OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Novelafemme]

[quote=Yellow band;431652]

Originally Posted by weatherboi

Laziness maybe, I don't know why I haven't done this sooner!!!My personal accounts will be taken care of asap but my business account will take a couple of weeks to organize.

I closed all my accounts with my bank jan. 2010 after 30 years with them. And you know, they never even asked me why.

I joined a credit union and they sent me a $2.00 bill and welcomed me to a different way to handle your money. Which prompted me to write a nasty gram to the banking institution I was with for 30 years for never asking WHY I left.

LOVE LOVE LOVE the credit union and the SHARED services.

Thank you for this reminder YB! I am going to do the same thing today. I forget sometimes how powerful my voice is and that we the people do have a say!

[Dominique]

Originally Posted by weatherboi

It has organized here! We/we will be marching Saturday!

WAY TO GO!

[nobelcarrot69]

I'm thrilled to tears about this movement! Having been a victim of corporate greed and outsourcing, I will gladly join the revolt !! We need to pull our heads out of the sand! Everytime you spend your hard earned dollar, on a product made in some other country from a company,in the USA who reap all the perks of tax breaks, greed, and politics, you add to your own oppression. We line their pockets with our money all the while they make it harder and harder for you to make that money. As they taint the waters and land the drinking supplies and farms of countries like China. Who's people have no voice and are forced to be silent about as their govt and US companies cover it up and deny it. The labor is cheap and noone is held accountable for what their operations do to the enviroment. Perfect safe haven for greedy CEO's shareholders and whom ever they are in bed with in Washington. If you outsource to other countries and reap from taxpayers money in any way, as in tax breaks, or rebates for different govt funded programs you should be fined and taxed into the hilt. Only a US company who uses us workers to make their product on US soil should be allowed to receive any govt. Kick backs of any sort. Ask these CEO's why they don't base their headquarters in China too instead of just operations. HM? I know why. Do you ?

[SoNotHer]

It has gone far too far, and I know we can all see the clear watershed moments along the way when corporations were allowed to lie, when they were allowed to invade our privacy and track us, when they were allowed to receive tax breaks for various and sundry awful things, when they were allowed to patent life, when they were allowed to buy a democracy, when they pushed a widening gap between the haves and have nots into a unbridgeable chasm, and when they were considered persons and told that there we no limits on campaign spending.

Enough is enough.


"Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record."

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1457...to_get_it_back

[Ebon]

I have a question. Do you think that Obama is part of the problem also or trying to help? There are several "Wall Street Types" that he has appointed into his administration.

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Ebon

I have a question. Do you think that Obama is part of the problem also or trying to help? There are several "Wall Street Types" that he has appointed into his administration.

Amy Goodman interview the author of a book that spoke largely to the subject of off-shore bank accounts. Supposably, there is a "building" somewhere in the Cayman Islands that houses over 50,000 U.S. corporate offices. Wow! As the author said (sorry, I can't remember his name)...that must be a really BIG building!

Obama COULD step in again and work to hold large multi-million dollar corporations accountable for paying their fair share of taxes. And at one point prior to his presidency he lobbied diligently to do just that! I am certainly not a fan of politicians, unless you throw Lieberman in the pile...then I'm a number one fan!...and until there is more transparency in policy making/fiscal reporting and corporate backing, one simply MUST hold the current president accountable.

[Novelafemme]

AMY GOODMAN: Our first guest today is the British journalist Nicholas Shaxson, author of the new book Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens. In the book Shaxson writes, quote, "The offshore system is the secret underpinning for the political and financial power of Wall Street today. It is the fortified refuge of Big Finance." Nicholas Shaxson joins us from Washington, D.C.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about what you're calling "Treasure Islands."

Nicholas Shaxson? We'll go to a music break, and we'll come back to see if we can get the audio of Nicholas Shaxson. Looks like we got it right now. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Nicholas.

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/201...1_archive.html

[SoNotHer]

I want to believe otherwise, but I when see Monsanto types, for example, get appointments in Ag and over the food systems they so clearly want to dominate, I worry.

I think we an engaged, active democracy, and I see this movement as one of the most promising wake up calls toward that end that I have seen in some time.

Originally Posted by Ebon

I have a question. Do you think that Obama is part of the problem also or trying to help? There are several "Wall Street Types" that he has appointed into his administration.

[atomiczombie]

Countdown with Keith Olberman on the Current cable tv network is giving GREAT coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. So are Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Ebon

I have a question. Do you think that Obama is part of the problem also or trying to help? There are several "Wall Street Types" that he has appointed into his administration.

