More on Occupy 2.0
Thanks to highly-trained specialized work by our newslink editor. This article that had escaped my attention was full of data that will be useful for those who know that Occupy 2.0 is purely political according to the natural laws of the universe that tell us that advocacy and politics are either inseparable or the same thing.
“The results of our 453 interviews in seven occupy locations highlighted the following political issues on which the movement appears to have majority consensus:”
“The movement needs to find a way to identify these as well as other issues through gauging the opinion of its members on ongoing basis. This should be done through voting to allow everyone to provide their input. Once identified, the movement's position on the different issues should be disseminated for the benefit of the general public and political candidates.”
So true. This has always been the task at hand. The occupations served rather dramatic notice that there are a lot of people who are willing to take action to be heard. The movement was as predictable as the mortgage-back securities meltdown of 2008 and the mayhem it caused.
Not because it tried to imitate the Arab Spring uprisings that began in Tunisia and spread rapidly, but because the issue of economic injustice was so glaring and obvious. How much money to you need to feed zombie banks before they collapse under the weight of their own flawed structures?
When in history has America subsidized failure, rewarded criminal conduct, or been asked to finance the mindless greed of such a narrow sector? When has sector that produces nothing been given so much at the expense of the working class and the rest of those that actually contribute to GDP?
New York AG Eric Schneiderman is one of the six state AG's conducting their own investigations pointing out that “banks wanted broad protection from lawsuits over other mortgage practices, like how huge volumes of bad loans were made to begin with, or the creation of toxic mortgage-backed securities.”
That's correct. Why should they get protection? How and why were those loans made in the first place? If the purpose of the law is to maintain an environment of lawful business practices, how is it that the banks are exempted from prosecution or civil litigation when they enter into these agreements and settle with regulators? Is this not the definition of a protection racket that benefits all of those involved at the expense of the victims? If not, then what is the explanation, and more importantly where is the restitution for the victims?
Those that were evicted from their homes illegally are out there somewhere, and it is very likely they will be unable to share in any agreement by regulators on their behalf.
Mr. Schneiderman adds: "I wasn't willing to provide a release that ... released conduct that hadn't been investigated, essentially," Schneiderman says, "so we started our own investigation."
That seems like a reasonable position, especially when one considers that the guilty walk away with huge profits and because these issues are settled out of court the public is denied access to the evidence, the documentation of the crimes, that is critical to evaluating and understanding how it was done along with the proof. There is little doubt that these scams are premeditated and collaborative. Is this not the proof that a variation of insider trading is taking place?
And when this occurs are not the parties involved held to account on criminal charges? What is the difference then, when bank CEOs participate in fraudulent lending practices and illegal foreclosures? They have harvested vast sums of money from these practices and without a sufficient deterrent, without substantial reforms, so how can we expect anything different in the future?
It is not part of the OWS movement to endorse candidates for any office, but those six AG's should be congratulated for their efforts consistent with their oversight responsibilities and clearly in the public interest. Bloomberg News reports meetings by those AG's continue:
“The group, which met in Washington, included New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, California’s Kamala Harris and Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, according to two of the people, who declined to be named because they weren’t authorized to speak about the meeting. Schneiderman, Harris and Coakley are each conducting separate investigations of bank practices.”
This article from November 14, 2011 provides more insight into the destructive practices of the major banks as they admitted to effectively putting credit unions at risk of failure (which indeed occurred), while scamming everyone in sight. This is typical of the business model:
“After those credit unions failed in 2009 and 2010, the federal agency seized and liquidated them. It imposed charges totaling $3.3 billion on the 7,000 or so credit unions nationwide to cover the losses from the failures.”
“Citigroup will pay $20.5 million, and Deutsche Bank will pay $145 million. The companies neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing in the matter.”
How is this equitable? The credit unions were obliged to pay $3.3 billion to cover the losses caused by Citigroup and Deutsche Bank, but the perpetrators walk away with a trivial fine without even being asked to admit wrongdoing?
So what is the solution? Everyone has the ability to essentially boycott the criminal element within the banking industry. Many have already decided they don't want to finance this sort of criminal conduct, so they simply move their money somewhere else so they won't become the prey for predatory financial services executives:
Durbin: Get out of B of A
Many followed that advice on Bank Transfer Day, many more since. Remember that SOPA was “stopped in its tracks” by the population simply standing up and making their opinions known, despite the fact that the mainstream media was nowhere to be found when they did. Here's the simplest solution, and a clear path for those that can choose between being part of the problem or part of the solution:
Church moves money:
Thanks pastor, for demonstrating how easy it is.
Davos igloos await conference: World Economic Forum
"The economic and financial concentration of power in a small, privileged minority leads to a dictatorship over the rest of us. The motto 'one person, one vote' is no longer valid, but 'one dollar, one vote'. We want to change that."
So the Occupation Movement has a clear message regardless of whether Fox News gets it or not. It is the same everywhere, in Europe, Asia and especially in the US where most of these scams originate (and where they are ultimately financed by American taxpayers, homeowners and depositors).
There are many groups that have been around for awhile, and many more that have been spawned since September 17, 2011 when the first occupation was established in Zuccotti Park. Dylan Ratigan's Get Money Out and Move to Amend have sought support from OWS followers along with a long list of others that are not as well known. All share the same vision; a world where votes are not bought by those with a vested interest in maintaining their predatory status.
Chris Hedges notes on arrest: Must read
“Our electoral system, already hostage to corporate money and corporate lobbyists, gasped its last two years ago. It died on Jan. 21, 2010, when the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission granted to corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts on independent political campaigns. The ruling turned politicians into corporate employees. If any politician steps out of line, dares to defy corporate demands, this ruling hands to our corporate overlords the ability to pump massive amounts of anonymous money into campaigns to make sure the wayward are defeated and silenced. Politicians like Obama are hostages. They jump when corporations say jump. They beg when corporations say beg.”
So the hopes and dreams of billions of people are entwined with the OWS movement. Will we (the victims and representatives) continue to serve the financial services sector, or will reforms reassert the democratic model over the banks' business model?
Show us the way pastor, because the solution remains in the possession of those that continue to allow their money to be held by outfits like Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. If they continue their stranglehold on the 99% it will only be because enough people didn't take their money somewhere else.
Buffett Rule misleading?
“The billionaire is now offering to donate $1 towards paying down the national debt for every dollar donated by a Republican in Congress, according to the latest issue of Time magazine. And Buffett says he would donate $3 for every $1 Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell gives.”
Romney offensive: Gingrich and BS
“Pawlenty added to the call for more information about the now-opaque nature of his work with Freddie Mac. The issue takes on additional weight in Florida, a state ravaged by the mortgage crisis. Pawlenty and Florida House Speaker-designate Will Weatherford focused their attacks on Gingrich's involvement with Freddie Mac, which they charge contributed to the collapse of the housing market.
“Pawlenty rejected the notion that Gingrich served as a historian. 'The notion that he was paid $1.7 million dollars as a historian for Freddie Mac is just BS,' said Pawlenty.”