I Stand With The Protesters

I stand with the protesters.

We as a society must stop pretending. Most of us think that we still have money in the bank to protect, so we go along with the game of extend and pretend. For some of us, the game has already ended. The rapacious zero interest rate policy that I call Bernankecide has already robbed millions of savers of their life savings. This is the reality that has yet to hit home for many Americans who are content to wallow in the status quo. Unfortunately, the longer it takes for them to wake up, the worse their, and our, fate will be.

Liquidity moves markets!

Follow the money. Find the profits! 

My mother and millions of other senior citizens are among the victims of the game that policy makers and those who empower them are playing. Their life savings are gone because Bernankecide, the financial genocide of the elderly, forced them to spend their principal. Now the government is indirectly confiscating 8% of my income because I must support my mother. That percentage is likely to grow as her health deteriorates.

Millions of other boomers are in the same boat. They are forced to pay this immoral hidden tax because Ben Bernanke decided that the innocent must pay for the sins of the guilty. While Bernanke’s ZIRP goes on allowing the banksters to continue to collect their fat bonuses, it steals the savings of millions of Americans, eliminates their disposable income, and cuts the spending power of millions of others who must now support those rendered destitute. The guilty benefit, and the innocent are punished.

Bernanke knows that, yet he continues to side with the criminal bankers in support of the financial genocide of the super elderly, and their children, the baby boomers who must increasingly support them.

Among the OWS protesters are those calling for forgiveness of student loans. They may be acting in their own self interest, but it is a just cause, and must be a part of the cleansing of the system. The student loan thing is a long running racket that preys on the inexperience of children and young people just starting out in life. When I was 20 years old I trusted the system (wrongly). What did you know at age 18 or 20?

The fact is that the people’s “savings” that funded those loans, including the fake savings backed by phony assets that have yet to be written down, are already gone. These loans cannot be repaid. Bond holders must get wiped out. Then we’re all going to have to take a haircut. The student loans can’t be repaid because these kids either can’t get jobs at all or can’t get jobs with pay high enough to pay the loans. These loans never had any backing. They were fake from the moment they were issued. But the issuers didn’t care. They got their fees up front.

The student loans are the tip of the iceberg. Bankers have made and sold trillions of dollars worth of loans that they knew, or should have known, could not be repaid. That’s fraud. It must be prosecuted. Today, central bankers and governments are refunding those loans, knowing that a substantial portion of them cannot be repaid. Worse, they are buying them above par because of today’s fake low interest rates. Then they guarantee them by obligating us and future generations to repay them. This is criminal.

I figure that at least a third of our deposits are worthless because they have no assets behind them. Those running the scam know that. Those investing in the scam know it. But they don’t care because they get to collect their fees off the top. That is a system that institutionalizes theft. It must be changed to a performance based model. If you don’t earn a positive return, you don’t get paid. Instead, governments have taken over the scam while transferring wealth to and protecting the criminals who built the system.

If you are blaming the protesters, or are mystified by them, then you just don’t get it. Denial is part of the problem. Too many people have yet to wake up to the fact that they have already been victimized. They are playing along with the dishonest shell game of extend and pretend that the Fed and other central banks and governments are running. It’s time to get real, wake up, and face the music. The longer the game goes on, the worse the consequences for the 99%, and ultimately for the 1%, whose ranks will be decimated at some point, and probably not peacefully if this scam is allowed to continue for much longer.

As long as we continue to avoid cleansing the system of the fraud, as long as we refuse to put the fraudsters in jail, they will continue to bleed us dry. If those in charge of administering justice, like President See No Evil Obama and his worthless AG Eric Holder, refuse to do their jobs and seek to punish the guilty, our society and our culture could spiral into chaos and mob rule. Those in the top 1% who are responsible for this fraud, either directly by running it, or indirectly by supporting it financially, must ultimately be brought to justice or society will perish. There’s no way out other than reform, or revolution, or societal collapse. Those are the choices I see. We had better take the first one, and take it now.

So stop worrying about yourself, and start worrying about the future of your children and grandchildren. The government practice of constantly doubling down in support of the fraud is only digging a deeper and deeper hole. Demand reform of the system now. End the fraud now. Make the guilty pay. Instead of rewarding the bankers, prosecute them. They knew, or should have known, that the loans they were making and selling to others could never be repaid. But they did not care. They only cared that they got their fees up front, and their bonuses in the end.

It’s time to reset and start over. We will all pay a price in the short run, but the longer we wait, the steeper the price will become. Reform and reset now is the only way to begin a real recovery. Stop the fraud, return to the rule of law, prosecute the bankers, punish the guilty, figure out what our assets are really worth and pay us a fair return, and most importantly, return basic standards of fairness and ethical behavior, something that many in society must relearn. It must be done. There is no other way, no other reasonable choice. Failure to act now will consign us to a future in hell.

Try Lee Adler's Technical Trader risk free for 90 days! Follow the money. Find the profits!

  80 comments for “I Stand With The Protesters

  1. debi
    October 9, 2011 at 11:36 am

    You are so on the $$ with the fraud being the root of the
    Problem acrosss this nation. It seems to me ALEC is a great place to start with the conflict of intersts across the world. If we can identify the true roots of the fraudulent evil ones that would b a good start. Only if u have money in this country- you shall get to use the laws of the land. But even so, u r a mere sheep because the judges have been bought and paid for too. Our county records r laden with fraud the criminals of LPS put into all of our records. The hedge fund managers and wall street fraudulent evil doers laugh and congratulate one another on the profits they have stolen from all of us. Until the root is taken out the fraud will continue for decades to come. All the property titles will be clouded and no one will trust the title companies. They are bought and paid for too. Its not that hard there are scores of documents incrimidating enought to put them all in jail….so why are they NOT doing time?? The root of the evil will deteriorate america as we know it. Don’t u think its time to take America back before it is just an acidic abiss!? Debi 561-389-9339. Boynton Bch florida– hope of the fraud forget about the free part!!

  2. October 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    I support the protesters too, but not those co-opting them.

    I went down to the event on Friday in San Diego at the civic center. I was disappointed to see the same old OFA crowd.

    These folks were smiling ear to ear – they’d finally found a way to get a protest movement against the Tea Party. These were the same folks who tried to put together the Coffee Party locally and didn’t see it get off the ground. The talk was about getting the “Jobs Bill” passed and getting the “Buffet Tax” in place. Majority of the faces were in the 45 to 65 set which was the core of OFA here back when protesting the wars was fashionable (it no longer is – wars are OK now, as are drone led assassinations of Americans).

