# Wall Street Protesters are right



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The protesters at Wall Street are getting a lot of attention. The Conservative Talk Media is convincing people that those protesters are just kooks. It will be hard for them to get their message out. It cannot fit into a 6 second sound bite.

Let me give some personal background and then explain why we need drastic change.

Iâve held a job since I was 11. I have worked full time since I was 17. I graduated from high school and paid for a couple years at a trade school. 
I knew that the work I did made money for the business owner. I was glad to have a job and felt the owner should earn more than he could in a saving account, because he was taking some risk with his money.
Iâve seen Investors open factories in foreign countries. Iâve seen the World Bank loan money to countries for roads, bridges and hospitals that they couldnât afford. Iâve seen investors exploit those countriesâ natural resources and peasants as they tried to repay the interest on their loans.

Iâve taken out loans for motorcycles, cars and homes. I have paid the principal and interest, without fail. I understand that the reason for interest is because the bank is taking a risk. They deserve to make a profit. If they make risky loans they charge higher interest and suffer greater losses.
I saved money in banks and they paid me a much smaller interest than they charged. That is how Banks operate. 

I saw my government grow and in attempts to help the poor, subsidized their food, housing, daycare, medication and transportation. I willingly worked for my needs and paid for the needs of others through taxes. 
I wanted to have a job and live in a stable community, so I accepted the help my government gave to big business as a way to encourage economic growth. I had read about Henry Ford paying a good wage and plowing his profits into the worldâs largest building, the Rouge River Assembly Plant. That was how Capitalism works for everyone.

When I was earning $3.00 an hour, I could afford an apartment and a new car. I didnât care that the CEO made 40 times what I earned. To secure a future, I started a savings plan through my employer, a 401K. I was earning money in the Stock Market.

That was just good Capitalism. My savings went to help big businesses invest and make more products and I get a small portion of the profits as my thanks for the money. I owned shares. 

But things changed, just a little at a time, until now where it is spinning out of control.

CEOs were getting multi-million dollar bonuses, wages exceeding 4000 times what the workers earned, while the stockholders lost their capital. Factories closed in my hometown and sprang up in Mexico or China. I was no longer a part of this powerful Capitalistic country. I was shut out of the labor market. My skills now competed against other underemployed lost souls. The âwork hard and prosperâ no longer rang true. When I took that mortgage, Iâd expected to work hard until it was paid off. I stood firm when the homeâs value slipped below what I still owed on it. After my job left me, I scrambled for another job. No job is too low for me. These are tough times, we hang together and work through it.

But that is a lie. I see the lies now. Homes valued at above $2 million are retaining their values. It is the working class that are getting put out on the street because they canât sell their $80,000 home with a $90,000 mortgage. The monthly house payment has become three weeks wages. While the CEO of Home Depot gets fired from his multi- million dollar salary and takes a 20 million dollar severance package, because the business slipped from 17% market share to 14%. Those folks saving for the future with Home Depot stocks watched their retirement savings shrink.

Over and over. The oil companies run up profits to insane levels while workers lose their homes because it costs so much to drive to their jobs. General Motors gets bailed out by the taxpayer. Those nearing their retirement, saw their investments in General Motors slip from $50 a share to 50 cents. The taxpayer bailed them out and General Motors gave their CEO a $50 million bonus. People are too busy to notice 85% of our food is owned by 5 huge corporations.

200 years ago, if you didnât like the way a business was run, you could start your own. But that no longer applies to America. This country ranks 47th in disparity of wages from the rich to the poor. We are just a bit better than Bosnia and Haiti. We have become a nation of âHaves and Have-notsâ.
Now that the Government has bailed out the financial institutions, they have recovered, paid their executives thousands of times what the average wage earner makes, yet they choose to sit on their cash reserves, holding back any chance of economic growth. 

Conservatives like to brag that the richest 10% pay 50% of the taxes and 50% of the people pay no taxes at all. In the America I grew up in, that could mean only one thing. That 10% of the people are working hard and 50% are doing nothing. But look a bit deeper. For that 10% to be paying 50% of the taxes, they have to control over 50% of the money. Who is getting better use of the government? Our military that insures peace in far off lands protects the investments of the very rich. The highways provide cheap and rapid transport of products for the very rich.

When OPEC limited oil production in the 1970s, we got angry at the high price of crude oil. But no one thought about the Texas Oil Barons that were raking in the same high price for a barrel of oil as the Sheiks of Arabia. Even today, when oil hits $100 a barrel, we think about the Middle East screwing us. But in truth, most of our oil comes from North America. Corporate America is screwing the citizens. 

If half of the people in this country arenât paying income taxes, Iâd say they were poor and on some sort of assistance. Then there is the Super Rich, that are in the upper 10%. That leaves the 40% of us that are either lower middle class, middle class or fairly rich. For lack of a better word, letâs call this âMiddle Classâ. As corporate greed takes more jobs overseas, forcing wages here to drop, the number of poor will increase and the Middle class will shrink, leaving fewer people to pay for the welfare programs of the growing number of poor. But the Super Rich can still staff tax experts that keep them from paying too much taxes, plus they can continue to profit since they control the markets.

So, America is evolving to the home for many poor people, a few rich folks and the working poor. This is a perfect scenario if you need a pyramid built.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The Right has already stated, that sharing any common ground, at all, with the protesters, is, in effect, "sleeping with the enemy".

Their solution is to somehow, vote in a Conservative POTUS and everything will be just fine.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

The problem we all have is that none of them can agree on what they are protesting; in effect, they are making this circus themselves. While YOU may understand, a lot of THEM do not. Have you seen signs they are holding??? They are protesting everything from toast to cotton made clothes. Gives conservatives the feel that some folks are marching just to march. We also disagree with this being entirely the right's fault, while we accept some responsibility, it is blithely ignored how much of this was caused by the left, and in recent times no less.

ETA: forgot to add that the actions of these protestors is simply reprehensible...aside from defecating on a cop car there is a new pic of someone defecating on the ground, surrounded by his fellow protestors. Looting, trashing the area, public defecation, sex under blankets in the park, and a lady trouncing around topless because she claims it is her "lawful right" are just a few tidbits offered by this group.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> and a lady trouncing around topless because she claims it is her "lawful right"


And in NYC she is correct, it is.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

T, with the all the due respect I have come to have for you I still need to ask, even if that is lawful, does it make it right or acceptable at a big rally? Her push was that she can do that, not really for the cause in which she protested. It really takes away from the message that some are trying to send when people do things to advance...well, whatever (?). If this is lawful in NYC, what does it have to do with the "movement?" And why is she protesting if she can already do it? It is things like this that have conservatives questioning the validity of the whole movement.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Haypoint, excellent post!


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

:goodjob:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

beccachow said:


> T, with the all the due respect I have come to have for you I still need to ask, even if that is lawful, does it make it right or acceptable at a big rally? Her push was that she can do that, not really for the cause in which she protested. It really takes away from the message that some are trying to send when people do things to advance...well, whatever (?). If this is lawful in NYC, what does it have to do with the "movement?" And why is she protesting if she can already do it? It is things like this that have conservatives questioning the validity of the whole movement.


 Why do people open carry as a protest? Because someone else has decided that even though it's legal you still 'shouldn't' do it. As such the police will arrest or harass you for it. Same here. No reason we should have morality police in this nation. Not for boobs, or guns.

As a side note; there are plenty of people, men and women, I'd just as soon never see topless. I'd still support their rights... even if I didn't want to look at them while I did so.... LOL


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> Why do people open carry as a protest? Because someone else has decided that even though it's legal you still 'shouldn't' do it. As such the police will arrest or harass you for it. Same here. No reason we should have morality police in this nation. Not for boobs, or guns.
> 
> As a side note; there are plenty of people, men and women, I'd just as soon never see topless. I'd still support their rights... even if I didn't want to look at them while I did so.... LOL


But when they open carry in protest, it is to protest Gun Laws. Again, I ask...what does being topless have to do with Wall Street?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

beccachow said:


> T, with the all the due respect I have come to have for you I still need to ask, even if that is lawful, does it make it right or acceptable at a big rally? Her push was that she can do that, not really for the cause in which she protested. It really takes away from the message that some are trying to send when people do things to advance...well, whatever (?). If this is lawful in NYC, what does it have to do with the "movement?" And why is she protesting if she can already do it? It is things like this that have conservatives questioning the validity of the whole movement.


Oh, I'm sure she's just an exhibitionist, and I really don't want to see her boobies...I agree with you on this, it doesn't really prove any point at all re: ows...I was just saying  Personally, I prefer not to see random dudes hanging out topless either....unless I get to decide who does and who doesn't


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Haypoint
You have some valid points, and I was inclined to believe the Wall Streeters were just protesting as is their right.
However, the unions are now involved, and when organized crime gets involved, I start looking for ulterior motives.
Then there is the fact that it's gone on for weeks and doesn't look like it's letting up, not to mention, a lot of them are being paid to be there.
They are destroying small businesses, invading homes, crapping int he streets, ruining lives and livelihoods, and accomplishing nothing else.
All that leads me to not trust the whole thing, as much as I'd like to take it at face value.
You must admit that when the unions and Obamaco get behind something, it's not good for anybody but them.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

beccachow said:


> But when they open carry in protest, it is to protest Gun Laws. Again, I ask...what does being topless have to do with Wall Street?


 She gets harassed when she walks topless down Wall St? I'm guessing, but it is like gun laws. She's protesting mammary discrimination... LMAO


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Why do people worry about how much a CEO makes? If he/she worked for nothing it would not put one cent more in your pocket unless you own stock in the company and get dividends. How much less would gas cost of the oil companies didn't get one dime of profit? Probably around 20 cents per gallon at today's prices. Would cutting that profit down to 10 cents make you whiners feel better? That would save you 2 bucks on 20 gallon. How about cutting your gas consumption down to 10 gallon and saving the 2 bucks yourself plus the rest of the cost of 10 gallons of gas. Why whine because BofA charges 5 bucks a month to use their debit card? Take responsibility and get a different bank. These wall street protesters are no different than the rioters in Greece. We are broke and the freebies will have to end. The protesters, like those in Greece, want their freebies to continue no matter the end result to our country. Despicable, self-centered, and greedy people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> what does being topless have to do with Wall Street?


Some of them *ARE* complaining about others having more.....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Haypoint
> You have some valid points, and I was inclined to believe the Wall Streeters were just protesting as is their right.
> However, the unions are now involved, and when organized crime gets involved, I start looking for ulterior motives.
> Then there is the fact that it's gone on for weeks and doesn't look like it's letting up, not to mention, a lot of them are being paid to be there.
> ...


With communist orgs as well as socialists behind them...and all their socialist signs...its NOT an American movement.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Excellent post haypoint. That explains it well for the majority of folks going through hardtimes.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

haypoint said:


> The protesters at Wall Street are getting a lot of attention. The Conservative Talk Media is convincing people that those protesters are just kooks. It will be hard for them to get their message out. It cannot fit into a 6 second sound bite.
> 
> Let me give some personal background and then explain why we need drastic change.
> 
> ...


You nailed it!

I think we are seeing a financial coup taking place in our country.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

fishhead said:


> You nailed it!
> 
> I think we are seeing a financial coup taking place in our country.


I've come to the conclusion that the financial coup took place with the advent of economic globalization. That's the point when taxpayers/citizens lost their power to governments and corporations.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

beccachow said:


> T, with the all the due respect I have come to have for you I still need to ask, even if that is lawful, does it make it right or acceptable at a big rally? Her push was that she can do that, not really for the cause in which she protested. It really takes away from the message that some are trying to send when people do things to advance...well, whatever (?). If this is lawful in NYC, what does it have to do with the "movement?" And why is she protesting if she can already do it? It is things like this that have conservatives questioning the validity of the whole movement.


It is lawful to open carry a firearm at a t party rally.What is the difference between the two?


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

So you think you deserve as much as the CEO's? Are people greedy? Yes, every time they want what someone else has. If you didn't like the the CEO making more money than you - why did you take the job? It seems to me that you agreed to the job knowing what the pay would be and are now complaining because they get to take more. 
Have people taken advantage of the worker- yes. It's also our desire for cheap products that drove manufacturing out of our country. If we hadn't bought those cheaper products, the corps couldn't have stayed in business. Greed comes in many flavors. I think the American worker has been just as greedy as their CEO's.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Excellent post, Haypoint!

Companies that "needed" bailouts shouldn't have the spare cash lying around to give CEO bonuses that are equal to the national budgets of 3rd world nations. 

If I underperformed at work, I would be shown the door and there would be little or no compensation...just unemployment. If the CEO's are not directing the companies to success, then they should receive the same. 

The sad thing is that the CEO's underperform and get $20 million severance packages. The workers who DID their job everyday are let go without any support other than unemployment. If the companies didn't pay the severance, then maybe they'd have a little cash to keep the workers employed. Instead, they take good care of their ex-CEO's and the workers get the shaft. Those same CEO's end up at the helm of another company ten minutes later and the whole process repeats.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It's not envy. It's the realization that the system is unfair and only working Americans are forced to sacrifice while the wealthy continue to grow fatter and fatter.

Make $4 BILLION in a single year on stocks and pay a 15% federal tax rate.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

fishhead said:


> You nailed it!
> 
> I think we are seeing a financial coup taking place in our country.


Then what?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

fishhead said:


> It's not envy. It's the realization that the system is unfair and only working Americans are forced to sacrifice while the wealthy continue to grow fatter and fatter.
> 
> Make $4 BILLION in a single year on stocks and pay a 15% federal tax rate.


15% of 4 billion is a lot of money


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TheMartianChick said:


> Excellent post, Haypoint!
> 
> Companies that "needed" bailouts shouldn't have the spare cash lying around to give CEO bonuses that are equal to the national budgets of 3rd world nations.
> 
> ...


I may be wrong, but hasn't the majority of that money been paid back already?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

poppy said:


> Why do people worry about how much a CEO makes? If he/she worked for nothing it would not put one cent more in your pocket unless you own stock in the company and get dividends. How much less would gas cost of the oil companies didn't get one dime of profit? Probably around 20 cents per gallon at today's prices. Would cutting that profit down to 10 cents make you whiners feel better? That would save you 2 bucks on 20 gallon. How about cutting your gas consumption down to 10 gallon and saving the 2 bucks yourself plus the rest of the cost of 10 gallons of gas. Why whine because BofA charges 5 bucks a month to use their debit card? Take responsibility and get a different bank. These wall street protesters are no different than the rioters in Greece. We are broke and the freebies will have to end. The protesters, like those in Greece, want their freebies to continue no matter the end result to our country. Despicable, self-centered, and greedy people.


We are annoyed that CEOs run companies into the ground and still walk away with multi-million dollar severance packages after destroying the lives of people who invested heavily in said companies. - Think Enron and World Com here. Billions lost thousands out of work and what had been a nice investment in their future (ie company stock that they worked hard for) now all gone leaving them with nothing and too small not to fail so they get ZERO help - unless you call the pittance (sp?) they receive in Un-employment while trying to figure out how to re-assmble their shambles of a life now that the CEO has used abused and stolen almost everyhting from them.

But hey you defend them all you want Poppy.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

You will pay 15% federal tax IF you are.....

Single making $8,500-$34,500 by working and producing a product.

OR

Single making $4,000,000,000 on stocks.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> With communist orgs as well as socialists behind them...and all their socialist signs...its NOT an American movement.


Actualy it is an American Movement. 

Just because you disagree does not make it not American.

Communist Capitalists, Nazis, Socialists, Anarchists, Theocrats, all exist in the USA. All can say what they wish. It is called freedom.

Something I thought the right was supposed to care about.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ok can we have all the nutcases move to the left, we'll put all of sane people on the right.... and I want a Pony.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

I still dont understand what the "99%" is protesting about? It was the government that bailed out the banks, car companies, insurance etc.

They are barking up the wrong tree.

Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.
Ayn Rand


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Ok can we have all the nutcases move to the left, we'll put all of sane people on the right.... and I want a Pony.


