For Those Who Don't "Get" OWS. This Explains It...

page: 7
64
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Both must be changed, and at the exact same time.

Remember, it's the elite who are working above the distinctions of corporations and governments. Where one end gains supposed freedom, the other tightens their grip.

The OWS movement and the Tea party movement seem to be but a means of buying time for the elite to further suck our society dry before ditching out of being beheaded.

They polarize us into: no stupid, focus on the government. No stupid, focus on the corporations. It's the same game of divide and conquer running on it's last leg.

Think like an elite, then think beyond an elite and capture the bastards, to conquer the land once again.

Until we the people fully unite, all is just a game of masterful chess, and they're thinking far ahead of the average mind.
edit on 10-10-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


Playing your enemies against one another is the *OLDEST* trick in the book.

-rrr




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pngxp
reply to post by CantSay
 


wasnt it over regulation that largely led to this?

when the government started telling banks they HAD to give loans to the "underprivileged". because that way the poor and minorities could finally own homes too?

banks used to be able to make decisions on their own if i understand things right. if somebody came in and said "i work as a janitor this year. ive had 10 jobs in the past 5 years, and i make aproximately $20,000 a year. and have 3 kids i pay child support for. i would like a loan for $250,000 for a house" the banks could just say NO. because it is obvious that they are a risky loan.

had the banks been able to pick and choose who they give loans to, we probably wouldnt be in this mess. but instead, government had to get involved and make sure "everything was fair" for everyone, and anyone could get a loan that wanted one. creative solutions had to be implemented because banks HAD TO lend to people.

and people who dont understand what adjustable rates are and dont understand what interest is, or how it works, or why its even there are just completely innocent because they didnt want to take the time to read and understand a document they were signing that committed them to a 30 year agreement??? what sort of idiot does that??? how is that the banks fault that people are extremely ignorant, lazy and greedy?? people wanted things they couldnt afford! thats what caused a lot of this mess. the bankers are just soooo greedy for "taking everyones money", but the people who took the money from the bank that they could never pay back arent greedy at all? go figure.

it just not the banks fault like everyone makes it out to be. and if you truly believe it is, then you are now officially buying My house, because i offered it to you. you will be purchasing it for $600,000. send me a private message with your address where i can send you the contract. but dont worry about reading it. its not important that you know what you are getting into. its only 30 years anyways!


I remember when I got my first loan, The bank made it very hard to borrow 1300. I was a student. They checked in every way possible that I could pay back. I guess banks don't do that anymore! time to borrow money wheeeeeee!!!!!!


-rrr



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I can't argue with that, it would definitely send a much stronger message. Better yet, why not give him the petition, and give him that mafia-esque threat?



That works for me - "Here's what you're agreeing to in writing for the whole world to see, and here's what happens if you don't live up to your end of the bargain."



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Himal
All the people that are calling the OWS movement Anti-Capitalism are completely brain-washed by the MSM. What we have today is a morden version of Feudalism -



Feudalism was a social system that originated in medieval Europe according to which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection[1]

wikipedia

Capitalism is a system where you make profit while ensuring the lively hood of your employees and making sure that your service and/or products help the end users.
Making a profit AT ANY COST is NOT the ONLY goal of Capitalism




Maybe you're the one who's brainwashed... or just ignorant of the facts?
biggovernment.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The sad part about watching these debates about this issue is that there are still people disagreeing for the sake if it. Simply to oppose someone in the "other" party. I think everyone pretty much agrees with what Grayson is saying, regardless of what "party" they subscribe to. This is not a partisan issue in my eyes. Too bad the OWS movement is being hijacked by political interests. One of the parties always has to lay claim to whatever hot button issue is trending. Pathetic.


edit on 10-10-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Originally posted by pngxp
reply to post by CantSay
 


wasnt it over regulation that largely led to this?

when the government started telling banks they HAD to give loans to the "underprivileged". because that way the poor and minorities could finally own homes too?