    This isn’t New York, and the things there look like the under 30s got things underway – good for them. But the movement to co-opt this into part of the retail political machinery is already underway. This is exactly the same thing that happened with the tea party protests which originally were conomic in nature but quickly got co-opted by the social conservatives of the right wing.

    FWIW, the catalyst I see for reform is another market crash wherein the body politic refuses to bail out those who caused it. Since both political parties suck huge volumes of money out of Wall Street and compete for “reform opportunities” in which they can tweak the tax and regulatory regime once again to benefit their patrons, the impulse to bail out the thieves will be overwhelming. At that time I hope people of goodwill from both the TP and OWS movements join forces and march on Washington, making it clear to the House of representatives that the backlash for bailing out connected fraudsters yet again will result in severe and sharp consequences.

    I know enough members of the house to know they are cowards – on both sides of the aisle. There are Republican and Democratic members who know the system is now hard wired to benefit the connected and it makes them sick. When they grumble about voting their conscience the leadership reacts harshly. Leadership is always intently focused on raising the money to win the next round so they curb any outbursts that threaten the concentrated contribution streams. They then devise ways to initiate “reforms” that get a contribution stream to defect from the other side. It is the American form of coalition government. Absent, of course, are the needs of those who don’t concentrate their efforts and money, although their demographic concentrations count for something every 10 years.

    The leadership of both parties will therefore naturally gravitate towards co-opting these movements so as to contain them. As the GOP learned, there are existential risks involved that will end up moving your party towards its wing while doing deals with the “early movers” who were insiders able to get a position within said movements (Dick Armey / Michelle Bachmann). Same happening now as former WH Czars and Czarinas are scrambling to get media face time and internet organizing credit for OWS.

    As Herbert Marcuse noted, the impulse to react becomes an accommodated force within the system and ultimately just reinforces the system. The only way out is outright negation. For me, negation of a parasitic system requires a death of the host such that the parasites starve.

    Let the crash happen. Let the unforgiving and contribution-blind forces eviscerate the kleptocrats and crony capitalists so that the decks are cleared, the two party system abolished and hard working, free Americans rebuild with a trained, wary and suspicious eye. Where your representatives are kept on a short leash – unable to have their incompetence and cowardice hidden by party allegiances.

    Will there be suffering? Yes. Will it affect the innocent? Yes. But the “solutions” so far have already inflicted great suffering on the most vulnerable and that suffering is becoming systemic. All, we are told, to preserve that which feeds us. It does not feed us – we feed it. Starve it.

  3. October 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    I don’t have a clue what OFA means. Does anyone? Let’s try to stay away from acronyms, especially obscure ones.

    As for “severe and sharp consequences?” Like what, not getting re-elected and getting a job as a lobbyist?

  4. October 9, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Sorry for being obscure.

    OFA – Organizing For America. Was Obama For America. The genesis organization for modern “Astroturfing” and now pretty much an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm

    The New Republic has made similar observations on OWS moving down the track of being coopted

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/95753/occupy-wall-street-left-tea-party-dionne

    As is so often the case, the left is so obsessed with the right that it overlooks its own achievements. The Tea Party is a fascinating phenomenon, especially in that it remained effective after being absorbed into the Republican Party establishment. (Compare that to Organizing for America, formerly Obama for America, which quickly suffocated in the warm embrace of the Democratic National Committee.) But it’s hardly the only model for social change. The Civil Rights Movement, feminism, LGBT activism, the liberal Netroots of the 2004-2008 era—all had very different trajectories. They didn’t begin with vaguely anarchic events. They didn’t have narrowly defined policy goals designed to be passed in the next Congress. But they did have broad, achievable visions that could reach a broad swath of the 99 or 98 percent.

    None of this makes me happy, and I don’t have any horses in any political races (I have done work for candidates in both parties). I maintain some friendships with representatives in both parties and am fortunate to have candid conversations with them because I am discreet, but I don’t participate in helping anyone get elected anymore.

    I think there are a lot of impassioned citizens in both parties who would simply get up and leave if they allowed themselves to see the machinery as it works. They have common cause and actually differ on very few things which, at the end of the day, are minor. the two parties are like Burger King and McDonalds – serving up the same food while having convinced loyal customers they are different in important ways.

  5. dharmaeye
    October 9, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Until the corruption is dealt with, its all down hill.

  6. October 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Reform must start with the Supreme Court. The Court has robbed individuals of their rights and turned them over to corporations who achieve their aims through the time tested tactics of Goebellsian propaganda, and buying politicians.

    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy have entrenched the rule of money over the rule of fairness and common sense, under the ideal that money is speech. The rule of money has been codified as the rule of law.

    If money is speech, it is dirty speech. It is lies, propaganda, and corruption of public morals. It is the end of the line for American civilization because of the evil that these 5 madmen have forced upon us.

  7. Lugnut
    October 9, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    You will never eliminate lobbyists. They have existed in all forms of government in all periods of history. If you dismantle the two party system in the US (which has no place in our Constitution – they are simply cartels that have formed so that the President can be elected without risk of the House deciding on it) you will take away most of the institutional leverage they have. They’d have to work much harder and spread much money out much wider to get anything done.

    At that point, the job doesn’t come down to who you know but more to how effectively you can argue and forge compromises among factions.

    In such an environment Ethanol producers would not get a tax credit for production and another tax credit for consumption (two credits on the same unit each for the cost of the unit) nor would Hollywood producers be able to launder offshore profits through domestic productions (Google and Apple would be making movies except there is not enough demand for movies/TV to keep up with their offshore profit streams, so they are asking for tax holidays instead). There are thousands of giveaways in the tax code made possible by small amounts given to key individuals at key times wherein the entire party is commanded to vote with the lobbyist.

  8. ridiculous
    October 9, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    this is ridiculous. who and how do you support this website and youre day to day functions? oh I remember now…MONEY. You say you dont want this system yet you have clothes on your back from china, money printed by nobama, and a website saying that the american dream turned from best man for the job and the best succeed to oh now that theyve succeeded, give me their money because im illegal or too lazy to quit collecting welfare. Im sick of people leeching from this government and success stories. Its disgusting what this nation has become. And its the people at the bottom who are to blame not the top. Because the bottom dwellers quit trying to enhance their state of being and life but instead just want bentleys and spinning rims given to them by john taxpayer. shutup go find a job or go make one. innovate, do some good. quit glorifying drug use and sale in the cities. This is getting ridiculous.

