Occupy Wall Street Fail
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
You should post this again.
I'm sure it will mean something.
Very smooth, lol
So where is the enforcement of regulation here?
I have yet to see a solitary example of an individual that can articulate their position, let alone offer a solution. That said, it would appear that the 'bad apples' are more the norm as opposed to the exception.
Bonus money for performing badly.
That's a sweet gig, I really don't understand why protestors complain. How can you be part of the 1% if you're expected to perform at work? Far better to get bonuses for existing.
Awww, can't provide any example to illustrate your point? Sure, there might be 1 or 2, but by in large, you got nothing, hence, the amorphous responses followed-up by "You just don't understand".
Was reading that article on chinese censorship (petros) and came across this:
Ain't that funny?
Ain't that funny?
There lies the crux of the problem, which to be solved isn't going to happen by getting in people's faces. If it's Starbucks or Fanny and Freddie who are screwing you, quit doing business with them and they'll soon leave town.
$37-million Ponzi scheme lands 74-year-old man six years in prison
CALGARY — A 74-year-old man has been sentenced to six years in prison for a fraudulent investment scheme that bilked investors out of $37.5-million and, as the Calgary judge emphasized, “devastated many lives.”
“Countless lives have been ruined in the wake of a Ponzi scheme of this magnitude,” provincial court Judge Mike Dinkel said in sentencing Murray Harold Stark on Thursday.
“People have had to sell vacation homes, friends and family have lost a lot of trust, they have had problems with Revenue Canada, have suffered financial problems and marriages have been affected.
“To say the least, the actions of Stark and people he represented were devastating.”
Dinkel said people in the gallery at court and the public at large might be outraged at such a seemingly light sentence for such a devastating financial crime, but he accepted a joint submission by Crown prosecutor Peter Mackenzie and defence lawyer Don MacLeod because it was based on extensive case law.
Stark had pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000. “People out there may say, ‘I don’t care how much time he spends in jail, six years is not enough,’ ” said Dinkel. “But this could be a life sentence for this gentleman with his health issues.
“It is a trust-like issue with the use of a lawyer, Garth Bailey, who gave this endeavour greater legitimacy to investors. In its wake, countless lives most likely have been ruined. Nobody can return their lives to what it was before this investment.”
Mackenzie told court that Stark renewed acquaintances with Robert Fyn in 1996 and, in November 2000, they developed a joint investment program under the name of HMS Financial, based in Linden, Alta. HMS accepted investment money directly from individuals in Alberta, the rest of Canada and North America. These high-yield investments promised investors returns of 8 to 12% interest per month, compounded quarterly.
The prosecutor said Fyn appears to be the “directing mind” of HMS, which was centred out of his farm at Linden. “Fyn, with Stark’s knowledge, induced investors to place moneys with HMS Financial by representations that investors were protected by virtue of an approximately $30-million US bond in trust with Garth Bailey maintained to indemnify investors for investment losses,” said Mackenzie, reading from an agreed statement of facts.
The prosecutor said Stark never actually saw such a bond and took no ongoing independent steps to verify its existence or continued existence or validity. In fact, no such trust account relating to such a bond existed. “Fyn and Stark failed to disclose to investors investment losses and failed to disclose that investor principal and interest was paid from new investor money and not from investment income,” he said.
“HMS Financial bank accounts/solicitor’s trust fund were continuously closed for suspicious banking activity. Stark knew or was wilfully blind to these facts and continued to work with this investment program notwithstanding these facts.
“In the end, investors lost or risked loss cumulatively of $32,338,789 US and $5,214,287 Cdn.”
In one victim-impact statement presented in court, the victim said the scam has devastated him financially. “I do not socialize with other people except for a few relatives and in-laws which I get to see maybe once a year,” said the distraught victim. “It has put a strain on my marriage because my wife also had a lot of her savings invested too.
“Out retirement is gone and we both live in fear that we will now lose what little we have left.” Dinkel agreed with Mackenzie that a restitution order is not necessary as many of the investors have filed a class-action lawsuit in hopes of recovering at least some of their investment in the Ponzi scheme.
Mackenzie said about $4 million has been returned to Canada from the United States as a result of the lawsuit at Court of Queen’s Bench and placed in a trust account, but hopes of recovering much more is grim.
