News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[WhoWee]

Have you survived the people at the protesters to get their view point of this or is this simply part of your long line of attacks on their character?

I'm not certain what you're asking? If you're suggesting they may eventually take notice - it's possible?

However, why don't you support your statement ...or is this simply part of your long line of attacks on their character - have I attacked their character or posted news stories about the movement?

 

[Bacle2]

"he's communist and American has to be taken down", bad edit, I meant America and not American.

So how much credibility do you give to the rant from a group that thinks the "fix" is to take America down? I don't see pushing the destruction of the country as a "fix". Do you?

FYI, he looked like a 50/60ish American male representing this "group". Looked like an average middle aged guy, but wow, the things he said. Not all these people are wild-eyed young people bent on taking down corporate America... some are older, and if they had a job, they'd probably be quite and happy to be making a living.

As for my definition of American, speak your mind. It is American. I can always change the channel. But, when you lose the audience, your words mean zip, since only you are listening. Points of view can debated, but a unilateral rant is what people do when trying for force themselves on others. Screw em. Oh, and the guy wants to destroy America, so that makes him un-American by definition. duh.

Yes, pushing for destruction does go to far. Still, your statement about these people not having a job seems pure speculation, as well as your claim about unilateral rants; how do you know these views are not shared by others?.

And it may be more credible to give links from non-partisan sources; specifically, no Daily Kos nor Fox News, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

And it may be more credible to give links from non-partisan sources; specifically, no Daily Kos nor Fox News, etc.

Is FOX no longer a credible source?

 

[Bacle2]

No longer?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402754450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Documents how Fox reporters are "encouraged" to give a conservative perspective on the day's events. No counter offered by Ailes, who refused to be interviewed.

Fox is the flip side of Kos.

 

[WhoWee]

No longer?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402754450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Documents how Fox reporters are "encouraged" to give a conservative perspective on the day's events. No counter offered by Ailes, who refused to be interviewed.

Fox is the flip side of Kos.

You'll need to make a case to PF Moderators if you want to disallow FOX as a news source.

 

[Bacle2]

I never asked nor expected Fox to be disallowed, I just commented that
links to partisan sources --and I believe many consider Fox is one of these-- is not likely
to convince those you're trying to convince. I personally try to catch news from both sides, but it's hard sometimes to find reasonable sources.

 

[mheslep]

Who is defending Freddie and Fannie?

The office of the President of the US.

“These entities are independent and therefore they are independent decisions,” he said. “The White House is not involved, and nor should it be.”

How about stopping the bonuses for the WS firms that were bailed out? Did not happen.

Bonuses under the TARP period were regulated. Google Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg. Though Fannie and Freddie get a pass on bonus criticism, the President had http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=590345&p=1" to say about WS firms that actually are independent entities:

Shortly after taking office, President Obama reacted to Wall Street bonuses handed out in January 2009 with incredibly harsh language, calling them "shameful" and "the height of irresponsibility."

"Folks on Wall Street who are asking for help need to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility," he said. A few months later, Obama pledged that there would be "no more bonuses for companies that taxpayers are helping out," calling them a violation of "our fundamental values."

In January 2010, Obama was once again in high dudgeon about Wall Street bonuses, blasting "reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people."

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=590345&p=1

 

[mheslep]

Still. Who is defending Freddie and Fannie? I never did. I have no idea of what you are trying to get at; I have made many points, and you address nothing but the issue of the bonuses. Still, Freddie and Fannie are a mix of private and public.

They have not been private since the seizure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac"

And, if Freddie and Fannie were to pay back their govt. loans, why can't they have bonuses, just like the WS firms did?

They have not paid back any losses, there are no plans by F&F to pay any of the $120B back, and they are asking for more this past week as posted above, but we won't see any OWS protesters out front of their palatial offices on Wisconsin avenue in Washinton, DC.:
[PLAIN]http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2009/03/large_fannie%20mae.JPG

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

[PLAIN]http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2009/03/large_fannie%20mae.JPG[/QUOTE]
There is a great tapas restaurant just off to the right of this building. I don't know it it's still in business since I haven't been there in years.

 

[mheslep]

There is a great tapas restaurant just off to the right of this building. I don't know it it's still in business since I haven't been there in years.

Cafe Ole. I think I took a date there somewhere back around 400BC.

 

[Bacle2]

Listen, at the end of the day, you have not addressed most of the
substance of my claims: what is so valuable about what these WS firms
do that merits the pay and bonuses they receive? $25 mill a year: what,
do they: cure cancer on Monday, get a Nobel prize on Tuesday, etc?