His appointment of Guitner as Sec of the Treasury bothered me- still does. He was and is a Wall Street kind of guy and was right in the middle of what was going on under Bush.

However, I'll take Obama over any of the GOP candidates that most likely will get the nomination. Frankly, I could possibly vote for Jon Hunstman, but he is far too in the "middle" to be the GOP nomination. Romney destroyed more jobs in the US than created them at Bain.

Something that I am getting really tired of is our (the United States) continued tunnel vision about the fact that we are not the only developed country in the world in an economic mess. This is not just a US problem needing to be addressed. We have got to get our heads out of our butts and realize that this just is not all about us.

Also, if we do not take drastic measures to reform our educational system, we will never recover from this recession and not be competitive ever again economically.

[nobelcarrot69]

Not only does the spiral of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer need to stop, it needs to be reversed.

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I looked and I didn't see a thread on this particular subject, so I decided to start one here. I want to have a place to specifically discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement, rallys, and how it is spreading across the nation.

Here is their newly voted on platform/declaration:




I think this movement is tremendously important and it's existence is an inevitable outcome of decades of economic injustices perpetrated by the government, banks and corporations in the US and around the world.

What do you all think about the Occupy Wall Street movement and it's message?

I agree with 90% of what's being stated here. I would add a few more problems to the list. The trade deficit is a huge issue no one has adressed. We import far more than we export, have for years now. We buy more than we sell, can't stay in business long doing that. Common sense. So why is it still happening? The Gov regulates what comes in and out of our ports. The economy is struggling yet we continue to spend more than we make it must stop.
You can't blame big business for taking tax breaks our tax laws afford them. If the IRS told you JQ Public if you make 36300.72 this year, you don't have to pay taxes how many of you would demand that you still pay your fair share. I'm guessing NONE. The problem lies in the tax laws and codes. They need to be changed. I want it to be fair for everyone. Noone tax breaks of any kind for anyone. I think disabled and the elderly should pay no taxes. Everyone else pays a flat tax say 18 cents for every dollar earned. Shrink the gov offices of Irs save money that way, its fair for everyone .

[SoNotHer]

I don't disagree with the end of unfair tax breaks, Jagg, or lopsided tax structures that allow for a greater cut of Warren Buffet's secretary's salary to be taken out than his own.

But how you intend to solve the myriad of other issues at stake and at play here? What about the folks who have underwater mortgages? What about those who lost home and property to a medical bankruptcy? What about those who got sold a bill of goods by Enron and the like and invested in a garbage 401K? What about the folks who lost their small stores and businesses when Walmart and company came to town? What about the steel towns like the ones I live and have lived in that watched a thriving main street become a ghost town?

How exactly does an entity like a corporation, that is not only set up to serve itself first and foremost but is actually mandated by law to be responsible first to its owners/stockholders, ever get to decide what's best for all? And now that corporations do in fact run our democracy, how do we effectively reverse that?

Originally Posted by JAGG

I agree with 90% of what's being stated here. I would add a few more problems to the list. The trade deficit is a huge issue no one has adressed. We import far more than we export, have for years now. We buy more than we sell, can't stay in business long doing that. Common sense. So why is it still happening? The Gov regulates what comes in and out of our ports. The economy is struggling yet we continue to spend more than we make it must stop.
You can't blame big business for taking tax breaks our tax laws afford them. If the IRS told you JQ Public if you make 36300.72 this year, you don't have to pay taxes how many of you would demand that you still pay your fair share. I'm guessing NONE. The problem lies in the tax laws and codes. They need to be changed. I want it to be fair for everyone. Noone tax breaks of any kind for anyone. I think disabled and the elderly should pay no taxes. Everyone else pays a flat tax say 18 cents for every dollar earned. Shrink the gov offices of Irs save money that way, its fair for everyone .

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

I don't disagree with the end of unfair tax breaks, Jagg, or lopsided tax structures that allow for a greater cut of Warren Buffet's secretary's salary to be taken out than his own.

But how you intend to solve the myriad of other issues at stake and at play here? What about the folks who have underwater mortgages? What about those who lost home and property to a medical bankruptcy? What about those who got sold a bill of goods by Enron and the like and invested in a garbage 401K? What about the folks who lost their small stores and businesses when Walmart and company came to town? What about the steel towns like the ones I live and have lived in that watched a thriving main street become a ghost town?

How exactly does an entity like a corporation, that is not only set up to serve itself first and foremost but is actually mandated by law to be responsible first to its owners/stockholders, ever get to decide what's best for all? And now that corporations do in fact run our democracy, how do we effectively reverse that?

