Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!

[DiscoBiscuit]

What's all the hub-bub, bub?

pay any attention to investment banking for the last 12 years?

I mean, what is it their attempting to accomplish?

to bring more attention to bad banking practices and corrupt political influence.

They do look like hipsters...lol...not that it matters to me, but...

I don't think they care anything about party bona fides. Not so much a political thing as common sense thing.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Still not real clear on what exactly they hope to accomplish, doesn't seem to be very well defined.

So part of their issue is that their *.*.*.*. OK'd bailout monies and such?

They're gonna need a bigger boat

 

[rootfingers]

They hope to some way correct the acceptance of criminal practices by the giant financial corporations and banks that took down the world financial system yet still go unpunished, I believe.

AND this thing is gaining steam in a BIG way. I can literally feel it, this is the beginning.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Still not real clear on what exactly they hope to accomplish, doesn't seem to be very well defined.

So part of their issue is that their *.*.*.*. OK'd bailout monies and such?

Try asking google. I imagine the bailout ain't so bad when they have to pay it back. And I'm not talking about QE.

I'd say it's more like systemic risk, excessive bonuses from losing investor money (your money if you have any investments) and sitting on record liquidity instead of loaning it. They have to prop up their crap assets with cash because their subprime and derivative markets make the top 0.1% rich at the expense of the overall economy.

They're gonna need a bigger boat

stay tuned... or don't.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Solyndra comes to mind, there are a myriad of issues I could get behind...but not limiting incomes of those running companies well.I'm not referring to those companies paying bonuses or still throwing parties on the taxpayer dime.


The end-game being what? Wealth redistribution?

Sounds like sour grapes to a large extent, honestly.


Now government spending accountability is something I'd take to the streets for, provided we had a well-defined objective.

 

[juicepuddle]

Still not real clear on what exactly they hope to accomplish, doesn't seem to be very well defined.

So part of their issue is that their *.*.*.*. OK'd bailout monies and such?

They're gonna need a bigger boat

People are pissed. Its to the point that people are collecting and no one even knows why the fuck their doing it or what they want to accomplish, or how they could.

I think its sort of like this, just because we don't have the plan to fix it all right now doesn't meen we should do nothing. The bigger this gets the more involved the more concentrated it MAY become if some great thinkers / ralliers get involved.

All I know is I hope these cops do not go unpunished while they are still alive.

I'd take to the streets for, provided we had a well-defined objective.

I agree with you, but power corrupts, even if there was a well defined objective, the way I see it, we are doomed to repeat this shit anyway and going for a power grab or attention is a waste of time. I dont know, I am the laziest procrastinator ever though.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Solyndra comes to mind, there are a myriad of issues I could get behind...but not limiting incomes of those running companies well.I'm not referring to those companies paying bonuses or still throwing parties on the taxpayer dime.

Yeah, I'm not an opponent of the top getting wealthier. That's the fruits of a fractional reserve system. Money grows at the expense of inflation, even though inflation has been in check since Greenspan refused to raise interest rates to mitigate institutionalized lending fraud.

The problem is the middle class is shrinking. We know what generates economies, a strong middle class. Taxing cap gains less than actual work is class warfare. Cap gains parked overseas are in tax-free shelters. They don't pay dick. Lowest revenues since 1950, (68% of business paying zero tax.)

I'm not in that gov't vs market paradigm w/ sound bites and blind eyes toward statistics, history and reality. I'm for gov't and the market. Plenty of corporations operate above board and pay their taxes. Enough gain in reckless ways to enforce laws against.

The end-game being what? Wealth redistribution?

Sounds like sour grapes to a large extent, honestly.

Sounds like political rhetoric devoid of current and historic relevance. Wealth doesn't disappear in recessions, it aggregates at the top. I can see the top 0.1% offering a soundbite but coming from anybody else is a face palm.

Now government spending accountability is something I'd take to the streets for, provided we had a well-defined objective.

That's probably not a good idea, more spin than substance. Two wars, two tax cuts and part D are the biggest aspects of our debt. But we could point out that the house majority campaigned on job creation and instead spend their time refusing to negotiate revenues, working to further deregulate, working to further tax cuts for wealthy donors and bust gov't unions.

In other words, anything that made the middle class what it was in your beloved 50s and 60s doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell right now.

Remember when William Buckley started National Review? He received backing by Wall Street bankers. He also published articles on the the 90% tax rate and said it was unfair. The same bankers that backed his venture said taxes didn't matter, it was what was expected from the rich. Nobody's advocating anywhere near 90% today. They just need to pay their share, that's all.