 

[Bacle2]

I personally never tried to defend F&F nor their bonuses. And you may want to contact the OWS people before deciding what their position on F&F is or will be; again , you assume they are aware of it, which they may not be, and you assume they have not yet addressed it, etc. I don't know either way, and it doesn't seem like you do either.

 

[mheslep]

I personally never tried to defend F&F nor their bonuses.

You are arguing against strawmen. You asked "who is defending" F&F; now you have an answer.

And you may want to contact the OWS people before deciding what their position on F&F is or will be; again , you assume they are aware of it, which they may not be, and you assume they have not yet addressed it, etc. I don't know either way, and it doesn't seem like you do either.

So far OWS has little or no common declared position on anything; it is certainly not possible to contact anyone who can speak for them all. About the only thing one can state factually about OWS at large is where they camp out at night. They have not protested at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

 

[mheslep]

Listen, at the end of the day, you have not addressed most of the
substance of my claims: what is so valuable about what these WS firms
do that merits the pay and bonuses they receive? ...

What is so valuable about a guy who can use a stick to knock a ball out of an arena? Those stick and ball guys don't work for me, so I really don't care what they make. Unless the government steps into rig the system in some way with tax dollars or preferential laws, then I care.

 

[mheslep]

No longer?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402754450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Documents how Fox reporters are "encouraged" to give a conservative perspective on the day's events. No counter offered by Ailes, who refused to be interviewed.

Fox is the flip side of Kos.

The documentation refers to memos from the Fox VP of news John Moody who gives general guidance on how to pursue a story, as VP's of news are want to do everywhere I imagine.

Roger Ailes has given numerous interviews on a variety of topics. Fox is a professional news outlet with a bias. Kos is little more than blog, at which pretty much anyone who is down with the movement can sign on and write as an authority.

 

[Evo]

Fox News is an accepted mainstream news source. Their bias is known, same as the bias of CNN, MSNBC, etc... There is also control over who can report, the biases of these people are known. This is why blogs are not allowed. Huffington is allowed, even though it's just a glorified blog, you need to take articles there with a grain of salt, in other words, like wikipedia, I'd check their articles against mainstream sources.

 

[Bacle2]

What is so valuable about a guy who can use a stick to knock a ball out of an arena? Those stick and ball guys don't work for me, so I really don't care what they make. Unless the government steps into rig the system in some way with tax dollars or preferential laws, then I care.

The value, I would say, is that there is a fan base composed of millions of devoted fans, who are apparently willing to pay good amounts to be entertained by it, buy souvenirs, watch games, I would say. These fans benefit by the enjoyment they get out of the game.

Still, say there is no basis. Just what is it that WS does (not the whole industry, but the main WS firms where people get paid millions+ millions in bonuses+ millions in golden parachutes after burning the firms to the ground.) that is worth that much?

I guess you may then repudiate the internet, the interstate highway system, the national parks, etc. all of which was made possible by the government.

 

[Bacle2]

You are arguing against strawmen. You asked "who is defending" F&F; now you have an answer.

So far OWS has little or no common declared position on anything; it is certainly not possible to contact anyone who can speak for them all. About the only thing one can state factually about OWS at large is where they camp out at night. They have not protested at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.[/QUOTE]

a)No, I'm not; all my posts were replied with lines about F&F, as if I had been defending them, which I never tried to do.

b)There you go again about F&F; do you have anything else of substance to say? Would you care to comment on this, instead of on technicalities: Many believe the game is rigged, and that they have a lower chance of moving up than their parents did, and there seems to be some data to support this. It seems like the bigger the divide between those up and those down, the harder it is to climb up. Some data also suggests that the US is not as upwardly-mobile as it used to be, and that many European countries are more mobile than we are.?

 

[Evo]

The firms that were bailed out have mostly repaid the loans, the pay has been investigated.

Government officials said it isn't clear exactly what type of pay might fit in that category. Many firms, including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley, have repaid their government funds, often at a profit to the U.S. taxpayer, a move that could be seen as being in the public interest, one government official said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575137784246308728.html

 

[Bacle2]

Basically, I made several points, which you may or not agree with, while all you did was bring up F&F, which I had never brought up myself. I was pointing out that fact, that my points were completely unrelated to F&F. And then you kept on bringing up F&F yet again, for some reason I do not yet understand.

 

[Bacle2]

Well, MHSLEP, let's take the flip side of your position: where/when have you, or has the WSJ, or the inverstor community mentioned that the automakers were back in black and that they had repaid their loans? Must every single issue be addressed for someone's position to be considered?

