Also, does the Federal Reserve just create money from nothing for the purposes of lending? Or is there a standard to base the money supply against?
So you don't understand anything about the Federal Reserve or it's function but because an article on Russia Today suggests there's a scandal of some kind, well .... then there's obviously a scandal. That's some kind of critical thinking.
That in a nutshell is the problem with many OWS 'supporters'. They don't know what the hell they're talking about but they're outraged just the same.
(Not to suggest that there aren't real problems, particularly in the USA, but real problems, and perhaps some potential solutions are lost in all the noise.)
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
So you don't understand anything about the Federal Reserve or it's function but because an article on Russia Today suggests there's a scandal of some kind, well .... then there's obviously a scandal. That's some kind of critical thinking.
Thanks, but I got my answer from Cowboy89 and afc wimbeldon in a more cordial manner than you provided. Maybe take a lesson from them.
and maybe you should take a basic lesson in how the hell our currency works before going off on a soap box rant?
What soap box rant? I asked a question about how the Federal Reserve created money, because I wasn't sure. I got great answers from Cowboy89 and afc wimbeldon.
A few days late here, but all your requests for examples can be found by simply reading the news. It seems willful ignorance is a calling card of this movement.
Didn't find them. I found a whole bunch of rumours, nothing more.
I will agree with you both a bit here, I think it was a reasonable question that Muta asked and it is admirable he (I assume) is trying to educate himself.
That said there is something to the idea that the vast majority of people in the OWS movement and their supporters have no clue what they are on about, not one of them seem to understand that are whole increased standard of living has been based on borrowing from our future and that if they actually managed to reign in wall street we would go back to the mid 1950's where you had to go cap in hand to the bank manager to borrow a few hundred bucks, there will be no visa cards or cell phone accounts everything wll go back to pay up front.
We have, as individuals, made massive use of easy credit that abandonimg the gold standard allowed, and while it has screwed us now because we are greedy selfish monkeys we are responsible for this mess, not the bankers, and the fix means living within our means, no more goverment programs, no more free education, no social housing, which is the exact opposite of what the idiots in OWS are trying to achieve.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Didn't find them. I found a whole bunch of rumours, nothing more.
Care to link?
Nope. There are tons of links throughout the thread. You seem pretty well versed in stories that suit your agenda, odd that those that may counter it are so difficult for you to find.
We have, as individuals, made massive use of easy credit that abandonimg the gold standard allowed, and while it has screwed us now because we are greedy selfish monkeys we are responsible for this mess, not the bankers, and the fix means living within our means, no more goverment programs, no more free education, no social housing, which is the exact opposite of what the idiots in OWS are trying to achieve.
The bankers issue loans to both people and their governments.
While personal debt is a problem not to be downplayed, the threat right now is governments taking on too much debt of their own, and on top of that taking on private debts from the "too big to fails" that can't be payed. The bankers and regulators have absolutely played a big part in this mess. I don't see why you're letting them and their servants in White House/Congress off the hook.
I agree though, that the OWS demands are very socialistic in nature, and will do nothing but lead us to more government debt slavery.
The bankers issue loans to both people and their governments.
While personal debt is a problem not to be downplayed, the threat right now is governments taking on too much debt of their own, and on top of that taking on private debts from the "too big to fails" that can't be payed. The bankers and regulators have absolutely played a big part in this mess. I don't see why you're letting them and their servants in White House/Congress off the hook.
I agree though, that the OWS demands are very socialistic in nature, and will do nothing but lead us to more government debt slavery.
We all got the goverments we voted for (or didn't vote for as almost 2/3rds of us don't bother) we have wanted social housing or new jet fighters, universal healthcare or agricultural subsidies and we have also wanted low taxes, so in the end politicians borrowed the money to give us what we want but didn't want to pay for.
In the end what ever a goverment does is up to us because either we are on top of them or prefer to view politics as a form of sport that we view from the sideline.