 

[turbolaser4528]

I think we should start over, and stick to the constitution, eliminate the fed, reform the tax code, etc..

I don't like the current political/economic situation, and lack of direction in this country, but I love this land, and will still join the military.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We might have a hard time competing in a global economy w/o fractional reserve. FR is no more the devil than free markets. It's whether folks take the big risks to blow it all up for short-term gain. Some think it's the Fed and QE. I happen to thinks it's the latest form of corporate greed and corruption, teamed up with policies of the last 30 years. Policies that diminish the middle class and reduce our power as voters and people. Our parents fought hard for economic gains and we shouldn't relinquish them w/o passing the pain along to the top.

We're only talking 4%. John Stewart even got Billo to admit he'd still pontificate for $3 mil a year instead of 3.5. And the folks who are paying 15% while they trade and short our futures need to be paying income rates. Then when they sell the world to Hell we might be able to buy it back, lol.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Why would I give my old lady more 'shopping' money when she's already shown she has no fiscal responsibility?

I'm all for fair share, but I want the spending of my money to be closely watched.It has not been.

For Christs sake, that 500,000,000 loan for Solyndra was endorsed/touted by Obama himself.Half a billion dollars...one pet company.

That shit has to stop, along with all this war spending...National Defense,my ass.

We need to look more closely at just who exactly are the recipients of these grab-fests, on both sides,and make them accountable.

 

[dagnabit]

The health care industry is next. These guys enjoy no rules at all. Makes even today's investment-banking industry look like regulation hell.

you cant be serious?

 

[ronbo51]

Protesting is fun. I worked with a guy who was trained as a street medic for FSU(Fuck Shit Up). He told us stories of all the protests he'd been to. It is kinda like being a deadhead without the music. Mostly trustfunders consumed with guilt. Not as good women as the twirling deadhead nymphs though. But he said he had a lot of sex. I smoked my first pot at a peace rally in DC in 71.
Don't expect these guys to have a fucking clue what they are protesting about though. They own nothing, have no skin in any game anywhere, pay no taxes, and get what little information they do get from Biil Maher.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Why would I give my old lady more 'shopping' money when she's already shown she has no fiscal responsibility?

I'm all for fair share, but I want the spending of my money to be closely watched.It has not been.

For Christs sake, that 500,000,000 loan for Solyndra was endorsed/touted by Obama himself.Half a billion dollars...one pet company.

That shit has to stop, along with all this war spending...National Defense,my ass.

We need to look more closely at just who exactly are the recipients of these grab-fests, on both sides,and make them accountable.

Hell yeah, we need to hold their ass to the fire. Not only hasn't spending been taken seriously, revenues are subverted. While politicians talk spending cuts, they're lobbying for their districts. It's their job. In the meantime, the top is greasing the machine for more favors.

I understand your analogy. Imagine having a spending concern and discovering your income isn't being deposited as you wish. It's like burning the candle at both ends.

For the first time, we're actually taking measures to curb spending. May not make either of us happy but I'm hoping the result will be somewhere between us. Compromise bites but it's better than nothing. We can't compromise on the cuts so IMO, revenue has to be considered.

Bush Advanced Solyndra Loan For Two Years

By Stephen Lacey and Climate Guest Blogger on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:10 am

by Stephen Lacey and Richard Caperton
It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
You’d never know from the media coverage that:

1. The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
2. The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
3. The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

With a stagnant job market and Obama sinking in the polls, the media has decided on a narrative that matches right-wing talking points but not the facts. For instance, Bloomberg had this incredibly misleading headline yesterday, “Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances.” If you replace “backed” with “touted,” that would be accurate. But the headline makes it seem like the White House had decided to give $535 million to a company after an auditor had said it was financially troubled.

You have to read half the story to learn that the loan guarantee was made in 2009 and the audit was done in 2010 after market conditions had sharply worsened! And the Bloomberg story never explains that the company itself raised $250 million from private investors after the supposedly devastating audit!

To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:

May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.”
And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.”

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.
Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: “In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning.”
​

What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

 

[In~Plain~Site]

I'm not blaming any one person, but I've taken over for someone(professionally) in the past,I can tell you unequivocally I've never finished any outstanding projects without going over the previous *******'s work.

The system is busting at her seams with failure, it's not one-sided and quite frankly upsetting to see all the blame being placed as such,at times.

It's overwhelming, talk about multi-tasking.

Agreed on the compromise front, rest assured neither side will be happy if we truly do what needs done.

