OWS Protests Turning Violent

[CID1990]

My favorite Occupy picture yet...



Of course, live action is even better...



That's what you get for a potty mouth like that...

Man that's awesome. Got her right in the cakehole right in the middle of the word "F**K".

[turpinivan]

Hey, I think the politicians are being richer and richer in today world. they are even beating the business people in the race of money. So I am collecting a list of the richest politicians world wide.

richest politicians   

[89Hen]

Still waiting BillK.

[kalm]

Still waiting BillK.

Thankfully they haven't caused much violence and the only people who have been hurt are the protestors. Do you think the protests have had any positive impact?

[bluehenbillk]

Still waiting BillK.

It's coming, don't worry.

[89Hen]

Still waiting BillK.

Thankfully they haven't caused much violence and the only people who have been hurt are the protestors. Do you think the protests have had any positive impact?

Depends on what you think is positive. They might say just the fact that they are in the news at all is positive for them. They have a encampment here in DC and the only time they're in the news here is when they block traffic. I don't know anyone who takes them seriously here.

[kalm]

Thankfully they haven't caused much violence and the only people who have been hurt are the protestors. Do you think the protests have had any positive impact?

Depends on what you think is positive. They might say just the fact that they are in the news at all is positive for them. They have a encampment here in DC and the only time they're in the news here is when they block traffic. I don't know anyone who takes them seriously here.

The move to credit unions is a very positive development.

[andy7171]

The losers got evicted from McKelden Park here in Baltimore this morning. After three stabbings and a rape in the last week.

[GannonFan]

Depends on what you think is positive. They might say just the fact that they are in the news at all is positive for them. They have a encampment here in DC and the only time they're in the news here is when they block traffic. I don't know anyone who takes them seriously here.

The move to credit unions is a very positive development.

That was happening before any of the Occupy movement really got started. I think they had a shot to maybe get something really positive done, but they stalled themselves as they fumbled for any coherence of a message and then their ranks filled with anarchists and homeless and it became more about camping out at a specific location rather than something with a message. The images of young adults at these things gathered around with fancy tensts, laptops and iPhones and asking for student loans to be forgiven didn't really endear them to the 99% who work or look for work everyday. Heck, even the unions are distancing themselves from this stuff now - the dockworkers and others associated with work at ports went out of their way before yesterday to say that they don't agree with what was planned.

Good idea, just lost it's way because of the lack of focus.

[kalm]

The move to credit unions is a very positive development.

That was happening before any of the Occupy movement really got started. I think they had a shot to maybe get something really positive done, but they stalled themselves as they fumbled for any coherence of a message and then their ranks filled with anarchists and homeless and it became more about camping out at a specific location rather than something with a message. The images of young adults at these things gathered around with fancy tensts, laptops and iPhones and asking for student loans to be forgiven didn't really endear them to the 99% who work or look for work everyday. Heck, even the unions are distancing themselves from this stuff now - the dockworkers and others associated with work at ports went out of their way before yesterday to say that they don't agree with what was planned.

Good idea, just lost it's way because of the lack of focus.

There are many reports that the CC move accelerated once the OWS got some legs.

Driving by Occupy Spokane, I agree that it's tough to take them seriously but at least they are keeping some important issues in the news. I find the vilification of wayward youths with a cause interesting in light of the fraud and bribery from the financial services sector. You could forgive every student loan and it would be a drop in the bucket compared with the bailouts. The hard working 99% should have been calling for heads years ago.

[GannonFan]

That was happening before any of the Occupy movement really got started. I think they had a shot to maybe get something really positive done, but they stalled themselves as they fumbled for any coherence of a message and then their ranks filled with anarchists and homeless and it became more about camping out at a specific location rather than something with a message. The images of young adults at these things gathered around with fancy tensts, laptops and iPhones and asking for student loans to be forgiven didn't really endear them to the 99% who work or look for work everyday. Heck, even the unions are distancing themselves from this stuff now - the dockworkers and others associated with work at ports went out of their way before yesterday to say that they don't agree with what was planned.

Good idea, just lost it's way because of the lack of focus.