The reason politicians are beholden to wall street is because, we the voters, are morons and prefer to watch a few tv ads than reading a paper, we will vote for a congressman that spends money on us, while decrying national debt.
If voters read a paper now and then and ignored TV ads politicians would stop needing vast war chests to buy our adhd attention span, therefore special interests would be shut out.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
The reason politicians are beholden to wall street is because, we the voters, are morons and prefer to watch a few tv ads than reading a paper, we will vote for a congressman that spends money on us, while decrying national debt.
If voters read a paper now and then and ignored TV ads politicians would stop needing vast war chests to buy our adhd attention span, therefore special interests would be shut out.
I think you're slightly off there.
Most Americans still do pay attention. The problem is the source of their information.
It is something like 5 corporations that head a vast majority of everything Americans are exposed to.
The problem is that they watch one of the few big network stations (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS) that totally dumb them down and draw them into hardcore partisanship. Then there's the flat out lying....
I agree though, that the OWS demands are very socialistic in nature, and will do nothing but lead us to more government debt slavery.
My irony meter overloaded and blew up when OWS first started up and I realized what they actually 'wanted.'
They are extremely socialist in nature. The theme seems to be that capitalism failed, therefore we need more government to stop the greedy bankers from taking all our money. Fact is, the government created the rules that allowed the bankers to take the money in the first place. Wall Street plays by the rules they are given. OWS fails to realize this. They also fail to understand what real capitalism is, and that the US isn't even close to that anymore.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
We all got the goverments we voted for (or didn't vote for as almost 2/3rds of us don't bother) we have wanted social housing or new jet fighters, universal healthcare or agricultural subsidies and we have also wanted low taxes, so in the end politicians borrowed the money to give us what we want but didn't want to pay for.
In the end what ever a goverment does is up to us because either we are on top of them or prefer to view politics as a form of sport that we view from the sideline.
The reason politicians are beholden to wall street is because, we the voters, are morons and prefer to watch a few tv ads than reading a paper, we will vote for a congressman that spends money on us, while decrying national debt.
If voters read a paper now and then and ignored TV ads politicians would stop needing vast war chests to buy our adhd attention span, therefore special interests would be shut out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I think you're slightly off there.
Most Americans still do pay attention. The problem is the source of their information.
It is something like 5 corporations that head a vast majority of everything Americans are exposed to.
The problem is that they watch one of the few big network stations (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS) that totally dumb them down and draw them into hardcore partisanship. Then there's the flat out lying....
Still doesn't take away from the point afc is making. He is exactly right. We want subsidies to keep our prices low, we want low-income housing, subsidized education, free food, new military gadgets, etc, etc.....but we don't want to pay for them with more taxes, therefore the government is forced to borrow money in order to provide us with those services.
At least that is how it works in the US.
They want to spend $700 billion on the military, $2 trillion on 'welfare', not to mention pork spending that each Congressman sets aside to make sure he/she gets voted back in, but when it comes to actually PAYING for all that stuff? No new taxes. They want LOWER taxes, while at the same time they INCREASE government spending.
Somehow the US thinks that the tooth fairy is going to make their debt/deficit disappear instead of realizing that either they increase taxes or decrease spending.
The Tea party has filed a lawsuit against one city for fees paid to hold rallys which the Occupy movement didn't pay. The City has responded by auditing them:
Still doesn't take away from the point afc is making. He is exactly right. We want subsidies to keep our prices low, we want low-income housing, subsidized education, free food, new military gadgets, etc, etc.....but we don't want to pay for them with more taxes, therefore the government is forced to borrow money in order to provide us with those services.
At least that is how it works in the US.
They want to spend $700 billion on the military, $2 trillion on 'welfare', not to mention pork spending that each Congressman sets aside to make sure he/she gets voted back in, but when it comes to actually PAYING for all that stuff? No new taxes. They want LOWER taxes, while at the same time they INCREASE government spending.
Somehow the US thinks that the tooth fairy is going to make their debt/deficit disappear instead of realizing that either they increase taxes or decrease spending.