  9. Lugnut
    October 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Not sure there is any way to undo the Citizen’s United decision in any short time frame. Supreme Court members take a long time to die off.

    If you accept that the money is going to flow then finding ways to force them to spend far more of it will make them less effective.

    I harp on the two party system because it gives the big contributors much more bang for the buck. Each party is now just a stable coalition of lobbying interests and they use the parties as a fulcrum to get the most out of their $$$.

    Simple, achievable reforms that will reduce the buying power and leverage of lobbyists:

    1) Eliminate the Electoral College – an archaic institution no longer needed with modern communications technology. Elect the president by popular vote: 50% +1. Runoff the top two in 2 weeks if first vote can’t get a winner.

    2) 1 representative per 100,000 people.

    3) Hold Congress in a convention format. Each time they meet it is in a different city with sufficient convention facilities. Hold Congress to vote on matters that committees have prepared. Meet for a week at a time, one meeting every 6 weeks or so.

    4) Committee and subcommittee meetings occur online. Committee members attend by video conference from their district offices.

    Place these reforms into the Constitution (or better ones with the same idea of spreading out the representative among those they serve) and the cost of lobbying goes up exponentially. Further, your representative will deal with people in your community far more often than those in Washington (which will exist for ceremonies, the White House, the Supreme Court and the Senate) and far less subject to the edicts of party leadership.

  10. BertDilbert
    October 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Let’s not forget that one of the biggest beneficiaries of the low interest rates is the Federal budget, bankers were not the only beneficiary. Your mom cannot achieve an income on her savings, while the Federal government does not have to pay the interest it otherwise would. It is a wealth transfer from the elderly, a hidden tax.

  11. October 9, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    Here we have an example of the brainwashed, incoherent, raging supporters of the status quo, incapable of forming complete sentences, or separate paragraphs, let alone addressing the basic question of what to do about the bank fraud.

    This is what the propaganda has bought, a nation of unthinking, brain dead, braying jackasses, joining forces with the criminals, while blaming the victims. This is what they’ve been taught. They are carrying out their function for their controllers.

    It’s an open thread. Get ready for more of this swill.

  12. October 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Absolutely. It’s something I’ve been writing about for several years.

  13. Mary Ann Martorana
    October 9, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    I am also a senior who was forced to spend retirement savings capital down to zero because of low low interest rates and devaluation of mutual funds due to the collapse of 2008. It isn’t possible to live on $900mo social security without a lot of subsidization. Now I have had to apply for a patchwork of government programs so I can eat and live indoors. Don’t get me wrong…if they weren’t there I would probably die but I hate having to end my life on the dole always worrying about what essential service they will cut next.

  14. aagold
    October 9, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Ok, this article is filled with so many things that make no sense that I hardly know where to start.

    1) You say you’re mother’s life savings is “gone” because of Bernanke, since she had to draw down her principal. Hmmm… let’s do some math here. The financial crisis happened in 2008. So let’s say interest rates have been near-zero for about 3.5 years. If your mother’s principal is gone after 3.5 years, then I’ve got news for you: her expenses are obviously large enough relative to her savings that earning a 4-5% “normal” rate of interest wouldn’t have helped her very much. Her money would have been gone almost as fast even without “Bernankecide”. So sorry, but your claim makes no sense.

    2) Regarding student loans you write, “The student loans can’t be repaid because these kids either can’t get jobs at all or can’t get jobs with pay high enough to pay the loans. These loans never had any backing. They were fake from the moment they were issued.”
    What on earth are you talking about? First of all, student loans have *never* had “backing” – it’s not as if students or their parents have *ever* put up collateral to get student loans. They’ve always been unsecured loans. So have student loans been “fake” the whole time they’ve existed? Also, you seem to be implying that those evil “banksters” must have *known* that the students would never be able to repay those loans. Oh…. so they were supposed to have known that there would be the most severe recession and financial crisis since the great depression?

    3) You wrote, “I figure that at least a third of our deposits are worthless because they have no assets behind them.”
    Ok – first of all, I’d love to see your math. Could you please explain how you came up with this “at least a third” number? Sounds like an attempt to make it look like you’re very knowledgeable about the banking system, so I’m calling your bluff. Show us your math.
    I’d also be interested in knowing whether or not you’ve taken into account the fact that the US banking system is financed not only by customer deposits, but also by senior bonds, subordinated bonds, preferred stock, and common stock. So even if the banks have huge undisclosed losses, they’d have to be greater than the sum of *all* forms of bank capital before the depositors could possibly be hit (also setting aside FDIC, just for argument’s sake).

    – aagold

  15. October 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    1.You obviously don’t have an elderly parent and have no clue what their living expense are once the need the extra care that comes with the ailments of old age. You are obviously unaware that 45% of seniors at the age of 85 have Alzheimers, and that many of them live 10-15 years beyond that. You are oblivious to the fact that my story is just one example of the millions of seniors who have faced the same problem.

    2.The bankers who originated those loans knew that they largely would not and could not be repaid, because they sold them to Sallie. The could not have cared less, because they knew that you, the taxpayer would get stuck with the bill, while they got their fees up front.

    3. The revolving home equity credit alone, which has been wiped out, but banks refuse to recognize, is more than sufficient to wipe out bank capital. So get real. I have been writing a weekly market letter about the Fed and the banking system for 10 years. You want the facts, subscribe.

    4. You’re a flaming asshole. Do you work for Goldman? You would fit right in.

  16. October 9, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Mary Ann- You are not alone. You are one of millions of innocent victims. I stand for you.

  17. October 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    This rant is so incoherent and off-topic to the article, it almost seems like it was cut-and-pasted from something else. Maybe it was cut and pasted from the “Cliff Notes Web Series: Poorly-Written Invective Indicating You Strongly Disagree, But Vague About Why or What You Actually Disagree With.”

    Talk about ridiculous…

  18. quanta
    October 9, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    It is so interesting to watch this drama unfold. Is OWS the last best hope? Maybe it is now, although there was plenty of time to address these issues and the ball was so obviously dropped. Now it appears that if OWS “sticks”, becomes embedded and is not co-opted, we the people may be confronted with the choice of another alternative outside of the current process. If OWS picks up strength, that would be civil dis-obedience on a national level. The next question would be the level of intensity. What would it take for a couch potato revolt?

  19. October 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Nice. The last two paragraphs in particular are pure poetry. Well said.

  20. October 9, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    I should also point out that in most civilized countries the first 2-3 years of post secondary education cost $200-300 per semester. Fourth year and beyond may be around $1500. These student loan scams only exist in the US. Nowhere else. Higher education in the US is just another fraud, run by the professors and administrators who reap all the benefits.

