Who are these Republicans?

[B-Large]

Gary Johnson ®

 

Last night I went to Occupy Wall Street. I wanted to see what was happening down there. It confirmed what I had thought. You got a lot of people outraged over the fact that we have a country that isn't all that fair. It starts with government granting favors, if you will to well-connected groups. And when I say government I mean politicians that grant favoritism to individuals, groups, and corporations that are well connected politically. When it comes to Wall Street, I don't know if there wasn't criminal prosecution because crimes weren't committed. The crimes were that favors were granted. Individuals and banks that made really poor decisions were not rewarded by becoming bankrupt and losing the money that they had. Instead they were bailed out. We paid the cost for that.

 

Corporatism exists in this country. it is real and alive. There is a real awareness [of this] right at the moment that makes change in this country ripe.

 

 

 

I have to express my solidarity with everyone [at Occupy Wall Street] that we have a country that doles it out unfairly. We bailed out banks that made horrific decisions. They should have been rewarded for those decisions by losing their money. We bailed them out at a cost of almost $1 trillion. I'm outraged by that.

 

 

Buddy Roemer

 

 

Please know that I stand by you ... It is Main Street that creates the majority of jobs in America; it is Main Street that sends our brave young men and women to war; it is Main Street that hurts when another manufacturing plant closes only to be re-opened in China; it is Main Street that is being foreclosed on; and it is Main Street that is suffering while the greed of Wall Street continues to hurt our middle-class ... Wall Street grew to be a source of capital for growing companies. It has become something else: A facilitator for greed and for the selling of American jobs. Enough already.

 

I was reading through a article about what many political leaders around this country have said about Occupy Wall Street. I was most interested in the R's responses.... many of them exactly as I expected "lazy, class warfaring, shots at Obama".... but I was interested in these two R's that I have never really heard of. John Hunstman and Ron Paul also had a similar flavor, but I certainly knew who they were.

 

What do you suppose is the reason these cats are not even mentioned? The quotes seem resonable, a fair portrayal of the siuation in America right now- I assume are small government supporters, and seems to recongnize sucking the life out of the middle class is a not a good end game approach.

 

Did these guys squeeze out of that cellar where the Middle Class protecting R's have been hiding for decades? As you might have observed, I am a centrist for the most part, but have been voting Dem for 10 years now..... but to be honest, these are the Republicans Party guys who make me want to reconsider voting R, giving them a chance again. IMHO, the R have over and over protected the Rich in this country.... not that I think the 1%s should shoudler the burden or be punished for their possession or success... that is UnAmerican- but so is shifting more and more burden on the hard working of this country.

 

Anybody have some input on these guys?

[GG]

I know that you are a newbie, so let's get turn back the clock to get some facts straight.

 

The ONLY reason that a $1 trillion (sic) bailout was needed was that somebody inside Treasury & Fed thought it may be a good idea to experiment with letting a too big to fail financial firm fail. How did that work out? So after the disaster that a disorderly Lehman bankruptcy wrought, two years later the prescription is to do it again, but now with a bigger firm?

 

Second, the bailout was much less that $1 trillion, and most of the firms that OWS and the public considers evil have repaid the vast majority of the money lent out - most at a profit to the government. The remaining firms on the dole - GM, Chrysler, AIG, Freddie & Fannie.

 

So while you can decry the bailout, you should also acknowledge that the government abeted the conditions that required the bailout in the first place. Never mind the politically incorrect discussion that the entire 2000 decade was built on a massive credit card spending binge by the US consumer. The bankers just kept on feeding the booze to the alcoholic.

[Jauronimo]

I was reading through a article about what many political leaders around this country have said about Occupy Wall Street. I was most interested in the R's responses.... many of them exactly as I expected "lazy, class warfaring, shots at Obama".... but I was interested in these two R's that I have never really heard of. John Hunstman and Ron Paul also had a similar flavor, but I certainly knew who they were.

