Occupy Wall Street

[bouncingbrick]

So, any supporters? Any againsters? Anyone able to make sense of what they want?

Also, where is the money coming from? Who is behind this?

What are the MoFoer's opinions on this movement?

[will.15]

Dexter Riley is for it.

Yoda is against it.

I don't care.

They are against corporate greed. That's about it.

[wintertriangles]

I'm for a protest but the location of all these Occupies is incorrect (if you're not in DC you're not gonna get anywhere) and therefore I find them rather stupid. Also I find it stupid that at least half of the people protesting have no idea what they're talking about or don't want to work for anything. If they moved all the Occupy protesters to DC, it would be great, but that wouldn't happen because most of them leave at night to sleep in their houses.

[will.15]

This flipped out chickenhawk nut is against it. Anybody here know what the initials FM stands for?

ANARCHY

posted 11.7.2011

Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently - must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh - out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.

Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.

They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.

Schmucks.

FM

[honeykid]

****ing Muppet? If it doesn't, it should do.

[will.15]

Frank Miller who sounded like a liberal in inteviews back when he writing and drawing Daredevil.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Yes, I support it.

It's getting a lot of attention because of that pepper spray incident. Look at what the response has been:

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luzm8ly66A1qzaos7o1_500.jpg
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luzm8ly66A1qzaos7o2_500.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luzm8ly66A1qzaos7o3_500.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv0eddUg6T1qi6x1zo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1321982318&Signature=QCGe%2FFs6llkxzji728nNYaenslg%3D

[will.15]

That cop completely missed John Hancock. he just sprayed the table.

[bouncingbrick]

Yes, I support it.


Why? What exactly do you support?

Also, what is the alternative world you want to see from the movement? This is the question that bother me the most. What is the end game of the movement? What does the world look like if they succeed? Simply saying corporations having too much power and money and political influence isn't enough, there has to be some kind of solution brought to the discussion.

[Sedai]

So, any supporters? Any againsters? Anyone able to make sense of what they want?

Also, where is the money coming from? Who is behind this?

What are the MoFoer's opinions on this movement?


Adbusters Magazine is claiming to be behind the initial summer push at campuses in the US. It's an Anti-capital/Communist rag from Canada.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Why? What exactly do you support?

To put it very simply - 'cause I don't really wanna go any further than this - I have read, on the internet, a lot of nightmarish stories about what people are going through financially. A lot of stuff seems very burdensome and I think major change is needed. Don't ask me to tell you what I think needs to be done to accomplish everything correctly, 'cause I can't accurately answer that, but, this is something that I do strongly believe in. I applaud this movement, but I am seeing how it may go nowhere, unfortunately. I hope and pray I'm wrong.

Here is a blog dedicated to the people who support the movement, along with their stories:

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

[wintertriangles]

Sexy do you know they are stealing from each other and there has been at least one rape?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Sexy do you know they are stealing from each other and there has been at least one rape?

Exactly why change is needed -- they wouldn't steal if they weren't broke and they wouldn't rape if they could afford to take women out on dates.

[ash_is_the_gal]

...so you're saying i should go rape a woman if i lose my job tomorrow? :skeptical:

[Sexy Celebrity]

...so you're saying i should go rape a woman if i lose my job tomorrow? :skeptical:

I can't even think of something witty to say to that. I'm sorry, but that sounds stranger than what I said - the thought of you unexpectedly becoming a lesbian rapist. That is sexuality suicide.

[honeykid]

I applaud this movement, but I am seeing how it may go nowhere, unfortunately. I hope and pray I'm wrong.
Of course it'll go nowhere. They're going to have to be a lot scarier than this to make things change, IMO. ATM they're an inconvenience, an annoyance, but they're not costing anyone of consequence anything. If they can stay there, though, and bring more people and attention to their 'cause', then things will start to get interesting. They need to get rid of the Anti-Capitalist stance/members, though (or keep them at the back), because they're not going to do any good and will turn people off. It also allows TPTB to write them off as nutters or, in the US, worse, Communists. The financial world needs to be reined in, not turned off.

Sexy do you know they are stealing from each other and there has been at least one rape?
Is this any surprise? Have you never been to a festival, carnival, huge sporting event or the like? Happens all the time. Some are opportunist and others go there with intent. That's people. If this were to develop into a real revolution, these things would be small beer in comparison.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Of course it'll go nowhere. They're going to have to be a lot scarier than this to make things change, IMO. ATM they're an inconvenience, an annoyance, but they're not costing anyone of consequence anything.

EXACTLY. This is what I was saying to Dexter Riley yesterday, which caused him to get all huffy puffy with me.

It would have to get scarier for real change to happen. How scary? People would probably have to die. It would need to be more like a war. Wasn't that how protests and stuff were in the 60's with lots of violence and people getting killed? Nobody is getting killed -- well, if anyone's getting killed, it's not attention grabbing murder right in front of the important players and the media, at least.

I don't want anybody to die and I don't want to encourage anybody to get themselves killed -- but the people doing Occupy Wall Street look like wimps! That group of people just SAT THERE as they got pepper sprayed by that policeman. And everybody now is so against that policeman, too -- "he was so arrogant and proud the way he just sprayed them like that!!"

Why wasn't anyone proud enough to stand up and punch the policeman or something, then? Why didn't anyone attack them? All I saw, in the video, was a lot of people chanting zombie-like to them - afterwards - "SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU!"

I speak as a former long-term bully victim -- doing nothing, or at the very least, childishly saying, "SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU!" -- does nothing. To fight is to gain respect -- to stand up for yourself gives honor. It always does. As disgusting as that may sound, it's a universal truth. Unfortunately, we now live in a time where everyone is always running to the authority for help, tattle-telling, crybabying, etc. The fierce 60's spirit that changed so much back then is gone from modern man. People would rather sit down and play the victim -- while everyone gets a picture of their victimhood on their cell phone. Strike a pose. Now the freakin' pepper spraying policeman has become a sort of anti-hero, as evidenced by the artwork people are producing with him. Part of this response comes from anger at the policeman -- but I think a large part of it also comes from secret respect. We should be seeing artwork of the hero that got up and defended himself against the policeman -- but nobody did. Nobody risked their life! And that's not gonna pave the way for change any faster.

Is this any surprise? Have you never been to a festival, carnival, huge sporting event or the like? Happens all the time. Some are opportunist and others go there with intent. That's people. If this were to develop into a real revolution, these things would be small beer in comparison.

Exactly. These are human beings. There are going to be people who abuse the use of the protests. They have to be detained and taken away. There's all kinds of things to worry about when you protest, but that doesn't mean they should not happen in the first place. If you were seriously needing some kind of massive change in your life and you had no other way to try to get it, you'd be fighting for something, too. It's called wanting to live - wanting to live and feel some relief. A lot of these people are going through Hell. Maybe you can't understand it and maybe you think you know how to solve it, but that doesn't mean you really can and that doesn't mean what they're going through isn't real.

[honeykid]

The policeman's an anti-hero?!?! I think you're reading the mock ups differently to most.

I don't have any idea what you're trying to get to with the second response. Of course those crimes shouldn't happen and of course those who perpetrate the crimes should be arrested and charged (if that's possible) but if things that shouldn't happen never did, then everything would be perfect, wouldn't it?

If you were trying to say anything other than that, I'm afraid you lost me.

[wintertriangles]

Is this any surprise? Have you never been to a festival, carnival, huge sporting event or the like? Happens all the time. Some are opportunist and others go there with intent. That's people. If this were to develop into a real revolution, these things would be small beer in comparison.I'm just saying they're stupid hypocrites with no direction is all

[will.15]

...so you're saying i should go rape a woman if i lose my job tomorrow? :skeptical:
Do you want to date one?

You are aware SC was attempting to be funny?

[ash_is_the_gal]

if i wanted to date one, would that make raping one after i'm jobless more justified? :skeptical: :skeptical:

and, i'm not sure. sometimes he means the strangest things, so i won't assume anything anymore.

[will.15]

They need a leader, not violence. A Martin Luther King or a Gandhi. They don't have an agenda for change. They just want to bitch.

This is a great opportunity for you, SC! Become OWS's voice and heart. Get out there and lead those hippy bums...I mean, disillusioned Americans.

[Sexy Celebrity]

The policeman's an anti-hero?!?! I think you're reading the mock ups differently to most.

The policeman is now who is gonna be most remembered out of this whole event, whereas if somebody had stood up for the group, or if the whole group had stood up for themselves, they would have been remembered more.

As it looks, the policeman is now the star. Despite the intended message of the images to show contempt for the guy, there's still going to be a lot of people who side with him, even if those people are just moronic jerks. I can already hear them going, "YEAH! RIGHT ON! SPRAY THOSE MOFO's (not y'all)!"

People are laughing at what he did - and respecting him. Might be the worst of the bunch that's doing it, but it's happening and it will happen throughout history now. That was a great time to do something and instead the policeman won. But that's okay -- that could just be the beginning. There might still be more opportunities to fight back -- really fight back. And you know people want to -- people want to kick the crap out of that policeman. People want to fight.

I don't have any idea what you're trying to get to with the second response. Of course those crimes shouldn't happen and of course those who perpetrate the crimes should be arrested and charged (if that's possible) but if things that shouldn't happen never did, then everything would be perfect, wouldn't it?

If you were trying to say anything other than that, I'm afraid you lost me.

I was saying that stuff like the rapes and the crimes aren't enough of a reason to stop the protests altogether. Wintertriangles seemed to be making a point that people stealing and people getting raped was enough of a reason to not have the protests. That's the impression I was getting -- wah wah wah, one woman got raped while millions of us were trying to fight for a normal way of living again. Let's just shut everything down! because one woman got raped.

Please. That's hardly a reason to stop a revolution. If people are getting horny down there at the protests, let's just call in an army of prostitutes and call it a day. Prostitutes willing to work for free, because these are poor people here.

That's what Occupy Wall Street needs -- first we need prostitutes. Second -- drag queens. Drag queens will kick the crap out of those pepper spraying policemen. Drag queens know how to handle policemen -- remember Sheriff Dollard (Chris Penn, R.I.P.) from To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar? Totally taken down by drag queens. Nobody pepper sprays a drag queen without asking.

[honeykid]

There's always going to be people who'd side with the cop, though. There are people who idolize serial killers, (real and fantasy), bank robbers, all kinds of violent people. Were this to actually go the way they want it to, that picture (and their not retaliating) could be looked back on as the turning point. We just don't know. What we do know is that non-violent protest is more difficult to defend when there are 'exceptions'. Regardless of provocation. Who knows, if Gandhi had slapped some soldier with his sandal, Britain may not've been thrown out of India.

As for the second bit, I now understand what you mean and I'm with you. Those crimes don't make their protest or its intent wrong.

[DexterRiley]

http://anony.ws/i/S9GNR.jpg

[mark f]

Another thread bites the dust.

Just watch Inside Job and then check back into this ongoing story after it makes more sense (if it does to you).

[DexterRiley]

Another thread bites the dust.

Just watch Inside Job and then check back into this ongoing story after it makes more sense (if it does to you).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQyVvCNl4xM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8r2InlHJQw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSegI71qMdg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlXqBaj7Nr8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae8cveVfDQw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21XKglJkbc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4CqJrK_LkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5kku0qrnY&feature=related

[Sexy Celebrity]

Another thread bites the dust.

Just watch Inside Job and then check back into this ongoing story after it makes more sense (if it does to you).

Oh, yeah - let's just put a whole friggin' movie (that nobody's gonna watch) in here instead of actually discussing things.

Say, we might as well put the movies of every movie we talk about on Movie Forums into every thread it gets discussed in! That way we could just come here to watch movies instead of actually talking about stuff!!!!

Think again before you declare something dead.

[bouncingbrick]

EXACTLY. This is what I was saying to Dexter Riley yesterday, which caused him to get all huffy puffy with me.

It would have to get scarier for real change to happen. How scary? People would probably have to die. It would need to be more like a war. Wasn't that how protests and stuff were in the 60's with lots of violence and people getting killed? Nobody is getting killed -- well, if anyone's getting killed, it's not attention grabbing murder right in front of the important players and the media, at least.

Ok, do you even realize who the "bad guy" is in the occupy movement? It's the corporations. Do you think they would give a crap if people died? Do you think this matters to them right now? The movement is a joke because it doesn't even attack the problem.

Why don't these people try to get americans to boycott Black Friday? Why don't they put out actual hard information to the people who don't understand their cause? Why don't they call for peaceful boycotts of big oil? Why don't they call for a national "don't go to work day" or something similar? These things would all affect the economy and send a clear message. What they're doing now is just plain stupid. I don't care how many intelligent people there may (or may not) be in these groups, they are all acting stupid because they aren't actually doing anything of concern to the villains in their cause!

Deaths won't change that, violence won't, burning cars in the streets. None of this matters to a single CEO. Actually, it does, it makes the insurance company CEOs happy because everytime a car gets torched they can raise premiums. Occupy is helping the bad guy...

They need a leader, not violence. A Martin Luther King or a Gandhi. They don't have an agenda for change. They just want to bitch.

Exactly. They need a very cvlear cut plan in order for anyone to take them seriously. The actual agents of change (the voters!) in the US can't do anything if they don't even understand the movement. Plus, they're fighting perhaps the greatest up-hill battle of all time. They're going up against the people with all the money. And, let's face it, the people with the money have all the power. Despite who anyone votes for...

Another thread bites the dust.

Just watch Inside Job and then check back into this ongoing story after it makes more sense (if it does to you).

LOL! For a second I thought you meant Inside Man! I was like, "Yeah, Clive Owen knows what's up, bitches!"

Besides, I'm wary of most documentaries because most of them are biased. I'll give this one a chance, though.

[Sexy Celebrity]

There's always going to be people who'd side with the cop, though. There are people who idolize serial killers, (real and fantasy), bank robbers, all kinds of violent people. Were this to actually go the way they want it to, that picture (and their not retaliating) could be looked back on as the turning point. We just don't know. What we do know is that non-violent protest is more difficult to defend when there are 'exceptions'. Regardless of provocation. Who knows, if Gandhi had slapped some soldier with his sandal, Britain may not've been thrown out of India.

He should have - the bitchslap would have had a mascot.

As for the second bit, I now understand what you mean and I'm with you. Those crimes don't make their protest or its intent wrong.

I'm glad you're with me, 'cause, ya know, I invited her:

http://i39.tinypic.com/k0ik9w.jpg

Don't run!!!!

[DexterRiley]

Oh, yeah - let's just put a whole friggin' movie (that nobody's gonna watch) in here instead of actually discussing things.

Say, we might as well put the movies of every movie we talk about on Movie Forums into every thread it gets discussed in! That way we could just come here to watch movies instead of actually talking about stuff!!!!

Think again before you declare something dead.

If you arent prepared to watch the definitive documentary on how and why the Financial collapse occured (AND WHY IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, AS REGULATION HAS BECOME A DIRTY WORD),

then 2 bad so sad, you are talking out of your ass.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Bouncingbrick, I really don't have much to respond with. I think you've made all good points. I'm not incredibly in touch with Occupy Wall Street and everything they're doing, myself, but from what I have seen and read, I do support what they are trying to do.

Your ideas about not going to work for a day, etc. -- all good -- I sense, though, that Occupy Wall Street might wanna try to be more extreme. Thus, "not going to work for a day" to them might turn into "not going to work ever again" or something.

To be that extreme, though, they should be more rough and tough. They should aggressively fight and be willing to die for their causes.

I'm not saying that corporations are gonna cry over any of the deaths, but I think that being strong like that might give the message - to everybody - that they mean business. When people die, people take notice. It's like the terrorists with their suicide bombers, willing to fly into the World Trade Center -- nobody would remember 9/11 if those guys had simply sat around that building and got pepper sprayed by the police. They had to fly into the World Trade Center.

I'm not calling for something as drastic as that -- but if Americans suddenly had the balls to attack America itself that ferociously, that would be one hell of a movement. I know the rage is there in these people, though -- I have seen such things as Facebook comments on the web where people go, "Let's just bomb their offices and be over with this!"

But my point was just that they seemed so passive with everything -- and that passiveness might reflect their unfocused plans.

But still, I sense in a lot of people that they don't wanna be passive -- they wanna f**k things up. They want change.

[Sexy Celebrity]

If you arent prepared to watch the definitive documentary on how and why the Financial collapse occured (AND WHY IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, AS REGULATION HAS BECOME A DIRTY WORD),

then 2 bad so sad, you are talking out of your ass.

My ass is saying you owe it $50.

[DexterRiley]

Besides, I'm wary of most documentaries because most of them are biased. I'll give this one a chance, though.

perhaps this clip will alieviate your concerns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKHKfcT9pCI


this Rant gets to the heart of the matter. SC can be flip all day and twice and sunday, but until this permeates his thick skull, all he does is succeed in looking like an assclown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlSd9OURbCE

A mellower Ratigan outlines a draft for a constitutional ammendment that would get the goofy money out of politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DIKjc6Gv2U


And finally

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjPCJfvV0M

[Sexy Celebrity]

this Rant gets to the heart of the matter. SC can be flip all day and twice and sunday, but until this permeates his thick skull, all he does is succeed in looking like an assclown.

I know how you can permeate my thick skull. :yup::kiss::licklips:

$50 first, though.

[Sexy Celebrity]

See -- look at this one!

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv1wltpx501qala51o1_500.jpg

Who is the policeman pepper spraying here?

Only the Cowardly Lion.

The public has spoken -- people need courage. People need to face this jerk.

[bouncingbrick]

Ok, SC, you seriously need to rethink this. I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King Jr. never advocated anyone's death. Sure, he had to die, but his methods weren't as extreme as your ideas. :)

@ Dexter How is the occupy Wall Street movement going to help the ideas put forth in your videos? Maybe they said something late in those clips answering this, but I can't sit through those whole things. They make me sad.

This whole thing makes me sad. We are living in such an incredibly corrupt time...

[will.15]

See -- look at this one!

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv1wltpx501qala51o1_500.jpg

Who is the policeman pepper spraying here?

Only the Cowardly Lion.

The public has spoken -- people need courage. People need to face this jerk.
If cop pepper sprayed a little girl he would be in big trouble.

Tin Man and Scarecrow being inhuman not affected by pepper spray.

That leaves Cowardly Lion as the target.

[will.15]

Oh, yeah - let's just put a whole friggin' movie (that nobody's gonna watch) in here instead of actually discussing things.

Say, we might as well put the movies of every movie we talk about on Movie Forums into every thread it gets discussed in! That way we could just come here to watch movies instead of actually talking about stuff!!!!

Think again before you declare something dead.
That sounds great to me, just watch movies here.

And post pics of busty girls that don't have faces like my sister.

[DexterRiley]

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy

The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?INTCMP=SRCH

US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response....

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/Clipboard0150b4f300jpg.jpg

[bouncingbrick]

^^^While I agree with the three answers to the "what do you want" question, that article is so obviously biased.

I hate to say this, but those things will probably never happen. Especially with the way OWS is doing things. I put forth a couple of really strong options US citizens could do to make this happen, and I'll add another one; vote. But OWS is doing one of the stupidest things they can do, be a nuisance. They are destroying public areas and causing untold ammounts of public hazards. Not only is this a weak way to send a message, it doesn't even target the actual perpetrators of the problem. Target the banks, the corporations and the government. March on Washington DC, take an entire week off work (although most of the protestors don't seem to have jobs anyway...), do something productive!

[Yoda]

I'd love to hear how she's deciding which ones are the "top" ones, and how many of those 100 people she talked to said something completely different, or completely nonsensical. When people suggest that the movement is incoherent, it doesn't exactly prove otherwise to send someone in to pick out their "favorites."

As for violence: I'm sure it goes too far sometimes; it always does when large numbers of people are involved and it's surely difficult for law enforcement to always know when someone is a threat, and when they're just talk. But I'll bet there's an incredible correlation between the degree people are refusing to move, or camping out in places that you're not allowed to camp in, and the degree to which cops with batons show up.

If we want to draw conclusions based on isolated incidents, how about we start posting the many links (I've saved a number of them) detailing things like theft, rape, and intra-violence in these camps? Or the instances in which they are openly hostile to law enforcement? If we're going to draw conclusions from cops saying draconian things, how about protesters threatening violence openly? That happens, too. So if we're willing to draw conclusions based on specific incidents on one side, why not the other? That would be the only consistent way to draw conclusions.

[DexterRiley]

Well besides the obvious, prior to the occupy movement, there were how many homeless folks wandering the core of the city? its not like they went on holidays, rather i'd imagine they'd flock to the parks for nourishment.

The difference is, A Federal Angency isnt directing their movements, instructing them to rape, steal and the like.

Also if a rapist or a theif is brought to the authorities, i'd expect them to be prosecuted. I see Cops getting a few vacation days, and leaves of absences resulting from their ridiculous over the top violence.

false equivalence for the win.

Btw Yoda, have you gotten around to seeing Inside Job yet?

[DexterRiley]

^^^While I agree with the three answers to the "what do you want" question, that article is so obviously biased.

I hate to say this, but those things will probably never happen. Especially with the way OWS is doing things. I put forth a couple of really strong options US citizens could do to make this happen, and I'll add another one; vote. But OWS is doing one of the stupidest things they can do, be a nuisance. They are destroying public areas and causing untold ammounts of public hazards. Not only is this a weak way to send a message, it doesn't even target the actual perpetrators of the problem. Target the banks, the corporations and the government. March on Washington DC, take an entire week off work (although most of the protestors don't seem to have jobs anyway...), do something productive!

prior to OWS. the Right wing in the usa was yakken non stop about the utter lack of jobs, and the failure of Obama..blaha blah blah.

now what do you hear?

get a job ya hippie.

its comical as F@ck.


the important thing of course, is what of these 3 demands? Are they reasonable? Do you agree?

[Yoda]

I've seen about a third of it and I've been taking notes. Tons of inaccuracies right off the bat, not surprisingly. I'll try to finish when I can, though as you noted awhile back, the YouTube version isn't available in the U.S. for some sort of copyright reason.

Re: false equivalence. Whether or not it's prosecuted has nothing to do with judging the movement as a whole. It's perfectly reasonable to be outraged if unnecessary brutality goes unpunished, but it first has to be established that it was both unnecessary and easily avoidable/intentional. And it has nothing to do with judging both sides as a whole, unless you're saying you'd suddenly be totally fine with these incidents if the cops in question were fired or suspended longer or something, which I rather doubt.

I'm not sure I even understand the thing about the homeless, unless you think cops would be coming down on the protesters if they were scattered randomly throughout the city. The concentration and number of total people is the entire point--without that, there's no real issue and no real blocking of people's basic movements or traffic.

[Yoda]

True or false? People should be allowed to camp wherever they want.

True or false? People should be allowed to refuse to move when law enforcement tells them to.

True or false? People should be allowed to stand in the street.

True or false? If the two things above are false, police should be allowed to use non-lethal force to stop them from happening.

True or false? We should not require any permits or anything of the sort for large gatherings of people in highly populated areas.

True or false? People should be allowed to openly make threats of violence in these protests without reprimand.

True or false? If the actions of a handful of cops can be used to condemn all of them, the actions of a handful of protesters can be used to condemn all of them, too.

It's easy to just post a link or an image and complain about what's resulted...but what's the implication of that? If you complain that people are being thrown out of an area, either a) you're saying they should be allowed to camp and stay there, even if they don't own the land or b) the complaint doesn't hold together. If you complain that people are being pepper sprayed for not moving, it carries the implication that they either shouldn't have to move, or that there should be absolutely no consequence for refusing to move, which is essentially the same thing.

It is easy to complain about clearly bad results. It's a lot harder to produce a legal standard that doesn't lead to things just as bad, or worse.

[Deadite]

True or false? Non-violent protest should be met with violence.

[Yoda]

Depends on how you define both, but potentially, yes, of course. Or are you aware of some other way than force to remove someone from someone else's property when they refuse to go? I ask the questions above because if the answer is "no," you must inevitably authorize the use of some kind of force to prevent them when people refuse to comply.

[DexterRiley]

Once again Yodes has all the answers. Except for maybe why the Architects of the financial collapse were never punished, but rather have continued to flourish.

What is this OWS thing? Must be just thousands of people all bored and stuff.

[Yoda]

Answers? No, I have questions. Simple, straightforward, reasonable questions. So why is getting them answered like pulling teeth?

I can't see why anyone should take any view seriously if it's supporters can't or won't answer simple questions about it.

[DexterRiley]

i dont accept the premise.

[Yoda]

There is no premise in those questions. There is no fact under dispute embedded in any of them. They are questions about how to react to nondescript scenarios.

[DexterRiley]

god damn hippies. the whole stinken lot of em.

oh wait whats this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5K3D_g3FPo

whew. good thing she'll never ever in a zillion years appear on mainstream telecasts.

[Deadite]

It seems simple enough to me what they're protesting. They're protesting economic disparity and cutthroat behavior. You don't have to be an economics professor to figure that out.

Or to be a protester either. I suppose it serves well enough to invalidate outrage by cherrypicking and spinning as suits us, but it's a mass protest regardless of where anyone tries to shift focus. Looks fairly obvious to me that it's a legitimate protest with some more vocal members, some less so, some more articulate, some less. Re-frame it however we want, make it appear less organized or more organized, label it whatever. No matter what, we can spin it into a negative.

Yoda, you usually argue against apathy, so what's so different here? What if they were protesting abortion?

[DexterRiley]

thats different. cmon man.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj169/HeartlandLiberal/GodHatesFagsNotTearGassedPepperSprayed.jpg

[Deadite]

We can be obtuse about it all we want, but everybody knows why the people are protesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYqq7N7hVQ

[will.15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGFvHwGwt0&feature=fvsr

[honeykid]

Blimey! I thought they had no chance when they wanted to re-regulate the banking/financial industry, but if they want the money out of American politics, they're really ****ed. :D Good luck to them, though. Back to pre-Kennedy would be good.

It'd render my "Which has less chance of becoming President? A poor person or an athiest?" question reduntant, though. That'd be good.

[Deadite]

Many people are fed up with corruption masquerading as capitalism.

Fed up enough to risk being pepper-sprayed by thugs if that's what it takes to get their voices heard.

And what response do they get?

Define "corruption".

Define "protest".

Define "pepper spray".

[honeykid]

Define "defining". :D

[DexterRiley]

found this. Lots of new stuff. not the least of which that the occupy movement sprung out from the 99 movement which started in 2010 (never heard of it before personally).

n this edition of On the Edge, Max Keiser interviews David DeGraw from AmpedStatus.com.

He talks about the 99 percent movement from which the Occupy Wall Street sprung out and comments on its aims and implications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGjgiDZvzZQ&feature=player_embedded

[Yoda]

It seems simple enough to me what they're protesting. They're protesting economic disparity and cutthroat behavior. You don't have to be an economics professor to figure that out.

Or to be a protester either. I suppose it serves well enough to invalidate outrage by cherrypicking and spinning as suits us, but it's a mass protest regardless of where anyone tries to shift focus. Looks fairly obvious to me that it's a legitimate protest with some more vocal members, some less so, some more articulate, some less. Re-frame it however we want, make it appear less organized or more organized, label it whatever. No matter what, we can spin it into a negative.
I haven't even gotten into the content. The only thing I'm arguing with at the moment is the idea that the police are always wrong to disperse the crowds.

