week4paug.net

Where's the stage? Spurious Generalities => Politiw00kchat => Topic started by: JPhishman on October 06, 2011, 06:18:43 PM

Title: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: JPhishman on October 06, 2011, 06:18:43 PM
Well it's taken a month but I think some real attention is finally being drawn to this. A lot of people are pissed off, and rightly so. Plenty of people nationwide that harbor these same frustrations but aren't taking to the streets. But what is the endgame? How long can this go on? How far will it escalate?

I honestly don't know what to think right now, but realizing the heights this demonstration is reaching is starting to cause some anxiety for me personally and I'm sure I'm not alone.

People are right to be upset and to let it be known. But where is this headed?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Superfreakie on October 06, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
Had this begun at the beginning of summer we might of seen an escalation. But as it gets colder, people will stay home.

On Obama's long list of failures, the failure to reign in (regulate) the banks when he had the entire population on his side has got to be one of his greatest. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 06, 2011, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: JPhishman on October 06, 2011, 06:18:43 PM
But what is the endgame?

This is the problem I have with the protests. No one seems can put together a coherent message that explains what they are doing. And because of that, it's morphed into this confused collection of disillusionment with no real purpose. First it's about holding Wall St. accountable for their role in the financial crisis (a very laudable goal, IMO). Then it's about stopping global warming. Down with capitalism! Free healthcare and college education for all! Stop lab testing on animals! $1T in infrastructure spending! Destroy the evil Fox News empire!

I know they kinda pride themselves for this "leaderless" movement, but it's the lack of direction that is ultimately going to make this fizzle out (that or, as Superfreakie very presciently points out, the cold weather). But don't worry, the unions are now going to lend their support. And they've never been one to make a power grab.

Quote from: Superfreakie on October 06, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
On Obama's long list of failures, the failure to reign in (regulate) the banks when he had the entire population on his side has got to be one of his greatest. 

I cannot +k you enough for that. This is probably the main source of my disenfranchisement with Obama. But, is it really that surprising?

Campaign Contributions by Sector - 2008








IndustryObama   McCain   
Commercial Banks$3.4M$2.4M
Hedge Funds/Private Equity   $3.5M$2.0M
Insurance$2.7M$2.5M
Real Estate$11.2M$9.6M
Securities & Investment$15.8M$9.2M

source: OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: susep on October 06, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
the majority of protesters are wearing Made in China or Made in Malaysia, are they protesting their own consumerism? 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 06, 2011, 09:23:24 PM
Quote from: susep on October 06, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
the majority of protesters are wearing Made in China or Made in Malaysia, are they protesting their own consumerism?

Truth.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 07, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
Quote from: Superfreakie on October 06, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
Had this begun at the beginning of summer we might of seen an escalation. But as it gets colder, people will stay home.

On Obama's long list of failures, the failure to reign in (regulate) the banks when he had the entire population on his side has got to be one of his greatest.
the underlying problem, imo, is that he gave too much latitude to Congress rather than putting his foot down and getting things through.

that, and having advisors tied in to WS establishment.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Superfreakie on October 07, 2011, 12:17:10 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 07, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
that, and having advisors tied in to WS establishment.

one in particular, Mr. Geithner.

Complete failure at the NY Fed, and then he finds himself as Secr. Treas. Unbelievable.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 07, 2011, 08:15:20 AM
Quote from: susep on October 06, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
the majority of protesters are wearing Made in China or Made in Malaysia, are they protesting their own consumerism?

What, you mean they don't have cell phones with video cameras in Cuba and Laos?

Quote from: Superfreakie on October 07, 2011, 12:17:10 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 07, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
that, and having advisors tied in to WS establishment.

one in particular, Mr. Geithner.

Complete failure at the NY Fed, and then he finds himself as Secr. Treas. Unbelievable.

Don't forget Larry "I'm smarter than you, asshole!" Summers, who had as much of a hand as Phil Gramm in turning banks into casinos.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 07, 2011, 12:42:42 PM
exactly, I didn't name Geitner and Summers specifically for the simple reason there are too many people, for too many years, to name.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Superfreakie on October 07, 2011, 04:35:03 PM
Quote from: susep on October 06, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
the majority of protesters are wearing Made in China or Made in Malaysia, are they protesting their own consumerism?

While some might be protesting consumerism, most are simply protesting a corporate system that has run wild. That does not mean they want it abolished, but simply reigned in. Because if you thought this bubble was bad, just you wait till the next one. China's housing market is presently heating up big time. Asia will produce the next bubble and when that one bursts, hang on tight.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on October 08, 2011, 11:51:37 AM
Quote from: Superfreakie on October 07, 2011, 04:35:03 PM
Quote from: susep on October 06, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
the majority of protesters are wearing Made in China or Made in Malaysia, are they protesting their own consumerism?

While some might be protesting consumerism, most are simply protesting a corporate system that has run wild. That does not mean they want it abolished, but simply reigned in. Because if you thought this bubble was bad, just you wait till the next one. China's housing market is presently heating up big time. Asia will produce the next bubble and when that one bursts, hang on tight.

SF's on point. No one is saying they can't have their yachts, and jets, etc. It's just that the greed has gone too far. Not that it's ok when it comes at the cost of the rest of the world working for pennies to feed America's consumerism, but now it's reached these shores, those very Americans that are funneling the money up the system, and all of a sudden everyone's in a huff. While the corporate elites may be the 1%, if you look at it on a global scale, they're even higher, they're the top .0001% (random# to prove a point).I'm glad they're protesting, and I wish them well. I just wish they were better informed about what and how they're prtesting, because the one thing I can't stand is the media latchin gon to some dumbass and asking what are you protesting, and they resond, "to change the world"  :roll:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Guyute on October 08, 2011, 11:36:50 PM
I am asking this because I don't know.  My understanding is that a big part of the protest is the fact that no one has been indicted for what happened.  What I don't know is what law was broken?  Was there one or was there just a huge gap in regulations?

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 09, 2011, 06:52:26 PM
Clearly there was a huge gap in regulations.
I don't know if any law was broken.
i have to think that selling credit default swaps when you're buying the other side is unethical unless you disclose that to they buyer. I don't know if that's against the law, my understanding is they did not disclose their conflict of interest.
The bigger issue, imo, is that what happened can easily happen again. The financial industry, through it's surrogates in our nations capitol, have assured that appropriate regs do not and will not exist.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Guyute on October 10, 2011, 12:03:29 AM
Gotcha.  It may be and SEC violation, not sure.    I think they were buying the swaps and shorting the other side, not buying the other side. 


----------------
Now playing: Phish - Run Like An Antelope (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/phish/track/run+like+an+antelope)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 10, 2011, 07:28:01 AM
There has been inadequate effort to determine if laws were broken.

Those responsible are still making bonus checks despite the ruination that they have brought to the world.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 10, 2011, 07:39:19 AM
Yeah, the big picture on this, as I see it (with help from Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz for laying it out clearly):

"...we've socialized losses and privatized gains..."

The big banks acted like a coked-up Vegas bachelor's party, and got bailed out. None of us little guys have such security. In fact, those money-fat fuckers are looking for all sorts of ways to pad their profits, and they aren't spending any of their money back into the economy--lending is still sluggish, etc.--but they're giving themselves record bonuses all the same.

I'd guess that we're still several steps away from torches, heads on pikes, that sort of thing. But it's not hard to imagine how other societies have gotten there.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mehead on October 10, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 10, 2011, 07:28:01 AM
There has been inadequate effort to determine if laws were broken.


Correct and there won't be an effort.  Seeing how a lot of those executives for Goldman now have powerful positions elsewhere - the majority in politics and some for Obama.  This protest is waaaaaaaaay too late to have any impact IMO.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on October 10, 2011, 11:46:33 AM
Also, all 50 states AG's (with the occasional outlier, NY intitally, California recently, etc) are working for a settlement with the banks instead (supported and proposed by the Obama admin)  leaving them no legal resposibility for their actions and security from future lawsuits.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mehead on October 10, 2011, 11:55:10 AM
Yup.  Again, the ship has sailed. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2011, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 08, 2011, 11:36:50 PM
I am asking this because I don't know.  My understanding is that a big part of the protest is the fact that no one has been indicted for what happened.  What I don't know is what law was broken?  Was there one or was there just a huge gap in regulations?

There was clearly securities fraud as the banks were selling a product on which they had not performed proper due diligence (and, in some cases, were selling loans they didn't even have a legal right of ownership).

The worst part, as RJ said, there has been no effort in bringing justice in these cases. There were literally thousands of bankers jailed after the S&L crisis, yet the worst penalty to date in the credit crisis was Goldman's $550M SEC settlement. Why would bankers be expected to change if they know they can act with impunity?

As for the Stiglitz quote, which I agree with, who's to blame for that? I don't mean to go all "gov't ruins everything" here, but this is obviously all the gov'ts fault. :wink: Once Paulson and Geithner gift-wrapped Bear Steans to JPM, they confirmed what the industry had suspected for a number of years: we can do whatever the fuck we want because we have the explicit guarantee of the federal gov't. The shock from the Lehman failure was the uncertainty created by Paulson's pissing match with Dick Fuld. Then they turn around a couple of weeks later and bail out AIG (which, in effect was a bailout of Goldman), and that's when the markets realized that no one in the US gov't had any fucking clue what they were doing.

They are using the same logic for not prosecuting bankers as they did to justify TARP: we can't afford to destabilize the tenuous financial system because that would be disastrous for everyone. So by my count, in their efforts to "save" us, the federal gov't has:
(1) created the sub-prime housing market which caused the fiasco by mandating Fannie/Freddie increase lending to unqualified borrowers,
(2) bailed out failed institutions, rewarding them for grossly over-leveraged portfolios and encouraging them to continue the "coked-up Vegas bachelor party",
(3) refused to hold anyone involved accountable for the utter failure at every level of management,
(4) allowed the banks to write the law intended to prevent future crises.

They've done enough, IMO. Please stop trying to save us.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
So you are against a reinstatement of Glass–Steagall then RJ2?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 10, 2011, 01:04:51 PM
jimbo I'm glad to see we agree on something: US government policy--deregulation, mostly--is the primary cause of the inequities OWS is protesting. My only hope is that these protests turn into a sustained movement and pull on the DNC, hard, from the left. I'm pretty sure you'll say the DNC is useless, but in the short term I still think they're the best hope...   :|
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2011, 01:55:07 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
So you are against a reinstatement of Glass–Steagall then RJ2?

Let me ask you, Hicks: if parts of Glass-Steagall had not been repealed in GLB, would the crisis have been averted? The main provision repealed was the separation of investment and commercial banks. But if the merging of these two functions directly caused the crisis (as many on the left contend), why were the main casualties - Bear and Lehman - the only major investment banks who declined to take advantage of this newly granted "windfall"? If anything, the evidence suggests that the banks who had the stability of commercial banking deposits were the ones least likely to need taxpayer support.

I fully support the Volcker Rule, though, which would eliminate prop trading by banks which in my estimation contributed far more to excessive risk taking than did the repeal of GS.

Quote from: sunrisevt on October 10, 2011, 01:04:51 PM
jimbo I'm glad to see we agree on something: US government policy--deregulation, mostly--is the primary cause of the inequities OWS is protesting. My only hope is that these protests turn into a sustained movement and pull on the DNC, hard, from the left. I'm pretty sure you'll say the DNC is useless, but in the short term I still think they're the best hope...   :|

So, are you arguing that OWS should be the counterweight to the Tea Party?

And while I fully agree with you that gov't policy created the disaster, I'm not so sure I'd agree that it is deregulation necessarily. I think housing policy, a lack of conviction re transparency in derivatives markets, and regulatory capital requirements were the primary culprits. That and the moral hazard farm the gov't created when it told the banks they should strive to be "Too big to fail." Failure needs to be an option or else there is no incentive to prevent it.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 02:00:59 PM
My understanding of Bear and Lehman implosions is that they were caused by massive short trades of a highly dubious origin.

As for why that occurred, I believe it is still somewhat of a mystery. 

But to answer your question, no I don't think the merging of investment and commercial banking was the prime cause of the crisis, but it sure didn't help matters and it seems logical to keep the two separate to avoid shady trading behavior of exactly the type that brought down Bear and Lehman. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2011, 02:10:24 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 02:00:59 PM
My understanding of Bear and Lehman implosions is that they were caused by massive short trades of a highly dubious origin.

No, their failure was due to massive losses on sub-prime MBS's that they were holding. Lehman, especially, maintained a large position in lower rated bonds since they paid a higher yield. But as the housing market started to turn to shit, there was basically a run on them and they had to sell assets to make margin requirements and share prices got hammered. It became a liquidity death spiral and, especially in Fuld's case, management's hubris got the best of them.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2011, 02:10:24 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 02:00:59 PM
My understanding of Bear and Lehman implosions is that they were caused by massive short trades of a highly dubious origin.

No, their failure was due to massive losses on sub-prime MBS's that they were holding. Lehman, especially, maintained a large position in lower rated bonds since they paid a higher yield. But as the housing market started to turn to shit, there was basically a run on them and they had to sell assets to make margin requirements and share prices got hammered. It became a liquidity death spiral and, especially in Fuld's case, management's hubris got the best of them.

You don't believe Taibbi on this one?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-naked-swindle-20100405
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2011, 02:52:12 PM
I don't remember that article. I'll give it a full read later on, but based on the intro, if he is suggesting that Bear collapsed because someone bought $1.7M in put options, than no I don't agree with that. And (again based solely on the intro) if he is suggesting that another investment bank had a hand in the trade and actively worked to manipulate the market to make their options pay off, I definitely don't agree with that. Any undergrad can look at the near perfect correlation of banking stocks to realize that if one of them goes down, they all go down. So I can't imagine a scenario where an executive at a rival bank actively sought to push down the share price of a competitor. Finally, decreasing share price only makes it more difficult to raise capital; it has nothing to do with a bank's solvency. Ultimately, it was the losses Bear/Lehman had to take from marking down their CDOs and their management's arrogant refusal to sell them at fire sale prices that did them in.

As I've said, I think Taibbi has been a leading voice (really the only mainstream voice) in exposing the abuses that went on, but I do think he gets a little caught up in populism from time to time. But I'll take a full read later and let you know if I have a change of heart.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 03:03:05 PM
Uh, but they didn't all go down, the result was that they did consolidate their power. . . 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2011, 09:58:34 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 10, 2011, 03:03:05 PM
Uh, but they didn't all go down, the result was that they did consolidate their power. . .

The share price, not the companies.

I think Taibbi is way off base on this one. For sure the practice of naked shorting should be illegal and I agree that it is financial counterfeiting. However, to act like naked shorting was the direct cause of Bear and Lehman's decline is pretty implausible IMO.

The comparison between a small cap, internet retailer like Ovestock.com and 2 of the largest financial companies in history is ridiculous. I get why Byrne is out railing against naked shorting because it could have a very real effect on his company's share price (although anytime someone protests as much as him I get a little suspect. I mean, have you ever used Overstock.com? I haven't). But Bear and Lehman had a market cap 10-20 times that of Overstock, so there's no conceivable way short sellers could destroy those companies. The market is way too liquid for that.

Then he starts throwing out failed to deliver "data" to support his claim that there was obvious naked short selling going on in both cases. Sure in Bear's case the increase from 200k to 14M is obscene, but the number of faileds was only around 7% of total outstanding shares. There is no way that would contribute that heavily to the decline in the share price.