Macleod said although his client gained some money — over $200,000 — he is now living in a mobile home in British Columbia and had to take a bus to come to court for the hearing.
Stark had no prior criminal record.
Mackenzie said Fyn is scheduled to plead guilty to his role in the fraud on Dec. 1 and a deal is worked out that he would receive an eight-year sentence. Bailey, he said, has been disbarred as a lawyer and faces a pretrial hearing on similar fraud charges on Feb. 27.
Dinkel agreed with MacLeod’s request that he recommend Stark be allowed to serve his sentence at Ferndale Institution near Mission, B.C., so he can be close to his home and family.
Before the offender was arrested, Dinkel told him: “Mr. Stark, I wish you well. … But you’ve devastated a lot of lives.”
$37-million Ponzi scheme lands 74-year-old Murray Harold Stark six years in prison | News | National Post
CALGARY — A 74-year-old man has been sentenced to six years in prison for a fraudulent investment scheme that bilked investors out of $37.5-million and, as the Calgary judge emphasized, “devastated many lives.”
“Countless lives have been ruined in the wake of a Ponzi scheme of this magnitude,” provincial court Judge Mike Dinkel said in sentencing Murray Harold Stark on Thursday.
“People have had to sell vacation homes, friends and family have lost a lot of trust, they have had problems with Revenue Canada, have suffered financial problems and marriages have been affected.
“To say the least, the actions of Stark and people he represented were devastating.”
Dinkel said people in the gallery at court and the public at large might be outraged at such a seemingly light sentence for such a devastating financial crime, but he accepted a joint submission by Crown prosecutor Peter Mackenzie and defence lawyer Don MacLeod because it was based on extensive case law.
Stark had pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000. “People out there may say, ‘I don’t care how much time he spends in jail, six years is not enough,’ ” said Dinkel. “But this could be a life sentence for this gentleman with his health issues.
“It is a trust-like issue with the use of a lawyer, Garth Bailey, who gave this endeavour greater legitimacy to investors. In its wake, countless lives most likely have been ruined. Nobody can return their lives to what it was before this investment.”
Mackenzie told court that Stark renewed acquaintances with Robert Fyn in 1996 and, in November 2000, they developed a joint investment program under the name of HMS Financial, based in Linden, Alta. HMS accepted investment money directly from individuals in Alberta, the rest of Canada and North America. These high-yield investments promised investors returns of 8 to 12% interest per month, compounded quarterly.
The prosecutor said Fyn appears to be the “directing mind” of HMS, which was centred out of his farm at Linden. “Fyn, with Stark’s knowledge, induced investors to place moneys with HMS Financial by representations that investors were protected by virtue of an approximately $30-million US bond in trust with Garth Bailey maintained to indemnify investors for investment losses,” said Mackenzie, reading from an agreed statement of facts.
The prosecutor said Stark never actually saw such a bond and took no ongoing independent steps to verify its existence or continued existence or validity. In fact, no such trust account relating to such a bond existed. “Fyn and Stark failed to disclose to investors investment losses and failed to disclose that investor principal and interest was paid from new investor money and not from investment income,” he said.
“HMS Financial bank accounts/solicitor’s trust fund were continuously closed for suspicious banking activity. Stark knew or was wilfully blind to these facts and continued to work with this investment program notwithstanding these facts.
“In the end, investors lost or risked loss cumulatively of $32,338,789 US and $5,214,287 Cdn.”
In one victim-impact statement presented in court, the victim said the scam has devastated him financially. “I do not socialize with other people except for a few relatives and in-laws which I get to see maybe once a year,” said the distraught victim. “It has put a strain on my marriage because my wife also had a lot of her savings invested too.
“Out retirement is gone and we both live in fear that we will now lose what little we have left.” Dinkel agreed with Mackenzie that a restitution order is not necessary as many of the investors have filed a class-action lawsuit in hopes of recovering at least some of their investment in the Ponzi scheme.
Mackenzie said about $4 million has been returned to Canada from the United States as a result of the lawsuit at Court of Queen’s Bench and placed in a trust account, but hopes of recovering much more is grim.
Macleod said although his client gained some money — over $200,000 — he is now living in a mobile home in British Columbia and had to take a bus to come to court for the hearing.
Stark had no prior criminal record.