Yoda, you usually argue against apathy, so what's so different here? What if they were protesting abortion?
Well, first of all, being against apathy doesn't mean being glad people are fighting for something, completely indifferent to what that something is.

And secondly: if they were protesting abortion, and they did this by blocking traffic or trying to "occupy" property that was not their own, I'd expect them to be told to disperse, too. And if they refused, I wouldn't blame the police for physically removing them, either.

[Yoda]

Many people are fed up with corruption masquerading as capitalism.

Fed up enough to risk being pepper-sprayed by thugs if that's what it takes to get their voices heard.

And what response do they get?

Define "corruption".

Define "protest".

Define "pepper spray".
I wasn't arguing with whatever they're protesting, I was arguing with the repeated insistence that dispersing crowds or removing them from property that is not their own is somehow a violation or an injustice. My questions are aimed precisely at that notion: I simply asked what the law is supposed to be. And if it's supposed to be roughly what it is, how else do people propose we deal with those who refuse to vacate property? The situation puts a good deal of law enforcement in an untenable position. Which is hardly surprising, because that's clearly what it's intended to do: the whole point of "occupying" something is to disrupt it to draw attention to their complaints.

I'm fed up with corruption masquerading as capitalism, too. In fact, that's a fantastic way to describe the problem. But in this particular instance I was arguing with something else that's been suggested many, many times in this thread and elsewhere. If it's going to be said so often, I don't see why I can't reply to it and ask questions about it.

There's a very simple distinction here: supporting the protesters is not the same thing as supporting whatever methods they use to express their discontent.

[DexterRiley]

so to Clarify, Yoda supports the protests, while at the same time supports Violent measures vs peaceful protest.

[Yoda]

Anyone who supports any law against something must also support some degree of physical force to enforce it, otherwise the law is toothless. Believing even in basic property rights is believing in "violent measures vs peaceful protest," because you believe people should be physically forced to move if told, even though standing on someone else's property is still a perfectly "peaceful" act.

That's why I asked the questions I did: because if you want to complain about any use police force to remove protesters as if it's inherently unjust, you have to explain why we shouldn't have laws on property rights, or why it should be okay for protesters to disrupt traffic and other similar things. If you agree that they shouldn't be allowed to do these things, then you have to agree that they must be made to stop when they refuse to.

You're still free, of course, to make accusations of excessive brutality. Sometimes they will be true, I've no doubt. But that's different than arguing that a "peaceful" protest must never be disrupted by force. I don't think that withstands even basic questioning, which is probably why even basic questions aren't getting answered.

[DexterRiley]

they arent accusations . they are points of fact.


I get that muddyen the waters is the Republicon way, but a little commen sense if you dont mind.

[Yoda]

Gladly: my common sense tells me that someone who refuses to answer point-blank questions probably doesn't genuinely care about the clarity of the discussion. Heck, it tells me they don't even want to have a discussion, they just want to proselytize.

Bravo on working the word "con" into "Republican." I think if you can manage to spell America with a "k," you'll have just about won me over. Huzzah for high-minded debate. I can't get an answer to simple questions, but I do get clumsy, generalizing partisan puns? Really? If that's your idea of a healthy exchange of ideas, I'm not interested.

[DexterRiley]

i refere to the other joke of a party as the Dumbocrats if it makes you feel any better. As i've stated several times, The 2 party dictatorship in America is a joke from an outsiders perspective.

Both yippety yap to their base to get elected, and then turn around and do the bidding of the monied interests that own them.

Do you honestly believe having 25 lobbyists for every 1 politician in Congress and the senate tossen cash around serves the commen good?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKHKfcT9pCI

[Yoda]

It depends on the character of our politicians. Technically there's really nothing wrong with the idea of lobbying, and indeed it's a part of any healthy democracy, even though it's become a dirty word. The problem is politicians who let it influence them in undue ways.

If we can get onto a potentially useful topic, how about this: ignoring many OWS protesters for the moment and focusing just on some of the more coherent or specific ones, many of those types say they distrust the relationship between business and government. So far so good, if you ask me. But why is one of the alleged solutions more government regulation? That's open to the same abuses they're protesting against. And as a general rule, the more regulation there is in an industry the more opportunities for corruption and lobbying there are. There's nothing to lobby unless the politicians have control, so giving them more control only creates more opportunities for the things they're upset about.

[bouncingbrick]

prior to OWS. the Right wing in the usa was yakken non stop about the utter lack of jobs, and the failure of Obama..blaha blah blah.

now what do you hear?

get a job ya hippie.

its comical as F@ck.

I don't know of anyone saying "get a job" other than Frank Miller, who, we can all agree, is a loon.


the important thing of course, is what of these 3 demands? Are they reasonable? Do you agree?

I already said I like those three demands. I also said A) they'll never happen and B) the protestors aren't attacking those issues by loitering in places they shouldn't loiter.

[will.15]

http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar1_49.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=1)Yoda (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=1)


It depends on the character of our politicians. Technically there's really nothing wrong with the idea of lobbying, and indeed it's a part of any healthy democracy, even though it's become a dirty word. The problem is politicians who let it influence them in undue ways.

If we can get onto a potentially useful topic, how about this: ignoring many OWS protesters for the moment and focusing just on some of the more coherent or specific ones, many of those types say they distrust the relationship between business and government. So far so good, if you ask me. But why is one of the alleged solutions more government regulation? That's open to the same abuses they're protesting against. And as a general rule, the more regulation there is in an industry the more opportunities for corruption and lobbying there are. There's nothing to lobby unless the politicians have control, so giving them more control only creates more opportunities for the things they're upset about




Unregulated free markets don't work either.

[DexterRiley]

It depends on the character of our politicians. Technically there's really nothing wrong with the idea of lobbying, and indeed it's a part of any healthy democracy, even though it's become a dirty word. The problem is politicians who let it influence them in undue ways.

If we can get onto a potentially useful topic, how about this: ignoring many OWS protesters for the moment and focusing just on some of the more coherent or specific ones, many of those types say they distrust the relationship between business and government. So far so good, if you ask me. But why is one of the alleged solutions more government regulation? That's open to the same abuses they're protesting against. And as a general rule, the more regulation there is in an industry the more opportunities for corruption and lobbying there are. There's nothing to lobby unless the politicians have control, so giving them more control only creates more opportunities for the things they're upset about.

Derivatives. Credit Default Swaps.

Chris i hate to keep bringing this up, but as long as you are under the delusion that po folks buying houses they couldnt afford was what caused the financial meltdown..then round in round in circles we go.

Watch Inside Job. Really you gotta go out of your way to not see it. Its not a partisan job, no Michael Moorisms to be found + its made by a died in the wool Conservative.

The problem isnt in regulation. The problem is in who is making the regulations, and the intended result of said regulation.

The revolving door between Goldman Sachs to High appointments in finance regulatory bodies does not bode well.

proof as they say is in the pudden.

[bouncingbrick]

Derivatives. Credit Default Swaps.

Chris i hate to keep bringing this up, but as long as you are under the delusion that po folks buying houses they couldnt afford was what caused the financial meltdown..then round in round in circles we go.

Watch Inside Job. Really you gotta go out of your way to not see it. Its not a partisan job, no Michael Moorisms to be found + its made by a died in the wool Conservative.

The problem isnt in regulation. The problem is in who is making the regulations, and the intended result of said regulation.

The revolving door between Goldman Sachs to High appointments in finance regulatory bodies does not bode well.

proof as they say is in the pudden.

What does any of this have to do with OWS? What does OWS have to do with Wall Street other than the name?

They are a cause that's barely defined and seems intent on simply being a pain-in-the-ass. What is the point in that? Even if I agree with a few of them, I can't get behind a movement with seemingly no purpose or direction.

[Yoda]

Unregulated free markets don't work either.
I didn't propose an unregulated market. Why are straw men about completely unregulated markets the only thing you ever have on tap when discussions about regulation come up?

[Yoda]

Derivatives. Credit Default Swaps.
More specific, please. Please explain the problem with derivatives to me, or why insurance (which is basically what a CDS is) shouldn't be allowed, or should be regulated. And please explain to me on what basis we can regulate these things in ways that don't apply to all sorts of other investments.

Chris i hate to keep bringing this up, but as long as you are under the delusion that po folks buying houses they couldnt afford was what caused the financial meltdown..then round in round in circles we go.
It'd be more accurate to say that we'll keep going in circles if you refuse to tackle that idea. If you just say it's a "delusion," but never really say why, then yeah, we'll keep going round and round in circles. Any discussion where one person makes arguments and the other just dismisses them will always go in circles. But the discussion won't do that if you dispute that claim on a factual basis.

A big chunk of what I'm claiming isn't even arguable: there's no way to have a housing crisis without a combination of malinvestment and mortgages handed out to people who can't afford them. There's no crisis without defaults, and no defaults without people defaulting, which means there's no crisis unless large numbers of people have mortgages they can't afford. The question is: why do they have mortgages they can't afford, and who's responsible?

Watch Inside Job. Really you gotta go out of your way to not see it. Its not a partisan job, no Michael Moorisms to be found + its made by a died in the wool Conservative.
Who, Ferguson? He made an anti-Iraq documentary, too, and one about "market failure" and the Internet. He's from San Francisco and went to Berkeley. You're sure he's a conservative? Under what definition?

Not that it much matters; I don't care if the movie was made by Barry Goldwater. I'll keep watching, since you're so insistent, but you seem to hold out way too much hope that my finishing it is going to somehow settle the debate. As I said, I've already started, and it's a mess right off the bat. And to be blunt, I feel like you're expecting it to do all the legwork here. When I finish, and have questions or complaints...what happens then? Because I kinda doubt we suddenly have an illuminating discussion about this. I'm guessing you either point me to another movie, or just brush my responses off.

The problem isnt in regulation. The problem is in who is making the regulations, and the intended result of said regulation.
Which regulation, and how is it a problem?

My experience is that these sorts of claims positively thrive on their vagueness.

[will.15]

I didn't propose an unregulated market. Why are straw men about completely unregulated markets the only thing you ever have on tap when discussions about regulation come up?
Because your rhetoric always sounds like that is what you think, as you criticize even moderate regulatory controls started in the early part of the twentieth century.

[DexterRiley]

What does any of this have to do with OWS? What does OWS have to do with Wall Street other than the name?

They are a cause that's barely defined and seems intent on simply being a pain-in-the-ass. What is the point in that? Even if I agree with a few of them, I can't get behind a movement with seemingly no purpose or direction.

not sure if serious.

[Yoda]

Because your rhetoric always sounds like that is what you think, as you criticize even moderate regulatory controls started in the early part of the twentieth century.
I can't really help what you guess or imagine such things "sound" like. But I never said it and that isn't my position, and this isn't the first time you've slain that particular straw man, and I don't think it's the first time I've said this, either.

And the idea that criticizing some older regulations in any way suggests belief in a completely unregulated market is a total non sequitur. It makes as much sense as assuming someone who wants more regulation is in favor of total state control of business.

Speaking of those "moderate regulatory controls," if you're referring to the discussion of antitrust legislation, I'm pretty sure there are still multiple replies with your name on them.

[DexterRiley]

It depends on the character of our politicians. Technically there's really nothing wrong with the idea of lobbying, and indeed it's a part of any healthy democracy, even though it's become a dirty word. The problem is politicians who let it influence them in undue ways.

If we can get onto a potentially useful topic, how about this: ignoring many OWS protesters for the moment and focusing just on some of the more coherent or specific ones, many of those types say they distrust the relationship between business and government. So far so good, if you ask me. But why is one of the alleged solutions more government regulation? That's open to the same abuses they're protesting against. And as a general rule, the more regulation there is in an industry the more opportunities for corruption and lobbying there are. There's nothing to lobby unless the politicians have control, so giving them more control only creates more opportunities for the things they're upset about.

How about an Ammendment to the Constitution?

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

What does this actually mean?

Line one: simply put, this part of the amendment would forbid any candidate for federal office (President, House or Senate) from accepting money to run or campaign for that office. This would include self-funders, corporations, labor unions, etc.

Line Two: this part of the amendment cuts off the Supreme Court's ability to strike down any and all campaign finance laws passed by Congress. This is THE most important aspect of the amendment. Without it, the Supreme Court will continue to say corporation and people can use their money as a device for political speech.

Line Three: this part of the amendment establishes a national day of voting. Most civilized countries have already-established national days of voting and their voter participation far exceeds ours.

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Starbucks CEO: Wake up and smell the coffee!

Howard Schultz wants fellow CEOs and campaign donors to boycott campaign contributions until the parties actually do something constructive to fight long-term fiscal concerns and the jobs crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXlx4Geq7CA&feature=related

[will.15]

None of that is going to happen. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. And Republicans vote for another holiday? (I am all for more holidays, but I doubt more people will vote because of one, more likely less because they will leave town).

[Yoda]

Before we get into whether or not that's actually a good idea (feasibility aside): does that mean you concur that OWS protesters who want more government regulation of business are wrong? Because it seems to me what's what a ton of them--even the less crazy ones--want.

[Deadite]

Yoda's got a good point: It's more important to sit down & stfu than to fight injustice and possibly cause inconvenience. Too bad he wasn't there to talk sense to those pesky blacks in the 60s when they erroneously believed civil rights were worth making a fuss about.

Sarcasm powers off.

Your complaint is so trivial, so superficial in comparison to the larger issues at stake, that I almost cannot bring myself to believe you have the cojones to insult the intelligence of every concerned reader here that way.

Almost.

[Yoda]

Which complaint are you referring to? Whatever it is, are you aware that it's a probably a direct response to what other people are saying in this thread? This is not an example of trying to discredit the entire OWS movement with some trivial concern apropos of nothing, it's a direct response to the overreach of their supporters, who are equating support of the movement with support for being able to camp out wherever you want or impede traffic. Direct your sarcastic outrage there.

On top of that, I posed a question above directed to the content of the protests, as well, just to try to steer the discussion in a more helpful direction. So I've got no idea what the crap you're talking about.

[Deadite]

What does any of this have to do with OWS? What does OWS have to do with Wall Street other than the name?

They are a cause that's barely defined and seems intent on simply being a pain-in-the-ass. What is the point in that? Even if I agree with a few of them, I can't get behind a movement with seemingly no purpose or direction.

If you haven't figured it out by now, then I'm going to have to conclude the problem isn't them; It's you.

[Yoda]

Let's summarize:

OWS: Get money out of politics! Fight corruption! Let us block traffic!
Me: Hang on, you can't block traffic.
Deadite: Trivial! Don't you know what's at stake here?!

[Deadite]

Which complaint are you referring to? Whatever it is, are you aware that it's a probably a direct response to what other people are saying in this thread? This is not an example of trying to discredit the entire OWS movement with some trivial concern apropos of nothing, it's a direct response to the overreach of their supporters, who are equating support of the movement with support for being able to camp out wherever you want or impede traffic. Direct your sarcastic outrage there.

On top of that, I posed a question above directed to the content of the protests, as well, just to try to steer the discussion in a more helpful direction. So I've got no idea what the crap you're talking about.

But enough about those silly protesters and whatever it is they're angry about. Let's be as obscure as possible nitpicking the details of a broken system.

[Deadite]

Let's summarize:

OWS: Get money out of politics! Fight corruption! Let us block traffic!
Me: Hang on, you can't block traffic.
Deadite: Trivial! Don't you know what's at stake here?!

Do you know what's at stake? Do you care?

[Yoda]

But enough about those silly protesters and whatever it is they're angry about. Let's be as obscure as possible nitpicking the details of a broken system.
Yeah, again, I asked a simple question directed at what they're angry about. It was just a few posts ago. Your sarcasm makes zero sense.

[DexterRiley]

Before we get into whether or not that's actually a good idea (feasibility aside): does that mean you concur that OWS protesters who want more government regulation of business are wrong? Because it seems to me what's what a ton of them--even the less crazy ones--want.

there are hundreds of thousands of occupy supporters. There have been several demands from several under the umbrella.

I'm not a spokesman for the movement or anything, but i do think Glass-Stegall shoould be re-instated.

I think any politician that works on a regulatory or de-regulatory bill should be forbidden from gaining employment from that industry for no less than 10 years after leaving office.

Capital requirements for lending needs to be tightened.

Currently, Big Banks pay fines without ever having to admit culpability. This is sillytown. To add insult to injury they pay the fines with tax payer bailout dough.

Either change the status of Corporations are a person, or when this person committs fraud, the CEO's and CFO's should go to jail. period.

"You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullsh!t would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."

But that hasn't happened. Because the entire system set up to monitor and regulate Wall Street is f*cked up.

Just ask the people who tried to do the right thing.

Here's how regulation of Wall Street is supposed to work. To begin with, there's a semigigantic list of public and quasi-public agencies ostensibly keeping their eyes on the economy, a dense alphabet soup of banking, insurance, S&L, securities and commodities regulators like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as supposedly "self-regulating organizations" like the New York Stock Exchange. All of these outfits, by law, can at least begin the process of catching and investigating financial criminals, though none of them has prosecutorial power.

The major federal agency on the Wall Street beat is the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC watches for violations like insider trading, and also deals with so-called "disclosure violations" — i.e., making sure that all the financial information that publicly traded companies are required to make public actually jibes with reality. But the SEC doesn't have prosecutorial power either, so in practice, when it looks like someone needs to go to jail, they refer the case to the Justice Department. And since the vast majority of crimes in the financial services industry take place in Lower Manhattan, cases referred by the SEC often end up in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Thus, the two top cops on Wall Street are generally considered to be that U.S. attorney — a job that has been held by thunderous prosecutorial personae like Robert Morgenthau and Rudy Giuliani — and the SEC's director of enforcement.

The relationship between the SEC and the DOJ is necessarily close, even symbiotic. Since financial crime-fighting requires a high degree of financial expertise — and since the typical drug-and-terrorism-obsessed FBI agent can't balance his own checkbook, let alone tell a synthetic CDO from a credit default swap — the Justice Department ends up leaning heavily on the SEC's army of 1,100 number-crunching investigators to make their cases. In theory, it's a well-oiled, tag-team affair: Billionaire Wall Street ******* commits fraud, the NYSE catches on and tips off the SEC, the SEC works the case and delivers it to Justice, and Justice perp-walks the ******* out of Nobu, into a Crown Victoria and off to 36 months of push-ups, license-plate making and Salisbury steak.

That's the way it's supposed to work. But a veritable mountain of evidence indicates that when it comes to Wall Street, the justice system not only sucks at punishing financial criminals, it has actually evolved into a highly effective mechanism for protecting financial criminals. This institutional reality has absolutely nothing to do with politics or ideology — it takes place no matter who's in office or which party's in power. To understand how the machinery functions, you have to start back at least a decade ago, as case after case of financial malfeasance was pursued too slowly or not at all, fumbled by a government bureaucracy that too often is on a first-name basis with its targets. Indeed, the shocking pattern of nonenforcement with regard to Wall Street is so deeply ingrained in Washington that it raises a profound and difficult question about the very nature of our society: whether we have created a class of people whose misdeeds are no longer perceived as crimes, almost no matter what those misdeeds are. The SEC and the Justice Department have evolved into a bizarre species of social surgeon serving this nonjailable class, expert not at administering punishment and justice, but at finding and removing criminal responsibility from the bodies of the accused.

The systematic lack of regulation has left eve (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=2)n the country's top regulators frustrated. Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant for the SEC, laughs darkly at the idea that the criminal justice system is broken when it comes to Wall Street. "I think you've got a wrong assumption — that we even have a law-enforcement agency when it comes to Wall Street," he says.

In the hierarchy of the SEC, the chief accountant plays a major role in working to pursue misleading and phony financial disclosures. Turner held the post a decade ago, when one of the most significant cases was swallowed up by the SEC bureaucracy. In the late 1990s, the agency had an open-and-shut case against the Rite Aid drugstore chain, which was using diabolical accounting tricks to cook their books. But instead of moving swiftly to crack down on such scams, the SEC shoved the case into the "deal with it later" file. "The Philadelphia office literally did nothing with the case for a year," Turner recalls. "Very much like the New York office with Madoff." The Rite Aid case dragged on for years — and by the time it was finished, similar accounting fiascoes at Enron and WorldCom had exploded into a full-blown financial crisis. The same was true for another SEC case that presaged the Enron disaster. The agency knew that appliance-maker Sunbeam was using the same kind of accounting scams to systematically hide losses from its investors. But in the end, the SEC's punishment for Sunbeam's CEO, Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap — widely regarded as one of the biggest ******** in the history of American finance — was a fine of $500,000. Dunlap's net worth at the time was an estimated $100 million. The SEC also barred Dunlap from ever running a public company again — forcing him to retire with a mere $99.5 million. Dunlap passed the time collecting royalties from his self-congratulatory memoir. Its title: Mean Business.


|


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216#ixzz1evSyaT8d


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216#ixzz1evS48f6S

if they assume the credit when things are awesome and collect wicked huge bonuses because it happened under their watch, then it stands to reason when the shite hits the fan, under their watch they should bear the brunt.

in for a penny in for a pound.

[Deadite]

Yeah, again, I asked a simple question directed at what they're angry about. It was just a few posts ago. Your sarcasm makes zero sense.

Yeah, again, you'd have to be braindead or intentionally avoiding to not know what they're angry about. True, I haven't studied how chaos theory applies to crowd control or researched advanced applied obfuscatory tactics but I have a general idea why they're protesting.

Sarcasm well earned, Yoda.

[Yoda]

My question wasn't "why are they angry?" Did you even read the post I'm talking about? You gave it negative rep, so I'd sure hope you did.

Show me the post where I said I had no idea what they were angry about. Go ahead. Then, when you can't, I'm sure you'll politely retract all this pointless sarcasm, right?

[Deadite]

My question wasn't "why are they angry?" Did you even read the post I'm talking about? You gave it negative rep, so I'd sure hope you did.

Show me the post where I said I had no idea what they were angry about. Go ahead. Then, when you can't, I'm sure you'll politely retract all this pointless sarcasm, right?

Right, and the obvious follow-up of what they stand for is the value of what they stand for.

You think business as usual is the preferred alternative if protesting means stepping on a few toes.

I disagree. I think the issue they're protesting is more important than maintaining smooth traffic flow and protecting banks. If it interrupts business as usual to make their protests, so be it. We're not talking about a hobo wandering around and screaming about UFOs.

[Yoda]

there are hundreds of thousands of occupy supporters. There have been several demands from several under the umbrella.

I'm not a spokesman for the movement or anything, but i do think Glass-Stegall shoould be re-instated.
That's fine, you're not a spokesman and I won't pretend you speak for others...but some of the stuff you've posted in support of the movement has specifically advocated new regulations, and it seems to be an incredibly common sentiment across an otherwise disparate group of opinions. But regardless of all that, my question simply is: if someone thinks that the problem is the relationship between business and government, do you agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to simply give government more control over business? That would seem to contain some cognitive dissonance, but I think it describes a big part of OWS. I think it's fair to say the majority of protesters want more financial regulation. It sounds like you're saying you disagree with a lot of that, depending, as always, on the specifics.

I think any politician that works on a regulatory or de-regulatory bill should be forbidden from gaining employment from that industry for no less than 10 years after leaving office.
I've heard the idea and it's interesting. But don't you think this would just force people to be creative about how they incentivize and compensate them? Money, trade, and other things can flow around simple obstacles quite easily, and the only way to stop that is to impose utterly draconian controls on the economy that would harm a whole lot of other people.

Capital requirements for lending needs to be tightened.
What do you mean by this? That we have to force people getting mortgages to put at least X amount down, for example? Progressives have been arguing against this sort of thing for a long time; they used to vilify banks in the 70s for refusing to make loans to people who couldn't meet such requirements--they called it "redlining." Then, a couple decades after, giving out those same types of loans was called "predatory lending."

Also, when you say we need to tighten these requirements, doesn't that carry with it the admission that untenable mortgages were indeed the problem, as I said a little earlier? No reason to have tighter requirements unless the current requirements are too loose, after all.

Currently, Big Banks pay fines without ever having to admit culpability. This is sillytown. To add insult to injury they pay the fines with tax payer bailout dough.
Well, we see pretty much eye-to-eye on the bailouts, to be sure. They add a new dimension of outrage to a lot of this. But what kind of fines are you referring to?

Either change the status of Corporations are a person, or when this person committs fraud, the CEO's and CFO's should go to jail. period.
Well, we can't put the head of a company in jail simply because an employee commits fraud. Sometimes that happens when we can demonstrate a clear criminal negligence or some kind of complicity, but we can't do it automatically, for a whole variety of reasons.

What would changing the status of corporations entail?

if they assume the credit when things are awesome and collect wicked huge bonuses because it happened under their watch, then it stands to reason when the shite hits the fan, under their watch they should bear the brunt.

in for a penny in for a pound.
I definitely have to disagree with this. Applied to other areas, this would be untenable to all of us. Should employees only be allowed bonuses if they take commensurate cuts in pay for bad years? Also, these are private contracts; I'm not sure how we arbitrarily decide to dictate what they can say or pay people without violating a very basic rule of law. I can't imagine how a libertarian (well, mostly, if I had to pick a single word) like yourself could possibly be comfortable with the government dictating how people are compensated in private contracts.

Not only that, but the downside of running such a large business in this example is so massive that it'll almost certainly discourage anyone of significant skill and talent from doing so. Imagine if the NFL were like this, and players had to pay owners if they had a terrible season. That wouldn't improve the game or the business: it would severely reduce the quality and skill of those participating, because so few people would be willing to endure such personal risk.

[DexterRiley]

More specific, please. Please explain the problem with derivatives to me, or why insurance (which is basically what a CDS is) shouldn't be allowed, or should be regulated. And please explain to me on what basis we can regulate these things in ways that don't apply to all sorts of other investments.

Again, you really want me to break down what derivatives are and whats good and bad in detail? these things are complex as hell by design. I've had it explained to me a dozen or more times including by my broker at Nesbit burns, and each grappled with explaining it, or i was 2 dumb to get it. In any event the Doc Inside Job which ive been trumpeting since way before it won the oscar does an incredible job imo of explaining this question.

Except you dont want to do that.

its much easier kicken the crap out of me, a layman, who knows enough that when doesnt know enough to defer to those that do, and can explain in an artuculate manner.

So i post videos, but you dont wanna watch no stinken videos. You put your party before your Country which is sad as all hell to my way of thinking.



A big chunk of what I'm claiming isn't even arguable: there's no way to have a housing crisis without a combination of malinvestment and mortgages handed out to people who can't afford them. There's no crisis without defaults, and no defaults without people defaulting, which means there's no crisis unless large numbers of people have mortgages they can't afford. The question is: why do they have mortgages they can't afford, and who's responsible?

Really. Then why didnt Canada go T!ts up? We have sub-prime mortgage houses. We had boomen real estate as a result.

how come our banks didnt teeter on the brink of insolvency?



Who, Ferguson? He made an anti-Iraq documentary, too, and one about "market failure" and the Internet. He's from San Francisco and went to Berkeley. You're sure he's a conservative? Under what definition?

lol you glazed over that he earned his phD @ MIT. is that a hippie school as well?

Perhaps i should have characterized him as a Capitalist rather than Conservative.