There are many reports that the CC move accelerated once the OWS got some legs.

Driving by Occupy Spokane, I agree that it's tough to take them seriously but at least they are keeping some important issues in the news. I find the vilification of wayward youths with a cause interesting in light of the fraud and bribery from the financial services sector. You could forgive every student loan and it would be a drop in the bucket compared with the bailouts. The hard working 99% should have been calling for heads years ago.

Just because the media took notice and reported on it more doesn't mean people weren't already doing it in droves. You could say it was the other way around and that the only momentum the OWS got was because people were already moving away from big banks for many things.

And while I believe plenty of people didn't act nobly leading up to the economic meltdown, the fact that there hasn't been more convictions isn't due to some convoluted conspiracy, just that there wasn't a lot of criminal activity. People at all levels took risks, people screwed up, and things went bad. Doesn't mean laws or regulations were broken and that's still required to have a crime take place. And I don't blame the banks and others for taking the bailouts - they would've been stupid not to. I blame the government for facilitating it in the first place. No need to hand out all that free money with little to no guarantee that it would fix what ails this country. And no, giving it instead to those wayward youths (which would be paramount to giving it to the university system which has so adeptly played the system to fill their own coffers) wouldn't excite me either - it would just be another mistake by government in a rush to do everything and anything to fix an economy they don't know how to fix and they just hope something sticks.

[89Hen]

The move to credit unions is a very positive development.

Why?

[Grizalltheway]

The move to credit unions is a very positive development.

Why?

Same reason supporting local businesses is preferable to Wally-World.

[89Hen]

Why?

Same reason supporting local businesses is preferable to Wally-World.

That's fine and all, but you didn't answer the question. Aren't credit unions exempt from taxation? If so, how would the Fed make up the difference in lost revenue if everyone moved their money to credit unions?

Credit unions are fine for certain things, but are they the answer to any real problems?

[Grizalltheway]

Same reason supporting local businesses is preferable to Wally-World.

That's fine and all, but you didn't answer the question. Aren't credit unions exempt from taxation? If so, how would the Fed make up the difference in lost revenue if everyone moved their money to credit unions?

Credit unions are fine for certain things, but are they the answer to any real problems?

Probably not. I think truly effective regulation of the big boys would be very helpful.

[kalm]

There are many reports that the CC move accelerated once the OWS got some legs.

Driving by Occupy Spokane, I agree that it's tough to take them seriously but at least they are keeping some important issues in the news. I find the vilification of wayward youths with a cause interesting in light of the fraud and bribery from the financial services sector. You could forgive every student loan and it would be a drop in the bucket compared with the bailouts. The hard working 99% should have been calling for heads years ago.

Just because the media took notice and reported on it more doesn't mean people weren't already doing it in droves. You could say it was the other way around and that the only momentum the OWS got was because people were already moving away from big banks for many things.

And while I believe plenty of people didn't act nobly leading up to the economic meltdown, the fact that there hasn't been more convictions isn't due to some convoluted conspiracy, just that there wasn't a lot of criminal activity. People at all levels took risks, people screwed up, and things went bad. Doesn't mean laws or regulations were broken and that's still required to have a crime take place. And I don't blame the banks and others for taking the bailouts - they would've been stupid not to. I blame the government for facilitating it in the first place. No need to hand out all that free money with little to no guarantee that it would fix what ails this country. And no, giving it instead to those wayward youths (which would be paramount to giving it to the university system which has so adeptly played the system to fill their own coffers) wouldn't excite me either - it would just be another mistake by government in a rush to do everything and anything to fix an economy they don't know how to fix and they just hope something sticks.

Garbage. There are countless examples of impropriety and a number of insiders ranging from former SEC regulators to big bank directors who will acknowledge this. And this doesn't even speak to the deregulatory bribery that has taken place.

[GannonFan]

Just because the media took notice and reported on it more doesn't mean people weren't already doing it in droves. You could say it was the other way around and that the only momentum the OWS got was because people were already moving away from big banks for many things.

