Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else

If it were as simple as that - Maybe.But how do you go about doing that in practise? I certainly don't know.

You go to the bank to withdraw some money. They respond: "We done goofed, we ain't got your money". You call the Feds and report the problem and then they give you the money.But FDIC insures the banks, not the people, so I dunno.

But the bigger problem is that the very same banks that have been saved are using the money from the bailouts to lobby and prevent reform. Short of some kind of reset, I can't see how the situation can eventually get better. If we let those banks do their business as usual, the collapse you fear will still happen and will be much worse as the system get more and more corrupted. The other solution would be to nationalize the banks but if the same politicians that have allowed the fraud are the ones in command of the nationalized banks, it won't do much good.Either the system is at risk of a domino effect that would collapse the economy because a few bad apples, but that would mean that the system was too unstable to start with and it would collapse anyway after a while no matter what we do(a bit like a building with bad fondations).
Or the system is so corrupted that a few failures would uncover the rest of the corruption and would result in a general failure, but in either cases, not changing the way the financial system works will make it only worse later on and we can't make a new system while wasting ressources trying to sustain the old and failed one.As for the customers of the banks, they will be reimbursed by the FDIC that gets its money from the selling of the failed bank's assets. You can find some informations n how it works on the FDIC site. Moreover, I've done some posts on this subject in a previous thread:
EvC Forum: Occupy Wall Street
In my first post, you can see that the FDIC doesn't take only the taxpayer's money to make the clients whole but the money they get from selling assets. The taxpayer's money is only used if the assets didn't allow the FDIC to recover all the money, but it still spends less money than outright bailing out the banks.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Oh man, tut tut, peaceful protestors getting arrested for exhibiting their constitutionally granted freedoms is some funny shit. Police states are funny as hell too.

People, with their penny-ante checking accounts, aren't the only customers of banks.Your employer is also a customer of a bank. And while your employer may be taking in the day's receipts, he's only paying you twice a month. He's only paying the rent once a month. Those are the sort of cash-flow mismatches - accounts payable and accounts recievable don't move on the same schedule - that companies have to use banks to resolve - they need a place to park cash when they don't have the immediate need for it, and a place to loan money when payday rolls around.When the banks fail, it's not just a matter of being unwound by the FDIC (you should read about how the FDIC closes a bank, it's seriously some super-spy type shit.) The net effect is that all the banks stop making loans to reassess their outstanding risks and corporations can't get the money they need to pay people. It's called a "liquidity trap" and its exactly what we were facing at the end of 2008, which is why the bailouts were absolutely necessary.

He's the only one making sense concerning economic issues and foreign policy. The media however has tried to stiffle him. I don't know what you mean by that. Mc Cain did NOT support the bailout, Romney did not support the auto bailout, and given the facts of the bailout many politicians ON BOTH SIDES have stated they wouldn't have supported the bailout.One camp for sure did, which was the camp getting a mojority of their campaign money from the financial institutions - Obama.- Oni

"and they give you the money".....? Just like that? Simple.I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiment you are expressing about bailing out people rather than corrupt banks. But your statement seems incredibly naive. The banking system is the system by which money gets distributed. If it collapses how does the government "give you the money"? Does the government setup cash dispensing booths on every street corner and just give it to people who seem worthy or who claim to have money in the bank they can't access? What about company payrolls, supplier payments and all the other behind the scenes transactional goings on?Governments could arguably just take over failed banks, nationalise them rather than bail them out. Then at least the banks in question could continue to function without requiring the government to setup whole new methods of money distribution.Is nationalisation effectively what you are advocating as an alternative to bailout?