[Yoda]

Right, and the obvious follow-up of what they stand for is the value of what they stand for.
And this demonstrates that I said I didn't know what they were angry about...how? If you're going to be horrendously sarcastic about something, you ought to have a corresponding level of contrition when it becomes clear that your complaint was pulled out of thin air.

You think business as usual is the preferred alternative if protesting means stepping on a few toes.
I never said anything even remotely like this. I think you don't get to "step on toes," and the only reason I even bothered to say that much is because people in these discussion were going out of there way to defend even the toe-stepping. See below for an expanded response.

I don't like business as usual, I simply reject the notion that the choice is between business as usual and the behavior of the protesters. For a guy who's sensitive about other people putting words in his mouth, you sure do it a whole hell of a lot yourself.

I disagree. I think the issue they're protesting is more important than maintaining smooth traffic flow and protecting banks. If it interrupts business as usual to make their protests, so be it. We're not talking about a hobo wandering around and screaming about UFOs.
There's a false dichotomy here: it's not as if we decide that something is important, and therefore anything done in the name of that something is acceptable, or even a good idea. I can think corrupt capitalism is a million times more important than ordinary people getting home in Friday rush hour, but it doesn't follow from that that anything done to fight corrupt capitalism is a good idea, let alone necessary.

It's a pretty simple position, really: when the OWS protesters impede ordinary people, or violate simple property rights, they undercut their message and almost certainly dispose of some of the sympathy people might have for their cause. Polls indicate falling levels of support for the movement as a whole, and I think this is part of the reason why. As Americans we have a lot of good mental associations with genuinely passive resistance and peaceful protest. It's a pretty noble form of political engagement. But we have far less inherent tolerance for more active forms of resistance.

[Deadite]

Why am I not surprised. Yoda, defender of zygotes and corporations, but to hell with actual people who protest rigged systems and unfair practices. Those kinds of people deserve a faceful of pepper spray.

You're a real humanitarian.

[DexterRiley]

[QUOTE]Last year, Goldman Sachs stock went up after a $550 million settlement with the SEC — its largest fine ever — for failing to tell investors a mortgage fund it recommended had been created using advice from one of the world’s largest hedge funds, which was betting on its value to drop.

Goldman Sachs did not have to admit wrongdoing, other than to acknowledge it had made mistakes by not giving investors complete information.

Right. Problem is, $550 million is chump change to Goldman Sachs — about a week’s worth of its trading revenues — and to other Wall St. banks, who routinely pay what to them are insignificant fines, without having to admit guilt, and then go merrily on their way.

In 2002, Wall Street’s top 10 money houses paid $1.43 billion in fines and compensation to settle a case in which it was alleged they misled investors about the value of Internet stocks in the 1990s, leading to the hi-tech bubble and crash. They were accused of saying one thing publicly, another privately, and of promoting investments they knew would fail. Sound familiar?

That time, Citigroup paid $400 million, Credit Suisse $200 million, Merrill Lynch $200 million, Morgan Stanley $125 million, Goldman Sachs $110 million, J.P. Morgan Chase $80 million, Bear Sterns $80 million, Lehman Brothers $80 million, Deutsche Bank $80 million, UBS $80 million. They also promised to change how they did business.

Following the collapse of Enron in 2001, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Merrill Lynch were fined $385 million for helping Enron conceal fraud. In 2009, Credit Suisse was fined $536 million for secretly funneling money into Iran’s nuclear program in violation of U.S. sanctions.

Also in 2009, UBS avoided criminal prosecution by paying a $780-million fine to the IRS for helping wealthy U.S. clients evade taxes.

That’s just a small sampling of what’s happened on Wall Street, recently. How do these firms get away with it, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power?

As the Academy Award-winning documentary Inside Job, on the 2008 global financial meltdown, noted, it probably has to do with the fact the financial sector in the U.S. employs 3,000 lobbyists — more than five for every member of Congress — and from 1998-2008 alone, spent $5 billion on political lobbying and campaign contributions.

Indeed, if this is ever going to end, fines aren’t going to do it.

Making some company CEOs, directors and other top execs do the perp walk, might.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-st-damn-right--it-was-the-scene-of-the-crime-in-08-recession

Want another reason to be angry at Wall Street and Washington, besides the fact not one senior executive has gone to jail for fraud in helping to cripple the global economy starting in 2008?

Here’s one.

With the head of the International Monetary Fund warning the European debt crisis could plunge the world into a “lost decade” of economic devastation, and Ottawa trying to determine whether a looming recession would require a second bailout of our auto sector, guess who’s been making out like bandits since 2008?

That’s right — Wall Street.

The same money houses that started us on this downward financial spiral via the subprime mortgage securities scandal that led to the global credit freeze have been raking in the cash ever since, thanks to trillions of dollars in assistance from struggling American taxpayers, courtesy of the George Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

According to the Washington Post, the trading arms of major U.S. banks and independent securities firms, have made at least $83 billion in profits in the 21/2 years since 2008, compared to $77 billion during the eight years of the Bush administration.

Since 2008, America’s largest banks — meaning assets of over $100 billion — have increased total combined assets by about 10%.

They made $34 billion in profits in the first half of 2011, almost as much as they earned in the same period in 2007, before the crash, and more than in the same period of any other year.

Executive compensation on Wall Street has roared back, with bonuses last year of

$20.8 billion, according to the New York state comptroller.

In New York City, average salaries on Wall Street rose 16.1% last year to $361,330, five times the salary of the average private sector worker in New York, according to the Post.

Obama’s done well, too, raising $15.6 million for his re-election campaign and for the Democratic National Committee from Wall Street executives — many invited to the White House for a campaign event.

That’s more than all of the Republican presidential candidates combined, ironic since the GOP is considered the party of Wall Street.

The main reason Wall Street has recovered so quickly from the ’08 crash is massive financial assistance extended to it from Washington that went far beyond the $700-billion taxpayer-funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), set up during the Bush administration and continued under Obama.

Another program, started under Bush in March 2008 and continued under Obama until it was wound up in May 2009, enabled Wall Street to borrow trillions of dollars in short-term loans at deeply discounted interest rates as low as 0.5%, through the U.S. Federal Reserve, according to CNN.

While the original monies have been paid back, critics say the Bush and Obama administrations should have used these loans as leverage to force Wall Street to ease consumer credit in 2008.

Instead, Wall Street firms used this low-interest money to speculate in the stock market, earning big profits for themselves.

“There’s a very popular conception out there the bailout was done with a tremendous amount of firepower and focus on saving the largest Wall Street institutions but with very little regard for Main Street,” Neil Barofsky, TARP’s former federal watchdog, told the Washington Post.

“That’s actually a very accurate description of what happened.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/09/wall-st-cashes-in

Who is Lorrie Goldstein? He is the Senior editor-in Chief of what is considered far and wide as Canadas conservative rag.

U.S. President Barack Obama was recently asked why no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted or imprisoned for their role in the 2008 global economic crash.



He replied: “On the issue of prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehman’s and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco, is that a lot of stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless.”

That’s absurd.

William Black was a senior government regulator at the time of the Savings & Loan (S&L) crisis in the U.S. in the late 1980s — a significant but smaller financial scandal in which 1,800 banking officials were convicted of felonies, with more than 1,000 jailed.

Black, now a professor of law and economics, told sfgate.com: “We had well over 10,000 criminal referrals from regulators in the S&L crisis.

“This time, zero. The regulatory agencies have since gone out of the business of making criminal referrals.”

Robert Gnaizda, former president of the Greenlining Institute, who coined the phrase, “It’s a Wall Street government,” to explain why no Wall Street executives have been charged, cited “an unwillingness by the Obama administration to effectively criticize ‘too big to fail’ institutions.”

The White House is unwilling to charge anyone, unless they’re certain of a conviction, which can’t be guaranteed in advance. One reason it’s hard to convict anyone over the subprime crisis — despite warnings to Congress by the FBI in 2004 fraud was rampant in the mortgage sector — is the financial services industry spent $5 billion from 1998 to 2008 alone, on lobbying and political donations to Republicans and Democrats, in order to water down laws and regulations governing financial markets.

Today, Wall Street banks routinely pay what to them are inconsequential civil fines, without anyone having to admit guilt or go to jail, for activities such as fraud.

A second reason it’s hard to charge or convict anyone is government oversight of Wall Street is presided over largely by former Wall Street executives, who arranged the taxpayer-funded bank bailouts — raising questions about whether they were ever prepared to bring Wall Street executives to justice.

Third, Wall Street firms — through their Political Action Committees and donations from owners, employees and their immediate families — are some of the biggest funders of presidential campaigns, meaning their views count in the corridors of power.

The Washington Post recently reported a third of the money Obama’s top fundraisers have raised this year for his re-election bid came from the U.S. financial sector, up from 20% during the 2008 presidential election cycle.

In 2008, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics’ opensecrets.org website, which tracks campaign donations, Goldman Sachs affiliates donated more than

$1 million to Obama’s campaign (his second-largest contributor); J.P. Morgan Chase, $808,799; Citigroup Inc. $736,771; UBS AG $532,674 and Morgan Stanley $512,232.

Republican nominee John McCain didn’t do as well — Wall Street likes frontrunners — but didn’t need any tag days. Merrill Lynch contributed $375,895 to his campaign; J.P. Morgan Chase $343,505; Citigroup Inc. $338,202; Morgan Stanley $271,902; Goldman Sachs $240,295; UBS AG $187,153; Credit Suisse Group $184,153; Bank of America $167,826. Even Lehman Bros., in the midst of its financial self-destruction, donated $126,577 to McCain.

So why haven’t any Wall Street executives been charged?

Follow the money.



http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/26/obama-sees-no-evil

Subprime crisis explained
How Heidi and her bar caused the 2008 global economic crash

Anyone doing research into the 2008 subprime mortgage securities scandal inevitably comes across the Internet gem below.

Often titled “Derivative markets — an understandable explanation” but more commonly known by its first sentence — “Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit,” it appears to have been written in 2009 by an author with considerable understanding of financial markets and a great sense of humour.

And it provides a good, basic explanation of the origins of the subprime mortgage securities crisis that led to a global credit freeze and the ongoing world-wide economic tsunami from which we may never fully recover.

Without further ado, here it is:

•••

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit .

She realizes virtually all of her customers are unemployed and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.

To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.

Consequently, Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at Heidi’s local bank recognizes these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit.

He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral!

At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure out a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINK BONDS.

These “securities” are bundled and traded on international securities markets.

Naive investors don’t really understand the securities being sold to them as “AAA Secured Bonds” really are debts of unemployed alcoholics.

Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices still are climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by Heidi’s bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.

Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations to the bank she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and Heidi’s 11 employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINK BOND prices drop by 90%.

The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank’s liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi’s bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the bond securities.

They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.

Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

In addition, the laid-off workers’ pension funds and Individual Retirement Accounts all suffer substantial loss in value.

Fortunately, though, the bank, brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multibillion dollar, no-strings attached cash infusion from the government.

The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class nondrinkers who have never been in or heard of Heidi’s bar.

Now do you understand?

•••

If anyone knows the author of this piece, please let me know as I’d like to give him or her credit.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/18/subprime-crisis-explained

[Deadite]

Well, Yoda, maybe it hasn't been the ideal model for a protest, but seeing how you've spent so much time and energy here against them, it's pretty clear where your priorities lie.

You'll have to pardon my refusal to reply with a wall of text. I prefer to be succinct as I can be and just call it as I see it, rather than drown people in my verbosity and hope they give up.

[Yoda]

Again, you really want me to break down what derivatives are and whats good and bad in detail? these things are complex as hell by design. I've had it explained to me a dozen or more times including by my broker at Nesbit burns, and each grappled with explaining it, or i was 2 dumb to get it. In any event the Doc Inside Job which ive been trumpeting since way before it won the oscar does an incredible job imo of explaining this question.

Except you dont want to do that.

its much easier kicken the crap out of me, a layman, who knows enough that when doesnt know enough to defer to those that do, and can explain in an artuculate manner.

So i post videos, but you dont wanna watch no stinken videos. You put your party before your Country which is sad as all hell to my way of thinking.
1) Break them down? No, I'd gladly take a "layman's" explanation. I asked for a very moderate level of detail here. It's fine to say that it's complicated, but you're actively proposing solutions, which presupposes that you understand what you're saying we need to regulate, yes? You can't simultaneously say we must do X to derivatives, and then say "gosh, you can't possibly expect me to understand derivatives." You can't plead ignorance and strongly advocate a position about that same thing.

2) Deferring to people who know more on a topic can be a very wise and prudent thing. But I can point you to lots of people who know more about this than you or I, but who come to different conclusions. Why not defer to them? If you don't know about a topic, and decide you have to defer to someone who does, how do you decide which?

3) I don't have anything against videos by themselves. I have something against assigning the equivalent of homework to someone else. Unless you think it's cool if I respond to each article with another article, or each documentary by linking you to a book on Amazon. I can do that, but it'd be lame, wouldn't it?

4) In those instances where I do watch or read whatever it is you throw at me, and start asking questions about it...it's not like you suddenly engage the issue. You just throw another video or article at me. They seem designed mainly to get me off your back.

Really. Then why didnt Canada go T!ts up? We have sub-prime mortgage houses. We had boomen real estate as a result.

how come our banks didnt teeter on the brink of insolvency?
You didn't have anything like the Community Reinvestment Act, for one. And for another, I'm not sure if what you're saying is true. The Economist suggests some pretty ominous signs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/25/canada-housing-market-bubble-overvalued-economist_n_1113031.html) about the level of debt and overvaluation in the Canadian housing market right now.

lol you glazed over that he earned his phD @ MIT. is that a hippie school as well?
No, it's a school with no political leaning either way that I'm aware of. Berkeley, on the other hand, is infamously liberal. The point being: I don't see any reason to believe he's a conservative. Nor do I really much care what he was before, or what he is on some other issue.

[Powdered Water]

I wish I had a Heidi's bar around when I was still drinking. That would have been SWEET!

[will.15]

Reality: Nobody likes bailouts to banks, left and right bitch about it.

Reality: Without it we would be in the middle of a depression a lot worse than what we have now because banks would have tightened up borrowing requirements on everything, not just home mortgages.

Unfortunately, lax regulation has created institutions that really are too large to fail. So less regulation solves nothing.

The problem wasn't lending to people who couldn't afford their homes because government encouraged it (they didn't), it was trying to create a situation based on flagrantly stupid assumptions where individual bad loans didn't matter because they were packaged with other loans based on the false assumption real estate values would always go up, not down. They threw out all loan requirements because they were making their money by repackaging the loans. That is not what redlining complaints was about. Blame the minorities and government regulation for what business opportunism created by working around regulation, not because of it. As for specific redlining practices and specific efforts to discourage it, they had zero to do with what happened. Most of the people defaulting were not minorities.

[Yoda]

Why am I not surprised. Yoda, defender of zygotes and corporations, but to hell with actual people who protest rigged systems and unfair practices. Those kinds of people deserve a faceful of pepper spray.

You're a real humanitarian.
Yeah, didn't say anything like that, either. But way to again evade the fact that you blatantly and sarcastically misrepresented my position. No retraction or apology coming on that front, right? Okay then.

Well, Yoda, maybe it hasn't been the ideal model for a protest, but seeing how you've spent so much time and energy here against them, it's pretty clear where your priorities lie.
Priorities? Not really. Positions, is more like it. I disagree with their methods (which I am apparently not allowed to say), and I disagree with most of the proposed remedies I've heard come out of OWS (which I'm accused of not saying even when I have). And I think their methods are counterproductive to their aims, anyway. Seems simple enough to me.

You'll have to pardon my refusal to reply with a wall of text. I prefer to be succinct as I can be and just call it as I see it, rather than drown people in my verbosity and hope they give up.
This is hilarious. I put up a post of incredibly succinct questions, and you mocked that, too. Don't try to pretend this is about plain speaking. You routinely refuse to answer point-blank questions, regardless of how simply they're put. Basically, you want to argue without having to read a few paragraphs or answer any annoying questions. Good luck with that.

And if you hate walls of text, man, I can only imagine the seething hatred you must have for Dex after that last post. But I'm guessing you don't, anyway.

[DexterRiley]

At the height of the subprime frenzy — take 2006 as an example — over 80% of subprime mortgages were being issued by private lenders, not government or government-backed ones.

As Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ, wrote in Barron’s in 2008, the real story was one of Wall St. greed enabled by government incompetence:

“We on Wall St. do not deny our part. We created these securities, we rated them triple-A, we traded them without understanding them. Now that they have gone bad, we are real close to getting the rest of the country to take them off our hands … (But), here’s a news flash for you, D.C. We could not have done it without you. We may be drunks, but you were our enablers … Our recklessness would not have reached its soaring heights but for your government incompetence.”

What Republicans and Democrats did — not one or the other, but both — was to take Wall Street’s cash and do its bidding.

They let banks speculate with deposits.

They rejected controls on derivatives and limits on leveraging (speculating with borrowed money).

They facilitated predatory lending and borrowing, making it easy for mortgage buyers to lie about their incomes and mortgage sellers to encourage and ignore those lies.

They ignored conflicts of interest in the credit rating agencies that rated junk subprime mortgage securities as Triple A safe.

They looked the other way as Wall Street banks sold them as safe investments world-wide, while privately taking out bets they would fail.

That no Wall St. executive or Washington politician has gone to jail for what happened, is an outrage.

Full story as it appeared in Todays Toronto Sun (and across Canada)

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/25/guilty-guilty-guilty

Guilty, guilty, guilty
Wall Street, Republicans, Democrats, all responsible for 08 crash

A sign of how broken the American political system has become is that three years after the global economic crash caused by Wall Street’s massive fraud, Republicans and Democrats continue to blame each other for what happened.

In reality, both parties were responsible for accepting billions of dollars in political donations from Wall St., while they did its bidding by stripping laws and regulations of safeguards put in place following the stock market crash of 1929 to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression.

Typical of Democratic spin is Barack Obama’s charge from 2008, cited in Dissent magazine, that “George Bush’s Washington … let the banks and financial institutions run amok and take our economy down this dangerous road.”

What Democrats don’t say is much of the deregulation and gaming of the financial system started under Bill Clinton, before being expanded on by Bush.

Republicans and Democrats worked together for Wall Street to repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. That removed the barriers between commercial and investment banks, allowing them to speculate with depositors’ money.

While it was passed by a Republican Congress, it was signed into law by Clinton, after being steered through the White House by his treasury secretary, Robert Rubin.

Rubin subsequently left for a senior post with Citigroup, which directly benefited from the repeal of Glass-Steagall and had to be bailed out by U.S. taxpayers in 2008.

Nor do Democrats mention the role played in repealing Glass Steagall by Rubin’s deputy, Lawrence Summers, who later became Obama’s chief economic advisor and, who, as Clinton’s treasury secretary following Rubin’s departure, opposed efforts to regulate derivatives, the financial weapons of mass destruction instrumental in the subprime disaster.

Republicans charge Clinton’s use of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in the mid-1990s, requiring banks to lend money to low-income Americans, was the root cause of the subprime mortgage crisis, and that similar lending by government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided the jet fuel for it.

That’s absurd.

First, the CRA was passed in 1977. Claiming it caused a financial scandal three decades later is silly.

Second, increased mortgage activity under Clinton ended by 2001. The subprime frenzy didn’t take off until after that.

Third, as Aaron Pressman in Businessweek and others have been writing since 2008, 80% of subprime loans were made by mortgage companies and other firms to which the CRA didn’t apply, or minimally applied. Thus it’s ridiculous to suggest it caused the subprime crash.

While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed massive accounting fraud for which, like the Wall St. firms they competed against, they received only minimal fines, with no one going to jail, to argue they were the primary cause of the crash makes no sense.

[Yoda]

The problem wasn't lending to people who couldn't afford their homes, it was trying to create a situation based on flagrantly stupid assumptions where individual bad loans didn't matter because they were packaged with other loans based on the false assumption real estate values would always go up, not down. As for specific redlining practices and specific efforts to discourage it, they had zero to do with what happened. Most of the people defaulting were not minorities.
We have another thread (more than one, I think) dedicated specifically to the housing crisis. And you and I even had a discussion (another one with replies that have your name on it) about it, too. I can point you to where it was left, but suffice to say I've responded to literally every single sentiment in this paragraph before, and I see no reason to reboot the discussion and go through the exact same 4-5 moves at the start of it. Simply restating your original contentions in another thread, when they've already been replied to, doesn't accomplish anything.

[Yoda]

Hey, Dex: if I link you to three or four articles arguing about the CRA, or arguing against some of the things in those ones, would you read and reply to them? Serious question. If I start just posting tons of articles to make my case for me, what would your response be?

[will.15]

You brought up the false assumption again the bailout was a bad thing. It was an unfortunate necessity. And you repeated in responding to DR how the big bad governemnt was really responsible for the banking crisis., so I wasn't bringing these things up in a vaccum.

Right now the most thriving economy in the world, China, is far from an example of free market capitalism. Their success right now depends on central government control. If they went completely free market they would crash. They are still headed for a fall, but not as dramatic because capitalism defies that type of control in the long run.

[DexterRiley]

Hey, Dex: if I link you to three or four articles arguing about the CRA, or arguing against some of the things in those ones, would you read and reply to them? Serious question. If I start just posting tons of articles to make my case for me, what would your response be?

link em. im a reader. i prefer doc's or interviews i should say, but link away. Matt Taibbi has been on this since forever, the original Tea Party guy (before it became the 3 G party) has written a ton as well.

The main thing that has to permeate your skull is at the high levels Republicons and Dumbocrats are the problem

The good ship protect the financial elite has cruised along no matter who is in the oval office.

but yeah link away. I'll most def read em. I'd ask that they not be from Think tank central ie Heritage Foundation or PNAC though.

[Deadite]

Yoda, why should anyone go out of their way to try convincing you that the problem is big enough and bad enough to be worth the protest? I don't think they could, regardless. You'll only complain about some of it and ignore the rest. Why don't you write a few big posts criticizing greedy fatcats instead of protesters? I'll read every word, I swear.

[DexterRiley]

http://i.imgur.com/66oWp.jpg

[will.15]

Does Bill know he supports OWS?

[Yoda]

Yoda, why should anyone go out of their way to try convincing you that the problem is big enough and bad enough to be worth the protest? I don't think they could, regardless. You'll only complain about some of it and ignore the rest. Why don't you write a few big posts criticizing greedy fatcats instead of protesters? I'll read every word, I swear.
Are you just making crap up, or what? I didn't say there's wasn't a serious problem. Saying they shouldn't impede things--either because I think it's just plain wrong, or because it hurts their cause--has nothing to do with whether or not they're right or whether or not the issue is important. I think lots of protests are important, but that doesn't mean I think any tactic employed in their name is necessary, or a good idea. I don't think abortion protesters should block traffic, either.

I'm not sure what that last sentence is supposed to demonstrate. What's the value in pledging to read something you already agree with? Seems a lot more valuable to make a point to read things you don't agree with. Regardless, you can't have it both ways: you can't argue, and then decide you're not going to respond to anything more than a couple of paragraphs long. Trying to argue without ever actually answering any follow-up questions is straight-up ridiculous. That's not an argument, that's a monologue.

[Yoda]

link em. im a reader. i prefer doc's or interviews i should say, but link away. Matt Taibbi has been on this since forever, the original Tea Party guy (before it became the 3 G party) has written a ton as well.
Gladly! :)

Debunking a lot of the arguments against the CRA as a primary cause of the crisis:
The CRA Scam and its Defenders (http://mises.org/daily/2963)

Here's something written about it way back in 2000:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html)

Detailing the dramatic run-up of CRA-spurred loans before the crisis:
A Poisonous Cocktail (http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html)

Jeff Jacoby on government's role (Barney Frank, in particular):
Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/)

Here's something you might particularly like; John Carney actually changed his mind as he started looking into the issue:
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates)

And one more from Carney:
Three Ways The CRA Pushed Countrywide To Lower Lending Standards (http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6)

Lots of detail in that second-to-last one. All in plain English, directly rebutting most of the common arguments against the idea.

I'd also like to refer you back to this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780220), which has a number of questions in it. If you're only going to answer even one or two of them, I'd prefer it be the first two. I get that the topic is complicated, and I don't expect anyone to be able to explain it with perfect clarity, but I don't see how it's possible to simultaneously strongly and repeatedly advocate a position, and then plead ignorance when asked how it's supposed to work. Nor do I understand why deferring to the expertise of others would help you decide which experts to defer to.

but yeah link away. I'll most def read em. I'd ask that they not be from Think tank central ie Heritage Foundation or PNAC though.
Well, I don't think I linked you to either, but I can't promise I won't link you to Heritage in the future; they do a lot of research on a lot of major political topics.

[will.15]

John Carney’s bizarre crusade against the CRA

Jun 25, 2009 11: For some unknown reason John Carney has decided that the Community Reinvestment Act was partly responsible for bad lending practices “spreading like wildfire across the country”. His first big blog entry (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-the-community-reinvestment-act-2009-6) on the subject, yesterday, declared that “the evidence is unequivocal” — without actually presenting any such evidence at all. His second attempt (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-government-used-the-cra-to-push-crappy-lending-standards-2009-6) finds something concrete: an OCC pamphlet from 1996 — a good decade before the fullest flowering of the subprime bubble. The pamphlet praises banks for working with local housing authorities to help low- and moderate-income individuals buy affordable housing.
The problem with the subprime bubble was not with people trying to buy affordable housing, it was with people trying to buy unaffordable housing. Default rates on people buying into affordable-housing developments have always been very low, partly because those houses are generally cheaper than neighboring market-rate developments. As a result, it’s generally cheaper for families to make their mortgage payments than to rent elsewhere.
Carney’s third entry (http://www.businessinsider.com/government-pamphlet-taught-banks-how-to-finance-a-70000-with-a-500-downpayment-2009-6) on the subject is the most obnoxious. His headline is “Government Pamphlet Taught Banks How To Finance A $70,000 Home With A $500 Downpayment”. Again, the pamphlet dates from before the housing bubble — 2000, in this case. Carney hones in on a table showing how banks can work with local authorities to help borrowers own their own home and end up saving money in the process. Here are the full numbers from the case study, which he disingenuously elides:

The borrower needs $1,200 in cash: $500 downpayment, and $700 for making minor repairs.
The bank loan is for $45,000 — a loan-to-value ratio of just 64%.
The bank loan is a sensible product: a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 7.5%. Nothing explodes.
The bank loan is carefully underwritten with full knowledge of the borrower’s income and financial affairs.
The borrower is taking advantage of many local assistance programs, including 0% mortgages and a waiver of permit fees.
The borrower’s current monthly rent payment is $750. The new monthly housing expenses — not only mortgage payments but also taxes and insurance — are $550, which will rise to $613 in five years’ time.
The borrower has participated in extensive prepurchase education and counseling.
There is nothing dangerous about this loan — it’s safer, and has a lower LTV, than most prime mortgages. If this is the kind of product which lenders pushed during the subprime boom, there would have been no problem at all. Instead, predatory lenders started pushing unsuitable mortgages which had no chance of being repaid as opposed to prepaid or refinanced. Yes, some of those products involved low or no downpayments. But that wasn’t the main reason why they were so toxic.
The fact is that the CRA did not encourage banks to extend the kind of toxic loans which ended up being such an important component of the financial crisis. Indeed, most of those loans weren’t made by banks at all — they were made by unregulated subprime lenders who had no CRA responsibilities whatsoever. But don’t take my word for it: ask Fed governor Randall Kroszner (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm), who comprehensively demolished these meme in a speech last December. Why Carney is looking to resuscitate it I have no idea.