Can I have a unicorn? I just know that the rich people are hiding them at MJ's manison.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

I think it is funny that some people think that the gov forced the banks, wall street, and car companies to take the money. If that was true, why didn't Ford take any. If you look close, the companies that took the money all have/have had people in government working for them. The banks, wall street, and multinational companies run the government. Look at GE, BOA, and goldman sacs, those are obvious.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

poppy said:


> Why do people worry about how much a CEO makes? If he/she worked for nothing it would not put one cent more in your pocket unless you own stock in the company and get dividends. How much less would gas cost of the oil companies didn't get one dime of profit? Probably around 20 cents per gallon at today's prices.* Would cutting that profit down to 10 cents make you whiners feel better?* That would save you 2 bucks on 20 gallon. How about cutting your gas consumption down to 10 gallon and saving the 2 bucks yourself plus the rest of the cost of 10 gallons of gas. Why whine because BofA charges 5 bucks a month to use their debit card? Take responsibility and get a different bank. These wall street protesters are no different than the rioters in Greece. We are broke and the freebies will have to end. The protesters, like those in Greece, want their freebies to continue no matter the end result to our country. Despicable, self-centered, and greedy people.


Many companies are working less then that on Profit margin. But all they hear about is how much the ceo makes. Well he makes those high wages so that company CAN MAKE a profit, and keep it going.
This talk about oh my the ceo's make X amount. Big deal YOU people that whine like that go OUT AND GET HIS job then and see how easy it is.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

7thswan said:


> Ok can we have all the nutcases move to the left, we'll put all of sane people on the right.... and I want a Pony.


Except that the left has plenty of sane people.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Many companies are working less then that on Profit margin. But all they hear about is how much the ceo makes. Well he makes those high wages so that company CAN MAKE a profit, and keep it going.
> This talk about oh my the ceo's make X amount. Big deal YOU people that whine like that go OUT AND GET HIS job then and see how easy it is.


Easier than you'd think when screwing up and failing still nets you 20million dollars.

Just sayin.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Easier than you'd think when screwing up and failing still nets you 20million dollars.
> 
> Just sayin.


So?
Who cares what somebody else makes?
Is that how you judge your life by how well others are doing?
If others do better, are they to be dragged down to your level to make it "fair"?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Except that the left has plenty of sane people.


Name one :hysterical:


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Curtis B said:


> I think it is funny that some people think that the gov forced the banks, wall street, and car companies to take the money. If that was true, why didn't Ford take any. If you look close, the companies that took the money all have/have had people in government working for them. The banks, wall street, and multinational companies run the government. Look at GE, BOA, and goldman sacs, those are obvious.


So you don't blame the "drug dealer" (the gov) but blame the "druggie"(Wall Street) for taking what the "drug dealer" offered?

Strange, I blame both, but want to take out the "drug dealer", not the "druggie".

Yet these protesters are blaming the "druggie", but not the "drug dealer", why is that?

I believe the answer is because they are "friends" (not meant literally) with the "drug dealer" and what they provide and doesn't like the "druggie" and their money..

So tell me again what these protests are really about?
Obama didn't have to make Imelt (sp) chairman of the Competitive board, but he did. Why?

Could it be the same guy you hold up as supporter is actually part of the problem. Yet I don't see any protests of him, wonder why?

Or How about Harvard have Billions in it's trust funds, yet continually raising tuition exceeding the rate of inflation and these protesters are protesting the costs of tuition and yet no one is protesting Harvard, wonder why?

I can only assume they are all "friends" of the "drug dealer"!


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> So?
> Who cares what somebody else makes?
> *Is that how you judge your life by how well others are doing?*If others do better, are they to be dragged down to your level to make it "fair"?


No but clearly the right does. 

Whining constantly about welfare queens getting hundreds of dollars while they give corporations millions or billions.

Complaining that it isn;t fair that some people are poor and hence dragging them down by causing them to have to pay "GASP!" taxes.

Sounds to me like the right has a big problem with how other people live as often as they carp over it.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

My goal is to be upper middle class, but whats the point?
Somebody else will want it, take it, demand it!!!
What's the point in working hard, working your way up the ladder? Finding your pot of gold? Only to give it to leeches?


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> So you don't blame the "drug dealer" (the gov) but blame the "druggie"(Wall Street) for taking what the "drug dealer" offered?
> 
> Strange, I blame both, but want to take out the "drug dealer", not the "druggie".
> 
> ...


Mine in Bold

you never commented on this.....


"If you look close, the companies that took the money all have/have had people in government working for them. The banks, wall street, and multinational companies run the government. Look at GE, BOA, and goldman sacs, those are obvious."

Do you disagree with it also?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wwubben said:


> It is lawful to open carry a firearm at a t party rally.What is the difference between the two?


Not in California. It's against the law to open carry thanks to Democrat Portantino, and democratic govenor Jerry Brown. Guess they don't understand the constitution they swore to uphold! The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed! Is it that hard to understand? The protesters here in LA have caused an estimated $50,000.00 in property damage to the city hall, yet their not being held liable, they have no permit, and the police decided that they don't want a confontation with them. So instead of the police doing their job, they decided to be the judge and ignore the law! Set's a precident now though!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The OWS protests are disorganized but so were the Vietnam War protests when they started. These protestors are making their presence known. I think they have come to realize that the cavalry isn't coming - certainly not led by the Republicans or Democrats -and at the very least they are allowing their voices and anger to be heard. All those protesting are not hippies or students who haven't a clue. More and more of "real" Americans are agreeing because they see the real cause and effect of the political posturing and plutocracy.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> The protesters at Wall Street are getting a lot of attention. The Conservative Talk Media is convincing people that those protesters are just kooks. It will be hard for them to get their message out. It cannot fit into a 6 second sound bite.
> 
> Let me give some personal background and then explain why we need drastic change.
> 
> ...


Good post!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Where do people get the idea that working class Americans are leeches? or lazy?

Where?

Do you seriously believe that everyone who is getting assistance is lazy?


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

fishhead said:


> Where do people get the idea that working class Americans are leeches? or lazy?
> 
> Where?
> 
> Do you seriously believe that everyone who is getting assistance is lazy?


Only the ones that don't have conservative beliefs are lazy, at least that is what I keep hearing here.

Ways to not be lazy.......

Be a conservative
Blame Obama every chance you have for everything you can
Don't protest
Hate everyone that is OWS
Belong to the Tea Party
Give everyone against Obama a pass


I will try to think of more:icecream:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Curtis B said:


> Only the ones that don't have conservative beliefs are lazy, at least that is what I keep hearing here.
> 
> Ways to not be lazy.......
> 
> ...


 I really need to get on board with that system. It's a lot of work thinking for myself and pointing to the failings of both sides of the isle. It's more work still trying to get people to understand there shouldn't be only two sides of an isle...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think it is funny that some people think that the gov forced the banks, wall street, and car companies to take the money.


No one mentioned Wall Street or car companies

Why spin everything when you could easily look up the TRUTH?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/economy/tarp_takeback/index.htm



> Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Bank of New York/Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) - all 'mega-banks' that *the government forced to take bailout money *- say they want to return taxpayer funds "as soon as practical."
> 
> But, they're well aware no one will be permitted to return funds before completion of regulatory "stress-tests" of the major banks to determine how they would withstand a severe recession.
> 
> ...


Many more examples:

http://www.google.com/webhp?complet....,cf.osb&fp=fe49d561ad75bea3&biw=1016&bih=522


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> So?
> Who cares what somebody else makes?
> Is that how you judge your life by how well others are doing?
> If others do better, are they to be dragged down to your level to make it "fair"?


 They didn't 'do better'! They bankrupted companies and got my money to bail them out. That's why we care. Most of us weren't screaming about what bank CEO's made before the collapse. It's that they took my money to pay bonuses and salaries AFTER it.

You don't like welfare for the poor but you would defend welfare for the rich?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> sex under blankets in the park, and a lady trouncing around topless


Ok, you had me up to this point.... but I really dont see a problem with these last two.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Do you seriously believe that everyone who is getting assistance is lazy?


Nope, some of us are not physically able to work any longer.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

We know the solution. We just can't find a Presidential candidate.



> &#8220;Today, in my country, particularly in the last few years, a new seductive idea has come on the scene,&#8221; she told the World Knowledge Forum, hosted by the Maeil Business Newspaper in Seoul. &#8220;It i*nvolves the growing collaboration between big business, big finance, big government and big union bosses.*&#8221;
> 
> Speaking before a packed hotel convention hall, Ms. Palin urged Americans and other people around the world to *fight a system that doesn&#8217;t reward &#8220;honest hard work&#8221; but is &#8220;favoring the politically connected*.&#8221;
> 
> ...





> ... she railed against *&#8220;crony capitalism&#8221; in both parties*. She suggested that the *&#8220;permanent political class&#8221; &#8212; Republicans, too &#8212; needed to be rattled.*
> 
> &#8220;You know that it&#8217;s not enough to just change up the uniform,&#8221; Ms. Palin said. &#8220;If we don&#8217;t change the team and the game plan we won&#8217;t save our country.&#8221;
> 
> ...


Way to much blaming the banks and not enough blaming the government. We truly have a government bought and paid for by special interests. Congress should create a special counsel to go after graft, bribery, and any other crime related to government.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> We know the solution. We just can't find a Presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So we should get the corrupt people to fix the corruption? This is the problem I keep running into whenever I see a good solution like yours.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Curtis B said:


> Mine in Bold
> 
> you never commented on this.....
> 
> ...


Obviously you didn't read what I posted! The second sentence in what I posted;

"Strange, I blame both, but want to take out the "drug dealer", not the "druggie"."

You comment about the dealer going out of business, isn't true.. I don't eat at McDonalds or do drugs, yet they both still exist..

As to those working in Government, well duh! Just look who Obama sits with.. Again you are protesting the wrong people.. Just like most drug companies do these days.. They make drugs for the symptoms and not the cause of the problem..

That is the same thing that these Useless Idiots are doing now by protesting Wall Street and not protesting the problem.. 

I don't see these protests in DC or at any of the schools. Which tells me that these protesters just want something for nothing.. Or in plain english for you, Socialism... 

Take from those you deem "to rich" and give it to those who are too lazy to work for it..

Typical carp! I can't and won't support any one or system that works that way.. 

So why did those that support these protests also support the bailouts? Imagine that talking out both sides of their mouths...

When you start trying to stop the wasteful spending by the "drug dealer" then maybe you will get my support, till then I will do what ever it takes to stop the Socialism and defend the Constitution!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ok,say I'm having a blond moment. Why did we bail out a bunch of banks that have so much money? I meen,these people want $ from banks that are so broke that they got bail outs? Does anyone see the logic here.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Fowler said:


> Can I have a unicorn? I just know that the rich people are hiding them at MJ's manison.


Unicorn poo,now That has to be Great for the Garden!


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> Obviously you didn't read what I posted! The second sentence in what I posted;
> 
> "Strange, I blame both, but want to take out the "drug dealer", not the "druggie"."
> 
> ...


There will allways be a drug dealer

Until you learn to actualy read what people write, and listen to what people say, rather than read into it, you will never realize how many potential allies you have.


BTW you really sound like a what you say is a "liberal".

If a person shoots themself in the head, do you also blame the gunmaker.
If a person takes out too many loans and can't pay them back do you also blame the bank?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> So we should get the corrupt people to fix the corruption? This is the problem I keep running into whenever I see a good solution like yours.


Name something that has a better possibility than an independent counsel?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Name something that has a better possibility than an independent counsel?


 You've got me intrigued here. What do you mean, details man details!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> You've got me intrigued here. What do you mean, details man details!


The Republicans have talked about an Independent Counsel to look into Fast and Furious, so why could't there be one to look into "clean energy" including Solyndra and one to look into the bailouts. Find out if any laws were broken and file charges if there were.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The Republicans have talked about an Independent Counsel to look into Fast and Furious, so why could't there be one to look into "clean energy" including Solyndra and one to look into the bailouts. Find out if any laws were broken and file charges if there were.


 Oh, I think something like this is good on the face but falls short of it's intended goals. It's that the money in these things can be traced back to either side and more often than not these investigations lead us to nothing useful. Fast and Furious and those are an exception, because Obama forgot the cardinal rule here. Someone has to be making money or you aren't getting protection.

I was thinking of a national referendum to deal with Congress. I'm not sure how that would work though. Can you petition Congress? If you could get 10 million signatures could you force a special vote that everyone in America gets a say in? Is there something like this that would serve the people to get Congress and the like held accountable? (I know elections, but we need to change laws here that give power to Congress) 

Anything else is just asking the corrupt to police themselves better.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> No but clearly the right does.
> 
> Whining constantly about welfare queens getting hundreds of dollars while they give corporations millions or billions.
> 
> ...


Again, haven't most of the "bailouts" been paid back?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> Again, haven't most of the "bailouts" been paid back?


I think a lot of them are.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Again, haven't most of the "bailouts" been paid back?


 No, a lot of TARP has been paid back. The bailouts encompass far more than just the TARP program. 

We can start by looking at the QE series. Quantitative Easing is where the Fed buys financial assets at or above face value in an effort to increase inflation. That's right, it's designed to create inflation! But what is the main effect of QE in America? It is that the banks (the ones that were already bailed out, and sold junk to Fannie and Freddie) get to dump even more of their toxic MBS's on the US tax payer, and they get above face value!

So no, the bailouts aren't paid back and they never will be. The Fed has purposely created over a trillion dollars to buy MBS's and paid more than they were worth, again on purpose. Those folks that sold the securities to the Fed made a killing on bad bets, and we get the privilege of footing the bill by way of inflation.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Callieslamb said:


> So you think you deserve as much as the CEO's? Are people greedy? Yes, every time they want what someone else has. If you didn't like the the CEO making more money than you - why did you take the job? It seems to me that you agreed to the job knowing what the pay would be and are now complaining because they get to take more.
> Have people taken advantage of the worker- yes. It's also our desire for cheap products that drove manufacturing out of our country. If we hadn't bought those cheaper products, the corps couldn't have stayed in business. Greed comes in many flavors. I think the American worker has been just as greedy as their CEO's.


Fair is fair. If I take a job for $8,000 a year and the CEO makes $800,000., I'm fine with that. But when the factory closes and the job goes to Mexico and the price of the product doesn't change and the Mexican wage is $2000 a year and the CEO gets $8, 000,000. I get the feeling we are going down the wrong path.
When most companies are making record profits and sitting on record cash reserves, we have an imbalance of trade with China thats trillions of dollars that we can't repay, I think we are headed for trouble.

Free Trade Agreement hasn't helped anyone I know. How about you, has it helped any?

The NEWS Media will report some kook that crapped on the ground or a guy with a legal gun or a gal with her boobies showing. Anything to distract from the message.

We invest our savings for our future and Wall Street insiders strip us of our money. CEOs strip us of our jobs and build Villas with their bonuses.

If the price of fuel only changes a few cents, as you claim, how can the price of the raw product vary from $45 a barrel to over a hundred? Who makes the money? Often times it is the futures traders that run up the price by buying up forward contracts and holding them. If enough people do it together, it works. I have no control over how much fuel I buy, I have to drive to work.

Keep it up and we'll get our jobs back from China. Just get ready to bike to work from your one room apartment with three generations living together. That's how they do it in China.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Fowler said:


> I still dont understand what the "99%" is protesting about? It was the government that bailed out the banks, car companies, insurance etc.
> 
> They are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> ...


Yup, we should blame the government. But take a moment and look to see who's pulling the strings on those Washingtom puppets. You can change puppets all you want, it won't change anything. Focus on those pulling strings.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> The Republicans have talked about an Independent Counsel to look into Fast and Furious, so why could't there be one to look into "clean energy" including Solyndra and one to look into the bailouts. Find out if any laws were broken and file charges if there were.


I think there is one doing this...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Curtis B said:


> There will allways be a drug dealer
> 
> Until you learn to actualy read what people write, and listen to what people say, rather than read into it, you will never realize how many potential allies you have.
> 
> ...


Nice try to twist the truth, but if that is all you have, then you've lost already..

The only reason I want to shut down the drug dealer is because he stole my money and wasted it by giving it to his backers, big Corps, Banking Friend.. Yea I know that you won't believe it, but Liberals are for big business and big Union bosses.. They aren't really for the working folks unless you work for one of the above..
These protesters are really protesting against the liberal idiot they put into power.. Obama has collected something like a Billion dollars for his reelection campaign, yet he sides the protesters against big business and big banking.
Do you think he is lying to someone? I'll bet it's the protesters, because they surely haven't given him that Billion dollars for his reelection..