You really want my opinion on fixing all those things? I don't have answers for all these things, but I can give you my opinion. That would take me a week, hahahah I'll tell you what I think about some and adress other ones later.
I don't know what you mean by an underwater mortgage. Do you mean people who took out a loan with a bank for an adjustible interest rate instead of a fixed rate ? Or someone who took out a loan they knew they couldn't afford but because the bank agreed to give them the loan they took it, and now can't make the payments? Tell me what you mean by underwater mortgages and then I can give you my opinion. As far as medical bancruptcy, it of course could happen to anyone. Just like any disaster in life, you don't expect it, or want it but you still need to take precautions. There are many many insurance companies you can buy policies from for a very small monthly fee ,some as low as 20 dolars a month, to protect you in case you become ill and unable too work . It pays your mortgage medical bills and even pays to retrain you in a new field if your injuries or illness prevent you from returning to your job. Some will pay up to a million dollars of medical bills etc, depends on your policy. So knowing it could happen to anyone at anytime, I think it's important you take measures to insure you're prepared. It's like not having renters insurance. It's less than 10 dollars a month but if you don't have it and a tornado wipes everything out, you'll have nothing. Do you think someone who wasn't willing to protect themselves should now be taken care of by tax payers? I don't. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for them , or that it's not an awful situation to be in, I'm saying you can protect yourself if you don't want that to happen. If you don't protect yourself, then I guess you'll have to make do best you can. That is the responsiblity of the individual.
Enron is a messed up deal. All the people and companies that lost everything, the elderly, who can't work anymore, it's sad. Again could happen to anyone, those people had no idea their investments were shams some even did a lot research on the company before they invested, and it all seemed valid , how do we compensate victims of a crime? I supppose all that can be done is sell the assets and distribute them to the victims. Hold the people accountable for their crimes including the Gov. agencies who's job was to insure these things don't happen, like SEC. Then impliment rules and safeguards so that it doesn't happen again. It's all you can do. It's not a perfect plan , and those people will never get all their money back or even a fraction, by no fault of their own. It's sad it sucks, it's not fair. No easy fix for that one.
Now the mom and pop crisis. I'm sure many will hang me by my eyelashes for my opinion on this but, it's the truth as I see it. My opinion.
If you go into a store and they want 65 dollars for a blanket, you can get somewhere else for 18 dollars, which one do you choose. If you can't change and grow and be flexible, and offer the public something different, something better and your prices are too high you're are going to go out of business. That is a fact. That's bad business practices. Mom and pop shops didn't want to lower prices didn't want to offer a different service didn't want to do anything different, so they failed to compete. Blame it on walmart? There are plenty of mom and pop shops still open. Mcdonalds , Burgerking, Wendy's , Steak and Shake, they haven't put any small mom and pop burger places out of business. People will pay extra for a better product, they will also pay more for a unique service or product, but they won't pay more for the same product or a like product. If a company is not offering something better or different than their rivals , except higher prices, that's bad business practices, no company can be profitable conducting business like that, why should poor busniess practices and an unwillingness to change anything make a mom and pop store anymore special than say, Builders Square, or Ultimate electronics . That's business, that's how it works and how it doesn't work. Blame it on walmart, blame it on the internet, target, kmart, but the fact is had they offered something better,something more, something different, something unique, they would still be in business. Ok That's it for tonight.

[SoNotHer]

[QUOTE=JAGG;432922] I don't know what you mean by an underwater mortgage. Do you mean people who took out a loan with a bank for an adjustible interest rate instead of a fixed rate ?"

From Wisegeek.com "An underwater mortgage leaves the owner with more debt on the property than the current market value."

You owe more on your home than it's worth, conscripted as you are to "mortgage" (as in the French word "mort," or death, or only after death are free).

You can find a similar definition or find in news stories daily. The last figure I read suggested that folks lost 30% and more of their home's value in the post "boom boom" days that took a sharp right off the cliff just prior to Bush's exit. Inasmuch as a home is most folks' greatest financial asset, this was somewhat painful for working family types but perhaps better news for predatory types.


"As far as medical bancruptcy, it of course could happen to anyone."

The Vegas odds are better for the un or under-insured.

"I think it's important you take measures to insure you're prepared."

So how does that work for folks who were directed to invest in an Enron 401K, or who were counseled to buy a home beyond their means, or whose children were sent multiple credit card offers while still in college or who had the great misfortune of getting inconveniently sick working a Walmart or any job that ensures that you work just up to the point where you are not entitled to health insurance?