Mackenzie said Fyn is scheduled to plead guilty to his role in the fraud on Dec. 1 and a deal is worked out that he would receive an eight-year sentence. Bailey, he said, has been disbarred as a lawyer and faces a pretrial hearing on similar fraud charges on Feb. 27.
Dinkel agreed with MacLeod’s request that he recommend Stark be allowed to serve his sentence at Ferndale Institution near Mission, B.C., so he can be close to his home and family.
Before the offender was arrested, Dinkel told him: “Mr. Stark, I wish you well. … But you’ve devastated a lot of lives.”
$37-million Ponzi scheme lands 74-year-old Murray Harold Stark six years in prison | News | National Post
Well, yes, of course, because he's simply trying to be part of the 1% who creates jobs, so we shouldn't impose anything on him that might upset him.
This subject is getting a little off track, there's laws in place to deal with the illegal thugs, it's the exalted thugs that are the problem and the ONLY to deal with them is to quit patronizing them................what do they care about homeless, jobless people, who can't even articulate their thoughts? (Actually these thugs are doing very little harm to people who don't have money for things beyond the basics)
Why All Public Higher Education Should Be Free
In his book The Price of Civilization, respected economist, Jeffrey Sachs argues that the cost of making all public higher education free in America would be between fifteen and thirty billion dollars. While this may sound like a large sum, it could actually save money. First of all, the government is currently spending billions of dollars on for-profit schools and other colleges and universities that have very low graduation rates. In fact, what is going on in the state of California is that as students get priced out of the University of California, they either drop out or go to community colleges. Meanwhile as community colleges are defunded, they are forced to cut their enrollments and raise their fees, and the result is that students end up going to high-cost for-profit schools that have a very low graduate rate. In other words, in the current system, everyone pays more, and we produce fewer graduates.
Currently, only 30% of Americans who start college or university end up graduating, and this represents a huge waste of time and money. If students did not have to work while in school, the graduation rate would improve drastically, and students at universities could graduate in four years instead of six or more years. In fact, the biggest reason why students drop out of higher education is that they cannot afford the high cost of tuition.
Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
Of course, there are reasons beyond economics to provide free higher education. Not only do we need a more educated workforce, but we also need more educated citizens. It is also important to point out that people with higher education degrees report a higher level of health and happiness. In fact, societies with a high rate of degree attainment have lower crime rates and higher rates of social welfare.
While President Obama has endorsed the need for the U.S. to increase the number of citizens with higher education degrees, he has done very little to support this process. Not only do we need to push our politicians to support free universal higher education, but we have to show the voting populace that a federal program would help to alleviate the incredible expense that postsecondary education now costs middle-class families.
Along with funding higher education, the federal government could also rein in costs by setting realistic caps on tuition increases. Moreover, by improving access and affordability, the government could improve the quality of instruction by forcing schools to concentrate their spending on research and instruction. The federal government could also take on the task of rating and ranking colleges so that we are no longer dependent on US News & World Report, which has a corrosive influence on institutions of higher education. Instead of schools spending money on lavish amenities, universities and colleges could be motivated to concentrate their resources on reducing class size and hiring more full-time faculty.
While few people would now reject the idea of compulsory K-12 education, it is now time to make college universal and free.
Bob Samuels: Why All Public Higher Education Should Be Free
In his book The Price of Civilization, respected economist, Jeffrey Sachs argues that the cost of making all public higher education free in America would be between fifteen and thirty billion dollars. While this may sound like a large sum, it could actually save money. First of all, the government is currently spending billions of dollars on for-profit schools and other colleges and universities that have very low graduation rates. In fact, what is going on in the state of California is that as students get priced out of the University of California, they either drop out or go to community colleges. Meanwhile as community colleges are defunded, they are forced to cut their enrollments and raise their fees, and the result is that students end up going to high-cost for-profit schools that have a very low graduate rate. In other words, in the current system, everyone pays more, and we produce fewer graduates.
Currently, only 30% of Americans who start college or university end up graduating, and this represents a huge waste of time and money. If students did not have to work while in school, the graduation rate would improve drastically, and students at universities could graduate in four years instead of six or more years. In fact, the biggest reason why students drop out of higher education is that they cannot afford the high cost of tuition.
Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
Of course, there are reasons beyond economics to provide free higher education. Not only do we need a more educated workforce, but we also need more educated citizens. It is also important to point out that people with higher education degrees report a higher level of health and happiness. In fact, societies with a high rate of degree attainment have lower crime rates and higher rates of social welfare.