Then we get into when Treasury steps in. He makes a point to say "Thanks to the media-fueled rumors and the mounting anxiety over the company's ability to make its payments, Bear's share price plummeted seven percent on March 13th, to $57" but then notes it climbed back to $62 on news of the short term loan from Treasury. But then he just glances over the most important part: "The rally proved short-lived — Bear ended the day at $30 — but it suggested that all was not lost." It is mathematically impossible that naked short selling could push the price down 50% in a day. He then makes some rather nefarious (and unfounded) implications that Paulson pulled the loan because he was from Goldman and pressured Bear to take Dimon's low ball offer. When a company says "We are accepting a short term loan from the federal gov't" it doesn't exactly instill confidence in that firm. The shares collapsed because the writing was on the wall.

The company failed because it was grossly mismanaged and overleveraged. For a couple of years, they were basically printing money and everyone at the firm prospered because of it. But when the economy started to turn and the housing bubble burst, their leverage caught up with them and their massive sub-prime position made it impossible for them to survive. That's the thing about leveraged portfolios; it's easy to look like a genius when the markets are only going up, but a breakdown in risk management can destroy a company in times of uncertainty and volatility.

I like Taibbi's recent work a lot. I think he does great job exposing some of the more egregious excesses of the financial industry when he focuses more on investigative reporting rather than a narrative based on speculation. This was not his finest effort, IMO.

One other thing, I agree with most of his conclusions toward the end of the article: no one did their job overseeing any of this; Obama inserted the same characters in his administration; no effort to hold anyone accountable. Now, you would probably say that is a sign that more regulation is needed in the financial industry, but it could also be used as an example of how regulation fails. There will never be enough regulation that would prevent the kinds of abuses and excesses the banks exhibited in the lead up to the crisis. There will certainly never be enough people to enforce these regulations. All complex industries are subject to regulatory capture since most of the regulators need to have an intimate knowledge of the industry and because of that, they often come from the industry itself. I'm not arguing there shouldn't be regulation, but the idea that the gov't can stop this kind of behavior just doesn't make sense to me.

In the end, the most effective regulation is the risk that a firm can fail. Without that, regulators will be powerless to prevent future crises from materializing because they are only focused on preventing the past abuses from resurfacing.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 10, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
we're starting to agree. a little.

The Glass Steegall repeal added fuel to the fire. In 08, even conservative (moderates by todays standards) and some financial types were  calling for it's reinstatement.

Poor govt regulations and deregulation were partly to blame. Please, lets not ignore the extremely bad behavior of those in the industry. The people that wrote them were either wall streeters or people payed well by wall street.  And Obama has done little to prevent the Wall streeters from having too much influence; not to the extent of the GOP, but still...

Why were these firms allowed to over leverage themselves? Because they convinced govt to allow them too. The rules changed w/in the past 10 yrs
Whey were they allowed to get so big? Because they convinced govt and the SEC to allow them too.
Why was derivative trading unregulated? same reason.
The bad policies weren't necessarily born in the minds of a politician, they were put there by someone who bought their way in.

One of the reasons there aren't enough regulators is the GOPs efforts (funded by...) to prevent regulators and regulation. If Elizabeth Warren had her choice 2 years ago, do you think running for Senate would be it? She wasn't allowed to be a regulator because she is too "anti Wall St"

Your right, most industries are so complex that members of the industry have to help with regulation. I can't think of another large, regulated industry that has taken advantage of the situation as much as the financial industry. No surprise as to why that might be.

No matter how good the law is, and no matter how many cops are out there, criminals, or in this case unethical, greedy financial types, will always find a way around them. Laws, and fear of enforcement, just make it that much harder. These guys have the power and influence to believe they can get away with anything (and they can).
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 11, 2011, 08:37:07 AM
Well said, sls. Especially,

Quote from: slslbs on October 10, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
Please, lets not ignore the extremely bad behavior of those in the industry.

Quote from: slslbs on October 10, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
No matter how good the law is, and no matter how many cops are out there, criminals, or in this case unethical, greedy financial types, will always find a way around them.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on October 11, 2011, 10:53:43 AM
What these tycoons and their enablers in government need to realize is their own malfeasance and arrogance could, if left unrestrained, result in such popular uproar (OWS x a million) that it could actually lead to the kind of fundamental, systemic changes they would despise the most. Meaning, instead of socialized losses and privatized gains, people say fuck this, time to socialize the gains as well.

Likely scenario? Maybe not. But socialism is classically taken up as a response to the perceived abuses by the privileged few, no? So, how greatly ironic it would be for the current cadre of staunch "free-market" (leaving aside their eagerness to impregnate government with officials and rules favorable to their interests) actors who, being so dogmatically beholden to the notion that a giant bank should do whatever the fuck it wants, end up going so overboard as to kick off a populist uprising that overturns their whole pigs-at-the-trough party.

It's behavior like this that makes responsible, common-sense free-market types like myself worry that these bastards could ruin it for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on October 12, 2011, 09:40:10 AM
fox news poll backfires:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/07/do-occupy-wall-street-protests-represent-your-views-economy/

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: qop24 on October 12, 2011, 10:14:00 AM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 12, 2011, 09:40:10 AM
fox news poll backfires:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/07/do-occupy-wall-street-protests-represent-your-views-economy/

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Saw a few people posting a link to that poll on facebook yesterday, was there an organized effort to get people to vote "yes" on that?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 12, 2011, 10:28:46 AM

http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2011/10/best-signs-from-occupy-wall-street.html
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 12, 2011, 11:53:16 AM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012

My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters
Hit bankers where it hurts
By MATT TAIBBI

I've been down to "Occupy Wall Street" twice now, and I love it. The protests building at Liberty Square and spreading over Lower Manhattan are a great thing, the logical answer to the Tea Party and a long-overdue middle finger to the financial elite. The protesters picked the right target and, through their refusal to disband after just one day, the right tactic, showing the public at large that the movement against Wall Street has stamina, resolve and growing popular appeal.

But... there's a but. And for me this is a deeply personal thing, because this issue of how to combat Wall Street corruption has consumed my life for years now, and it's hard for me not to see where Occupy Wall Street could be better and more dangerous. I'm guessing, for instance, that the banks were secretly thrilled in the early going of the protests, sure they'd won round one of the messaging war.

Why? Because after a decade of unparalleled thievery and corruption, with tens of millions entering the ranks of the hungry thanks to artificially inflated commodity prices, and millions more displaced from their homes by corruption in the mortgage markets, the headline from the first week of protests against the financial-services sector was an old cop macing a quartet of college girls.

That, to me, speaks volumes about the primary challenge of opposing the 50-headed hydra of Wall Street corruption, which is that it's extremely difficult to explain the crimes of the modern financial elite in a simple visual. The essence of this particular sort of oligarchic power is its complexity and day-to-day invisibility: Its worst crimes, from bribery and insider trading and market manipulation, to backroom dominance of government and the usurping of the regulatory structure from within, simply can't be seen by the public or put on TV. There just isn't going to be an iconic "Running Girl" photo with Goldman Sachs, Citigroup or Bank of America – just 62 million Americans with zero or negative net worth, scratching their heads and wondering where the hell all their money went and why their votes seem to count less and less each and every year.

No matter what, I'll be supporting Occupy Wall Street. And I think the movement's basic strategy – to build numbers and stay in the fight, rather than tying itself to any particular set of principles – makes a lot of sense early on. But the time is rapidly approaching when the movement is going to have to offer concrete solutions to the problems posed by Wall Street. To do that, it will need a short but powerful list of demands. There are thousands one could make, but I'd suggest focusing on five:

1. Break up the monopolies. The so-called "Too Big to Fail" financial companies – now sometimes called by the more accurate term "Systemically Dangerous Institutions" – are a direct threat to national security. They are above the law and above market consequence, making them more dangerous and unaccountable than a thousand mafias combined. There are about 20 such firms in America, and they need to be dismantled; a good start would be to repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and mandate the separation of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about. It would also deter the endless chase for instant profits through computerized insider-trading schemes like High Frequency Trading, and force Wall Street to go back to the job it's supposed to be doing, i.e., making sober investments in job-creating businesses and watching them grow.

3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress.

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires. I defy any politician to stand up and defend that loophole during an election year.

5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company's long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.

To quote the immortal political philosopher Matt Damon from Rounders, "The key to No Limit poker is to put a man to a decision for all his chips." The only reason the Lloyd Blankfeins and Jamie Dimons of the world survive is that they're never forced, by the media or anyone else, to put all their cards on the table. If Occupy Wall Street can do that – if it can speak to the millions of people the banks have driven into foreclosure and joblessness – it has a chance to build a massive grassroots movement. All it has to do is light a match in the right place, and the overwhelming public support for real reform – not later, but right now – will be there in an instant
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: McGrupp on October 12, 2011, 12:33:37 PM
Good read - thanks matt.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: JPhishman on October 12, 2011, 12:43:30 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on October 12, 2011, 12:33:37 PM
Good read - thanks matt.

:clap:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 12, 2011, 12:44:11 PM

Taibbi on Imus:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/taibbi-on-imus-occupy-wall-street-20111012
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 12, 2011, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: JPhishman on October 12, 2011, 12:43:30 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on October 12, 2011, 12:33:37 PM
Good read - thanks matt.

:clap:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: susep on October 12, 2011, 09:30:50 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 12, 2011, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: JPhishman on October 12, 2011, 12:43:30 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on October 12, 2011, 12:33:37 PM
Good read - thanks matt.

:clap:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on October 12, 2011, 10:04:49 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on October 12, 2011, 12:33:37 PM
Good read - thanks matts.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Guyute on October 12, 2011, 10:58:44 PM
Interesting read.  Some good points, some inaccuracies.  I will leave it at that.

My favorite quote today:
Occupy Wall Street looks more like the parking lot of a Grateful Dead show than a protest.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2011, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 12, 2011, 10:58:44 PM
My favorite quote today:
Occupy Wall Street looks more like the parking lot of a Grateful Dead show than a protest.

Opie?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 13, 2011, 02:49:50 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 12, 2011, 10:58:44 PM

My favorite quote today:
Occupy Wall Street looks more like the parking lot of a Grateful Dead show than a protest.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303255_293769280649803_100000502009078_1183607_1778756205_n.jpg?dl=1)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 13, 2011, 08:13:14 PM
another from FB...

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/317309_2513509679325_1300653508_2971421_646078812_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 13, 2011, 09:36:34 PM
I'm far from being wealthy, and I'm kind of tired of hearing about protesters, etc.

Enjoy this cartoon

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299652_2040907033617_1572540012_31735477_986790276_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 13, 2011, 09:53:10 PM
Occupy Seattle's ranks are a little this tonight after last night's arrests.

Still folks are there and seem to have a good message.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Guyute on October 13, 2011, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2011, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 12, 2011, 10:58:44 PM
My favorite quote today:
Occupy Wall Street looks more like the parking lot of a Grateful Dead show than a protest.

Opie?

yes sir
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 13, 2011, 11:35:04 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 13, 2011, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 13, 2011, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Guyute on October 12, 2011, 10:58:44 PM
My favorite quote today:
Occupy Wall Street looks more like the parking lot of a Grateful Dead show than a protest.

Opie?

yes sir

In Seattle, it looked like a park across the street from Phish lot somewhere near the end of a long fall tour...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: phil on October 13, 2011, 09:36:34 PM
I'm far from being wealthy, and I'm kind of tired of hearing about protesters, etc.

Enjoy this cartoon

Really?  You're tired of hearing about people protesting the wealthy elite fucks who ruined the global economy and got away with it?

But you're not tired of living in the 99% of people who have a small sliver of the wealth while your government continues to eliminate the middle class?

Kind of hard to believe, frankly.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 11:01:51 AM
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=23ef2427-ecb3-46ca-b4d6-cbf8413cfe9d

QuoteOne of the juicier nuggets in TIME's wide-ranging new poll is that voters are embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as they sour on the Tea Party. Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.

A closer look at the poll's cross-tabs provides a fuller picture of the movement's diverse support. Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57%) and women (51%), young (60% of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51%). Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movement's largest bloc, with 66% professing support. But more than half of independents (55%) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 11:49:51 AM
Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: phil on October 13, 2011, 09:36:34 PM
I'm far from being wealthy, and I'm kind of tired of hearing about protesters, etc.

Enjoy this cartoon

Really?  You're tired of hearing about people protesting the wealthy elite fucks who ruined the global economy and got away with it?

But you're not tired of living in the 99% of people who have a small sliver of the wealth while your government continues to eliminate the middle class?

Kind of hard to believe, frankly.

I'm tired of hearing people pretend this is a protest. It's not a protest; a protest seeks to bring about change, after which the protesters could say "We won!" or "Shit, back to the drawing board." This is a circus taking advantage of the (very justifiable) levels of economic frustration and uncertainty.

I'm tired of hearing about the evils of capitalism and corporations as the protesters drink Starbucks, take dumps in McDonald's, carry around the Macbooks and update their Twitter pages while shooting video from their smartphones as they try to bait the police into billy clubbing them.

I'm tired of the entitlement mentality of people in this country (mostly but not exclusively younger generations) who say "You shouldn't be bailing the banks out, you should be bailing ME out!"

They are making a mockery out of what should be a very real movement to bring actual reform (not the pseudo-reform band-aids suggested in the Taibbi article, all of which would maintain the status quo) to an economic and political system that is completely out of control. They are only looking for someone else to blame: bankers, oil companies, Fox News.

It doesn't matter; it'll all be over in a couple of weeks as the temperatures change.

All of the above, IMO of course.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: McGrupp on October 14, 2011, 12:02:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 11:49:51 AM
Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: phil on October 13, 2011, 09:36:34 PM
I'm far from being wealthy, and I'm kind of tired of hearing about protesters, etc.

Enjoy this cartoon

Really?  You're tired of hearing about people protesting the wealthy elite fucks who ruined the global economy and got away with it?

But you're not tired of living in the 99% of people who have a small sliver of the wealth while your government continues to eliminate the middle class?

Kind of hard to believe, frankly.

I'm tired of hearing people pretend this is a protest. It's not a protest; a protest seeks to bring about change, after which the protesters could say "We won!" or "Shit, back to the drawing board." This is a circus taking advantage of the (very justifiable) levels of economic frustration and uncertainty.

I'm tired of hearing about the evils of capitalism and corporations as the protesters drink Starbucks, take dumps in McDonald's, carry around the Macbooks and update their Twitter pages while shooting video from their smartphones as they try to bait the police into billy clubbing them.

I'm tired of the entitlement mentality of people in this country (mostly but not exclusively younger generations) who say "You shouldn't be bailing the banks out, you should be bailing ME out!"

They are making a mockery out of what should be a very real movement to bring actual reform (not the pseudo-reform band-aids suggested in the Taibbi article, all of which would maintain the status quo) to an economic and political system that is completely out of control. They are only looking for someone else to blame: bankers, oil companies, Fox News.

It doesn't matter; it'll all be over in a couple of weeks as the temperatures change.

All of the above, IMO of course.

:clap:

Thank you for articulating my thoughts on the whole thing so well.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 14, 2011, 12:25:00 PM
"Bring actual reform?" Honestly, the "bandaids" that Taibbi is calling for are needed. They need to prosecute criminals. They need to put money into the SEC and get it right. They need to break up the "too big to fail" companies. These are not small bandaid measures. These are real reform.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 12:48:48 PM

The big corps can exist while wall street is reformed. 
It's possible to own a Macbook and be in the 99%.

You should be mad about how big business and the government have been in bed together for way too long.

When your children look back on this era do you want them to see a time of unobstructed corruption on Wall Street - or do you want them to look and see a protest movement which eventually, regardless of how long it takes - helped Main Street ideals defeat Wall Street corruption?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 14, 2011, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 11:49:51 AMI'm tired of hearing people pretend this is a protest. It's not a protest; a protest seeks to bring about change, after which the protesters could say "We won!" or "Shit, back to the drawing board." This is a circus taking advantage of the (very justifiable) levels of economic frustration and uncertainty.