    Same with health care. We could afford health care for all at 10% of GDP all other industrialized countries pay. Instead, we enrich the the private for profit health care cartel at 19% of GDP. It’s a 9% hidden tax paid by the American people to the medical industry.

  21. Bob S
    October 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    Lee, you’re right on target as usual. Your commentary is a refreshing change from both the mainstream media AND its libertarian opposition. (The libertarians have a better understanding of what’s actually happening than the left does, but their prescriptions for change are too caught up in their government-has-no-role dogma.)

    I was delighted to see Zero Hedge not only picked up your essay up but added a statement supporting it.

  22. aagold
    October 9, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    1. Interestingly, nothing you wrote addresses anything I said. My point was *not* that elderly people with Alzheimer’s don’t have huge expenses. It was that the reduction in the interest rate from 4-5% to 0.5% over a period of 3.5 years is *not* what caused your mother’s money to run out – or what caused anyone else’s mother’s money to run out, for that matter. Why don’t you try doing some math – it may help your understanding.

    3. The fact that you’ve been writing a weekly market letter does not impress me. What would impress me is if you could produce some numbers to back up anything you’re saying. I’d just *love* to see the math backing up your claim that “1/3 of our deposits are worthless”. I’d also be impressed if you could answer the following question: should *all* unsecured bank loans be written off? You seem to be claiming that all home equity lines of credit should be written down to zero by the banks. Where did you get such a ridiculous idea? Yes, home prices have fallen, so some of these loans are now effectively unsecured. Ok… well let’s see. Hmm… all credit card loans are unsecured, right? Should all credit card loans be written down to zero too? If you knew anything about the banking system, you’d know that the fact that a loan is unsecured does not make it worthless. Why don’t you read up on this stuff some more…

    4. I won’t stoop down to your level and call you names. The fact that you feel the need to do so just makes it clear that you don’t have the facts to back up anything you’re saying, so you just resort to ad hominem attacks.

  23. October 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    I agree that many would leave if they saw the cogs and gears behind the machinery.

    My father was the head of Gary Johnson’s campaign both times he ran, and won, governorship of New Mexico. (Interstingly, my dad declined to be involved in Gary’s bid for President — he feels Gary’s gotten too off-track, plus dad just turned 79.)

    Agree or disagree with Gary Johnson, the man is basically honest, and has strong principles. Once Gary became front-runner for his first term, and the insider circles began to open up, both he and my father were quite literally shocked by the sheer amount of corruption rampant in the system. The amount of money (should we call it bribes?) available to a candidate willing to “play ball” is staggering. It’s amazing the system has retained any semblance of order at all.

  24. Donna G
    October 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Adler, are you having a meltdown even bigger than your usual act on your boards?

    For years, I have watched your trashing of anyone and everyone who disagreed with you, while proving that you were the total flaming asshole in the conversation. And you wonder why you have problems convincing anyone that they should pay you a dime for advice.

    Although you’re about my age, I’ve always been in awe of the mendacity of the child-like quality of your “arguments.” You’re always totally predictable – don’t point out any facts, I’ll blow you away because I can.

    I’m not sure how you got to be as old as we are without acquiring some wisdom along the way, but, what can I say? You did it. You survived about 60 years while remaining clueless about economics.

  25. October 9, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Student loans are a great example of unintended consequences (although, maybe not unintended?).

    Over the past 30 years, the cost of tuition has continued to skyrocket at twice the rate of inflation.

    I believe this is a great example of where messing with the private market makes things worse — under the guise of making them better. The reason tuition has been ABLE to skyrocket is because, due to student loans and grants, the costs of higher education *no longer need to be in line with reality*. Before student loans, the cost of education had to be in line with something real Americans with real jobs could afford; therefore costs were self-limiting. Make your college tuition too expensive, and nobody goes to to your college… so you go out of business.

    But now, with student loans and government grants, costs can skyrocket because the government is there to falsely support higher prices and inflate the market (gee, sounds a bit like housing).

    Higher education is no longer a private market, it’s a government-subsidized market; and therein lies the problem.

  26. CrazyDimon
    October 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Lloyd? That you?

  27. CrazyDimon
    October 9, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Oh yeah, that’s you LB! Nice one with the “show me the math” gibe! Hold him down while I kick him with a quant algo! Hey, IM me so we can figure out what to do with this euro thing tomorrow. xoxo

  28. django
    October 9, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    well said

  29. Mike
    October 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Sorry – The 4 of the 5 justices you named are more on the side of Constitution than the other 4 (and Kennedy is one who seems to be iffy – the squishy swing vote – sometimes with the Constitution, sometimes against the Constitution.)

    Citizens United was a organization that put together a video that was “anti-Hillary” – and according to the “law” passed by Congress – was illegal. But what part of the freedom of speech (especially political speech) “SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED” do you not understand!!

    Compare the liberal 4 (+ Kennedy) – voting to eviscerate the 5th Amendment (nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.) – when they allowed New London to confiscate Kelo’s property for a private firm.

    The corrupt law that was overturned by the 5 you disparage was because they recognized that corporations (and people owning corporations) had their speech muzzled, while labor unions, political activist groups and others had no restrictions. (Animal Farm – some are “more equal than others”.) They recognized that free speech means SOMETHING ….but apparently you don’t like that.

  30. django
    October 9, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Thats why we rise Mary Anne

  31. django
    October 9, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Issue 1: If your mother’s principal is gone after 3.5 years, then I’ve got news for you: her expenses are obviously large enough relative to her savings that earning a 4-5% “normal” rate of interest wouldn’t have helped her very much.

    Meaning she would be forced to live in a cardboard box anyway so whats she whining about?

    Issue 2: Oh…. so they were supposed to have known that there would be the most severe recession and financial crisis since the great depression?

    In a word Yes they should and did know..do some re4search on Standard Oil..look into the Rockerfellers and how well they did after the Depression

    Issue 3: I’d also be interested in knowing whether or not you’ve taken into account the fact that the US banking system is financed not only by customer deposits, but also by senior bonds, subordinated bonds, preferred stock, and common stock. So even if the banks have huge undisclosed losses, they’d have to be greater than the sum of *all* forms of bank capital before the depositors could possibly be hit (also setting aside FDIC, just for argument’s sake).

