Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media that is covering it is making it seem like this movement is huge, sorry, but huge isn't 2,000 protesters. I attended a Tea Party protest a few years ago, we had over 5,000 people show up and the media said hundreds. They have no message and like it or not they're attacking those who add money to the economy and provide jobs, how many jobs have the protesters been able to generate?
The media that is covering it is making it seem like this movement is huge, sorry, but huge isn't 2,000 protesters. I attended a Tea Party protest a few years ago, we had over 5,000 people show up and the media said hundreds. They have no message and like it or not they're attacking those who add money to the economy and provide jobs, how many jobs have the protesters been able to generate?
sounds like JerseyMan got 4 hours of overtime already.
who are they attacking that "add money to the economy and provide jobs"? and how do those individuals add money to the economy? what jobs have they added?
hate to break it to you, but demand for a product creates jobs. read some malcom gladwell about the chance of who gets rich in the world.
Now THIS is the kind of individual I am talking about. The kind of individual the whiners on Wall St need to become. The kind of person who defines what it truly means to be an American.:
Preston Venzant, 47, who lost his job in Houston repairing commercial kitchen equipment, said he had decided not to apply for unemployment benefits over the objections of his wife. “I don’t want the federal government giving me an incentive not to work, period,” he said. “My personal opinion is, you’re supposed to go find work, and if you can’t find it in the business that you were once in, be it a C.E.O. or a street sweeper, you have to find employment and your lifestyle has to change, so be it.”
very noble of him. at least he puts his money where his mouth is. but unemployment benefits are not an incentive to not work. especially not a skilled laborer or a college educated individual. sure, maybe a mcdonald's employee, but the amount you collect is enough to pay your basic bills if you're lucky. no one i know that has collected had any less desire to find a job. this is a good article though. to each their own.
maybe all the people saying they want less government should give up their social security, medicare, and public access to roads and all the goods transported on them. go live off the land in new hampshire.
JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, US Bancorp, and Capital One Financial, that they were "eligible to complete the repayment process" for the capital they received under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). In other words, they would be allowed to pay back $68.3 billion. Even though they really owe $229.7 billion.
From the Wall Street journal.
All banks as a whole received $229.7 billion through various means. What was paid back was the direct cash infusions that were given to the largest banks to stabilize their balance sheets in the first days of the crisis. Holding this money also forced the banks to agree to sets of government rules regarding spending and compensation by the banks. What then happened was that the banks had to begin to prove that they were now stable and were authorized to return the direct cash infusions and free themselves of government control.
The portion that will never be repaid is the money that went through AIG and into the banks to begin to unravel the whole mortgage securities and credit default swap mess, of course this is the largest chunk of money.
So, the banks did pay back the money they were directly handed. What will never be paid back (and represents the lions share of the money) is the cash given to clean up all the toxic assets. The banks pulled the same accounting shell game that GM did to "pay back" the money. The toxic assets that made the direct cash infusion necessary were relieved by TARP money off their balance sheets, which essentially made the giant ball of cash they were handed unnecessary. GM did the same thing when they paid back the loan they were given with bailout money from a separate account.
***
I saw some posts earlier about whose "fault" the whole financial mess was. I think there is plenty of blame to go around and saying that people should have taken more personal responsibility is fine, but even though I lean conservative, the buck doesn't stop there.
The regulations should have never been loosened to allow the banks to make the risky loans in the first place. Once they were, the banks didn't have to make those loans. Once the loans were made they didn't need to bundle and securitize them. The securities didn't have to be stamped AAA by the ratings services. The insurance companies didn't have to agree to insure the defaults. The problem was that everyone was making too much money and getting what they wanted to stop it before it imploded.
The fault lies with everyone from the person buying the house to the bank making the loan to the government loosening regulations to the rating services to the insurance companies. Though as much as I want to preach personal responsibility, I simply don't hold the person who wanted the mortgage as accountable as I hold the system that allowed them to get it. When we talk about greed, this entire debacle was greed at its worst, people wanted things they couldn't afford and the entire system was more than happy to give it to them as long as they made their money. What makes it even worse is that in the end, the people who allowed it to happen by turning a blind eye never had to take responsibility for it. They were branded "too big to fail" and given a bailout, never to feel the personal pain that the people who took the mortgages were left to feel. Peoples lives were destroyed and the impact to them will be felt for at least a decade, while the industry that allowed it and facilitated it to happen is back to business as usual.
***
When it comes to the protesters, they aren't a unified force, hence the lack of a unified message. The reason for this is that there is a diverse group of people involved who all look at a common enemy for the countries issues. It is no secret to anyone whether extreme right or extreme left (or hopefully somewhere in the middle) that corporations have far too much influence on our political system. That doesn't mean corporations are evil, it just means they have corrupted the democratic process in the country, giving them far greater influence than they should have. I personally don't have any issue with people protesting against that and that seems to be the underlying current.