 

What do you suppose is the reason these cats are not even mentioned? The quotes seem resonable, a fair portrayal of the siuation in America right now- I assume are small government supporters, and seems to recongnize sucking the life out of the middle class is a not a good end game approach.

 

Did these guys squeeze out of that cellar where the Middle Class protecting R's have been hiding for decades? As you might have observed, I am a centrist for the most part, but have been voting Dem for 10 years now..... but to be honest, these are the Republicans Party guys who make me want to reconsider voting R, giving them a chance again. IMHO, the R have over and over protected the Rich in this country.... not that I think the 1%s should shoudler the burden or be punished for their possession or success... that is UnAmerican- but so is shifting more and more burden on the hard working of this country.

 

Anybody have some input on these guys?

How well off would "Main Street" and the 99% be if our financial system was allowed to collapse? Even after the "bail outs" lending and credit still stalled for months. GE, whose Net Income rivals the GDP of many nations, had issues obtaining financing for F#$%s sake. Without access to credit how will Main Street run their businesses and who will provide loans to consumers for big ticket items? And what then happens to the auto, housing, retail, and every other sector as spending grinds to a halt as credit dries up? And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands employed by the banking sector and the many other businesses which provide services to the BofAs, JPMs, Citi's etc., aren't they part of the 99%? Are they not counted in employment statistics while these men say let them fail?

 

When any of these flapping heads can answer these question then I might listen. The banking and financial sectors are in need of reform, for sure. Levering up on garbage and trying to cover with credit default swaps cannot be allowed to bring the global economy to its knees again. But letting the global financial system collapse, which hurts all of us, to teach Lehman, Bear, JPM, BofA, a lesson is beyond irresponsible. As is encouraging a run on the largest bank by assets in the US.

 

I know the OWS crew will never accept these simple truths unless I can make it rhyme and fit it on a sign, but this simple minded "banks got bailed out, we got sold out" mentality needs to be exposed for the garbage that it is.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Jauronimo

[DC Tom]

I know that you are a newbie, so let's get turn back the clock to get some facts straight.

 

The ONLY reason that a $1 trillion (sic) bailout was needed was that somebody inside Treasury & Fed thought it may be a good idea to experiment with letting a too big to fail financial firm fail. How did that work out? So after the disaster that a disorderly Lehman bankruptcy wrought, two years later the prescription is to do it again, but now with a bigger firm?

 

Second, the bailout was much less that $1 trillion, and most of the firms that OWS and the public considers evil have repaid the vast majority of the money lent out - most at a profit to the government. The remaining firms on the dole - GM, Chrysler, AIG, Freddie & Fannie.

 

So while you can decry the bailout, you should also acknowledge that the government abeted the conditions that required the bailout in the first place. Never mind the politically incorrect discussion that the entire 2000 decade was built on a massive credit card spending binge by the US consumer. The bankers just kept on feeding the booze to the alcoholic.

 

Don't forget that the bankers did that in no small part because the government encouraged them to, specifically to grow the economy and promote home ownership.

[....lybob]

Gary Johnson ®

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buddy Roemer

 

 

 

 

I was reading through a article about what many political leaders around this country have said about Occupy Wall Street. I was most interested in the R's responses.... many of them exactly as I expected "lazy, class warfaring, shots at Obama".... but I was interested in these two R's that I have never really heard of. John Hunstman and Ron Paul also had a similar flavor, but I certainly knew who they were.

 

What do you suppose is the reason these cats are not even mentioned? The quotes seem resonable, a fair portrayal of the siuation in America right now- I assume are small government supporters, and seems to recongnize sucking the life out of the middle class is a not a good end game approach.

 

Did these guys squeeze out of that cellar where the Middle Class protecting R's have been hiding for decades? As you might have observed, I am a centrist for the most part, but have been voting Dem for 10 years now..... but to be honest, these are the Republicans Party guys who make me want to reconsider voting R, giving them a chance again. IMHO, the R have over and over protected the Rich in this country.... not that I think the 1%s should shoudler the burden or be punished for their possession or success... that is UnAmerican- but so is shifting more and more burden on the hard working of this country.