So who do you think he is going to back by his actions? If his past actions are any sign (and they are) then he is going to do exactly what he has done thus far.. Lie to protesters while backing and giving money to Big Corporations and Big Banking and changing the Regs to benefit the same, while hurting the small/local business and banking/FCU's

Yet they won't protest in DC against those that keep giving money to the Big Corps and Big Banking. You cry about Corporate monopolies, yet the same liberal folks you elect keep giving the Corporations the money to drive out small business.. 

They sit there and lie to you and the protesters, yet you want to go after the CEO's of a few businesses and not the real culprits...

These same politicians and Corporations want a Socialist society and you are willing to give it to them..

I on the other hand won't and will fight you and anyone that violates the Constitution..

So tell me where in the Constitution does it say to steal from one and give to another?

Oh that's right it doesn't and is the liberal perverted view of the "general welfare" clause that has led to this..

So go for it! I will defend the Constitution to the end of my life! No matter who is trying to violate it, be it you, or the liberals or the Dems, or the GOP..

It makes no difference to me who the enemies of the Constitution are, they are still enemies... If I die defending the Constitution, then I die with honor and purpose.. If that means fighting against the Socialism that the protesters and you seem to want, then so be it...

Either you believe in the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Government or you don't..


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Yup, we should blame the government. But take a moment and look to see who's pulling the strings on those Washingtom puppets. You can change puppets all you want, it won't change anything. Focus on those pulling strings.


Nobody can pull the strings unless the "Washington puppets" willingly take the payoff. Washington is where you go if you're wanting to court all sorts of big payoff offers. Don't fool yourself. They're all for sale, to the highest bidder. It would be really difficult to bribe a bunch of politicians who wouldn't take bribes, now, wouldn't it? Look at it this way, if you could pay a local commissioner a thousand bucks in order to secure a million for yourself, or your neighbor will pay said commissioner a thousand which will end up costing you a million..... who's fault is it that the commissioner ends up with a thousand dollars? Yours? your neighbors? Nope, its the commissioner's fault, because he is the one who is supposed to represent the voters of the county, but instead is selling himself for a thousand bucks. Use bigger numbers and call then senators instead of commissioners. That's DC for you. A cesspool of graft and corruption.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

fishhead said:


> http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html
> 
> You will pay 15% federal tax IF you are.....
> 
> ...


$34,500 at 15% is $5175

$4,000,000,000 at 15% is $600,000,000

How much more do you think the person with 4 Billion in stocks. They probably meant 4 Million, but still $6 or $600 Million in taxes is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

Fowler said:


> My goal is to be upper middle class, but whats the point?
> Somebody else will want it, take it, demand it!!!
> What's the point in working hard, working your way up the ladder? Finding your pot of gold? Only to give it to leeches?


:thumb::thumb:


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

fishhead said:


> Where do people get the idea that working class Americans are leeches? or lazy?
> 
> Where?
> 
> Do you seriously believe that everyone who is getting assistance is lazy?


Not all, but the ones driving the Caddy Escalade to the food bank with their baby daddy in tow. The ones that are on their 2nd or 3rd generation of welfare without ever having a job to pay into the system, yet can game the system like a champ. 
And the ones using their EBT/Food stamps to buy all nice to have's and not need to have's in their basket. Yep, I call that lazy.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Yup, we should blame the government. But take a moment and look to see who's pulling the strings on those Washingtom puppets. You can change puppets all you want, it won't change anything. Focus on those pulling strings.


Soros?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Soros?


Koch?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

InvalidID said:


> They didn't 'do better'! They bankrupted companies and got my money to bail them out. That's why we care. Most of us weren't screaming about what bank CEO's made before the collapse. It's that they took my money to pay bonuses and salaries AFTER it.
> 
> You don't like welfare for the poor but you would defend welfare for the rich?


I'm not defending anything, just trying to understand what's going to happen if the wall streeters succeed in destroying the "rich"


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Koch?


Soros and Koch?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm not defending anything, just trying to understand what's going to happen if the wall streeters succeed in destroying the "rich"


 Yep, you go on and defend corporate welfare and call it destroying the rich. You can't understand that trillions of dollars was printed to bailout companies that ran themselves into the ground then I suppose you get the representatives you deserve.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Soros and Koch?


 And Rockefeller and Sacks and....


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> And Rockefeller and Sacks and....


The list goes on and On and on.

Both sides are corrupted by this and the SCOTUSA says corporations are people and can give give give to whichever person is going to continue to hold us down while we are gang raped by them.

The whole elections system is flawed. Too much money too many "special" interests.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> The list goes on and On and on.
> 
> Both sides are corrupted by this and the SCOTUSA says corporations are people and can give give give to whichever person is going to continue to hold us down while we are gang raped by them.
> 
> The whole elections system is flawed. Too much money too many "special" interests.


By the same token it allowed Union Bosses to back political candidates..

So that makes 2 wrong decisions in my opinion..If you make it only individuals should be allowed to donate to political campaigns, I wouldn't have a problem. But as it stands the Unions can donate and up til the SCOTUS decided to allow Corporations to donate, it was one sided.. Now both corrupt sides can donate, so eliminate both from donating....


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> By the same token it allowed Union Bosses to back political candidates..
> 
> So that makes 2 wrong decisions in my opinion..If you make it only individuals should be allowed to donate to political campaigns, I wouldn't have a problem. But as it stands the Unions can donate and up til the SCOTUS decided to allow Corporations to donate, it was one sided.. Now both corrupt sides can donate, so eliminate both from donating....


Sounds good to me. Any abuse by either side is wrong because all it does is lead to the type of situation we have now.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> Sounds good to me. Any abuse by either side is wrong because all it does is lead to the type of situation we have now.


Well we can agree on that!


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Well we can agree on that!


We agree?? Whoa, that's wierd huh?:bouncy::goodjob:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

zong said:


> Nobody can pull the strings unless the "Washington puppets" willingly take the payoff. Washington is where you go if you're wanting to court all sorts of big payoff offers. Don't fool yourself. They're all for sale, to the highest bidder. It would be really difficult to bribe a bunch of politicians who wouldn't take bribes, now, wouldn't it? Look at it this way, if you could pay a local commissioner a thousand bucks in order to secure a million for yourself, or your neighbor will pay said commissioner a thousand which will end up costing you a million..... who's fault is it that the commissioner ends up with a thousand dollars? Yours? your neighbors? Nope, its the commissioner's fault, because he is the one who is supposed to represent the voters of the county, but instead is selling himself for a thousand bucks. Use bigger numbers and call then senators instead of commissioners. That's DC for you. A cesspool of graft and corruption.


I think you are agreeing with me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Something is out of wack.
Recently, I've been in the Metro Detroit area. I see hundreds of empty factory buildings, empty apartments, rows of empty houses, but full parking lots around big shiny office buildings with names like JP Morgan/Chase, PNC, CityCorp.

How can a society exist when the workers are locked out and those that shuffle paper grow in numbers.

There was a Financial Institution on the news today. I didn't catch the name. They were making a huge one time profit theough some paper shuffle, but they were going to set aside money for severance packages for all employees, so that can't be counted as profit. I almost ran off the road, when I heard the amount they are setting aside, $250,000. per employee.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Everything that is being done. Has been done is ALL within the Tax Code and Legal. Change The Tax Code and you change what is going on today.
And guess what The Fairtax and the 9-9-9 plans do?
They Both will Change the Tax code.~!
Good for everybody. 
Do nothing, and everything stays the same and is business as usual.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/280249/a-day-in-the-life-mr-brainwash

Towards the end of the Daily Show, Ellen Schultz explains how Corp. steal Retirement funds. She has a book, Retirement Heist.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Everything that is being done. Has been done is ALL within the Tax Code and Legal. Change The Tax Code and you change what is going on today.
> And guess what The Fairtax and the 9-9-9 plans do?
> They Both will Change the Tax code.~!
> Good for everybody.
> Do nothing, and everything stays the same and is business as usual.


 Close but no. It wasn't all legal. I've pointed out before how the CMO's and MBS's were flawed and illegal. If you can't prove who owns the mortgage on a home you can't foreclose. The person living in the home, even if they make all their payments can't really sell either. If you can't prove legal title the property is worthless and almost anything you do with it is illegal.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

InvalidID said:


> Yep, you go on and defend corporate welfare and call it destroying the rich. You can't understand that trillions of dollars was printed to bailout companies that ran themselves into the ground then I suppose you get the representatives you deserve.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of "corporate welfare"
The wall streeters are protesting the wrong people, they should be protesting Congress and Obamaco.
The wall streeters think if they bring down the rich, they will somehow have it better, like all that money will fall into their laps.
Once again, I'll ask, when the rich fall, then what?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Something is out of wack.
> Recently, I've been in the Metro Detroit area. I see hundreds of empty factory buildings, empty apartments, rows of empty houses, but full parking lots around big shiny office buildings with names like JP Morgan/Chase, PNC, CityCorp.
> 
> How can a society exist when the workers are locked out and those that shuffle paper grow in numbers.
> ...


Thank the unions for Detroit.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of "corporate welfare"
> The wall streeters are protesting the wrong people, they should be protesting Congress and Obamaco.
> The wall streeters think if they bring down the rich, they will somehow have it better, like all that money will fall into their laps.
> Once again, I'll ask, when the rich fall, then what?


 While I agree with a lot of what you said, I feel the need to point out it wasn't just Obama's administration that caused this mess. 

If the rich failed what would happen? New rich would take their place of course. Moneyed families and politicians didn't build this nation, and they were never the reason it was great. It was the American spirit that made this nation what it was.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> While I agree with a lot of what you said, I feel the need to point out it wasn't just Obama's administration that caused this mess.
> 
> If the rich failed what would happen? New rich would take their place of course. Moneyed families and politicians didn't build this nation, and they were never the reason it was great. It was the American spirit that made this nation what it was.


But if it wasn't for some of those rich folks we would still be picking forty acres of cotton by hand too and no one to sell it to


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Thank the unions for Detroit.


And, lets see, what party has controlled Detriot for decades??


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

If today we took everything of value in the world and divided it equally among every individual in the world, in just a few years things would be right back where they are.
Some people don't deserve and some people can't handle living in an equal world.

"O"


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The protesters at Wall Street are getting a lot of attention. The Conservative Talk Media is convincing people that those protesters are just kooks. It will be hard for them to get their message out. It cannot fit into a 6 second sound bite.
> 
> Let me give some personal background and then explain why we need drastic change.
> 
> ...



I don't know about those protesting on Wall Street and what they believe.. but *you *my friend...*are spot on 100 % bullseye dead accurate.*


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> But if it wasn't for some of those rich folks we would still be picking forty acres of cotton by hand too and no one to sell it to


 The cotton gin wasn't invented by a rich man. And I would dare say the 'rich' aren't the only ones buying cotton.

But my point isn't that we don't need rich people. My point was if all the rich in the world were suddenly poor, new people would become rich in short order. Likely a lot of the same people even.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

English Oliver said:


> If today we took everything of value in the world and divided it equally among every individual in the world, in just a few years things would be right back where they are.
> Some people don't deserve and some people can't handle living in an equal world.
> 
> "O"


Actually that may not be too accurate. Its been done before.. and it took several hundred years before anyone had anything again. Think about the fall of Rome and the dark ages that followed. Some things that look good on paper dont always work out that way in reality.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually that may not be too accurate. Its been done before.. and it took several hundred years before anyone had anything again. Think about the fall of Rome and the dark ages that followed. Some things that look good on paper dont always work out that way in reality.


 How do you think it will be when the OWS get there way and America falls like the Romans?

"O"


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

English Oliver said:


> How do you think it will be when the OWS get there way and America falls like the Romans?
> 
> "O"


Can't answer for YH but these protesters and those of like mind will kill to get what they want. They are of an entitlement mentality. That is, until someone tries taking something from them. Did you see them whining about thieves stealing their laptops and IPods at the protests? Ironic since they want to take other people's stuff.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

English Oliver said:


> How do you think it will be when the OWS get there way and America falls like the Romans?
> 
> "O"


That all depends upon how the rest of the world reacts to a total meltdown here. If the other civilized nations can maintain an economic system without us... then there will only be a temporary loss of civility in N America as the new warlords create and develop a new government. If however the other nations are too dependent on the US and collapse as well... the entire world could be thrown right back into the dark ages. Civilization as we know it is totally dependent upon a stable economic system.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Iâve taken out loans for motorcycles, cars and homes. I have paid the principal and interest, without fail. I understand that the reason for interest is because the bank is taking a risk. They deserve to make a profit. If they make risky loans they charge higher interest and suffer greater losses.
> I saved money in banks and they paid me a much smaller interest than they charged. That is how Banks operate.
> 
> When I was earning $3.00 an hour, I could afford an apartment and a new car. I didnât care that the CEO made 40 times what I earned. To secure a future, I started a savings plan through my employer, a 401K. I was earning money in the Stock Market.
> ...


I hope to address some of your concerns.

You've taken out loans... to buy stuff... from the EVIL BANKSTERS... did they meet you in a dark alley in the middle of the night, getting you hooked on those motorcycles, cars, and homes? Or, did you enter into a contract willingly with them? If you'd invested in real estate instead of ephemera, you might actually have something. {and of course you probably do... just }making a point about investing in paper assets and real estate]

People got greedy, borrowing money they couldn't pay, buying homes they couldn't afford, thinking they were going to sell out, make a mint, (or cash out the equity) and move on to the next one. Gamblers lost, and got burnt... I don't know of any banker that came up to me and said, I got a sweet little loan I can give you for that big mcmansion you've been wanting texican.... know you can't pay for it, and we'll repossess it later, bwahahahaha...

Sorry, sir, but you bought a bill of goods, that were never valid... no one guarantees you're going to get rich in the stock market... it's gambling, pure and simple. My father always warned me about gambling, and big gambling via the stock market. You buy land, you're invested... you have real goods. My land investments have increased >1000% in just 15 years.

Oil company profits. There is a rule called fungibility. The price of oil is set by the market. West Texas Crude is a benchmark for a certain grade of oil, whether it's produced in Saudi Arabia or my backyard.

Heaven knows it's only rich folks on the highway... no peasants allowed.

So, you've been around for a couple decades since working, and you've been buying stuff... have you not accumulated any wealth in that time? Reckon if you bought into the paper assets game, you and others indeed could be broke... if you'd bought land and other real assets, they should have 
appreciated (unless you got in on the back end of the housing bubble... "Who" didn't see that bubble coming and going?

So, don't like banks and rich folks. Tell you what, lets kill em all, take their assets, divide it all up amongst us. We'll all be in the same boat. How long do you think it'd take for someone else to rise to the top? and the deadweight remain where it's at? IF we get this pogrom going, I might break one of my Father's Wise Rules, and invest.... in liquor and tobacco stocks. Naw, I'd buy more land.

Oh, forgot.... why can't you start a business any more?

You, and the OWS bunch are just 'railing' in the wind... don't like capitalism, what's the option? Marxism? Where the state tells you/us what to do.

The only tool the Marxist crowd have is to bring every one down to the LCD (lowest common denominator)... by destroying (Literally) the bourgeoisie (the productive members of society)... Marxism is incapable of lifting up the 'proletariat'. Hey, the Dem's have been trying to lift folks out of poverty since the 60's... and failed... their only tool left is to bring about 'fairness' by punishing everyone who isn't on their plantation.

I've made lots of mistakes in my life... I made them, and lived with the consequences... it wasn't society's fault, the govt.'s fault, rich folks fault, or bankers fault... it was my fault. I woke up in my mid 30's and realized my net worth wouldn't buy a cold beer. I started figuring things out... and now my net worth is about what I thought I'd like to have when I reached my 50's. Most is tied up in land, but it's value is still going up... even if I never sell, I can make money off of it.

So boiled down:
Are you angry you have nothing and others do? 

And the solution is to strip those that have something, so we'll all be in the same boat?

Will the world be warm and fuzzy and all full of goodness if CEO's don't get paid fortunes? What if we eliminate banks altogether, and just get our handout from the govt.?

Personally, I would have let the economy crash in 2008... let the banks fall, let GM and Chrysler die, along with all of their Union thugs... of course, from what I understand......if we had let it fall, the poor would have fared badly... govt. falls, can't pay all the welfare and entitlements, if you eliminate the productive sectors of society.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

If the OWS people get what they want, we will find out who John Galt is.:cowboy:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

texican said:


> I hope to address some of your concerns.
> 
> You've taken out loans... to buy stuff... from the EVIL BANKSTERS... did they meet you in a dark alley in the middle of the night, getting you hooked on those motorcycles, cars, and homes? Or, did you enter into a contract willingly with them? If you'd invested in real estate instead of ephemera, you might actually have something. {and of course you probably do... just }making a point about investing in paper assets and real estate]
> 
> ...