[Yoda]

While I am impressed by your apparent ability to Google "john carney community reinvestment act" (your article, which you didn't source, comes up third), both of the ones I linked to post-date this one, and that blog entry doesn't rebut the majority of things said in them. In fact, almost that entire entry is about deciding what a toxic loan is, and not whether or not the CRA caused them.

When it finally does get around to arguing that point (even though that point is the whole debate), guess what? Carney's already specifically rebutted it. As have some of the other articles I linked to. Which you didn't know because you didn't read any of them, right? Because the real purpose of the Google-copy-paste routine is to allow you to go on believing whatever you did beforehand without having to make any actual inquiry into its veracity.

[will.15]

I just looked at the second onk and the arguments are very unconvincing. Just because you found a lone Democrat who has bought into right wing propagnda blaming the government for corporate greed doesn't make it fact.

http://www.ccc.unc.edu/documents/CRA_Did_Not_Cause_Foreclosure_Crisis.pdf

[DexterRiley]

Sadly you did what i was afraid you would do. Linked to articles with a bias along party lines. PARTIES DONT MATTER IN MATTERS OF HIGH FINANCE.

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup — which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the ******* chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multi-billion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405#ixzz1f0mmT8UD

So I'll play this dumb game for a bit.

It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully does it serve Democratic Party interests.

8 years of Republican rule, how is possible the CRA was able to continue?

Logically you must concede both parties are complicit no?

As dumb as the CRA is, however, this doesnt adress the key point which is that these "toxic" loans were bundled and sold on the open market rated at triple A securities. The same lenders then shorted the market as they knew the loans were garbage.

The great thing at least about each of the articles is they point to the federal reserve as being the main player in "forcing" and twisting arms and the like.

You understand surely that the Fed is controlled by the big banks right? Thats why they played risky buisiness. Because they knew they could internalize the good times and when the bubble burst. not if but when, such is the design of boom, bubble bust economy, then The Fed would socialize the losses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmxpf4CRiwM
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x306/9ae0d6bce4e8fa2ef92a8559e692c801bcb5477c.jpg


The CRA did not singlehandedly cause the meltdown. But the relaxation of credit standards that allowed the meltdown did start, as far as I can tell, with the CRA. And perhaps more importantly, the CRA, and the mentality behind the CRA, made regulators extremely unwilling to intervene.

found this tete a tete with Megan Mcardle and Matt Taiibi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WS0rpNHzT0&feature=related


So where are we? I agree that 20 percent should be the required down payment for purchasing property.


The Fed is corrupt. agreed.

There is has been an overt unwillingness of the Justice Department regardless of who is in office to bring indictments to the financial barons that raped the populace over the last couple of decades.

agreed.

Blame poor folks all day and every day if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but remember this, they lost their homes and are saddled with the debt for the rest of their lives.

The lenders on the other hand, recouped the properties + had the bad debt paid off by taxpayers.

psssst

poor folks are taxpayers.

How on earth do you square that in your mind as right? Forget for a second your party affiliation if thats possible. As a Human how is that right?

[Yoda]

I just looked at the second onk and the arguments are very unconvincing. Just because you found a lone Democrat who has bought into right wing propagnda blaming the government for corporate greed doesn't make it fact.
"I just looked at the second" means you didn't look at it originally, right? You had no idea if what you posted debunked anything at all, but you posted it anyway in hopes that it would.

Nope, posting an article doesn't make something a fact. Though that would apply to what you posted, too. Funny that you never remind anyone of this fact when someone goes on a binge posting articles saying things you already agree with. Like, say, all over the last two pages of this thread.

"The arguments are very unconvincing." Which ones? Why are they unconvincing? Either you're disputing it or not, and if you are, don't make chase you around in pointless circles to extract even the most basic elaboration.

http://www.ccc.unc.edu/documents/CRA_Did_Not_Cause_Foreclosure_Crisis.pdf[/URL]
I read the first three arguments, realized all three were specifically debunked in Carney's piece, and stopped.

So, let's recap: you don't read the articles, you Google random links that don't rebut them, you post them as if they do rebut them, you then skim the article and say you find it unconvincing with no elaboration, and then you post another article that has already been specifically rebutted by the original. Are you under the impression this is what an argument is supposed to look like?

[Yoda]

Sadly you did what i was afraid you would do. Linked to articles with a bias along party lines. PARTIES DONT MATTER IN MATTERS OF HIGH FINANCE.
Yeah, I'm not talking about parties. Honest. ;) This is maybe the fifth or sixth time you've tried to tell me to stop talking about parties when I wasn't talking about parties. The only time I came within a mile of doing so was the Barney Frank article, and the point of that was to lay the blame on government in general.

My claim was that the CRA deserves a huge part of the blame for the crisis. That's what I'm saying. You wanted links to support this, and there they are. Since they're about government's role, it's bound to mention parties if only in passing, but that can't be helped.

8 years of Republican rule, how is possible the CRA was able to continue?

Logically you must concede both parties are complicit no?
In the sense of negligence, or a failure to recognize the CRA as a problem, sure. That strikes me as a bit different than actually creating (and later strengthening) the thing, however. But that's not my argument. The argument is not "Democrats are responsible." The argument is "the CRA is responsible." I just assume some Republicans supported it or liked the program, anyway.

As dumb as the CRA is, however, this doesnt adress the key point which is that these "toxic" loans were bundled and sold on the open market rated at triple A securities. The same lenders then shorted the market as they knew the loans were garbage.

The great thing at least about each of the articles is they point to the federal reserve as being the main player in "forcing" and twisting arms and the like.

You understand surely that the Fed is controlled by the big banks right? Thats why they played risky buisiness. Because they knew they could internalize the good times and when the bubble burst. not if but when, such is the design of boom, bubble bust economy, then The Fed would socialize the losses.
The repackaged loans explain why they moved around, but selling debt isn't the problem: the problem is issuing untenable debt to begin with. People buy and sell securities all the time and it only becomes an issue when the underlying debt defaults en masse. See below for a bit of elaboration on this point.

So where are we? I agree that 20 percent should be the required down payment for purchasing property.


The Fed is corrupt. agreed.

There is has been an overt unwillingness of the Justice Department regardless of who is in office to bring indictments to the financial barons that raped the populace over the last couple of decades.

agreed.

Blame poor folks all day and every day if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but remember this, they lost their homes and are saddled with the debt for the rest of their lives.

The lenders on the other hand, recouped the properties + had the bad debt paid off by taxpayers.
I'm not blaming poor folks at all. I would've thought a "too good to be true" feeling would've stopped some of them, but they're largely victims. I'm blaming government regulation for perverting incentives and making it profitable for banks to lower their lending standards.

We all respond to incentives. If the government had a "give away free money" program, it'd be stupid and it would hurt the economy and at a certain point it would cause a crisis...but who would be to blame? The people who signed up and took the money, or the people who enacted the program? If you tell lenders that you're going to help insulate them from risk, you make it logical for them to take more risk. The onus is on the people who insulate them from that risk.

[DexterRiley]

Yodes once more from the cheap seats. I'm not absolving the CRA. They have blame. got it done no problem.

The lendees have been punished would you agree?

Should the lenders get away scot free?


God Dammit its like you are stuck on stupid.

Did the CRA invent Derivatives? did they pay the rating angencies to rate ***** loans Triple A securities?

did they do any of this?

nope, they surely didnt, which means they arent the only villain in this decades long debacle.

How the Fruck you consider yourself a man of High moral values is frankly absurd.

[Yoda]

First off, chill. You need to be able to have a discussion without peppering it with things like "stuck on stupid" or "permeate your skull" or questioning my moral values. I don't know if you think that makes your argument more forceful, but it doesn't. It's just sort of cheap, and it's not something you should have to resort to if you have any confidence in what you're saying. When a person who you know isn't stupid sounds stupid, maybe take a step back and try to figure out if you're not understanding them.

Second, no, the CRA didn't invent derivatives. And the mere existence of them didn't cause the crisis; lots of derivatives are traded without incident. I refer you back to my "free money" example. The problem is perverted incentives. When you make it profitable to make risky loans, you get more risky loans. I would no more blame a lender for responding rationally to economic incentives than I would blame a dog for eating a steak I threw on the floor in front of him.

If people actually bribed rating agencies, then yes, they absolutely deserve a part of the blame for allowing the perverted incentives to spread the way they did. Even so, this would have merely been a mechanism that facilitated part of the spread, not the root cause, and if we're just talking about whoever does the bribing, we're suddenly talking about a much smaller group of people than the very broad group of "lenders."

[will.15]

"I just looked at the second" means you didn't look at it originally, right? You had no idea if what you posted debunked anything at all, but you posted it anyway in hopes that it would.

Nope, posting an article doesn't make something a fact. Though that would apply to what you posted, too. Funny that you never remind anyone of this fact when someone goes on a binge posting articles saying things you already agree with. Like, say, all over the last two pages of this thread.

"The arguments are very unconvincing." Which ones? Why are they unconvincing? Either you're disputing it or not, and if you are, don't make chase you around in pointless circles to extract even the most basic elaboration.


I read the first three arguments, realized all three were specifically debunked in Carney's piece, and stopped.

So, let's recap: you don't read the articles, you Google random links that don't rebut them, you post them as if they do rebut them, you then skim the article and say you find it unconvincing with no elaboration, and then you post another article that has already been specifically rebutted by the original. Are you under the impression this is what an argument is supposed to look like? They weren't debunked at all. He just circles around them. All the anti CRA arguments are based on a fantasy, that banks were concerned about complying to requirements that did not actually exist.

[Yoda]

That doesn't even make sense internally. The very first argument in that PDF is about the year the law was passed; it's a terrible argument and Carney debunks it easily. The second is about which organizations were subject, which is also debunked (it's because they make a meaningless distinction between CRA-imposed lenders, and independent brokers who deal with CRA-imposed lenders). The arguments you linked to in that PDF--the ones I said were debunked--have literally nothing to do with your claim that the "requirements ... did not exist." I have no idea why you're conflating them, or think the latter claim in any way defends the others.

That one, of course, is wrong anyway: banks were assigned CRA scores (which are even searchable online (http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/)), and those scores determine things about which banks can expand, merge, etc. Basically any move like that has regulatory oversight. That's why banks worked to keep their scores up: because failing to do so restricted them.

[will.15]

..."Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.
Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122246742997580395.html) in this week’s Barron’s"

[Yoda]

That exact article (which, for the billionth time, I would please remind you to source so it can be examined) has been replied to here (http://moveleft.org/subprime/anatomy.html). I'll even reproduce part of the response to that exact paragraph:

First, the problem aggravated by the tightened Bill Clinton version of the CRA took its time to ramp up, much like a rotting barrel that is slowly filled with water. It takes some time, and it can be filled for some time, before it finally breaks. The timing outlined here does not account for the lag. This makes the statement that the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement and therefore cause the crisis a bit shaky. Indeed, the subprime mortgage market appeared superficially healthy in the 1990s. This was a time when banks were still allowed to refuse mortgages to people who could be reasonably expected not to pay back the loan.

Furthermore, please consider that the Bush adminstration proposed a new oversight agency in 2003, a step that might have helped stem the crisis, but was turned down by Democrat-controlled Congress.

Most importantly, we need to point out the two most crucial (intentional?) omissions in this article apart from the 1995 revision of the CRA:

1. The fact that house prices kept increasing with inflation since the seventies, but the increase accelerated dramatically in the 2000's - a veritable bubble.
2. The dynamics added to the crisis by trade in subprime mortgage packages between banks and between Fannie and Freddie.
This is fast becoming farce. You're openly admitting to not reading the things you're trying to dispute, you glance at them and then dismiss them, you say things were not debunked when they demonstrably were, and when I point all this out, you just paste another article fragment. And the fragment here doesn't even support your claim that there were no requirements! That, like 90% of the things you say that I reply to, apparently vanishes into the ether.

I realize you don't like it when people blame the CRA, and you feel some need to contradict this idea, but at some point you have to choose between your desire to argue a point and your apparent desire to expend almost no thought or effort in the process.

[will.15]

It is total crap that has been debunked. It is knee jerk right wing propagnanda that was immediately used when the crisis hit to take the heat off of the real culprit, the sub primers and the credit default swaps which was designed to make money, not to comply with CRA non enforced requirements, as if during the Bush Administration they were getting tough with banks.

[Yoda]

Er...were you planning on disputing anything with, like, evidence and arguments and stuff? Because the claims are right up there, friendo. Take them on, or don't. So far, you've chosen "don't."

I guess that's the Internet: everyone's got an opinion, but they're way too busy repeating it to defend it. Defending opinions is for suckers.

[will.15]

http://www.sierrafoot.org/civics/mortgage_crash.html


It is not even worth debating because it is fantasy land arguments like government regulations caused the stock market crash which some conservatives argue. The right wingers always find a way to blame governemnt for everything even when it defies logic to do so.

[Yoda]

And after all that...another link. Brilliant.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with your "it's not worth debating" move. And I've noticed it always comes after some lethargic attempt to debate it, which is abandoned when the questions start coming in. Suddenly the thing you wanted to debate is not worth debating. In the world of circular arguments, you are the Giotto di Bondone.

I'll refer you back to this, which seems to work as a reply to all such posts:

"...at some point you have to choose between your desire to argue a point and your apparent desire to expend almost no thought or effort in the process.."
Either it's worth debating or it isn't. Either you're arguing and defending a position, or not. Make up your flippin' mind, please.

[Deadite]

Business is good, government is bad, the majority gets the shaft.

Same old song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quQIxImmVbI

[Deadite]

Are you just making crap up, or what?

What.

[will.15]

You're the one that keeps repeating something that is ludicrous, that government is responsible for what private banks and financial institutions did that had no direct connection with government regulations.

And it is not true that left wingers absolve government of everything connected to government control, if you are including liberals in the definition. The Labor Party in Great Britain has turned away from many of their policies of the past. Democrats have supported some deregulation. But right wingers always take extreme positions against government. The difference is they have actually have gotten more extremist over the years. They used to accept the Great Depression was caused by the free market run amok, but now their revisionist historians ludicrously blame government and they are instantly ready to blame government again when when private institutions caused the latest debacle. They would be a little more credible if they at least blamed both government and business, but, no, it is all government's fault and we wouldn't have these problems if business was left alone. Only government causes recessions and depressions.

[bouncingbrick]

You guys are really making my thread completely unreadable! :eek:

@ Deadite I guess I'm an idiot because I still don't see any kind of unification among the OWSers. Just saying "We want business out of the politics" isn't a message, IMO. I don't believe in causes that have only "don'ts". If you can't propose at least a simple want then I can't get behind the cause. I see them saying lots of things they don't want to see anymore (some more coherent than others), but I don't see any kind of proposition or fix to the problems. I need to see what the world looks like if they succeed, some kind of plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSBP8npitig

And, for the record, there's no way this sort of thing will get the results they desire! How does this behavior affect either politicians in DC or Wall Street? It doesnt! IT just makes a terrible situation for local police! It's ridiculous that they think they are even making a difference.

Also, it doesn't matter one little bit who is at fault or how the "Wall Street Government" happened. I think we can all agree that in a world where 1% of the population controls the vast majority of the wealth and stomps all over the legal process while raping the little poeple is not the best way to do things (though, I don't think there is a "best" way to do things). I also think we can all agree that the government of pretty much every country on the planet is in a state of severe corruption.

The question still remains, what kind of solution is there to the problem and what, if anything, can be done about it? Because these nutters aren't doing anything more than be a pain-in-the-ass.

[Deadite]

Yep, doesn't matter who is to blame at all. Just one of those things. What matters is ignoring the stench and the robbery, and pretending to fix the problem with the same crooked ways and same crooks. All you protesters, give it up, you're wasting your time, and even worse, you're getting in the way. Time is money, pal.

God bless America. Play us out, boys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmWGaKgXnHM

[Yoda]

You're the one that keeps repeating something that is ludicrous, that government is responsible for what private banks and financial institutions did that had no direct connection with government regulations.
Okay, it didn't work the first 49 times I said it, but I'll try again: saying something is ludicrous is not an argument. And it has a very direct connection to regulation, as I explained here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780342). Your response was a largely unrelated article fragment followed by a variation of "no" over and over. These responses have the posture of a retort, but not the content of one. They're pointless, but for some reason they're your bread and butter.

It'd also be nice if you would own up to, oh, maybe 10% of your misstatements, as opposed to glossing over pretty much all of them. As it is now what few mea culpas there are I end up dragging out of you.

And it is not true that left wingers absolve government of everything connected to government control, if you are including liberals in the definition. The Labor Party in Great Britain has turned away from many of their policies of the past. Democrats have supported some deregulation. But right wingers always take extreme positions against government.
Literally everything? No, of course not. Just as it's not true that conservatives literally hate all government or literally always blame it. If you're going to make accusations in generalities, expect defenses in generalities. What you can't do is switch back and forth whenever it's convenient to do so. Though going all the way to Britain to come up with a counterexample seems to make my argument for me, anyway.

Democrats sometimes support deregulation, sure, and Republicans sometimes propose more oversight. Like the mortgage oversight proposed in 2003 and 2005, which I mentioned the last time we discussed this issue. I can't remember if you ignored it, but what the hell, I'll go ahead and bet that you did. I'll just bet that every time and come out ahead on net.

[Yoda]

Deadite, your last post has been deleted. Posts like that, which consist of absolutely nothing but a personal insult, will be removed. Call it "intimidation" if you like, but you've been warned about this before, and some sort of action will have to be taken next time.

I can't fathom what they're supposed to accomplish, anyway. If someone finds this thread so utterly pointless or useless, and the people in it so very stupid, there are 10,000 other threads for you to peruse. Give them a try.

[Deadite]

Calling nonsense an argument is an insult too. He was talking out of his azz. Period. It was insulting. You, on the other hand, are pretty slick. I'll give you that. I couldn't care less about your opinion or his at this point. I'm just here advocating the legitimacy of mass protest, something some people seem to be taking great pains to dismiss.

So, from here on, I will post anything I feel is relevant to that, and relevant to the subject of rampant corruption and greed as well, and I will not be responding to either NONSENSE or BIAS with INSULTS.

And I might even rep a post if I find it particularly GOOD or OFFENSIVE. Hopefully that is OK with the administration here.

[Yoda]

Obviously, people can find a lot of things potentially insulting. So it goes. We tend to draw the line between affronts to people's intelligence (which are pretty subjective and almost always unintentional) and just calling someone names. I'm sure some people don't like where we draw that line, but that's about where we draw it.

Negative repping a post you find to be full of nonsense sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Can't promise it won't cheese someone off (in fact, it probably will), but our position on negative rep is that we only ever remove it if the person complains and we can confirm that it was given to a totally innocuous post, or else is part of some targeted effort to single out the user. Other than that, it's your call.

[Deadite]

Fair enough.

[bouncingbrick]

Yep, doesn't matter who is to blame at all. Just one of those things. What matters is ignoring the stench and the robbery, and pretending to fix the problem with the same crooked ways and same crooks. All you protesters, give it up, you're wasting your time, and even worse, you're getting in the way. Time is money, pal.


This is too funny. Is it just that you are incapable of having an actual conversation?

It truly doesn't matter who is to blame. Besides, the most direct blame could be placed at the feet of the apathetic masses who allowed this to happen to their country. But, that approach wouldn't support a certain agenda, now would it? :rolleyes:

I told you that the way they are going about things doesn't impede the very people they are protesting against and instead of trying to prove me wrong or point at least explain how you feel I'm wrong you insulted me to the point that you had a post delelted! You are as effective at debating as they appear to be at protesting.

Now, when you are ready to have a civil discussion, I'll be here. But I'm not going to keep wasting my time reading your petty whining. I feel I have ligitimate concerns about the OWS movement, but you just want to call me names. It's ridiculous.

Oh, and since you don't seem to be getting this through your head, I don't disagree with why they are protesting! If you think I'm some blowhard trying to put their cause down, I'm not. I just think they are going about it in the most ass-way possible.

[will.15]

Okay, it didn't work the first 49 times I said it, but I'll try again: saying something is ludicrous is not an argument. And it has a very direct connection to regulation, as I explained here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780342). Your response was a largely unrelated article fragment followed by a variation of "no" over and over. These responses have the posture of a retort, but not the content of one. They're pointless, but for some reason they're your bread and butter.

It'd also be nice if you would own up to, oh, maybe 10% of your misstatements, as opposed to glossing over pretty much all of them. As it is now what few mea culpas there are I end up dragging out of you.

You don't say anything of importance there to refute. So they gave the banks scores, big deal. There is no evidence they had any impact whatsoever on a bank's ability to function. And no direct correlation that the banks chose to accept sub prime loans to conform to CRA requirements.

It is so obviously fight wingers trying to find a way to blame government for the mess created in the private sector. And as I said before, the fact the right wingers put it all on government and ignore actions done by business that have nothing directly with government regualtion is telling.

And your next post makes a laughable claim I am not going to adress it is so silly unles you bring it up again. Okay, I'll mention it, the disscussion of inflated real estate prices. Apparently you don't understand what caused the run amok inflation in the first place.

Literally everything? No, of course not. Just as it's not true that conservatives literally hate all government or literally always blame it. If you're going to make accusations in generalities, expect defenses in generalities. What you can't do is switch back and forth whenever it's convenient to do so. Though going all the way to Britain to come up with a counterexample seems to make my argument for me, anyway.

Democrats sometimes support deregulation, sure, and Republicans sometimes propose more oversight. Like the mortgage oversight proposed in 2003 and 2005, which I mentioned the last time we discussed this issue. I can't remember if you ignored it, but what the hell, I'll go ahead and bet that you did. I'll just bet that every time and come out ahead on net.
That proposal wasn't a regulation against business. It was to regulate government. When have Republicans embraced more business regulation?

[Yoda]

You don't say anything of importance there to refute. So they gave the banks scores, big deal. There is no evidence they had any impact whatsoever on a bank's ability to function. And no direct correlation that the banks chose to accept sub prime loans to conform to CRA requirements.
Yes, I did: right here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780342). They need approval for all sorts of things from a government oversight board that decides whether or not to grant permission based on their CRA score, among other things. You haven't done anything but say "no" to this. Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Answer me this, if you would: have you ever even heard of the specific oversight panels I'm talking about?

Ignorance alone wouldn't be much of an excuse, anyway, because the implication of your claims is self-evidently absurd: to believe what you do, you have to think that banks cared about a meaningless score, and that the government is tracking a score with absolutely no tangible effect for absolutely no reason. It's factually wrong, to be sure, but it's obviously wrong on a conceptual level, too.

So, I say to you again: make an argument or don't. If your next reply is just another flat contradiction, devoid of evidence or argument, I'm washing my hands of this. I can only talk to a brick wall for so long.

It is so obviously fight wingers trying to find a way to blame government for the mess created in the private sector. And as I said before, the fact the right wingers put it all on government and ignore actions done by business that have nothing directly with government regualtion is telling.
Uh, yeah, it's telling: it tells you that they think the government is responsible. I love how you treat perfectly benign, tautological observations as if they're some sort of grand accusation.

I don't suppose it's telling that left-wingers put it all on business, right? Here's a useful rule of thumb: if I can switch two nouns in an accusation of yours and make it just as applicable to the opposite side of the aisle, then it's not much of an accusation.

And your next post makes a laughable claim I am not going to adress it is so silly unles you bring it up again. Okay, I'll mention it, the disscussion of inflated real estate prices. Apparently you don't understand what caused the run amok inflation in the first place.
I have no idea what this is in reference to. But I do know that you tend to call things "laughable" or "ludicrous" when you're out of your depth and don't have a whole lot else to lean on. The force of your adjectives is generally inversely proportional to your understanding of the topic.

That proposal wasn't a regulation against business. It was to regulate government. When have Republicans embraced more business regulation?
Way to move the goalposts: the party as a whole rarely "embraces" it. Why, is there some grand deregulation that Democrats "embraced" that I should be aware of?

Regardless, the question is inherently flawed to begin with: it presupposes that Republicans should compromise. But compromise is, without context, a neutral thing. It's good if you're wrong (or if there is a high degree of uncertainty, perhaps), and bad if you're right. Trying to frame the issue in terms of compromise, rather than actual policy wisdom, is another of those things that demonstrate that you're playing SimCampaignManager in these discussions, rather than arguing about actual truth, or the wisdom of policy.

[will.15]

What Does the Community Reinvestment Act Regulate?
CRA Addresses Redlining in Credit, Commercial Business Loans and Mortgages

By Lahle Wolfe (http://www.movieforums.com/bio/Lahle-Wolfe-42171.htm), About.com Guide

What Does the Community Reinvestment Act Regulate


CRA is an Act that requires periodic review of certain federally insured institutions to identify and help eliminate "redlining (http://homebuying.about.com/od/glossaryqr/g/053107Redlining.htm)" practices in lending.

CRA was controversial in 1977 when it was enacted and is now being hotly debated today as Republicans attempt to blame Democrats for the Wall Street and mortgage meltdown based on this 30-year-old law.

What is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)? (http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/billsandlaws/a/cra-law.htm)
Does CRA Require Lenders to Make Subprime and High-Risk Loans?


No.

CRA was enacted to protect consumers in certain geographic areas that were being lumped together and denied access to credit, including business loans, based on their neighborhood, not their own credit. CRA does not require quotas to be met nor forces banks and thrifts to make high-risk loans. In fact, CRA wording specifically cautions against this practice.

Is The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to Blame for the Mortgage Crisis? (http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/womenspolitics/a/cra-lie-truths.htm) Who Must Comply with CRA Regulations?



The CRA is not an industry-wide Act. It only affects federally insured lenders, and it is estimated that 75% of all the predatory subprime loans were offered by institutions not fully covered under CRA.

If the government is committing tax payer money to insure these institutions does it not also have the right to examine how these lenders are performing to serve the people? We are not just bailing out CRA-regulated lenders but greedy lenders without “excuse” of “the government made me do it.” Does CRA Require Lenders to Meet Quotas on Minority and Low-Income Loans?


No.

It is important to remember that CRA is not a “mortgage law.” It is an Act that was intended to address redlining (which still persists throughout the U.S. today) and discriminatory lending practices that also includes commercial business loans. What Does CRA Require From Lenders?


The CRA requires periodic evaluation of each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community, not just areas where depositors are affluent. That record is examined to see if redlining practices continue and is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities.

In other words, lenders making money off a community are not allowed to discriminate against qualified applicants based on race or income in that same community. CRA does not require lenders to enter into communities, nor look at ways to invest in communities where they are not taking deposits.

Two important points about CRA regulations:

CRA does not give specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. It views the individual circumstances of institutions.

CRA does not require institutions to make high-risk loans. In fact, the language of CRA specifically makes clear that an institution's CRA activities “should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.”


