Demand What Of Their Congressman? Trickle UP not down! Take care of the PEOPLE
Hi GDR
... The government representing these people had no real choice but to pony up in response to this blackmail as the economic downside was intolerable. ...
No, they could have let the banks fail and they could have bailed out the people.
The same amount of money given to the people would have solved both the economic crisis and the social disruption caused by the ripple of mortgage dominoes throughout the economy.
What this was, is simply a lesson in the hard truth of economics: an economy grows from the bottom up, not from the top down. The "Trickle-Down Theory" that conservatives and corporate bobbleheads so like to espouse is a failed theory: the failure happened from the bottom up, and it was no trickle. It happened because trickle down did not occur as promised: the people saw their earnings diminish instead of grow, and then they reached the point where there was no where else to go but failure.
I think what the people in the street are asking for is that their government do something or anything that brings integrity and justice to financial institutions.
Look at the signs:
"we are the 99%" means those NOT in the top 1% earning bracket, so this includes virtually everyone (yes Buz, even you).
"we pay taxes" means those corporations that make massive profits, with government handouts yet, should pay taxes and the rich should pay their fair share as well.
"we did not cause the recession" - it was caused by the financial institutions and the greedy rich, that kept promising a drop of honey but never letting it fall.
There are a lot of people with a lot of concerns about how Wall Street policies have impacted their lives ... for the worse (charging high fees and interest rates and sucking profits off the top). This is why it seems so diverse: it isn't a packaged agenda (like the tea baggers), it is the people: children, elderly, healthy, disabled, all of us in one big melting pot, all concerned that the cause of the financial crisis has not been dealt with and the bailouts did little but pad a few pockets and golden umbrellas, while Main Street saw squat.
What else can people do to draw attention to the situation? At least in Canada we had some regulation when it came to our banks and as a result we have what has been noted as the strongest banking system in the world. We did not even come close to having one of our banks fail.
And I am happy to have a large part of my retirement funds there, and do my banking at a Credit Union.
Modulus put a finger on it when he said it was about restoring the Glass—Steagall Act ... or at least restoring the regulation of banks and investments (most people probably don't know about the act or that critical sections were repealed by money sucking GOPs).
quote:The Banking Act of 1933, Pub. L. No. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass—Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (DVa.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (DAla.-3). Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm—Leach—Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).[2][3]
The repeal of provisions of the Glass—Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm—Leach—Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Some economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007—2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms.[4][5][6][7][8][9]
I've said before that it was deregulation that was the culprit, and it looks like I am not alone with that conclusion.
Re: Demand What Of Their Congressman? Trickle UP not down! Take care of the PEOPLE
Zen Deist writes:
No, they could have let the banks fail and they could have bailed out the people.
The same amount of money given to the people would have solved both the economic crisis and the social disruption caused by the ripple of mortgage dominoes throughout the economy.
I'm no expert but I would say that sounds good in theory but not in practice. The reason being is that so many people, either through direct employment, investments including pension plans etc had their future tied up in these institutions. I'd also make the observation that governments are not well positioned to dole out money to individuals when it is need and where it is needed. I suppose they could just cut taxes but that won't help those put into bankruptcy by all of this.
I do think that there should have been far more restrictions but on the financial institutions including executive compensation.
Zen Deist writes:
What this was, is simply a lesson in the hard truth of economics: an economy grows from the bottom up, not from the top down. The "Trickle-Down Theory" that conservatives and corporate bobbleheads so like to espouse is a failed theory: the failure happened from the bottom up, and it was no trickle. It happened because trickle down did not occur as promised: the people saw their earnings diminish instead of grow, and then they reached the point where there was no where else to go but failure.
I don't think that we can make any clear cut statements of failed theory. I go back to the simple question of integrity. Frankly I believe, whether through capitalism, socialism or trickle-downism, that the system will work if those with the power are honest, fair and have their interests be about more than their own.