On top of that the protests represent frustration to me. People are upset, the economy stinks, people are struggling and there is very little leadership from anyone to get the ship back on course. Both parties fail the leadership test horribly by falling into their own dogmas and refusing to compromise. Obama has failed to deliver on his "hope and change" and that is as much his fault as it is the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. People are craving leadership and no one is delivering it, so they lash out against the system that they see as broken. This shouldn't surprise anyone. FDR didn't fix the economy in the Great Depression, heck some of his decisions may have made it worse, but he provided leadership and made people have faith again, even if they were living off of a cup of broth a day. That is what's needed, not quick fixes, because the government can't really fix it, but leadership to make people have faith and hope again.
If you ask me, I honestly think the country will see the birth of a third political party over the next decade. The Tea Party has corrupted the Republicans and taken it much further to the right, alienating the moderates (myself included). We may see this protest do the same thing to the Democrats, where the extreme left rides this movement to solidify its power, leaving behind the moderate Democrats (who are already alienated). That is a surefire recipe for a new party to emerge that will either take the extreme of an existing party, allowing that party to return to center or give rise to a "centrist" party that will pick up those alienated by the extremes of the existing parties.
Someone earlier said, give me a party that is pro-gay marriage, for gun control, pro-choice, etc. but still preaches fiscal conservancy and strong yet responsible foreign policy. Sign me up, because no one out there right now is delivering it and the "silent majority" that exists in the middle, that can compromise and get things done for everyone's benefit doesn't have a voice.
All banks as a whole received $229.7 billion through various means. What was paid back was the direct cash infusions that were given to the largest banks to stabilize their balance sheets in the first days of the crisis. Holding this money also forced the banks to agree to sets of government rules regarding spending and compensation by the banks. What then happened was that the banks had to begin to prove that they were now stable and were authorized to return the direct cash infusions and free themselves of government control.
The portion that will never be repaid is the money that went through AIG and into the banks to begin to unravel the whole mortgage securities and credit default swap mess, of course this is the largest chunk of money.
So, the banks did pay back the money they were directly handed. What will never be paid back (and represents the lions share of the money) is the cash given to clean up all the toxic assets. The banks pulled the same accounting shell game that GM did to "pay back" the money. The toxic assets that made the direct cash infusion necessary were relieved by TARP money off their balance sheets, which essentially made the giant ball of cash they were handed unnecessary. GM did the same thing when they paid back the loan they were given with bailout money from a separate account.
***
I saw some posts earlier about whose "fault" the whole financial mess was. I think there is plenty of blame to go around and saying that people should have taken more personal responsibility is fine, but even though I lean conservative, the buck doesn't stop there.
The regulations should have never been loosened to allow the banks to make the risky loans in the first place. Once they were, the banks didn't have to make those loans. Once the loans were made they didn't need to bundle and securitize them. The securities didn't have to be stamped AAA by the ratings services. The insurance companies didn't have to agree to insure the defaults. The problem was that everyone was making too much money and getting what they wanted to stop it before it imploded.
The fault lies with everyone from the person buying the house to the bank making the loan to the government loosening regulations to the rating services to the insurance companies. Though as much as I want to preach personal responsibility, I simply don't hold the person who wanted the mortgage as accountable as I hold the system that allowed them to get it. When we talk about greed, this entire debacle was greed at its worst, people wanted things they couldn't afford and the entire system was more than happy to give it to them as long as they made their money. What makes it even worse is that in the end, the people who allowed it to happen by turning a blind eye never had to take responsibility for it. They were branded "too big to fail" and given a bailout, never to feel the personal pain that the people who took the mortgages were left to feel. Peoples lives were destroyed and the impact to them will be felt for at least a decade, while the industry that allowed it and facilitated it to happen is back to business as usual.
***
When it comes to the protesters, they aren't a unified force, hence the lack of a unified message. The reason for this is that there is a diverse group of people involved who all look at a common enemy for the countries issues. It is no secret to anyone whether extreme right or extreme left (or hopefully somewhere in the middle) that corporations have far too much influence on our political system. That doesn't mean corporations are evil, it just means they have corrupted the democratic process in the country, giving them far greater influence than they should have. I personally don't have any issue with people protesting against that and that seems to be the underlying current.