    Sounds like the Banks have many streams of income..then why bleed customers for Fees and services? Why did we have to bail them out? Thank you for pointing outthey dont need our money or business…all the motivation i needed

  32. dino
    October 9, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Rickards is pretty knowledgeable…

    Rickards – People Should be Arrested

    “This was billions of dollars, it was just theft. They might as well have held a gun to the heads of these teachers and firemen and police officers and other workers and picked their pockets. So I would like to see some of these bank CEO’s on chain gangs.

    Unfortunately that’s not going to happen because the US has made a policy decision not to prosecute these banks, even though these are criminal acts because the system is too fragile. So they are being let off the hook.

    One thing Markopolos forgot to mention was that they (Bank of New York Mellon) are the largest clearing venue for the government securities market. It’s all done buy the Fed and Pimco, etc. and the lions share of those transactions clear and settle through the Bank of New York.

    So if you take down the Bank of New York you are going to take down the government securities market and therefore it won’t happen. So this will be finessed, but it should not be finessed. People should be in handcuffs as far as I’m concerned.”

    http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/10/10_Rickards_-_People_Should_be_Arrested_%26_Gold_Headed_to_$2,000.html

    http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2011/10/9_Jim_Rickards.html

    OR,

    Jamie Dimon’s Shameful Spouting about ‘anti-American’ Basel III regulations
    This summer, JPM Chase settled (with no admission of guilt) fraud charges for its CDO practices for $153.6 million. There are a plethora of class-action suits in the pipeline. No matter. Old habits don’t die without being killed.

    So far this year, JPM Chase is the world’s top creator of securities backed by commercial loans (or CMBS) with 19.5% of the market. Absent stricter regulations to the contrary, such as resurrecting the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, it also happens to be the top loan contributor (or supplier of loans) for CMBS deals. Lending and packaging loans in the same bank is an obviously perilous mix. And if you think CMBS won’t be another subprime, guess again. CMBS delinquencies are at record highs. More dangerous, JPM Chase is second only to Goldman Sachs in credit derivatives exposure and runs a $73 trillion derivatives book.

    http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/2011/9/29/jamie-dimons-shameful-spouting-about-anti-american-basel-iii.html

    As a nation, U.S. banks have a total OTC derivative exposure of $250
    trillion. So, the fact that just four U.S. banks have this much
    leverage and risk is astounding! The banks are listed below in order
    of size and approximate OTC exposure:

    1.) JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA OH

    $78.1 trillion OTC derivatives

    2.) CITIBANK NATIONAL ASSN

    $56.1 trillion OTC derivatives

    3.) BANK OF AMERICA NA NC

    $53.15 trillion OTC derivatives

    4.) GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA NY

    $47.7 trillion OTC derivatives

    Considering that the total assets of these four banks are a little
    more than $5 trillion, I see a frightening amount of risk with a total
    derivative exposure of $235 trillion! This is nearly 50 to 1
    leverage. On top of that, assets such as real estate or
    mortgage-backed securities can be held on the books at whatever value
    the banks think they can sell them for in the future. I call this
    government sanctioned accounting fraud, or mark to fantasy accounting.
    Who knows what the true value of the banks “assets” really are.

    http://usawatchdog.com/four-biggest-banks-in-america-have-huge-leverage/

  33. Tom
    October 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Great Post!

  34. T.Paine
    October 9, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Question: 1) WHO forced those banks to give loans to people who could Not repay?? 2)In regards to the elderly Why not do what was done in this Country for generations-the children take care of them.3)as for your ”review” of Supreme Court Justices & ”assholes-look in the mirror Mr Adler.

  35. October 9, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Another example of an idiot. And by the way, I have no problem gaining subscribers. Fortunately, there are many thoughtful, intelligent people in the world interested in hearing the truth, unlike you.

    If you don’t like my opinions, go talk to your asshole buddy Rush instead of posting your drivel here, you jackass.

  36. October 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Stick it, jerkoff.

  37. October 9, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    Please note. Comments with more than one link are held for moderation. It may take a little while, but I will get to them.

    Thanks to those with thoughtful, supportive comments. There is hope for the world, in spite of the jackals.

  38. littlejohn
    October 9, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    The sad part of human nature is that greed corrupts. The sad part is that it is the peace-loving, rebellious hippies who are now running the show. They plundered the free love, now they plunder their parent’s retirement savings. It is an age-old fraudulent way of life that has had many a critic over the years, criticism which falls on deaf ears that are pointed to the sound of slurping in the trough.

    “The wealthy, not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the people some part of their daily living. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind these commonwealths which nowadays do flourish, I perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men in procuring their own commodities under the name and authority of the commonwealth.

    They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely without fear of losing that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the people for as little money and effort as possible.”

    Thomas More, 1478 – 1535 (executed for treason)

  39. CrazyDimon
    October 9, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    Blythe! Stop trolling and call me so we can progress on our plan to exhume Mother Theresa and make soap from her corpse. I have an idea to make trillions off this one… xoxo JD

  40. dino
    October 9, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Maybe this will impress you- notice the terminology,ie. savers! Notice who they saved, ie. bankers!

    Alasdair Macleod: Quantitative easing, or when there’s nowhere left to run
    Economist and former banker Alasdair Macleod, who spoke at GATA’s Gold Rush 2011 conference in London in August, reflects today on the “quantitative easing” that constitutes the rescue of Europe’s insolvent banks and will do the same in the United Kingdom and United States.
    Macleod writes:

    “The idea that QE is primarily to help the economy recover is Keynesian guff, a cover for the true reason. Without it, the U.S. and U.K. would have to compete for global savings at far higher interest rates. What price $2 trillion in new Treasuries with no QE? What price L175 billion in new gilts? The debt trap has already sprung. And few investors yet seem aware of the irony that loading up banks with Treasuries and gilts is exactly what the eurozone banks have already done for the PIIGS. Whatever the current difficulties faced by European banks and the U.S. and U.K. governments and their banking systems, there is only one option for all of them: Buy time by printing yet more money. This is why the banking system in the eurozone and elsewhere will survive. Banks need governments as much as governments need them. The cost of this survival will be borne by the unwitting saver, who has been frightened into cash only to find it being debased more rapidly than before.”

    http://gata.org/node/10549

  41. dino
    October 9, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    The issue, T.Paine, is a dysfunctional financial system.
    Forced~tricked~enticed~duped?

    Occupy Wall St. to a Bank in the Public Interest

  42. October 9, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    Thanks Bob. That was Ilene’s post, not ZH directly.

  43. tim
    October 9, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    I always google everything OFA is “Obama for America” in this Instance, I’m sure. I did brain surgery on my mnother in law by Goodling it.

