By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Occupy Wall Street Protests not working? What do you think?

 

How much of an impact is OWS having?

Can't hear them over the sound of my Ferrari 60 24.10%
 
Just a news story, no visible results 82 32.93%
 
Helping change minds, it's a start 68 27.31%
 
Change is on the horizon, just you wait 27 10.84%
 
I feel the impact already 6 2.41%
 
Can't hear them over the... 6 2.41%
 
Total:249
Kasz216 on 07 December 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
So, you are saying that the Federal Reserve is an entity that is part of the U.S government and has oversight like other parts of the U.S government? Alan Greenspan said it isn't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QkmLnNEvdU

As far as ownership, they the Federal Reserve is owned by private banks:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?

A: There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank’s board of directors.

In otherwords... they don't really own the fed.  Anymore then anyone who pays into socail security  "owns social security"

They have no actual ownership rights, and the stock being held is just a requirement to be in the Federal Reserve System.

So... your wrong.   And again, if this is a privately run corporation, why does all the excess profits go straight to the US Treasury?

Don't tell me your turning into one of those "The world is controlled by international (jewish) banker" types.


Aside from which before he was appointed by the government  Ben Bernake was an economics teacher at Princeton... and never actually held a job on Wallstreet... actually Princeton Proffessor was his only job after he graduated.  So, no, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve ISN'T a Wallstreet insider.

Though why you wouldn't expect economics people to be head of the government agency that handles a big part of the economy i'm not sure.

Are you raging at the fact that the FDA is full of "Medical Insiders" or that the Justice Department is full of "Legal insiders"?

Consider this situation here, in regards to the financial system and the said "experts" involved with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Personnel_.22revolving-door.22_with_U.S._government

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagewanted=all

 

You have a system where the top banks have people in them go into government positions and shape policy favorable to them, because that is what they believe is needed.  So, when the president asks for advice on why they should appoint for chairman of the Federal Reserve, you get Wall Street insiders shaping the decisions.

As for why this issue is different than arguably the justice department or FDA, it is that there is nothing that is not impacted in an economy by what the Federal Reserve does, in its control of the money supply, and that the people that would be appointed in the Fed will end up, invariably, try to bail out the banks.  Also, the concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power also, with there being very few major banks on top, to give a small select list.  This is not true for legal or the medical industry.

 

And as far as the profits "going to the Treasury", how is that working out now?  Is the U.S Treasury and the U.S tax payers making out like bandits now, by the decisions of the Fed?  

Your joking with that video right?  Man you've really lost it recently.

I mean  your turning into the blindest of ideologues who can't even read the evidence in their posts, your ending up like manusjutus or something.

Why so many Goldeman Sax people in government?  Re-read your NYtimes article... if you bothered to read it the first time.

"The power and influence that Goldman wields at the nexus of politics and finance is no accident. Long regarded as the savviest and most admired firm among the ranks — now decimated — of Wall Street investment banks, it has a history and culture of encouraging its partners to take leadership roles in public service."

 

As for the video... I'm sorry who voted for the bailout fund again?  The people being yelled at by congress weren't involved in the situation until after the bank bailout had already been improved!

 

So again.... Ben Bernake is not a Wall Street insider... the fed is a government agency AND the bailout was decided by congress.  If you want a reason why the bailouts happened?  Why not mention Congress' ability to insider trade.... legally.


I mean it's crazy I have to point all this out, considering I was never in favor of the bailout, and still aren't, and think in reality in an Ideal world the Federal Reserve would do almost nothing when it comes to monetary policy.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 07 December 2011

Need one demand?  Try this:

 

As for the camps, don't like them?  Well Hoovervilles do wear on towns.  Good luck not having them if you run austerity measures.  But hey, it would be jim dandy for individuals to go under bridges and die somewhere alone, when there isn't sufficient shelter space due to budget cuts.



richardhutnik on 07 December 2011
Kasz216 said:

So again.... Ben Bernake is not a Wall Street insider... the fed is a government agency AND the bailout was decided by congress.  If you want a reason why the bailouts happened?  Why not mention Congress' ability to insider trade.... legally.


I mean it's crazy I have to point all this out, considering I was never in favor of the bailout, and still aren't, and think in reality in an Ideal world the Federal Reserve would do almost nothing when it comes to monetary policy.

