5 thoughts on “Occupy Valdosta”

1. Barbara Stratton October 9, 2011 at 12:16 am

   We discussed in the LAKE meeting the other night that LAKE is non-partisan. So does that mean if ultra liberal agandas like this are published conservative agendas will have equal opportunity to be published also? Just an honest question looking for clarification of what LAKE’s definition of non-partisan involves. Thanks.
2. Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange October 9, 2011 at 9:44 am

   You think reinstating Glass-Steagall is ultra-liberal? Very interesting.
   And have you forgotten all the times LAKE has posted your Agenda 21 stuff? Or Richard Raines’ Agenda 21 speech from the Commission podium? Or the many videos of Roy Taylor and Nolen Cox? (More of those still in the queue, by the way.)
   What was your question again?
   -jsq
3. Barbara Stratton October 11, 2011 at 1:35 am

   I know you publish a variety of information & I guess my question was out of line. Sorry, but I don’t even know who or what Glass-Steagall is so that went over my head. The rest of your answer is well taken as a positive for non-partisan examples although UN Agenda 21 is considered non-partisan on its own. Sorry I asked. I’m clear now. Thanks.
4. Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange October 11, 2011 at 6:16 am

   Questions are good. While the actual UN Agenda 21 may be nonpartisan, the frequent misinterpretation of it by local politicians and political activists is very partisan. As you and I have discussed, because there’s been so much of that, I will, when I get a moment, post my view.
   LAKE is non-partisan. Individual events or posts can be very partisan, since they are all (except in the very rare instances labeled “for LAKE”) the opinions of their authors. As we discussed at the recent LAKE meeting, it’s best if the LAKE blog doesn’t end up with a lot of partisan back-and-forth, because that would distract from the very local issues that need to be covered, most of which are non-partisan. However, I’m not going to shy away from covering a public event because somebody might find it partisan.
   Glass-Steagall is the law that was gradually weakened and then repealed in 1999, leading to the S&L crisis and eventually to the market crash of 2009. I cite it as a key example of something that needs to be reinstated to fix the current Wall Street control of most everything. Reinstating Glass-Steagall appears to be a very popular possibility, although all I can find is an unscientific online poll (87% for). http://www.housingpredictor.com/2011/glass-steagall-poll.html
   -jsq
   “In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage). The act also establishes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), insuring bank deposits, and strengthens the Federal Reserve’s control over credit.”
   “Oct.-Nov. 1999 Congress passes Financial Services Modernization Act
   After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.”
   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
5. Fran Daniel October 13, 2011 at 10:23 am

   Please explain what the 99% represents. I’m not sure I understood what the VDT reported. Thanks

Comments are closed.