The answer is almost certainly half and half.
I don't think Americans "asked" for Congress to bail out the banks. The bankers convinced Congress with fear tactics to pass the bail out.
I don't think Americans "asked" the military industrial complex to spend trillions of dollars to invade most of the Middle East to hunt down Bin Laden.
Did Americans "ask" for billions in "foreign aid" to be passed around the globe?
Did Americans "ask" Donald Rumsfeld to inform them on Sept 10/01 that the Pentagon "misplaced" $2.3 trillion worth of funds? Of course the next day the whole world forgot about that....
They are abusing the power that the voters give them, and the system is set up so they don't pay any consequences.....
The Tea party has filed a lawsuit against one city for fees paid to hold rallys which the Occupy movement didn't pay. The City has responded by auditing them:
I don't think Americans "asked" for Congress to bail out the banks. The bankers convinced Congress with fear tactics to pass the bail out.
I don't think Americans "asked" the military industrial complex to spend trillions of dollars to invade most of the Middle East to hunt down Bin Laden.
Did Americans "ask" for billions in "foreign aid" to be passed around the globe?
Did Americans "ask" Donald Rumsfeld to inform them on Sept 10/01 that the Pentagon "misplaced" $2.3 trillion worth of funds? Of course the next day the whole world forgot about that....
They are abusing the power that the voters give them, and the system is set up so they don't pay any consequences.....
The consequense of abusing power in a democracy is supposed to be that you get voted out of office, except when the voters are to stupid or self obsessed to bother to vote, which has been the case in the US for as long as I have been aware.
Both Bush Jr and Obama were massively popular and elected to office so yes, the voters did ask for it. When the voters tire of Obama who will they vote for? another republican, who will be exactly the same as the previous Republicans and piss money away on the military and wall street, as they always do.
I don't think Americans "asked" for Congress to bail out the banks. The bankers convinced Congress with fear tactics to pass the bail out.
I don't think Americans "asked" the military industrial complex to spend trillions of dollars to invade most of the Middle East to hunt down Bin Laden.
Did Americans "ask" for billions in "foreign aid" to be passed around the globe?
Did Americans "ask" Donald Rumsfeld to inform them on Sept 10/01 that the Pentagon "misplaced" $2.3 trillion worth of funds? Of course the next day the whole world forgot about that....
They are abusing the power that the voters give them, and the system is set up so they don't pay any consequences.....
When you are 15 trillion dollars in debt you have to keep the banks afloat so you have someone to continue to lend you money.
No banks, no USA, crackheads need dealers far more than dealers need crackheads.
Nope. There are tons of links throughout the thread. You seem pretty well versed in stories that suit your agenda, odd that those that may counter it are so difficult for you to find.
Okay, I'll bite.
I went through this whole thread, and here's what I found:
One person dying in a drug overdose: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/...501/story.html
Note that ~47000 die of drug related causes annually in Canada, and considering the demographic of the demonstrators and the length of the time period, I dare to say this was not that unlikely. Also: no violence involved.
Here's the actual scene, in full length for those who insist that "we are propably not seeing the whole truth":
The tussle seemed to be essentially about native Americans claiming the fire to be sacred. I have no idea what to think about it honestly.
In any case, I really have a hard time seeing how that pretty isolated and, at the end of it, rather unremarkable incident (which the police seemed to handle okay btw) can be used as an excuse to use violence towards the protesters.
Here's the claims made:
- Stabbings and attacks
- protesters rushing the police line
I'm pretty much saying this didn't happen. No links, no police department saying this is what happened, no video, no news reports, nothing. Unsubstantiated BS.
- cleaning products used against the police (wtf?)
Didn't find anythign with google or in this thread.
- old lady being tossed down the stairs
There is a video of an old lady falling down the stairs at a site where there are occupiers. I have found no reports from someone who was there (police, the old lady, bystander) saying that she was pushed. Most propably internet hyperbole, and propably an accident even if there was even an accidental pushing.