CRA was designed to encourage equal lending opportunities and it is not the only law that has been required to address problems with discriminatory lending. In 1988 H.R. 5050 - What is H.R. 5050 - The Women's Business Ownership Act (http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/billsandlaws/a/hr5050-wbo-act.htm) was passed. One of the things it made illegal was the requirement by lenders that women must have a male relative co-sign on all business loans for women.
Something to think about: CRA covers only federally insured institutions that the government knows that it must bail out if lenders fail. Why would Congress enact a law that purposely forces lenders to make bad loans to fill quotas that the government would then have to bail out?

[will.15]

The Securities and Exchange Commission (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission) (SEC) has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis. The SEC relaxed rules in 2004 that enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages.[3] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-Labaton-2)[4] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-3)
The top five US investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage during the 2004–2007 time period (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to the MBS losses. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, a figure roughly 30% the size of the U.S. economy. Three of the five either went bankrupt (Lehman Brothers (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Lehman_Brothers)) or were sold at fire-sale prices to other banks (Bear Stearns (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Bear_Stearns) and Merrill Lynch (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Merrill_Lynch)) during 2008, creating instability in the global financial system. The remaining two converted to commercial bank models in order to qualify for Troubled Asset Relief Program (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) funds (Goldman Sachs (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Goldman_Sachs) and Morgan Stanley (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Morgan_Stanley)).[5] (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#cite_note-4)
The SEC is also responsible for establishing financial disclosure rules. Critics have argued that disclosure throughout the crisis was ineffective, particularly regarding the health of financial institutions and the valuation of mortgage-backed securities

[will.15]

"...The federal banking agencies have been unwilling to enforce the CRA aggressively or hold banks to strict lending standards."

[Yoda]

The weasel word is "require." As I keep saying, it's not that they had to do it or go to jail, it's that they had to keep a strong CRA score to do any number of things, from merging to opening new branches. I've said this, like, three times, so if you think that first article is supposed to respond to it, you're either not reading what I'm saying or you're not comprehending it. I also asked you a direct question about these oversight boards, which you're ignoring: had you or had you not heard of them? Did you or did you not know they even existed?

If you want replies to the other random quote fragments (though the second doesn't dispute anything I've said about the CRA), source them them. It's amazing that I'm still having to ask you to do this. Either you're the world's most forgetful person, or you're deliberately trying to deprive them of context.

[will.15]

This Site Has Moved



April 8, 2008 -


It's Still Not CRA




Ellen Seidman - September 22, 2008 - 9:36pm


When the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html)lists the Community Reinvestment Act as only the 6th Washington policy responsible for the current mess-behind such items as "The Federal Reserve," "Banking regulators" (the Fed gets dinged in this category too), and "a credit-rating oligopoly," I suppose those of us who think CRA did (and continues to do) some good should be pleased. After all, it was not so long ago that CRA was being fingered by conservative commentators as "the" cause of the crisis. But just to remind folks why CRA shouldn't even be on the Journal's list at all (their major compliant is that CRA "compels" banks to make loans to "poor borrowers who often cannot repay them," which describes one hell of a lot of not poor borrowers who banks made loans to without any prodding), I thought it would be useful to republish this blog's first posting. Here it is:
It has lately become fashionable for conservative pundits (Larry Kudlow (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=702180420&play=1), George Will) and disgruntled ex-bankers (Vernon Hill, for example, in his March 7 American Banker editorial) to blame the current credit crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act. This is patent nonsense. The sub-prime debacle has many causes, including greed, lack of and ineffective regulation, failures of risk assessment and management, and misplaced optimism. But CRA is not to blame.
First, the timing is all wrong. CRA was enacted in 1977, its companion disclosure statute, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975. While many of us warned against bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium, the massive breakdown of underwriting and extension of risky products far down the income scale-without bothering to even check on income-was primarily a post-2003 phenomenon. To blame a statute enacted in 1977 for something that happened 25 years later takes a fair amount of chutzpah.
It's even more outrageous because of the good CRA clearly did in between. The 1990s were the heyday of CRA enforcement-for a variety of reasons including the raft of mergers and acquisitions that followed the 1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act, increased scrutiny of lending practices by the media and activism by housing advocacy groups and tougher enforcement by the Clinton Administration.That period saw increased home mortgage lending to lower income households and in lower income communities by the banks and thrifts covered by CRA, and a steady increase in the homeownership rate, especially for lower income and minority families. (See The Joint Center for Housing Studies (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/crareport.html)) (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/crareport.html.). In addition, there was significant investment in affordable rental housing, community facilities and broader community economic development, directly by banks and thrifts earning investment credit under CRA or indirectly through bank investment in Community Development Financial Institutions and other community-based organizations.
New research by Ingrid Gould Ellen and Katherine O'Regan of NYUWagner, presented at a conference sponsored by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, convincingly demonstrates that property values went up dramatically in low and very low income urban census tracts during the 1990s, reversing severe declines during the prior two decades. While Ellen and O'Regan point out that this does not necessarily mean that everyone in those communities benefited, relating the improvement in home values in distressed communities to the effects of a statute designed to increase access to mortgage credit in those communities, during a period when the statute was vigorously enforced, is a reasonable connection.
Second, CRA does not either encourage or condone bad lending.Bank regulators were decrying bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium (see Interagency Guidance on Subprime Lending (http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/1999/FIL9920a.html)), and warning the CRA-covered institutions we regulated that badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.And we also explained to those we regulated how to serve lower income communities and borrowers in a manner that was good for the borrower, good for the bank, and earned CRA credit.
For example, in October 2000 (http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/8/87079.pdf), when I spoke to the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, a group of CRA-covered lenders, I said, "key to successful community reinvestment activity is being a responsible lender. Being responsible means making loans on responsible terms to people who can afford to pay them back, and making certain borrowers both understand the terms of the loan and have the opportunity to get the best terms available given their credit and financial position. But it also means expanding both the market for and affordability of loan products. It means working with customers to make them more bankable, helping families find the loan that is right for them, and investing in their success and yours by supporting organizations that assist you by counseling these individuals on the front and the back end of a loan."
CRA enforcement became a lower priority for bank regulators after 2001 (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/seidman021308.pdf). My successor at the Office of Thrift Supervision, in fact, led an effort-eventually thwarted-to unilaterally loosen CRA regulations for institutions with more than $1 billion in assets. See 70 Fed. Reg. 10023 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-4016.pdf). Nevertheless, CRA regulations were eased more generally in 2005. See 70 Fed. Reg. 44256 (http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=19614623146+13+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).
The years that coincided with reduced CRA enforcement are also the years when CRA-covered entities wandered deeper into "higher priced loans," a category that includes, but is not limited to, "exploding ARMs" and other particularly pernicious kinds of loans. Thanks to the valiant efforts of late Fed Governor Ned Gramlich, starting in 2004 we have data about "higher priced loans." In that year, bank, thrifts and their subsidiaries-the entities covered by CRA-made about 37% of high cost loans. By 2006, the bank, thrift and subsidiary percentage was up to 40.9%. That a lack of interest in CRA enforcement coincided with CRA-covered entities getting into higher priced lending does not seem to me an argument for less CRA enforcement. Rather, it's an argument for better enforcement of a statute that, when well enforced, had proven its worth in helping both borrowers and communities.
Finally, it is nevertheless the case that CRA-covered lenders are not the source of the problem. One of CRA's major failings, in fact, is that it only applies to banks and thrifts. Remember all the investment banks who demanded product and then sliced and diced loans until it was impossible to understand their quality?They're not covered. Neither are the independent mortgage banks, the kinds of firms that have gone bankrupt or nearly so because of their abysmal lending practices, who regularly made about 50% of the high cost loans. Bank affiliates, another uncovered group, made about 12% of the high cost loans.
Janet Yellin (http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html), President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco recently made this point, saying "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." And a recent study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP (http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf) (See also the addendum). (http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/addendum_to_traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf)
CRA is not perfect. It doesn't cover a substantial portion of the financial services landscape. It has become complex, and the primary focus is on numbers of loans, with less attention to the quality of those loans. Asset-building depository and other services are given short shrift. And banks and thrifts have been allowed to "count" loans made by affiliates that are not subject to effective regulatory scrutiny. Governor Gramlich (http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2007/pdf/2007.09.04.gramlich.pdf)was right when he said that these entities-like the independent mortgage bankers-should be subject to far greater regulatory scrutiny, for many reasons. Certainly banks should not be allowed to count loans made by these affiliates for CRA purposes without such scrutiny.
But these are not reasons to repeal CRA or blame it for a mess caused primarily by those not subject to its reach during a period when even those under its umbrella were not encouraged to take it seriously. Rather, our challenge is to respond to the ongoing credit crisis in part by modernizing CRA, expanding its reach and making it even more effective than it was in the 1990s.

[will.15]

The weasel word is "require." As I keep saying, it's not that they had to do it or go to jail, it's that they had to keep a strong CRA score to do any number of things, from merging to opening new branches. I've said this, like, three times, so if you think that first article is supposed to respond to it, you're either not reading what I'm saying or you're not comprehending it. I also asked you a direct question about these oversight boards, which you're ignoring: had you or had you not heard of them? Did you or did you not know they even existed?

If you want replies to the other random quote fragments (though the second doesn't dispute anything I've said about the CRA), source them them. It's amazing that I'm still having to ask you to do this. Either you're the world's most forgetful person, or you're deliberately trying to deprive them of context. You are the one that isn't comprehending. Where is your evidence there was strict enforcement or banks were actively concerned about the test scores? Regulations and strict enforcement are entirely different things. The Bush administration was strictly enforcing the rules, the period when the banking meltdown happened? Major banks accused of redlining in the past seemed to have no trouble expanding and some of them were not dramatically affected by the sub prime collapse. To focus on CRA as the bad guy you have to ignore a lot of factors more directly and obviously responsible. Blaming CRA is like claiming the rooster crowing made the sun came out.

[will.15]

By Nathaniel Popper, Los Angeles Times November 29, 2011



Reporting from New York—

A federal judge in New York issued a stern challenge to the government's recent history of imposing "relatively modest" punishments on big Wall Street banks for wrongdoing during the financial crisis.
Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in Manhattan, issued a sharply worded order Monday rejecting a proposed $285-million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup Inc. (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/economy-business-finance/finance/citigroup-incorporated-ORCRP003330.topic) that would have allowed the bank to avoid admitting it defrauded investors over toxic mortgage securities. He said that other similar settlements had not stopped banks from breaking the law, and added that the fines are "pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup."
Rakoff's order echoes public anger that the banks have been let off too easily for their role in causing the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. It also has the potential to affect future fraud cases that the SEC enters into with Wall Street firms that do not want to admit they violated the law — a key step that helps shelter them from further civil litigation.
"He wants them to dig deeper," Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University, said of Rakoff. "What he's looking for is for more specific naming of names in order to protect the public from this happening again."
Rakoff has been a vocal critic of SEC settlements and has a history of shaking up the financial industry after a career in the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan, where he prosecuted securities fraud. Analysts believe that his decision on the Citi settlement will influence other judges grappling with similar cases.
"Judge Rakoff is an extremely intelligent and well respected judge and therefore any judge would read what he's written," said Marty Perschetz, a lawyer with the firm Schulte, Roth & Zabel.
In the Citi case, Rakoff must approve any final settlement. He said in his order Monday that barring a new settlement that meets his requirements, the two sides should prepare to go to trial in July.
The SEC's director of enforcement, Robert Khuzami, said in a statement that the steps called for by Rakoff would eat up the agency's resources and time and "would divert resources away from the investigation of other frauds and the recovery of losses suffered by other investors."
A spokeswoman for Citi, Danielle Romero-Apsilos, said "in the event the case is tried, we would present substantial factual and legal defenses to the charges."
The proposed settlement with Citi is the latest in a long line of cases against Wall Street banks that the SEC has sought to end with a negotiated settlement.
Last year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/economy-business-finance/goldman-sachs-ORCRP015181.topic) paid $550 million to settle accusations that it had misled its clients about the quality of mortgage-backed securities that the bank sold before the financial crisis. JPMorgan Chase (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/economy-business-finance/j.p.-morgan-chase-%26-co.-ORCRP010217.topic) & Co. paid $153 million to settle allegations in a similar case.
In both cases, in exchange for paying the fine, the banks were let off without admitting to the allegations.
The SEC proposed a similar settlement with Citi in October after alleging that the bank had sold its clients low-quality mortgage-backed securities that the bank planned to bet against. The investors ended up losing about $700 million from the deal while Citi made about $160 million.
Judges must sign off on such settlements and have generally deferred to the SEC when the agency has asked for a settlement, but Rakoff said such an approach has let the banks off too easily and denied the public its right to know what happened.
"In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth," Rakoff wrote.
This is not the first time Rakoff has questioned a settlement between the SEC and a big bank. Most famously, he criticized the agency's willingness to settle with Bank of America Corp. (http://www.movieforums.com/topic/economy-business-finance/bank-of-america-corp.-ORCRP001609.topic) after the bank was accused of misleading investors about its purchase of brokerage Merrill Lynch. In that case, Rakoff ended up grudgingly signing off on the settlement.

[Yoda]

This Site Has Moved



April 8, 2008 -


It's Still Not CRA[/B]
This is a new low in pointlessness. Clearly, you're not even reading these things, because this editorial repeats some of the same things that have been debunked in multiple links posted earlier, including the incredibly silly notion that it can't have been the CRA because it was originally created in 1977.

It's painfully obvious that you're posting whatever you find that happens to agree with your conclusion without paying any attention to what it says, or to the responses I've directed you to. You're not addressing specific claims, so unless you think it's "whoever posts the most articles wins," you're just flailing desperately.

[Yoda]

You are the one that isn't comprehending. Where is your evidence there was strict enforcement or banks were actively concerned about the test scores? Regulations and strict enforcement are entirely different things. The Bush administration was strictly enforcing the rules, the period when the banking meltdown happened? Major banks accused of redlining in the past seemed to have no trouble expanding and some of them were not dramatically affected by the sub prime collapse.
Try the very existence of the program. I already responded to this, but as you do with almost every argument, you just flat ignored it. You're positing a rule with no consequences because of...why? Why does it exist? To what end? What are the oversight boards for? Fun?

Now, please answer the question, will: were you even aware of these oversight boards? Yes or no? Because everything you've said so far indicates that you had no idea they existed, even as you were spouting opinions about all this.

To focus on CRA as the bad guy you have to ignore a lot of factors more directly and obviously responsible. Blaming CRA is like claiming the rooster crowing made the sun came out.
Absolving the CRA is like pretending that bankers suddenly and inexplicably loosened their own lending standards, en masse, against their own best interests, all at once, for no good reason. It's nonsense. Observe:

1) We have lots of defaults.
2) Preceding these defaults, we have loosened lending standards.
3) We have a "score" that is a factor in banking oversight boards, which is improved by loosening lending standards.

The idea that you can encourage looser standards, and then get looser standards, and then get defaults because of looser standards, and somehow pretend these things are unrelated, is simply inane. You're completely ignoring the source and positing a view of the situation that pretends there's no such thing as incentives.

[will.15]

Yes, I knew the CRA existed to prevent redlining. And your comment, the fact that they even existed is the problem, shows where you are coming from. No, the fact they existed does not mean they were a problem nor that they were creating onerous restrictions on banks. The evidence suggests otherwise. And to suggest regulatory agencies don't become more lax under different administrations ignores reality. They often do and there is ample evidence that was the case under the Bush Administration for the CRA. One conservative hit piece against the CRA even admitted this, but claimed they hadn't loosened the restrictions enough, which is absurd. What they meant was they hadn't gutted them entirely, which is the only kind of loosening that would have satisfied them.There are all sort of regulations on paper that means far less in actuality like the FCC's oversight of station licenses. On paper they have incredible power to deny license renewals and demand changes. In reality they don't because they don't exercise the power. I don't see any evidence the CRA used banking report cards to routinely deny banks the ability to expand and merge. The usual routine was to grant approval then maybe extract promises to make more of an effort to lend to low income neighborhoods and to do so they were not encouraged to make sub-prime type loans, just the opposite. This is a case of conservatives being like the cops arresting the gangbanger they had their eye on after a crime, then fixing the evidence against him instead of impartially trying to follow the facts to find the real culprit. But it is like ramming square pegs into a round hole. It is such a poor fit and ignores all the inconvenient round pegs that do fit.

The banks lessened their own standards because of the CRA? Where is the evidence of that? There is zero. This is like the late Alan Stang who always fixed the facts to conform to his world view conspiracy theory even when the facts didn't fit anymore, like when the Soviet Union collapsed. What was his explanation? The conspirators would never let the Soviet Union collapse. Therefore: it was a hoax. If business makes stupid decisions because they make false assumptions, it is the government's fault, not theirs. There is no point in rehashing the real reason bankers did what they did (and not all bankers) because you know the arguments and rejected them for one that fits your bias and hostility against government. It is your explanation that makes little sense, not the other way around. Even Ayn Rand disciple, Alan Greenspan, accepts it was the private sector that screwed up, not government. Well, government did screw up, by not stopping these clowns.

[will.15]

This is a new low in pointlessness. Clearly, you're not even reading these things, because this editorial repeats some of the same things that have been debunked in multiple links posted earlier, including the incredibly silly notion that it can't have been the CRA because it was originally created in 1977.

It's painfully obvious that you're posting whatever you find that happens to agree with your conclusion without paying any attention to what it says, or to the responses I've directed you to. You're not addressing specific claims, so unless you think it's "whoever posts the most articles wins," you're just flailing desperately.
You didn't want me to extract so I put up the whole thing, which made many points that were not discussed earlier or commented on by you or refuted, but of couse you only see what you want, which is your usual thing, ignore the facts and arguments you don't want to address, but complain if I don't comment on every sentence you make.

[Yoda]

Yes, I knew the CRA existed to prevent redlining.
No, that's not what I asked. And the fact that you ignored the question three times and then answered a different question pretty much tells me what I needed to know: you had no clue these things even existed, did you? You didn't even know there were CRA exams.

The evidence suggests otherwise.
What evidence? Show it to me. The only thing you've even come close to providing on this front is another unsourced sentence fragment. I did the work of common courtesy you were supposed to do and found out where it was from. And guess what? It doesn't exactly help you. Though it being a completely unsourced sentence fragment should have told you that to begin with.

It's from 2001, and it's just a paper in a law journal, not gospel. And the paragraph is actually only about how community groups do a better job of enforcement, though it doesn't say anything much more specific than that. But if you want to argue that there was some lax enforcement 7 years before the crisis, it's entirely plausible this is true, and wouldn't even remotely contradict any of the claims I've made about the CRA, for at least two reasons.

It also mentions companion restrictions to CRA that "mandate strict penalties for violations." See that word mandate? It's an important one, because it means the penalty isn't optional. The paper also points out that banks cannot possibly receive a satisfactory score without at least a somewhat satisfactory CRA score.

Hell, the paper even leads (though I'm guessing you only read the part you quoted, right?) with the claim that the CRA has led to a significant increase in LMI lending among banks. So when you say it had no effect on lenders, you're directly contradicting one of your own sources. Which is exactly what happens when you're scrambling to find sources on the fly for a claim you've already made, but had no evidence for when you made it.

I don't see any evidence the CRA used banking report cards to routinely deny banks the ability to expand and merge. The usual routine was to grant approval then maybe extract promises to make more of an effort to lend to low income neighborhoods and to do so they were not encouraged to make sub-prime type loans, just the opposite.
The banks lessened their own standards because of the CRA? Where is the evidence of that? There is zero.
What would that evidence even look like, hypothetically? We have the law, which assigns CRA scores. We have oversight panels that approve or reject bank actions and are specifically told to take CRA scores into this calculation. We have CRA scores available online AND we have CRA decision documents available online. Oh, and we have an increase in loans in LMI areas (just as the law was designed to produce). That's what? A coincidence? The government does this for fun, created the law for no reason, strengthened the law for no reason, and the increase in LMI loans is a coincidence, right? Because that's the craziness you have to believe to continue holding your current position.

[Yoda]

You didn't want me to extract so I put up the whole thing, which made many points that were not discussed earlier or commented on by you or refuted, but of couse you only see what you want, which is your usual thing, ignore the facts and arguments you don't want to address, but complain if I don't comment on every sentence you make.
Every sentence? That's what you call it when I ask you point-blank questions, and you ignore them several times? That's what you call it when I I have to ask you four times to make an argument that isn't just "no, that's wrong"? Are you kidding me?

I gladly admit that I'm not going through the entirety of every article you post, partly because you don't go through the ones I post (hell, sometimes you don't even skim them before you argue with them), and partly because I've done so in the past and all you do is ignore the counters and post another. You use them as a smokescreen to get me off your back, not a jumping off point. I know how this works: I'll deconstruct it, and you'll change the subject or post another, and pick one argument out of ten to actually reply to. It's as predictable as it is self-serving.

Here's an actual series of events from before, will. This is no spin: this all literally happened, and I can point you to every example.

1) I post some links for Dex.
2) You post some link and say it contradicts some of them.
3) I point out that it doesn't contradict them and ask you if you've read it.
4) You admit (in a predictably roundabout way) that you hadn't, so you skim it a little and just say it's unconvincing.
5) You post a link that contains nothing but arguments already refuted by the link I posted.
6) I point out that your link has already been refuted.
7) You say they weren't debunked, then make an entirely different argument from the ones you linked to.
8) I point out that you didn't even appear to know what was is your apparent rebuttal link and ask why you're conflating different arguments.
9) You ignore this and quote another fragment.

Please explain your thought process through all this. Please give me a reason why this behavior is not ridiculous and evasive. Because it seems to me that you don't read things you contradict, you don't read the things you post to see if they contradict it, you don't admit either when caught, and you don't answer direct questions unless pressed repeatedly, and perhaps not even then. This is a joke. This is how people act when they're making crap up as they go, or working backwards from a conclusion.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS0hj4kiqsA

[will.15]

Every sentence? That's what you call it when I ask you point-blank questions, and you ignore them several times? That's what you call it when I I have to ask you four times to make an argument that isn't just "no, that's wrong"? Are you kidding me?

I gladly admit that I'm not going through the entirety of every article you post, partly because you don't go through the ones I post (hell, sometimes you don't even skim them before you argue with them), and partly because I've done so in the past and all you do is ignore the counters and post another. You use them as a smokescreen to get me off your back, not a jumping off point. I know how this works: I'll deconstruct it, and you'll change the subject or post another, and pick one argument out of ten to actually reply to. It's as predictable as it is self-serving.

Here's an actual series of events from before, will. This is no spin: this all literally happened, and I can point you to every example.

1) I post some links for Dex.
2) You post some link and say it contradicts some of them.
3) I point out that it doesn't contradict them and ask you if you've read it.
4) You admit (in a predictably roundabout way) that you hadn't, so you skim it a little and just say it's unconvincing.
5) You post a link that contains nothing but arguments already refuted by the link I posted.
6) I point out that your link has already been refuted.
7) You say they weren't debunked, then make an entirely different argument from the ones you linked to.
8) I point out that you didn't even appear to know what was is your apparent rebuttal link and ask why you're conflating different arguments.
9) You ignore this and quote another fragment.

Please explain your thought process through all this. Please give me a reason why this behavior is not ridiculous and evasive. Because it seems to me that you don't read things you contradict, you don't read the things you post to see if they contradict it, you don't admit either when caught, and you don't answer direct questions unless pressed repeatedly, and perhaps not even then. This is a joke. This is how people act when they're making crap up as they go, or working backwards from a conclusion.
You're part of the joke. You make links and don't expliciltly discuss the content, then expect me apparently to explictly refute it in detail in comments. Instead I provide my own links that do. You then pull out a few minor points like when the law was enacted, ignoring the rest. Then complain when I don't play by your rules that you yourself don't follow.

Yes, your links are unconvincing. You find one lone Democrat who buys into it, but ignores that there are many more conservatives who have rejected the notion this was all caused by the CRA. Your notion this is all the CRA's fault is far from universally acceped even by conservatives. I don't know how anyone who isn't ideologically driven can believe this nonsense this was all caused by the CRA who didn't make one sub prime loan nor ever condoned the practice.

I would much prefer you would excerpt the points you want to make instead of just providing links to lengthy articles with arguments I have read or heard many times before. And your notion that because you say this point has been refuted in the link without explaining why is very much part of the joke. It is the equivalent of debating by simply saying, "wrong."

[Yoda]

And again you ignore the question. I ask you three times, you dodge, dodge, dodge. Then you answer a different question. I press the issue, you ignore again. I'd say it's like talking to a brick wall, but brick walls don't move around so much.

Anyway, your evasions have answered the question anyway: you had no idea there were oversight boards that scored banks and approved or disapproved decisions based on the CRA. Ignorance on this point is understandable, I suppose, but stubbornly trying to hide it or deny it is not.

You're part of the joke. You make links and don't expliciltly discuss the content, then expect me apparently to explictly refute it in detail in comments. Instead I provide my own links that do. You then pull out a few minor points like when the law was enacted, ignoring the rest. Then complain when I don't play by your rules that you yourself don't follow.
Nope. In the original case, it wasn't even pulling out a minor point: all of them had been refuted, which I said at the time. And which you didn't know, because not only did you not read the thing you were arguing with, you also didn't read the thing you posted that was supposed to refute it. There is no equivalence; I haven't done anything even remotely like that.

Check out those 9 items I posted in my last post. There is no opinion there: I can back every single one of them up with specific links to each step. You contradicted things you didn't look at, didn't look at the things you said contradicted them (multiple times), and have even been contradicted by your own unsourced sources. Please (second time I've asked this question), explain that behavior to me. Because it sure looks like flailing around.

Yes, your links are unconvincing. You find one lone Democrat who buys into it, but ignores that there are many more conservatives who have rejected the notion this was all caused by the CRA. Your notion this is all the CRA's fault is far from universally acceped even by conservatives. I don't know how anyone who isn't ideologically driven can believe this nonsense this was all caused by the CRA who didn't make one sub prime loan nor ever condoned the practice.
I couldn't care less if he's a Democrat, and I couldn't care less if some conservatives don't blame the CRA. That is utterly irrelevant. Again, you try to argue on grounds other than truth.

Second, it is bizarre, and probably indicative of your considerable confusion, that you would say the CRA "didn't make one sub prime loan." Of course it didn't: the CRA is not a lender, it's a set of regulations that banks have to adhere to, or have basic expansions, mergers, and purchases blocked. It was specifically created to increase LMI loans, it was strengthened for the same, and we saw an increase in LMI loans (even according to one of your own sources that you didn't read). All one big coincidence, I guess. Because apparently it's unthinkable that the law would do exactly what it was designed to do...even when it actually happened.

I would much prefer you would excerpt the points you want to make instead of just providing links to lengthy articles with arguments I have read or heard many times before. And your notion that because you say this point has been refuted in the link without explaining why is very much part of the joke. It is the equivalent of debating by simply saying, "wrong."
Sometimes I do explain why, but you don't respond any differently when I do. On several occasions I've found your articles myself (since you never source them) and provided you with context and specific rebuttals.

Here's something else you appear to have missed: I didn't toss up those links and say "there, my work is done." I almost never post scads of links like that, because it's clumsy and the last resort of the lazy partisan. But I asked Dex, somewhat rhetorically, what he would think if I did the same thing he was doing. He said I should, so I did. I did not suggest that my argument was made by posting them; my argument has been made by me, myself.