I'm tired of hearing about the evils of capitalism and corporations as the protesters drink Starbucks, take dumps in McDonald's, carry around the Macbooks and update their Twitter pages while shooting video from their smartphones as they try to bait the police into billy clubbing them.

I'm tired of the entitlement mentality of people in this country (mostly but not exclusively younger generations) who say "You shouldn't be bailing the banks out, you should be bailing ME out!"

They are making a mockery out of what should be a very real movement to bring actual reform (not the pseudo-reform band-aids suggested in the Taibbi article, all of which would maintain the status quo) to an economic and political system that is completely out of control. They are only looking for someone else to blame: bankers, oil companies, Fox News.

It doesn't matter; it'll all be over in a couple of weeks as the temperatures change.

All of the above, IMO of course.

So let me see if I've got this straight, jimbo--a protester is supposed to abstain from using any commercial products or services, and be impervious to cold, in order to have any credibility with you?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on October 14, 2011, 12:56:16 PM
I'm still trying to clear some misunderstandings about the protests in my own head.  As far as I understand it, from what I've heard and read, the main points of the protest are as follows:


1.  99% of the people are being taken advantage of by the 1% of the people who control a commanding amount of the wealth in the world.
2.  This advantage is made possible by governments that enable wealthy to manipulate the system and fix the game in their favor.
3.  The protest is an effort to start meaningful dialog in both Washington and main street about the fairness of American policy vis-a-vis laissez-faire capitalism.



My concerns are as follows:


1.  A movement that seeks to target the 1% as a source of equalization and fairness is not on a sustainable trajectory.  As resources are re-allocated from the top to the bottom, the population at the top shrinks.  In order to maintain revenue, one has to pull harder and harder on a shrinking population.

2.  Inequality is built in throughout the entire spectrum of the current tax code.  I got back over 2x what I paid into federal income taxes last year.  It was nice to have the money, but to pretend it was something other than wealth redistribution, would be both naive and foolish.  The rich aren't the only ones benefiting from loopholes in the tax code which is manipulated on both the top and the bottom to keep political intrests alive for both parties. 

3.  While there wasn't any ethical or honest philosophical underpinning for fixing the game for the rich, there really isn't one for fixing it against them either.  Dialog on these matters usually revolves around plattitudes like "Fairness","Self Made Man", "Big Business", or "Investors in the Private Sector", while seldom is there an understanding as to how any of them applies to governmental policy.  Simply put, populist attacks against any one group are usually generalist, arbitrary, and driven by emotion.  One of the best examples of this is the Obama policy of only raising taxes on households that make over 250 k.  Its a nice round number, but what justifacation does anyone have to let the guy who makes $249,999.99 off the hook.  If you are going to build an ethical arguement about who pays extra and who doesn't, then you're going to have to have something other than wealth statistics on your side to prove that making more than 250k a year makes you a burden to society and hence a target for redistribution. 



Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 01:07:53 PM
There isn't one reason everyone is protesting.

People are picking up on this idea that the populous doesn't need to be tread upon by the top 1%.
That there is a better way of proceeding. 
That reform to big business and government needs to happen or else we're all fucked.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 14, 2011, 01:38:45 PM
Perhaps Occupy Wall Street isn't a protest but is a process to figure out exactly what is wrong and what the solutions may be.

Personally I think it's great that at least people are trying to do something rather than sitting on their asses watching Two and a Half Men.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: danje on October 14, 2011, 01:47:01 PM
Yeah I don't understand hating on the protesters. Something obviously isn't right and that's why they're there.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 14, 2011, 02:07:34 PM
unfortuantely solutions are hard to come by.
the current inequality isn't just in the tax code, it is present in many facets of commerce and regulation.
I believe in capitolism, but unfettered capitalism is just as repressive as any dictatorship. The current income inequality of the US is a demonstration of this.

if nothing else, this is sending a message that we are fed up, much in the way the Tea Party did 2 years ago, much in the way the Viet Nam protests did 35 years ago.

Will anything come of it? don't know - maybe different people will get elected. Maybe some of our elected officials will say no to Wall Street and their free ride.
We need to let the politicians know that we know what they are doing and don't like it.


Meanwhile...
The GOP goes along and filibusters the job bill. It would have lost in the House anyway, and it's not a perfect bill by any stretch but even Eric Cantor said there are some things there they could work with.
Compromise is gone.
If Obama said we should proclaim Apple Pie and ice cream as the typical American desert, every member of the GOP would stop eating apple pie and ice cream no matter how much they liked it, fillibuster the bill, and fox news would come up with stories about how bad apple pie is.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 02:10:00 PM
Pie Guy: I agree with you 100% the financial industry needs to be (and probably definitely won't) be held accountable for their actions (as I've said elsewhere, I do support this aspect of the protest but that seems to get lost in the circus). But that's not even mentioned in Taibbi's list. And I can't get why you'd want to increase the SEC's oversight when they've already shown they can't (or won't) do their job now? I also fail to see how any of Taibbi's suggestions would have prevented the crisis or would bring about enough change to the system to prevent one in the future. If you're interested, my thoughts on Taibbi's 5 demands is below.

Matt: Yes, I am mad how the gov't is beholden to corporate interests and if OWS ends up changing that I will gladly say "Wow, I was completely wrong." But when I hear they have demands like "Free college education" and "A minimum $20/hr living wage" and "Stop lab testing on animals" I don't see how they are trying to bring about the change you mention. It seems to me like they are just using this protest to push any and every progressive agenda they can think of and/or are pissy that they're not the ones sucking on the gov't teat like the financial industry is. If you don't support bailouts for Wall St, you can't turn around and say "Where's my free shit?"

Sunrise: I'm not saying they need to abstain from anything. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying "Capitalism/corporations are evil" as they demonstrate just how much they benefit from the only economic system that could afford them all the modern comforts they so revile.

nab: All great points, but I had a tough time focusing because Young Bobby is so dreamy.


As for Taibbi's suggested OWS demands:

1. Break up the monopolies - Here's a novel idea: if a bank (or any private company) makes bad decisions, you could actually let it fail. I fail to see how separating investment and commercial banks would have prevented this (or a future) crisis. I agree when Taibbi says they are above the law, but that's only because their regulators work for them so why would we want to give the regulators even more power? Saying breaking them up would solve the problem is as delusional to me as GOPers who say they will balance the budget without touching defense, Social Security, or Medicare. Also, as a free marketer, I have a tough time when the gov't gets to decide what constitutes "too big". However, I would understand there needs to ba a transition to get to a true free market. I would suggest something more along the lines of removing executives' limited liability, effectively rendering them general partnerships of years past. That would in turn make them far more risk averse and itself would likely start a de-consolidation that would get to the same end without the using arbitrary "you're too big" mandates.

2. Pay for your own bailouts - I fundamentally disagree with this on 3 fronts:

(1) Gathering data on the bailout scorecard is notoriously difficult (a good, albeit slightly out of date, article on why here (http://seekingalpha.com/article/287253-wall-street-bailout-too-big-to-collect)). However, ProPublica maintains a listing of bailout recipients and how much they've taken and returned (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list). Look at the list of banks and financial companies and you'll see nearly all of the money has been paid back. The outstanding bailout money is overwhelmingly due to Fannie/Freddie (55%), AIG (17%), and GM/GMAC (13%) and of that AIG is probably the only one with any chance of returning the funds (and Fannie/Freddie will be a total loss). So I'm not sure what he's suggesting needs to be paid back with the tax.

(2) As stated in #1, I don't believe the gov't should be bailing private companies out of their bad decisions in the first place. I guess Taibbi is already assuming bailouts will continue into the future (which in itself proves this is not real reform) and that this would help deter companies from making risky decisions. So this tax on all trades would ostensibly build up a rainy day fund for future bailouts. But as with the Social Security Trust Fund, that money would likely be raided at some point to pay for whatever else the gov't needs money for and we're left no better off than before.

(3) Adding a levy on every trade adds distortions in the marketplace and that only provides an opportunity for someone to arbitrage these effects. But who would be most likely to concoct such a strategy? The very institutions (banks, hedge funds, etc.) he is railing against. Who would likely suffer? The average individual who is unable to take advantage of the assymetric information this tax would add.

3. No public money for private lobbying - Until when, when they pay the money back? Or does taking a bailout (again, see #1) get you a lifetime ban on lobbying? How do you enforce this? And what about other industries that receive public money in the form of subsidies? Should they be banned as well, or is this just a punishment on the financial industry? I see the populism in this, but it's not a very well-thought out demand IMO. I also put some of the onus on the American people. Tired of corporate money buying elections? Maybe if people took more of a role in the political process that wouldn't be such a issue. Turnout in 2008 was the highest it's been since 1968 and it was still only 57% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html).

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers - Duh, but again, how would this change their behaviors? Also, once you start putting loopholes on the table (which I fully support), don't be surprised if some of the more lucrative loopholes from which many people benefit are also called into question (e.g., mortgage deduction).

5. Change the way bankers get paid - The role of compensation should be left to company Board's and their owners. They are tasked with designing a structure that encourages executives to generate profits while taking into consideration a longer term view than just this year's earnings. If they fuck up and hire an arrogant dick like Cassano or Dick Fuld or if they develop a package that gives exceutives improper incentives like maximizing short term gains, it's on them (see #1).
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on October 14, 2011, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: danje on October 14, 2011, 01:47:01 PM
Yeah I don't understand hating on the protesters. Something obviously isn't right and that's why they're there.



Kinda like the Tea Party?   :roll:


In all seroiusness, while the two movements are not on paralell trajectories, there are some similarirites:


1.  Accusations by rival political groups of covert elite backing of the movement (Koch Bros. vs. Soros)
2.  Both are grassroots, populist, and decentralized.
3.  They both oppose the bailout of Wall St.
4.  While the TP is out and out against Obama, the OWS is simply disillusioned
5.  Both have the potential to further divide the populous by radicalizing leftist and rightist agendas.
6.  The media hasn't a clue how to accurately portray either group.
7.  Both, at this point, opperate through sweeping generalization and speculation in order to drum up populist support (taxed enough already vs. corporate greed).
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 02:10:00 PM

Matt: Yes, I am mad how the gov't is beholden to corporate interests and if OWS ends up changing that I will gladly say "Wow, I was completely wrong." But when I hear they have demands like "Free college education" and "A minimum $20/hr living wage" and "Stop lab testing on animals" I don't see how they are trying to bring about the change you mention. It seems to me like they are just using this protest to push any and every progressive agenda they can think of and/or are pissy that they're not the ones sucking on the gov't teat like the financial industry is. If you don't support bailouts for Wall St, you can't turn around and say "Where's my free shit?"


I doubt everyone who marched on Washington, or took part in any multitude of 60s protests had the exact same ideals.  I bet some of those people were there just to smoke weed... does that discredit the entire movement?

You may be correct in that some people are there for the wrong reasons, but this is a grassroots populous movement.  Bringing attention to income inequality is their greatest achievement.  Politicians will notice, if they're around long enough they can and will bring about change.

As for your breakdown of Taibbi's suggestions, I think you're way off.  Wall Street received too much bail out money not to be reformed.  Returning to closer regulations won't harm the industry at all.  Yes, once you pay back your bail out, you can lobby again.  Once you've paid back your bail out, per transaction taxes can be reformed/remodelled.

Sorry, but your idea of sound business/government relationships is just too laissez-faire for my tastes.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 03:10:16 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 14, 2011, 01:38:45 PM
Personally I think it's great that at least people are trying to do something rather than sitting on their asses watching Two and a Half Men.

I absolutely agree with this (although I'd have said the Kardashians). I think my frustration is more from the fact that they are (IMO) missing a rare and valuable opportunity to bring about change with their lack of a focused message. But you are right, a more aware and involved populous should be applauded.

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
I doubt everyone who marched on Washington, or took part in any multitude of 60s protests had the exact same ideals.  I bet some of those people were there just to smoke weed... does that discredit the entire movement?

Not at all. But they did at least have a single, common theme and a measurable, definitive outcome they were trying to bring about. You might be able to make the case that OWS satisfies the first point, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the latter.

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
You may be correct in that some people are there for the wrong reasons, but this is a grassroots populous movement.  Bringing attention to income inequality is their greatest achievement.  Politicians will notice, if they're around long enough they can and will bring about change.

That's where we differ: I don't believe gov't has the power to reduce income inequality. Taxes and wealth redistribution can only go so far and are certainly not a sustainable long term strategy. I'm of the belief that high employment and sustained growth is the best way to reduce the disparity and that a free market for goods and labor is the best way to achieve that.

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
As for your breakdown of Taibbi's suggestions, I think you're way off.  Wall Street received too much bail out money not to be reformed.  Returning to closer regulations won't harm the industry at all.  Yes, once you pay back your bail out, you can lobby again.  Once you've paid back your bail out, per transaction taxes can be reformed/remodelled.

As I said, I want reform, I just don't think Taibbi's demands amount to more than minor tweaks to the status quo, not the kind of systemic reform needed to ensure future crises are averted.

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
Sorry, but your idea of sound business/government relationships is just too laissez-faire for my tastes.

Understood, but I'd expect nothing less from a Canuck, eh? :wink:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 03:16:55 PM
Remember when all the de-regulated banks from the USA went broke and got bought up by the stable, well-regulated Canadian banks?  That was awesome.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 14, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 03:16:55 PM
Remember when all the de-regulated banks from the USA went broke and got bought up by the stable, well-regulated Canadian banks?  That was awesome.

I remember when the US banks were crippled by an easy money, credit fueled consumption crisis intentionally created by a bumbling Fed chairman and encouraged by a federal gov't who actively pushed home ownership to people who couldn't afford it. To me that highlights the failure of gov't intervention in a free market, not a victory for tight regulation. But I guess we'll see as Canada's housing bubble starts to crack and the Bank of Canada follows the Fed in keeping interest rates artificially low.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 03:40:02 PM

Believe me, as someone on the verge of getting into home ownership I would love for the housing market to be a little bit softer - but there is no bubble to burst.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: McGrupp on October 14, 2011, 04:23:16 PM
Sorry if this was posted already...

Occupy Wall Street Manifesto
QuoteDeclaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers' healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people's lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://kiradavis.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/read-the-occupy-wall-street-manifesto-oh-yes-it-exists/
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: McGrupp on October 14, 2011, 04:29:40 PM
My problem with that (above) is the use of the word "They". Who is "they"?

The manifesto is like a sawed-off shotgun - a huge blanket of grievances aimed at everyone who is doing wrong in corporations and the government. It addresses food safety, college loans, oil spills, government corruption, corporate corruption. All of those things are completely worth addressing, but for this to be their message...? It's just too broad. Who can answer to that? If this is the 99%'s call to action, who within the 1% is going to respond? Everyone? No one?

It just seems to me that this whole thing will not bring about any substantial amount of change, unless everyone in the "1%" admits fault/guilt/whatever you want to call it and tries to rectify the situation - I just don't see that happening.

I am completely for the protests, and the grassroots movement, if done for the right reasons. Like matt said, of course there are people there just to be there. That doesn't make the protest any less powerful. It just seems relatively aimless right now.

And I think they should have put a little more thought into that manifesto before releasing it.

