What should have been done...

[300 H&H]

The protests ongoing on Wall Street might have been avoided if only a couple of things would have happened that didn't...

1) Reinstate the Glass Stegal act, that clearly seperated banks, investment brokerages, and insurance companies. This would clean up these bussiness that are now muddled together in this big mess. It would not allow an institution that is not a bank to raid the FDIC funds in their failure. Our rather "bright" fore fathers knew after the great depression, how these business's need to be totaly seperated. But the currant generation had to do away with the "old and obscure law" that could not have any place in modern markets. SO in 1999 with BOTH PARTIES voting to end this important, and yes OLD law.

2) End any off exchange markets, derrrivaties and credit defalt swaps, collateralized debt obligations. the reason these markets exist is to hide form the public and make the rules as you go along. Not a good thing in my mind anyway. Make new law making this type of activity illegal and punishable with long prison terms.....

3) Find those responcible for these off exchange activities and punish them in a court of law for their reckless and irresponcible activities, Send a clear message to the "intellectules" on Wall Street that their actions will be held fully accountable and they will be hunted down and prosecuted for their actions to the fullest extent possible.

Had this been done I belive we would be better off and there would not be the protests we now have....Any thoughts??

If I am off base here, please tell me so....

Regards, Kirk

[rcairflr]

None of those would have had anything to do with stopping the protesters.

The protest is all about a liberal-progressive movement.

Even though the Democrats were the ones to pass all the bailouts, the protests are not against them, it is against those who have succeeded.

[carver]

Originally Posted by rcairflr

None of those would have had anything to do with stopping the protesters.

The protest is all about a liberal-progressive movement.

Even though the Democrats were the ones to pass all the bailouts, the protests are not against them, it is against those who have succeeded.

I agree whole heartedly! How would it be possible to pass laws that would insure us of no cheaters? Can't be done, and just remember that every law that is passed in this country just takes us deeper into slavery, as it is a fact that the law inslaves.

http://www.hermes-press.com/wshist1.htm

[300 H&H]

My thoughts are these protests are all about the financial segment of our economy i.e. "Wall Street" that has wrecked our economy, sucking how many trillions away from our govenment in the so called "Bank bailout". Bear Sterns a bank? not for most of my life....It caused "quanitative easing" (printing of money) that will some day come back to bite us hard. Inflation would be my bet.

These protests are about that I think, not some liberal atttemp to do what ever. People of BOTH parties are there. Not what my take is at all.

Regards, Kirk

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by rcairflr

None of those would have had anything to do with stopping the protesters.

The protest is all about a liberal-progressive movement.

Even though the Democrats were the ones to pass all the bailouts, the protests are not against them, it is against those who have succeeded.

The bail out was Republican George W. Bush's idea. Democrats took control and passed the Repulican bail-out bill. So, the whole truth is that the bail-out was a bi-partisan effort. Why was the bail out bi-partisan? Because Wall Street owns our political system, the so-called right, left and center.

The 2008 financial melt down resulted from the decline of meaningful regulation. After 2008, Democrats failed to pass financial reform during their two years of control. Next up is going to be the GOP, and they are totaly opposed to any regulation of Wall Street. So, things are going to get alot worse for the shrinking American middle class.

[rcairflr]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

The bail out was Republican George W. Bush's idea. Democrats took control and passed the Repulican bail-out bill. So, the whole truth is that the bail-out was a bi-partisan effort. Why was the bail out bi-partisan? Because Wall Street owns our political system, the so-called right, left and center.

The 2008 financial melt down resulted from the decline of meaningful regulation. After 2008, Democrats failed to pass financial reform during their two years of control. Next up is going to be the GOP, and they are totaly opposed to any regulation of Wall Street. So, things are going to get alot worse for the shrinking American middle class.

It takes 2 branches of government to pass a bill. The Executive and the legislative. The legislative is split in 2, Senate and the House of Representatives.

Of those 3, two were controlled and passed overwhelmingly by the Democrats. Yes is is true that GWB signed TARP into law, but he was only 1/3 of what it took to pass, The Rep in Congress voted against it.

The collapse of the financial system was started with millions of bad loans that went to people who could not afford the house they got into or became way underwater because they bought at the peak of housing prices. This was caused by millions of ignorant American consumers and weak policies that have a lot of blame to go around in both parties of the government.