You, on the other hand, are not taking some analogous position on the other side. You're suggesting you can refute these links with other links, without reading either. This isn't me tossing up links and not responding to yours, and you tossing up links and not responding to mine. This is you pretending you've contradicted something when you haven't, and worse, when you haven't even looked to see if you have.

[will.15]

No, that's not what I asked. And the fact that you ignored the question three times and then answered a different question pretty much tells me what I needed to know: you had no clue these things even existed, did you? You didn't even know there were CRA exams.
Yes I did.


What evidence? Show it to me. The only thing you've even come close to providing on this front is another unsourced sentence fragment. I did the work of common courtesy you were supposed to do and found out where it was from. And guess what? It doesn't exactly help you. Though it being a completely unsourced sentence fragment should have told you that to begin with.

Show what to you? You mean the Bush Administration eased up on enforcement? Like I said, that was also in an article criticizing the CRA, reluctantly conceding a point so they could argue around it. You think I made that up? You want the exact quote or do you want the entire article so you can point out to me all the critical things it says about the CRA? I said it was a conservative hit piece. The relevant thing is it admitted regulations were eased under Bush.

It's from 2001, and it's just a paper in a law journal, not gospel. And the paragraph is actually only about how community groups do a better job of enforcement, though it doesn't say anything much more specific than that. But if you want to argue that there was some lax enforcement 7 years before the crisis, it's entirely plausible this is true, and wouldn't even remotely contradict any of the claims I've made about the CRA, for at least two reasons.
Oh, because it was in a law journal it is not gospel. What is gospel? Everything in your links? Where? I didn't see any gospel.

It also mentions companion restrictions to CRA that "mandate strict penalties for violations." See that word mandate? It's an important one, because it means the penalty isn't optional. The paper also points out that banks cannot possibly receive a satisfactory score without at least a somewhat satisfactory CRA score.

You say because it was in a law journal it was not gospel and now apparently you are picking out the things you want and making them gospel. The article is gospel when you want it to be. Mandate strict penalties? But when? Where is the evidence banks were being punished by the CRA for low scores? The reality is they had a range of options and the usual was to extract a promise to do a better job. Can you show me what major banks were restricted by the CRA from expanding?

Hell, the paper even leads (though I'm guessing you only read the part you quoted, right?) with the claim that the CRA has led to a significant increase in LMI lending among banks. So when you say it had no effect on lenders, you're directly contradicting one of your own sources. Which is exactly what happens when you're scrambling to find sources on the fly for a claim you've already made, but had no evidence for when you made it.

It didn't have a compulsory quota effect and essentially resulted in some banks that completely ignored minority neighborhoods providing some loans. That would be significant, but hardly onerous as minority neighborhoods still complained their neighborhoods were neglected from many major banks who continued to expand and open more branches and merge.



What would that evidence even look like, hypothetically? We have the law, which assigns CRA scores. We have oversight panels that approve or reject bank actions and are specifically told to take CRA scores into this calculation. We have CRA scores available online AND we have CRA decision documents available online. Oh, and we have an increase in loans in LMI areas (just as the law was designed to produce). That's what? A coincidence? The government does this for fun, created the law for no reason, strengthened the law for no reason, and the increase in LMI loans is a coincidence, right? Because that's the craziness you have to believe to continue holding your current position.

And none of that adds up to a situation where banks feel compelled to use sub prime loans to meet minority loans. There is no evidence the laws were strictly enforced. The Bush administration relaxed the rules during the time when the sub-prime loans were at their peak. Many banks under the CRA did not participate in the sub prime business. Some of them got involved in the late stages not because of the CRA, but to compete with banks that were using them and at the time were making a lot of money with them and taking business and market share away from them. It was the mushroom affect of the success of the sub prime debacle that sucked in other banks that were initially more prudent. None of this had anything to do with the CRA.

[Yoda]

Yes I did.
I'm calling BS. You ignored the question three times, then you said you knew the CRA was designed to stop redlining, which is not the same thing. And I'd wager that pretending it's "really" the same thing is how you attempt to reconcile this.

Show what to you? You mean the Bush Administration eased up on enforcement? Like I said, that was also in an article criticizing the CRA, reluctantly conceding a point so they could argue around it. You think I made that up? You want the exact quote or do you want the entire article so you can point out to me all the critical things it says about the CRA? I said it was a conservative hit piece. The relevant thing is it admitted regulations were eased under Bush.
You said earlier that regulations can be more or less harshly enforced under different administrations, and that's absolutely true. The problem is that you think this somehow proves the CRA was not culpalable...no, worse, you act like it proves it had no effect at all. There is zero reason to jump to this conclusion based on what you're saying.

Oh, because it was in a law journal it is not gospel.What is gospel? Everything in your links? Where? I didn't see any gospel.
I didn't say it was. But actual cites, data, or sources is a whole lot closer, and the journal article in question had none of that. But it doesn't much matter, because it doesn't even make your larger argument about the CRA to begin with, anyway. Even if we posit that they were less aggressive (which, as I said several posts ago, doesn't really bother me and may very well be true), that would still leave you with a solid dozen questions to answer. That's the thing you really don't seem to comprehend here: we're talking about 30 years of lending, and your argument, even if accepted, is that it wasn't as strictly enforced for a few years? Do you understand that this doesn't contradict the argument, like, at all?

You say because it was in a law journal it was not gospel and now apparently you are picking out the things you want and making them gospel. The article is gospel when you want it to be.
Well, first off, it's not the article, it's the actual law. That would be the "gospel." Secondly, the fact that it comes from the same article was the entire point. That your own source contradicts you on this other point. Which you didn't know because you just found the one sentence you wanted and left out the rest. Because you're not after the truth or the context, you're just trying to save face in some argument so you can go on believing what you already believe with a tolerable level of cognitive dissonance.

Mandate strict penalties? But when? Where is the evidence banks were being punished by the CRA for low scores? The reality is they had a range of options and the usual was to extract a promise to do a better job. Can you show me what major banks were restricted by the CRA from expanding?
No, because they complied. How are you not getting this?

It didn't have a compulsory quota effect and essentially resulted in some banks that completely ignored minority neighborhoods providing some loans. That would be significant, but hardly onerous as minority neighborhoods still complained their neighborhoods were neglected from many major banks who continued to expand and open more branches and merge.
Yeah, source these if you want a more specific reply, but in general: if you're simply saying that there were still some loans that didn't get made, well, sure. That doesn't refute anything. The CRA didn't mandate that every single loan get made, nor would it have to to be culpable.

And none of that adds up to a situation where banks feel compelled to use sub prime loans to meet minority loans. There is no evidence the laws were strictly enforced.
I ask again: what would that evidence look like? Tell me what I'm supposed to be providing, if you're going to keep demanding it. I'm telling you what the law was, and I'm telling you banks are not stupid, so naturally they complied so that they could open new branches and/or merge. So in that scenario, please describe what kind of evidence you would expect to find. By all means.

The Bush administration relaxed the rules during the time when the sub-prime loans were at their peak. Many banks under the CRA did not participate in the sub prime business. Some of them got involved in the late stages not because of the CRA, but to compete with banks that were using them and at the time were making a lot of money with them and taking business and market share away from them. It was the mushroom affect of the success of the sub prime debacle that sucked in other banks that were initially more prudent. None of this had anything to do with the CRA.
Please re-read your own paragraph here. You specifically say that even banks who were not in the subprime business had to get into it to compete with the ones that were, and then you say this contributed to the spread...and then you somehow turn around and say the CRA had nothing to do with it.

[Yoda]

I'll go ahead and issue another casual ultimatum, since this has become a pointless time sink of a discussion: I am completely uninterested in any reply you have that doesn't first own up to your mind-blowing evasiveness thus far.

Arguing online is already of potentially dubious value, but whatever value it has goes right out the window when the person you're arguing with can't be bothered to pay any attention to what they're posting, or feels no obligation to answer direct questions. If that's your game, I'm not playing. I've had my fill of Whack-A-Will, swatting things down only to have you pop up somewhere else.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'm have my fill of Whack-A-Will, swatting things down only to have you pop up somewhere else.

It gets tiring, doesn't it? I had an ex-boyfriend that made me play the same game.

[will.15]

And again you ignore the question. I ask you three times, you dodge, dodge, dodge. Then you answer a different question. I press the issue, you ignore again. I'd say it's like talking to a brick wall, but brick walls don't move around so much.

Anyway, your evasions have answered the question anyway: you had no idea there were oversight boards that scored banks and approved or disapproved decisions based on the CRA. Ignorance on this point is understandable, I suppose, but stubbornly trying to hide it or deny it is not.

I answer your posts in the order I see them. Just because I answered the last one first doesn't mean I was ignoring the earlier one. I answered it before I read this. I can only answer one post at a time. You know from my previous replies I don't always answer in order of when you post. I automatically look at the last post and sometimes am not even aware you posted one before it or discover it days or even weeks later. And so what you incorrectly assume I was ignoring an earlier post I was admitting something by not immediately responding is wrong. I never say anything when you don't respond to something I wrote. Sometimes if you do it can be many, many days later. I never accuse you of trying to evade an answer. If you answer you answer, if you don't, you don't. And again you make up rules you don't follow. I don't ask you things over and over again, because what is the point? But sometimes I will repeat a point that you keep ignoring. You often excerpt a quote from me, but delete part of it that I think was making the best point and I find that interesting. And often your idea of claiming I didn't answer a question is in a statement that make it far from clear what question you think I didn't answer.


Nope. In the original case, it wasn't even pulling out a minor point: all of them had been refuted, which I said at the time. And which you didn't know, because not only did you not read the thing you were arguing with, you also didn't read the thing you posted that was supposed to refute it. There is no equivalence; I haven't done anything even remotely like that.

No. it wasn't refuted. You just claimed it was. Again, the equivalent of "wrong."

Check out those 9 items I posted in my last post. There is no opinion there: I can back every single one of them up with specific links to each step. You contradicted things you didn't look at, didn't look at the things you said contradicted them (multiple times), and have even been contradicted by your own unsourced sources. Please (second time I've asked this question), explain that behavior to me. Because it sure looks like flailing around.

Then go ahead and back it with specific cited sources in your reply instead of silly claims the links are the proof when you don't reference them with specific citations. I find this bizarre and not even the usual way you argue.


I couldn't care less if he's a Democrat, and I couldn't care less if some conservatives don't blame the CRA. That is utterly irrelevant. Again, you try to argue on grounds other than truth.

Of course you care he is a Democrat. That is why you cited him, because Dexter Riley said he didn't want to read articles from right wing think tanks. And you care about the truth? When you start with the assumption if capitalist investment firms and banks screw up it must be government's fault? You have an ideological based assumption government interference with business is the reason for everything that goes wrong with the so called free market (which never existed, it is an illusion) then try to find the facts to prove it even when it is so dysfunctional in its logic it ignores other inconvenient facts that are more coherent.

Second, it is bizarre, and probably indicative of your considerable confusion, that you would say the CRA "didn't make one sub prime loan." Of course it didn't: the CRA is not a lender, it's a set of regulations that banks have to adhere to, or have basic expansions, mergers, and purchases blocked. It was specifically created to increase LMI loans, it was strengthened for the same, and we saw an increase in LMI loans (even according to one of your own sources that you didn't read). All one big coincidence, I guess. Because apparently it's unthinkable that the law would do exactly what it was designed to do...even when it actually happened.

I read it, how do you think i found a quote that was deep in the article? And increasing loans is not the same as creating a situation where banks felt compelled to use extraordinary measures to increase those loans. And there you go again being selective, ignoring repeated statements the CRA encouraged only loans that followed standard lending requirements. They not only did not make sub-prime loans, but their criteria discouraged sub-prime loans. But you apparently don't like the idea of a government authority trying to persuade banks to make more of an effort to make loans in minority communities so you fell a need to make them the fall guy for what investment banks and others did.


Sometimes I do explain why, but you don't respond any differently when I do. On several occasions I've found your articles myself (since you never source them) and provided you with context and specific rebuttals.

Like I said before, I don't do line by line rebuttals and, guess what, neither do you, nor do I expect you to. Apparently, you think everything you say is precious and must be addressed, but the same standards don't apply to me.

Here's something else you appear to have missed: I didn't toss up those links and say "there, my work is done." I almost never post scads of links like that, because it's clumsy and the last resort of the lazy partisan. But I asked Dex, somewhat rhetorically, what he would think if I did the same thing he was doing. He said I should, so I did. I did not suggest that my argument was made by posting them; my argument has been made by me, myself.

You, on the other hand, are not taking some analogous position on the other side. You're suggesting you can refute these links with other links, without reading either. This isn't me tossing up links and not responding to yours, and you tossing up links and not responding to mine. This is you pretending you've contradicted something when you haven't, and worse, when you haven't even looked to see if you have.
Last paragraph...what???

I agree with the part it is the last resort of the lazy partisan.

You didn't make hardly any arguments. You just posted stuff and made that your argument.

[will.15]

I'll go ahead and issue another casual ultimatum, since this has become a pointless time sink of a discussion: I am completely uninterested in any reply you have that doesn't first own up to your mind-blowing evasiveness thus far.

Arguing online is already of potentially dubious value, but whatever value it has goes right out the window when the person you're arguing with can't be bothered to pay any attention to what they're posting, or feels no obligation to answer direct questions. If that's your game, I'm not playing. I've had my fill of Whack-A-Will, swatting things down only to have you pop up somewhere else.
You're the one that started arguing online and you keep repeating I don't pay any attention to what I am posting. As I have said before, just because you say something is so doesn't make it so, like your absurd claim you didn't care the source of two of your links was a Democrat. If he wasn't a Democrat you wouldn't have cited him.

[Yoda]

I answer your posts in the order I see them. Just because I answered the last one first doesn't mean I was ignoring the earlier one. I answered it before I read this. I can only answer one post at a time. You know from my previous replies I don't always answer in order of when you post. I automatically look at the last post and sometimes am not even aware you posted one before it or discover it days or even weeks later. And so what you incorrectly assume I was ignoring an earlier post I was admitting something by not immediately responding is wrong. I never say anything when you don't respond to something I wrote. Sometimes if you do it can be many, many days later. I never accuse you of trying to evade an answer. If you answer you answer, if you don't, you don't. And again you make up rules you don't follow. I don't ask you things over and over again, because what is the point? But sometimes I will repeat a point that you keep ignoring. You often excerpt a quote from me, but delete part of it that I think was making the best point and I find that interesting. And often your idea of claiming I didn't answer a question is in a statement that make it far from clear what question you think I didn't answer.
Okay, I believe you when you say you only ignored it three times instead of four. Congratulations...?

I have no idea what "best points" you think I remove; feel free to point it out. I do know that 95% of what I remove, I remove because it's not an argument about facts. The overwhelming majority of what I don't quote is you going on another diatribe about how conservatives always believe this, or many conservatives even admit that. In other words: not arguments. It's entirely possible that you think these things are your "best" points, but if you do, that's part of the problem.

No. it wasn't refuted. You just claimed it was. Again, the equivalent of "wrong."
No, it actually was refuted, and I even when into some details. But if you want me to explicitly prove you wrong, okay: the Carney articles posted specifically rebutted all four points in the PDF you posted shortly after, most in just the first one. The arguments in that PDF were: the timing of the initial legislation (rebuttal in his first two counters), the idea that most were not subject (rebuttal on the bottom of page 2), the idea that they were less "exotic" and defaulted less (rebuttal to both starting at point 2 on page 3, and the idea that they did not drive lending elsewhere (entirety of second article post, as well as end of page 3 on the first article).

There, hoops jumped through. Now please admit you pretended it hadn't already been refuted. I'm open-minded as to whether or not you were genuinely confused about all this or didn't even look at all, but it's got to be one of the two.

Then go ahead and back it with specific cited sources in your reply instead of silly claims the links are the proof when you don't reference them with specific citations. I find this bizarre and not even the usual way you argue.
Again, you ask me to explicitly prove you wrong, and again I will. Here are the nine items, each number linked to it happening.

1) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780318) I post some links for Dex.
2) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780326) You post some link and say it contradicts some of them.
3) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780325) I point out that it doesn't contradict them and ask you if you've read it.
4) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780326) You admit (in a predictably roundabout way) that you hadn't, so you skim it a little and just say it's unconvincing.
5) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780326) You post a link that contains nothing but arguments already refuted by the link I posted.
6) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780330) I point out that your link has already been refuted.
7) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780340) You say they weren't debunked, then make an entirely different argument from the ones you linked to.
8) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780342) I point out that you didn't even appear to know what was is your apparent rebuttal link and ask why you're conflating different arguments.
9) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780344) You ignore this and quote another fragment.

There. More hoops cleared. Now please explain why you think this sequence of events is indicative of anything besides a) ridiculous confusion on your part, or b) utterly carelessness and knee-jerk contrarianism.

Of course you care he is a Democrat. That is why you cited him, because Dexter Riley said he didn't want to read articles from right wing think tanks.
I had no idea he was a Democrat. None. I didn't even realize he was a Congressman. Nor do I care. I highlighted the fact that he'd changed his mind because I thought that was interesting, and something Dex might find compelling, but that was the extent of my knowledge about Carney.

And you care about the truth? When you start with the assumption if capitalist investment firms and banks screw up it must be government's fault? You have an ideological based assumption government interference with business is the reason for everything that goes wrong with the so called free market (which never existed, it is an illusion) then try to find the facts to prove it even when it is so dysfunctional in its logic it ignores other inconvenient facts that are more coherent.
I don't think everything that has ever gone wrong is the doing of government. I am not an anarchist. I think this was sparked by government. And there is nothing at all "coherent" about the idea that a law loosening lending standards, and an increase in looser loans, magically has nothing to do with a bunch of loans defaulting. That's positing a completely upside-down view of cause-and-effect and how people respond to incentives.

I read it, how do you think i found a quote that was deep in the article?
Ctrl + F? Finding it on Google? There are many ways you can find fragments divorced from context.

And increasing loans is not the same as creating a situation where banks felt compelled to use extraordinary measures to increase those loans. And there you go again being selective, ignoring repeated statements the CRA encouraged only loans that followed standard lending requirements.
Further down the rabbit hole we go. If the loans were unobjectionable, why weren't they made? Who ever heard of legislation designed to compel something which is already happening, or has no good reason not to happen? The CRA's mere existence must involve encouraging loans that had a reason not to happen, or there'd be no CRA.

They not only did not make sub-prime loans, but their criteria discouraged sub-prime loans. But you apparently don't like the idea of a government authority trying to persuade banks to make more of an effort to make loans in minority communities so you fell a need to make them the fall guy for what investment banks and others did.
I don't like the idea of government telling banks who to lend to, no matter who it is. Because they have less expertise and less incentive to do so prudently. Why is it more likely to you that the people who do this for a living, and whose livelihood depends on doing it competently, and who are far more numerous than their counterparts, are more likely to make such massive errors, en masse, in concert, than a smaller group of people regulating that industry with less experience and less direct incentive to be right about it? Occam's Razor alone would eviscerate this.

Like I said before, I don't do line by line rebuttals and, guess what, neither do you, nor do I expect you to. Apparently, you think everything you say is precious and must be addressed, but the same standards don't apply to me.
Yeah, you're falling back on this a lot. You act like, because I don't literally respond to everything (obviously no one does), therefore we're operating the same way. Nah-uh. If I respond to 90% of what you say and you respond to 10% of what I say, we don't both go under the same heading. This is not binary; it's a false equivalency.

Last paragraph...what???
What part is confusing?

You didn't make hardly any arguments. You just posted stuff and made that your argument.
It's a reflection of the arguments in it. The other reply is more substantive because it concerns more substantive things. If you go on for a paragraph or two about how this-is-what-conservatives-always-do, I don't know what kind of substance you expect to get back.

[Yoda]

You're the one that started arguing online and you keep repeating I don't pay any attention to what I am posting. As I have said before, just because you say something is so doesn't make it so, like your absurd claim you didn't care the source of two of your links was a Democrat. If he wasn't a Democrat you wouldn't have cited him.
As I said, I didn't know; I cited him because the article was clear, concise, utilized friendly bullet points, and he mentioned he'd changed his mind, which was interesting.

If you randomly choose to disbelieve this for some reason, I don't really care, because this isn't even a worthwhile point of dispute: at no point have I appealed to Carney's apparent Democrat-ness to support anything I've been saying. I stand to gain or lose absolutely nothing either way.

[will.15]

I'm calling BS. You ignored the question three times, then you said you knew the CRA was designed to stop redlining, which is not the same thing. And I'd wager that pretending it's "really" the same thing is how you attempt to reconcile this.
You're right. That is what I would say. What is the big deal if they did it by issuing report cards?


You said earlier that regulations can be more or less harshly enforced under different administrations, and that's absolutely true. The problem is that you think this somehow proves the CRA was not culpable...no, worse, you act like it proves it had no effect at all. There is zero reason to jump to this conclusion based on what you're saying.

So now you have gone from claiming the CRA was the main cause of the sub prime loans to arguing they were partly culpable?

The point was, how could the CRA's efforts to encourage banks to invest in minority districts be the reason for sub-prime loans when they exploded on the banking industry at a time when the Bush Administration was easing regulations? For that argument to make sense the sub prime loans should have occurred under the Clinton Administration when there was greater pressure on banks to invest in minority communities.

I didn't say it was. But actual cites, data, or sources is a whole lot closer, and the journal article in question had none of that. But it doesn't much matter, because it doesn't even make your larger argument about the CRA to begin with, anyway. Even if we posit that they were less aggressive (which, as I said several posts ago, doesn't really bother me and may very well be true), that would still leave you with a solid dozen questions to answer. That's the thing you really don't seem to comprehend here: we're talking about 30 years of lending, and your argument, even if accepted, is that it wasn't as strictly enforced for a few years? Do you understand that this doesn't contradict the argument, like, at all?

I answered this in the previous paragraph. The argument you were making is the banks did the sub prime loans because they were finding it hard to comply with CRA standards without it. That makes no sense if the regulations eased up when the loans were becoming rampant. As for why banks relaxed the rules, again this has been addressed in many, many articles and arguments I know you are familiar with that have nothing to do with the CRA. This is in fact as you know the accepted reason banking standards were relaxed, but some conservatives like yourself choose to look elsewhere to explain what happened. And it isn't even the first time there were bank failures on a significant scale because of relaxing lending standards (or was that thrifts?). It happened also during the Reagan Administration when banks were first deregulated, but it wasn't on this level of failure because the investment firms were not involved that time.


Well, first off, it's not the article, it's the actual law. That would be the "gospel." Secondly, the fact that it comes from the same article was the entire point. That your own source contradicts you on this other point. Which you didn't know because you just found the one sentence you wanted and left out the rest. Because you're not after the truth or the context, you're just trying to save face in some argument so you can go on believing what you already believe with a tolerable level of cognitive dissonance.

And you're after the truth with your convoluted logic about the CAR which ignores how they actually operate and how the sub prime loans and the packaging of junk securities actually came about? And your interpretation of what the law says and how it is actually applied can be entirely different things so there is still no gospel. Regulatory agencies (and the CRA is not even that) rarely are as powerful as they seem on paper because they don't exercise the power that they technically have. We are seeing this again with a judge criticizing the SEC for the fines levied against Citibank.


No, because they complied. How are you not getting this?

How are you not getting more loans in minority communities didn't mean the only way to do so was with sub prime loans?


Yeah, source these if you want a more specific reply, but in general: if you're simply saying that there were still some loans that didn't get made, well, sure. That doesn't refute anything. The CRA didn't mandate that every single loan get made, nor would it have to to be culpable.

But you again are not making sense. If the biggest banks only made modest inroads into minority community lending, then how does that make the CRA culpable for sub prime loans that were made there and everywhere else, including upscale neighborhoods?


I ask again: what would that evidence look like? Tell me what I'm supposed to be providing, if you're going to keep demanding it. I'm telling you what the law was, and I'm telling you banks are not stupid, so naturally they complied so that they could open new branches and/or merge. So in that scenario, please describe what kind of evidence you would expect to find. By all means.

What are the exact numbers, how much did banks who were accused of redlining increase loans in poorer neighborhoods? I don't see those statistics anywhere. If the numbers are modest, and the last I heard minorities were still complaining that smaller local banks did a better job of providing loans than biggies like Bank of America and Welles Fargo, (and were doing that for years without sub prime loans) then it doesn't matter much if they were providing a minimum standard of loans that may have satisfied the CRA, but didn't compel them to dramatically change their lending standards.


Please re-read your own paragraph here. You specifically say that even banks who were not in the subprime business had to get into it to compete with the ones that were, and then you say this contributed to the spread...and then you somehow turn around and say the CRA had nothing to do with it.
Of couse I say that. Are you understanding what I am saying? They did so to compete with the other banks, not because of pressure from the CRA. Sub prime loans didn't just go into minority neigborhoods and to people with low incomes. Most of them did not.

[will.15]

As I said, I didn't know; I cited him because the article was clear, concise, utilized friendly bullet points, and he mentioned he'd changed his mind, which was interesting.

If you randomly choose to disbelieve this for some reason, I don't really care, because this isn't even a worthwhile point of dispute: at no point have I appealed to Carney's apparent Democrat-ness to support anything I've been saying. I stand to gain or lose absolutely nothing either way.
You didn't say the first time you didn't know. You said you didn't care. That is different. That could mean you knew, but didn't care. You knew he was a congressman, but didn't check to see what political party he was affiliated with? I sure would have. And I did because I am such a careless reader of links and their source background.

[will.15]

The CRA didn't rquire loosening of lending satndards. If that was true, why were many smaller banks that concentrated on minority neighborhoods financially sound? The reason larger banks didn't like to invest in minority neighborhoods had many causes unrelated to income.

[bouncingbrick]

Is Deadite still reading this thread? I was really hoping for a response...:(

I'd say you guys need your own "Who caused the financial crisis?" thread, you hijacking crazies! :D

[Deadite]

Is Deadite still reading this thread? I was really hoping for a response...:(

I'd say you guys need your own "Who caused the financial crisis?" thread, you hijacking crazies! :D

Yes, I am.

[Deadite]

It gets tiring, doesn't it? I had an ex-boyfriend that made me play the same game.

guffaw! :D

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jquscqfs-XE

[Deadite]

I'll go ahead and issue another casual ultimatum, since this has become a pointless time sink of a discussion: I am completely uninterested in any reply you have that doesn't first own up to your mind-blowing evasiveness thus far.

Arguing online is already of potentially dubious value, but whatever value it has goes right out the window when the person you're arguing with can't be bothered to pay any attention to what they're posting, or feels no obligation to answer direct questions. If that's your game, I'm not playing. I've had my fill of Whack-A-Will, swatting things down only to have you pop up somewhere else.

Some more lies for you to whack, you whacky whacker.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-03/politics/29969766_1_cra-subprime-market-subprime-mortgages

[bouncingbrick]

Yes, I am.

Eh, never mind.

[Yoda]

You're right. That is what I would say. What is the big deal if they did it by issuing report cards?
Because the law says those "report cards" are a factor in determining whether or not they'll be allowed to open branches, buy other banks, or merge. The oversight panels represent the tying of the scores to actual consequences. It's no wonder you'd dismiss the CRA as toothless if you were completely unaware of the mechanism by which they were supposed to have teeth.