Agreed. Why people rail against banks and corporations is beyond me. None of them force you to do business with them. The interest you pay a bank is the price you pay for wanting something NOW. If you can pay payments, you could save up the money to pay cash and save the interest.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

texican said:


> I hope to address some of your concerns.
> 
> You've taken out loans... to buy stuff... from the EVIL BANKSTERS... did they meet you in a dark alley in the middle of the night, getting you hooked on those motorcycles, cars, and homes? Or, did you enter into a contract willingly with them? If you'd invested in real estate instead of ephemera, you might actually have something. {and of course you probably do... just }making a point about investing in paper assets and real estate]
> 
> ...












You couldn't be more clear or more correct.
And the OWS are supposrted & beholden to communist groups, the nazi party and socialists?? GP is the only one ackhowleging this, plus he see's nothing wrong w/it, no surprise.
But haven't you socialists seen that it's NOT working in EU? Its NEVER worked. Never. Of course it matters not to you that our country would be DESTROYED. You were out to "fundamentally change the USA" anyway.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> You couldn't be more clear or more correct.
> And the OWS are supposrted & beholden to communist groups, the nazi party and socialists?? GP is the only one ackhowleging this, plus he see's nothing wrong w/it, no surprise.
> But haven't you socialists seen that it's NOT working in EU? Its NEVER worked. Never. Of course it matters not to you that our country would be DESTROYED. You were out to "fundamentally change the USA" anyway.


I have admitted that said groups have said they support the OWS protest. * I have never said beholden to.* I find Nazi's distateful for a host of resons. OWS never sought their support. They just came out in favor of OWS.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

One thing to remember is all parties GOPig heads DEMeat heads and the TEA Bags are all in the pockets of the rich and rich corps. Wasn't long ago I saw a news report where Obama was getting close to 60 millon in his reelection chest. And add what the PIG heads have collected to gether and that is also a tidy sum.

I believe that the 99% precenters have the whole gambit figured out. Banks making huge profits on the backs of people who use them as they don't have enought to invest in wall street. They sure don't have any morals when it comes to the people who use them.
We had a $75.00 payment come up missing in the mail. the bank charged us $35.00 to stop payment on it. Should have heard the whining and excuses when we pulled our money out. I told them I had a big back yard to bury it in and a postal money order was cheaper than their checking policys.

I had $23,000 in GM stock. NO body thought they would ever go bankrupt so when the value dropped to less than 2.00 a share I hung on to it. Today the name GM still lives as does what they term the OLD GM. the stock that hundreds of share holders were holding is useless paper to thick and stiff to use as TP and not big enough to start a fire.

The value of our 401K dropped 60 Percent when several of the wall street investment companies went belly up. 

The value of our home dropped 40 percent yet the taxes we pay on it continues to raise. 

The wall street people are voiceing just a part of what has and is happening to the American people. 

You can call me a soicalest if you wish but some thing needs doing to set the country right again and voting for the same old bunch isn't going to work to do it. 

Hay Point great post, it couldn't be said any different as to what this country has came too.



 Al


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> I have admitted that said groups have said they support the OWS protest. * I have never said beholden to.* I find Nazi's distateful for a host of resons. OWS never sought their support. They just came out in favor of OWS.


You said you thought it was great. "This is America, isn't it".
We already know you didn't care if a communist is in the WH.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Things will get WORSE before they get BETTER.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> You said you thought it was great. "This is America, isn't it".
> We already know you didn't care if a communist is in the WH.


As I said, I NEVER said beholden to. 

Yeah it is great. This is america and apparently all these diverse groups who may not get along otherwise can come together because they can all see America is broken. 

Corporations are buying our govt and we are against it.

We are for freedom and opportunity and against the uber-rich and corporations buying special treatment and getting paid billions to be bailed out after their EPIC failures.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> I hope to address some of your concerns.
> 
> You've taken out loans... to buy stuff... from the EVIL BANKSTERS... did they meet you in a dark alley in the middle of the night, getting you hooked on those motorcycles, cars, and homes? Or, did you enter into a contract willingly with them? If you'd invested in real estate instead of ephemera, you might actually have something. {and of course you probably do... just }making a point about investing in paper assets and real estate]
> 
> ...


I guess I didnât explain this very well. I willingly borrowed money from the banks. I had a stable job, managed my income well. I also invested in land. I should have bought shore frontage instead of fields and forest, but thatâs a story for another time.

But I didnât get greedy. I wasnât overextending myself, buying more than could afford. I wasnât looking to make a killing through home ownership. I know some folks bought more than they should have. They are the ones that lost their homes during the first economic tremor. The situation Iâm trying to explain is the many folks that bought modest homes, modest cars, had a retirement savings and lived within their means.

Then the jobs left. Then the stock market crashed. The young folks couldnât get a job because they lack experience and the experienced canâ get a job because no one wants to hire an old person that might run up the Health Care costs.

What do you do when your job leaves and no one will hire you? The honest, hardworking types put their house and car up for sale. Opps, the housing market crashed and no one can buy a house if they donât have a stable job. No one wants your used car when the government is promoting new cars. You fall back on your life savings, but that money is shrinking, too. 

Easy to say people got greedy. Over bought or gambled in the stock market. But that isnât really what happened. My employer quit offering a retirement plan. Instead of part of my pay going to a guaranteed program that gave me a set amount each month when Iâm retired. I was offered a 401K plan. I could put money there and financial experts would invest it, protect it from inflation, so Iâd have something when I got old. It was invested in âlow riskâ stocks. 

Sure, the price of oil is set by the market. But the Big Players control the market. If the expected use/demand is a billion barrels and only 900,000,000 barrels are drawn out of the ground, what happens? If production meets demands and a group of speculators buy up 100,000,000 barrels in futures contracts the same thing happens . Thatâs not market, that is market manipulation.

If I run a business, it is likely that I use lots of natural resources, my company uses the roads more, I get more police protection ( the cops roam around most businesses and factories each night, but seldom come into my neighborhood, unless they are down on speeding tickets). They should pay more taxes, they get more services.

Iâm not talking about folks working hard for what they have. Iâm talking about the segment that controls the markets and sets the rules that the rest of us have to live with. 

I trust my savings with financial experts and lose my money, while those holding it create imaginary things like derivatives and buy toxic notes, work in billion dollar skyscrapers, make million dollar bonuses for doing nothing, collect TARP money from the working poor, then look down on the family that is struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

The rich are protected and the middle class foot the bill. I donât have a problem with the rich. But Capitalism is out of whack when half of the people donât earn enough to pay income taxes and one percent control half of the money in this country.

Kill the rich people? Study a bit of history and youâll see why the German people were so strongly moved against a small group of people that controlled the banks, the interest rates and were taking over control of both the production of food and manufacturing plants. Sad period for humanity.
Iâd like to start a business, just hard to compete with Asian labor and I havenât saved enough for my own cargo ship.

I want the style of Capitalism that built this country, not the kind that has very few wringing out every last bit if money. Henry Ford didnât build his company that way. George Peabody didnât build his brokerage company that way. 

Maybe you would have let the economy crash in â08. But it didnât happen, the rich were protected, again. The middleclass are stuck with the bill.
CEOs getting $20,000,000 bonuses, while those that bought shares in those companies lose their money, is a clear sign that the system is broke. 
Unlike you, I do not see a CEO with a six figured salary sending jobs to China as âproductive sectors of societyâ. Weâve lost our moral compass.


----------



## Hazmat54 (Aug 10, 2010)

Who decides the CEO gets the money? If I remember a long ago business law course, company officials have a fiduciary(?) responsibility to the shareholders. If the company fails or just does poorly, why would the CEO get a huge bonus? Why would that money not be used to cushion the loss to the shareholders?

High finance is not my specialty, I just work for wages. So if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it. Who says, this CEO who drove the company into the ground, now gets a $20 million dollar exit bonus. Who signs that bonus check? Is there a Boss of Boss's who determines that a CEO gets a huge bonus?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

haypoint said:


> I guess I didnât explain this very well. I willingly borrowed money from the banks. I had a stable job, managed my income well. I also invested in land. I should have bought shore frontage instead of fields and forest, but thatâs a story for another time.
> 
> But I didnât get greedy. I wasnât overextending myself, buying more than could afford. I wasnât looking to make a killing through home ownership. I know some folks bought more than they should have. They are the ones that lost their homes during the first economic tremor. The situation Iâm trying to explain is the many folks that bought modest homes, modest cars, had a retirement savings and lived within their means.
> 
> ...


:bow:

Well said and oh so true.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

Hazmat54 said:


> Who decides the CEO gets the money? If I remember a long ago business law course, company officials have a fiduciary(?) responsibility to the shareholders. If the company fails or just does poorly, why would the CEO get a huge bonus? Why would that money not be used to cushion the loss to the shareholders?
> 
> High finance is not my specialty, I just work for wages. So if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it. Who says, this CEO who drove the company into the ground, now gets a $20 million dollar exit bonus. Who signs that bonus check? Is there a Boss of Boss's who determines that a CEO gets a huge bonus?


Top executives pay scales are determined by the board of directors. Rarely does anyone ever bother running for the board of directors, but it is put to a vote. You ever get a notice in the mail about an upcoming vote on a stock you own? If you do not let your voice be heard, it won't be, Your votes may be consigned to a proxy. Everybody wants to be the stock holders or get the dividend, but at the same time don't want to bother finding out who is making the decisions, and what their interconnections are. Its exactly like politics, If you don't vote, you can't really complain. Too many years of letting companies write their own rules, too many years of letting politicians write their own rules, and we're at a point now where people are dissatisfied with business and are also dissatisfied with government, yet 99% of them have no idea at all of the inner workings of either. As a result you got a lot of people in an organized protest, most of whom seem to be inordinately unaware that they grazed on the green grass for their entire lives and it all got eaten up. They are as much a part of the problem as the businesses they supported their entire lives.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLphvT.qIqZI&refer=home

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-25-1306366335_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29960407/ns/business-autos/t/gm-ceo-gets-million-estimated-pension/

http://siteselection.com/ssinsider/pwatch/pw040419.htm


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> As I said, I NEVER said beholden to.
> 
> Yeah it is great. This is america and apparently all these diverse groups who may not get along otherwise can come together because they can all see America is broken.
> 
> ...


I suppose I should've used a different verb, or synonym. Who cares if you said "beholden"?? 
These folks are parroting the mantra of socialism, communism, marxism, besides being anti-jews & anti-capitalism.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Great post, OP!! :rock: The peasants are storming the castle, I smell a revolution. :hobbyhors:viking:


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Kill the rich people? Study a bit of history and youâll see why the German people were so strongly moved against a small group of people that controlled the banks, the interest rates and were taking over control of both the production of food and manufacturing plants. Sad period for humanity.



Are you referring to the Jews? If so, then I find it appalling that you think the murder of millions is "ok" because the "controlled the banks". The fact is that was and is a total myth.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Here Are The Facts:

&#9632;24 million unemployed. Not including the 30-50 million we just stopped asking if they had a job.
&#9632;20 million people who owe more on their homes then they are worth.
&#9632;50 million people without healthcare.
&#9632;75 million people who have lost mulitple thousands of dollars in retirement savings that were manupilated and stolen by Wall Street.
&#9632;16 trillion dollars were spent by the U.S. taxpayer to bail out these organizations and âsave our economy.â Most of that money went right back to Wall Street.

If you are having trouble visualizing these numbers, try this:

1 million seconds = 11.6 days
1 billion seconds = 31.7 years
1 trillion seconds = 31,710 years


If you own a home, youâve suffered losses. If youâve saved for your retirement and lost significant amounts of that savings, youâve suffered losses. If youâve allowed your health to suffer because of inadequate or, no healthcare, youâve suffered losses. If youâve wondered where did the money go, you are the 99% and part of the group of people that currently are occupying in this country.

The minimum wage in this country is so low, that nearly anyone earning the minimum wage, is eligible for some form of social welfare. In other words, to protect profits, business has found a way to subsidize payroll with social welfare. To protect profits that are at an all time high. In other words, they are earning more money now, than at any point in recorded history while paying out less money in pay than they have since 1930.

these are facts any one can look up who cares to bother.

Here are some more facts.

(1. Wall Street controls and dominates our political system. It wholly owns one political party (gop) and dominates and controls, quite effectively the other. Do we really expect serious change from either party?

(2. 50 million people without health care and the GOP wants to dismantle medacare, and repeal the health care reform bill.

(3. 75 million people who have lost mulitple thousands of dollars in retirement savings that were manupilated and stolen by Wall Street. Then given a bail out so they could give bounes to the ones who lost it.


(4. the GOP told a lie and got us in a war and 4000 Americans dies. It has cost American tax payers 700 billion and the GOP doesn't want us to leave.


 Al


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Your "facts" are laughable.
GOP controls wall street & banks? BWAHAHAHA!
Who are the Kennedy's, Soros & followers, Buffet, Kerry-on & on?
Who gives the community organizer big zer0 sopckpuppet "OWE" more $$$ than any other potus?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the GOP told a lie and got us in a war


Just *one *of the MANY fantasies in your post.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just *one *of the MANY fantasies in your post.


 Yes, he should have said 'Lies' plural, that would have been more accurate.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wags said:


> Are you referring to the Jews? If so, then I find it appalling that you think the murder of millions is "ok" because the "controlled the banks". The fact is that was and is a total myth.


Read some pre-WWII history and get back with me.
I didn't say killing Jews was OK. But we have to realize that it wasn't just speaches that riled up the people of Germany. Jews controled most of the Banks in Germany. The other Europian countries wouldn't take the Jews when the Germans tried to kick them out. The Jews had not broken any laws, just used the existing laws to gain control of the German Banking system. In general, Jews had no commitment to Germany, simply saving for the day when they had their own homeland.

It was evil to murder the Jews, just as it was also evil to murder the Christians.

Anyway, back then they were very visable and what they owned was very clear. I don't know if there is any group controling Wall Street. World finance is far more complicated today.

If Soros was controling our government with billions that he manipulated from the market, he's safe. No one can drag him off to the gas chambers. His wealth is protected, he is protected. 

A couple thousand years ago, the peasants could storm the castle of an evil ruler. But all the firearms and bags of Amonium Nitrate won't get us near the money that's been stolen (legally, but stolen just the same) from us.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Your "facts" are laughable.
> GOP controls wall street & banks? BWAHAHAHA!
> Who are the Kennedy's, Soros & followers, Buffet, Kerry-on & on?
> Who gives the community organizer big zer0 sopckpuppet "OWE" more $$$ than any other potus?


I can see why someone might be confused. Often times it is hard to tell if the GOP is controling Wall Street or simply have their noses so far up the rump of wall street that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I can see why someone might be confused. Often times it is hard to tell if the GOP is controling Wall Street or simply have their noses so far up the rump of wall street that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.


Yet you ignore that fact that the DNC (Obama) has gotten more from Wall Street then anyone else.. Or the fact that Gore, Kerry and the rest of the Dem Elite are from the Wall Street gang..

Imagine the hypocrisy!

Maybe the Government should get out of Wall Street all together? 

Oh wait, the Dems can't do that.. Who would they pander to if they couldn't pick winners and losers..

Just imagine a company like GE sitting in the White House.. Oh wait that has happened already.. 

Ok Imagine a company like Soylandra getting money from the Government and then declaring bankruptcy, Oh wait that has happened already.. 

Ok Imagine giving money to a company to create American jobs under the So-called Green jobs bill and that company takes the money and creates jobs in Finland to create and produce an electric Luxury car with a retail price of about $75,000.. Oh wait that has happened already...


Well Imagine That!

Yup, the GOP and Wall Street are one and the same.... *NOT!*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, he should have said 'Lies' plural, that would have been more accurate.


LOL

No, it's not accurate at all

Is this one of the "lies"?



> Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strikemilitary and security targets in Iraq. They are joined byBritish forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs *nuclear,chemical and biological weapons programs *and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
> 
> Their purpose is to protect the national interest of theUnited States, and indeed the interests of people throughout theMiddle East and around the world.
> 
> Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighborsor the world with *nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons*.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I can see why someone might be confused. Often times it is hard to tell if the GOP is controling Wall Street or simply have their noses so far up the rump of wall street that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.