But what do I know - I'm just a cynical college kid who probably underestimates his own power within "the system".
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 04:37:02 PM
http://youtu.be/zjfhOPCPJnE
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 04:44:41 PM

http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/417

QuoteBut when a group of protestors started holding up signs in Zucotti Park three weeks ago, I didn't pay much attention. When they grew in numbers, I scoffed at them. When Michael Moore showed up, and the Unions pitched in, I did a bit of mild mocking, but my curiosity was piqued. When NYPD responded with brutality, I was shocked, but thought, 'Well, maybe it'll all calm down now. They can't really expect anything to change'. And then I looked around, and I realized I sounded like everyone else. The people who represented everything I no longer believed in. I sounded like Erin Burnett on CNN. My writing about Occupy Wall Street resembled that now-maligned New York Times piece. I could have been an anchor on Fox News, for godsakes.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 14, 2011, 09:57:28 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 14, 2011, 01:38:45 PM
Perhaps Occupy Wall Street isn't a protest but is a process to figure out exactly what is wrong and what the solutions may be.

Personally I think it's great that at least people are trying to do something rather than sitting on their asses watching Two and a Half Men.

While I agree with you that people need to be doing something, I'd like to see their efforts channeled more constructively. Like, for example, working your ass off to get to where you want to be in life.  I'm sure people will flame away and say "easier said than done", etc. but it's better to try and be productive than to just mill around in the street with a sign.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:06:24 PM

I honestly can't believe how badly you're missing the point phil.

People who work hard every day are having their homes foreclosed or have lost half their pensions while people who push paper give themselves $100million bonuses for bankrupting the Global Economy.

I dare you to read this...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on October 14, 2011, 10:22:41 PM
Glad to see the young republican club showed up.

If you are angered/annoyed by the protesters and have some kind of sympathy/respect for the oligarchs, you have your head firmly planted up your ass.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 14, 2011, 10:36:24 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:06:24 PM

I honestly can't believe how badly you're missing the point phil.

People who work hard every day are having their homes foreclosed or have lost half their pensions while people who push paper give themselves $100million bonuses for bankrupting the Global Economy.

I dare you to read this...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

My dad's a builder and my mom's a realtor. I grew up around this shit, I understand how the bubble thing works. My dad lost 4/5 of his business from '08 onward. I am all for changing things so that this doesn't happen again, but like jimbo said, the government isn't and shouldn't be the factor that changes all that. Personally, I choose to focus on the things I have control over. That is, how hard I work and how careful I am with my money. This isn't about sympathy for the people at the top or a lack of understanding for why people are frustrated. I simply choose to direct my energies toward the things that I have immediate control over. My parents work their freaking asses off for what they have and are careful about what they do with their money, and I plan on doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:48:54 PM

So you don't believe the government should regulate Wall Street.  You think the bankers are going to regulate themselves, and that's how we'll prevent the next bubble/collapse?

You've clearly made up your mind, but you obviously didn't read the article.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 14, 2011, 10:58:57 PM
I figure I have two options: bitch about things I don't personally control or carry on with my life and focus on doing my job well and monitoring my finances closely. That's the way I see it. Regulate Wall Street if you want to or don't, I don't give a fuck.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 14, 2011, 11:04:00 PM
do you vote?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 11:08:22 PM

If you're investing your money anywhere, these fuckers are robbing you.

Maybe it is better to just put your head down, work hard and not think you're not getting ripped off... who knows.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 14, 2011, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 14, 2011, 11:04:00 PM
do you vote?

Yes

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 11:08:22 PM

If you're investing your money anywhere, these fuckers are robbing you.

Maybe it is better to just put your head down, work hard and not think you're not getting ripped off... who knows.

I put my money in C/Ds. I don't know much about investing, except that I'm not qualified to make risky decision with my money. Making .05% compounded daily over 5 years works fine for me.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 15, 2011, 12:05:12 AM
working hard, taking care of the things you can control, and being careful with your $ are all good things.
If you're happy with CDs, that's fine too.

If our friends on Wall St, AIG etc didn't screw up the economy, the interest rate on those CDs would be significantly higher than what you're getting now.
Like it or not, it affects you.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VA $l!m on October 15, 2011, 12:35:32 AM
people have money these days?  :-o
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: kellerb on October 15, 2011, 03:18:31 AM
Quote from: phil on October 14, 2011, 10:58:57 PM
I figure I have two options: bitch about things I don't personally control ...and/or...monitoring my finances closely.

You realize that "monitoring your finances closely" is something that those corrupt bankers control and not you, right?  Unless you're keeping your money under your mattress.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 15, 2011, 07:40:00 AM
Quote from: kellerb on October 15, 2011, 03:18:31 AM
Quote from: phil on October 14, 2011, 10:58:57 PM
I figure I have two options: bitch about things I don't personally control ...and/or...monitoring my finances closely.

You realize that "monitoring your finances closely" is something that those corrupt bankers control and not you, right?  Unless you're keeping your money under your mattress.


A good portion of my money goes under my mattress as well, so unless the bedbugs are chowing down on it, I think I'll be aight. Not quite sure how any bankers control how well I keep track of my spending...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 08:50:50 AM

So, as long as Phil can put his money in his mattress, everything is cool?

What if you were an auto worker who paid into a pension for 50 years, only to see that money you had to pay into be worth 50 cents on the dollar, while some Goldman Sachs exec gets a $33 million dollar bonus for assisting with that?

You may think that you can exist independently of Wall Street (you can't, but you can think that) - but do you really think it's futile or useless or stupid for people to be protesting these kinds of injustices?

If you're so laissez-faire, perhaps you should just ignore the Occupy Wall Street movement as effectively as you're ignoring the truth about how Wall Street affects you.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 15, 2011, 08:57:43 AM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 08:50:50 AM

do you really think it's futile or useless or stupid for people to be protesting these kinds of injustices?

People have a right to do whatever the fuck they want, I'm just tired of hearing about it.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 08:50:50 AM

If you're so laissez-faire, perhaps you should just ignore the Occupy Wall Street movement as effectively as you're ignoring the truth about how Wall Street affects you.

Sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: McGrupp on October 15, 2011, 09:23:37 AM
Let's be clear here - the banks have fucked up big time, and I'm very glad that national (and international) attention is being brought to that. Wall St should not be allowed to gamble with our money. That is fucked as well. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue against that.

BUT, this is clearly not all the banks and wall st's fault.

Millions of people across the country were pushed (by banks) into taking out loans and mortgages that they couldn't afford. Who's fault is this? Yes, the banks knew exactly what they were doing, and shouldn't have been doing it. But there are a shit ton of people "occupying" cities across the country who are protesting the fact that they're in debt and trying to push blame onto the bankers while it was their own fucking fault for not being responsible with their money or realistic about the loans and mortgages they were taking out.

These people didn't even need to prove how much their income was. Avg people would go into banks and flat out lie about how much money they make in order to get a bigger loan. Who's fault is that?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: McGrupp on October 15, 2011, 09:25:50 AM
Also, as I said in this post, I think the "99% manifesto" is pretty wack. They're not going about this at all.

Any response to my thoughts below?

Quote from: McGrupp on October 14, 2011, 04:29:40 PM
My problem with that (above) is the use of the word "They". Who is "they"?

The manifesto is like a sawed-off shotgun - a huge blanket of grievances aimed at everyone who is doing wrong in corporations and the government. It addresses food safety, college loans, oil spills, government corruption, corporate corruption. All of those things are completely worth addressing, but for this to be their message...? It's just too broad. Who can answer to that? If this is the 99%'s call to action, who within the 1% is going to respond? Everyone? No one?

It just seems to me that this whole thing will not bring about any substantial amount of change, unless everyone in the "1%" admits fault/guilt/whatever you want to call it and tries to rectify the situation - I just don't see that happening.

I am completely for the protests, and the grassroots movement, if done for the right reasons. Like matt said, of course there are people there just to be there. That doesn't make the protest any less powerful. It just seems relatively aimless right now.

And I think they should have put a little more thought into that manifesto before releasing it.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 10:30:15 AM
I think you're looking small picture.

Banks knew what they were doing, they bet against the mortgages they were grouping together knowing they would fail.

The government deregulations are to blame as well. Banks in Canada didn't collapse because our banks have tighter regulations.

What other approach to this should people be taking? One protest against Goldman Sachs, and another against the Obama Administration?  The assholes who get 9-figure bonuses want you to think this is futile and useless.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 15, 2011, 10:54:47 AM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 14, 2011, 10:22:41 PM
Glad to see the young republican club showed up.

If you are angered/annoyed by the protesters and have some kind of sympathy/respect for the oligarchs, you have your head firmly planted up your ass.

Well, that's constructive. The ole' "If you're not with us, you're agin' us" defense. Thanks, George W.   :roll:

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:06:24 PM

I honestly can't believe how badly you're missing the point phil.

People who work hard every day are having their homes foreclosed or have lost half their pensions while people who push paper give themselves $100million bonuses for bankrupting the Global Economy.

I dare you to read this...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

First of all, who's lost half their pensions? During the GM bailout, Obama unilaterally put the UAW pensions ahead of bondholders, undermining years of bankruptcy law. People's 401(k)s took a dump, but I don't know of any cases where pensioners got screwed (if you have a link, I'd love to read it).

And yes people have been foreclosed on and yes in SOME cases the bank had no right to foreclose and that is extremely fucked up. But in an overwhelmingly majority of the cases, people signed a mortgage that they could not afford. They made the same flawed assumption the banks did that housing prices always go up so they could just refi when the teaser rate jacked up (and if you're thinking about buying a house in Canada, I'd sit tight for a while; your comment yesterday about prices only going up was the same thing the banks were saying in 2004-2005, 10 yrs of unrestrained growth in housing prices means the market is due for a correction). I'm sorry, but if people don't take a 30-yr debt seriously, that's their own dumb fault, not the banks.

Secondly, I didn't re-read it but I know I read that article when it came out and it was the first time I was disappointed with Taibbi. As I said earlier, he should stick to the investigative reporting (on which he does an amazing job) and stay away from the agenda-laden narratives.

For all the bitching about the lack of regulations what you seem to be missing is that Wall St will ALWAYS exploit the regulations in their favor. If you're a kid coming out of an Ivy League school and you have an opportunity to go work for the SEC making $75k or go work for Goldman for $200 + bonus, what are you going to do? They have the smarter people who arbitrage the rules and create new products that are not currently regulated. The regulators will ALWAYS be a step behind industry. Also, I think it's somewhat naive to think the Fed/FDIC/SEC/CFTC work for you; they do not, they work for the banks. More regulation is not a silver bullet to preventing a future crisis. That's not to say there shouldn't be rules and that those rules shouldn't be enforced, but the better solution IMO would be to create an environment where private firms are held accountable for their decisions and the best way to do that is to allow the market to decide when they should fail.

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 10:48:54 PM
You think the bankers are going to regulate themselves, and that's how we'll prevent the next bubble/collapse?

Banks do not create bubbles, they only take advantage of them. Bubbles are created when markets are intentionally distorted by central banks. It is the failed monetary policy that is to blame, not Goldman.

Quote from: slslbs on October 15, 2011, 12:05:12 AM
If our friends on Wall St, AIG etc didn't screw up the economy, the interest rate on those CDs would be significantly higher than what you're getting now.
Like it or not, it affects you.

First, it's patently false to lay all the blame on Wall St for taking the economy. There's plenty of blame to go around, no one actor more responsible than the other (I'm pretty sure you've acknowledged this before).

Second, somehow I doubt that rates for any product would be significantly higher since the Fed controls rates. They have an incentive to keep them artificially low to always induce more growth. Starting with Greenspan, they have become crack addicts to a low interest rate environment that encourages people to make riskier decisions than they should.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 10:30:15 AM
Banks knew what they were doing, they bet against the mortgages they were grouping together knowing they would fail.

The government deregulations are to blame as well. Banks in Canada didn't collapse because our banks have tighter regulations.

First, no, they didn't bet against these mortgages (another Taibbi story, iirc). They were securitizing mortgages for years (back to Solomon Bros in the mid-80s). The products became more and more complex and they relied on computer models to help them price the horseshit AND convinced the regulators the prices they came up with were good. They became overly dependent on the models that said housing prices in Florida are in no way correlated with housing prices in Las Vegas. Once it became apparent that the housing market in general is affected by external factors and the CDOs started crapping out, they started to panic and that's when they started buying CDS to hedge their overly risky and highly leveraged positions. Yes they sold some deals that they thought were shit, and I agree they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But that wasn't a common trading strategy of any of the banks.

BUT, the sub-prime market was the problem and that would never have been created if the gov't did not mandate that Fannie/Freddie extend lending to low income and oftentimes unqualified borrower. Unquestionably, Wall St took advantage of this and acted like assholes. But they never could have done it without the encouragement from federal legislators. And THAT is why Canada's banks were somewhat insulated from the crisis, because Canada's gov't did not create an artificial sub-prime market. The regulations helped, but had Canada extended credit to sub-prime borrowers the way the US did, you would have had the same situation.


I am also relieved to hear young people like Phil and McGrupp saying people need to take responsibility for their actions. I really didn't think anyone from their generation would have anything other then the ME FIRST mentality that I hear from most kids in college I talk to for interviews. The kids bitching about college loans after they have already taken the money is the same thing to me as banks saying give us some money or else the whole system collapses. You knew what the deal was going in; if you don't like it, don't take it but stop crying about the grave injustices after you've gotten an college education (which itself is not really worth the investment anymore).

Like McGrupp said, the financial industry acted like assholes. But the only reason they could do that is because the gov't served them the booze and public gave them the keys.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: qop24 on October 15, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
Anyone who doesn't see that our financial and government systems are entirely broken and corrupt are either incredibly ignorant or have a safety net to fall back on.

I'm a little shocked by the apathy expressed by a few people here, and for once I completely agree with mattstick.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on October 15, 2011, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: phil on October 15, 2011, 08:57:43 AM
People have a right to do whatever the fuck they want, I'm just tired of hearing about it.

ATTENTION PROTESTERS:  You are bothering phil.  Please go home now. 

p.s.  there is a large cache of money under his mattress.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
I think it's pretty useless going back and forth.  Pension plans lost money, they were extremely devalued after the housing market crashed.  Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing, hyping up the market long term, making short term gains and getting bailed out when everything fell to shit.

You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.

More regulation may not be a silver bullet, but is doing nothing and leaving Wall Street to crank the wheels of the next great collapse where they can all come out with another 9-figure bonus?  You really don't think that creating laws and regulations as to how those people can make money will change - if the incentive to make short turn gains is dramatically reduced, won't they focus on long-term gains in a more secure way?  I agree that they are, and always will be one step ahead, but smart people work for the government too - Wall Street's behaviour is cyclical and stopping them from getting away with things over and over again in the exact same manner is a better solution than throwing up our hands and doing nothing.

If former-Goldman execs are creating Monetary Policy, then exploiting it, how is that not their fault?  You don't want to blame them - blame the government, again - that's what Occupy Wall Street is.

You seem skeptical of Taibbi - who's axe is he grinding then?  He's not praising Republicans or Democrats - he's holding Goldman Sachs accountable.

Quote from: TaibbiNot that Goldman was personally at any risk. The bank might be taking all these hideous, completely irresponsible mortgages from beneath-gangster-status firms like Countrywide and selling them off to municipalities and pensioners — old people, for God's sake — pretending the whole time that it wasn't grade D horseshit. But even as it was doing so, it was taking short positions in the same market, in essence betting against the same crap it was selling. Even worse, Goldman bragged about it in public. "The mortgage sector continues to be challenged," David Viniar, the bank's chief financial officer, boasted in 2007. "As a result, we took significant markdowns on our long inventory positions ... However, our risk bias in that market was to be short, and that net short position was profitable." In other words, the mortgages it was selling were for chumps. The real money was in betting against those same mortgages.