If I am not mistaken I DID mention insider trading by congress in here, and it got linked up with this comment: "Well, golly, protest Washington over that".  I did mention it before.

And the Fed is as much of a Federal Agency as Sallie Mae is.



Kasz216 on 07 December 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

So again.... Ben Bernake is not a Wall Street insider... the fed is a government agency AND the bailout was decided by congress.  If you want a reason why the bailouts happened?  Why not mention Congress' ability to insider trade.... legally.


I mean it's crazy I have to point all this out, considering I was never in favor of the bailout, and still aren't, and think in reality in an Ideal world the Federal Reserve would do almost nothing when it comes to monetary policy.

If I am not mistaken I DID mention insider trading by congress in here, and it got linked up with this comment: "Well, golly, protest Washington over that".  I did mention it before.

And the Fed is as much of a Federal Agency as Sallie Mae is.

Which is... you know, what should be going on.  Protesting Wallstreet remains stupid.  Even if the protestors do start to hate on Obama.  (Though honestly, if i was going to vote for anyone so far, it'd probabbly BE obama, since the republican replacements at this point are well... just as bad.  Though I plan to just write in noone.)


Aslo, few problems with the bolded

1) Sallie Mae's federal charter was terminated in 2004.  So you would of been better going with Freddie Mac or something.

2) Sallie Mae's leaders have never been apointed by the government. (or Freddie)

3) Sallie Mae has never given over it's profits to the government. (Or freddie)

 

The government has as much control over the Federal Reserve as it does the CIA.



Coca-Cola on 15 December 2011

Occu-Mom Places 4 Year-Old Daughter on Train Tracks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2ztak_wBwGc



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 December 2011
Coca-Cola said:
Occu-Mom Places 4 Year-Old Daughter on Train Tracks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2ztak_wBwGc

To be fair, if any of those protestors actually thought trains were going to come they wouldn't be lying there in the first place.  I bet the trains were postponed before they even got there.

Though I do question why anyone would bring their children to such a dangerous area.

Anyone who brings their children to any OWS movement is really taking a huge risk.



richardhutnik on 17 December 2011
Kasz216 said:
Coca-Cola said:
Occu-Mom Places 4 Year-Old Daughter on Train Tracks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2ztak_wBwGc

To be fair, if any of those protestors actually thought trains were going to come they wouldn't be lying there in the first place.  I bet the trains were postponed before they even got there.

Though I do question why anyone would bring their children to such a dangerous area.

Anyone who brings their children to any OWS movement is really taking a huge risk.

People in Occupy Danbury brought their kids to hang out at the mall for meeting.  They then did walk around the mall in Occupy New Jersey t-shirts.



Kasz216 on 18 December 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Coca-Cola said:
Occu-Mom Places 4 Year-Old Daughter on Train Tracks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2ztak_wBwGc

To be fair, if any of those protestors actually thought trains were going to come they wouldn't be lying there in the first place.  I bet the trains were postponed before they even got there.

Though I do question why anyone would bring their children to such a dangerous area.

Anyone who brings their children to any OWS movement is really taking a huge risk.

People in Occupy Danbury brought their kids to hang out at the mall for meeting.  They then did walk around the mall in Occupy New Jersey t-shirts.

My point stands?  That's just awful parenting.



Kasz216 on 18 December 2011
richardhutnik said:

Need one demand?  Try this:

 

As for the camps, don't like them?  Well Hoovervilles do wear on towns.  Good luck not having them if you run austerity measures.  But hey, it would be jim dandy for individuals to go under bridges and die somewhere alone, when there isn't sufficient shelter space due to budget cuts.


For the last time.  That is complete fiction.

Why do you keep trying to push an idea that's been disproven multiple times already.

Additionally Homless camp towns already exist, and existed before OWS or any of this.  In general cities are forced to take them down just to try and force the chronic homless to go to shelters and long term homes.

Right now there is an excess of shelters and long term housing, let alone just outright homes.  Even if the programs were cut at this point... the programs are overfunded due to the homeless' refusal to use them.

The homeless problem actually has little to do with money and everything to do with mental.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/10/25/2590721/fresno-begins-to-clear-remaining.htmlillness.

 

 

And that whole rant is... well awful and off base.



keith8890 on 18 December 2011

The real problem being
http://anti-dolphin.org/
There gonna take over the world the invasion is almost upon us.