  44. off_leash
    October 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    I’m not sure how “The 1%” is defined. Is it simply the wealthy?

    I have no problem with someone like Steve Jobs becoming wealthy. Wall Street’s traditional purpose was to raise funds for industrial expansion. I have no problem with people earning a reasonable fee for that service.

    If you’re making money through high frequency trading, a “hedge fund” (which doesn’t really hedge anything, but rather participates in highly leveraged gambling), or some other forms of exotic/opaque derivatives that are of minimal benefit to society, then you are a parasite and should be treated as such.If this is the 1% we’re talking about, then I’m all in favor of a special place in the tax code for you and your ilk.

  45. October 9, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    What an unmitigated load of crap. Go back to your corporate stink pipe, you piece of shit.

  46. Steven Dares
    October 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    aagold, if you believe the banks have even 50% of the assets they report on their SEC filings this is what we should do. When the market opens tomorrow you and I should go in and and sweep up every share of Bank of America BAC @ $5.90 then we liquidate the assets and settle liabilities and we should have have $162 billion to split 50/50 after we pay off the liabilities.

    NYSE Market cap = 59.79B
    Total assets in millions = $ 2,261,319 or 2.261 trillion
    Total liabilities in millions = $ 2,039,143 or 2.04 trillion
    Net in millions = 222,176 or 222.176 billion

    222.176 – 59.79 = 162.386 billion profit

    link below to the SEC form 10Q filing go to page 128
    http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/secfilings/SECFilingsFullFiling.jsp?fileURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2FArchives%2Fedgar%2Fdata%2F70858%2F000095012311072937%2Fg27236e10vq.htm&cn=BANK+OF+AMERICA+CORP+NEW&tkr=BAC

    Prost!

  47. dino
    October 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Elizabeth Warren: ‘Wall Street Broke This Country — One Lousy Mortgage At A Time’

    Asked about her position on the Occupy Wall Street protest at last week’s Massachusetts Senate debate, Warren said that people have to follow the law, then immediately launched into an invective against the banks.

    “The people on Wall Street broke this country, and they did it one lousy mortgage at a time. It happened more than three years ago, and there has been no real accountability, and there has been no real effort to fix it. That’s why I want to run for the United States Senate.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-broke-this-country-one-lousy-mortgage-at-a-time-2011-10

  48. Alan Lockett
    October 9, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Your original post was good material. This comment was ad hominem tripe. I find it surprising how after effectively pointing out that the political categories (Conservative vs. Liberal) are bankrupt and meaningless, you so quickly turned to reinforce those categories with reference to the Supreme Court. In my view, all 9 justices are part of the problem. Too focused on special cases, and any one of them can be convinced to go against the clear literal intent in favor of their ideology.

  49. Alan Lockett
    October 10, 2011 at 12:06 am

    This is really shameful. Why the name-calling? Especially in this case? As to his point (1), I think you agree that the banks willingly made loans and therefore should suffer for it. On point (2), I happen to agree with him. Children should take care of their parents, and parents should recognize that when they receive what they don’t work for it is a gift. Otherwise, you get entitled unhealthy 80 year olds demanding 15% from each of their children as their right. Reciprocal bonds are a better, more meaningful way of life than government dependency. On point (3), I can’t think of any logic you might find to have any respect for Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan has support government regulation of individual speech, and Sotomayor has enforced blatant racist discrimination from the bench. You get rid both of them and I’ll happily ditch Roberts and Alito with their bizarre theories on executive prerogative.

    So the guy has a good point, and you just sound like you’re trapped inside a political box.

  50. Alan Lockett
    October 10, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Is this a poster you know personally? If not, how do you know that they like Rush (I assume) Limbaugh? If you don’t know, then you assumed. If these are the kinds of assumptions you make, how can anyone trust your reasoning? It makes me think that these “thoughtful, intelligent people” that keep subscribing must be petulant, entitled little brats that are just coming into contact with the harsh reality of the world for the first time.

    For the record, I also believe the system is riddled through with corruption and that there is little alternative at this point but a complete reset. However, part of that reset means listening to each other instead of calling each other names. And in that respect, you’re part of the problem.

  51. MikeM
    October 10, 2011 at 2:43 am

    Informed, sane and clear-thinking observers like you and Lee and others really should be having a dialogue, and before a much broader audience … of millions. IF this could happen and IF a critical mass of reasonable rational people were listening, we might have a shot at avoiding some of the worse case scenarios that are keeping me up at night.

  52. William Benedict
    October 10, 2011 at 6:51 am

    Perfectly said. Thank you.I agree 100%. Stop the looting and start the prosecuting. Sadly our president has no balls to prosecute banksters, therefore he is going to lose his re-election.

  53. October 10, 2011 at 7:02 am

    I never said anything about conservative and liberal. I said we have to stop the fraud, stop ripping off the innocent, prosecute wrongdoing, return respect for the rule of law, ethics and fairness, and wipe the bad debt off the books, and that we’d all suffer in the short run, but it’s the only way to start rebuilding. Read the article again.

  54. John Spence ,Jr
    October 10, 2011 at 7:05 am

    I have to assume that you know folks with student loans. My boys are soon to start college, affording that will be a problem.

    I am all for free college, or taxed based college.

    Hate to think this is a ‘got mine,screw you’ thread.

  55. John Spence ,Jr
    October 10, 2011 at 7:07 am

    By the way , banksters should he hanged in public.

  56. October 10, 2011 at 7:09 am

    What are you, a time traveler? The entire civilized world decided early in the twentieth century that people should contribute to a government fund throughout their lives so that they would not become a burden in society in their old age. If you don’t like that fact, go back to the 19th century. My parents and millions of others paid taxes and saved money all their lives so that they would not be a burden on their children. What happened? The US Government ripped off their social security payments to support a military budget that is 10 times the worlds next largest, and larger than the rest of the world combined, and then it forced them to liquidate my savings, forcing my mother to become dependent on me. That’s a crime. You people who want to roll back the clock to the dark ages or the year one, be my guest. I suggest we stop spending trillions on weapons of mass destruction and the human network needed to deliver them and start spending our wealth on the welfare of human beings, rather than their destruction.

    Now go back to your log cabin in the woods.