On top of that the protests represent frustration to me. People are upset, the economy stinks, people are struggling and there is very little leadership from anyone to get the ship back on course. Both parties fail the leadership test horribly by falling into their own dogmas and refusing to compromise. Obama has failed to deliver on his "hope and change" and that is as much his fault as it is the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. People are craving leadership and no one is delivering it, so they lash out against the system that they see as broken. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
If you ask me, I honestly think the country will see the birth of a third political party over the next decade. The Tea Party has corrupted the Republicans and taken it much further to the right, alienating the moderates (myself included). We may see this protest do the same thing to the Democrats, where the extreme left rides this movement to solidify its power, leaving behind the moderate Democrats (who are already alienated). That is a surefire recipe for a new party to emerge that will either take the extreme of an existing party, allowing that party to return to center or give rise to a "centrist" party that will pick up those alienated by the extremes of the existing parties.
Someone earlier said, give me a party that is pro-gay marriage, for gun control, pro-choice, etc. but still preaches fiscal conservancy and strong yet responsible foreign policy. Sign me up, because no one out there right now is delivering it and the "silent majority" that exists in the middle, that can compromise and get things done for everyone's benefit doesn't have a voice.
if that is part of the result of all of this, I think many of us can rejoice in celebration. I think the centrist ideals held by a lot of people that seem to remain quiet, partly because they have no polarizing messages to get media attention from FOX and MSNBA, partly because they simply aren't that confrontational about it, and partly becuase they have no real "special interest" representation, would be a wonderful formula for a third party. I don't personally see it happening, but if it does, kudos to your prediction!
All banks as a whole received $229.7 billion through various means. What was paid back was the direct cash infusions that were given to the largest banks to stabilize their balance sheets in the first days of the crisis. Holding this money also forced the banks to agree to sets of government rules regarding spending and compensation by the banks. What then happened was that the banks had to begin to prove that they were now stable and were authorized to return the direct cash infusions and free themselves of government control.
The portion that will never be repaid is the money that went through AIG and into the banks to begin to unravel the whole mortgage securities and credit default swap mess, of course this is the largest chunk of money.
So, the banks did pay back the money they were directly handed. What will never be paid back (and represents the lions share of the money) is the cash given to clean up all the toxic assets. The banks pulled the same accounting shell game that GM did to "pay back" the money. The toxic assets that made the direct cash infusion necessary were relieved by TARP money off their balance sheets, which essentially made the giant ball of cash they were handed unnecessary. GM did the same thing when they paid back the loan they were given with bailout money from a separate account.
***
I saw some posts earlier about whose "fault" the whole financial mess was. I think there is plenty of blame to go around and saying that people should have taken more personal responsibility is fine, but even though I lean conservative, the buck doesn't stop there.
The regulations should have never been loosened to allow the banks to make the risky loans in the first place. Once they were, the banks didn't have to make those loans. Once the loans were made they didn't need to bundle and securitize them. The securities didn't have to be stamped AAA by the ratings services. The insurance companies didn't have to agree to insure the defaults. The problem was that everyone was making too much money and getting what they wanted to stop it before it imploded.
The fault lies with everyone from the person buying the house to the bank making the loan to the government loosening regulations to the rating services to the insurance companies. Though as much as I want to preach personal responsibility, I simply don't hold the person who wanted the mortgage as accountable as I hold the system that allowed them to get it. When we talk about greed, this entire debacle was greed at its worst, people wanted things they couldn't afford and the entire system was more than happy to give it to them as long as they made their money. What makes it even worse is that in the end, the people who allowed it to happen by turning a blind eye never had to take responsibility for it. They were branded "too big to fail" and given a bailout, never to feel the personal pain that the people who took the mortgages were left to feel. Peoples lives were destroyed and the impact to them will be felt for at least a decade, while the industry that allowed it and facilitated it to happen is back to business as usual.
***
When it comes to the protesters, they aren't a unified force, hence the lack of a unified message. The reason for this is that there is a diverse group of people involved who all look at a common enemy for the countries issues. It is no secret to anyone whether extreme right or extreme left (or hopefully somewhere in the middle) that corporations have far too much influence on our political system. That doesn't mean corporations are evil, it just means they have corrupted the democratic process in the country, giving them far greater influence than they should have. I personally don't have any issue with people protesting against that and that seems to be the underlying current.
On top of that the protests represent frustration to me. People are upset, the economy stinks, people are struggling and there is very little leadership from anyone to get the ship back on course. Both parties fail the leadership test horribly by falling into their own dogmas and refusing to compromise. Obama has failed to deliver on his "hope and change" and that is as much his fault as it is the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. People are craving leadership and no one is delivering it, so they lash out against the system that they see as broken. This shouldn't surprise anyone. FDR didn't fix the economy in the Great Depression, heck some of his decisions may have made it worse, but he provided leadership and made people have faith again, even if they were living off of a cup of broth a day. That is what's needed, not quick fixes, because the government can't really fix it, but leadership to make people have faith and hope again.
If you ask me, I honestly think the country will see the birth of a third political party over the next decade. The Tea Party has corrupted the Republicans and taken it much further to the right, alienating the moderates (myself included). We may see this protest do the same thing to the Democrats, where the extreme left rides this movement to solidify its power, leaving behind the moderate Democrats (who are already alienated). That is a surefire recipe for a new party to emerge that will either take the extreme of an existing party, allowing that party to return to center or give rise to a "centrist" party that will pick up those alienated by the extremes of the existing parties.
Someone earlier said, give me a party that is pro-gay marriage, for gun control, pro-choice, etc. but still preaches fiscal conservancy and strong yet responsible foreign policy. Sign me up, because no one out there right now is delivering it and the "silent majority" that exists in the middle, that can compromise and get things done for everyone's benefit doesn't have a voice.
Excellent post. Some random thoughts on all of this. I don't think people cared that much in the past what bankers on wall street were making. The reason they care now is not class warfare, but the feeling that they had a big part in bringing down our economy, and they are back to business as usual, where so many in the country are still suffering from lack of jobs, hits to their 401K's, etc., all as a result of their actions.
Housing brought us into this mess, and it is far from being fixed. There are still significant numbers of foreclosures that have yet to hit the market. As prices continue to go down, more people are affected by it, and many of them did not buy above their means and had substantial down payments.
I also take issue with the idea that all wealthy people are "job creators"- I'm sure some are and some are not. Taxes on the wealthiest are quite low in comparison to what they have been in the past, so where are the jobs? We all know corporations are sitting on tons of money, and they're not hiring because the demand isn't there. To believe that if we lower their taxes, suddenly there will be tons of job creation is quite simplistic.
From my own work experience, I have seen the proliferation of companies buying out other companies, with the intent of stripping them to the bone and then re-selling to make a profit. Certainly these companies are not job creators. Other companies are laying off workers, and often not because they are hurting, but just to increase profits.
One of the issues is that executive pay is often structured in such a way that execs are concerned with making the most profit this month, even if that will hurt the company in the long run.
Throughout history, whenever there is a change in the balance of wealth, there has been social unrest. Unions arose because of horrible working conditions and poor pay. In recent years, the distribution of wealth has certainly changed - the small percentage at the top are making much more, and the rest of us are making less. I don't think most people care what the wealthy are making, as long as they feel they are getting their share for their efforts. When they see their salaries decreasing, while the top execs are getting more of the pie, there is anger. Yes, we need "job creators" and risk takers, but they need workers as well to run their companies.
People today are frustrated because they see that politicians on both sides of the aisle are selling them out to special interests, they are either unemployed or working harder for less, that the people who created this economic crisis have not paid any price for it.
you do realize that Solyndra was part of a program that was more than $20B and the program was started by GWB right? Solyndra was a piece of an overall successful program that Obama continued, and that tiny piece of it failed. Not everyone the government gives a tax break to is going to succeed with the money, that's true of tax cuts too.
Umm, it was on the table during the Bush Administration but never approved at all, and was actually put on hold before Bush left office.
sounds like JerseyMan got 4 hours of overtime already.
who are they attacking that "add money to the economy and provide jobs"? and how do those individuals add money to the economy? what jobs have they added?
hate to break it to you, but demand for a product creates jobs. read some malcom gladwell about the chance of who gets rich in the world.
Are you seriously asking how Wall Street, Investors etc. add to the economy?
very noble of him. at least he puts his money where his mouth is. but unemployment benefits are not an incentive to not work. especially not a skilled laborer or a college educated individual. sure, maybe a mcdonald's employee, but the amount you collect is enough to pay your basic bills if you're lucky. no one i know that has collected had any less desire to find a job. this is a good article though. to each their own.
maybe all the people saying they want less government should give up their social security, medicare, and public access to roads and all the goods transported on them. go live off the land in new hampshire.
From personal experience they most certainly are an incentive not to work. I have a few relatives who decided to kick back and not get a job until they were going to lose their benefits. I was talking to someone a few weeks ago who said his cousin just got a job when her benefits were ready to run out, he said she could've gotten a job easily a few years ago but decided to "chill".
From personal experience they most certainly are an incentive not to work. I have a few relatives who decided to kick back and not get a job until they were going to lose their benefits. I was talking to someone a few weeks ago who said his cousin just got a job when her benefits were ready to run out, he said she could've gotten a job easily a few years ago but decided to "chill".
I'd like to know where in NJ you can 'chill' on 1600 a month.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