Again, I'll point you to the biggest rear-in the WH-& that's where their $$ is going.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Again, I'll point you to the biggest rear-in the WH-& that's where their $$ is going.


A sock puppet show isn't much fun with just one sock puppet. I think we know that Wall Street funds both parties.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Hazmat54 said:


> Who decides the CEO gets the money? If I remember a long ago business law course, company officials have a fiduciary(?) responsibility to the shareholders. If the company fails or just does poorly, why would the CEO get a huge bonus? Why would that money not be used to cushion the loss to the shareholders?
> 
> High finance is not my specialty, I just work for wages. So if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it. Who says, this CEO who drove the company into the ground, now gets a $20 million dollar exit bonus. Who signs that bonus check? Is there a Boss of Boss's who determines that a CEO gets a huge bonus?


Most governing boards or Board of Directors are the ones that authorize those contracts when the executive is hired. Since it is a legal agreement, it must be paid out when the CEO leaves. However, most board of directors also have an insurance policy that covers them in case of a lawsuit. Even many small local boards of nonprofit organizations have this insurance (usually). This insurance policy almost indemnifies them from being held responsible for poor decision-making in regards to the directives that they give in the process of running the company.

In many ways, this seems like the way in which moneyed people look out for eachother.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> I have admitted that said groups have said they support the OWS protest. * I have never said beholden to.* I find Nazi's distateful for a host of resons. OWS never sought their support. They just came out in favor of OWS.


Or, could it be that (this figure comes to mind? whether it's correct or not, who knows) a third of those OWS in NYC polled were anti-semitic? Don't know (or care) about the timelines.... but I could easily envisage some (who cares) Nazi Party goon sitting in his mom's basement wondering what to do next, when he reads that this OWS crew has a minimum 1/3rd Jew Hatin' Element? Let's lay our blessings on this group. Anyone doubt that the OWS crew doesn't support killing the rich, or killing the Jews? Something Nazi's get wet dreams over... maybe not the rich, but "Jews", you betcha~



gideonprime said:


> As I said, I NEVER said beholden to.
> 
> Yeah it is great. This is america and apparently all these diverse groups who may not get along otherwise can come together because they can all see America is broken.
> 
> ...


 So glad you feel this way. Wish all progressives felt this way... because this means you'd have to vote for anyone BUT the Messiah, who's taken more corporate and Wall Street money than any president in history!



haypoint said:


> Then the jobs left. Then the stock market crashed. The young folks couldnât get a job because they lack experience and the experienced canâ get a job because no one wants to hire an old person that might run up the Health Care costs.
> 
> What do you do when your job leaves and no one will hire you? The honest, hardworking types put their house and car up for sale. Opps, the housing market crashed and no one can buy a house if they donât have a stable job. No one wants your used car when the government is promoting new cars. You fall back on your life savings, but that money is shrinking, too.
> 
> ...


If there are no jobs in an area, blame the reasons behind it... union interference, migrating jobs, govt. regulations. No jobs in one region, move to another. I was at my cousins house today (burned down last week)... he had a dozen of his regular 'hands' cleaning up. He started a business two years ago, from scratch, borrowed a million from an evil bank to get his basic equipment... now he has a dozen crews working, his back pasture has I'd guess ten million in equipment going in and out each day. He hires anyone willing to work... they do good, they move up, and his oldest hands are making 40K/year. My little county has hundreds of help wanted signs... no work elsewhere, move here.

Don't like the way things are going? Cleanse America of it's America Haters... Hard for me to say, as a registered Democrat, but my party has gone away.... get rid of folks in DC that are anti jobs. Govt. can't save us, govt. is the problem. 

Re-elect this abomination that despises non union working folks, despises industry (although he'll take their money to protect them), and wants to Europenalize all of us, and things, my friend, will not get better.

Want things to turn around, and get back to the good ol days? Cleanse govt. of all entitlements (no more public welfare). Eliminate corporate taxes. Discourage unions, and ban them from public jobs. Enforce border controls. 

Doing away with the 'rich' isn't going to make anything better. Do away with the banks, and who's going to provide capital for homes/businesses/whatever?

Personally, I finance everything with cash... means I have to save up first before buying stuff, but most people want their toys now.

Eliminate banks... I could care less. Eliminate rich folks... I'll not lose any sleep... but, eliminate banks and rich folks, and exactly what the frankie jones is going to happen to po' folks? Sorry, no new cars, no new or used homes, no college edumacations, no nuthin. Want something, work hard and save up for it... remember, you po' folks eliminated the folks that finance your lives.

Always think three moves ahead. What many of the OWS folks wish would actually make their lives worse off (and I'm not talking about all the trust fund babies inhabiting the movement). Unless their ultimate wet dream is communism, where the state provides everything (and of course, this IS one of the main goals).

Alas, my friends, the OWS suffers from a huge image problem... defecating on cop cars, and letting someone photograph you, isn't wise. I could see this photo on a billboard next fall... Another Obama Supporter expressing himself...

almost forgot...
How would ya'll get us back to 'normal'?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> A couple thousand years ago, the peasants could storm the castle of an evil ruler. But all the firearms and bags of Amonium Nitrate won't get us near the money that's been stolen (legally, but stolen just the same) from us.


Please bring me up to speed here.... which money has been stolen from us? That sorta confuses me.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

For yours, Texican- should be a post of the MONTH award!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Please bring me up to speed here.... which money has been stolen from us? That sorta confuses me.


How about the millions of Bail Out money that's paying Wall Street bonuses? That is money that every taxpayer is going to have to pay back. 

How about my hard earned savings that Wall Street invested in junk derivitives. I lost $8000 just last month and I have a small retirement savings.

Insider trading. Once in a while they get cought, but those inside Wall Street get the good investments and the junk gets peddled to the workers of this country.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Tricky Grama your reading skills are as bad as my spelling skills. Please try again.

Wall Street controls and dominates our political system. *It wholly owns one political party (gop) **and dominates and controls, quite effectively the other.* Do we really expect serious change from either party?

So you see both the GOPig heads and the DEMeat heads are bought and paid for. Ther pig heads recieve the most money from wall street contrubiters, mead headfs second and the tea bags getsome too.

In 10 years they have not found that stock pile of WMD that I was told why we invaded Iraqui. Please imform me just why did we invade them if it wasn't the WMD. the gop party line now seems to be to remove a evil ruler. How do you pick one evil ruler over another?

Boy that 700 billion could have did a lot of good here at home.

 Al


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

OK, I'll blaame the reasons for no jobs in this area. It isn't unions, it isn't an unwillingness to work. When Electrolux closed the world's largest refrigerator factory in Greenville, MI, the Union workers hadn't had a raise in a long time. The Union even offered to cut wages. The Local government offered tax free status. The State government offered milions in grants and tax cuts. But it was still cheaper to make refrigerators in Mexico. 

Then move? How do you move if the value of your house fell, overnight, to less than you owe on it?

I can't clense Wall Street. I can't bring the jobs back home. Every person that I vote for is working for Soros or Wall Street. In this electronics world, how do you digitally burn someone at the stake?


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

haypoint said:


> How about the millions of Bail Out money that's paying Wall Street bonuses? That is money that every taxpayer is going to have to pay back.
> 
> How about my hard earned savings that Wall Street invested in junk derivitives. I lost $8000 just last month and I have a small retirement savings.
> 
> Insider trading. Once in a while they get cought, but those inside Wall Street get the good investments and the junk gets peddled to the workers of this country.


Are companies that still owe the "TARP" giving out big bonuses? or is it companies that paid back the loans(with interest)?
Maybe you shouldn't have let Wall street have your money to play with. I'd think that would be your personal responsibility. You give it to them, then cry?
The workers of this country are buying stuff that's junk? Do they not bother finding out what they're buying? Why not??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> OK, I'll blaame the reasons for no jobs in this area. It isn't unions, it isn't an unwillingness to work. When Electrolux closed the world's largest refrigerator factory in Greenville, MI, the Union workers hadn't had a raise in a long time. The Union even offered to cut wages. The Local government offered tax free status. The State government offered milions in grants and tax cuts. But it was still cheaper to make refrigerators in Mexico.
> 
> Then move? How do you move if the value of your house fell, overnight, to less than you owe on it?
> 
> I can't clense Wall Street. I can't bring the jobs back home. Every person that I vote for is working for Soros or Wall Street. In this electronics world, how do you digitally burn someone at the stake?


Apparently the union workers were still overpriced compared to workers in Mexico. Say thank you to Clintons nafta! 

When my Yvonne decided to move out of the city and her home/mortgage was upside down we sold it anyway... and made up the difference between what was owed and what it brought. Yeah, it was a bite, but it was better than pouring more money down the drain. Sometimes you just need to cut yer losses and move on. Kinda like big companies do when the unions force them into either closing down or moving out.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> How about the millions of Bail Out money that's paying Wall Street bonuses? That is money that every taxpayer is going to have to pay back.
> 
> How about my hard earned savings that Wall Street invested in junk derivitives. I lost $8000 just last month and I have a small retirement savings.
> 
> Insider trading. Once in a while they get cought, but those inside Wall Street get the good investments and the junk gets peddled to the workers of this country.


Chances are pretty good that the average tax payer will pay very little towards the bank bailouts... those banks are paying the money back as soon as the government will allow them to. Also the very rich are the ones paying the lions share of the income tax so the average working stiff wont be kicking in hardly a dime... if that much. 

So you decide to invest in junk.... and then blame others when things go sour.... :shrug: Sorry to hear you are losing but seriously, wall street is a poor place to invest your lifes savings. risky business at best. 

The workers of this country are not required to gamble their money in the stock market. Thats a matter of personal choice. If you dont like the stocks.... dont buy them. Thats pretty simple.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Chances are pretty good that the average tax payer will pay very little towards the bank bailouts... those banks are paying the money back as soon as the government will allow them to. Also the very rich are the ones paying the lions share of the income tax so the average working stiff wont be kicking in hardly a dime... if that much.
> 
> So you decide to invest in junk.... and then blame others when things go sour.... :shrug: Sorry to hear you are losing but seriously, wall street is a poor place to invest your lifes savings. risky business at best.
> 
> The workers of this country are not required to gamble their money in the stock market. Thats a matter of personal choice. If you dont like the stocks.... dont buy them. Thats pretty simple.


Invest in junk???? Stocks of major financial institutions, General Motors is hardly "buying junk" Becides, the government set up the rules for my retirement plan, 401K. That's the only way I have to save for retirement, becides putting it under my mattress. I invested in this great country, I wanted to see big business suceed, I invested for my future. Those financial institutions are prospering, record profits in most businesses. 

Easy to say Stocks is a poor choice, hindsight is always 20-20. I supose you think home ownership is a poor place to put you money, too?

If the company that I own stocks in makes record profits, then I expect to earn some money from that profit. When these companies give the profits to their top exectutives and create other places to hide wealth and I get nothing and have no say in it?

Recently a major financial institution was about to show a huge profit. So, they set up a fund that will provide $250,000 severance package for each employee. So that money doesn't show up as profit.

If half the people don't pay taxes and the top 10% pay half the taxes, that means that the 40% that do pay taxes but are not wealthy pay half the taxes. 

Do you believe that anyone that doesn't produce a product is worth 4000 times what your labor produces?


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

All these business you mention, "major financial institutions" and "GM" Depended on people to buy stuff they couldn't afford. So, yea, they were junk, because they depended on a "gimme everything now, I ain't got enough sense to figure out that I'll have to pay one day, and pay triple because of the interest, and I have no guarantee of an income either. Oh well, who cares!? Gimme, gimme, gimme" mentality.

I've never seen a 401k plan where you didn't have several options as to what type of investment vehicle you wanted to use and what percentage you wanted in each. I've not seen a lot though, just a couple hundred. Also, there is something known as a Roth IRA(and many other IRA's), in which you have an account, and you decide what to buy, when to buy, and when to sell. Clearly you had choices. 
A home is a place to live. Do you go to the grocery store and give them a percentage of your home for some beans?? It's not an investment, it's a home.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Invest in junk???? Stocks of major financial institutions, General Motors is hardly "buying junk" Becides, the government set up the rules for my retirement plan, 401K. That's the only way I have to save for retirement, becides putting it under my mattress. I invested in this great country, I wanted to see big business suceed, I invested for my future. Those financial institutions are prospering, record profits in most businesses.
> 
> Easy to say Stocks is a poor choice, hindsight is always 20-20. I supose you think home ownership is a poor place to put you money, too?
> 
> ...


whoo boy... gm USED to be a solid company.... some banks are solid, but a feller with one eye had to be able to see what was comin down the pipe. Home ownership is always a pretty sound investment... if a feller actually uses his head when hes buying or building it. Lots of folks over bought when they went home shopping. How do I know this? I was in the business when all this was going down. Folks would invariably try to buy 10 percent more house than they could afford. If they qualified for 100k loan, they would shop for 110k houses.... even though there were plenty on the market for 40 and 50 that would have served their needs just as well. I have bought plenty of houses over the years, and 45k is the most I have EVER paid! I have about 30k invested in the one I live in now and the tax man seems to think its worth in the 130 range! 

now about those tax figures. Its a graduated scale... and the top 1 percent are paying nearly 1/3 of the taxes, the top 10 percent are paying nearly half, and the top 15 percent (millionaires) are paying right at 85 percent.... leaving the upper middle class (about 35 percent of the people) to pick up the other 15 percent whlle the entire bottom half pays little or nothing.

I believe that anyone is entitled to earn what ever amount they can negotiate for their labor... that includes ceo's all the way down to the janitor. Its the company that produces the product.... the workers are paid for their contribution to the process of doing so at a rate negotiated between them and the company.

As to your 401k being the ONLY way you had to save for your future.... did you not receive regular paychecks to do with as you wished? I have never had the option of a 401 but invested money regularly in a variety of ways. :shrug:


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Invest in junk???? Stocks of major financial institutions, General Motors is hardly "buying junk" Becides, *the government set up the rules for my retirement plan, 401K*. That's the only way I have to save for retirement, becides putting it under my mattress. I invested in this great country, I wanted to see big business suceed, I invested for my future. Those financial institutions are prospering, record profits in most businesses.
> 
> Easy to say Stocks is a poor choice, hindsight is always 20-20. I supose you think home ownership is a poor place to put you money, too?
> 
> ...


Yet you believe that protesting the people who are following those rules is right, but not protesting those who created/create the rules..

That is just a waste of time.. You sit here and protect those who created the rules, but protest those who are following the rules..

It shows me that there is no real purpose to the protest other then to give Obama a political boost or to keep the media occupied while other news goes unreported...

Who bailed out GM and allowed them to screw over the stock holder?

It wasn't Bush and it wasn't Wall Street, but Obama and the Dems in Congress..

So tell me again why they are protesting Wall Street and not the Government that created the rules?


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> How about the millions of Bail Out money that's paying Wall Street bonuses? That is money that every taxpayer is going to have to pay back.
> 
> How about my hard earned savings that Wall Street invested in junk derivitives. I lost $8000 just last month and I have a small retirement savings.
> 
> Insider trading. Once in a while they get cought, but those inside Wall Street get the good investments and the junk gets peddled to the workers of this country.


Are you 'under water' on your Wall Street investments? Paid more in contributions than it's currently worth? I have an aunt/uncle with several million invested... when it crashed back in the 90's, they lost half their net worth over night... they didn't panic, and they gained it all back. Some days they lose 'five figures', sometimes they gain that five right back. It's a gamble, especially if you allow others to 'manage' your money.


alleyyooper said:


> Tricky Grama your reading skills are as bad as my spelling skills. Please try again.
> 
> Wall Street controls and dominates our political system. *It wholly owns one political party (gop) **and dominates and controls, quite effectively the other.* Do we really expect serious change from either party?
> 
> ...


Throwing a wide loop there aren't you? WMD's? They were there. Iraq said they were there. The UN said they were there. Everyone agrees they were there. Give someone six months warning your coming for their WMD's and whatta're you going to do? Put em out easy to find, or hide them, or move them over to Syria... but alas, we're talking OWS, and not Iraq.

Oh, and which party is wholly owned by WS? Would that be Pres O and his party? They gave him records of amount of cash, in a quid pro quo arrangement? 