  57. October 10, 2011 at 7:17 am

    No, if you agree that ending corruption and prosecuting those who have ripped off society, are not debatable, then you are wrong that theres anything to debate with these ranters, who clearly didn’t even read the article, because they are arguing with things that were not in the article. They are arguing because they don’t like me. They are victims of the scam, but they’ve been brainwashed and blame the victims. Their posts are empty diatribes. They ARE the problem, and if you think that these issues are debatable, or that we should return to the way things were in the 17th and 18th century, then YOU are the problem too. Your vision that children in their 60s and 70s should be forced to take care of hopelessly sick parents in their 80s and 90s is just fantastic. It’s pure nonsense. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

  58. Less is more
    October 10, 2011 at 7:58 am

    John Hussman: Here Are 4 Things That Every Wall Street Protester Should Know

    * “Failure” means bondholders shouldn’t be guaranteed every penny.

    * The Federal Reserve’s purchases of Fannie and Freddie debt were illegal.

    * Creating shell companies like Maiden Lane to buy bad Wall Street assets was illegal.

    * Policies of bailouts only misallocate capital and exacerbate the wealth skew.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/john-hussman-heres-4-key-points-all-the-wall-street-protesters-should-know-2011-10

  59. Alan Lockett
    October 10, 2011 at 9:45 am

    What are you? A troll? Is shouting at people the only way you know to have a conversation?

    What’s so bizarre is the way you stick words in my mouth. People in American are so brainwashed into think that there are only two ways to think about life, and so they assume if someone disagrees on one point they disagree on others. That’s fallacious argumentation.

    You say “The US Government ripped off their social security payments to support a military budget…” as though I agree with that policy. I don’t. Reagan raised taxes vastly on the middle and lower class in the name of Social Security (from about 3% to 15%), but as you say, the money was then spent directly on nukes. It was deceitful, even fraudulent. And I don’t like it. But the money was spent. It’s gone. And in a macroeconomic sense, the concept of the retirement lockbox is a unicorn. It can’t exist. The majority of wealth comes from human labor, even Marx agrees on that point. When there are only 2 workers for every 1 retiree, there is no way that the retirees can have the same standard of living as when there were 10 workers for every 1 retiree. There just isn’t enough labor out there to support that notion. The issue is complex, and I’m just scratching the surface. But you’re in denial still, despite the bold words of your original point. Yes, we need to throw corrupt bankers and politicians overboard. They deserve the guillotine. But even once that is done, we cannot continue with the fiction that most people can work only 1/2 of their life span and then relax for the rest, 1/4 as children and 1/4 elderly. Even with the massive productivity gains of modern society, it still isn’t possible to make sure demands on workers in the current post-Baby-Boom demographic setting. If you think it is possible, please explain how, without citing the usual canard that “all the money is being hoarded by banks and corporations”, which is a fallacy because it fails to account for disparity in available man-hours.

  60. Alan Lockett
    October 10, 2011 at 9:54 am

    As I said, your original post was good material. I agree with everything in your response except the first sentence, because the logic of it is unimpeachable.

    But the first sentence isn’t true. You said: “Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy”, a grouping which inherently reinforces the dichotomous thinking of American politics. And you said it as though the four justices were somehow more faithful to the constitution, which they aren’t. While it is true that there are basically two main ideologies represented on court, it’s also true that Kennedy doesn’t really fit in either of them. And Scalia and Robert even have very different judicial philosophies when you look at the details (as do e.g. Sotomayor and Kagan).

    My problem is that I agree with the “conservative” wing of the court on some things and the “liberal” wing on others. So I can’t just thunder down on one side or other, like four of them white knights and the other four are evil traitors. The real situation is much too complicated to be dealt with in such a simplistic fashion.

  61. Alan Lockett
    October 10, 2011 at 10:10 am

    And in a comment section it is unlikely that we will be able to have a serious discussion. None of us wants to go back, even to the mid-20th century, much less the 17th. We all like iPads and airplanes and laparoscopic surgery.

    Again, if you know these people, if they’re regular commenters, then I can understand some frustration. But the choleric response galls potential new readers.

    We are all victims of the scam. And in unfortunate and usually unconscious was, we are also its enablers. We can end that now, if we choose. On that I agree. Let’s withdraw support from the system and let its bloated carcass die.

    But then we have to build a society where current expenses are paid with current revenues. The idea that we can live on debt – as individuals, as corporations, or as a society – is part of the scam. It has to go out the window with it.

    As for children in their 60s taking care of parents in their 90s, isn’t that the way it works anyway? The retirement age is 65, and so most people in their 60s pay 15% of their incomes to support their parents still. If as a society we wish to pool resources to provide for the care of the elderly, I have no problem with that. But we have to make realistic promises. We can’t write them a blank check.

    What I was taking issue with is what I view as an entitled mentality among healthy 60-somethings. I live in an apartment, and they live in a house. They see the doctor, and I don’t. Then they tell me that I’m supposed to work hard, but I do work just as hard as they ever did. When they were my age (35), they had houses and affordable medical care. I can barely make ends meet, and my income is well above the median. And yet, when I have a lower standard of living than they do, I am expected to part with 15% of my income (I am self-employed, so I get to pay it) so that they can live a lifestyle that I can’t afford. And to support that lifestyle, they also reverse mortgage the house, so that after subsidizing their way of life for 30 years, I will inherit nothing.

    So yes, I think children have a duty to support their parents, and obviously so do you. But support for parents has to be equitable. If that means that the elderly parents live in a mother-in-law suite instead of a McMansion, then so be it.

  62. Tim Beeson
    October 10, 2011 at 10:11 am

    What this article leaves out is the complicity of the US government in creating an environment in which worthless loans were encouraged and to some degree required. The Community Reinvestment Act, as re-written during the Clinton administration, effectively required banks to make home loans available to anyone who could apply or risk government restrictions on their growth and competitiveness. This was great politics for democrats and republicans alike. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the back office of this fraud, buying any and all mortgages regardless of their credit worthiness and making massive campaign contributions to their supporters in congress along the way. In the end, the problem isn’t the banksters or the government but the intractable collusion between the two.

  63. Penelope
    October 10, 2011 at 10:14 am

    The film, “Inside Job” should be a requirement for every citizen of this country. Get out in the streets people, start taking back what was stolen.

  64. October 10, 2011 at 10:16 am

    I STAND WITH THE PROTESTERS

  65. Where's John Galt?
    October 10, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Panic of the Plutocrats

    Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced
    “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P.
    presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the
    protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them
    “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for
    some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads,
    because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

    Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in
    his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters
    of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a
    statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

    And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the
    protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

    What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters
    of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their
    position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re
    people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far
    from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us
    into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of
    millions of their fellow citizens.