I disagree with you that the Rep are against any regulation of Wall Street, they have a different opinion of what that regulation should be than the Democrats.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of either party. My beliefs lean way toward conservatism, and neither party is conservative, as far as I'm concerned both parties are liberal, its just that the Dems are more liberal.

[300 H&H]

I say the collape of the finacial system was a result of interst rates being too low as well. This is supposed to be a tool for the fed to stimulate the economy...how is that working for you? You can only go so low and for quite a while it's been only the Government who's massive debt this bennifits. The interst rates will not get anyone to save, something that it needs to do. Money that was once comfortable earning interest had to find a home with a decent return. The home mortgatge industry was a ready and willing place for this massive amount of money to be "securiterized" in to junk home loans written by those who had something to gain. The brakes are now off, and the ball rolled untill it hit the brick wall of no more money flowing in...The "rules" of loaning money were not only broken but totally disregarded, and in the end Fanny and Freddy got to hold the whole "bag" of bad mortgages. Then of course, the tax payers will eventully pickup the bill. This was all fueled of course by "record low interest rates".This maybe one of the reasons banks are not loaning out money as readily as they had, as the riskes are too great given the reward. So those who get loans in the eyes of many don't really need the money. Back to the "old" loan requirements?

Regards, Kirk

[carver]

Originally Posted by 300 H&H

My thoughts are these protests are all about the financial segment of our economy i.e. "Wall Street" that has wrecked our economy, sucking how many trillions away from our govenment in the so called "Bank bailout". Bear Sterns a bank? not for most of my life....It caused "quanitative easing" (printing of money) that will some day come back to bite us hard. Inflation would be my bet.

These protests are about that I think, not some liberal atttemp to do what ever. People of BOTH parties are there. Not what my take is at all.

Regards, Kirk

If you have any doubts about what the Occupy Wall Street protests are really about, then you need to read the article in the link below, especially the second page. I can tell you right now that there are enough communist pigs behind this to make me want to puke! Are there any so called Republicans in this protest, Yep! A bunch of sheeple that can't think for themselves! They will follow anything that they think will benifit them in the end. These folks don't want a Republic, they want a Communist run state that will give them everything they want, at yours, and my expence!

http://townhall.com/columnists/derek...ccupy_movement

“What do they want?” is a common refrain in the media these days. Left-wing talking heads and progressive TV hosts are still scrambling to figure out exactly what the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd is up to. But this lack of knowledge hasn’t stopped nearly every person on the Left of the political spectrum from offering full-throated support for the unwashed, unruly rabble. But who, or what, are they supporting?

[flyingtiger85]

Good let them keep protesting.Wait and be patient as people see that they are a bunch of losers that want free stuff from people that work .They have sex in there tents,do drugs and leave trash everywhere voters will vote opposite of ther desires.The biggest thing is many don't know why they are protesting and many had to be paid.What an empty cause.

[carver]

Just a bunch of free loaders looking for a hand out from the top 1% of Americans that have earned their way into financial security/freedom!

[300 H&H]

While I agree these folks don't really know what they are upset about, they just know something is wrong with Wall Street. They are not informed enough to know what it is they are pissed about. So they are unorganized and the demands, well they are rediculous, a wish list for those who feel intitled. But the fact remains, though they don't exactly know what, there is some thing very wrong there.

To me the mistakes were made way back in 2008, when what I proposed as "what should have been done" could have been done with strings to the effect attached to the bank bail out money. Take it or leave it....my bet? they would have taken it.


Regards, Kirk

[flyingtiger85]

What should have been done!Let them go bankrupt.These were payoffs for thire buddies so they wouldn't lose when the game was up.Now Bank of America is in trouble.It was forced to take on these bad loans by merger.How do you force a bank or else.There's some dirty deals are done dirt cheap things going on here.

[300 H&H]

I totaly agree with letting them go bankrupt. I believe as well as others that, yes smaller banks would have taken up their business customers. But with so many now able to call themselves a bank, since Glass Stegal was removed, the FDIC would have run out of money and the depositors would have not been able to get their money. To many "new" banks with far too much money. This is the legacey of the 1999 repeal of the Glass Stegal act. Had it still been in place we would have had less than half of the so called "Banks" to have had to bail out. The FDIC may actually been able to have handles the depositors when the banks failed....

B of A, well Hank Paulson did indeed force the merger on them. Then they got the rug pulled out from under them...Won't argue the dirty deals thing at all.

Off exchange markets should also be made illegal. Surprised no one has had a comment on that one....

Regards, Kirk