You have since reacted to this new information by arguing that they still were not effective, and that's fine: we can argue that, instead. But I'm not really sure how someone could pretend to have ever really informed themselves of the opposite opinions, or at all seriously considered them, without coming across this fact.

So now you have gone from claiming the CRA was the main cause of the sub prime loans to arguing they were partly culpable?
I said "culpable," not "partly culpable." The degree of culpability depends on lots of things, some of which are knowable and some of which are not. My contention is that they are a root cause; Patient Zero, basically. Blaming securities is like blaming the spread of a disease on the airports.

But you know what? Your implication is partially right. I've probably overstated the CRA's culpability, not as the root cause (which it is), but in that it wouldn't have been enough by itself. Fannie and Freddie deserve a great deal of blame, too. If the CRA was the stick, F&F was the carrot. Though sadly, I find it all too plausible that you'll somehow try to tell me that the government buying up risky loans from private banks in no way incentivizes them to loosen their lending standards.

The point was, how could the CRA's efforts to encourage banks to invest in minority districts be the reason for sub-prime loans when they exploded on the banking industry at a time when the Bush Administration was easing regulations? For that argument to make sense the sub prime loans should have occurred under the Clinton Administration when there was greater pressure on banks to invest in minority communities.
Well, for one, I think the premise of the question assumes a major shift that you don't know is actually there. You say they were "easing" regulations--which means what? Would I be correct in assuming that all you know of this "easing" is the sentence fragment you posted before? If so, then you know it wasn't enforced as aggressively, but that doesn't tell you how significant this change was, or if it mattered much at all. You seem to be resting quite a bit of weight on some pretty thin assumptions.

As for why it exploded when it did, Carney's written about that (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-phony-time-gap-alibi-for-the-community-reinvestment-act-2009-6), too.

I answered this in the previous paragraph. The argument you were making is the banks did the sub prime loans because they were finding it hard to comply with CRA standards without it. That makes no sense if the regulations eased up when the loans were becoming rampant. As for why banks relaxed the rules, again this has been addressed in many, many articles and arguments I know you are familiar with that have nothing to do with the CRA. This is in fact as you know the accepted reason banking standards were relaxed, but some conservatives like yourself choose to look elsewhere to explain what happened. And it isn't even the first time there were bank failures on a significant scale because of relaxing lending standards (or was that thrifts?). It happened also during the Reagan Administration when banks were first deregulated, but it wasn't on this level of failure because the investment firms were not involved that time.
Again, it makes sense depending on what "easing up" really means. The fact that something is easier doesn't make it easy.

I am, indeed, familiar with some of the arguments in those "many, many articles" about why bankers apparently relaxed their standards, but I can't find one that doesn't lead back to the same sorts of questions. Every single one of them that I've heard, at some point, simply asks us to believe that someone bought something without having any idea what it was, even though it was their job to know what it was, and that this happened en masse. Which just causes me to ask the exact same questions over again, with a possible noun replacement or two.

And you're after the truth with your convoluted logic about the CAR which ignores how they actually operate and how the sub prime loans and the packaging of junk securities actually came about? And your interpretation of what the law says and how it is actually applied can be entirely different things so there is still no gospel. Regulatory agencies (and the CRA is not even that) rarely are as powerful as they seem on paper because they don't exercise the power that they technically have. We are seeing this again with a judge criticizing the SEC for the fines levied against Citibank.
I agree perfectly well in theory, but you're taking "regulatory agencies aren't always as powerful as they seem on paper" and trying to turn it into "the CRA had no effect whatsoever," which is a dramatically stronger statement, and not one I see any support for. You asked earlier for an example of a bank whose application was rejected, and my response was that it's hard to find such things because banks were smart enough to comply (especially with F&F taking on a big chunk of the risk, anyway). But even so, there is at least one high-profile example: Shawmut National Corporation. More: (http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-folks-the-cra-really-did-require-crap-lending-standards-2009-6)
"The primary way the CRA encouraged lax lending was by empowering bank regulators to block mergers if one side was found to have flunked the government's test for discriminatory lending. To avoid flunking, banks would adopt these innovative lending schemes that helped them grow their minority borrower base.

You can see this process at work the very first time the Federal Reserve ever blocked a bank merger using the powers under the CRA. Back in 1993, the Shawmut National Corporation, based in Hartford, Connecticut, wanted to buy the New Dartmouth Bank of Manchester, N.H. The deal required the approval of the Fed, which was mandated by the CRA to examine whether the banks had complied with fair-lending laws. The Fed voted 3-3, with one abstention, on the acquisition. The tie meant the deal was not approved, and could not go forward.

How did Shawmut react? It immediately began touting its "flexible income criteria" for loans and establishing mortgages with down payments of as little as 2.5 percent.

The Shawmut rejection was a shot across the bow of the banking industry. Here's the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/17/business/fed-stops-bank-merger-cites-lending-concerns.html):

"The Fed is sending a strong signal to the banking industry that they're going to be looking at banks' lending practices," said Joseph Duwan, a banking analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. "Clearly Shawmut is being made a little bit of scapegoat."
In a move showing banking regulators' increased emphasis on ending loan discrimination, the Federal Reserve Board has, for the first time, blocked a large bank merger because of concern over possible bias against minority groups in mortgage lending.

It wasn't just the Fed. At the same time the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and banking regulators all promised to step up efforts against "discrimination" in lending. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said it would examine 200 of the nation's largest mortgage lenders for lending practices that had a "disparate impact" on minority groups.

The easiest way out of this problem for banks was to offer loans that were flexible, innovative and, as we know now, riskier.

How are you not getting more loans in minority communities didn't mean the only way to do so was with sub prime loans?
I didn't say it was the only way, but minority communities were and are disproportionately in need of subprime loans, and the rhetoric around the passage of these bits of legislation reflects as much. Like many things, it's not absolute, and it's not (forgive the phrase) black and white, but it's true more than it's not.

I'm not even sure if I said anything about minorities, though. LMI means low-to-moderate income.

But you again are not making sense. If the biggest banks only made modest inroads into minority community lending, then how does that make the CRA culpable for sub prime loans that were made there and everywhere else, including upscale neighborhoods?
Because you've made a leap in logic: you go from "there are still some complaints" to "only modest inroads into minority community lending." How do you get from one to the other? How are you converting these vague complaints into a portion of the total?

What are the exact numbers, how much did banks who were accused of redlining increase loans in poorer neighborhoods? I don't see those statistics anywhere. If the numbers are modest, and the last I heard minorities were still complaining that smaller local banks did a better job of providing loans than biggies like Bank of America and Welles Fargo, (and were doing that for years without sub prime loans) then it doesn't matter much if they were providing a minimum standard of loans that may have satisfied the CRA, but didn't compel them to dramatically change their lending standards.
I don't see the statistics anywhere, either. But your entire argument seems to involving filling this void of information with whatever you want, as if evidence of absence were absence of evidence. But the law is what it is, and we have at least one high-profile example of it being enforced. And it stands to reason that any bank that intended to avail itself of any actions influenced by these CRA exams probably found it smart to comply.

Of couse I say that. Are you understanding what I am saying? They did so to compete with the other banks, not because of pressure from the CRA. Sub prime loans didn't just go into minority neigborhoods and to people with low incomes. Most of them did not.
Saying it's not the CRA because banks had to remain comeptitive with other banks that were affected by the CRA is a meaningless distinction. The CRA is the impetus either way. If you want to argue that it's only the first in a long chain-reaction, with lots of steps like that in-between, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but this layer of division between the two doesn't change the point. What you're describing is the ripple effect of a market distortion. And that's why market distortions are so often reviled: not just because of their direct effects, but because of their secondary and tertiary effects.

The CRA didn't rquire loosening of lending satndards. If that was true, why were many smaller banks that concentrated on minority neighborhoods financially sound? The reason larger banks didn't like to invest in minority neighborhoods had many causes unrelated to income.
Lots of possible reasons (though, again, you'll have to provide some data to this effect if you want a really firm answer; be specific, please). For one, smaller banks have much less reason to care about their ability to merge or buy other banks. Those are things far more important to larger banks.

[Yoda]

You didn't say the first time you didn't know. You said you didn't care. That is different.
They sure are; but they're not contradictory. And allow me to refresh your memory: the first time, you said it didn't mean anything that I found a "lone Democrat." I didn't reply to that, because I didn't know or care that he was a Democrat. Then you said it again later: you repeated the idea that it didn't matter that I'd found a "lone Democrat." I told you I didn't care he was a Democrat. Then you said this:

"Of course you care he is a Democrat. That is why you cited him..."
And then I told you I didn't even know, because that was the first instance in which you claimed I'd selected him because he was a Democrat. Before that you'd just been arguing with some straw man that I kept telling you I didn't care about. There was no point in saying I didn't know before, because you weren't saying I knew before then, you were just dismissing the significance I wasn't even claiming was there.

That could mean you knew, but didn't care. You knew he was a congressman, but didn't check to see what political party he was affiliated with? I sure would have. And I did because I am such a careless reader of links and their source background.
No, I didn't even know he was a Congressman. This isn't the result of any carelness, because there's nothing in the article about it. It's not by his name, and he has no byline listed. It's not even in the article you posted by Felix Salmon taking him to task. So if you want to me to cop to not recoginizing the name of a Congressman, guilty as charged.

But again, I repeat: there's no argument to be had. I never even mentioned Carney's party. It's bizarre that you're saying I chose him for that reason, yet inexplicably opted never to even mention it. I didn't know he was a Democrat or a Congressman, and I don't care now that I know. You know why? Because his arguments remain as right or wrong on their own merits no matter who he is. I did not suggest they had any extra weight because he was a Democrat; that's the kind of thing you would do.

EDIT: To make this entire line of discussion even more ridiculous, there's apparently a very good reason none of those things mentioned that he was a Democratic Congressman: because he isn't. He's not the guy you're referring to (http://twitter.com/#!/carney). He just has the same name.

Oy.

[Deadite]

So basically, you're claiming that we're in this mess because Uncle Sam twisted their arms behind their backs and demanded that they be nice to lazy poor people? :)

[Yoda]

Some more lies for you to whack, you whacky whacker.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-03/politics/29969766_1_cra-subprime-market-subprime-mortgages
Some of this has been tackled already. The arguments about some banks not being covered ignores two potentially huge issues. The first being the securitzation and implicit backing that's been mentioned so often already, and the other being the meaningless distinction between CRA-covered institutions and independent brokers dealing with CRA-covered institutions. I can't tell if that's what Baker is talking about, though, because he's kind of vague on that first argument.

The second argument he makes is fine as an argument against the CRA, but not against all government intervention or interference.

The third argument is similar in that it's a good argument against the CRA being solely responsible, but not against F&F's implicit backing having culpability. Indeed, his argument actively supports that accusation, because making money off of a broken system is exactly the sort of thing free market advocates worry about. They worry about people responding to new incentives in unsustainable ways.

The fourth, about enforcement, is just flat-wrong, for reasons I've described to Will. I'll see if I can find even more examples of it being enforced, but he's discounting the simple, elegant possibility that banks largely complied with it, because it was clearly in their interest to do so.

He also, it should be noted, takes a couple of shots at Fannie and Freddie and "compassionate" lending on the second page, so he's not even entirely disputing the idea. He's mostly just going after Will for being sloppy or reductionist, which he may very well be right about. I haven't read anything by Will on the subject.

[Deadite]

Eh, never mind.

Oh, I don't mind. :)

Good luck with the false compartmentalization.

[Yoda]

So basically, you're claiming that we're in this mess because Uncle Sam twisted their arms behind their backs and demanded that they be nice to lazy poor people? :)
Bingo. I just straight-up hate poor people. Why can't they just be NOT poor? They smell so bad, and they're all ugly, and I hate them. That's clearly the only possible reason I could have for believing what I do, because we all know it's impossible for well-intentioned laws to be bad. And anyone who says a well-intentioned law has adverse effects is actually speaking Republican Code for "lazy." But how'd you figure that out?! Did you steal one of our decoder rings?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go flagellate myself, seeing as how I'm a low-income person myself and all. Just not enough hours in the day for all this self-loathing.

[Deadite]

Some of this has been tackled already. The arguments about some banks not being covered ignores two potentially huge issues. The first being the securitzation and implicit backing that's been mentioned so often already, and the other being the meaningless distinction between CRA-covered institutions and independent brokers dealing with CRA-covered institutions. I can't tell if that's what Baker is talking about, though, because he's kind of vague on that first argument.

The second argument he makes is fine as an argument against the CRA, but not against all government intervention or interference.

The third argument is similar in that it's a good argument against the CRA being solely responsible, but not against F&F's implicit backing having culpability. Indeed, his argument actively supports that accusation, because making money off of a broken system is exactly the sort of thing free market advocates worry about. They worry about people responding to new incentives in unsustainable ways.

The fourth, about enforcement, is just flat-wrong, for reasons I've described to Will. I'll see if I can find even more examples of it being enforced, but he's discounting the simple, elegant possibility that banks largely complied with it, because it was clearly in their interest to do so.

He also, it should be noted, takes a couple of shots at Fannie and Freddie and "compassionate" lending on the second page, so he's not even entirely disputing the idea. He's mostly just going after Will for being sloppy or reductionist, which he may very well be right about. I haven't read anything by Will on the subject.

Smells like a big fat juicy red herring to me. :)

[Yoda]

What does?

[Deadite]

Bingo. I just straight-up hate poor people. Why can't they just be NOT poor? They smell so bad, and they're all ugly, and I hate them. That's clearly the only possible reason I could have for believing what I do, because we all know it's impossible for well-intentioned laws to be bad. And anyone who says a well-intentioned law has adverse effects is actually speaking Republican Code for "lazy." But how'd you figure that out?! Did you steal one of our decoder rings?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go flagellate myself, seeing as how I'm a low-income person myself and all. Just not enough hours in the day for all this self-loathing.

Glad we cleared that up.

So your argument is that the government coerced the financial sector into complying with a law not in their interest, and the result was a crippled economy, low-income people losing their homes, and a bail-out for still-wealthy Wall Street?

It hardly seems fair. For Wall Street, I mean.

[Deadite]

What does?

The liberal agenda, of course! :)

[Yoda]

Oh, you don't need to sell me on the idea that there's some seriously messed up crap going on between government and Wall Street. Cronyism is not capitalism (you said something to this effect earlier), and I don't like it any more than I like socialism. I've heard some pundits call this "corporate socialism," where the profit is privatized by the risk is socialized. It's bull.

When I say I want a freer market, I mean just that. That includes letting banks succeed or fail on their own just as it includes not telling them who to lend to.

I think people tend to equate anything that helps a business, or some businesses, with an ideology that supports business in general, but it's not the same thing. In fact, it's usually the opposite.

[Deadite]

The problem here seems to be that you believe there are two meaningfully distinct entities, one called Government and the other called Wall Street, and that Government is causing problems by interfering with the "free market".

Until you figure out that the dichotomy between government and business is false, and that the perception of such is being manipulated and exploited, we will remain at an impasse.

I have no problem with capitalism, btw. I'd love to see the big shots decide to give it a try.

[Monkeypunch]

The whole thing bothers me. I've been thinking about this. It's just a bunch of middle class folks, a lot of them college students, who have been inconvenienced by the economic downturn, so they're sitting around in public, not actually doing ANYTHING about it. I say "Inconvenienced" because if they truly were needy and in dire straits, well...they would be at their jobs working, wouldn't they? That's what i'm doing. I'm broke and living from small paycheck to small paycheck just to survive. And it sucks, and yeah, I want things to be more fair. But I just can't take time out to live on the streets and protest without losing my home. So it all seems like middle class sense of entitlement run rampant to me. And it's not going to accomplish anything. In the end there is no incentive for the 1% (despite some folks with oh so threatening signs camping out in the street) to change up how things are done.

[Deadite]

The whole thing bothers me. I've been thinking about this. It's just a bunch of middle class folks, a lot of them college students, who have been inconvenienced by the economic downturn, so they're sitting around in public, not actually doing ANYTHING about it. I say "Inconvenienced" because if they truly were needy and in dire straits, well...they would be at their jobs working, wouldn't they? That's what i'm doing. I'm broke and living from small paycheck to small paycheck just to survive. And it sucks, and yeah, I want things to be more fair. But I just can't take time out to live on the streets and protest without losing my home. So it all seems like middle class sense of entitlement run rampant to me. And it's not going to accomplish anything. In the end there is no incentive for the 1% (despite some folks with oh so threatening signs camping out in the street) to change up how things are done.

Has it occurred to you that some of those protesters are people who lost their homes? And their families? And their friends?

And even if the majority were simply concerned citizens, why denigrate them by implying they need to stop goofing around and get back to work?

[Deadite]

And I didn't even bother pointing out that the premise of "middle-class entitlement" behind your spooge of an argument is so clearly and insultingly wrong. :)

[DexterRiley]

this being a movie site, thought this might be of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pX3RtSCWhU

[Deadite]

But anyways, if y'all wanna concentrate on marginalizing people in this thread, be my guest. The rest of us who read it will be able to cut through the bull easily enough.

Now I shall return to posting dirty hippy protest songs and such. :)

Dex, good luck.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Has it occurred to you that some of those protesters are people who lost their homes? And their families? And their friends?


Plus, Monkeypunch, be thankful that there are people who are able to do this while you can just go to work and do whatever. Thinking that Occupy isn't going to change things is negative and unhelpful. As stupid as it may appear, these people believe in their cause and want to fix things for everybody. Maybe then you won't have to live paycheck to paycheck. Who would you have to thank? Maybe the Occupy protesters.

[Monkeypunch]

Has it occurred to you that some of those protesters are people who lost their homes? And their families? And their friends?

And even if the majority were simply concerned citizens, why denigrate them by implying they need to stop goofing around and get back to work?

No, I'm implying that is they want to make real change, they need to stop goofing around playing hippy dippy protesters and actually work for the changes they want to see. Sitting round and holding signs does NOTHING, which is my entire argument.

Look, I'm all for the ideas behind this. It really is horrible that there are people in this country who are starving, who can't find jobs, who can't make a decent living, while there are others who make obscene amounts of cash in ways that, if not illegal, are certainly unscrupulous. If one wants to change this, then offer SOLUTIONS, not slogans. And that's why this fails. Can anyone say what they hope to accomplish? Pointing out the inequality is all fine and dandy, but what do they propose to DO about it? Sitting and chanting can't be the end game. If it is, then congrats, you just wasted your time. Protesters in other eras did things. The civil rights movement weren't afraid to push boundaries even if it meant getting beaten or killed. What are the occupy people doing? If you're protesting banks, take your money out of them. In mass numbers. HURT the people you're protesting. Then it will do something. Someone said it before, but y'all should have boycotted black friday. Say "I'm not going to give my money to corporations who don't care about the people." But nobody did that, now did they?

And finally, I'm sorry, but protests are never started by the lower classes. During Vietnam, nobody said boo until there was a draft. Then middle class folks would have to go along with the poor folks off to the war. And THEN came all the draft card burning...Do you see a lot of homeless people at the protests? because I don't. Calling my argument "spooge" invalidates your argument because it shows that you're not above insulting someone you disagree with, and can't debate civilly.

so "nanny nanny boo boo." :p

[Deadite]

Sorry for the poor quality. It's the only version I could find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGkANKAOiy0

Monkey-person, you are a waste of my time.

[bouncingbrick]

No, I'm implying that is they want to make real change, they need to stop goofing around playing hippy dippy protesters and actually work for the changes they want to see. Sitting round and holding signs does NOTHING, which is my entire argument.


You might as well give this up. I already said as much and Deadite replied with insults. You can't criticize their methods because it just shows how stupid you are (in Deadite's eyes, anyway).

That said, you are completely right. There are better things they can do to send a message to both DC and Wall Street but instead they are crowding the streets and pissing off the very same workers that they claim to be fighting for. But, you can't say these things out loud because someone (Deadite) might hear you...:suspicious:

Sorry for the poor quality. It's the only version I could find.

Monkey-person, you are a waste of my time.

Is there going to come a time where you realize that insults and video clips aren't a coherent method of debate?

[Sexy Celebrity]

I agree with some of your points, Monkeypunch. I personally called for violence and bloodshed to go along with these protests, but all it did was make DexterRiley call me a sick person.

[will.15]

Some more lies for you to whack, you whacky whacker.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-03/politics/29969766_1_cra-subprime-market-subprime-mortgages;]
Don't trust banking crisis analysis by guys named Will.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSJaqkrIR0I&feature=relmfu

[ash_is_the_gal]

all protestors should be required to watch Iron Jawed Angels to get an education on how to make a real difference.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Iron_Jawed_Angels.jpg/220px-Iron_Jawed_Angels.jpg

really eye-opening movie, by the way. these women went through a lot to get their point across. it's a very humbling view.

[Sexy Celebrity]

^^ That's a terrible movie poster. They should have wrote Iron Jawed Angels on the back, not "Votes for Women." It makes it look like that's the movie title.

[will.15]

They sure are; but they're not contradictory. And allow me to refresh your memory: the first time, you said it didn't mean anything that I found a "lone Democrat." I didn't reply to that, because I didn't know or care that he was a Democrat. Then you said it again later: you repeated the idea that it didn't matter that I'd found a "lone Democrat." I told you I didn't care he was a Democrat. Then you said this:
"Of course you care he is a Democrat. That is why you cited him..."
And then I told you I didn't even know, because that was the first instance in which you claimed I'd selected him because he was a Democrat. Before that you'd just been arguing with some straw man that I kept telling you I didn't care about. There was no point in saying I didn't know before, because you weren't saying I knew before then, you were just dismissing the significance I wasn't even claiming was there.


No, I didn't even know he was a Congressman. This isn't the result of any carelness, because there's nothing in the article about it. It's not by his name, and he has no byline listed. It's not even in the article you posted by Felix Salmon taking him to task. So if you want to me to cop to not recoginizing the name of a Congressman, guilty as charged.

I had no idea who he was either. What do I know about congressmen unless they are local or famous like Barney Frank? I googled to see who he was. I did it to see who the heck he was since you made a big deal about him changing his mind. I assumed there had to be a reason for that. I still don't know much about him. That is all about all there is except an uncorroborated claim he is center right. But I have no idea where he stands on anything except he turned on the CRA.

But again, I repeat: there's no argument to be had. I never even mentioned Carney's party. It's bizarre that you're saying I chose him for that reason, yet inexplicably opted never to even mention it. I didn't know he was a Democrat or a Congressman, and I don't care now that I know. You know why? Because his arguments remain as right or wrong on their own merits no matter who he is. I did not suggest they had any extra weight because he was a Democrat; that's the kind of thing you would do.

If where an article comes from, which shows the author's usual mindset, didn't matter to you, then why did you acceede to DR's request links you made didn't come from right wing think tanks? I will accept your answer you didn't know he was a Democrat Congressman, but you must admit the circumstances would make anyone assume you knew that he wasn't your standard conservative ideologue, who are the usual type arguing this. If there is any other Democrat in Congress who has said what he has, I don't know who it is. You seemed to have easily found the one guy, who still isn't that well known.

EDIT: To make this entire line of discussion even more ridiculous, there's apparently a very good reason none of those things mentioned that he was a Democratic Congressman: because he isn't. He's not the guy you're referring to (http://twitter.com/#!/carney). He just has the same name.

Oy.
I'll look this up and see, but I found someone saying the Congressman was a center right Democrat who was a traitor because of what he said about the CRA.

Okay, it is a different John Carney, but the Congressman apparently pissed off Dems in his district somehow and was challenged by another Democrat from the left. He did something that pissed off other Dems who called him a traitor and was accused of not being liberal enough so it is understandable I thought this was that guy. But as for this John Carney, he is a CNBC reporter or editor or something and created a lot of controversy by writing articles, not about the CRA, but advocating the legalization of insider trading. In other words, another ideologically driven conservative. Find me a liberal who wants to do that. It is hard to even find a conservative advocating that extreme position.

[DexterRiley]

monkeypunch, this might be up your alley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykLB0d4KNAc

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

proposed 28th Ammendment to the Constitution :

Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg0O3OyWi5Y&feature=relmfu

[Deadite]

That's pretty hippy dippy looking there.

I think I'll make a donation to their weak and ineffectual cause.

[will.15]

I'm through going through this line by line, but as far as I only found only one line showing the Bush Administrstion eased up on requirements, this will make the third time I will repeat, a conservative article criticizing the CRA, which I never liinked but am now mentionooing for the third time, admitted the Bush Administration eased up on banks. And for the millionth time, where is the frigging evidence the CRA was giving banks a hard time? When was a bank denied the right to open a branch because of a bad report card? What is the percentage of loans in minority neighborhoods decades ago versus today? You are aware that one of the reasons banks in the past didn't like to invest in minority neighborhoods was because home prices wasn't appreciating as much in more middle class neighborhoods (that is no longer as true)? What did this have to do with qualifying for a loan baserd on income? Zero.

I'll look at the JC article later, but a guy who thinks it should be legal to do inside trading doesn't sound like my kind of guy. I am sure his articles on that are very persuasive also (to you).

[Monkeypunch]

monkeypunch, this might be up your alley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykLB0d4KNAc

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

proposed 28th Ammendment to the Constitution :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg0O3OyWi5Y&feature=relmfu

See, now THIS is what we need to see. Love it.

[Deadite]

http://i550.photobucket.com/albums/ii404/grungyoscar/djcat.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-58-36lSqG4

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4852/327188debc.jpg

:D

[will.15]

Oh, you don't need to sell me on the idea that there's some seriously messed up crap going on between government and Wall Street. Cronyism is not capitalism (you said something to this effect earlier), and I don't like it any more than I like socialism. I've heard some pundits call this "corporate socialism," where the profit is privatized by the risk is socialized. It's bull.

When I say I want a freer market, I mean just that. That includes letting banks succeed or fail on their own just as it includes not telling them who to lend to.

I think people tend to equate anything that helps a business, or some businesses, with an ideology that supports business in general, but it's not the same thing. In fact, it's usually the opposite.
And exactly what do you mean by letting banks fail? No more FDIC insurance? Retuning to the the Great Depression model of massive bank failure and a meltdown worse than what we are seeing now lasting for a decade? Do you realize how castrophic this economy would be now with your freer free market economy if the banks were not bailed out?

But if all the regualtions went away and there was a huge economic collpse I know what you would do. You would still find a way to blame government.

Your last paragraph is a joke. I take that back. More like incomprehensible. What are you talking about?

[Yoda]

I had no idea who he was either. What do I know about congressmen unless they are local or famous like Barney Frank? I googled to see who he was. I did it to see who the heck he was since you made a big deal about him changing his mind. I assumed there had to be a reason for that. I still don't know much about him. That is all about all there is except an uncorroborated claim he is center right. But I have no idea where he stands on anything except he turned on the CRA.
I said it was interesting he changed his mind. If that's making a "big deal" of it, okay. I don't know much about him, either. Nor do I care, because I'm looking for factual content, not a political candidate.

If where an article comes from, which shows the author's usual mindset, didn't matter to you, then why did you acceede to DR's request links you made didn't come from right wing think tanks?
Accidentally. If the same guy had written the same article, and it'd been from the Heritage Foundation, I probably would've posted it anyway.