I still question the motives of some of the protesters, but I suppose the end justifies the means in this case...maybe

 

[ronbo51]

Governments should give no money to any business anywhere. It is invasive and corrosive always. All government money is political. Always. Let businesses rise and fall based on markets. Don't subsidize oil, don't subsidize wind and solar. Just get out.
And if you want to know about why the world is at the edge of financial collapse it is strictly politics. Politicians write the rules. They regulate the banks. The banks did exactly what the politicians told them to do. Glass-Steagal was the biggest I think. Then the Community Reinvestment Act. Forcing Fannie and Freddie to accept junk mortgages paved the way for the banks to peddle the junk to the world and ruin banking worldwide. The banks knew they had junk so they insured themselves with CDO's and the like. All under the careful supervision of Tim Geittner who was head of the New York Fed and oversaw Wall Street.
The largest consumers of debt, by far are Governments, worldwide, and down to the local level here in America. The banks have been forced to buy Sovereign debt in massive amounts and there is no way in almighty hell that it can be payed back. This has been building forever but now it is at a tipping point.We have the option of letting the banks collapse. That gets my vote. Fuck them. They were gutless cowards who didn't have the balls to tell these governments to go to hell. But maybe that's the power of government.
Option two, which I am certain is what will happen is that government will make the banks whole by putting a lien on all of us and make us liable for their horrible mistakes and purposeful wrongdoing. We will be put on the hook for the whole mess.
So the next time you see these kids downtown acting all aggrieved, remember the days when we protested against the wrongdoing of government, they should be in DC, or maybe in front of Chris Dodd's golf villa in Scotland.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wasn't trying to blame Bush even though you were blaming Obama. Bush wouldn't have pushed the deal head he known a bad business model would arise. You're right, budget and loan matters have to be solvent.

What does a gov't loan-gone-bad have to do with the protests on Wall Street? Should those folks be at the Capitol protesting Solyndra? That's a half billion. Wall Street is subverting hundreds of billions every year.

Do you suspect their intent is less positive because gov't makes what amounts to a 1.3% mistake in DOE investments? If that's the case, the tea party's mandate to reign in spending is less positive because investment banks aren't playing by the rules.

IMO, pitting the market against gov't isn't the system we have. Free market and individual freedoms are often polar opposites, like the freedom to pollute your groundwater for profit. America never was a laissez faire country. It's always been a hybrid of regulated markets. It's free because you don't have to do it. But if you do it has to be according to Hoyle for lack of a better phrase.

If you want gov't to stay on the straight and narrow, you should want business to act accordingly.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Well, to be honest, I take exception to what I perceive as an attack on high wager earners, as if they're the only ones to blame.That's a personal position.

That was my lead in for motive questioning.

Taxpayer funded loan that goes belly-up after being held as an example of the future...you really don't see the tie-in?

I really can't separate any of the issues, on either side of this coin, they all need addressed...bad fiscal policies are bad fiscal policies.

Which is why I'm still not really sure what exactly they'd like to have happen...it's all over the place.

The 1.3% is disingenuous...let's call it what it is... a half a billion dollars...and that's just one instance.

Should we tax the hell out of the top 5% for that type of due diligence?

I say no.

I would tell my son the same thing, you want more allowance,keep your room clean.

Wasn't trying to blame Bush. He wouldn't have pushed the deal head he known a bad business model would arise. You're right, budget and loan matters have to be solvent.

What does a gov't loan-gone-bad have to do with the protests on Wall Street? Should those folks be at the Capitol protesting Solyndra? That's a half billion. Wall Street is subverting hundreds of billions every year.

Do you suspect their intent is less positive because gov't makes what amounts to a 1.3% mistake in DOE investments? If that's the case, the tea party's mandate to reign in spending is less positive because investment banks aren't playing by the rules.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Governments should give no money to any business anywhere. It is invasive and corrosive always. All government money is political. Always. Let businesses rise and fall based on markets. Don't subsidize oil, don't subsidize wind and solar. Just get out.

Don't fall for the soundbites w/o knowing what works and what doesn't. If your ideology costs more than is economically viable, recognize it. Government services are free of profit. If you had to pay the private sector 100% on energy and infrastructure you'd be homeless.

And if you want to know about why the world is at the edge of financial collapse it is strictly politics. Politicians write the rules. They regulate the banks. The banks did exactly what the politicians told them to do. Glass-Steagal was the biggest I think.