banks used to be able to make decisions on their own if i understand things right. if somebody came in and said "i work as a janitor this year. ive had 10 jobs in the past 5 years, and i make aproximately $20,000 a year. and have 3 kids i pay child support for. i would like a loan for $250,000 for a house" the banks could just say NO. because it is obvious that they are a risky loan.

had the banks been able to pick and choose who they give loans to, we probably wouldnt be in this mess. but instead, government had to get involved and make sure "everything was fair" for everyone, and anyone could get a loan that wanted one. creative solutions had to be implemented because banks HAD TO lend to people.

and people who dont understand what adjustable rates are and dont understand what interest is, or how it works, or why its even there are just completely innocent because they didnt want to take the time to read and understand a document they were signing that committed them to a 30 year agreement??? what sort of idiot does that??? how is that the banks fault that people are extremely ignorant, lazy and greedy?? people wanted things they couldnt afford! thats what caused a lot of this mess. the bankers are just soooo greedy for "taking everyones money", but the people who took the money from the bank that they could never pay back arent greedy at all? go figure.

it just not the banks fault like everyone makes it out to be. and if you truly believe it is, then you are now officially buying My house, because i offered it to you. you will be purchasing it for $600,000. send me a private message with your address where i can send you the contract. but dont worry about reading it. its not important that you know what you are getting into. its only 30 years anyways!


I remember when I got my first loan, The bank made it very hard to borrow 1300. I was a student. They checked in every way possible that I could pay back. I guess banks don't do that anymore! time to borrow money wheeeeeee!!!!!!


-rrr


I've have discussion this before. The details about bank deregulation was lobbied by the banks to government upon which then the government asked the banks to offer loans to people who couldn't afford it due to the banks lobbying for it. The lobbying BY the banks for a benefit OF the banks and NOT the people. CHECK YOUR FACTS!

Problem with lobbying is that the history of it is easily forgotten. The banks ARE at fault! They saw a goldmine in a deregulated system where they could offer more loans to more people plain and simple because the market was already saturated by those that could afford loans under previous regulation. I find it simply amazing how easy people forget history or how the facts are twisted because it is inconvenient in some way.

Also I bet there are a lot of bankers on this site trying to defend the banks they work for, banks in general, as it is their livelihood. If you are banker than see the facts clearly. Don't let socioeconomic pressures, such as earning a living, obscure objective thought...if you are a banker or related to the banking system.

www.wsws.org...
edit on 10-10-2011 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by pngxp
reply to post by CantSay
 


wasnt it over regulation that largely led to this?

when the government started telling banks they HAD to give loans to the "underprivileged". because that way the poor and minorities could finally own homes too?

banks used to be able to make decisions on their own if i understand things right. if somebody came in and said "i work as a janitor this year. ive had 10 jobs in the past 5 years, and i make aproximately $20,000 a year. and have 3 kids i pay child support for. i would like a loan for $250,000 for a house" the banks could just say NO. because it is obvious that they are a risky loan.

had the banks been able to pick and choose who they give loans to, we probably wouldnt be in this mess. but instead, government had to get involved and make sure "everything was fair" for everyone, and anyone could get a loan that wanted one. creative solutions had to be implemented because banks HAD TO lend to people.

and people who dont understand what adjustable rates are and dont understand what interest is, or how it works, or why its even there are just completely innocent because they didnt want to take the time to read and understand a document they were signing that committed them to a 30 year agreement??? what sort of idiot does that??? how is that the banks fault that people are extremely ignorant, lazy and greedy?? people wanted things they couldnt afford! thats what caused a lot of this mess. the bankers are just soooo greedy for "taking everyones money", but the people who took the money from the bank that they could never pay back arent greedy at all? go figure.

it just not the banks fault like everyone makes it out to be. and if you truly believe it is, then you are now officially buying My house, because i offered it to you. you will be purchasing it for $600,000. send me a private message with your address where i can send you the contract. but dont worry about reading it. its not important that you know what you are getting into. its only 30 years anyways!