I will accept your answer you didn't know he was a Democrat Congressman, but you must admit the circumstances would make anyone assume you knew that he wasn't your standard conservative ideologue, who are the usual type arguing this. If there is any other Democrat in Congress who has said what he has, I don't know who it is. You seemed to have easily found the one guy, who still isn't that well known.
I suppose. It's a funny coincidence, to be sure.

I'll look this up and see, but I found someone saying the Congressman was a center right Democrat who was a traitor because of what he said about the CRA.

Okay, it is a different John Carney, but the Congressman apparently pissed off Dems in his district somehow and was challenged by another Democrat from the left. He did something that pissed off other Dems who called him a traitor and was accused of not being liberal enough so it is understandable I thought this was that guy. But as for this John Carney, he is a CNBC reporter or editor or something and created a lot of controversy by writing articles, not about the CRA, but advocating the legalization of insider trading. In other words, another ideologically driven conservative. Find me a liberal who wants to do that. It is hard to even find a conservative advocating that extreme position.
Another post, another logical fallacy. I'm not really interested in arguing about insider trading, though I suspect, if we did argue about it, it would be very much like your argument about other unusual positions, in that you'd pretty much just be talking about how extreme it is and after awhile you'd suddenly say it wasn't worth debating. So I'll skip that and go right to the important part: I don't really care what else John Carney believes, unless you can show me some way it ties into what he's saying about the mortgage crisis. Otherwise, it's ad hominem.

[Yoda]

I'm through going through this line by line, but as far as I only found only one line showing the Bush Administrstion eased up on requirements, this will make the third time I will repeat, a conservative article criticizing the CRA, which I never liinked but am now mentionooing for the third time, admitted the Bush Administration eased up on banks.
I'm asking about what that means, and how you know what it means, not whether or not the same line can be found in multiple places. For all I know the other authors are just accepting the premise of the first source. The important thing is: eased how? To what degree?

And for the millionth time, where is the frigging evidence the CRA was giving banks a hard time? When was a bank denied the right to open a branch because of a bad report card?
I linked you to an example of precisely this in the last round of posts; it's from the New York Times, that font of right-wing propaganda, and it's from 1993. It also contains quotes from a banking analyst who said the CRA-based rejection (which was significant) was a warning to other banks to comply. Which it appears they did.

So we have the actual law itself, we have it being repeatedly strengthened, we have a high-profile example of it being employed, we have a banking industry analyst saying banks will comply in response, and we seem to have many banks complying. To say nothing of the fact that you have the burden of proof backwards, or at least skewed.

What is the percentage of loans in minority neighborhoods decades ago versus today? You are aware that one of the reasons banks in the past didn't like to invest in minority neighborhoods was because home prices wasn't appreciating as much in more middle class neighborhoods (that is no longer as true)? What did this have to do with qualifying for a loan baserd on income? Zero.
It had everything to do with it: if a lender determines that a house they're buying on behalf of the mortagee (for lack of a real word) is not likely to increase in value as much, that changes the risk-reward ratio of the loan, and therefore both the interest rate and/or their willingness to lend. The CRA's entire purpose is to take something that wasn't happening, and had a reason for not happening, and to make it happen more.

[Yoda]

And exactly what do you mean by letting banks fail? No more FDIC insurance? Retuning to the the Great Depression model of massive bank failure and a meltdown worse than what we are seeing now lasting for a decade? Do you realize how castrophic this economy would be now with your freer free market economy if the banks were not bailed out?
I realize how often you say this, and I realize that it's probably based on "some assorted group of experts"--the same types who were utterly useless in foreseeing the problem to begin with, I've little doubt--"says this, so I'm going to choose to believe it."

However, I wasn't resurrecting that issue. What I mean is that the government should not artificially prop-up industries. They're not good at it, and it undermines competitiveness. People don't understand the cost because it's unseen: it's the productivity that never happens, the competing company that never rises up to squash them. I'd wager that 95% of the arguments made in support of bailouts and government intervention are based on this single mistake, this single failure to consider the thing that doesn't happen.

There's also a chronological problem here, because if the government doesn't interfere in the first place, they don't create the conditions for the crisis that create the conditions used to justify further invention. On some level I'm open to the idea that government occasionally creates problems so big that only it can fix them, but either way, the failures of intervention are comically used to justify more intervention, time and time again. There is nothing to stop government actors and their advocates from saying, when their plans fail, that they didn't do enough, using their own failures to reinforce their case for more. It's a vicious cycle, and we're seeing it right now, with the debate over stimulus.

But if all the regualtions went away and there was a huge economic collpse I know what you would do. You would still find a way to blame government.
If we had no regulation? Then I'd blame government for not having any, because as I said, I'm not an anarchist. But the main thing is that the very nature of free markets (or even generally free markets) resists this sort of huge collapse. It requires too many people to make the same mistake too often, and with too little ability to respond. Not impossible, but far less probable, by the very nature of the system. When money can move freely, it adjusts quickly even to dire circumstances. Blaming government has no such burden; it requires only that you believe a relatively small group of people with less knowledge of the industry they're regulating than the people in it, and vastly different incentives, could have made such a mistake. So even if I point out that you'd probably find a way to absolve government in all scenarios, our claims would not be a wash, for yours would involve a far more complicated and far-reaching set of assertions than mine.

Your last paragraph is a joke. I take that back. More like incomprehensible. What are you talking about?
I'm saying that capitalism depends on competition, and when the government picks winners in that competition, that's the opposite of capitalism. I'm saying that favoring business is not the same thing as being for a specific business. I'm for a business-friendly political climate, but that's not the same as saying I think any one business should be given preferential treatment. It's a crucial distinction, and I think there's a lot of political confusion around it that equates economic conservatism with the latter, rather than the former. Which is probably helped along by some conservatives also failing to make the distinction.

[DexterRiley]

Democracy Now! speaks with Kamran Loghman, the expert who developed weapons-grade pepper-spray, who says he was shocked at how police have used the chemical agent on non-violent Occupy Wall Street protesters nationwide -- including students at University of California, Davis, female protesters in New York City, and an 84-year old activist in Seattle. "I saw it and the first thing that came to my mind wasn't police or students, it was my own children sitting down having an opinion and they're being shot and forced by chemical agents," says Loghman, who in the 1980s helped the FBI develop weapons-grade pepper -spray, and collaborated with police departments to develop guidelines for its use. "The use was just absolutely out of the ordinary and it was not in accordance with any training or policy of any department that I know of. I personally certified 4,000 police officers in the early '80s and '90s and I have never seen this before. That's why I was shocked... I feel is my civic duty to explain to the public that this is not what pepper spray was developed for."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPLT-87Y9hw&feature=player_embedded

Cliffs :

Expert in pepper spray helped develop it and develop procedure to use it.

Police, specifically the UC Davis police misusing it despite likely having to be certified in how to properly use it.

Pepper spray banned under geneva convention, which a layman like myself deduces that if it's bad enough to be banned during war that it shouldn't just be used on average citizens on a whim.

[will.15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=780614#post780614)
But if all the regulations went away and there was a huge economic collapse I know what you would do. You would still find a way to blame government.

If we had no regulation? Then I'd blame government for not having any, because as I said, I'm not an anarchist. But the main thing is that the very nature of free markets (or even generally free markets) resists this sort of huge collapse. It requires too many people to make the same mistake too often, and with too little ability to respond. Not impossible, but far less probable, by the very nature of the system. When money can move freely, it adjusts quickly even to dire circumstances. Blaming government has no such burden; it requires only that you believe a relatively small group of people with less knowledge of the industry they're regulating than the people in it, and vastly different incentives, could have made such a mistake. So even if I point out that you'd probably find a way to absolve government in all scenarios, our claims would not be a wash, for yours would involve a far more complicated and far-reaching set of assertions than mine

And where was the tremendous regulation that caused the Great Depression? Where is the evidence left alone the free market would have made a quick adjustment? Your analysis would always find a way to blame government because if there was an economic collapse during little government regulation, you would blame government, and it would be government's fault if there was no regulation. Government would always get the blame. But of course there will always be some regulation, even under a Tea Party regime so government will always get the blame. The reality is we didn't start seeing serious bank failure after the Great Depression until bank deregulation during the Reagan Administration, and every time there has been more deregulation we see more of it. Am I saying we should return to the pre Reagan era? No, you can't completely turn the clock back now to regulated low interest rates for deposits (although it doesn't really make much sense to have FDIC insurance without it) and the super safe and conservative banking practices of the past. I am a realist, not an ideologue, but to ignore the reality that business, especially an important economic driver like banks, left on their own can act recklessly and can seriously damage the economy is having ideological blinders. Regulation has consequences and deregulation also has consequences. it is interesting to note the most successful economy right now, China, hardly follows your free market model. But I am not defending China (unlike Michelle Bachmann). I see them going off the same cliff we did. Nothing goes up forever, and if real estate and/or stock prices rise too quickly and too high, they will crash. if they somehow avoid this, it will be because their centralized control avoided it. They don't trust the completely free market. But I wouldn't bet the farm they are going to avoid it. But if they do, it will be a strong argument against trusting a completely free market.

[Yoda]

And where was the tremendous regulation that caused the Great Depression?
Absurd protectionism, for one. You do realize literally dozens of books have been written on this topic, yes? Even if your usual standby fallacy of "almost nobody believes that" wouldn't work here. It's a point of considerable debate. If you want to actually argue about the causes and effects of the Great Depression, though, I will only insist on a new thread. Beyond that, my response is a Dubya-esque "Bring it on."

Where is the evidence left alone the free market would have made a quick adjustment?
Seeing as how it wasn't allowed to, there's no way to prove it. An idea that isn't tried will obviously not have direct evidence to support it in a given circumstance. But what we do often have is the incredible failure of the counter-philosophy. For example, Keynesians who supported FDR's programs being positively terrified about what would result when that wartime spending stopped, and being horrendously wrong about, just to pick an example off the top of my head. Or the reduction ad absurdium of taking their proclamation through to their logical conclusion, at which point they look comical.

Your analysis would always find a way to blame government because if there was an economic collapse during little government regulation, you would blame government, and it would be government's fault if there was no regulation. Government would always get the blame. But of course there will always be some regulation, even under a Tea Party regime so government will always get the blame.
Yeah, I answered this already: apart from this being conveniently inarguable (and easily turned around on any defender of government as it is any defender of markets; remember, if you can create a rejoinder with simple noun replacements, it's not not much of an argument), my contention is not that I wouldn't blame a freer market, but that it generally wouldn't happen to begin with. I won't say never, but less frequently, and with less severity. This is one of the chief virtues of markets to begin with. What you're saying is kinda like saying "yeah, of course if 20,000 people all tripped and fell at the same time, you'd always blame an earthquake instead of each person individually." Well, yeah; the very nature of centralized mistakes as opposed to disparate ones makes it tremendously more likely by the very nature of each.

The reality is we didn't start seeing serious bank failure after the Great Depression until bank deregulation during the Reagan Administration, and every time there has been more deregulation we see more of it. Am I saying we should return to the pre Reagan era? No, you can't completely turn the clock back now to regulated low interest rates for deposits (although it doesn't really make much sense to have FDIC insurance without it) and the super safe and conservative banking practices of the past. I am a realist, not an ideologue, but to ignore the reality that business, especially an important economic driver like banks, left on their own can act recklessly and can seriously damage the economy is having ideological blinders. Regulation has consequences and deregulation also has consequences. it is interesting to note the most successful economy right now, China, hardly follows your free market model. But I am not defending China (unlike Michelle Bachmann). I see them going off the same cliff we did. Nothing goes up forever, and if real estate and/or stock prices rise too quickly and too high, they will crash. if they somehow avoid this, it will be because their centralized control avoided it. They don't trust the completely free market. But I wouldn't bet the farm they are going to avoid it. But if they do, it will be a strong argument against trusting a completely free market.
It depends on how they avoid it. But three things, to start. The first is that you've kind of responded to yourself: you don't think their growth is real or sustainable, so it's not a counterexample if you're right. The second is that the temporary success of some other model is not an argument against a completely free market being the only way to produce substantial growth. We're arguing about more or less regulation within a capitalist system, not about whether capitalism is superior in general. I'll argue that, too, but it's a different argument. And third, your premise is based on the idea that China is "the most successful economy right now." By what measure?

[will.15]

By their growth rate.

As for freer less regulated markets have less turbulence, that avoids the reality of the 19th century. The federal banking system was created as a reaction to severe depressions back then. After the Great Depression until this thing hit, the economy has operated much more smoothly than in the past. Recessions have been relatively mild except the double whammy of recession and inflation in the seventies and even that was a finger prick compared to previous economic upheavals in the United States. And of course no country that faced a banking crisis, not even ones where conservatives were in charge, were willing to let banks collapse to see if the free markets would work. People turn to government when the economy goes wrong.

I don't think China growth is sustainable, but some economists think so, the jury is still out, and look what they have been doing, creating stimulus projects that would make anything Obama did look like he was just tying his shoes.

[will.15]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061705794.html

[will.15]

The second longest American Depression, which was actually brought on by making the economy less dependent on government:

The Panic of 1837 was triggered by a combination of factors including the failure of a wheat crop, a collapse in cotton prices, economic problems in Britain, rapid speculation in land, and problems resulting from the variety of currency in circulation.
It was the second-longest American depression, with effects lasting roughly six years, until 1843.
The panic had a devastating impact. A number of brokerage firms in New York failed, and at least one New York City bank president committed suicide. As the effect rippled across the nation, a number of state-chartered banks also failed. The nascent labor union movement was effectively stopped, as the price of labor plummeted.
The depression caused the collapse of real estate prices. The price of food also collapsed, which was ruinous to farmers and planters who couldn’t get a decent price for their crops. People who lived through the depression following 1837 told stories that would be echoed a century later during The Great Depression.
The aftermath of the panic of 1837 led to Martin Van Buren’s failure to secure a second term in the election of 1840 (http://www.movieforums.com/od/leaders/a/1840campaign.htm). Many blamed the economic hardships on the policies of Andrew Jackson, and Van Buren, who had been Jackson’s vice president, paid the political price.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_XtXhiekQk
The Fed is supporting Bank Of America and its $75 trillion in derivatives bets. If BOA crashes, the American government/taxpayers will be left to clean up the mess. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains from the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mohwrs3yp7o&feature=player_embedded

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSbrslUI63s

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/3ocityroomoccupyblog4803cbadbd7jpg.jpg

Occupy Wall Street demonstrators were in Times Square on Wednesday night to protest an event for President Obama.

10:06 p.m. | Updated More than 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters marched to a Midtown hotel on Wednesday night to protest a fund-raising event for President Obama.

Escorted by police vehicles as they helped snarl traffic across the Times Square area, beginning at Bryant Park, the group settled in front of barricades on the southwest corner of 53rd Street and Seventh Avenue, in view of the Sheraton hotel at which Mr. Obama was expected to appear by 9 p.m.

Demonstrators held signs that leveled some of the Occupy protest’s most pointed criticism to date of the president. “Obama is a corporate puppet,” one said. “War crimes must be stopped, no matter who does them,” read another, beside head shots of President George W. Bush and President Obama.

One man, wearing a mask of the president’s face and holding a cigar, carried a sign that read, “I sold out!”

Ben Campbell, 28, one of the march’s organizers, said he hoped to prove to skeptics of the protests that the demonstrators were political critics of equal opportunity.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/occupy-protesters-mobilize-for-obamas-visit/

[Deadite]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/5140682333_4811985446.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBb8YtbtCLo

[bouncingbrick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBb8YtbtCLo

You're only proving my point. I only made it two minutes in and I can tell you what a huge group of morons this entire cause is turning out to be. How does this behavior help their cause? How does making trouble for the police do anything at all?!??!?!??!

Wake up, Deadite, the police are part of the 99%!

The best part is when the people are watching from the balcony. Those are probably the very bankers and investors that the movement wants to target and they are just laughing and drinking and having a good ol' time! OWS is stupid beyond belief.

Why don't they actually do something that will impact the people they want to stop instead of the people they are trying to help?!?

Idiots.

[Deadite]

Maybe you should try pulling your head out of your butt and watching it again. The whole thing this time. :)

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrzNBT6GJ5w

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGfUn7EZ69w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-23/news/30312652_1_youtube-video-dress-code-cargo-pants

[bouncingbrick]

Maybe you should try pulling your head out of your butt and watching it again. The whole thing this time. :)

Head out of butt. Video watched. Nothing changed. I saw people breaking through police baricades and fighting the very people they should be supporting. The video with the Army Vet doesn't tell me anything either except that being loud gets the OWSers to cheer for you.

I still think they are going about this in the absolute wrong way. I've already brought up a few suggestions of what they should be doing but instead they are putting people in physical danger and causing the police to be put in a very hard situation.

Answer me this, what do you think they can accomplish by firing up the police and causing a disturbance in public? Specifically, how does this impact the lawmakers and business men who should be the real target of their actions?

They're still idiots in my eyes.

[Deadite]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-28/veteran-injured-Occupy-protest/51448804/1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/scott-olsen-ed-schultz-occupy-oakland-msnbc_n_1120302.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNeqjzSege0

[Deadite]

Head out of butt. Video watched. Nothing changed. I saw people breaking through police baricades and fighting the very people they should be supporting. The video with the Army Vet doesn't tell me anything either except that being loud gets the OWSers to cheer for you.

I still think they are going about this in the absolute wrong way. I've already brought up a few suggestions of what they should be doing but instead they are putting people in physical danger and causing the police to be put in a very hard situation.

Answer me this, what do you think they can accomplish by firing up the police and causing a disturbance in public? Specifically, how does this impact the lawmakers and business men who should be the real target of their actions?

They're still idiots in my eyes.

You concentrate on the most negative things you can find and ignore everything else, then you overgeneralize the protesters negatively as suits you. That tells me a lot about you, brick. Stop complaining at me for showing support, why don't you? :)

[bouncingbrick]

You concentrate on the most negative things you can find and ignore everything else, then you overgeneralize the protesters negatively as suits you. That tells me a lot about you, brick. Stop complaining at me for showing support, why don't you? :)

You're the one posting the videos! That Rage music video was nothing but people fighting the police! You posted it!

How about you try to answer my questions instead of distracting from them?

[Deadite]

You're the one posting the videos! That Rage music video was nothing but people fighting the police! You posted it!

How about you try to answer my questions instead of distracting from them?

Yes, I posted that video. So what? It's part of what's happening.

I posted other videos too, and so has Dex. The Rage video you are singling out shows the ugly side of protest, true, but the ugliness is unavoidable and occurs on both sides.

So again, why leap on the one video and try to use it to sum up the movement? Why ignore all the other videos here that show more positive activism and less chaos?

I'm not trying to hide anything or trick anyone. You are the one claiming that one video proves your "point".

Are we done here yet? Or are you going to be blindly reactionary at me some more?

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYc0X-c9Cew

:)

[bouncingbrick]

Yes, I posted that video. So what? It's part of what's happening.

I posted other videos too, and so has Dex. The Rage video you are singling out shows the ugly side of protest, true, but the ugliness is unavoidable and occurs on both sides.

So again, why leap on the one video and try to use it to sum up the movement? Why ignore all the other videos here that show more positive activism and less chaos?

I'm not trying to hide anything or trick anyone. You are the one claiming that one video proves your "point".

Are we done here yet? Or are you going to be blindly reactionary at me some more?


Answer my question! Answer my question! Answer my question!

Here it is, in case you forgot.

Answer me this, what do you think they can accomplish by firing up the police and causing a disturbance in public? Specifically, how does this impact the lawmakers and business men who should be the real target of their actions?

Please, please answer that question. I'm not an idiot (like they are), I've seen the peaceful protests. It's been going on for months, I'd have to shut my eyes to not have seen the peaceful ones. But, even the ones who aren't being arrested are simply loitering, often in places that they shouldn't. So, again, how does this affect the lawmakers and the 1%? How?!?

[Deadite]

Guess that's a "no".

Your question is biased. That's why I've ignored it.

Be more specific. Who are "they", and what are you referring to by "firing up the police"?

You can cry "loitering" all you want. It's petty. You can call protest "firing up the police" all you want. It's negative overgeneralizing. You can demand that the protesters stop protesting and do something that "affects the 1%" all you want.

As far as I'm concerned, they are. It might not be perfect, but it's a start. Your premise is false. You are still overgeneralizing and cherrypicking. Your ad nauseam is tiresome. Go bother someone else.

Any more questions?

Have you made a donation to the Wolf-pac site?

Have you done anything other than call them all morons?

[Deadite]

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/occupy-wall-street-gets-rare-democratic-support-from-nj-sen-shirley-k-turner

Occupy Wall Street gets rare Democratic support from N.J. Sen. Shirley K. Turner

Introduces resolution supporting right to free speech and assembly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UKhqA4DRz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmusrhoEPyU

[DexterRiley]

http://i.imgur.com/fdmCL.jpg

[will.15]

Here is the reality for these protestors.

Either a Democrat or Republican is going to be elected.

They are not happy with either party and won't like either presidential candidate.

They just say what they don't want, not what they support to change it.

So what are their protests going to accomplish? Nothing.

The Civil Rights movement was fighting for something specific, civil rights legislation.

The Viet Nam War protestors wanted the war to end immediately.

These guys? They don't have an agenda because then they would start fighting with each other becuse the people protesting are all over the political map.

[Deadite]

That's not true, Will. They have a definite agenda.

Their agenda is to spread democracy.

http://www.nerditorial.com/newsandopinion/what-does-the-occupy-movement-want.html

[Deadite]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-i-stopped-worrying-and-learned-to-love-the-ows-protests-20111110

[bouncingbrick]

Guess that's a "no".

Your question is biased. That's why I've ignored it.

Be more specific. Who are "they", and what are you referring to by "firing up the police"?

You can cry "loitering" all you want. It's petty. You can call protest "firing up the police" all you want. It's negative overgeneralizing. You can demand that the protesters stop protesting and do something that "affects the 1%" all you want.

As far as I'm concerned, they are. It might not be perfect, but it's a start. Your premise is false. You are still overgeneralizing and cherrypicking. Your ad nauseam is tiresome. Go bother someone else.

Any more questions?

Have you made a donation to the Wolf-pac site?

Have you done anything other than call them all morons?

Distract yet again. You are an expert at that, are you a politician?

I ask again. How does their protesting affect the people that are the problem? It's not a generalization. It's not biased. It's a direct concern.

I know for some reason you've gotten it through your thick head that I'm against the movement. I'm not, so my question can't be biased. I just think they are going about it the completely wrong way. A video you posted proves my point (it's the people lounging about drinking martini's watching the protesters below them, even if it's not the upper 1% looking down they certainly represent exactly what I've been saying, it's perhaps the most powerful real-life metaphore I've ever seen).

So, again, if you have an answer to my question (I don't think you do), then answer it and quit pussy-footting around. How is this yelling and carrying on and even the polite stuff even remotely affecting the lawmakers and the money makers? Why the hell should any of them care about this, especially since they are spread all over the country? If they at least got together and marched on Washington that would be a more powerful gesture than this.

[Deadite]

http://www.thenation.com/article/164207/why-occupy-wall-street-has-left-washington-behind

The “demand for demands (http://www.thenation.com/blog/163762/occupy-wall-street-why-so-many-demands-demands),” The Nation’s Betsy Reed has noted, is misplaced. What would our rallying cry be? “The people demand a .05 percent transaction tax on stock purchases held for less than fifteen days”? Everyone knows what OWS is for. And its essential demand is powerful precisely because of its startling simplicity: “You know what you did. You have our stuff. Give it back.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-T6ox_tgM

[will.15]

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2011/10/Occupy-Wall-Street-Fox-on-Fox.jpg
Ok!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Will, get your ass down to one of those Occupy rallies right away. Hippies don't care how old you are. We are all just Earth's soil to them, here for a short while to share in a beautiful, transcendent spiritual experience. Hippies like to have babies, bake bread, smoke pot and run outdoor thrift stores where everything is hand crafted and free. That girl in that picture could seriously be your new angel love homemaker goddess, non-judgemental, can't understand why any guy would be intimidated by her, etc. You are wasting precious time, Will. Hippies only appear on this Earth every 40-50 years or so. The surrealist clock is ticking!

[Deadite]

http://www.thenation.com/article/164349/how-wall-street-occupied-america

Why New York’s Zuccotti Park is filled with people is no mystery. Reporters keep scratching their heads and asking, “Why are you here?” But it’s clear they are occupying Wall Street because Wall Street has occupied the country. And that’s why in public places across the nation workaday Americans are standing up in solidarity. Did you see the sign a woman was carrying at a fraternal march in Iowa the other day? It read, I Can’t Afford to Buy a Politician So I Bought This Sign. Americans have learned the hard way that when rich organizations and wealthy individuals shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they get what they want.

[Deadite]

More than 16 million children are now living in poverty and, for many of them, a proper home is elusive. Some cash-strapped families stay with relatives; others move into motels or homeless shelters. But, as Scott Pelley reports, sometimes those options run out, leaving an even more desperate choice: living in their cars. 60 Minutes returns to Florida, home to one third of America's homeless families, to find out what life is like for the epidemic's youngest survivors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57330802/hard-times-generation-families-living-in-cars/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/you_can_arrest_an_idea_20111201/

The failure of the SEC or any other government agency to hold the banks accountable provides the essential justification for citizen action of the sort the Occupy movement has offered. In his concluding summary, Rakoff stated: “Finally, in any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found.”

[bouncingbrick]

Ok, Deadite, the question still stands. You can quote all the articles you like, it doesn't make a difference.

Also, Deadite and Dexter, your campaign to negative rep me isn't going to make the question go away.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8MWqx3dhv0&feature=relmfu

http://wisesloth.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/page_1.jpg

[Deadite]

Ok, Deadite, the question still stands. You can quote all the articles you like, it doesn't make a difference.

Sure it does. Just not to you.

http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/perhaps-well-intentioned-missing-point-occupywallstreet

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/occupy-seattle-octogenarian-activist-dorli-rainey-on-being-pepper-sprayed-by-seattle-police-importance-of-activism

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwo5eumXxyA

[Deadite]

Inequality is back in the news, largely thanks to Occupy Wall Street, but with an assist from the Congressional Budget Office. And you know what that means: It’s time to roll out the obfuscators!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACVHfGdR1c8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXvijFSI_a0

[bouncingbrick]

Sure it does. Just not to you.

http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/perhaps-well-intentioned-missing-point-occupywallstreet

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/occupy-seattle-octogenarian-activist-dorli-rainey-on-being-pepper-sprayed-by-seattle-police-importance-of-activism

No, those still don't answser the question. Why don't you just give me your opinion on the subject? Let's start there.

Or is your opinion a link or a smart-ass remark?

[Deadite]

My opinion? My opinion is that there is no legitimate representation for the majority of Americans in America.

By "no legitimate representation", I mean that the majority of Americans can no longer make meaningful changes through government that the minority does not wish changed.

Ie. Fake democracy, a charade of politicians totally beholden to special interests.

Ie. "our" government is owned by a wealthy few.

But sure, you can pretend for a little while longer that the government is corrupt but not that corrupt and that it might get better eventually if we just keep voting for guys who campaign on corporate money, if that makes you feel better.