Still: what justifies the $ million paid to some of the main firms? I don't care if baseball pay is justified or not--tho I offered my (non-expert) opinion*. It this pay does not come from or is proportional to the economic productivity that WS contributes to: where does it then come from?

*Baseball fans are willing to pay for tickets, for souvenirs, they watch games --which pays for advertising, cable revenues to employ people, etc. At some point these fans may decide the pay is not worth it, then the pay would go down. Same for Hollywood, etc.
Note I am trying to explain, not justify.

 

[LaurieAG]

My problem is that the OWS are bungling things. I am for Social Security, I am for student grants, I am for medicare. But these people are doing no good because they are not organized effectively. I actually feel that they are doing more harm than good.

Hi Evo. Any creditable alternative would probably be considered an organised threat to the system anyway so what OWS is doing is probably the best anybody could expect to do considering the circumstances.

 

[Evo]

Still: what justifies the $ million paid to some of the main firms? I don't care if baseball pay is justified or not--tho I offered my (non-expert) opinion*. It this pay does not come from or is proportional to the economic productivity that WS contributes to: where does it then come from?

The amount of pay reflects the amount of money the firms make, but it's still an obscene amount, IMO.

 

[Bacle2]

The amount of pay reflects the amount of money the firms make, but it's still an obscene amount, IMO.

But shouldn't there be a match between the money made and the contribution to the general economy? But I don't see this being the case. I can see, e.g., how baseball players get paid thru royalties, TV contracts, etc., and if the fans decide baseball is not worth it, they will not pay, and the game will fizzle. But I don't see the correspondent relationship with what WS does. Basically: can a pay of this sort be sustainable if it does not reflect the value created by the company, or must this money come from somewhere else in the economy?

 

[Evo]

But shouldn't there be a match between the money made and the contribution to the general economy?

No, a company is in business to make money. Why on Earth would anyone think they have to share the money they make? It's their money.

 

[Bacle2]

No, a company is in business to make money. Why on Earth would anyone think they have to share the money they make? It's their money.

This is not what I suggested. Maybe if you could considered the possibility that you misunderstood my post, you would spare me your condescension . You seem to automatically consider the most absurd interpretation of my position, which I would
imagine a moderator would seek to avoid.

 

[Evo]

This is not what I suggested. Maybe if you could considered the possibility that you misunderstood my post, you would spare me your condescension . You seem to automatically consider the most absurd interpretation of my position, which I would
imagine a moderator would seek to avoid.

Then explain what you mean instead of stooping to attacking me.

 

[Bacle2]

Then explain what you mean instead of stooping to attacking me.

Me attacking you? You once in this thread implied,here publically, without any basis, that I did not know what I was talking about, when you had not understood what I said (about the difference between unions and companies), wrongly attributing to me positions I never held (that there is no major difference between a union and a corporation, which I _never_ stated) and now you are publicly condescending me, assuming the most absurd interpretation possible of my posts, instead of asking a followup. So, who's doing the attacking?

 

[Evo]

Me attacking you? You once in this thread implied,here publically, without any basis, that I did not know what I was talking about, when you had not understood what I said (about the difference between unions and companies), wrongly attributing to me positions I never held (that there is no major difference between a union and a corporation, which I _never_ stated) and now you are publicly condescending me, assuming the most absurd interpretation possible of my posts, instead of asking a followup. So, who's doing the attacking?

That's enough. Don't attack me again. You seem to keep accusing people of misinterpreting you. Did it occur to you that perhaps the problem is with you, that you aren't explaining yourself adequately? If I *misunderstood* you, then why don't you explain what you meant?

 

[Bacle2]

How have I attacked you? It is _you_ who insinuated here that I did not know what I was talking about. I reject that claim. I never condescended you that I know off, nor otherwise attacked you that I can tell.

BTW, your *misunderstood* seems like an open invitation to a friendly conversation, right?.Why the asterisks otherwise? It just seems you have already concluded both that I attacked you, which I do not believe I did, and then you are already questioning that there was a misunderstanding.

My point is that there seems to be something wrong when the pay is not proportional to the contribution made. An extreme case to illustrate (not suggesting there is a perfect match between this example and WS): If I get paid $1,000,000/yr for watching TV all day, that money , it would seem, would have to come from somewhere else in the economy, as the contribution to the economy is basically nil. Where does it then come from? Is this salary sustainable/healthy, if it does not reflect a proportional contribution to the economy?