Just the same I thought it was a great post and I’ll give it a thumbs up.
What are they going to demand of their congressman, being most of them have no idea what they are protesting about, relative to Wall Street?
I've heard it floated that Congress should pass a sweeping measure to forgive a substantial portion of Federal student loan debt, which I think is a great idea. At such time as there's a proposal on the table to do that, OWS protesters should urge their congressman to vote for it. OWS protesters in other states should do the same.
Wall street is where millions of stock holding Americans who's stock dividends and earned income
Let me just stop you right there. While it's true that someone working on Wall Street may be paid a substantial amount, why should I believe that they've earned it?
What did they make? What did they do, besides move a large sum of money to and fro and charge both sides a percentage for doing so?
That one is wealthy is not evidence that what one is going is something that benefits society as a whole, or is particularly valuable. One may be a very successful thief, for instance.
I don't think that we can make any clear cut statements of failed theory. I go back to the simple question of integrity. Frankly I believe, whether through capitalism, socialism or trickle-downism, that the system will work if those with the power are honest, fair and have their interests be about more than their own.
We have had trickle-down theory ever since Reagan, IIRC, but the poorest keep getting poorer.
It doesn't work in good times and it certainly doesn't work in bad times.
When the failure came it was from the bottom -- the people that could pay initially but could not keep up as their money continued to decline and interest rates increased.
When the failure started, there were just a few foreclosures, but they snowballed, and suddenly it was the major banks that were in trouble.
Now back-pedal: IF the people had been able to pay their mortgages THEN the collapse would not have occurred.
The much trumpeted hoopla touted promised trickle-down failed to get to them in time -- and 6+ terms of presidents is a long time. The trickle of at least some money down should have occurred if the theory had even an iota of reality to it. There was none, in fact the effects at the bottom of the economic pyramid were negative: the gap between rich and poor has increased.
By comparison the collapse took but a few weeks. The trickle up of the economy from the bottom to the top was rapid and readily visible to all.
I do think that there should have been far more restrictions but on the financial institutions including executive compensation.
There used to be, the GOP got them removed via deregulation. The same people that promised the land of milk and honey from trickle-down of hand-outs to the rich by massive tax-cuts.
... that the system will work if those with the power are honest, fair and have their interests be about more than their own.
BIG "if" there. When they aren't ... then government needs to regulate them to provide a minimal level of fairness ... that's one of the things government is supposed to do ... and when that doesn't happen, then you protest, publicly loudly and in large crowds: that is when you occupy wall street.
It's not a single articulated message, it is the voice of the people, from mom&pop senior citizens to college loan kids, to cherry-picked anti-semites who still are upset about the economics (but who are pointed out to poison-well the argument) and who ALL want economic reform ...
... who all want to see ethical behavior in government and in the provisions of mortgages and loans with reasonable interest rates and conditions, and who want to see some of the effect of the massive bail-out spending reach to their pockets and their lives.
I'm no expert but I would say that sounds good in theory but not in practice. The reason being is that so many people, either through direct employment, investments including pension plans etc had their future tied up in these institutions. I'd also make the observation that governments are not well positioned to dole out money to individuals when it is need and where it is needed. I suppose they could just cut taxes but that won't help those put into bankruptcy by all of this.
If the same amount of money had been distributed to pay for the foreclosures, then those bankruptcies would not have occurred, the banks would not have been in a position to fail, and the economy would not have suffered the domino effect that we have seen. If - at the same time - regulations had been revived or put into place, such that the "sub-prime" were no longer legal, and no new mortgages would qualify without proper assets (a condition we have now by default rather than regulation) then we would be further along the road to recovery -- recovery from decades of a failed experiment in economics.
The much trumpeted hoopla touted promised trickle-down failed to get to them in time -- and 6+ terms of presidents is a long time. The trickle of at least some money down should have occurred if the theory had even an iota of reality to it. There was none, in fact the effects at the bottom of the economic pyramid were negative: the gap between rich and poor has increased.