It's really funny that some people here keep standing on the high horse with this "they are just so ignorant, they know nothing, damned hippies" etc.
On the other hand, the people calling them "ignorant" and "misinformed" quote Fox News and a bunch of commentators.
It's also actually downright funny how some people keep repeating how "we don't know what happened before that", yet don't actually have anything to go with that. You have to remember, the protesters are not the only ones with recordings of what happened. There's plenty of independent media around, and even downright hostile media like people wanting to sell stories to outfits like Fox News. The police also routinely film public demonstrations and protests in most countries, although I have no idea if they do that in the US.
I haven't seen any reports of any protester being charged with violence towards the police or anyone. No footage of protester violence has emerged, despite an essential barrage of media attention. (In the US or Canada. The Rome protests are a different matter entirely.)
Unless someone is willing to show me something even marginally resembling facts, I'm calling a total BS on the claims the protests are anything but remarkably non-violent.
Why I Feel Bad for the Pepper-Spraying Policeman, Lt. John Pike
...
Structures, in the sociological sense, constrain human agency. And for that reason, I see John Pike as a casualty of the system, too. Our police forces have enshrined a paradigm of protest policing that turns local cops into paramilitary forces. Let's not pretend that Pike is an independent bad actor. Too many incidents around the country attest to the widespread deployment of these tactics. If we vilify Pike, we let the institutions off way too easy.
That these changes in the police force have occurred is not in dispute. They've been sufficiently open that academics can write long papers detailing the changes in police responses to protests from the middle of the 20th century to today. They are described in one July 2011 paper by sociologist Patrick Gillham called, "Securitizing America."
One person dying in a drug overdose: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/...501/story.html
Note that ~47000 die of drug related causes annually in Canada, and considering the demographic of the demonstrators and the length of the time period, I dare to say this was not that unlikely. Also: no violence involved.
Here's the actual scene, in full length for those who insist that "we are propably not seeing the whole truth":
The tussle seemed to be essentially about native Americans claiming the fire to be sacred. I have no idea what to think about it honestly.
In any case, I really have a hard time seeing how that pretty isolated and, at the end of it, rather unremarkable incident (which the police seemed to handle okay btw) can be used as an excuse to use violence towards the protesters.
Here's the claims made:
- Stabbings and attacks
- protesters rushing the police line
I'm pretty much saying this didn't happen. No links, no police department saying this is what happened, no video, no news reports, nothing. Unsubstantiated BS.
- cleaning products used against the police (wtf?)
Didn't find anythign with google or in this thread.
- old lady being tossed down the stairs
There is a video of an old lady falling down the stairs at a site where there are occupiers. I have found no reports from someone who was there (police, the old lady, bystander) saying that she was pushed. Most propably internet hyperbole, and propably an accident even if there was even an accidental pushing.
It's really funny that some people here keep standing on the high horse with this "they are just so ignorant, they know nothing, damned hippies" etc.
On the other hand, the people calling them "ignorant" and "misinformed" quote Fox News and a bunch of commentators.
It's also actually downright funny how some people keep repeating how "we don't know what happened before that", yet don't actually have anything to go with that. You have to remember, the protesters are not the only ones with recordings of what happened. There's plenty of independent media around, and even downright hostile media like people wanting to sell stories to outfits like Fox News. The police also routinely film public demonstrations and protests in most countries, although I have no idea if they do that in the US.
I haven't seen any reports of any protester being charged with violence towards the police or anyone. No footage of protester violence has emerged, despite an essential barrage of media attention. (In the US or Canada. The Rome protests are a different matter entirely.)
Unless someone is willing to show me something even marginally resembling facts, I'm calling a total BS on the claims the protests are anything but remarkably non-violent.
Either the internet doesn't actually work in Finland or you went out of your way to bury your head in the sand. And having been to Finland I'm under the impression that the internet works just fine there. It took me literally 5 minutes and 3 searches to find that.