It's funny that within a few words of each other you suggest that students who take loans because that's the only way they can get an education are irresponsible, but then you gloss over the banks responsibilities (after manipulating government policy, then taking advantage of it to make themselves ultra-rich).

Finally, the media has created this idea that Occupy Wall Street is about being lazy and asking for handouts.  People are lapping it up for some reason - maybe you think you'll get a 9-figure bonus...?



Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VA $l!m on October 15, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 15, 2011, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: phil on October 15, 2011, 08:57:43 AM
People have a right to do whatever the fuck they want, I'm just tired of hearing about it.

ATTENTION PROTESTERS:  You are bothering phil.  Please go home now. 

p.s.  there is a large cache of money under his mattress.

lol
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 15, 2011, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.


Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 15, 2011, 09:17:06 PM
Quote from: phil on October 14, 2011, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 14, 2011, 11:04:00 PM
do you vote?

Yes

Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2011, 11:08:22 PM

If you're investing your money anywhere, these fuckers are robbing you.

Maybe it is better to just put your head down, work hard and not think you're not getting ripped off... who knows.

I put my money in C/Ds. I don't know much about investing, except that I'm not qualified to make risky decision with my money. Making .05% compounded daily over 5 years works fine for me.

That's not much more than average yearly inflation, dude. You're just treading water.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 15, 2011, 09:23:50 PM
Quote from: qop24 on October 15, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
Anyone who doesn't see that our financial and government systems are entirely broken and corrupt are either incredibly ignorant or have a safety net to fall back on.

I'm a little shocked by the apathy expressed by a few people here, and for once I completely agree with mattstick.

I'm with this 100%.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
I think it's pretty useless going back and forth.  Pension plans lost money, they were extremely devalued after the housing market crashed.  Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing, hyping up the market long term, making short term gains and getting bailed out when everything fell to shit.

And as I recall, there were some big public pensions in other countries that were ravaged by that crash.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 15, 2011, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
Pension plans lost money, they were extremely devalued after the housing market crashed.

Saying that a pension plan lost money is a completely different thing than your original statement, which was people "have lost half their pensions." I know of no cases where a retiree had their pension (the monthly check they get from the former employer) cut in half. This is not a small difference. I don't care if you want to side with the OWS people, but if you're going to say something that's factually inaccurate, I'll have to call you on it.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing, hyping up the market long term, making short term gains and getting bailed out when everything fell to shit.

Kinda hard for me to believe Goldman knew what they were doing and wanted the bubble to burst. I agree they believed they would get bailed out, but you already know my thoughts on that.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.

That may be what it means to you, but the underlying message as I see it is one that is staunchly anti-capitalism. When I look at this list of (unofficial) "demands" (http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/), I can't help but get annoyed with these people. Because, as I've said, I AGREE WITH YOU that Wall St should be held accountable for their role in the crisis and that the system needs to be changed so that they can't write their own rules or change them in the middle of the game. But the OWS circus is going to miss an important opportunity to do those things.

When you look at that list, is tighter regulations the focus (again, understanding that this might not accurately represent the demands of all the protesters)? I don't think regulation is even mentioned on there. Ending free trade? $20/hr living wage REGARDLESS OF EMPLOYMENT? Free college education? This is what I see OWS to be about. And it ain't good.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
If former-Goldman execs are creating Monetary Policy, then exploiting it, how is that not their fault?

Because Treasury doesn't set monetary policy, the Fed does. Greenspan is (rightly) getting the finger pointed at him.

I assume you were alluding to Paulson, but as you said, he was a former exec. Once he started working for Treasury, any mistake he made was not Goldman's fault, it was the federal gov't fault. You might say he should never have been hired; again, not Goldman's fault.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
It's funny that within a few words of each other you suggest that students who take loans because that's the only way they can get an education are irresponsible, but then you gloss over the banks responsibilities (after manipulating government policy, then taking advantage of it to make themselves ultra-rich).

I wasn't suggesting students taking loans was irresponsible; I said if you took a loan, got an education, and are now demanding those loans should be forgiven you are an asshole.

Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
Finally, the media has created this idea that Occupy Wall Street is about being lazy and asking for handouts.  People are lapping it up for some reason - maybe you think you'll get a 9-figure bonus...?

I haven't seen anything that portrays OWS as such. The opinions expressed on these pages is mine and mine alone. YMMV
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: ytowndan on October 15, 2011, 11:10:47 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mehead on October 15, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 15, 2011, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.


Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point.  The banks knew exactly what they were doing, but no one this country takes any fucking responsibility or accountability for their own shitty decisions. A lot of those people that lost their homes (I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs) knew damn well they couldn't afford the mortgage that they were signing up for.  Then you add the Adjustable Rate Mortgage to the fiasco - those people took it right in the ass - dry.  They're all looking to find someone else to blame.  I remember when my wife and I went to get our mortgage in 2004 and they told us what we qualified for - I asked them if they were high.  There was no way on earth that we could afford what they said we "qualified' for.   I currently manage in the consumer lending business but not mortgages.  However, I review loans every day and i see all kinds of crazy shit on credit reports.  I see people stretching out new mortgages out to 45 years - that's what the banks are doing now.  Before this crisis, when I saw a mortgage taken out for over 30 years, it was a red flag - and I rarely saw any.  Even with some of these people taking out mortages for 40 years +, they have no business getting these mortgages - they are house poor as soon as they sign on the dotted line.  The mortgage crisis isn't going to be over any time soon.

I could go on an on.........
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 15, 2011, 11:54:58 PM
(http://slyoyster.hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cJJ7l.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: ytowndan on October 16, 2011, 03:30:11 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP90d793c347f8436a99652195cff19b0c.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP90d793c347f8436a99652195cff19b0c.html)

QuoteNEW YORK — Police say they have arrested 24 people at a rally related to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York City.

The arrests took place Saturday afternoon at a Citibank branch near Manhattan's Washington Square Park, following an orderly march from the Occupy encampment in the financial district.

Several protesters had entered the bank to close their accounts in protest of the role big banks played in the nation's financial crisis.

Police say most of the people arrested were detained for trespassing after they ignored a request by the bank to leave.

A few were arrested outside the bank. Police say they are accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6svA6Qvq1U
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VA $l!m on October 16, 2011, 09:29:45 AM
Quote from: ytowndan on October 16, 2011, 03:30:11 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP90d793c347f8436a99652195cff19b0c.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP90d793c347f8436a99652195cff19b0c.html)

QuoteNEW YORK — Police say they have arrested 24 people at a rally related to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York City.

The arrests took place Saturday afternoon at a Citibank branch near Manhattan's Washington Square Park, following an orderly march from the Occupy encampment in the financial district.

Several protesters had entered the bank to close their accounts in protest of the role big banks played in the nation's financial crisis.

Police say most of the people arrested were detained for trespassing after they ignored a request by the bank to leave.

A few were arrested outside the bank. Police say they are accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6svA6Qvq1U

didnt watch, but really its not that hard to close a bank account.
me, i just take all the money out and spend it. works fine.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 16, 2011, 09:38:36 AM

Senator Bernie Sanders
Wall Street Protests

The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous and secretive economic and political force in America.

If this country is to break out of the horrendous recession and create the millions of jobs we desperately need, if we are going to create a modicum of financial stability for the future, there is no question but that the American people are going to have to take a very hard look at Wall Street and demand fundamental reforms. I hope these protests are the beginning of that process.

Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse. Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed's lending programs during the financial crisis.

As a result of this audit, the American people have learned that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.

In other words, when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the federal government acted boldly, aggressively, and with a fierce sense of urgency to save our financial system from collapse with no strings attached.

Now that the middle class is collapsing and a record-breaking 46 million Americans are living in poverty, the Federal Reserve has failed to act with the same sense of urgency to make sure that small businesses receive the affordable loans needed to put millions of Americans back to work and prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes.

As a result, Wall Street is back to making record-breaking profits, handing out record-breaking compensation packages, and taking the same risks that caused the financial crisis in the first place. Meanwhile, 25 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed; middle class families are making $3,600 less than they did 10 years ago; the foreclosure rate is still breaking new records; and the American people are still paying over $3.40 for a gallon of gas.

The financial crisis and the jobs crisis have demonstrated to the American people that we now have a government that is of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent and for the 1 percent, as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz eloquently articulated. The rest of the 99 percent are, more or less, on their own. We now have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major, advanced country on Earth. The top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, and the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

Now that Occupy Wall Street is shining a spotlight on Wall Street greed and the enormous inequalities that exist in America, the question then becomes, how do we change the political, economic and financial system to work for all Americans, not just the top 1 percent?

Here are several proposals that I am working on:

1) If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. Today, the six largest financial institutions have assets equal to more than 60 percent of GDP. The four largest banks in this country issue two thirds of all credit cards, half of all mortgages, and hold nearly 40 percent of all bank deposits. Incredibly, after we bailed out these big banks because they were "too big to fail," three out of the four largest are now even bigger than they were before the financial crisis began. It is time to take a page from Teddy Roosevelt and break up these behemoths so that their failure will no longer lead to economic catastrophe and to create competition in our financial system.

2) Put a cap on credit card interest rates to end usury. Today, more than a quarter of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 59 percent. When credit card companies charge 25- or 30-percent interest rates they are not engaged in the business of "making credit available" to their customers. They are involved in extortion and loan-sharking. Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase should not be permitted to charge consumers 25- to 30-percent interest on their credit cards, especially while these banks received over $4 trillion in loans from the Federal Reserve.

3) The Federal Reserve needs to provide small businesses in America with the same low-interest loans it gave to foreign banks. During the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve provided hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign banks and corporations including the Arab Banking Corporation, Toyota, Mitsubishi, the Korea Development Bank, and the state-owned Bank of Bavaria. At a time when small businesses can't get the lending they need, it is time for the Fed to create millions of American jobs by providing low-interest loans directly to small businesses.

4) Stop Wall Street oil speculators from artificially increasing gasoline and heating oil prices. Right now, the American people are being gouged at the gas pump by speculators on Wall Street who are buying and selling billions of barrels of oil in the energy futures market with no intention of using a drop for any purpose other than to make a quick buck. Delta Airlines, Exxon Mobil, the American Trucking Association, and other energy experts have estimated that excessive oil speculation is driving up oil prices by as much as 40 percent. We have got to end excessive oil speculation and bring needed relief to American consumers.

5) Demand that Wall Street invest in the job-creating productive economy, instead of gambling on worthless derivatives. The American people have got to make it crystal clear to Wall Street that the era of excessive speculation is over. The "heads, bankers win; tails, everyone else loses" financial system must end. Most important, we need to create a new Wall Street that exists not to reward CEOs and investors for the bets they make on exotic financial instruments nobody understands. Rather, we need a Wall Street that provides financial services to small businesses and manufacturers to create decent-paying jobs and grow the economy by productive means. Think of all of the productive short- and long-term investments that could be made in our country right now if Wall Street used the money it has received from the federal government wisely. Instead of casino-style speculation, Wall Street could invest in high-speed trains; fuel-efficient cars; wind turbines and other alternative energy sources; affordable housing; affordable prescription drugs that save people's lives; and other things that America desperately needs. That is what we have got to demand from Wall Street.

6) Establish a Wall Street speculation fee on credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Establishing a speculation fee would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans. There are a number of precedents for this. The U.S had a similar Wall Street speculation fee from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2-percent tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled that tax to help finance the government during the Great Depression. And today, England has a financial transaction tax of 0.25 percent, a penny on every $4 invested.

Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation.

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are shining a light on one of the most serious problems facing the United States -- the greed and power of Wall Street. Now is the time for the American people to demand that the president and Congress follow that light -- and act. The future of our economy is at stake.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: susep on October 16, 2011, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: mattstick on October 16, 2011, 09:38:36 AM

Senator Bernie Sanders
Wall Street Protests

The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous and secretive economic and political force in America.

If this country is to break out of the horrendous recession and create the millions of jobs we desperately need, if we are going to create a modicum of financial stability for the future, there is no question but that the American people are going to have to take a very hard look at Wall Street and demand fundamental reforms. I hope these protests are the beginning of that process.

Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse. Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed's lending programs during the financial crisis.

As a result of this audit, the American people have learned that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.

In other words, when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the federal government acted boldly, aggressively, and with a fierce sense of urgency to save our financial system from collapse with no strings attached.

Now that the middle class is collapsing and a record-breaking 46 million Americans are living in poverty, the Federal Reserve has failed to act with the same sense of urgency to make sure that small businesses receive the affordable loans needed to put millions of Americans back to work and prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes.

As a result, Wall Street is back to making record-breaking profits, handing out record-breaking compensation packages, and taking the same risks that caused the financial crisis in the first place. Meanwhile, 25 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed; middle class families are making $3,600 less than they did 10 years ago; the foreclosure rate is still breaking new records; and the American people are still paying over $3.40 for a gallon of gas.

The financial crisis and the jobs crisis have demonstrated to the American people that we now have a government that is of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent and for the 1 percent, as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz eloquently articulated. The rest of the 99 percent are, more or less, on their own. We now have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major, advanced country on Earth. The top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, and the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

Now that Occupy Wall Street is shining a spotlight on Wall Street greed and the enormous inequalities that exist in America, the question then becomes, how do we change the political, economic and financial system to work for all Americans, not just the top 1 percent?

Here are several proposals that I am working on:

1) If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. Today, the six largest financial institutions have assets equal to more than 60 percent of GDP. The four largest banks in this country issue two thirds of all credit cards, half of all mortgages, and hold nearly 40 percent of all bank deposits. Incredibly, after we bailed out these big banks because they were "too big to fail," three out of the four largest are now even bigger than they were before the financial crisis began. It is time to take a page from Teddy Roosevelt and break up these behemoths so that their failure will no longer lead to economic catastrophe and to create competition in our financial system.

2) Put a cap on credit card interest rates to end usury. Today, more than a quarter of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 59 percent. When credit card companies charge 25- or 30-percent interest rates they are not engaged in the business of "making credit available" to their customers. They are involved in extortion and loan-sharking. Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase should not be permitted to charge consumers 25- to 30-percent interest on their credit cards, especially while these banks received over $4 trillion in loans from the Federal Reserve.

3) The Federal Reserve needs to provide small businesses in America with the same low-interest loans it gave to foreign banks. During the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve provided hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign banks and corporations including the Arab Banking Corporation, Toyota, Mitsubishi, the Korea Development Bank, and the state-owned Bank of Bavaria. At a time when small businesses can't get the lending they need, it is time for the Fed to create millions of American jobs by providing low-interest loans directly to small businesses.

4) Stop Wall Street oil speculators from artificially increasing gasoline and heating oil prices. Right now, the American people are being gouged at the gas pump by speculators on Wall Street who are buying and selling billions of barrels of oil in the energy futures market with no intention of using a drop for any purpose other than to make a quick buck. Delta Airlines, Exxon Mobil, the American Trucking Association, and other energy experts have estimated that excessive oil speculation is driving up oil prices by as much as 40 percent. We have got to end excessive oil speculation and bring needed relief to American consumers.

5) Demand that Wall Street invest in the job-creating productive economy, instead of gambling on worthless derivatives. The American people have got to make it crystal clear to Wall Street that the era of excessive speculation is over. The "heads, bankers win; tails, everyone else loses" financial system must end. Most important, we need to create a new Wall Street that exists not to reward CEOs and investors for the bets they make on exotic financial instruments nobody understands. Rather, we need a Wall Street that provides financial services to small businesses and manufacturers to create decent-paying jobs and grow the economy by productive means. Think of all of the productive short- and long-term investments that could be made in our country right now if Wall Street used the money it has received from the federal government wisely. Instead of casino-style speculation, Wall Street could invest in high-speed trains; fuel-efficient cars; wind turbines and other alternative energy sources; affordable housing; affordable prescription drugs that save people's lives; and other things that America desperately needs. That is what we have got to demand from Wall Street.