Politics isn't self funding, it requires private business capital. Business lobbies write bills because politicians are campaigning for funds 6 months out of the year. Big money has chased lawmakers out of Washington instead of writing their own bills. When laws are signed, businesses unleashed torrents of lawyers scouring for loopholes they most likely wrote into their own bills.

Glass Stegall was actually deregulation. It overturned 1930s regulation and tore down the firewall between investment banks and main street banks. This stuff is full of details. It's best to consider them.

Then the Community Reinvestment Act. Forcing Fannie and Freddie to accept junk mortgages paved the way for the banks to peddle the junk to the world and ruin banking worldwide. The banks knew they had junk so they insured themselves with CDO's and the like. All under the careful supervision of Tim Geittner who was head of the New York Fed and oversaw Wall Street.

Don't be a Doonesbury. Greenspan never raised interest rates when banks never curbed home values. The effects was the US bond rate sucked in comparison to CDOs. The whole world invested in CDOs and there was more money to lend than buyers to sell.

CRA was signed into law in the 70s. Government never forced lenders to lend to anybody. Government gave incentives to lend to minorities that could actually pay the loans they borrowed. Lenders invest due diligence to know who can and can't pay off loans. They didn't have to do their job when they packaged up bogus loans and sold em to somebody else. You really need some history on all this. There aren't enough people to tank the world w/o institutionalized lending fraud.

The largest consumers of debt, by far are Governments, worldwide, and down to the local level here in America. The banks have been forced to buy Sovereign debt in massive amounts and there is no way in almighty hell that it can be payed back.

What planet do you live on? Banks issue debt. We bailed the fuckheads out when they nearly bellied up. Goldman Sachs wouldn't be here today had they not tanked their ship and received a bailout form you and me.

This has been building forever but now it is at a tipping point.We have the option of letting the banks collapse. That gets my vote. Fuck them. They were gutless cowards who didn't have the balls to tell these governments to go to hell. But maybe that's the power of government.
Option two, which I am certain is what will happen is that government will make the banks whole by putting a lien on all of us and make us liable for their horrible mistakes and purposeful wrongdoing. We will be put on the hook for the whole mess.
So the next time you see these kids downtown acting all aggrieved, remember the days when we protested against the wrongdoing of government, they should be in DC, or maybe in front of Chris Dodd's golf villa in Scotland.

nevermind

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well, to be honest, I take exception to what I perceive as an attack on high wager earners, as if they're the only ones to blame.That's a personal position.

Cute word - attack. Billo referenced attack w/ John Stewart and was laughed off the stage when JS compared a 4% increase to 'attack'.

The personal position is yours. Don't forget the last three decades of trickle up and how easily your argument can be flipped. Not to mention you're arguing ideology over your best economic interests.

What about us having to give up some of our benefits? Are we being attacked or are we compromising while expecting the top to do their part as well? Divide and conquer is a good political strategy but it tears the country apart with all the us-vs-them whatever.

Taxpayer funded loan that goes belly-up after being held as an example of the future...you really don't see the tie-in?

I see you ignore the 98.7% of solvent DOE loans.

I really can't separate any of the issues, on either side of this coin, they all need addressed...bad fiscal policies are bad fiscal policies.

We agree and we don't. Getting rid of anything less than perfection pretty much leaves us with nothing. Waxing alternative energy subsidies when the vast majority work is the most polar, knee jerk reaction possible.

The 1.3% is disingenuous...let's call it what it is... a half a billion dollars...and that's just one instance.

It's math, it's truth, it's fact, it's reality. Might not make good sound bite for the opposing view. Just saying half a billion is all you want because anything else reveals the whole truth. A smidge of truth is easier to debate that the whole truth, ain't it.

Should we tax the hell out of the top 5% for that type of due diligence?

I say no.

I would tell my son the same thing, you want more allowance,keep your room clean.

You're gonna have to start citing your facts, IPS. You're getting pretty loose with em. Good luck backing your top 5% claim. You want to wax government but you won't blame the guy that started the whole thing and tried to win his terms that would have effected the taxpayer even worse, all outside the prevue of his replacement. He did the same with Enron and they were criminals.

Me thinks you're a bit selective. Beside the fact I can't see how all this ties in with crooked investment bankers and picketing against it.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

We're not that far apart,DB, but we can't address one issue without the other.

As I said, going to be plenty of people upset on both sides...no matter what.I'm not upset about it.

The issues aren't limited to just the DOE budget, not by a long shot.That was an example of how some sniffing into the free,global market could have prevented the check from going out to a company that neither had market share or a healthy bottom line.