these fools are gonna try and take over wall street

BinauralJam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YfemiNumE :thumbup:

Drowned Out

No one is saying that people lost their homes because of bailouts. They're pissed that they lost their homes, while the banks were kept afloat. It's ok for the govt to give the banks money to get thru tough times, but not the customers? Esp when, in the meantime, the people in control of the banks who started the mess (with govt help), still paid themselves 8 figure bonuses. It's the epitome of unethical...

And to the last part - the OWS movement has spurred several boycotts, bank runs, started discussion on the best way to proceed with further actions, etc etc etc.....if you don't see that these protest actions began because of the people in the tents, forming drum circles, blocking commuters, it's because you choose not to.

Monster Rain

I don't know if you're refering to my post or not. If you are, then I was responding to BinauralJam's post that asked, "How many people lost there houses thanks to those banks?" That's putting direct blame on the banks.

I agree that it was questionable for those bailed out executives to get bonuses. Unfortunately, those bonuses were contractual obligations so the banks had to pay them. I always felt that the government should have included a provision in the bailouts that executives at the highest levels of those banks could not collect any bonuses owed until the bailouts were repaid, but that didn't happen. In my company, every executive's bonus is tied to the company's performance. I'm glad to work someplace like that and certainly don't think bonuses that aren't performance-based do anything to help the company succeed. I know that I wouldn't feel right getting a million-dollar bonus after leading my company to the brink of collapse and I don't know how those executives could not feel the need to return them that year, but they weren't required to return them so there's not much anyone can do about it.

As for why the banks and other companies were bailed out, they were viewed as being too important to our economy for the government to let them fail. Unemployment is horrible now, but it could have been much worse if some of those companies disappeared completely. HBO has a movie about it that goes into a lot of the back room discussions and arguments within the government and various banks and investment firms leading up to the bailouts and shows why certain companies were bailed out.

As I said before, I don't understand why the bailouts have been such a big talking point among the protesters in 2011. They're going back 2-3 years and protesting bailouts that have already been paid back. They're a little late to the party on that issue. I understand that they have other concerns besides that, but it seems like the one that gets thrown out the most along with, "They don't pay their fair share."

Drowned Out wrote:

No one is saying that people lost their homes because of bailouts. They're pissed that they lost their homes, while the banks were kept afloat. It's ok for the govt to give the banks money to get thru tough times, but not the customers? Esp when, in the meantime, the people in control of the banks who started the mess (with govt help), still paid themselves 8 figure bonuses. It's the epitome of unethical...

And to the last part - the OWS movement has spurred several boycotts, bank runs, started discussion on the best way to proceed with further actions, etc etc etc.....if you don't see that these protest actions began because of the people in the tents, forming drum circles, blocking commuters, it's because you choose not to.

Sea

We have threads on this topic already. Please take the Occupy Wall Street discussion to A Moving Train. Thank you.

viewforum.php?f=13