While President Obama has endorsed the need for the U.S. to increase the number of citizens with higher education degrees, he has done very little to support this process. Not only do we need to push our politicians to support free universal higher education, but we have to show the voting populace that a federal program would help to alleviate the incredible expense that postsecondary education now costs middle-class families.
Along with funding higher education, the federal government could also rein in costs by setting realistic caps on tuition increases. Moreover, by improving access and affordability, the government could improve the quality of instruction by forcing schools to concentrate their spending on research and instruction. The federal government could also take on the task of rating and ranking colleges so that we are no longer dependent on US News & World Report, which has a corrosive influence on institutions of higher education. Instead of schools spending money on lavish amenities, universities and colleges could be motivated to concentrate their resources on reducing class size and hiring more full-time faculty.
While few people would now reject the idea of compulsory K-12 education, it is now time to make college universal and free.
Bob Samuels: Why All Public Higher Education Should Be Free
From that leftoid ranter Chris (Obama sends a thrill up his leg) Mathews, but even he can see these more-more-more OWS douchebags need to get their act together. Getting a little closer to discussing similarities instead of yelling, parroting and mic-checks.
Chris Matthews, who has repeatedly denounced the "hateful" Tea Partiers and once compared them to the Muslim Brotherhood, admitted on Thursday that the conservative protesters have "a point." The admission came during an attempt to suggest that both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have failings. [MP3 audio here.]
The Hardball host conceded, "I may surprise some people with this, but both of the movements, right as well as left, had a point, a good point to make. Both of them. Government is spending too much money. If you mean it's spending more than people are willing to finance in taxes." Could it be that Matthews is souring on the Occupy crowd, now that there are reports of defecating on cars and rapes?
Matthews didn't directly address the crime part of the OWS protests. Instead, he chastised, "But, even as the occupiers are being pushed from their encampments, they fail to speak out in clear terms about what they want done and that is deadly. That is a deadly failure. Demonstrators need most of all to demonstrate, tell us what we need to do."
He did make sure to suggest that they are "right" in their frustration of Wall Street.
Speaking of the federal government, Matthews surprisingly allowed, "It's spending 25 percent of our economy. Taxing just 15 percent. It would seem to most people that that 25 number we spend is almost, almost as out of whack as the 15 percent in taxes."
The anchor made sure to attack the Tea Party for just being "against" things, a constant refrain. But, on February 1, 2011, he compared the conservative group to terrorists: "So, the Muslim Brotherhood has a parallel role here with the Tea Party, they're the ones who keep you honest and decide whether you've stayed too long?"
On May 16, 2011, Matthews frothed that the Tea Party were "haters," doing so ten times in under two minutes.
So, his new tone is apparently an attempt at a "plague on both your houses" critique. Of course, one side is constantly threatening violence, dealing with rapes and public defecation and one side isn't.
A transcript of the November 17 segment, which aired at 5:57pm EST, follows:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: We're looking now at what appears to be the exasperation of the country's most alive political movements. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall street. Exasperation. It's when a felt need, a passion even fails to be satisfied. It's when you want something and can't get it. Like in the song. Can't get no- can't get no- satisfaction. But, I'm speaking here with dead seriousness about forces that appear to be deadly serious. The one on the right that gained tremendous and proven force the summer before last and then in the fall elections a year ago and the Occupy Wall Street movement that has replicated itself across the country. One movement, the Tea Party, stands today as totally, are you listening to this, incapable, incompetent I would say in selecting a leader, someone fit to run for president. They ain't got one. No, no, no. They ain't got one. They looked at Trump, yes Trump, and Bachmann, Perry, and Cain and they're dallying with Newt. Not a real leader in sit. In fact, if you look across the months to the summer of last year they never have and that tells you something about the negativity of their cause.
They are against and that is not enough to lead this country. The Occupy Wall Street movement has had a different failure. In some way worse, in some way not. They can't come up with a clear voice, a clear statement that put the focus where it belongs. Wall Street. Well, that's where they've been right. They've been in sync with the country on where to go. They put the blame on Wall Street. More to the point, to the clout Wall Street has in our government down in Washington.