In my post if you look back you can see that I wasn't advocating for any particular economic theory. My point was that regardless of ideology what is most important is that those with the power have integrity.
People keep electing governments based on ideology. I agree that ideology matters but in the end it is integrity that counts the most. (Of course that is also assuming that they have the intelligence to do the job.)
Zen Deist writes:
If the same amount of money had been distributed to pay for the foreclosures, then those bankruptcies would not have occurred, the banks would not have been in a position to fail, and the economy would not have suffered the domino effect that we have seen. If - at the same time - regulations had been revived or put into place, such that the "sub-prime" were no longer legal, and no new mortgages would qualify without proper assets (a condition we have now by default rather than regulation) then we would be further along the road to recovery -- recovery from decades of a failed experiment in economics.
A lot of those homes that were foreclosed on were bought by people who already had nice homes but speculated and bought high end properties. It wasn't just those at the bottom end of the food chain. You would have those that lived within their budget pay for those that didn't, and a lot of those that did live within their budget did so on very modest incomes.
I do however agree with your comments on regulation.
Wall Street "affords" no one but the people that are actually working on Wall Street. It's time to return to a Progressive tax structure and a Progressive Inheritance Tax.
Wall Street is comprised of the stock and commodity markets. Without these markets, the free enterprise system, including the corporations of it could not exist. Wall Street is the source of their funding.
Without Wall Street you would have no trucking, food, technology, construction, etc corporations in this free nation, which has been the most free and blessed on the planet.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
"Occupy Wall Street" releases official declaration
quote:As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
Here's a nice white lady talking - (with questionable make-up choices). Former banker, sensible, rational, not spounting crazy shit on a hand-held camera. You should be able support that right? There's no nonsense.
The banks, particularly in the US, have acted not only without integrity but fraudulently. They loaned money out to hapless citizens, (in many cases knowing that when the sub-prime mortgage expired they would be unable to pay it back), then packaged up these loans and sold them to other financial institutions as blue chip loans.
If you were a Fox News listener, you would be aware that Democrat congressmen, during the Bush Admin, and now the Obama Admin along with Democrat oversight congressmen were demanding the banks to dish out loans to people who couldn't afford them.
Barny Frank, et al, assured the banks that government would cover them if the loans failed.
That's exactly what they did. They borrowed billions and even trillions, the Federal Reserve printing the money, inflating the people's money and handed it over to the Fed Reserve bankers who now are holding it, stashing the people's money in their vaults, enriching themselves, knowing that if they loan it out they will likely loose it.
The protesters should be at the White House and Congress protesting that they, not Wall Street or the rich that enriched the bankers and put them out of the homes which they couldn't afford in the first place.
The protesters are organized by the Obama backed unions, Obama crony, billionaire socialist George Soros, et al and other left wing anti-capitalist entities who, unlike the well mannered Tea Partiers, occupy the people's parks, streets and businesses. Tea partiers OTO, would have their orderly (non trash/debris) rally, after which they would go back home and to work.
These occupying thugs go defecate in business restrooms, on the streets, leave their
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
which has been the most free and blessed on the planet.
Tell that to black people...and Mexicans...and women...and gays...or any other minority.
It sure must be nice being a white male in America. You can say dumb shit like what you just wrote and actually think you're right.
Tell me, Onifre, in what nation are blacks, Hispanics better off than the ones in America?
Tell me, Onifre, why, if America is so bad for minorities, why do Hispanics illegally cross our borders so as to find a better life, education and income?
As an aside, VOTE FOR HERMAN KANE, THE REAL 100% FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE CAPABLE OF WINNING!! bUZSAW IS NO MINORITY RACIST!!
ABE: Tell me, Onifre, why is it that blacks and hispanics risk their lives on high water ocean waters, under terrible odds, from Haite and Cuba, to raft to America's shores so as to enjoy the good American life?
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
™ Version 4.2