6) Establish a Wall Street speculation fee on credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Establishing a speculation fee would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans. There are a number of precedents for this. The U.S had a similar Wall Street speculation fee from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2-percent tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled that tax to help finance the government during the Great Depression. And today, England has a financial transaction tax of 0.25 percent, a penny on every $4 invested.

Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation.

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are shining a light on one of the most serious problems facing the United States -- the greed and power of Wall Street. Now is the time for the American people to demand that the president and Congress follow that light -- and act. The future of our economy is at stake.

good read, thanks.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 16, 2011, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: susep on October 16, 2011, 10:09:17 AM

good read, thanks.

Local Sanders supporters got that letter last week in an email from the Senator's office. Glad to see it's getting around.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 16, 2011, 01:47:10 PM

Watch in amazement as Chris Hedges pwnz a right-wing Canadian talking head on the issues of Occupy Wall Street

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2011/10/best-net/cbcs-kevin-oleary-gets-schooled-occupy-movement-chris-hedges
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: WhatstheUse? on October 16, 2011, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 16, 2011, 01:47:10 PM

Watch in amazement as Chris Hedges pwnz a right-wing Canadian talking head on the issues of Occupy Wall Street

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2011/10/best-net/cbcs-kevin-oleary-gets-schooled-occupy-movement-chris-hedges
:clap:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2011, 05:54:40 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 16, 2011, 01:47:10 PM

Watch in amazement as Chris Hedges pwnz a right-wing Canadian talking head on the issues of Occupy Wall Street

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2011/10/best-net/cbcs-kevin-oleary-gets-schooled-occupy-movement-chris-hedges

:clap:

So awesome. 

As for people who don't care or are somehow "annoyed" by these protests, that's just fucking pathetic.

Turn your TV off and stay out of politiw00k chat if you can't be bothered to think about this stuff.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2011, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: mehead on October 15, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 15, 2011, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.


Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point.  The banks knew exactly what they were doing, but no one this country takes any fucking responsibility or accountability for their own shitty decisions. A lot of those people that lost their homes (I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs) knew damn well they couldn't afford the mortgage that they were signing up for.  Then you add the Adjustable Rate Mortgage to the fiasco - those people took it right in the ass - dry.  They're all looking to find someone else to blame.  I remember when my wife and I went to get our mortgage in 2004 and they told us what we qualified for - I asked them if they were high.  There was no way on earth that we could afford what they said we "qualified' for.   I currently manage in the consumer lending business but not mortgages.  However, I review loans every day and i see all kinds of crazy shit on credit reports.  I see people stretching out new mortgages out to 45 years - that's what the banks are doing now.  Before this crisis, when I saw a mortgage taken out for over 30 years, it was a red flag - and I rarely saw any.  Even with some of these people taking out mortages for 40 years +, they have no business getting these mortgages - they are house poor as soon as they sign on the dotted line.  The mortgage crisis isn't going to be over any time soon.

I could go on an on.........

So you don't think it is the lender's job to not make loans that are likely to go belly up?

It's not like we are talking about people buying crack from dealers, the product is quite a bit more complicated and the reason mortgage banker's make so much money is because they should understand the risks involved with different types of loans far better than the average joe. 

Is it really reasonable to expect people to read and understand a 100 page mortgage contract? 

If it is then we don't need parasitic mortgage brokers in the first place, everyone should be able to just go right to the bank.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mehead on October 16, 2011, 06:33:50 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2011, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: mehead on October 15, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 15, 2011, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.


Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point.  The banks knew exactly what they were doing, but no one this country takes any fucking responsibility or accountability for their own shitty decisions. A lot of those people that lost their homes (I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs) knew damn well they couldn't afford the mortgage that they were signing up for.  Then you add the Adjustable Rate Mortgage to the fiasco - those people took it right in the ass - dry.  They're all looking to find someone else to blame.  I remember when my wife and I went to get our mortgage in 2004 and they told us what we qualified for - I asked them if they were high.  There was no way on earth that we could afford what they said we "qualified' for.   I currently manage in the consumer lending business but not mortgages.  However, I review loans every day and i see all kinds of crazy shit on credit reports.  I see people stretching out new mortgages out to 45 years - that's what the banks are doing now.  Before this crisis, when I saw a mortgage taken out for over 30 years, it was a red flag - and I rarely saw any.  Even with some of these people taking out mortages for 40 years +, they have no business getting these mortgages - they are house poor as soon as they sign on the dotted line.  The mortgage crisis isn't going to be over any time soon.

I could go on an on.........

So you don't think it is the lender's job to not make loans that are likely to go belly up?

It's not like we are talking about people buying crack from dealers, the product is quite a bit more complicated and the reason mortgage banker's make so much money is because they should understand the risks involved with different types of loans far better than the average joe. 

Is it really reasonable to expect people to read and understand a 100 page mortgage contract? 

If it is then we don't need parasitic mortgage brokers in the first place, everyone should be able to just go right to the bank.

That's not what I'm saying at all.  You obviously didn't read my first sentence or 2.  All I'm saying, AGAIN, is that some (not ALL) people need to take some responsibility for their own actions.  While the lender should in no way be making loans while they know full well that the applicant can't afford it, that same applicant needs to know their own financial reponsibility.  If you make $75k / yr, do you really think you can afford a $2,500 mortgage payment.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 16, 2011, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: mehead on October 16, 2011, 06:33:50 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 16, 2011, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: mehead on October 15, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 15, 2011, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 15, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
You continue to hammer on the point that we shouldn't bail out banks - and that's your answer every single time we come to this point.  But what's done is done - Occupy Wall Street isn't about that - it's about tighter regulations, more focus on Main Street being supported by government and not Wall Street.  Politicians should work for the people, the people are driving the Occupy Wall Street movement.


Exactly.
No one person, or group of people, did this alone. People signed on the dotted line. Some were decieved, some didn't understand, some were just plain foolish.  But those loans should have never been approved. And if they were, they shouldn't have been hidden in a big package of junk. And it shouldn't have been rated AAA by S+P. And derivative and credit default swap trading should be regulated, like every other aspect of commerce.

Yes, I believe in personal responsibility. The responsibility goes both ways. Have the people at Goldman been held responsible?
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.

And, most importantly, our politicians shouldn't be bought off by large mega rich companies.

McGrupp, I agree that the manifesto is to broad, but the bottom line for all of it is corruption in the ranks, and the people in the beltway need to get that we know what they are doing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point.  The banks knew exactly what they were doing, but no one this country takes any fucking responsibility or accountability for their own shitty decisions. A lot of those people that lost their homes (I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs) knew damn well they couldn't afford the mortgage that they were signing up for.  Then you add the Adjustable Rate Mortgage to the fiasco - those people took it right in the ass - dry.  They're all looking to find someone else to blame.  I remember when my wife and I went to get our mortgage in 2004 and they told us what we qualified for - I asked them if they were high.  There was no way on earth that we could afford what they said we "qualified' for.   I currently manage in the consumer lending business but not mortgages.  However, I review loans every day and i see all kinds of crazy shit on credit reports.  I see people stretching out new mortgages out to 45 years - that's what the banks are doing now.  Before this crisis, when I saw a mortgage taken out for over 30 years, it was a red flag - and I rarely saw any.  Even with some of these people taking out mortages for 40 years +, they have no business getting these mortgages - they are house poor as soon as they sign on the dotted line.  The mortgage crisis isn't going to be over any time soon.

I could go on an on.........

So you don't think it is the lender's job to not make loans that are likely to go belly up?

It's not like we are talking about people buying crack from dealers, the product is quite a bit more complicated and the reason mortgage banker's make so much money is because they should understand the risks involved with different types of loans far better than the average joe. 

Is it really reasonable to expect people to read and understand a 100 page mortgage contract? 

If it is then we don't need parasitic mortgage brokers in the first place, everyone should be able to just go right to the bank.

That's not what I'm saying at all.  You obviously didn't read my first sentence or 2.  All I'm saying, AGAIN, is that some (not ALL) people need to take some responsibility for their own actions.  While the lender should in no way be making loans while they know full well that the applicant can't afford it, that same applicant needs to know their own financial reponsibility.  If you make $75k / yr, do you really think you can afford a $2,500 mortgage payment.

LOL

I guess I'll quote your second sentence for you since you apparently don't even know what you wrote:

Quote from: mehead on October 15, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
The banks knew exactly what they were doing, but no one this country takes any fucking responsibility or accountability for their own shitty decisions

So no one takes responsibility for their actions but only some (not ALL) people need to take responsibility for them?

Well that doesn't seem fair. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VA $l!m on October 16, 2011, 07:05:07 PM
so do we have universal healthcare yet or what?!


...oh, WT.  :frustrated: i get so confused when it comes to the politics. :|
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 12:45:18 PM
It turns out the protesters do not accurately represent the 99%

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

Quote
Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 12:52:22 PM

200.  Huge sample size.  Thanks WSJ.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 12:52:22 PM

200.  Huge sample size.  Thanks WSJ.

Out of 1,000 protesters (if that)? I'd say that's a pretty credible sample size.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on October 18, 2011, 12:56:32 PM
Yup--200 individuals on the same intersection. Some broad survey...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 18, 2011, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 12:52:22 PM

200.  Huge sample size.  Thanks WSJ.

Out of 1,000 protesters (if that)? I'd say that's a pretty credible sample size.

Are you not aware that there are parallel protests occurring in just about every major city in the country?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 01:00:31 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 18, 2011, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 12:52:22 PM

200.  Huge sample size.  Thanks WSJ.

Out of 1,000 protesters (if that)? I'd say that's a pretty credible sample size.

Are you not aware that there are parallel protests occurring in just about every major city in the country?

Understood, but this was a survey of the protesters on Wall St. It was conducted by a professional pollster. I'm pretty sure they know whether or not their study is representative of the group.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 01:00:59 PM
100% of people in front of my computer right now think that the WSJ survey is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 01:10:44 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 01:00:59 PM
100% of people in front of my computer right now think that the WSJ survey is ridiculous.

Imagine my surprise.

This was the first of its kind study to determine what the protesters want/believe. Let me know when you find a survey that contradicts these results.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 01:17:02 PM
Isn't it more important that they are there raising awareness about rather large issues, rather than what specific people believe?

All the Sunday AM politics shows were talking about 99% vs. 1% issues last week and other entrenched economic problems that I've never ever seen discussed in the media before.

So again, why is it important for you to know what a small % of people are there for, when the reality of this thing has become much larger?

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 01:17:02 PM
Isn't it more important that they are there raising awareness about rather large issues, rather than what specific people believe?

All the Sunday AM politics shows were talking about 99% vs. 1% issues last week and other entrenched economic problems that I've never ever seen discussed in the media before.

So again, why is it important for you to know what a small % of people are there for, when the reality of this thing has become much larger?

Because, as I've said, I agree with you that income inequality and the dysfunctional corporate/political relationship needs fundamental reform. My problem is not with the larger issues you are talking about, it's that what you are saying and what the protesters are saying/doing are completely different.

If the protesters really want change, they are doing themselves a disservice by opposing free market capitalism and demanding free healthcare, education, and unconditional income from the gov't. If they really want change, they need to determine what exactly they want and how they expect to get it. Occupying a park has turned out to be an excellent way to get noticed; they now need to re-focus on what the objectives of the protest are. What bothers me is that I believe this will become another missed opportunity to make a difference.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
I see what you're saying but having a broad base seems like a good way to start a movement.  People may not get free University education, but they will be happy with banking regulations.

The right (and the skeptical middle) are always going to paint OWS as a leftist crazed group who just want to party, get laid and freeload.  There will be plenty more WSJ surveys to "prove" that.

I can't really express it better than Chris Hedges did this week...

QuoteThe Occupy Wall Street movement, like all radical movements, has obliterated the narrow political parameters. It proposes something new. It will not make concessions with corrupt systems of corporate power. It holds fast to moral imperatives regardless of the cost. It confronts authority out of a sense of responsibility. It is not interested in formal positions of power. It is not seeking office. It is not trying to get people to vote. It has no resources. It can’t carry suitcases of money to congressional offices or run millions of dollars of advertisements. All it can do is ask us to use our bodies and voices, often at personal risk, to fight back. It has no other way of defying the corporate state. This rebellion creates a real community instead of a managed or virtual one. It affirms our dignity. It permits us to become free and independent human beings.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_movement_too_big_to_fail_20111017/
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 18, 2011, 02:06:43 PM
This isn't a movie, a real uprising/movement will take time to gather momentum and focus its energies.

I'm not saying that is guaranteed to happen, but expecting these protests to arrive with concrete demands and a plan to implement them right off the bat just isn't realistic.

Think about the Arab Spring, the forces that eventually brought about change had been gathering and gaining strength for literally decades.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 02:18:41 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_movement_too_big_to_fail_20111017/

Interesting thoughts. I have a tough time understanding how we can "become free and independent human beings" by ceding more power to the federal gov't and I had to tap out at the end when he starts quoting Marx. But I'm serious when I say you and I both want the same things, we just have different ideas on how to go about doing it.

I really hope that in a year I can come back into this thread and say "Wow, what a tool I was. OWS really did bring about change." Not the temporary change that would come about by taxing the rich or tweaking financial regulations. I mean lasting, fundamental change that prevents the exploitation of the rules by any corporation. In that sense, I really do hope I am wrong (it happens once in a while :wink:).
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Guyute on October 18, 2011, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 01:00:31 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 18, 2011, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 12:52:22 PM

200.  Huge sample size.  Thanks WSJ.

Out of 1,000 protesters (if that)? I'd say that's a pretty credible sample size.

Are you not aware that there are parallel protests occurring in just about every major city in the country?

Understood, but this was a survey of the protesters on Wall St. It was conducted by a professional pollster. I'm pretty sure they know whether or not their study is representative of the group.

Isn't 36 statistically accurate sample size?  Puts you at 2 standard devs I believe.  at 200 out of a thousand it is considered a very large sample size.   If you read the article it sounds pretty accurate about the composition of the people there.  Of course it has the WSJ slant to it which is why I am just looking at what it says for details and not conclusions.     

I don't agree with the occupy movement in many respects, I don't try to hide that. I grew up very lower middle class.  Winter coat was a common Xmas present, I started caddying and a newspaper route in 4th grade to start buying things I needed. A blue collar town where I didn't get the top notch education and had to make my own way.  There was no pressure from my parents so I don't know where the drive came from.   I fought my ass off to get where I am now and I want to throw up when I see what I pay in taxes each year.   I also don't agree that people can't move up and can't get ahead.  I did it, my boss did it, I have friends who did it, (including 1 growing up on the wrong side of Apartheid) .  It is a matter of drive and ability; unpopular to say, but I believe more people need to hear it. Many have the drive, but not the ability (conceptual thought, critical thinking, clear logic, etc).  Others are incredibly intelligent and lack drive, I have a family member like this.

The way I see it some things make sense and others seem misguided and rooted in inaccuracies.   That said there are changes needed in this country and those don't come from the middle.  Change starts with "radical" fringe of the population and then some of those ideas work their way into the middle and you get that change.   Without the civil disobedience those ideas don't get into the middle and the change doesn't occur.  So while I don't agree, I respect their right to protest and feel that this type of thing can be healthy for society.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 19, 2011, 07:40:21 AM
WSJ is part of the Murdoch empire and therefore an unreliable rag.