Ironically the OWS party is protesting WS, and the idjits will end up supporting O, WS's "pet female dog" in the next election. They're protesting what they voted for in 2008, and will so again in 2012. Usefool Tools.


zong said:


> Are companies that still owe the "TARP" giving out big bonuses? or is it companies that paid back the loans(with interest)?
> Maybe you shouldn't have let Wall street have your money to play with. I'd think that would be your personal responsibility. You give it to them, then cry?
> The workers of this country are buying stuff that's junk? Do they not bother finding out what they're buying? Why not??





haypoint said:


> Invest in junk???? Stocks of major financial institutions, General Motors is hardly "buying junk" Becides, the government set up the rules for my retirement plan, 401K. That's the only way I have to save for retirement, becides putting it under my mattress. I invested in this great country, I wanted to see big business suceed, I invested for my future. Those financial institutions are prospering, record profits in most businesses.
> 
> Easy to say Stocks is a poor choice, hindsight is always 20-20. I supose you think home ownership is a poor place to put you money, too?
> 
> ...


Anyone that invested in GM, and stayed invested, after five years ago, deserves whatever they got... I read multiple reports of labor unions and the insane bennies given, to current and retired employees... the average vehicle had 5K added to it, to just pay retired health care bennies. Geesh! Who'd invest in that idocracy?

I'm sorry you and others got burned. My advice, take care of your own finances, and not rely/depend/trust anyone else.... unless you trust them implicitly. They more'n likely have their own interests in mind, instead of yours... they make money whether you win or lose. Of course, you probably already know that.

Want to change the system? Stop supporting it. Hopefully you've pulled every red cent out of the market (to punish IT, and protect You). Buy land, especially farmland. Buy every acre of minerals you can. Buy timberland.

Don't worry about what others own, or how much they make... take care of yourself, and sleep good at night. I'd go frazzledly insane if I worried about everything that some folks on this board worry about. Worry about your immediate universe and what you can control, and cut yourself loose from the rest.

On the labor thingie... I'm self employed, and continually balance the equations in my head, on whether to charge more or charge less. The clients I work for may gain a million dollars extra because of my work... My bill may be 2K and they make a million... that's around 5000x as much, I reckon. Am I angry, distressed, bothered, worried? Nope, not at all. Each time I make them a fortune, they pay my bill, and hire me again on their next adventure. Poor people might be able to afford an hour or two of my time, the 'semi-rich' can afford weeks... and it's those 'weeks' that pay my bills.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/ceo-bonus-pay-rises-despi_n_176232.html

read the peoples' comments


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

This is the whole thing, Haypoint. If the complainers were to stop buying from those companies, then wouldn't you think that the CEO's pay would go down? Wouldn't you think you can talk louder with your wallet than you can on Huffpo? How would it be if I ran out here, bought a $60k Escalade from GM, then came home and whined about GM CEO makes too much money? You don't see any hypocrisy there?? All these people complaining, how many of them are driving older cars instead of buying a new one, growing their own food instead of buying at walmart? It's just whining until you're ready to make your own, personal change. None of the people I see are in any way doing anything other than complaining.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/ceo-bonus-pay-rises-despi_n_176232.html
> 
> read the peoples' comments


Read the articles and the comments...
I sincerely wish that each and every poster there would have declared whether they had a dog in the hunt (own stock in the companies they were railing about). If I don't own stock in a company where the CEO get gazillion dollar bonuses, I don't care. If I did own stock, I'd sell, or gather other stockholders and do something 'real' by voting those shares 'our way'.

Why do people care what others make, unless they have a fiduciary interest?

If I did own stock in a company I felt was badly managed, I'd not leave my capital there for a nanosecond longer than it took to divest and invest in some other stock. If I knew it was bad, and left my capital there, it'd be my bad.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

alleyyooper said:


> Tricky Grama your reading skills are as bad as my spelling skills. Please try again.
> 
> Wall Street controls and dominates our political system. *It wholly owns one political party (gop) **and dominates and controls, quite effectively the other.* Do we really expect serious change from either party?
> 
> ...


My reading skills are fine, tnx.
Sorry, but we've ALL posted "HUNDREDS" of times all the evidence for the Iraq war. ALL the "Ds" who said 'go for it' waaay b/4 ol' Geo did it.
WMDs were a small part-evidence was found. But anyone who's so far left as to keep repeating this tired ol' mantra of "lies" does not deserve me being their google momma.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/ceo-bonus-pay-rises-despi_n_176232.html
> 
> read the peoples' comments


I read the whin...... erm..... "peoples" comments. Seemed to me like a group of working stiffs who have no clue how a business operates, much less how to reward some one who keeps a company afloat during one of the worst financial crisis's in modern times... not only keep it afloat but making the company a hundred million bucks in the process.... to me tossing the ceo a million or two for his efforts would be a very modest "thank you".


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> No, it's not accurate at all
> 
> Is this one of the "lies"?


 Desert Fox? As I recall, that was widely criticized by the rightwing as being merely a distraction from the impeachment hearings. 
And it appears they were all wrong, according to the Iraq Survey Group...being that



> Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq&#8217;s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
> *Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991*, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.
> Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.


 No, i think the lies he was referring to were those of the Bush administration regarding Iraq, which are numerous. This site has a list of some of the biggest and most notorious ones.
http://www.alternet.org/story/16274
Perhaps you can write them off as 'failures of intelligence', I could buy that. Considering how dumb it was to invade as we did. I'm not saying Saddam didnt deserve to be taken out, but full-on invasion and occupation wasnt the best option. I have no doubt Bush and Co. desperately wanted an invasion, and they were going to get their way no matter what the facts were. Dreams of empire... How is that 'New American Century' working out for us? Not too good for the majority of Americans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> according to the Iraq Survey Group





> With regard to cooperation on substance, Blix's report is more negative, noting that Iraq has failed to engage in the "active" cooperation called for in Resolution 1441. *He questions Iraqi claims *concerning the quality, quantity, and disposition of* VX nerve gas* produced by Iraq as well as claims that Iraq destroyed *8, 500 liters of anthrax.* In addition, he reports that Iraq has tested *two missiles in excess of the permitted range *of 150 kilometers.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

Your "Alternet" source is just a rehashing of accusations, and is very outdated, since it was written in 2002.
It also, like many here love to do,* ignores *the CEASE FIRE agreement violations that lead up to the invasion



> No, i think the lies he was referring to were those of the Bush administration


LOL 
It wasn't a "lie" when Clinton said it, but only when Bush said it?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I can see why someone might be confused. Often times it is hard to tell if the GOP is controling Wall Street or simply have their noses so far up the rump of wall street that it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.


And what did the GOP have to do w/what I posted? Or do you usually quote then respond w/opposite.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your "Alternet" source is just a rehashing of accusations, and is very outdated, since it was written in 2002.


 The alternet list is not a 'rehashing of accusations', it is a collection of QUOTES from the architects of the Iraq invasion that have proven to be misleading half-truths, or outright lies. 
So where are those vast stockpiles of WMD we went to procure? According to Rumsfeld, we KNEW where they were, yet that wasnt true. Why? Bad intel? Or a willingness to have their invasion and occupation at all costs? It was certainly a large part of the strategy CLEARLY laid out by the 'neoconservatives' in the policy recommendations of the ultra-rightwing PNAC crowd.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The alternet list is not a 'rehashing of accusations', it is a collection of QUOTES from the architects of the Iraq invasion that have proven to be *misleading half-truths, or outright lies*.


LOL
It's mostly half truths and opinions itself.



> where are those vast stockpiles of WMD


Either destroyed or shipped to Syria.

They had* 4 months warning *prior to the actual invasion



> a willingness to have their invasion and occupation at all costs?


After *12 years *of Cease Fire Agreement violations



> CLEARLY laid out by the 'neoconservatives'


*Clinton* passed Public Law 105-338 about "regime change " in Iraq.



> (11) On August 14, *1998,* President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in *material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'* and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.


http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

You keep pretending it was all *Bush*, and all fabricated


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

And you want to bass the buck to Clinton, apparently. I dont see anywhere in PL 105-338 about an invasion and an open ended occupation being the remedy to force Iraqi compliance. That was taken directly from the PNAC script. 

The Syrian WMD connection is unproven... and Rumsfeld didnt say 'the WMD went to Syria', he said he KNEW it was in Tikrit (or to the north, south , east and west somewhat)LOL. So where is it? And if Bush was so concerned about WMD, why were these Syrian rumors not acted on? Possibly because he cried wolf one too many times? And if the WMD was destroyed, why the trillion dollar invasion? Kinda defeats the purpose of forcing compliance if Saddam is complying... You and I both know that invasion was going to take place no matter what the inspectors found, or DIDN'T find.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

TheMartianChick said:


> Excellent post, Haypoint!
> 
> Companies that "needed" bailouts shouldn't have the spare cash lying around to give CEO bonuses that are equal to the national budgets of 3rd world nations.
> 
> ...


Who gave them the bailouts? Our elected officials. I don't understand protesting the banks. Why not protest at the White House, or on the steps of Congress?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> We are annoyed that CEOs run companies into the ground and still walk away with multi-million dollar severance packages after destroying the lives of people who invested heavily in said companies. - Think Enron and World Com here. Billions lost thousands out of work and what had been a nice investment in their future (ie company stock that they worked hard for) now all gone leaving them with nothing and too small not to fail so they get ZERO help - unless you call the pittance (sp?) they receive in Un-employment while trying to figure out how to re-assmble their shambles of a life now that the CEO has used abused and stolen almost everyhting from them.
> 
> But hey you defend them all you want Poppy.


I don't disagree with most of what you said, but I don't think protesting them will change anything. If they really want change, then stop doing business with the companies they have issues with. Boycott them. I still believe the protests should be against the elected officials.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Curtis B said:


> I think it is funny that some people think that the gov forced the banks, wall street, and car companies to take the money. If that was true, why didn't Ford take any. If you look close, the companies that took the money all have/have had people in government working for them. The banks, wall street, and multinational companies run the government. Look at GE, BOA, and goldman sacs, those are obvious.


Then hit them where it counts, boycott them. No money coming in, they will either go under (if the government doesn't bail them out again) or they will have to make adjustments. On the other hand, the governement took it out of our hands when they used our tax dollars to bail them out. This is why I don't understand this movement. I don't see what they think can be accomplished by trying to humilate or bully these companies.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> They didn't 'do better'! They bankrupted companies and got my money to bail them out. That's why we care. Most of us weren't screaming about what bank CEO's made before the collapse. It's that they took my money to pay bonuses and salaries AFTER it.
> 
> You don't like welfare for the poor but you would defend welfare for the rich?


Who gave them your money? The government. So why go after them? They would be out of business if the government had not given them money to bail them out. Then what would there be to protest?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Who gave them your money? The government. So why go after them? They would be out of business if the government had not given them money to bail them out. Then what would there be to protest?


 I think it's because protesting the government gets no real coverage and zero results.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> I think it's because protesting the government gets no real coverage and zero results.


Maybe, but I don't think protesting CEOs is going to get results either, at least not any good results. We're already seeing signs of aggression on both sides, protesters and cops. Nothing good will come from this. If people are so upset with the CEOs, then boycott them. Rally their protester friends and get the word out to just stop doing business with these businesses. How long do you think they would remain in business?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Maybe, but I don't think protesting CEOs is going to get results either, at least not any good results. We're already seeing signs of aggression on both sides, protesters and cops. Nothing good will come from this. If people are so upset with the CEOs, then boycott them. Rally their protester friends and get the word out to just stop doing business with these businesses. How long do you think they would remain in business?


 I agree in principal, but I have to admit they are effective in getting coverage at least.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Who gave them the bailouts? Our elected officials. I don't understand protesting the banks. Why not protest at the White House, or on the steps of Congress?


Government gave our money because those banks were too big to let fail. The government expected the bail out to save the banks, preserve jobs and get cash flowing again. Instead, the brokerage firms and wall street are having an exclusive party with it. They cotrol the market and we aren't allowed to be a part of their club.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Isn't it interesting that the right wing media only covers the kooks on wall street?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Isn't it interesting that the right wing media only covers the kooks on wall street?


When the fish are so plentiful, everyone eats. And isn't it equally amazing that these kooks aren't noticed by mainstream media?



InvalidID said:


> I agree in principal, but I have to admit they are effective in getting coverage at least.


Not exactly the kind of coverage I would want if I were trying to organize a protest. Those with genuine concerns are being overwhelmed by those who have no clue why they are there.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> I agree in principal, but I have to admit they are effective in getting coverage at least.


What good is getting coverage? Do you really think the company CEOs are going to worry about a bunch of people camping out in the parks stirring up trouble? The CEOs aren't the ones who will suffer from this, mark my words, this will not end well.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Government gave our money because those banks were too big to let fail. The government expected the bail out to save the banks, preserve jobs and get cash flowing again. Instead, the brokerage firms and wall street are having an exclusive party with it. They cotrol the market and we aren't allowed to be a part of their club.


So you agree that it was the government's bailouts that caused this. If the government had stayed out of it, those companies would have either gone under or change the way they do business.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Isn't it interesting that the right wing media only covers the kooks on wall street?


It's not just the right wing media, I've been seeing the kooks on most of the cable news networks, which surprised me. I figured they only did that to the tea party people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And you want to bass the buck to Clinton


No

I'm merely pointing out that Bush never said anything Clinton (and many others) hadn't said before, so there were no "lies".


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> It's not just the right wing media, I've been seeing the kooks on most of the cable news networks, which surprised me. I figured they only did that to the tea party people.


It is like the reporters are in a contest to see who can find the biggest kook or report on the most bazaar behaviour.
Rush thought it was funny that the protesters didn't want their food going to the drug addicts and homeless. Shawn Hannidy made a fuss over a guy with a degree in Economics and $20,000 in student loan debt that was protesting. Never asked what he was protesting about, just made a blanket assumption that he was mad over his student loan.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

haypoint said:


> It is like the reporters are in a contest to see who can find the biggest kook or report on the most bazaar behaviour.
> Rush thought it was funny that the protesters didn't want their food going to the drug addicts and homeless. Shawn Hannidy made a fuss over a guy with a degree in Economics and $20,000 in student loan debt that was protesting. Never asked what he was protesting about, just made a blanket assumption that he was mad over his student loan.


I saw the same thing happening with the tea partys though. It makes good tv I guess.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Rush thought it was funny that the protesters didn't want their food going to the drug addicts and homeless. .


Funny, maybe. Ironic? Definitely. The whole push is "share the wealth" and "equality," correct? Except for their own stuff, I guess. Everyone else's stuff is fair game.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> What good is getting coverage? Do you really think the company CEOs are going to worry about a bunch of people camping out in the parks stirring up trouble? The CEOs aren't the ones who will suffer from this, mark my words, this will not end well.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> It's not just the right wing media, I've been seeing the kooks on most of the cable news networks, which surprised me. I figured they only did that to the tea party people.


Pretty hard to find any who aren't. Bunches were interviewed. Those results pretty much summed it up.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beccachow said:


> Funny, maybe. Ironic? Definitely. The whole push is "share the wealth" and "equality," correct? Except for their own stuff, I guess. Everyone else's stuff is fair game.


The NEWS would have you think that, wouldn't they?

Does the top 1% operate under the same rules as the rest of us? When I go to work each day, I have the best interest of my family, my neighborhood, my employer,my state and my country in mind. I follow the law and if I don't like a law I seek to have it changed. But I realize I'm just one voice, one vote. 

The top 1% can launch an ad campaign that looks grass roots and sway a million votes. The top 1% can get laws changed with a simple phone call.

Capitalisim runs on money and products. The top 1% control the banks and major industries. They shipped the jobs away from us and control the money. 

The economy has stalled for the 99% of us, but the raises and bonuses pour out freely for the 1%.

A few have been caught, like AIG and a few individuals, but the rest continue to sell worthless securities amongst themselves with our savings. We lose and they buy a home in Aruba.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Government gave our money because those banks were too big to let fail. The government expected the bail out to save the banks, preserve jobs and get cash flowing again. Instead, the brokerage firms and wall street are having an exclusive party with it. They cotrol the market and we aren't allowed to be a part of their club.


Oh please it was a political pay off pure and simple...

This liberal carp "Too big to fail" is a bunch of hogwash and is nothing more then a liberal mantra...

The government knew that it was a pay off and now expects that back in campaign contributions.. If you look Obama is getting it also....

Who got most of the money in the auto makers bail out? The Unions.. Share holders got little to nothing.... 
Who allowed GE to become a bank and get a share of the bailouts?
Why none other then the Government!

Imagine that!


So tell me again how it's big business/banks controlling things!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

read " retirement heist"
"'As far as I can determine there is only one solution [to the CEO's demand to save more money]', the HR representative wrote to her superiors. 'That would be the death of all existing retirees.'"

It's no secret that hundreds of companies have been slashing pensions and health coverage earned by millions of retirees. Employers blame an aging workforce, stock market losses, and spiraling costs- what they call "a perfect storm" of external forces that has forced them to take drastic measures. 

But this so-called retirement crisis is no accident. Ellen E. Schultz, award-winning investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, reveals how large companies and the retirement industry-benefits consultants, insurance companies, and banks-have all played a huge and hidden role in the death spiral of American pensions and benefits. 
A little over a decade ago, most companies had more than enough set aside to pay the benefits earned by two generations of workers, no matter how long they lived. But by exploiting loopholes, ambiguous regulations, and new accounting rules, companies essentially turned their pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters, and profit centers. 

Drawing on original analysis of company data, government filings, internal corporate documents, and confidential memos, Schultz uncovers decades of widespread deception during which employers have exaggerated their retiree burdens while lobbying for government handouts, secretly cutting pensions, tricking employees, and misleading shareholders. She reveals how companies: 
* Siphon billions of dollars from their pension plans to finance downsizings and sell the assets in merger deals 
* Overstate the burden of rank-and-file retiree obligations to justify benefits cuts while simultaneously using the savings to inflate executive pay and pensions 
* Hide their growing executive pension liabilities, which at some companies now exceed the liabilities for the regular pension plans 
* Purchase billions of dollars of life insurance on workers and use the policies as informal executive pension funds. When the insured workers and retirees die, the company collects tax-free death benefits 
*Preemptively sue retirees after cutting retiree health benefits and use other legal strategies to erode their legal protections. 

Though the focus is on large companies-which drive the legislative agenda-the same games are being played at smaller companies, non-profits, public pensions plans and retirement systems overseas. Nor is this a partisan issue: employees of all political persuasions and income levels-from managers to miners, pro- football players to pilots-have been slammed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> Oh please it was a political pay off pure and simple...
> 
> This liberal carp "Too big to fail" is a bunch of hogwash and is nothing more then a liberal mantra...
> 
> ...


Big business has hired the government to do things that businesses can't do on their own.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> there were no "lies".


 Just a bunch of public statements that turned out to be false... Just keep telling yourself those werent lies, just 'intel failures'.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Then hit them where it counts, boycott them. No money coming in, they will either go under (if the government doesn't bail them out again) or they will have to make adjustments. On the other hand, the governement took it out of our hands when they used our tax dollars to bail them out. This is why I don't understand this movement. I don't see what they think can be accomplished by trying to humilate or bully these companies.


Who do you really think runs the government? Follow the money, and you will find who is really in charge. The politions need "campain" money to get elected and who are they going to get it from? The unemployed guy? The college grad working at McD's? A plumber who now owes more on his mortage than his house is worth because it dropped 50% in value? Or the WS firm that is showing record profits. Maybe GE, they may not pay taxes, but they sure contribute. Oil companies seem to have a few extra million to contribute every year. Maybe BCBS. Do you really think that politions will cut the purse strings? The guy/gal with the most to spend on their campain wins (in recent history), not the best person for the job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Just a bunch of public statements that turned out to be false


Some of them were never proven *one way or the other*
You just like to pretend they were "false", even though the statements had been made before Bush took office

Since the article was written just 3 months into the invasion, many facts changed afterwards.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Curtis B said:


> Who do you really think runs the government? Follow the money, and you will find who is really in charge. The politions need "campain" money to get elected and who are they going to get it from? The unemployed guy? The college grad working at McD's? A plumber who now owes more on his mortage than his house is worth because it dropped 50% in value? Or the WS firm that is showing record profits. Maybe GE, they may not pay taxes, but they sure contribute. Oil companies seem to have a few extra million to contribute every year. Maybe BCBS. Do you really think that politions will cut the purse strings? The guy/gal with the most to spend on their campain wins (in recent history), not the best person for the job.


Then boycott the businesses. No money coming in, then no money going out to the politicans.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Then boycott the businesses. No money coming in, then no money going out to the politicans.


 How do you boycott Goldman Sachs?


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

Don't let them play with your money.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> Don't let them play with your money.


 Do you think anyone on this forum has money at Goldman? Do you honestly think the average working stiff has money he controls with Goldman?


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

Depends on who does the average working stiff's IRA plan, I suppose. Based on how much money they have under management, I'd think quite a few. Look at everything GS influences and steer clear. When you make a trade in your stock market accounts, be sure to direct your money AWAY from a GS marketmaker. If you sit there saying "I can't make a difference" then you won't. It's just like people who complain Walmart is a blight. Why keep going back there then? nobody goes, they'll close up. Same with GS.
ETA: Just checked, I get a figure of 844 billion dollars under management as of June 2011. Somebody is letting GS play with 844 billion dollars of their money.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> Do you think anyone on this forum has money at Goldman? Do you honestly think the average working stiff has money he controls with Goldman?


I don't know anyone that has money with goldman, even the more well off folks I know. Isn't there a minimum you need to invest with GS? 


This all brings up memories of aspecial I watched on internships. Since internships are a almost manditory part of "getting in" with the larger corporations they interviewed students from a school enroled in classes for a degree in finance. I watched since I never could understand how a person could go to school full time and be a non paid intern( I went to school full time and worked full time), and it is also why so many people that become doctors end up with such high student loans. Almost all of them that were interns came from money, and their parents paid their housing, food, ect. The ones that were not interns were asked why they were not in an internship program. The one that struck me the most the girl that blurted out "Are you going to pay my rent?"


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> Depends on who does the average working stiff's IRA plan, I suppose. Based on how much money they have under management, I'd think quite a few. Look at everything GS influences and steer clear. When you make a trade in your stock market accounts, be sure to direct your money AWAY from a GS marketmaker. If you sit there saying "I can't make a difference" then you won't. It's just like people who complain Walmart is a blight. Why keep going back there then? nobody goes, they'll close up. Same with GS.
> ETA: Just checked, I get a figure of 844 billion dollars under management as of June 2011. Somebody is letting GS play with 844 billion dollars of their money.


 Yep, but most of that money isn't money average people have control over. If your company 401k is run by a Goldman sub, what are you suppose to do, not retire?

I can understand boycotting companies where you have a real choice. But with companies like Goldman it's not so easy. A lot of folks would lose a LOT of money if they cashed out their 401ks or the like.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

Here is a list of several hundred of GS's mutual funds. Are you sure that none of your IRA funds are under GS's control? If they are, then you are profiting from what you decry! Do you really know exactly where your money is and who's controlling it? If not, shame on you.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

So, if "A lot of folks would lose a LOT of money if they cashed out their 401ks or the like. " it makes it OK, right?? LOL. Same as always. Folks want everybody else to do right, just not themselves. I mean, it's wrong if you make money, but it's OK if I do. Sure thing, no doubt. If you want to make a difference, be prepared to sacrifice.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> Here is a list of several hundred of GS's mutual funds. Are you sure that none of your IRA funds are under GS's control? If they are, then you are profiting from what you decry! Do you really know exactly where your money is and who's controlling it? If not, shame on you.


 I have 0 dollars in any mutual fund. Why would I pay someone else to do a worse job doing what I do for a living?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> So, if "A lot of folks would lose a LOT of money if they cashed out their 401ks or the like. " it makes it OK, right?? LOL. Same as always. Folks want everybody else to do right, just not themselves. I mean, it's wrong if you make money, but it's OK if I do. Sure thing, no doubt. If you want to make a difference, be prepared to sacrifice.


 What are you talking about? I'm saying people can't afford to lose 40% of their retirement fund. I don't have a nickle in 401k's or IRA's or anything of the sort. I have nothing invested in mutual funds either. 

But to tell people they should give up 40% of their retirement in protest of Goldman... Yep, that'll resonate with people.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

If GS ain't screwing you, then what's your problem with them? I see people here, all the time, complain about GS, Bank of America, Citibank, and so on. Quit doing business with them. You don't like walmart? don't go there. I got no problem with GS, walmart, Bank of America, Citibank, none of them. Why? I don't do business with them. I do business with Hoopers, up the road. If I got a problem, I go up there and say "I bought these seeds and less than 1 of 5 germinated" and Hooper looks at me, blinks a couple times and says "had you rather have your money back or some more seeds?" and we move forward from there. I don't reckon I'll be boycotting him. On the other hand, I'll never buy anything from Burpee's again. See? I'm in charge of my own decisions. I don't need to complain, I have taken control of my choices.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

InvalidID said:


> What are you talking about? I'm saying people can't afford to lose 40% of their retirement fund. I don't have a nickle in 401k's or IRA's or anything of the sort. I have nothing invested in mutual funds either.
> 
> But to tell people they should give up 40% of their retirement in protest of Goldman... Yep, that'll resonate with people.


So, you got to give up 40% of your retirement by doing business with another company?? nonsense. Or, are you saying you'll be that far ahead by doing business with GS? Cause if you are, then GS is making the 40% difference in your retirement fund and no doubt deserves their pay. So, you want to use them, just don't want to pay them for a superior performance? That makes sense.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

Do you really not see the disconnect between saying "it's good for people to do business with GS" and at the same time saying "GS makes too much money"?? Its exactly like saying "Walmart destroys American businesses but i shop there twice a week"


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> So, you got to give up 40% of your retirement by doing business with another company?? nonsense. Or, are you saying you'll be that far ahead by doing business with GS? Cause if you are, then GS is making the 40% difference in your retirement fund and no doubt deserves their pay. So, you want to use them, just don't want to pay them for a superior performance? That makes sense.


 I'm saying cashing out your 401k will cost you near 40% in a tax hit. Come on man, you're better than stupid games like this.

You don't have a problem with Goldman, great. If you don't understand how they are screwing you, even though you don't do business with them then I could help you. Thing is, judging from the statement above you likely wouldn't understand it.

I'm out.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

"Come on man, you're better than stupid games like this." you know you can transfer your 401k with zero penalty. You may fool somebody with that stuff, but not me nor yourself. I understand GS more than you'll ever imagine, having been on the wrong side of them many times, mostly on oil. But your saying I don't understand is just misdirection on your part, and sad, to boot. This is the fact: You don't want them to make money, don't do business with them. They cannot prosper without the nearly 1 trillion dollars people have willingly given over to them, hoping GS will make them rich. One of us don't understand, that's for sure. And apparently one of us don't even understand the difference in cashing out an IRA and transferring an IRA.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> "Come on man, you're better than stupid games like this." you know you can transfer your 401k with zero penalty. You may fool somebody with that stuff, but not me nor yourself. I understand GS more than you'll ever imagine, having been on the wrong side of them many times, mostly on oil. But your saying I don't understand is just misdirection on your part, and sad, to boot. This is the fact: You don't want them to make money, don't do business with them. They cannot prosper without the nearly 1 trillion dollars people have willingly given over to them, hoping GS will make them rich. One of us don't understand, that's for sure. And apparently one of us don't even understand the difference in cashing out an IRA and transferring an IRA.


 You can't transfer your IRA out of the control company you work for can you? If your company uses Goldman, or if the company they have managing your 401 only buys Goldman mutual funds, what are your options?


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

I spend a difficult time at Google, looking over the 28 million links for "can I transfer IRA to another firm" Not really, I just took the first one. 

No tax penalty for broker-to-broker transfer.

Info on IRA transfers linked below.

"The shifting of funds from one IRA trustee/custodian directly to another trustee/custodian is called a transfer. It is not considered a rollover because nothing was paid over to you. You can have as many transfers as you like each year; transfers are tax-free, and there are no waiting periods between transfers. They don't have to be reported on your tax return."

To be safe, open an IRA at a brokerage firm and ask them to initiate the transfer. DO NOT withdraw the money from your current broker.
Sources: http://taxguide.completetax.com/text/Q07_5200.asp


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> what are your options?


Quit your job and "Occupy Wallstreet"


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> I spend a difficult time at Google, looking over the 28 million links for "can I transfer IRA to another firm"
> 
> No tax penalty for broker-to-broker transfer.
> 
> ...


 That's an IRA, what about 401ks? An IRA is self directed so I understand how people could easily move those. But 401k's are administered by someone else and you really have little choice about that. They are the most common retirement vehicle going right now, what do those people do?

Mind you, I'm not being a smart  here. I'm really looking for solutions.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Quit your job and "Occupy Wallstreet"


 What a constructive and helpful answer. Bless your heart.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

InvalidID said:


> That's an IRA, what about 401ks? An IRA is self directed so I understand how people could easily move those. But 401k's are administered by someone else and you really have little choice about that. They are the most common retirement vehicle going right now, what do those people do?
> 
> Mind you, I'm not being a smart  here. I'm really looking for solutions.


A 401k rollover is what needs to be googled then. I do know that you can roll a 401k into an IRA with no penalty. The IRA can be self directed, of course. The reality of the matter, as you well know, is that everybody wants to get a big return without the effort of keeping up with their own money. Once someone gets to the point where they can claim to have lost $10,000 in their retirement account last week without being acutely aware of their options there is no hope for that person. Everyone has choices, but few even bother finding out what the choices are. Without knowing the details of any given retirement plan, of course I cannot make more than a generalized comment. If you agreed to let ABCD, inc. take 7% out of your pay every week and invest it in crack, booze, and hookers, you probably deserve what you got left over after 30 years. On the other hand, if you have an option of investing in the aforementioned, *or* a package composing of 15% speculative growth, 15% dividend paying, 15% commodities, 50% bonds and 5% crack, booze and hookers, you'll be well advised to take the latter option. I never looked at one without options.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

zong said:


> A 401k rollover is what needs to be googled then. I do know that you can roll a 401k into an IRA with no penalty. The IRA can be self directed, of course. The reality of the matter, as you well know, is that everybody wants to get a big return without the effort of keeping up with their own money.


 I agree with this for the most part. Not having enrolled in a 401k ever, I'm a bit shabby on how roll overs there work. If you move over to an IRA I _think_ you lose the company match though. Depending on how well your account is managed this may or may not mean anything. I would say some personal sacrifices must be made, so the match is it. 

I think I'm liking this as a solution, or part of it anyway. Now we have to find a way to sell it... ound:


A thought came to me after posting. What do you think the odds are we could throw some capitalism at this problem and make a few bucks off it? Think we could open a 'hedge fund' for the little guy, and our niche would be that we avoid places like Goldman, BAC, etc..? Maybe a manage our own mutual fund with the same theme?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> That's an IRA, what about 401ks? An IRA is self directed so I understand how people could easily move those.* But 401k's are administered by someone else and you really have little choice about that*.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> When I had a 401 I had Many choices as to Where and WHO I CHOOSE.
> ...


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> InvalidID said:
> 
> 
> > That's an IRA, what about 401ks? An IRA is self directed so I understand how people could easily move those.* But 401k's are administered by someone else and you really have little choice about that*.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What a constructive and helpful answer


You support the ones doing it so it must be good advice


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You support the ones doing it so it must be good advice


 What a perfectly logical and reasonable thing to say.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> What a constructive and helpful answer. Bless your heart.


Well, are ya for 'em or agin' 'em?

Now over 20 cops in NY have been hurt by the protesters. Thinking of suing. Its a felony, ya know. 
They're sooo much like the TP'ers.

Lets see. How many cops hurt by TP rallies/protesters...I'll look...uh... "0".


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

InvalidID said:


> Yep, but most of that money isn't money average people have control over. If your company 401k is run by a Goldman sub, what are you suppose to do, not retire?
> 
> I can understand boycotting companies where you have a real choice. But with companies like Goldman it's not so easy. A lot of folks would lose a LOT of money if they cashed out their 401ks or the like.


If one truly believes in the OWS message, and hateth the Wall Street, and hateth the Goldman Sachs, then it'd behoove them to yes, pull ALL of one's money out stocks and bonds, and any capital they own that GS and WS might be able to 'touch'.

To bemoan and not divest, is hypocritical. 

Yes, one might lose a lot of money, by divesting, but if one worships at the altar of anti-capitalism, so be it. If one isn't up to losing money, one shouldn't complain, and let the status quo continue.