But, even as the occupiers are being pushed from their encampments, they fail to speak out in clear terms about what they want done and that is deadly. That is a deadly failure. Demonstrators need most of all to demonstrate, tell us what we need to do. I may surprise some people with this, but both of the movements, right as well as left, had a point, a good point to make. Both of them. Government is spending too much money. If you mean it's spending more than people are willing to finance in taxes. It's spending 25 percent of our economy. Taxing just 15 percent. It would seem to most people that that 25 number we spend is almost, almost as out of whack as the 15 percent in taxes. Occupy certainly has a great point to make. Both parties rely too much on Wall Street for their money and he who pays the piper, calls the tune. But exasperation isn't enough to fix our problems. That's what politicians are supposed to do. We've got an election coming up to force that one, to force them to do what we want them to do- lead us.
Chris Matthews, who has repeatedly denounced the "hateful" Tea Partiers and once compared them to the Muslim Brotherhood, admitted on Thursday that the conservative protesters have "a point." The admission came during an attempt to suggest that both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have failings. [MP3 audio here.]
The Hardball host conceded, "I may surprise some people with this, but both of the movements, right as well as left, had a point, a good point to make. Both of them. Government is spending too much money. If you mean it's spending more than people are willing to finance in taxes." Could it be that Matthews is souring on the Occupy crowd, now that there are reports of defecating on cars and rapes?
He did make sure to suggest that they are "right" in their frustration of Wall Street.
Speaking of the federal government, Matthews surprisingly allowed, "It's spending 25 percent of our economy. Taxing just 15 percent. It would seem to most people that that 25 number we spend is almost, almost as out of whack as the 15 percent in taxes."
The anchor made sure to attack the Tea Party for just being "against" things, a constant refrain. But, on February 1, 2011, he compared the conservative group to terrorists: "So, the Muslim Brotherhood has a parallel role here with the Tea Party, they're the ones who keep you honest and decide whether you've stayed too long?"
On May 16, 2011, Matthews frothed that the Tea Party were "haters," doing so ten times in under two minutes.
So, his new tone is apparently an attempt at a "plague on both your houses" critique. Of course, one side is constantly threatening violence, dealing with rapes and public defecation and one side isn't.
A transcript of the November 17 segment, which aired at 5:57pm EST, follows:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: We're looking now at what appears to be the exasperation of the country's most alive political movements. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall street. Exasperation. It's when a felt need, a passion even fails to be satisfied. It's when you want something and can't get it. Like in the song. Can't get no- can't get no- satisfaction. But, I'm speaking here with dead seriousness about forces that appear to be deadly serious. The one on the right that gained tremendous and proven force the summer before last and then in the fall elections a year ago and the Occupy Wall Street movement that has replicated itself across the country. One movement, the Tea Party, stands today as totally, are you listening to this, incapable, incompetent I would say in selecting a leader, someone fit to run for president. They ain't got one. No, no, no. They ain't got one. They looked at Trump, yes Trump, and Bachmann, Perry, and Cain and they're dallying with Newt. Not a real leader in sit. In fact, if you look across the months to the summer of last year they never have and that tells you something about the negativity of their cause.
They are against and that is not enough to lead this country. The Occupy Wall Street movement has had a different failure. In some way worse, in some way not. They can't come up with a clear voice, a clear statement that put the focus where it belongs. Wall Street. Well, that's where they've been right. They've been in sync with the country on where to go. They put the blame on Wall Street. More to the point, to the clout Wall Street has in our government down in Washington.
But, even as the occupiers are being pushed from their encampments, they fail to speak out in clear terms about what they want done and that is deadly. That is a deadly failure. Demonstrators need most of all to demonstrate, tell us what we need to do. I may surprise some people with this, but both of the movements, right as well as left, had a point, a good point to make. Both of them. Government is spending too much money. If you mean it's spending more than people are willing to finance in taxes. It's spending 25 percent of our economy. Taxing just 15 percent. It would seem to most people that that 25 number we spend is almost, almost as out of whack as the 15 percent in taxes. Occupy certainly has a great point to make. Both parties rely too much on Wall Street for their money and he who pays the piper, calls the tune. But exasperation isn't enough to fix our problems. That's what politicians are supposed to do. We've got an election coming up to force that one, to force them to do what we want them to do- lead us.
I'm not sure that G.M. is in quite the same category as folks like Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff and the rest of the corporate crooks! At least G.M. did repay the money.