/just sayin'
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: kellerb on October 19, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 19, 2011, 07:40:21 AM
WSJ is part of the Murdoch empire and therefore an unreliable rag.


/just sayin'

plus, "Wall Street."  It's right in the title.  Biased
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on October 19, 2011, 12:07:03 PM
compare and contrast

(http://www.imgjoe.com/x/compareandco.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 19, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
http://youtu.be/WmEHcOc0Sys
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on October 19, 2011, 04:45:22 PM
^^^No matter what your position is, dude is right.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 19, 2011, 05:40:17 PM
That Marine is badass.

And he's right.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 19, 2011, 11:22:48 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 18, 2011, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 01:00:31 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 18, 2011, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 18, 2011, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: mattstick on October 18, 2011, 12:52:22 PM

200.  Huge sample size.  Thanks WSJ.

Out of 1,000 protesters (if that)? I'd say that's a pretty credible sample size.

Are you not aware that there are parallel protests occurring in just about every major city in the country?

Understood, but this was a survey of the protesters on Wall St. It was conducted by a professional pollster. I'm pretty sure they know whether or not their study is representative of the group.

Isn't 36 statistically accurate sample size?  Puts you at 2 standard devs I believe.  at 200 out of a thousand it is considered a very large sample size.   If you read the article it sounds pretty accurate about the composition of the people there.  Of course it has the WSJ slant to it which is why I am just looking at what it says for details and not conclusions.     

I don't agree with the occupy movement in many respects, I don't try to hide that. I grew up very lower middle class.  Winter coat was a common Xmas present, I started caddying and a newspaper route in 4th grade to start buying things I needed. A blue collar town where I didn't get the top notch education and had to make my own way.  There was no pressure from my parents so I don't know where the drive came from.   I fought my ass off to get where I am now and I want to throw up when I see what I pay in taxes each year.   I also don't agree that people can't move up and can't get ahead.  I did it, my boss did it, I have friends who did it, (including 1 growing up on the wrong side of Apartheid) .  It is a matter of drive and ability; unpopular to say, but I believe more people need to hear it. Many have the drive, but not the ability (conceptual thought, critical thinking, clear logic, etc).  Others are incredibly intelligent and lack drive, I have a family member like this.

The way I see it some things make sense and others seem misguided and rooted in inaccuracies.   That said there are changes needed in this country and those don't come from the middle.  Change starts with "radical" fringe of the population and then some of those ideas work their way into the middle and you get that change.   Without the civil disobedience those ideas don't get into the middle and the change doesn't occur.  So while I don't agree, I respect their right to protest and feel that this type of thing can be healthy for society.

agree with much of what you're saying - fwiw my own situation is a little different-started working part time in 9th grade during the school year, full time over the summers, and had the benefit of a good local school district and parents who pushed me. I was lucky for those things, I was good at school, and I worked pretty hard.

I also benefited from low interest GSLs and state supported higher ed (pvt undergrad, SUNY for med school). A sign of the times -  4 yrs of med school for me cost a bit less than 1/2 of 1 year of pvt undergrad now. The price of education and the greater income inequality make it seem as if upward mobility is more difficult, but not impossible.

Like you, I get upset when people think they "deserve" things. work for it.
i believe in capitalism and the free market.
but- history has taught us that an unregulated free market is just as tyrannical as any dictatorship. Say what you want about organized labor, unions came about early in the 1900s for good reasons. We can thank them for the disappearance of the kind of sweat shops my grandmother worked in, thank them for the "40 hr work week", child labor laws, mandatory education, and humane treatment of workers. We can thank the govt for GSLs, state supported higher ed, and improving our lives with funding for the National Academy of Sciences, NIH, NHLBI among other things.

I also get upset when people use $ for power, or power for $.
What's worse is the "1 % ers" who continue to rig the game so they can get even more and the rest get less - without any fear of the consequences.
That's why I support OWS - not just to "tax the rich and give to the poor", but to make the upper echelon responsible and hopefully get us to return to democracy instead of rule of $.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Guyute on October 19, 2011, 11:28:27 PM
Absolutely fantastic.   Can you imagine fighting, watching friends die to protect the Constitution and then seeing the people you fought to protect harmed for executing the rights you sought to protect?   He has every right to be angry.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 20, 2011, 07:52:17 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 19, 2011, 11:22:48 PM
agree with much of what you're saying - fwiw my own situation is a little different-started working part time in 9th grade during the school year, full time over the summers, and had the benefit of a good local school district and parents who pushed me. I was lucky for those things, I was good at school, and I worked pretty hard.

I also benefited from low interest GSLs and state supported higher ed (pvt undergrad, SUNY for med school). A sign of the times -  4 yrs of med school for me cost a bit less than 1/2 of 1 year of pvt undergrad now. The price of education and the greater income inequality make it seem as if upward mobility is more difficult, but not impossible.

Like you, I get upset when people think they "deserve" things. work for it.
i believe in capitalism and the free market.
but- history has taught us that an unregulated free market is just as tyrannical as any dictatorship. Say what you want about organized labor, unions came about early in the 1900s for good reasons. We can thank them for the disappearance of the kind of sweat shops my grandmother worked in, thank them for the "40 hr work week", child labor laws, mandatory education, and humane treatment of workers. We can thank the govt for GSLs, state supported higher ed, and improving our lives with funding for the National Academy of Sciences, NIH, NHLBI among other things.

I also get upset when people use $ for power, or power for $.
What's worse is the "1 % ers" who continue to rig the game so they can get even more and the rest get less - without any fear of the consequences.
That's why I support OWS - not just to "tax the rich and give to the poor", but to make the upper echelon responsible and hopefully get us to return to democracy instead of rule of $.

Well stated.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 20, 2011, 08:59:48 AM

http://vimeo.com/30476100

QuoteA lot of fantastic media has been created about the "Occupy" movement. I was watching one video in particular and commented to a friend, "Wow, seeing all those super smart hot chicks at the protest makes me want to be there." He replied, "Hmmm... Yeah, let's go with that."

We instantly went to Tumblr and made hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com. Our original ideas were admittedly sophomoric: Pics of hot chicks being all protesty, videos of hot chicks beating drums in slow-mo, etc. But when we arrived at Zuccotti Park in New York City, it evolved into something more.

There was a vibrant energy in the air, a warmth of community and family, and the voices we heard were so hopeful and passionate. Pretty faces were making signs, giving speeches, organizing crowds, handing out food, singing, dancing, debating, hugging and marching.

It made me want to pack my bags and pitch a tent on Wall Street. And it's in the light that we created this video.

And we hope it makes you want to be there too.

EDIT: Apparently a lot of controversy has erupted online from people passionately opining (among many things) that this is sexist, offensive, and dangerously objectifies women. It was not my intent to do that and I think the spirit of the video, and the voices within, are honorable and inspiring.

However, if you disagree with me, I encourage you to use that as an excuse to create constructive discussions about the issues you have. Because, to be honest, any excuse is a good excuse to bring up the topic of women’s rights.

CAMERA: Two Canon 7Ds.
LENS: 17-55mm, 70-200mm, 18-135mm
AUDIO: Rode Video Mic Pro
Shot in 60 fps

Music: Theme from "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control" by Caleb Sampson
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273970_1489380036_2059547533_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on October 20, 2011, 06:10:08 PM
Quote from: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273970_1489380036_2059547533_n.jpg)

Phil, if you're hiding money under your mattress, you're still getting fucked. If you don't understand that, get yourself an education.

Lots of catching up to do in here.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 20, 2011, 06:10:08 PM
Quote from: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273970_1489380036_2059547533_n.jpg)

Phil, if you're hiding money under your mattress, you're still getting fucked. If you don't understand that, get yourself an education.

Lots of catching up to do in here.

I moved it from under the mattress. Too many people know about my hiding spot.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 21, 2011, 10:41:52 AM
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/paynemoore.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: kellerb on October 21, 2011, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 20, 2011, 06:10:08 PM
Quote from: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273970_1489380036_2059547533_n.jpg)

Phil, if you're hiding money under your mattress, you're still getting fucked. If you don't understand that, get yourself an education.

Lots of catching up to do in here.

I moved it from under the mattress. Too many people know about my hiding spot.

Only 1%
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on October 21, 2011, 01:23:12 PM
Quote from: kellerb on October 21, 2011, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 20, 2011, 06:10:08 PM
Quote from: phil on October 20, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273970_1489380036_2059547533_n.jpg)

Phil, if you're hiding money under your mattress, you're still getting fucked. If you don't understand that, get yourself an education.

Lots of catching up to do in here.

I moved it from under the mattress. Too many people know about my hiding spot.

Only 1%

Well played, good sir!  :clap:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VA $l!m on October 21, 2011, 02:15:28 PM
reading a bit of this:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gWqaZ%2BacL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

sorta interesting in relation to this 'occupy' thingie people are talking about.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mattstick on October 21, 2011, 05:35:34 PM
http://youtu.be/i9zkQcLi4Yo
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 21, 2011, 09:20:08 PM
http://www.economist.com/node/21533400

Quote
Rage against the machine
People are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take politics

FROM Seattle to Sydney, protesters have taken to the streets. Whether they are inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York or by the indignados in Madrid, they burn with dissatisfaction about the state of the economy, about the unfair way that the poor are paying for the sins of rich bankers, and in some cases about capitalism itself.

In the past it was easy for Western politicians and economic liberals to dismiss such outpourings of fury as a misguided fringe. In Seattle, for instance, the last big protests (against the World Trade Organisation, in 1999) looked mindless. If they had a goal, it was selfish—an attempt to impoverish the emerging world through protectionism. This time too, some things are familiar: the odd bit of violence, a lot of incoherent ranting and plenty of inconsistency (see article). The protesters have different aims in different countries. Higher taxes for the rich and a loathing of financiers is the closest thing to a common denominator, though in America polls show that popular rage against government eclipses that against Wall Street.

Yet even if the protests are small and muddled, it is dangerous to dismiss the broader rage that exists across the West. There are legitimate deep-seated grievances. Young people—and not just those on the streets—are likely to face higher taxes, less generous benefits and longer working lives than their parents. More immediately, houses are expensive, credit hard to get and jobs scarce—not just in old manufacturing industries but in the ritzier services that attract increasingly debt-laden graduates. In America 17.1% of those below 25 are out of work. Across the European Union, youth unemployment averages 20.9%. In Spain it is a staggering 46.2%. Only in Germany, the Netherlands and Austria is the rate in single digits.

It is not just the young who feel squeezed. The middle-aged face falling real wages and diminished pension rights. And the elderly are seeing inflation eat away the value of their savings; in Britain prices are rising by 5.2% but bank deposits yield less than 1%. In the meantime, bankers are back to huge bonuses.

History, misery and protest

To the man-in-the-street, all this smacks of a system that has failed. Neither of the main Western models has much political credit at the moment. European social democracy promised voters benefits that societies can no longer afford. The Anglo-Saxon model claimed that free markets would create prosperity; many voters feel instead that they got a series of debt-fuelled asset bubbles and an economy that was rigged in favour of a financial elite, who took all the proceeds in the good times and then left everybody else with no alternative other than to bail them out. To use one of the protesters' better slogans, the 1% have gained at the expense of the 99%.

If the grievances are more legitimate and broader than previous rages against the machine, then the dangers are also greater. Populist anger, especially if it has no coherent agenda, can go anywhere in times of want. The 1930s provided the most terrifying example. A more recent (and less frightening) case study is the tea party. The justified fury of America's striving middle classes against a cumbersome state has in practice translated into a form of obstructive nihilism: nothing to do with taxes can get through Washington, including tax reform.

Worryingly, politicians are already in something of a funk. The Republicans first denounced the occupiers of Wall Street, then cuddled up to them. Across Europe social democratic parties have tended to lose elections if they move too far from the centre ground, but leaders, like Ed Miliband in Britain and François Hollande in France (see article), still find the anti-banker rhetoric enticing. Why not opt for a gesture—tariffs, a supertax on the rich—that may only make matters worse? A struggling Barack Obama, who has already flirted with class warfare and business-bashing, might well consider dragging China and its currency into the fray. And it will get worse: austerity and protest have always gone together (see article).

Tackle the causes, not the symptoms

Braver politicians would focus on two things. The first is tackling the causes of the rage speedily. Above all that means doing more to get their economies moving again. A credible solution to the euro crisis would be a huge start. More generally, focus on policies that boost economic growth: trade less austerity in the short term for medium-term adjustments, such as a higher retirement age. Make sure the rich pay their share, but in a way that makes economic sense: you can boost the tax take from the wealthy by eliminating loopholes while simultaneously lowering marginal rates. Reform finance vigorously. "Move to Basel 3 and higher capital requirements" is not a catchy slogan, but it would do far more to shrink bonuses on Wall Street than most of the ideas echoing across from Zuccotti Park.

The second is telling the truth—especially about what went wrong. The biggest danger is that legitimate criticisms of the excesses of finance risk turning into an unwarranted assault on the whole of globalisation. It is worth remembering that the epicentre of the 2008 disaster was American property, hardly a free market undistorted by government. For all the financiers' faults ("too big to fail", the excessive use of derivatives and the rest of it), the huge hole in most governments' finances stems less from bank bail-outs than from politicians spending too much in the boom and making promises to do with pensions and health care they never could keep. Look behind much of the current misery—from high food prices to the lack of jobs for young Spaniards—and it has less to do with the rise of the emerging world than with state interference.

Global integration has its costs. It will put ever more pressure on Westerners, skilled as well as unskilled. But by any measure the benefits enormously outweigh those costs, and virtually all the ways to create jobs come from opening up economies, not following the protesters' instincts. Western governments have failed their citizens once; building more barriers to stop goods, ideas, capital and people crossing borders would be a far greater mistake. To the extent that the protests are the first blast in a much longer, broader battle, this newspaper is firmly on the side of openness and freedom.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on October 23, 2011, 11:52:46 PM
.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Undermind on October 24, 2011, 10:11:52 AM
http://www.relix.com/blogs/exposed/2011/10/24/pete-seeger-tao-seeger-and-arlo-guthrie-at-occupy-wall-street

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPd_OkeVtI&feature=related
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: PIE-GUY on October 24, 2011, 10:23:53 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 24, 2011, 10:11:52 AM
http://www.relix.com/blogs/exposed/2011/10/24/pete-seeger-tao-seeger-and-arlo-guthrie-at-occupy-wall-street

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPd_OkeVtI&feature=related

Pete Seeger is my hero - go to http://www.nobelprize4pete.org/ (http://www.nobelprize4pete.org/) and sign the petition!!
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 24, 2011, 09:17:08 PM
From Michael Moores

don't think it will happen, but if it does it will be pretty cool

QuoteP.S. I have challenged the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, to come on CNN this Tuesday night and debate the issues with me. We have not heard back, but I will show up nonetheless: Tuesday, 9:00 PM ET/6:00 PM PT, on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. I have asked that they allow in a live studio audience made up of those from the 99% and the Occupy Wall Street protestors. CNN has agreed. Mr. Blankfein, please show up and answer our questions.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on October 24, 2011, 09:26:35 PM
Quote from: slslbs on October 24, 2011, 09:17:08 PM
From Michael Moores

don't think it will happen, but if it does it will be pretty cool

QuoteP.S. I have challenged the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, to come on CNN this Tuesday night and debate the issues with me. We have not heard back, but I will show up nonetheless: Tuesday, 9:00 PM ET/6:00 PM PT, on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. I have asked that they allow in a live studio audience made up of those from the 99% and the Occupy Wall Street protestors. CNN has agreed. Mr. Blankfein, please show up and answer our questions.

i doubt it too, but yes it would be great.
when one of these guys sacks up and agrees to debate him it usually doesn't end too well for them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPqiGiKpYSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 09:45:52 PM
I can't help but feel a little bad for Heston when I watch that...