"I'm saying you can protect yourself if you don't want that to happen. If you don't protect yourself, then I guess you'll have to make do best you can. That is the responsiblity of the individual."

So really whatever happens, happens and let the free market rule? It's all good, right?

It's funny. We hold children to much different standards than this. If we see a child hitting another child, we intervene. If we see a child take another child's cookie, we stop it and make the child give it back. If we hear a child bullying another child or talking to other children about picking on and setting up another child, we address it and ensure that no child feels singled out or bullied or inferior. We want our children to understand, embody and act out of a sense of goodness and fairness and equality.

And then we become adults and that changes. So what exactly does that say about us, and what does that model for our children?


" Now the mom and pop crisis. I'm sure many will hang me by my eyelashes for my opinion on this but, it's the truth as I see it. My opinion.
If you go into a store and they want 65 dollars for a blanket, you can get somewhere else for 18 dollars, which one do you choose."

And that would be the only measure of cost and value? The comparative retail prices? Beyond the price you see and make a determination on, there are many other costs and prices to consider. And the statistics clearly and consistently show that the Mom & Pop stores not only give back more to their communities in terms of charity, real jobs and taxes, they also happen to take less from their community than a Walmart does in, for instance, in emergency services response and patrol (lotta stuff to watch and prosecute for the shoplifting of) or water contamination and clean up in the river that sits just, unfortunately enough, behind a Super Walmart.

And then of course there's what Walmart allows the community and taxpayer to do, namely take on those medical costs and bankruptcies. Over two thirds of the WM's employees don't participate in the company's healthcare plan. Wonder why. I'm sure it's because they're so abundantly covered somewhere else.

So it's interesting that while you call for more exports and fewer imports, a better trade balance and a stronger American-made economy, you find the justification to shop a store known for selling "Cheap Chinese Crap" because it appears to cost less.

And sadly, that's what everyone's done, which is why the dollar stagnates, China buys our debt (and ours and Canada's prime agriculture, by the way), and the middle class does an amazing disappearing act. "If we're looking for someone to blame, we only have to look into the mirror."

So here we are, many of us, listening to euphemisms like "downsizing" or "food insecurity" or "eliminating redundancies" thrown around, terrified of communism, ignorant of socialism, and falling into the ever widening jaws of carnivorous capitalism and wondering exactly when we hit some kind of economic and social oblivion from which there is no turning back.

[Write14u]

Originally Posted by JAGG

Now the mom and pop crisis. I'm sure many will hang me by my eyelashes for my opinion on this but, it's the truth as I see it. My opinion.
If you go into a store and they want 65 dollars for a blanket, you can get somewhere else for 18 dollars, which one do you choose. If you can't change and grow and be flexible, and offer the public something different, something better and your prices are too high you're are going to go out of business. That is a fact. That's bad business practices. Mom and pop shops didn't want to lower prices didn't want to offer a different service didn't want to do anything different, so they failed to compete. Blame it on walmart?

Gotta disagree with you on this one JAGG. It wasn't a matter of not wanting to lower prices for mom and pop businesses.
When Wal-Mart exploded in the 80s and ---yes, put mom and pop places out of business --- it did it because it had the power of money. I know this first hand and witnessed it with my father's television shop. When he ordered a Magnavox, etc., TV for his store, he couldn't even get the same rate as Wal-Mart was SELLING TVs for. Because Wal-Mart bought in such bulk from the manufacturers, it was able to sell TVs for lower than my dad, as a dealer, could buy them. You can say it's not Wal-Mart's fault that it had the money to buy so much at such a low price, and that would be accurate. However, it's not accurate to blame it on smaller businesses who were unable to match those prices without taking steep losses.
And yes, Wal-Mart knocked my dad out of business. He adapted and found other things to sell/do. But in no way, shape or fashion, did he have the money required to compete with Wal-Mart. The only small mom and pop stores remaining open are niche shops.

[Write14u]

And JAGG, as for being prepared: There are people who can barely afford to pay for food. There's not even $10 per month to squeeze out of the budget for any type of insurance, whether it's renters insurance or life insurance, etc.
Julie said it well. There's nothing you can do when you lose your job and you're doing everything you can to find another and something happens to you, such as a medical issue. That's not lack of preparation.