 

Anybody have some input on these guys?

Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are two candidates you are going to have a hard time finding on main stream media, but it's not a surprise, look how main stream does everything in their power to ignore and marginalize Ron Paul. Gary Johnson has some interesting ideas on how revenue should be collected (google fair tax plan), Buddy Roemer focus is on getting special interest money out of politics, he has a couple interesting ideas for transparency that might be workable but unless either/both "money= free speech" and "corporate personage" are overturned then his other ideas would probably be ruled unconstitutional.

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

I know that you are a newbie, so let's get turn back the clock to get some facts straight.

 

The ONLY reason that a $1 trillion (sic) bailout was needed was that somebody inside Treasury & Fed thought it may be a good idea to experiment with letting a too big to fail financial firm fail. How did that work out? So after the disaster that a disorderly Lehman bankruptcy wrought, two years later the prescription is to do it again, but now with a bigger firm?

 

Second, the bailout was much less that $1 trillion, and most of the firms that OWS and the public considers evil have repaid the vast majority of the money lent out - most at a profit to the government. The remaining firms on the dole - GM, Chrysler, AIG, Freddie & Fannie.

 

So while you can decry the bailout, you should also acknowledge that the government abeted the conditions that required the bailout in the first place. Never mind the politically incorrect discussion that the entire 2000 decade was built on a massive credit card spending binge by the US consumer. The bankers just kept on feeding the booze to the alcoholic.

 

 

For many, the bailout isn't a consideration....the financial/political influence of the banking industry is.

 

I don't care that bailouts happened....I care that private firms (both banking and non-banking) can spend money, effectively "lobby" Congress for legislative back slaps, and pass along the costs to the consumer.

 

And I certainly hope that criticism of the bailout in connection with the Tea party movement was treated the same way around here. I sure hope all the TP threads were filled with "back off the bailout they paid it back".

Edited November 12, 2011 by DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

[B-Large]

For many, the bailout isn't a consideration....the financial/political influence of the banking industry is.

 

I don't care that bailouts happened....I care that private firms (both banking and non-banking) can spend money, effectively "lobby" Congress for legislative back slaps, and pass along the costs to the consumer.

 

And I certainly hope that criticism of the bailout in connection with the Tea party movement was treated the same way around here. I sure hope all the TP threads were filled with "back off the bailout they paid it back".

 

Socializing risk is not a component of free-market economics.... I am tired of banks and congress viewing the masses as powerless patsies...

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Socializing risk is not a component of free-market economics.... I am tired of banks and congress viewing the masses as powerless patsies...

This country has never worked on the basis of free market economics

Edited November 12, 2011 by Dave_In_Norfolk

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

Socializing risk is not a component of free-market economics.... I am tired of banks and congress viewing the masses as powerless patsies...

 

But it IS a component of self-interest in the current political and economic climate of America. There is ALWAYS someone else that can bear the burden for your enrichment. And Congress knows that, banks know it, welfare recipients know it, corporations know it, etc.

 

Rare is the situation where a cost can't be transferred to someone else. Even pre-social contract scenarios feature the availability of theft/looting for one's gain at the loss of someone else. At this point its tough to see how it isn't inevitable.

[GG]

 

And I certainly hope that criticism of the bailout in connection with the Tea party movement was treated the same way around here. I sure hope all the TP threads were filled with "back off the bailout they paid it back".

 

Not quite understand your point, but if you use the search feature of the debates in Sept 2009, you will see a lot of people who understand GLOBAL financial markets were arguing strongly for TARP, because they recognized that the biggest problem facing the system at that time was confidence & liquidity.

 

I know there's a predisposition to think provincially about the US markets as if the relationship between Wall Street & DC is the only thing that moves the needle, while ignoring that global finance is actually global, and the markets are very much intertwined (as if anyone who's picked up a business section in the last 2 years should also understand).