are getting snatched up extremely fast by renters (mostly, I assume, by people who were foreclosed on.) I see a lot of justice in that.

On the other hand, you prefer the housing market NOT seek its level. You prefer the government to prop up housing prices artificially by subsidizing bad mortgages. You prefer that my tax dollars go toward making sure irresponsible people don't get kicked out of homes that are nicer than mine. You prefer that I subsidize their profligate lifestyle. You prefer that I, the responsible citizen, not capitalize on their stupidity by snatching up cheap rentals/a better home for myself.

It's weird---I'm sounding like the libertarian here and you the commie Democrat.

 

[Denny Crane]

The slide has stopped, at least in my neighborhood. My home value is now almost exactly the same price it would've been if housing prices had risen by 3% since 2002 (the year I bought it). So actually, although I've been hurt on paper, it hasn't affected me in any meaningful way. My home was cheap, then ridiculously expensive by 2007, and now cheap again.

The glut of foreclosures and short sales are actually great for me. I'm not underwater. I've managed my debts carefully. I've got an outstanding credit rating. Thanks to all the foreclosures I could buy twice the house I have right now and easily afford it. (Of course I'm too cheap to do that, but anyway.) For guys like me, it's a fantastic time to snatch up rental properties. Because while there's a glut of houses for sale, reasonably priced houses for rent in my neighborhood are getting snatched up extremely fast by renters (mostly, I assume, by people who were foreclosed on.) I see a lot of justice in that.

On the other hand, you prefer the housing market NOT seek its level. You prefer the government to prop up housing prices artificially by subsidizing bad mortgages. You prefer that my tax dollars go toward making sure irresponsible people don't get kicked out of homes that are nicer than mine. You prefer that I subsidize their profligate lifestyle. You prefer that I, the responsible citizen, not capitalize on their stupidity by snatching up cheap rentals/a better home for myself.

It's weird---I'm sounding like the libertarian here and you the commie Democrat.

I prefer the government not coerce banks to give out bad loans in the first place, and then most certainly I prefer the government not kicking those people out and owning their property.

But if they're going to take from us and give to the banks, they may as well do it in a way that helps us at the same time.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Peter Schiff is the fucking man. Going to catch him when he speaks at UCLA in 2 weeks.



[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/peter-schiff-takes-99[/video]

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting read.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rty_1968_antiwar_movement_chicago_111826.html

 

[bluefrog]

Somebody hacked Bloomberg. These protesters are supposed to be portrayed as lazy, entitled recent graduate hipsters with worthless degrees looking for hand outs. (Did I miss any other stereotypes?)

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QKTHS82.htm

 

[BrianFromWA]

Thieves.

 

[bluefrog]

Thieves.

The 99% movement is disjointed, unorganized and unsophisticated. Like Ramsey points out you will have angry, misguided people joining the movement just as an outlet for their frustrations.

The media has been successful at portraying the movement as "a bunch of jacked-up, jobless, wannabe hippies". (see my post above)

It's not hard to see what the core message is: Why the disparity? Why has the 1% gotten some much more of the pie while the rest of us have remained stagnate? Have the rich worked that much harder? Have the rest of us gotten 3x as lazy?

We are not a nation of individuals whose problems or successes are solely a result of our own actions. Some are born with billionaire parents, some are born with to poor parents. Some are born with unbelievable talents, some are born with multiple sclerosis. Some are born to citizens of this nation, some are born to illegal immigrants. Some people achieve success with everything handed to them, some people have to fight tooth and nail for everything they have.

This is a nation of freedom and equality. The Tea party is taking care of the freedom, the 99% is taking care of the equality.

 

[huevonkiller]

The 99% isn't taking care of jack, they're losers and their protests have already lost in Socialist Europe.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yes, in my opinion much of the 99%ers are lazier/feel more entitled than those of, say, barfo/Denny's generation, who at least worked most of their lives before attempting to get handouts.

Like gates said the other day, in america just about anyone can do just about anything, especially with the educational opportunity the taxpayers generously fund (whether military or otherwise).

 

[MARIS61]

Yes, in my opinion much of the 99%ers are lazier/feel more entitled than those of, say, barfo/Denny's generation, who at least worked most of their lives before attempting to get handouts.

Like gates said the other day, in america just about anyone can do just about anything, especially with the educational opportunity the taxpayers generously fund (whether military or otherwise).

Sorry you feel MOST AMERICANS are worthless bums.

Why do you bother "protecting" them?

Guess it's the money, the bennies, the healthcare, the super-cushy retirement after a mere 20 years, the perks for your family...ALL paid for by the 99%.

 

[huevonkiller]

Sorry you feel MOST AMERICANS are worthless bums.

Why do you bother "protecting" them?

Guess it's the money, the bennies, the healthcare, the super-cushy retirement after a mere 20 years, the perks for your family...ALL paid for by the 99%.

The top 20% pay 80% of all taxes actually.

You should thank your boss the next time you see him.

 

[barfo]

An interesting chart:

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Somebody hacked Bloomberg. These protesters are supposed to be portrayed as lazy, entitled recent graduate hipsters with worthless degrees looking for hand outs. (Did I miss any other stereotypes?)

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QKTHS82.htm

ok, add:

basement dwelling, sock fucking internet hack0rz from 4chan.

oh, I guess you mean Scott Olsen, who was kicked out of the military and founded www.ihatethemarinecorps.com

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...t-olsen-is-founder-of-i-hate-the-marines-com/

 

[MARIS61]

An interesting chart:

barfo

The most telling thing about America from that chart is the cradle-to-the-grave poverty, over 20%, which mocks the notion of "The Land of Opportunity".

 

[MARIS61]

The top 20% pay 80% of all taxes actually.

You should thank your boss the next time you see him.

Being self-employed, I have no one to thank but myself.

 

[MARIS61]

Inbred Republican Gov. Bill Haslam illegally imposed a curfew on areas surrounding the Capitol in an effort to crush the Free Speech rights of the very citizens who's rights he is being paid to protect, making Tennessee liable for the many civil rights lawsuits sure to come.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Occupy Wall Street protesters and state officials in Tennessee squared off for a third consecutive night Saturday, even though a local judge has consistently refused to jail the demonstrators and said the state lacks the authority to set a curfew on the property...

In Atlanta, helicopters hovered overhead Wednesday as officers in riot gear arrested more than 50 protesters at a downtown park. In San Diego, police arrested a similar number of people who occupied the Civic Center Plaza and Children's Park for three weeks.

Nashville magistrate Tom Nelson has said there's no legal reason to keep the demonstrators behind bars and he has released them after each arrest. He has refused each night to sign off on arrest warrants for more than two dozen people taken into custody.

Some legal experts agreed with the judge.

The arrests appeared to be a violation of First Amendment rights that allow for people to peacefully assemble, said attorney David Raybin, a former prosecutor. He and others said the nature of the arrests, coupled with the judge's refusal to sign off on the warrants, could become ammunition for lawsuits.

"The government is exposing itself to serious liability here by doing this," Raybin said.

Nelson did not return an email seeking and a phone number for him could not be found.

The curfew at the Legislative Plaza, which state troopers began enforcing Thursday night, runs from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Others questioned the timing of the curfew. The protesters had been demonstrating for about three weeks before it took effect, a point that Nelson said he factored into his decision.

"You can't pass a curfew mid-protest because you disagree with this group of protesters," said criminal defense attorney Patrick Frogge, who is representing some of those arrested.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/tenn-protesters-to-defy-1212773.html