Many of his policies are still counter to the economic views of OWS. I'm not sure the OWS guys support for instance, eradicating Federal spending on education. Nor do I think (though I might be wrong) that OWS tends to believe that the only way for a nation to increase its collective wealth is by increasing its gold supplies.Furthermore, he has social policies that are generally abhorent to the liberals and independents such as 'Life begins at conception' which not only would seek to outlaw abortion but also if taken literally, would outlaw the pill.If I had to choose who gets the Republican ticket, it would probably be Ron Paul, but I don't see him being preferable to Obama as far as the OWS movement is concerned. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, also referred to as 'Financial industry bailout bill'Yea: AZ McCain, John [R]As I said, the point is that the republicans supported the bailout. The democrats supported the bailout. There are a few that did not support the bailout, but even if any of them happened to be running - that doesn't mean anything because both parties still supported the bailout and the new President would probably be presiding over people that supported the bailout. I know this because a majority of politicians supported it in 2008, and most of them are still around I believe.Furthermore, the more important factors in determining who OWS should vote for would probably be along the following lines:1. Campaign reform.
2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future.
3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
4. In case of crisis, bailout the people, not the banks. If banks must be bailed out, they become the property of the people.As far as I can tell, the majority of the Republican ticket are for taxing the poor and middle class and against taxing the very wealthy. This seems to be fundamentally opposed to the OWS ethos.

Yes. I agree. Again - Agreement. I certainly don't think that "business as usual" should even be considered a viable option. That road has already proven itself to be a road to disaster. I think the existing building has foundations that are wobbling alarmingly even as we stand here surrounded by rubble from the last tremor. Bailing the banks out was arguably necessary. But defending bank bailouts as possibly necessary isn't the same as advocating that things carry on in the disastrous manner that caused things to go so wrong in the first place.Bailing out the banks should have been followed immediately by reform of the banking system. At the very least immediate action should have been taken to separate the sort of banking we all depend on from the "casino banking" (as it has become known here) activities. Furthermore those who acted negligently or unlawfully should have been prosecuted, those who failed miserably should have been sacked and longer term reform of the entire system begun. OK. But how long does all this take? If there really is a complete banking system collapse of the sort I described previously the entire economy will grind disastrously to a halt rather rapidly. Having some assets eventually sold and some money forthcoming at some point down the line has little bearing on the sort of complete liquidity seizure under consideration.

I'm sure I missed some steps and there's probably some paperwork to fill out. What part of "I don't know what I'm talking about" aren't you getting I suppose they'd just mail me a check like every other time they've given me money. Why couldn't we just use the other banks that didn't fail? If all banks fail simultaneously, then yeah, we're fucked. That isn't the consideration tho. I thought we were talking about just letting some of banks fail, and then bailing out the people who end up not getting the money that's theirs.

As is shown, what McCain says and what he does are frequently diametrically opposed.

A check drawn on what account, though?Seriously, CS, you should look up how the FDIC closes banks. I don't say that to criticize you; I say that because I think you'd really enjoy it, it's seriously some super-spy shit because it has to be a big secret or else the presence of the FDIC causes a run on the bank and embezzlement by the top execs.

Foreign Policy
Pretty good on the non-interventionist side, but is a believer in radical isolationism. Extremely radical, basically doesnt want the US in any international organizations. In the modern world this is just crazy.Immigration
Believes we should let illegal aliens die in the streets rather than allow them access to emergency rooms.
SourceTerrorism
Wants to go back to days of Privateers and have Letter of Marque.Economics
Plain wackaloon.Constitutional rights
No belief in separation of church and state.
He is a radical states rightser. If a state wants to allow discrimination, so be it. Look at his stand on gay marriage and schools.He is a radical libertarian that goes against those values when it suits him.

Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what many of those who acted to bailout the banks around the world did think was about to happen. The entire global banking system was believed to be on the verge of collapse. Large banks "too big to fail" going under and taking others down with them in a domino effect. A panic of confidence where savers all start withdrawing their funds simultaneously because they don't believe their money is safe in any bank at all. Etc. Complete paralysis of the financial system. That is exactly what we are talking about. Which you just take down to the bank to cash. Oh......

FDIC insurance does not cover trust accounts nor many other types of securities. My families entire nest egg...retirement future...everything!...Is at Wells Fargo and if anyone had let Wells Fargo fail and we lost everything, I'd be out there with a gun aiming at the politicians responsible!Edited by Phat, : No reason given.