And while I believe plenty of people didn't act nobly leading up to the economic meltdown, the fact that there hasn't been more convictions isn't due to some convoluted conspiracy, just that there wasn't a lot of criminal activity. People at all levels took risks, people screwed up, and things went bad. Doesn't mean laws or regulations were broken and that's still required to have a crime take place. And I don't blame the banks and others for taking the bailouts - they would've been stupid not to. I blame the government for facilitating it in the first place. No need to hand out all that free money with little to no guarantee that it would fix what ails this country. And no, giving it instead to those wayward youths (which would be paramount to giving it to the university system which has so adeptly played the system to fill their own coffers) wouldn't excite me either - it would just be another mistake by government in a rush to do everything and anything to fix an economy they don't know how to fix and they just hope something sticks.

Garbage. There are countless examples of impropriety and a number of insiders ranging from former SEC regulators to big bank directors who will acknowledge this. And this doesn't even speak to the deregulatory bribery that has taken place.

I knew that moon landing was fake and that the Mod killed Kennedy.

[kalm]

Garbage. There are countless examples of impropriety and a number of insiders ranging from former SEC regulators to big bank directors who will acknowledge this. And this doesn't even speak to the deregulatory bribery that has taken place.

I knew that moon landing was fake and that the Mod killed Kennedy.

It's not even remotely a conspiracy theory. But I get it GF, whatever you do, don't question the status quo...it's spoooooky.

[GannonFan]

I knew that moon landing was fake and that the Mod killed Kennedy.

It's not even remotely a conspiracy theory. But I get it GF, whatever you do, don't question the status quo...it's spoooooky.

Not at all, I certainly think there are crimes being committed today and everyday. However, I don't believe that it was a collossal collection of criminal wrongdoing that led to our current economic malaise, like the financial services just pulled a collective big one over on us. We've done this to ourselves, through both under regulation as well as overregulation that had unintended consequences, and to us all being too greedy to question it. You believe the single bullet theory - no problem, it's simpler to think that way, I'm sure.

[kalm]

It's not even remotely a conspiracy theory. But I get it GF, whatever you do, don't question the status quo...it's spoooooky.

Not at all, I certainly think there are crimes being committed today and everyday. However, I don't believe that it was a collossal collection of criminal wrongdoing that led to our current economic malaise, like the financial services just pulled a collective big one over on us. We've done this to ourselves, through both under regulation as well as overregulation that had unintended consequences, and to us all being too greedy to question it. You believe the single bullet theory - no problem, it's simpler to think that way, I'm sure.

Here, let me go back and check real quick if I ever said it was a single bullet...

Nope.

I have however, on many occasions stated the belief that the crisis would have been much less severe had regulations like Glass Steagal been kept in place. What's amazing is how lucky certain financial institutions seem to be. Innocently spend billions in lobbying to both parties to deregulate their industry, watch the bubble grow, watch it burst, and then come out of it better than before while the rest of the economy still sucks. Man, it's like those guys accidentally struck it rich or something.

[GannonFan]

Not at all, I certainly think there are crimes being committed today and everyday. However, I don't believe that it was a collossal collection of criminal wrongdoing that led to our current economic malaise, like the financial services just pulled a collective big one over on us. We've done this to ourselves, through both under regulation as well as overregulation that had unintended consequences, and to us all being too greedy to question it. You believe the single bullet theory - no problem, it's simpler to think that way, I'm sure.

Here, let me go back and check real quick if I ever said it was a single bullet...

Nope.

I have however, on many occasions stated the belief that the crisis would have been much less severe had regulations like Glass Steagal been kept in place. What's amazing is how lucky certain financial institutions seem to be. Innocently spend billions in lobbying to both parties to deregulate their industry, watch the bubble grow, watch it burst, and then come out of it better than before while the rest of the economy still sucks. Man, it's like those guys accidentally struck it rich or something.

There is a pretty significant difference between gaming the system (non-criminal) and breaking the law (criminal). Neither is particularly endearing, but the latter one gets you jail time (and the convictions you want to pursue) and the former just gets you sneers and derision. This wasn't the first time that poor decision making and poorly designed regulations throughout government have failed to give us the desired outcomes. Things even failed when Glass Steagal was in place so let's not pretend that was the one panacea that would've seen us through this. All the regulation in the world doesn't help if it is poorly conceived and encourages behavior that is ultimately detrimental to the economy.