    Yet they have paid no price.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html

  66. October 10, 2011 at 10:19 am

    GOOD FOR ALL THE PROTESTERS I STAND WITH THEM

  67. Voir Dire
    October 10, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in
    his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters
    of trying to ‘take the jobs away from people working in this city,’ a
    statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.” – John Galt

    Perhaps Bloomberg is nervous after being outed as a tax evader since doubtless the banksters’ and their brethren politician crooks’ really are laughing all the way to banks in Litchenstein, Grand Cayman & such.

    See: “Bloomberg Has $290 Million In Offshore Accounts” http://gothamist.com/2010/04/21/report_bloomberg_has_290_million_in.php

    And:

    “The billionaire mayor’s foundation has transferred some $400 million to offshore funds in widely known tax-sheltering countries like the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Mauritius and Bermuda, according to the Bloomberg Family Foundation’s tax forms.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/bloomberg-i-dont-control-_n_548454.html

    The following video should dismiss any remaining vestiges of delusions or hopes that the crookster politicians’ are working for YOU the lowly booboisie, and validate that they ARE being richly rewarded by the shysters’ for doing their bidding. See the astonishing exponential growth in personal enrichment by some of the worst political whores (Obama – #6 on Democratic list) in the last four years of the Best Congress the Central Banksters’ can buy:

    The Video Congress Does NOT Want You To See!

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28818.htm

  68. Voir Dire
    October 10, 2011 at 11:41 am

    “What this article leaves out is the complicity of the US government in creating an environment in which worthless loans were encouraged and to some degree required. The Community Reinvestment Act, as re-written during the Clinton administration, effectively required banks to make home loans available to anyone who could apply or risk government restrictions on their growth and competitiveness.” – Tim Beeson

    Right you are, but from whence did they get their marching orders? A member bank of that illicit, unconstitutional entity known as the Federal Reserve started the whole ball rolling with a study that purported to show pervasive discrimination in mortgage lending, but was concocted to create another massive expansion of federal power and debt despite our federal Leviathan’s long illustrious history of failure in social engineering with regards to “rights to housing.” The Money Masters’ over at the Fed Res are the ultimate insiders, because they know ALWAYS down the road when the whole experiment invariably implodes, their ownership of our corrupt whores/politicians ensure that the sucker taxpayers’ are the ones left holding the bag.

    Here’s financial writer Peter Brimelow (this shows how far back the scheming by the economic tapeworms goes):

    “I really did co-write the first one, for Forbes magazine on Jan. 4, 1993. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston had just published a study purporting to prove definitively that mortgage lenders were discriminating against minorities, the hot cause of the day.

    But when my brilliant co-author, Leslie Spencer, asked the Boston Fed’s research director, Alicia H. Munnell, what minority default rates were, she said proudly that census tract data showed that they were equal to whites. When Leslie pointed out that this actually proved there was no discrimination, because the lenders had somehow weeded out the credit risks down to the same acceptable level, Munnell was dumbfounded and had to concede (on tape) that she did not, in fact, have definitive proof of discrimination at all.”

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-washington-collusion

    “The Hidden Clue” by Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer

    http://www.vdare.com/pb/050105_hiddenclue.htm

  69. October 10, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Stop putting words in my mouth. They enshrined in the Constitution the principle that money talks. Individual speech pales by comparison.

  70. jUAN
    October 10, 2011 at 11:56 am

    sorry, meant to say that they will pay a price.

  71. Dave Mowers
    October 10, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Oh come on! The people who were in government when the act was passed into law left government under Bush and profited off their legislation which is EXACTLY the same as every other President and Congress and Senate in the past. This is NOT a corporations versus government issue they are ALL working together to steal money from the poor. The head of the S.E.C. just accepted a position as President of Government Policy at Goldman Sachs. This is the guy who changed leverage rules for investment banks, allowed derivatives and CDO’s and refused for 20 years to investigate insider trading cases filed by whistle blowers against Wall Street firms.

  72. Dave Mowers
    October 10, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    …and they say it is the poor not paying their fair share of taxes? Poor people don’t earn enough money to owe taxes but a jerk off like Bloomberg earns plenty and pays nothing by using a loophole to hide his wealth in a 501c offshore. What an ASSHOLE.

  73. Paul R.
    October 10, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    No.
    Not a dime.
    If you want to fund the 99% Democrat/Liberal employment racket, with your money, go right ahead. Not me and the half of adults that learned productive, wanted skills.

    Also, we should listen to a couple of bus loads of. Leftists losers, who lying say like good Marxist that by some delusional frequency that the claim the are authorized to speak for not just their.loser selves, but 99. 9999%? Yeah. Right. I’ve had morepeople at my backyard parties then all the OWS combined.

  74. Mike
    October 10, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Very nasty response without a single effort to refute my FACTS!

    This tells me you are more a “Populist” and the words of the Constitution don’t mean a thing to you!!

    What you called me – is projection of what you and your (lack of) thinking IS!!

  75. Lorianne
    October 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    It’s a little late.

    We should never have bailed out the banks and corps … we should never have subsidized them with government backstopping of their loans. We should have allowed them to fail (and yes it we too would have taken a hit, but we are now anyway).

    Where were these protestors when the 2008 protests agains the bank bailouts were going on?

    I would put good money on most of them mocking the people protesting the bailouts.

    I feel little sympathy for those who are now, over 3 years later, smugly saying they have found a smidgeon of a sliver of a clue … meanwhile they still mock and berate those of us who got it back then and protested back then.

    Sorry, it’s over, done, pau.

  76. Morla
    October 10, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    ?? You do realize that federal intervention in student financing INCREASES the price of college? More (funny) money chasing the same service = drastically higher prices. A halt to federal grants and loan guarantees will make college much more affordable for those who actually have savings and income.

  77. Tim Beeson
    October 11, 2011 at 9:46 am

    I don’t know what you were replying to but it must not have been my post. I explicitly agree that this “is not a corporations versus government issue”. As I said, “In the end, the problem isn’t the banksters or the government but the intractable collusion between the two.”

  78. October 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    For that question, where were the Tea Party protestors in 2008? Nowhere to be seen. Yet Congress was deluged on all sides, from both left and right, by emails and phonecalls and letters demanding NO BAILOUT.

    The protests became visible in 2009 and it did not take those on the left long to figure out that what WAS the Tea Party was by that time hijacked by corporate interests. That hijacking was so complete that even Karl Denninger, one of the Tea Party founders, refuses to have anything to do with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Don't want to subscribe? Support the Wall Street Examiner and get 1 or more Lee Adler's Liquidity Trader reports each month. Click the button below to see your options.

Become a Patron!