...and the people with the money are winning.
I just watched Insider Job, the documentary about the deregulation of the banking and finance industries and the collapse of the world economy, last night and the whole thing just pissed me off. This was not simply some oversight or accident that caused this; it was the systematic dismantling of the controls over our financial system that ultimately allowed the big players to run the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind...and to walk away rich without any fear of reprisal whatsoever.
EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS.
This constitutes the biggest redistribution of wealth from common, working people into the pockets of the rich ever which is especially profound when you consider that these people actually created nothing...no innovative products or goods or services...nothing...especially jobs. In fact, they cost tens of millions of jobs.
For those of you who continue to come here and spout off about how letting rich people keep more of their money benefits everyone else, these are the people you're talking about. The only jobs they're creating are for high-priced hookers and cocaine dealers (written off as business expenses). They're parasites who dictate policy to our government and you defend them in direct contrast to you and your families' best interests. While you bitch and gripe about how much teachers or government clerks make, you tacitly support those who've siphoned hundreds of billions of dollars out of the pockets of the working people not only in this country but around the world. Your ignorance is inexcusable.
This has been going on since Reagan was in office and every administration since has been complicit. The sad part is that Obama, despite any of his claims to the contrary, has only served to maintain the status quo...virtually every one of his finance/economics advisors and/or regulators is someone who had a direct role in the deregulation that caused this crisis. The whole thing is sad, really...
The real division in this country is between the ultra-rich and the rest of us.
The incredibly inane thinking is done by those who want to be one of the ultra-rich and think that those ultra-rich have our welfare at heart.
Capitalism is a game, and the game is rigged:
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=17120.new#new
...and NOT in YOUR favor. :wink:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 23, 2011, 01:07:26 PM
...I just watched Insider Job
Is this out and available for renting?
Quote...The sad part is that Obama, despite any of his claims to the contrary, has only served to maintain the status quo...virtually every one of his finance/economics advisors and/or regulators is someone who had a direct role in the deregulation that caused this crisis. The whole thing is sad, really...
Obama has about run his course with me. I broke a 20-odd year run of voting third-party to vote for him, and while I do think he's FAR better than the alternative, the only real change I see is that the color/minority barrier has been broken - albeit I suspect only temporarily - for the highest elected office in the land.
I voted for real change - that which topples Ivory Towers.
I'm not happy with what we've received. :no:
Yes, Y, I rented it from Netflix...not available for streaming from them yet, you have to get the DVD mailed to you.
Quote from: followsthewolf on March 23, 2011, 03:09:40 PM
The real division in this country is between the ultra-rich and the rest of us.
The incredibly inane thinking is done by those who want to be one of the ultra-rich and think that those ultra-rich have our welfare at heart.
I think that the issue, FTW, is that people can't grasp the concept of ultra-rich and don't understand that they are the only ones who benefit by these policies. Somone like Henry falsely assumes that people like his boss benefit from tax breaks for the wealthy when they truly only apply to the top 1 or 2%.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 23, 2011, 04:25:57 PM
Yes, Y, I rented it from Netflix...not available for streaming from them yet, you have to get the DVD mailed to you.
Danke! I'll be checking Redbox for it. :wink:
Quote from: Y on March 23, 2011, 04:40:50 PM
Danke! I'll be checking Redbox for it. :wink:
Bitte! You might want to get something to put in front of your TV so you don't break it when you hurl the remote. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 23, 2011, 04:38:31 PM
I think that the issue, FTW, is that people can't grasp the concept of ultra-rich and don't understand that they are the only ones who benefit by these policies. Somone like Henry falsely assumes that people like his boss benefit from tax breaks for the wealthy when they truly only apply to the top 1 or 2%.
Exactly.
The ultra-rich live in such a rarefied atmosphere that even those who are "comfortably well off" can hardly conceive of the world they inhabit.
We are their toys. When they deign to acknowledge us for their convenience.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 23, 2011, 04:42:54 PM
Bitte! You might want to get something to put in front of your TV so you don't break it when you hurl the remote. :biggrin:
:biggrin:
I already do the old guy thing and talk to the TV - especially on Sunday my day for politics etc.. :rotfl:
Do I hear a George Soros????????? Hum, wonder how much he had to do with "rigging" things? Lets see, how many economies has he collapsed now? Ya really oughta study up on him.
Quote from: me on March 23, 2011, 10:32:26 PM
Do I hear a George Soros????????? Hum, wonder how much he had to do with "rigging" things? Lets see, how many economies has he collapsed now? Ya really oughta study up on him.
George Soros hate coming from all people, ME. The rumor is that Glen Beck contract is not going to be renewed on FOX NEWS. He's talking about starting his own cable fruitcake network.