Yes, you are exactly correct. You are explaining the problem very well. The government, spearheaded by the Democrats, were strong-armed into giving these loans to unqualified people. George Bush warned of exactly this:


Mythmaking is in full swing as the Bush administration prepares to leave town. Among the more prominent is the assertion that the housing meltdown resulted from unbridled capitalism under a president opposed to all regulation.

Like most myths, this is entertaining but fictional. In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand.

Rather than a failure of capitalism, the housing meltdown shows what's likely to happen when government grants special privileges to favored private entities that facilitate bad actors and lousy practices.

Fannie and Freddie are "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs), chartered by Congress. As such, they had an implicit promise of taxpayer backing and could borrow money at rates well below competitors.

Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.

Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.


online.wsj.com...



Please check your facts. Banks lobbied for deregulation, which then government listened and deregulated it offering loans to people who shouldn't get it. Again the banks saw a goldmine in offering more loans. They should have known better, but they lobbied for it! Look it up!

www.wsws.org...

Lastly, I doubt very much George Bush knows anything about economics. If he cared while he was in office, he would have re-regulated the banks and restricted them from offering bad loans.
edit on 10-10-2011 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by citizen3273676
reply to post by Underworlds
 


my point was they removed mubarak not that life instantly became perfect and they all lived happily eva afta the end.



And my point is, citizen3273676, that the "revolution" in Egypt and subsequent overthrow of Mubarack resulted in deadly consequences for people who would most probably still be alive today if the so-called revolutionaries had not been successful. And my point is that due to this revolution, there is now a murdering spree against Christians in Cairo where such a spree did not exist before.

My point is that nothing good came from the overthrow of Mubarack, and nothing good will come from the OWS protests either. In the end, a multitude of innocent persons and businesses will suffer immensely as a result of these protests.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Underworlds

Originally posted by citizen3273676
reply to post by Underworlds
 


my point was they removed mubarak not that life instantly became perfect and they all lived happily eva afta the end.



And my point is, citizen3273676, that the "revolution" in Egypt and subsequent overthrow of Mubarack resulted in deadly consequences for people who would most probably still be alive today if the so-called revolutionaries had not been successful. And my point is that due to this revolution, there is now a murdering spree against Christians in Cairo where such a spree did not exist before.

My point is that nothing good came from the overthrow of Mubarack, and nothing good will come from the OWS protests either. In the end, a multitude of innocent persons and businesses will suffer immensely as a result of these protests.


In a way I agree, but change is never easy. we have to fight with ideologies not guns. Make the US perfect and all the people content and happy and the world will want to follow how the US did it.

The unfortunate thing is that in any revolution there will be those corrupt individuals, driven by self-interest, who will use the chaos to their benefit like what happened in Egypt. We have to fight with ideas...better ideas!
edit on 11-10-2011 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Underworlds
 


first of all your point had nothing to do with anything stated in my post. you can keep going on about egypt all you want i was merely trying to support american protesters and at the same time insult all the morons that insult the ows protesters by comparing them to a scumbag oppresive regime that only existed because america gave mbarak one Billion dollars a year for thirty years. (thats 30 Billion Dollars)

idk much about egypt and im betting you dont either. though you try and come across as an expert that knows everything about egypt including any possible future of egypt. im amazed you dont make millions in cosulting fees for your indepth knowledge of all the ins and outs of an entire country wait ohh yeah because this thread has nothing to do with egypt apparently you cant read/comprehend my post maybe you wasted all your brain studying arabic and egyption politics probably living in egypt you know minimum requirements of knowing anything about egypt.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


One of the good points I never hear being made about universal health care is the number of jobs that would be created. If all those millions of people who can't currently afford care were suddenly given access to it there would be a huge demand for more health care professionals...Drs, nurses, support staff...All the way around.


Very true....not to mention the simple fact that people who aren't sick, can work more! A healthy population is a strong, productive population!





top topics
 
64
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join