[kalm]

Here, let me go back and check real quick if I ever said it was a single bullet...

Nope.

I have however, on many occasions stated the belief that the crisis would have been much less severe had regulations like Glass Steagal been kept in place. What's amazing is how lucky certain financial institutions seem to be. Innocently spend billions in lobbying to both parties to deregulate their industry, watch the bubble grow, watch it burst, and then come out of it better than before while the rest of the economy still sucks. Man, it's like those guys accidentally struck it rich or something.

There is a pretty significant difference between gaming the system (non-criminal) and breaking the law (criminal). Neither is particularly endearing, but the latter one gets you jail time (and the convictions you want to pursue) and the former just gets you sneers and derision. This wasn't the first time that poor decision making and poorly designed regulations throughout government have failed to give us the desired outcomes. Things even failed when Glass Steagal was in place so let's not pretend that was the one panacea that would've seen us through this. All the regulation in the world doesn't help if it is poorly conceived and encourages behavior that is ultimately detrimental to the economy.

Wrong on both counts. When you control the system and have captured the regulatory agencies there is very little difference between gaming the system and breaking the law. That's the whole point. Besides, as I posted in another thread, illegal activity is happening all the time and fines against corporations are being levied. We're just not prosecuting people. But who wouldn't commit $700 million worth of fraud if the fine only ends up being $95 million. That's a pretty good ROI

This issue of whether or not the SEC must consider the public interest in granting these cozy settlements gets to the heart of the Occupy Movement's central complaint, that there are two different sets of rules for two different Americas. The SEC in this case incredibly argued – out loud, on paper – that it could make regulatory decisions without considering the public interest. In particular, it argued that it didn’t need to consider the public interest when granting “injunctive relief,” i.e. an injunction barring future behaviors, as opposed to the stiffer and more immediate punishment of fines or criminal charges.

The SEC argued to Judge Rakoff that "the public interest ... is not part of [the] applicable standard of judicial review."

Translating: “When we decide to let thieving megabank off with just a promise to never do it again, we don’t have to consider whether or not this is in the public interest.”

If you stand back and really think about what this argument means, it’ll make your head spin. What the SEC is saying here is that according to the incestuous values of the small community of high-priced revolving-door lawyers who both head the SEC enforcement office and run the defense teams of banks like Citi, a $95 million fine with no admission of wrongdoing for a $700 million fraud is, in fact, “fair” and “reasonable.”

The settlement only becomes problematic, the SEC implies, if you ask them to square their judgment with “the public interest.”

The SEC, in other words, is admitting that they have a standard for “reasonableness” and “fairness” that somehow does not coincide with the public interest. This surreal formulation translates as, “We’re doing the right thing – we’re just not doing it for the public.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... t-20111129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1gWai3ECR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I didn't claim Glass Steagal to be a panacea, but at the very least it would have prevented the AIG situation. It provided pretty damned good stability for 60 years. We had a few bubbles and crises but they were dealt with and no where near what's happening now.

[GannonFan]

There is a pretty significant difference between gaming the system (non-criminal) and breaking the law (criminal). Neither is particularly endearing, but the latter one gets you jail time (and the convictions you want to pursue) and the former just gets you sneers and derision. This wasn't the first time that poor decision making and poorly designed regulations throughout government have failed to give us the desired outcomes. Things even failed when Glass Steagal was in place so let's not pretend that was the one panacea that would've seen us through this. All the regulation in the world doesn't help if it is poorly conceived and encourages behavior that is ultimately detrimental to the economy.