With your Loony Tune attitude on life and how the world should be ran. With the Super Rich running the whole damn thing. Maybe you could fill in for Glen on Fox or appear on his network and one of his fruitcakes. :jester: :bliss: :bliss: :bliss: :grin2:
Quote from: me on March 23, 2011, 10:32:26 PM
Do I hear a George Soros????????? Hum, wonder how much he had to do with "rigging" things? Lets see, how many economies has he collapsed now? Ya really oughta study up on him.
I'll play your silly game; how many economies has he collapsed? Please name them.
Ironically, George Soros is one of the few voices of reason in this film but I wouldn't expect you to actually watch it or know anything about any subject before you start offering your misguided opinions. I'm sure the whack-job websites you frequent defend these thieves and explain how this division of wealth absent of any real productivity is a good thing for everyone.
What happended here was wholesale theft; no ifs, ands or buts. Are you seriously trying to defend it?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2011, 11:34:05 AM
I'll play your silly game; how many economies has he collapsed? Please name them.
Ironically, George Soros is one of the few voices of reason in this film but I wouldn't expect you to actually watch it or know anything about any subject before you start offering your misguided opinions. I'm sure the whack-job websites you frequent defend these thieves and explain how this division of wealth absent of any real productivity is a good thing for everyone.
What happended here was wholesale theft; no ifs, ands or buts. Are you seriously trying to defend it?
Hum, sounds like you need to check in to who produced the film you watched. Did you ever think of doing that? Who fronted the money and who are they tied to?
Quote from: me on March 24, 2011, 02:08:09 PM
Hum, sounds like you need to check in to who produced the film you watched. Did you ever think of doing that? Who fronted the money and who are they tied to?
Are you going to name the economies Soros collapsed?
Not sure what you mean by 'tied to'...aquainted with? Attended the same cocktail party as? Read about in the newspaper? It would appear that the major funding for the film came from Jeffrey and Christina Lurie's foundation, Screen Pass Pictures. I'm not sure if they personally know Soros or not or if he made any monetary contribution to it but my question to you is who cares? Are you trying to imply that the documentary is not factually correct? Who are you defending by doing so?
Did or did not the financial industry embark on a course of deregulation since the early 80's?
Did or did not that deregulation allow the situation in which these credit derivatives were able to be marketed?
Did or did not the ratings agencies (S&P, Moody's, etc.) rate these CDO's AAA even though many of them were primarily based on sub-prime mortgages, thus allowing the investment in those securities, and I use the term loosely, by retirement funds and the like?
Did or did not the mortgage industry, knowing that they would not be ultimately responsible for the default on those loans, fail to follow generally accepted lending practices and engage in predatory lending practices?
Did or did not the major brokerages encourage their agents to sell those securities, offering huge bonuses for doing so even while their internal communications indicated that they knew they were junk.
Did or did not those same brokerages, in fact, buy credit default swaps from AIG to protect themselves against the probable failure of those securities when the loans defaulted?
Did or did not AIG sell credit default swaps not only to those with a vested interest in them but to anyone wanting to gamble on them as well?
Did or did not AIG disburse virtually all of the money gained by the sales of credit default swaps as bonuses for selling them while keeping virtually no money in reserve to pay off those insurance policies?
Did or did not millions lose their livelihoods, homes and retirements savings as a result of the default of these derivatives?
Did or did not the people in the financial industry personally pocket billions of dollars in wealth that they got to keep?
Did or did not the U.S. taxpayers have to bail out the companies who paid out all of that money to prevent a complete collapse of the world economy?
Did or did not anyone go to jail?
It seems pretty straightforward, me; even you should be able to understand it so what is it, exactly, you're protesting by attempting to discredit this documentary?
Documentaries are slanted toward what ever the person who is making them wants you to believe. For instance I watched two different documentaries on Abe Lincoln on the History channel and one said he didn't want to go to the theater that night because he had company and wanted to stay home so he wasn't in a good mood and the other said he had been looking forward to going and was in a very relaxed mood that evening. They were aired about two weeks apart and were done by different people. Documentaries are not always truthful or they leave certain facts out which may slant things one way or the other.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2011, 04:21:02 PM
Are you going to name the economies Soros collapsed?
Not sure what you mean by 'tied to'...aquainted with? Attended the same cocktail party as? Read about in the newspaper? It would appear that the major funding for the film came from Jeffrey and Christina Lurie's foundation, Screen Pass Pictures. I'm not sure if they personally know Soros or not or if he made any monetary contribution to it but my question to you is who cares? Are you trying to imply that the documentary is not factually correct? Who are you defending by doing so?
Did or did not the financial industry embark on a course of deregulation since the early 80's?