AFAIK, I have zero money tied up in WS or GS. Mine is tied up in dirt, pine trees, and oil/gas. (not paper, but the kind that gets on you and takes Lava soap to remove)


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

texican said:


> If one truly believes in the OWS message, and hateth the Wall Street, and hateth the Goldman Sachs, then it'd behoove them to yes, pull ALL of one's money out stocks and bonds, and any capital they own that GS and WS might be able to 'touch'.
> 
> To bemoan and not divest, is hypocritical.
> 
> ...


 First, I don't hateth Wall St, I certainly don't worship at the alter of anti-capitalism. But beside that, if you read the rest of the thread you'd see we settled this and came up with a decent idea.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, are ya for 'em or agin' 'em?
> 
> Now over 20 cops in NY have been hurt by the protesters. Thinking of suing. Its a felony, ya know.
> They're sooo much like the TP'ers.
> ...


 For em or against em huh? That's all the options I have? Say's who, you? The world isn't black and white, there is a lot of gray out there. Like shooting a guy in the head, then tossing a grenade at the people that try to render medical aid. Police brutality in my opinion, but maybe hitting him in the head was an accident. Was gassing the people helping him wrong, I say yes. When the cops start clubbing people for protesting, do the people have a right to fight back? I'd say... sometimes. But I digress.

You guys crack me up with this TP thing, you really really do. The TP stands for something, the TP is peaceful and pays to exercise their rights, the TP gets a permit to exercise their rights... That really cracks me up because...

The TP sold out. I've seen you yourself support Rick Perry, he is farther left than most of the OWS people I've met. TP folks voted to raise the debt ceiling, something they 'stood' against. TP folks helped to bring us super congress, more government? Really? TP folks voted to extend the Patriot Act. Isn't that unconstitutional? TP folks are now backing a new 'jobs bill'. You know the one they ripped off from Obama, that we couldn't afford when he proposed it? We couldn't afford it then, and we still can't. What happened to cutting spending anyway, I thought that was something they stood for?

Now, before you tell me how it wasn't ALL the TP people voting for these things I'll remind you it isn't ALL the OWS people hitting cops. They aren't ALL socialist, Marxist, hippies. But if it is how we're going to paint the group, lets paint both because oddly enough more than half the TP candidates sold out, if they hadn't there wouldn't even be an OWS. 

I supported the TP, I loved the idea and had high hopes. It's been a failure, turned into a tool by those people that lead us into this mess in the first place. While I have no doubt there are some people in the TP that have good intentions the group as a whole has failed. Even Karl Denninger can see that. So if following the rules and working within the system doesn't work, what's left?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, are ya for 'em or agin' 'em?
> 
> Now over 20 cops in NY have been hurt by the protesters. Thinking of suing. Its a felony, ya know.
> They're sooo much like the TP'ers.
> ...


Ahh, but don't forget the invisible spit/insult against a politician. You know, the one that never happened??


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> For em or against em huh? That's all the options I have? Say's who, you? The world isn't black and white, there is a lot of gray out there. Like shooting a guy in the head, then tossing a grenade at the people that try to render medical aid. Police brutality in my opinion, but maybe hitting him in the head was an accident. Was gassing the people helping him wrong, I say yes. When the cops start clubbing people for protesting, do the people have a right to fight back? I'd say... sometimes. But I digress.
> 
> You guys crack me up with this TP thing, you really really do. The TP stands for something, the TP is peaceful and pays to exercise their rights, the TP gets a permit to exercise their rights... That really cracks me up because...
> 
> ...


You are quick to bail out & call things failures, I see. I'm willing to hang in there & see what '12 brings.
Tp influenced '10 elections mightily and basically knew all they'd be able to do was prevent the community organizer big zer0 sockpuppet "Owe" from passing anything...so he's doing the EO stuff now...

As far as the OWS group, I'm against anyone who is supported by socialists/communists/nazis. Period. I'm against any group when a cross-section is interviewed states that jews & rich should be exported. I'm against any group when the majority of 'em have never voted & think the US is equal to al-queda.
There's more but you've already read it.

Was just wondering where you stood.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> You are quick to bali out & call things failures, I see. I'm willing to hang in there & see what '12 brings.
> Tp influenced '10 elections mightily and basically knew all they'd be able to do was prevent the community organizer big zer0 sockpuppet "Owe" from passing anything...so he's doing the EO stuff now..
> 
> As far as the OWS group, I'm against anyone who is supported by socialists/communists/nazis. Period. I'm against any group when a cross-section is interviewed states that jews & rich should be exported. I'm against any group when the majority of 'em have never voted & think the US is equal to al-queda.
> ...


 And I'm against anyone that states they stand for something then sells that out at the drop of a hat. Supporting a Constitutional government then supporting the Patriot Act? You can't do both, that's a failure. Supporting conservative values (I support many) then supporting Rick Perry? FAIL. Support the Constitution and limited government then create a Super Congress? FAIL. Support cutting spending and eliminating debt then raise the debt ceiling? FAIL. Support all the things above then support an Obama like jobs program to be paid for with future earnings? FAIL.

And to say America is like Al Quida is quite interesting. Did we liberate Libya then get mad that they want to institute Sharia law? If you liberate a nation you don't get to tell them how to live, that's not liberation. It's conquering. Did we attack Iraq and replace the government there? Why? Because we lost control of Saddam. Do we use our military force to scare (terrorize?) other nations into doing what we want them to? In many ways we are just like Al Quida.

You know where I stand. I haven't changed my position, you guys have. I support the rights of everyone, even the socialists, Marxists and hippies. When they cross the line and break a Constitutional law, arrest them and put them on trial. When the police cross the line and break a Constitutional law, arrest them and put them on trial. Equal application of the law to everyone, including the police, the Marxists, the politicians, the banks, etc etc.

I'm not going to make excuses for the TP or for OWS, you however... All they could do is hold Obama in check? They could have voted against all the things I mentioned above and didn't. FAIL.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Tp influenced '10 elections mightily and basically knew all they'd be able to do was prevent the community organizer big zer0 sockpuppet "Owe" from passing anything...so he's doing the EO stuff now...


True enough, I have in the past stated that I thought it would take a number of election cycles (national, state, local) before the TP influence was really just starting to be ingrained as changed behavior. In my opinion the TP influence on the 2010 elections and post election activity was much more successful than I thought possible at this early stage. They were successful in changing the dialog inside the political mainstream and causing numerous career politicians on both sides of the aisle tremendous heart ache. The current system and players have been in place for many many years and I think it unrealistic to expect major change on just one election cycle.

I don't know about other areas of the country but in my AO the tea party influence has been positive, and I think if the TP is going to be a sustainable effort it needs to start that sustainability at the local level. We will see over the coming years if this happens or not.

As far as the OWS goes, that evil, spooky Glenn Beck had a good program on the subject this past week, outlining the connections with the unions and other players behind the scenes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I'd be willing to bet that ID doesn't listen to Beck...


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2011)

As long as we elect professional, career politicians, nothing will ever change. We will have to elect regular people to the higher offices if we ever want change. The problem is, what regular person would even want a job as a politician? You couldn't beat me long enough or hard enough to make me say yes to a job like that. President?? What kind of deranged person aspires to be the most hated man on earth?? Those are the people we have in DC. It's just sickening. Sick, sorry, sad, but true...


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

fishhead said:


> http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html
> 
> You will pay 15% federal tax IF you are.....
> 
> ...


Or zero tax if you are single and making $34,500 on stocks..

Seriously how many individuals make 4,000,000,000 -profits- on stock this year... Zero that's how many...


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

zong said:


> As long as we elect professional, career politicians, nothing will ever change. We will have to elect regular people to the higher offices if we ever want change. The problem is, what regular person would even want a job as a politician? You couldn't beat me long enough or hard enough to make me say yes to a job like that. President?? What kind of deranged person aspires to be the most hated man on earth?? Those are the people we have in DC. It's just sickening. Sick, sorry, sad, but true...


Part time pay and no bennies (including retirement) for a part-time job.

Plain and simple.

And SS for former Presidents and families, WHY?????


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd be willing to bet that ID doesn't listen to Beck...


 I like Savage better, I like some entertainment with my crazy. Plus, I like his style of crazy better. More in your face.

Just cause I'm curious, I suppose Beck has some good talking points on why it's ok the Tea Party sold us out? Maybe you could just bottom line it for me.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> I like Savage better, I like some entertainment with my crazy. Plus, I like his style of crazy better. More in your face.
> 
> Just cause I'm curious, I suppose Beck has some good talking points on why it's ok the Tea Party sold us out? Maybe you could just bottom line it for me.


Bottom line is, your mantra is getting tiresome. 
Why is it that the left is given years to institute their policies & destroy the nation while the conservatives are written off after a few months?? When they're not even given the bully pulpit, like the left? 
You are going to have to be more patient, '12 will produce results.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

zong said:


> As long as we elect professional, career politicians, nothing will ever change. We will have to elect regular people to the higher offices if we ever want change. The problem is, what regular person would even want a job as a politician? You couldn't beat me long enough or hard enough to make me say yes to a job like that. President?? What kind of deranged person aspires to be the most hated man on earth?? Those are the people we have in DC. It's just sickening. Sick, sorry, sad, but true...


I agree 100%.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Curtis B said:


> I agree 100%.


Yup, ditto. Where is TG with her POTDA?


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2011)

Its is really sad when someone that believes in the Constitutional Republic is labeled a liberal. In all reality the Constitution is a Conservative document outlining RIGHTS and only secondary defining a few privileges. The left/right conundrum is BS designed to divide the people. For by the people is the main theme of the Constitution, the powers to be do not want that. Make laws to violate rights, institute privileges and restrictions to take away the power of the people, which keeps the citizens fighting among themselves not with them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

beccachow said:


> Yup, ditto. Where is TG with her POTDA?


Yup, I agree, POTDA material.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Bottom line is, your mantra is getting tiresome.
> Why is it that the left is given years to institute their policies & destroy the nation while the conservatives are written off after a few months?? When they're not even given the bully pulpit, like the left?
> You are going to have to be more patient, '12 will produce results.


 Ok, a fair question so I'll give you a fair answer. 

The left isn't the only party to blame. 'Conservatives' have helped them lead us down that path as well. You can't blame the left and absolve the right, I'm sorry. And that's my mantra, and will be my mantra until I see a real change in politics.

I wrote 'conservatives' off long before the Tea Party came to be. Bush was a 'conservative' and he sucked. Obama is a liberal, and he sucks. See where I'm at? Partisan politics aren't getting us anywhere but deeper into trouble. 

As for the Tea Party, I haven't written them off yet. I'm simply trying to point out that they haven't yet lived up to the ideals they said they stood for, and many of them sold out as soon as they got an office in DC. Holding them up as the proper way is hurting them more than helping. 

Same goes for OWS. Holding up the portions of OWS you don't agree with and ignoring the parts you do is hurting YOUR cause. Mine too, which is very much the same as yours. I've been saying from the beginning that we should be walking into the crowd and gathering as many folks to the common causes as we can. But instead you guys call them all names and crap all over them.

My point, which is lost on partisans, is people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Also, if you can't see post your party affiliation you'll never see the change you want. Don't look for the change, be the change you wish to see.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> Its is really sad when someone that believes in the Constitutional Republic is labeled a liberal. In all reality the Constitution is a Conservative document outlining RIGHTS and only secondary defining a few privileges. The left/right conundrum is BS designed to divide the people. For by the people is the main theme of the Constitution, the powers to be do not want that. Make laws to violate rights, institute privileges and restrictions to take away the power of the people, which keeps the citizens fighting among themselves not with them.


 I'd say this is a POTD worthy post right here.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

dlmcafee said:


> Its is really sad when someone that believes in the Constitutional Republic is labeled a liberal. In all reality the Constitution is a Conservative document outlining RIGHTS and only secondary defining a few privileges. The left/right conundrum is BS designed to divide the people. For by the people is the main theme of the Constitution, the powers to be do not want that. Make laws to violate rights, institute privileges and restrictions to take away the power of the people, which keeps the citizens fighting among themselves not with them.


Interesting. I thought the Constitution as an apolitical document enumerating in writing some of the more important rights we have as human beings, simply be existing. I did not realize it was only for those of the conservative political bent.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Interesting. I thought the Constitution as an apolitical document enumerating in writing some of the more important rights we have as human beings, simply be existing. I did not realize it was only for those of the conservative political bent.


RIght, but those on the left-like the OWS movement-deem those who are for the Constitution as right radicals.

I think I've lambasted both parties...never thought I'd EVER defend a republican but sure have lately. I'm sure ID, that you think I'm only for anything conservative, pretty much so but not totally.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

InvalidID said:


> As for the Tea Party, I haven't written them off yet. I'm simply trying to point out that they haven't yet lived up to the ideals they said they stood for, and many of them sold out as soon as they got an office in DC. Holding them up as the proper way is hurting them more than helping.
> 
> Same goes for OWS. Holding up the portions of OWS you don't agree with and ignoring the parts you do is hurting YOUR cause. Mine too, which is very much the same as yours. I've been saying from the beginning that we should be walking into the crowd and gathering as many folks to the common causes as we can. But instead you guys call them all names and crap all over them.
> 
> My point, which is lost on partisans, is people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Also, if you can't see post your party affiliation you'll never see the change you want. Don't look for the change, be the change you wish to see.


I will call it as I see it. The reason I have little faith in the TEA Party is because of all the garbage I have heard from members, here and from those I have talked to in other areas. It was impossible to discuss anything without it going straight to politics, religion and the like.

At least with the Occupy groups I could talk but I could also have someone explain their views and we all agreed to keep religion and politics out of our conversations. We talked about issues and possible solutions and pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of everyone's suggestions. It is done as human beings and equals.

I also found the irony in the Occupy group here in Lawrence that once you put politics and religion aside, they were quite similar in views about homesteading, buying local and being self-reliant and self-supporting. On the same path, they also saw the importance of working together and ironing out differences so that a consensus could be found.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> RIght, but those on the left-like the OWS movement-deem those who are for the Constitution as right radicals.
> 
> I think I've lambasted both parties...never thought I'd EVER defend a republican but sure have lately. I'm sure ID, that you think I'm only for anything conservative, pretty much so but not totally.


I am part of Occupy and I have NOT said anyone supporting the Constitution is a right radical. I have said other things about right leaning people here, but I have not said that.

I do, however, view many posters here as rigid thinkers who have authoritarian personality types and who love very traditional views with very conservative, Christian fundamentalist flavors.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Interesting. I thought the Constitution as an apolitical document enumerating in writing some of the more important rights we have as human beings, simply be existing. I did not realize it was only for those of the conservative political bent.


 I don't think that's what (s)he was trying to say. I think they were pointing out that the Constitution is conservative in that it tries to limit it's listing of rights, instead supporting the idea that rights aren't limited to those listed. I might be wrong though.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

While I do not feel like I can be a part of the TEA Party, I will point out in the following image that there are areas where both the TEA Party and the Occupy movement overlap:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

reluctantpatriot said:


> While I do not feel like I can be a part of the TEA Party, I will point out in the following image that there are areas where both the TEA Party and the Occupy movement overlap:


 Now draw a circle around the whole thing and you have me.... LOL


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

InvalidID said:


> Now draw a circle around the whole thing and you have me.... LOL


You are the only one I feel that I could relate to. Well, you and Haypoint...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> I don't think that's what (s)he was trying to say. I think they were pointing out that the Constitution is conservative in that it tries to limit it's listing of rights, instead supporting the idea that rights aren't limited to those listed. I might be wrong though.


Except that the Constitution clearly points out that our unalienable rights exceed those that are listed. The ninth and tenth amendments are quite clear about that:
AMENDMENT IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Except that the Constitution clearly points out that our unalienable rights exceed those that are listed. The ninth and tenth amendments are quite clear about that:
> AMENDMENT IX
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> ...


 That's what I said.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2011)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Interesting. I thought the Constitution as an apolitical document enumerating in writing some of the more important rights we have as human beings, simply be existing. I did not realize it was only for those of the conservative political bent.


You are right it is apolitcal to an extent and my use of conservative was not intended to mean the party. The republican party has been deemed the conservative party but I would argue they are anything but now. The basic belief of the founding republicans held that small government and limited authority was its mantra. I am not a republican as the party stands now, I am not a Democrat for we are not a democratic society here, I am a Constitutionalist at heart and truly believe if we followed that document in the spirit it was written we would live a freer life.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2011)

By the way reluctantpatriot your illustration shows the symbiotic relation defined by Mussolini as fascism, very good I agree circle all the way around and you have me also.


----------

