Day of Rage on Wall Street! Protesters Occupy Brooklyn Bridge!

Tell me what you know about the banking system and the Federal Reserve.

 

I did back it up. I just didn't provide a link, thinking you knew how to use Google.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html

Meanwhile most of the big corporations pay NO taxes. Neither does the ultra rich segment of the population Buffet belongs to, who have most of their wealth in offshore accounts.

 

Getting back on topic, anyone care to address this?

So why does the OWS website support something that is being put forward by the Obama administration? I thought this is an anti-establishment protest, yet many of the protesters seem to be touting what the system itself (which includes Wall Street) is proposing.

 

Again, it's a loose-knit group. If you don't like it, get involved and alter their aim. They support it because they think it's better than what exists now. They're trying, and you're not. It's better to try than not to try, even if they're slightly misinformed.

 

The way buffet said it, it applies to millionaires.. what obama did is a seperate issue.

This is another example of you twisting facts to fit your argument. This is why you have no credibility when you speak about these things.


http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/economy/buffett_taxes/index.htm?iid=EL

See how facts work?

 

Even tho my dad was a banker his whole life and I worked in one for a minute--I don't know much about them,so I don't comment--just listen. But what did you mean--commie protesters?

 

O'rly?

 

So. a guy comes out and says, This is what I think should be done... Someone else comes out and says, that means the same thing we said... and you just believe them without actually checking the facts for yourself?

You were saying something about people not knowing what they were talking about???

 

So how is what Obama proposing different then? You failed to address this, yet are throwing insults at me.

 

It's OK, folks, I won't post in this thread anymore.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but this sure seems to be picking up a lot of steam to me.

Everyday, more occupations start, more groups join in, some of them big unions... It's going to be an interesting winter...

 

It is interesting and should excite us. After all, it worked in Iceland - after the meltdown they managed to protest, then oust their weak government and even write a new constitution; even after years of neo-liberal policies that led directly to their woes.

http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1

 

Is it just me, or is there a bit of a discrepency, not only in the article, but also in what you said?

Without knowing more then just what I read in that article (that will change quickly), I would say that laying the collapse at the feet of the 'neo-liberal' idea's seems a little 'off'...

 

What most of the world calls 'neo-liberal', those of us from the US and I think Canada as well call 'neo-conservative'. I hope that clears it up.

 

lol, not really... In fact, that really confuses me more.... Is that like saying we are so liberal that most liberals elsewhere seem conservative???

Just in digging since the other post, it seems to me that the country wasn't in bad shape until they deregulated the banks?

That's relatively speaking of course... but to be described as one of the richest countries in the world only to collapse a few years later, makes it seem like to me that it was dergulating the banks that did it.

I'm still digging though.

 

OK, I broke my promise.

Just to clarify what the person two posts above said.

*Neo-liberalism refers to economics

*Neo-conservatism refers to foreign policy

*Most neoconservatives are neo-liberals, if that makes any sense.

 

Ha, I don't think so. I think the reason the name is different in North America is because conservatives (who were then switching to 'neo-con') didn't want to have the dirty 'liberal' word in the name of their philosophy. So it is simply called 'new' or 'neo' conservative. The rest of the world, thinking that deregulation would solve all problems was considered liberal in a different sense that what they, and even we, would classicly define as liberal, so they call it 'new' or 'neo' liberal.

I think you're absolutely right; the deregulation of banks fits in as one of the neo-cons top priorities.

 

In otherwords, they are playing games trying to confuse people to voting for them based on labels rather then substance... Much like the Conservatives here are called the 'progressive' conservatives...

 

Yeah, I think so. Either that or my synopsis is wrong and the US just thinks a lot differently about what makes a conservative and what makes a liberal. But either way, the labels don't seem to mean shit.