Occupy Wall Street PROTESTERS Not Letting Up - Nationwide

[Alan]

.....OWS has gone to the right place -- bypass the government, and go after the people who control the government.

And do what with them?

[Zoebird]

Mostly, the idea is to keep them separate from government. that's the primary thing coming out of the GA's. how? there are lots of ideas.

but, part of it is just wanting to be back in government, and doing grass roots work -- something that has started in europe, and so on. Seriously, watch the Democracy Now piece; it explains everything.

[Yossarian]

If you look up some research on what TARP does with liquid assets that have no fixed value, and how they value them and buy/sell them back to banks (or not, as they simply, eventually, disappear if they are not purchased, or devalue out of existence), then you discover that it was, in fact, a form of debt forgiveness.

Can you provide a citation for this? I can't follow what you are trying to say.

Do you know how the CPP works?

[Yossarian]

An "injection of capital" is just free money by another name. Why should any business be bailed out for making bad business decisions?

Well, it's not quite free, it has to be paid back if the bank is able. Much of the money has been in fact paid back already.

See: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/do..._20100930.html

As for why, you'd have to ask the politicians that supported it.

[Zoebird]

East River,

seeing as i am very busy today, and not your google monkey (i've already google-monkey'ed quite enough on this thread), you can look it up for yourself.

and yes, I do understand how CPP works.

[Yossarian]

and yes, I do understand how CPP works.

Can anyone show me a calculation of how much the govt has lost purchasing disappearing toxic assets under TARP

[Zoebird]

ERG,

I'm really not interested in googling right now. put up your own links to demonstrate your points.

That being said, google coughed up this: NYTs articles.

And included is this one: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/...ef=bailoutplan

[Zoebird]

I'm tired now, honestly.

I'm ok if people aren't into this movement, or change, or what is going on. I'm ok if people still want to talk about who is to blame for what, and how it all works or doesn't.

But at the end of the day, I see this as an opportnity for broad social change, and that's what i'm supporting i this movement.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Broad social change might be good. Wholesale debt forgiveness for everyone would just be nutty. But then I can't actually believe anyone is seriously proposing it anyway, so arguing against such an idea is probably a waste of time.

I mean think of what it would mean, everyone with a home loan would get a free house, meanwhile renters would keep having to pay rent until they die (which is kind of what they planned to do anyway but ...). Would the owner with a loan out on an apartment get debt forgiveness and his tenants nothing? Keep in mind one reason why people rent is they CAN'T AFFORD to buy. Who do you think the 99% really are? Homeowners are already a few income brackets above renters anyway and they are already strongly favored by all public policy (talk about people who are NOT paying their fair share of taxes!).

College debt is a sticky wicket, but if it was totally forgiven does it mean that everyone else is also entitled to a free college education going forward? Shouldn't they be out of fairness? Why only people who went to college within a specific period of time and financed it via debt? Arguing that the public should adequately fund colleges (yes by raising taxes if need be) is one thing, as such college classes are readily available to all (when they aren't being cut!) and a public benefit.

If it's true the home debtors could have all had free houses for the cost of bank bailouts, I'd have to side wtih them over the banks if I had to choose. The social effects of having a free middle class who owed noone might be more positive than just having a bunch of rich bankers. Depends on how they used their freedom I guess. They should TAKE IT ALL IN FREE TIME!!! But they could just use it in less than socially positive ways, like buy a second house with the new surplus, rent it out to unliberated renter slaves (who probably paid for the bailout).

[Dragline]

"And do what with them?" Some individuals should be prosecuted for acts of fraud. Here's a typical one of many: http://dailybail.com/home/the-specta...many-lies.html. She's hiding out at a beautiful spread in Long Island now. Care to defend this person? Your tax dollars at work.

All banks should have to comply with pre-2008 accounting standards, under which we will learn that most are essentially insolvent and subject to seizure by the FDIC. And no support should be offered for bad investments in European banks or countries. Or do you enjoy continuing to fund failure? Do you think buying AIG was a good deal for the taxpayers and paying its creditors 100 cents on the dollar was a good deal? How about all the toxic crap shuffled over to Fannie and Freddie, which we now own too? Who were their biggest creditors? A few of them like BAC have finally been sued for fraud recently, but its been a very meager and half-hearted effort. One of the settlements with Citibank in an earlier case was so weak that the judge in charge of the case rejected it as too grossly in favor of the bank. How does that happen?

But the bigger question is the prospective one -- what happens when these banks fail again (even under current accounting standards), which is happening right now as Europe goes down the toilet? Will they be restructured or bailed out? Will we continue to reward failure at the highest level? Neither party is listening and both are being paid. And we will hear the BIG LIE again -- "we have to pay these people/institutions off or the world will end."