[nowandthen]

Some good points

http://www.indigenouspolitics.com/

What’s in a Name? Critical Indigenous Engagement with “Occupy” Wall Street
Join your host, J. Kehaulani Kauanui for an episode that focuses on critical indigenous engagements and participation with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations. Listen to the show and learn about the indigenous history of Wall Street, which was built on Lenape tribal territory, and the terms of domination and potentials for decolonization. The program include interviews with: Joanne Barker (Lenape nation of eastern Oklahoma); Farrett (Cree) and Charles Whalen (Oglala Lakota) direct from OWS;Tiokasin Ghosthorse (Cheyenne River Lakota); and Steven Newcomb (Lenape and Shawnee). Native activists have questioned how successful OWS can be given the problematic language of “occupation” and absence of meaningful acknowledgment and redress of the issue of the continued occupation of native lands. As John Paul Montano (Nishnaabe) asserted in, “An Open Letter to the Occupy Wall Street Activists” from September 22, 2011, he read the OWS statement hoping and believing that “enlightened folks fighting for justice and equality and an end to imperialism…” would make mention of the fact that the very land upon which they are protesting does not belong to them—that they are guests upon that stolen indigenous land. And, as Jessica Yee (Mohawk) put it in her column, “OCCUPY WALL STREET: The Game of Colonialism and further nationalism to be decolonized from the ‘Left’”, published on racialicious.com, “Colonialism also leads to capitalism, globalization, and industrialization. How can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism?” Original air-date: 10-18-11.

[Cin]

I would imagine they are all in Wall St.'s pocket, but the way the numbers were interpreted is a tad off.

Romney's Raised More Than Twice the Wall St. Cash as Obama... Why Does the WaPo Say the Opposite?

Compare and contrast. Here, via Open Secrets, are the top recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to FEC filings:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012

Candidate Office Amount
Romney, Mitt (R) $5,047,797
Obama, Barack (D) $2,464,605
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $1,398,945
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $1,195,864
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $1,159,137

And here is the lede from a Washington Post story that's been getting a lot of play:

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

What's going on? Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee, which, it notes, "will aid in his reelection effort."

That's not an entirely inappropriate analysis -- Obama raised that cash, which is news-worthy if for no other reason than we have a lot of Wall Street execs taking to various opinion pages to whine about how mean Obama has been to them and promising to take their balls and go home if he's not nicer. And of course Obama was the Darling of Wall Street in 2008. But there are a few problems with it.

First, this is simply an advantage of being an incumbent at this point in the cycle. Eventually the GOP will have a nominee and he (it won't be Bachmann) will go to Wall Street and raise money for the RNC.

So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The RNC has already raised about $3.3 million from finance and real estate, according to OpenSecrets.

The other problem is that while the DNC will "aid in his re-election effort," it will also spend some of that cash on party infrastructure and for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

I note this mainly because we use contributions to the campaigns themselves in our report on Wall Street's influence in Washington, merely noting in parentheses that the figures don't include money raised for the two parties' national committees. So, a clarification seemed to be in order.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I would imagine they are all in Wall St.'s pocket, but the way the numbers were interpreted is a tad off.

Romney's Raised More Than Twice the Wall St. Cash as Obama... Why Does the WaPo Say the Opposite?

Compare and contrast. Here, via Open Secrets, are the top recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to FEC filings:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012

Candidate Office Amount
Romney, Mitt (R) $5,047,797
Obama, Barack (D) $2,464,605
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $1,398,945
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $1,195,864
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $1,159,137

And here is the lede from a Washington Post story that's been getting a lot of play:

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

What's going on? Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee, which, it notes, "will aid in his reelection effort."

That's not an entirely inappropriate analysis -- Obama raised that cash, which is news-worthy if for no other reason than we have a lot of Wall Street execs taking to various opinion pages to whine about how mean Obama has been to them and promising to take their balls and go home if he's not nicer. And of course Obama was the Darling of Wall Street in 2008. But there are a few problems with it.

First, this is simply an advantage of being an incumbent at this point in the cycle. Eventually the GOP will have a nominee and he (it won't be Bachmann) will go to Wall Street and raise money for the RNC.

So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The RNC has already raised about $3.3 million from finance and real estate, according to OpenSecrets.

The other problem is that while the DNC will "aid in his re-election effort," it will also spend some of that cash on party infrastructure and for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

I note this mainly because we use contributions to the campaigns themselves in our report on Wall Street's influence in Washington, merely noting in parentheses that the figures don't include money raised for the two parties' national committees. So, a clarification seemed to be in order.

forgot to add link to source for the previous post:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews..._the_opposite/


To Be With the 99%, President Obama Must Fire Tim Geithner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-...b_1021972.html