Wrong on both counts. When you control the system and have captured the regulatory agencies there is very little difference between gaming the system and breaking the law. That's the whole point. Besides, as I posted in another thread, illegal activity is happening all the time and fines against corporations are being levied. We're just not prosecuting people. But who wouldn't commit $700 million worth of fraud if the fine only ends up being $95 million. That's a pretty good ROI

This issue of whether or not the SEC must consider the public interest in granting these cozy settlements gets to the heart of the Occupy Movement's central complaint, that there are two different sets of rules for two different Americas. The SEC in this case incredibly argued – out loud, on paper – that it could make regulatory decisions without considering the public interest. In particular, it argued that it didn’t need to consider the public interest when granting “injunctive relief,” i.e. an injunction barring future behaviors, as opposed to the stiffer and more immediate punishment of fines or criminal charges.

The SEC argued to Judge Rakoff that "the public interest ... is not part of [the] applicable standard of judicial review."

Translating: “When we decide to let thieving megabank off with just a promise to never do it again, we don’t have to consider whether or not this is in the public interest.”

If you stand back and really think about what this argument means, it’ll make your head spin. What the SEC is saying here is that according to the incestuous values of the small community of high-priced revolving-door lawyers who both head the SEC enforcement office and run the defense teams of banks like Citi, a $95 million fine with no admission of wrongdoing for a $700 million fraud is, in fact, “fair” and “reasonable.”

The settlement only becomes problematic, the SEC implies, if you ask them to square their judgment with “the public interest.”

The SEC, in other words, is admitting that they have a standard for “reasonableness” and “fairness” that somehow does not coincide with the public interest. This surreal formulation translates as, “We’re doing the right thing – we’re just not doing it for the public.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... t-20111129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1gWai3ECR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I didn't claim Glass Steagal to be a panacea, but at the very least it would have prevented the AIG situation. It provided pretty damned good stability for 60 years. We had a few bubbles and crises but they were dealt with and no where near what's happening now.

And AIG was just one symptom/outcome of a much wider and more fundamental problem with the economy. Heck, that was just the opening salvo of what's been a long and tortuous reveal on all the things wrong with goverment and the economy and the mixing of the two. I don't disagree that the SEC has been poor or even just negligent in terms of enforcing regulations - I disagree with the idea that they have been "captured" as you say, and that gaming the system is akin to breaking the law, but hey, what can you do. Even if Glass Steagall was fully reinstituted today, the problems that ail the economy now will still linger for years to come - and even if it had been in place for the past decade, we'd still be stuck with the problems we have that had nothing to do with Glass Steagall. It sounds great at parties to throw that Act out there, but fundamentally our problems are far more systematic.

[kalm]

Again, I agree that GS wouldn't solve all the problems and I agree that regs are only as good as enforcement - look at Sarbannes-Oxley. I obviously agree that there are additional fundamental problems that need to be addressed. Now, ask yourself this question: if we have some regs in place and they are not being enforced, why? And if GS wasn't successful, why was $5 billion spent in lobbying to repeal it? And what has happened to the banking system in countries like Canada where the wall between investment banking and lending remain intact?

(sent from my wife's hot pink iPhone using my big fat fingers)

[GannonFan]

Again, I agree that GS wouldn't solve all the problems and I agree that regs are only as good as enforcement - look at Sarbannes-Oxley. I obviously agree that there are additional fundamental problems that need to be addressed. Now, ask yourself this question: if we have some regs in place and they are not being enforced, why? And if GS wasn't successful, why was $5 billion spent in lobbying to repeal it? And what has happened to the banking system in countries like Canada where the wall between investment banking and lending remain intact?

(sent from my wife's hot pink iPhone using my big fat fingers)

Huh? Canda doesn't have a wall between investment banking and lending - they don't have anything resembling Glass-Steagall. Heck, one of the reasons for the repeal of Glass-Steagall was that American banks couldn't compete on the international market against other banks, like Canadian banks, that didn't have the same restrictions. The $5B that was spent on repealing it was to convince people it wasn't needed. The amount of money spent on lobbying in no way indicates the correctness or the suitability of whatever is being lobbied for or against - that's just crazy. The banking system in Canada survived better than the US system because it was more conservative (not politically speaking) in its risk taking whereas American banks put a lot of their capital reserves in risky ventures. Canada also doesn't allow deductions for mortgage interest and banks tend to hold onto mortgages they create so that's a pretty big difference too. But there is no equivalent of Glass-Steagall in Canada - that's an important detail.