Did or did not that deregulation allow the situation in which these credit derivatives were able to be marketed?
Did or did not the ratings agencies (S&P, Moody's, etc.) rate these CDO's AAA even though many of them were primarily based on sub-prime mortgages, thus allowing the investment in those securities, and I use the term loosely, by retirement funds and the like?
Did or did not the mortgage industry, knowing that they would not be ultimately responsible for the default on those loans, fail to follow generally accepted lending practices and engage in predatory lending practices?
Did or did not the major brokerages encourage their agents to sell those securities, offering huge bonuses for doing so even while their internal communications indicated that they knew they were junk.
Did or did not those same brokerages, in fact, buy credit default swaps from AIG to protect themselves against the probable failure of those securities when the loans defaulted?
Did or did not AIG sell credit default swaps not only to those with a vested interest in them but to anyone wanting to gamble on them as well?
Did or did not AIG disburse virtually all of the money gained by the sales of credit default swaps as bonuses for selling them while keeping virtually no money in reserve to pay off those insurance policies?
Did or did not millions lose their livelihoods, homes and retirements savings as a result of the default of these derivatives?
Did or did not the people in the financial industry personally pocket billions of dollars in wealth that they got to keep?
Did or did not the U.S. taxpayers have to bail out the companies who paid out all of that money to prevent a complete collapse of the world economy?
Did or did not anyone go to jail?
It seems pretty straightforward, me; even you should be able to understand it so what is it, exactly, you're protesting by attempting to discredit this documentary?
Can you quit with your spin already and answer the fucking questions?
Just like you ME. Not truthful and leave out a whole lot of details. You wouldn't know the truth about Teaparty Republicans if you were god-smacked. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on March 24, 2011, 04:54:04 PM
Just like you ME. Not truthful and leave out a whole lot of details. You wouldn't know the truth about Teaparty Republicans if you were god-smacked. :yes: :biggrin:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
This isn't about Republicans and Democrats; I pointed out in my initial post that both parties have been and continue to be complicit in this debacle. This has to do with big money buying and controlling our government.
This is exactly why I don't post here very often any more; I mean really, what's the point? I simply recommended a documentary that really doesn't offer any information that hasn't already been in the news; it simply goes into a little more depth and discusses the relationships between the events. I think everyone should see it and it should make everyone damn mad. Instead, I get someone who apparently wants to pretend that nothing happened...what a waste of my time...
While I cannot imagine being any more pissed off about this than I already am, I am none-the-less very glad you posted about this. It is now on my "to view" list. . . But I may have to delay viewing until I have had my annual physical. . . :yes: :yes: :yes: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2011, 04:48:24 PM
Can you quit with your spin already and answer the fucking questions?
I'm just sayin' documentaries aren't the be all and end all when it comes to learning about something. Someone could come out with a documentary disproving everything this one says tomorrow and you wouldn't put any stock in it because it isn't what you want to believe but it would still be a documentary just like this one and some people would take it as gospel just as you do this one.
Some documentaries are interesting, yes, but they are nothing more than the opinion of the person who puts it together and they will seek out information or slant it to convey their point of view on what ever it is they are doing the documentary about.
Quote from: me on March 24, 2011, 08:59:26 PM
I'm just sayin' documentaries aren't the be all and end all when it comes to learning about something. Someone could come out with a documentary disproving everything this one says tomorrow and you wouldn't put any stock in it because it isn't what you want to believe but it would still be a documentary just like this one and some people would take it as gospel just as you do this one.
Some documentaries are interesting, yes, but they are nothing more than the opinion of the person who puts it together and they will seek out information or slant it to convey their point of view on what ever it is they are doing the documentary about.
Exactly!! Look how many 'documentaries' there are surrounding the 9/11 truther movement. All have been debunked but people still swear to them as gospel.
The same is true with the Moon landing hoax, Chemtrails or any other hoax and no matter what any one says or produces will not sway people who really want to believe the hoax.
IMO part of "learning something" is to take the thing presented a step further and researching the facts yourself. You're kind of dead in the water knowledge-wise if you won't even watch it to begin with to verify the facts or debunk the twists.
Even if another documentary came out claiming to debunk this one, how could you intellegently decide which one is more accurate without doing that?
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 25, 2011, 06:11:33 AM
Exactly!! Look how many 'documentaries' there are surrounding the 9/11 truther movement. All have been debunked but people still swear to them as gospel.
The same is true with the Moon landing hoax, Chemtrails or any other hoax and no matter what any one says or produces will not sway people who really want to believe the hoax.
Considering all of the things you believe in. By chance are you a birther. If you are, Why? :wink: :smile: Just checking. :biggrin: