Occupy Wallstreet... and Bs As?

[dr__dawggy]

This has been an interesting thread and a lively discussion. I see both sides of the issue and can relate in some degree to both. It seems both the protesters and the tea party have a problem in that they can not really agree on a solution.

One thing is clear to me, the problem seems to be that big government and big business have been in a partnership that does not work well. The politicians ask for more power, and as their power increases they fall victim to power brokers and lobbyists who ask for, and are given special favors for their clients. This limits competition in the market, and is not capitalism.

The protesters have a right to complain, but I do not agree with their solutions, which require more government control and more unfairness. Who will be the people in power who will re-distribute the weallth? There will always be those in power who control the system, whatever it is, and they will be wealthy.

Concur with your statement re: the problem--Both the Tea Party and OWS groups agree on this much. But their proposed solutions differ radically.

 

[dennisr]

Correct me if I am wrong, having trouble understanding the big picture.

We have these losers protesting for help, free lunch I guess you could say. Response," life is not fair and get a job. We owe you nothing."

On the other side of the coin we have a bunch of suits get in their corporate jets in Detroit and fly to Washington DC in need of help: $30 billion loan. After a bunch of BS posturing, we write a check.

Did I get right?

 

[Joe]

Statement from Occupy Wall St read by Keith Obermann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded

 

[Joe]

Occupy Wall Street Arrests; Fox 5 Crew And Protesters Hit By Pepper Spary, Batons

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/occupy-wall-street-protest-broadens-scope-20111005#ixzz1a17uqcvX

Someone needs to tell the Cops that Fox News is not supposed to be batoned. Someone is going to lose that chance for promotion to lieutenant.

 

[steveinbsas]

Correct me if I am wrong, having trouble understanding the big picture.

We have these losers protesting for help, free lunch I guess you could say. Response," life is not fair and get a job. We owe you nothing."

On the other side of the coin we have a bunch of suits get in their corporate jets in Detroit and fly to Washington DC in need of help: $30 billion loan. After a bunch of BS posturing, we write a check.

Did I get right?

The $30 billion auto bailout (or in the case of GM, takeover) was not granted to save the jobs of the fat cats (corporate executives). Look what happened the the CEO of GM as a result. The bailout was primarily for the purpose of "saving" union jobs and pensions. The unions were also given stock in GM and the bondholders (aka the rich) were given the shaft.

Those providing the ideology for the Wall Street protesters are calling for the collapse of the banking system (which means the collapse of Capitalism).

I wonder how many union jobs that will create or save.

 

[mariposa]

looks like we don't need wall st protesters (i became one of them yesterday) to bring down the banking system. just read the papers.

 

[citygirl]

The loans were given to the US auto firms b/c the gov't made the decision that having all three fail would cause a potentially catastrophic blow to the US economy. Not doing anything would also probably have cost the US two or three times the amount of money they will presumably "lose" on the loans. If the companies had been allowed to go under, it probably would have cost the US gov't in excess of 28bn.

I also believe that Chrysler, this year, paid back 7.6 bn in loans to the US and Canadian gov'ts - 6 years ahead of schedule.

 

[dennisr]

So basically what you are saying, the government loaned the money to the suits so they could keep people working. Have I got that part right?

Where it get cloudy for me, the protesting losers are asking for the same thing: help? "Help me get back on my feet and ........"

 

[citygirl]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say?

The gov't (under Bush) made the decision to lend money to the three companies because it was their believe that if one or three failed, it would cause a catastrophic blow to the economy and not only would the companies themselves go out of business and thousands would lose jobs but their suppliers, etc would also go out of business.

I think we can agree that it was hardly the "suits' that were the only beneficiaries of this policy. Every worker at one of those companies, every supplier to those industries, was a beneficiary of them.

And maybe I've missed it but what exactly is the "helping hand" that the protestors are looking for?

I'm being completely serious here. I had no idea what the message was. SOmeone today explained to me that they're pissed off and want the liberal voice to be heard. Okay, totally get that and if that is the intent of the protests, kudos. It's working and the hot button issues are getting coverage.

But I still don't understand if there is any type of agenda. What are they hoping to accomplish beside getting their voice heard? Become a new political movement (ie,the liberal version of the Tea Party). Support candidates that will espouse their agenda (whenever they decide what it is)? Force change? Get a helping hand - what does that even mean?

 

[dr__dawggy]

The loans were given to the US auto firms b/c the gov't made the decision that having all three fail would cause a potentially catastrophic blow to the US economy. Not doing anything would also probably have cost the US two or three times the amount of money they will presumably "lose" on the loans. If the companies had been allowed to go under, it probably would have cost the US gov't in excess of 28bn.

I also believe that Chrysler, this year, paid back 7.6 bn in loans to the US and Canadian gov'ts - 6 years ahead of schedule.

It is very deceptive for GM to claim it paid back the loans.

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=26293

RE: the point that it would have cost the government more to have done nothing....

I offer you the example of Ford, which took no bail out money and survived on its own. That's what happens in capitalism...companies adapt or they die on their own. When government bails them out, companies have no incentive to make the changes necessary to make themselves stronger and more competitive.