Just a little.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on October 24, 2011, 09:52:56 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 09:45:52 PM
I can't help but feel a little bad for Heston when I watch that...

Just a little.

Yeah dude was pretty far gone by that point, I am a fan of Moore but that was pretty tasteless IMO.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 24, 2011, 09:52:56 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 09:45:52 PM
I can't help but feel a little bad for Heston when I watch that...

Just a little.

Yeah dude was pretty far gone by that point, I am a fan of Moore but that was pretty tasteless IMO.

Right.
Not to say that Heston didn't hold and/or represent some positions that I personally find distasteful, but that feels like Moore's lowest point.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on October 24, 2011, 10:06:48 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 24, 2011, 09:52:56 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 09:45:52 PM
I can't help but feel a little bad for Heston when I watch that...

Just a little.

Yeah dude was pretty far gone by that point, I am a fan of Moore but that was pretty tasteless IMO.

Right.
Not to say that Heston didn't hold and/or represent some positions that I personally find distasteful, but that feels like Moore's lowest point.

fuck that.  his alzheimers wasnt public knowledge, he was still the NRA spokesman, and he held a NRA convention near littleton shortly after the massacre.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 10:09:55 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on October 24, 2011, 10:06:48 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 24, 2011, 09:52:56 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 24, 2011, 09:45:52 PM
I can't help but feel a little bad for Heston when I watch that...

Just a little.

Yeah dude was pretty far gone by that point, I am a fan of Moore but that was pretty tasteless IMO.

Right.
Not to say that Heston didn't hold and/or represent some positions that I personally find distasteful, but that feels like Moore's lowest point.

fuck that.  his alzheimers wasnt public knowledge, he was still the NRA spokesman, and he held a NRA convention near littleton shortly after the massacre.

I'm conflicted.
It's hard to watch but certainly part of me is cool with burning the old man.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 25, 2011, 12:51:59 PM
Drummers ruin everything. The n+1 and Daily Intel links below are also pretty interesting reads.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/wall-street-occupiers-fear-drummers-will-be-their-undoing/44085/

Quote
Wall Street Occupiers Fear Drummers Will Be Their Undoing

The most pervasive sound at Zuccotti Park, and one of the neighbors' biggest complaints, is that of a group of drummers pounding the skins, and organizers now fear their inability to rein in the constant drumming will kill what support they've gotten and move the park's owners to ask police to clear them out. The occupation reached a compromise at its General Assembly on Monday night, with the drummers agreeing to limit their playing to four hours a day (from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.), but it's not the first time the occupiers have reached an agreement on limiting the drumming, and the fear now is that neighbors, already skeptical of the camp's ability to regulate itself, will decide at Tuesday night's meeting of Community Board 1 that they can't put up with it any longer.

The Zuccotti encampment had passed a regulation on Oct. 13 to limit the drumming to two hours a day, but drummers ignored it. Some neighbors at a community board meeting last week expressed skepticism that the encampment could regulate its percussion section. As one "trusted friend and respected activist" explained to the literary magazine n+1 (http://nplusonemag.com/monday-night-urgent-ows-message), the community support is crucial to keeping police off the back of the encampment.

Quote
At this point we have lost the support of allies in the Community Board and the state senator and city electeds who have been fighting the city to stave off our eviction, get us toilets, etc. On Tuesday there is a Community Board vote, which will be packed with media cameras and community members with real grievances. We have sadly demonstrated to them that we are unable to collectively 1) keep our space and surrounding areas clean and sanitary, 2) keep the park safe, 3) deal with internal conflict and enforce the Good Neighbor Policy that was passed by the General Assembly.

The city backed off a plan to clear protesters out of the park earlier this month, in part because the protesters had the support of local politicians and the community. If they lose that, Zuccotti Park owner Brookfield Office Properties would have far less political opposition to asking the police to clear the protesters out. The problem is, the drummers don't necessarily go along with the general assembly. "This may have been because the drummers did not attend the GA and therefore did not know a consensus had been reached. This sucks for the drummers," one organizer said at last week's community board meeting, according to Firedog Lake. A thread on the group's organizing website nycga.net calls the drummers "poisonous," and from the description n+1's source gave of one disruptive individual, that's pretty apt in some cases:

Quote
Unfortunately there is one individual who is NOT a drummer but who claims to speak for the drummers who has been a deeply disruptive force, attacking the drumming rep during the GA and derailing his proposal, and disrupting the community board meeting, as well as the OWS community relations meeting. She has also created strife and divisions within the POC caucus, calling many members who are not 'on her side' "Uncle Tom", "the 1%", "Barbie" "not Palestinian enough" "Wall Street politicians" "not black enough" "sell-outs", etc. People have been documenting her disruptions, and her campaign of misinformation, and instigations. She also has a documented history online of defamatory, divisive and disruptive behavior within the LGBT (esp. transgender) communities. Her disruptions have made it hard to have constructive conversations and productive resolutions to conflicts in a variety of forums in the past several days.

The drummers have already injected some conflict into the occupation as their working group, Pulse, requested money for new drums after a vandal destroyed some last week, and was denied. They see themselves as a really important part of the movement, as one drummer told Daily Intel last week (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_animal_farm_the_organiz.html?mid=twitter_DailyIntel): "Drumming is the heartbeat of this movement. Look around: This is dead, you need a pulse to keep something alive," drummer Shane Engelerdt said. They also bring in cash, about $150 to $300 a day, of which the occupation organizers take half. "One certainly does not want to see drumming be what brings Occupy Wall Street to an end," wrote Firedoglake's Kevin Goszstola in his account of last week's community board meeting. But if drummers don't knock it off once in a while, it very easily could.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 25, 2011, 03:14:13 PM
when I saw the 1st line of your post (before I saw the quote), I thought it was a dig at me.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 26, 2011, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 25, 2011, 03:14:13 PM
when I saw the 1st line of your post (before I saw the quote), I thought it was a dig at me.

sls, we may not agree on everything, but I thoroughly enjoy your comments. Besides, as a cardiologist, I never would have pegged you for a drummer. Keys or guitar maybe; something that requires a little more precision. :wink:

Meanwhile, more trouble on the Occupy front.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-26/occupy-wall-street-oakland/50922286/1

Quote
Police, protesters clash in Atlanta, Oakland

ATLANTA (AP) – With helicopters hovering overhead, police moved into a downtown Atlanta park early Wednesday and arrested about 50 Occupy Wall Street protesters who had been camped there for about two weeks.

Like in many other cities, protesters had been camping in Woodruff Park to rally against what they see as corporate greed and a wide range of other economic issues.

Before police moved in, protesters were warned a couple of times about midnight to vacate the park or risk arrest.

Inside the park, the warnings were drowned out by drumbeats and chants of "Our park!"

Organizers had instructed participants to be peaceful if arrests came, and most were. Many gathered in the center of the park, locking arms, and sang "We Shall Overcome," until police led them out, one-by-one to waiting buses. Some were dragged out while others left on foot, handcuffed with plastic ties.

Police included SWAT teams in riot gear, dozens of officers on motorcycles and several on horseback. By about 1:30 a.m. Wednesday the park was mostly cleared of protesters.

...

In Oakland, Calif., the scene was tense early Wednesday as a crowd of hundreds of protesters dwindled to just a few dozen at the site of several clashes between authorities and supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement a night earlier.

Police in riot gear stood watch only a few yards away from a group of stalwart demonstrators in the aftermath of skirmishes in front of City Hall that resulted in five volleys of tear gas from police, in blasts that seemed to intensify with each round, over a roughly three-hour stretch of evening scuffles.

The conflict began much earlier in the day when police dismantled an encampment of Occupy Wall Street protesters that had dominated a plaza across the street from the government building for more than two weeks.

Police fired tear gas and beanbag rounds, clearing out the makeshift city in less than an hour.

Hours after nightfall Tuesday evening, protesters had gathered at a downtown library and began marching toward City Hall in an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of the disbanded camp.

They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on October 26, 2011, 09:05:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcwvUKRA0Ok

The guy on the ground is Iraq war vet and member of Veterans For Peace, Scott Olsen.
He's in the hospital with a fractured skull.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on October 26, 2011, 09:41:46 PM


So your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to chicago just to sing   
In a land that's known as freedom how can such a thing be fair
won't you please come to chicago for the help that we can bring

We can change the world rearrange the world
It's dying - to get better

Politicians sit yourselves down, there's nothing for you here
won't you please come to chicago for a ride
don't ask jack to help you `cause he'll turn the other ear
won't you please come to chicago or else join the other side

We can change the world rearrange the world
it's dying - if you believe in justice
dying - and if you believe in freedom
dying - let a man live his own life
dying - rules and regulations, who needs them open up the door

Somehow people must be free I hope the day comes soon
won't you please come to chicago show your face
From the bottom of the ocean to the mountains of the moon   
won't you please come to chicago no one else can take your place

We can change the world rearrange the world
It's dying - if you believe in justice
dying - and if you believe in freedom
dying - let a man live his own life
dying - rules and regulations, who needs them open up the door
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on October 27, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
Interesting read on the origins of OWS and the ideas of the guy who effectively started it.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/david-graeber-the-antileader-of-occupy-wall-street-10262011.html

Quote
David Graeber, the Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street
How the anthropologist, activist, and anarchist helped transform a hapless rally into a global protest movement

David Graeber likes to say that he had three goals for the year: promote his book, learn to drive, and launch a worldwide revolution. The first is going well, the second has proven challenging, and the third is looking up.

Graeber is a 50-year-old anthropologist—among the brightest, some argue, of his generation—who made his name with innovative theories on exchange and value, exploring phenomena such as Iroquois wampum and the Kwakiutl potlatch. An American, he teaches at Goldsmiths, University of London. He's also an anarchist and radical organizer, a veteran of many of the major left-wing demonstrations of the past decade: Quebec City and Genoa, the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia and New York, the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002, the London tuition protests earlier this year. This summer, Graeber was a key member of a small band of activists who quietly planned, then noisily carried out, the occupation of Lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park, providing the focal point for what has grown into an amorphous global movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

It would be wrong to call Graeber a leader of the protesters, since their insistently nonhierarchical philosophy makes such a concept heretical. Nor is he a spokesman, since they have refused thus far to outline specific demands. Even in Zuccotti Park, his name isn't widely known. But he has been one of the group's most articulate voices, able to frame the movement's welter of hopes and grievances within a deeper critique of the historical moment. "We are watching the beginnings of the defiant self-assertion of a new generation of Americans, a generation who are looking forward to finishing their education with no jobs, no future, but still saddled with enormous and unforgivable debt," Graeber wrote in a Sept. 25 editorial published online by the Guardian. "Is it really surprising they would like to have a word with the financial magnates who stole their future?"

...

A "general assembly" means something specific and special to an anarchist. In a way, it's the central concept of contemporary anarchist activism, which is premised on the idea that revolutionary movements relying on coercion of any kind only result in repressive societies. A "GA" is a carefully facilitated group discussion through which decisions are made—not by a few leaders, or even by majority rule, but by consensus. Unresolved questions are referred to working groups within the assembly, but eventually everyone has to agree, even in assemblies that swell into the thousands. It can be an arduous process. One of the things Occupy Wall Street has done is introduce the GA to a wider audience, along with the distinctive sign language participants use to raise questions or express support, disapproval, or outright opposition.

When Graeber and his friends showed up on Aug. 2, however, they found out that the event wasn't, in fact, a general assembly, but a traditional rally, to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands ("A massive public-private jobs program" was one, "An end to oppression and war!" was another). In anarchist argot, the event was being run by "verticals"—top-down organizations—rather than "horizontals" such as Graeber and his friends. Sagri and Graeber felt they'd been had, and they were angry.

What happened next sounds like an anarchist parable. Along with Kohso, the two recruited several other people disgruntled with the proceedings, then walked to the south end of the park and began to hold their own GA, getting down to the business of planning the Sept. 17 occupation. The original dozen or so people gradually swelled, despite the efforts of the event's planners to bring them back to the rally. The tug of war lasted until late in the evening, but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent general assembly.

"The groups that were organizing the rally, they also came along," recalls Kohso. "Then everyone stayed very, very late to organize what committees we needed."

While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow—the decision not to have leaders or even designated police liaisons, the daily GAs and myriad working-group meetings that still form the heart of the protests in Zuccotti Park—all flowed from that.

For Graeber the next month and a half was a carousel of meetings. There were the weekly GAs, the first held near the Irish Hunger Memorial in Battery Park City, the rest in Tompkins Square Park in the East Village. He facilitated some of them and spent much of the rest of his time in working group meetings in people's apartments. (On Aug. 14 he tweeted, "I am so exhausted. My first driving lesson ... then had to facilitate an assembly in Tompkins Square Park for like three hours.") He organized legal and medical training and classes on nonviolent resistance. The group endlessly discussed what demands to make, or whether to have demands at all—a question that months later remains unresolved.

In the Sept. 10 general assembly the group picked the target for their occupation: One Chase Manhattan Plaza. They also picked several backups. So when the police fenced off Chase Plaza the night before the occupation was scheduled to start, the occupiers were prepared. On Sept. 17, barely an hour before the scheduled 3 p.m. start time, the word went out to go to Zuccotti Park instead, and 2,000 people converged on the now famous patch of stone flooring, low benches, and trees. It was a fortunate choice: Zuccotti is a privately owned park, so the city doesn't have the right to remove the protesters. Graeber helped facilitate the GA that night in which they decided to camp out in the park rather than immediately march on Wall Street. Three days later, when he flew to Austin, the protests were still little more than a local New York story.

...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 03, 2011, 11:17:07 AM
http://youtu.be/2JlxbKtBkGM
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
That's pretty funny, although it may constitute mail fraud.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 03, 2011, 12:38:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
That's pretty funny, although it may constitute mail fraud.

You're returning self addressed and paid for envelopes with no personal information being on there, I don't see how you'd get caught.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 03, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 03, 2011, 12:38:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
That's pretty funny, although it may constitute mail fraud.

You're returning self addressed and paid for envelopes with no personal information being on there, I don't see how you'd get caught.

It's not fraud.
It's returning unsolicited materials to the sender.

Why should I bear the burden of recycling their garbage?

The local, small-town, newspaper sends out a free, ad-funded, weekly, piece of shit to all local postal customers. Living across the street from their main office, I collected several weeks worth by my mail slot then carried them over on a random day off.

I dumped them on the receptionist's desk and said, "I do not want this crap."

I stopped getting that crap.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: PIE-GUY on November 03, 2011, 01:39:54 PM
I thought this was worth posting...

(https://s-hphotos-iad1.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/335382_278160732215639_100000651442523_869744_955562876_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/300942_10150369364053177_312411568176_8502440_1746641106_n.jpg)




A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on November 07, 2011, 09:32:06 AM
The Occupy Charlottesville folks have had to deal with trouble from some of the local hobos. They're apparently pissed that their favorite hangout spot has been taken over by the Occupy people, last night a homeless man was caught dumping lighter fluid on one of the tents. He was charged with attempted arson.

I thought hobos were part of the 99%????
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: PIE-GUY on November 07, 2011, 09:51:49 AM
http://teamcoco.com/video/triumph-occupy-wall-st (http://teamcoco.com/video/triumph-occupy-wall-st)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 07, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/300942_10150369364053177_312411568176_8502440_1746641106_n.jpg)




A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   

Completely. Buying local goods, from local stores keeps 0.70 of every dollar in your community, vs. buying at a big name store in which only 0.43 cents stays in your area. The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 07, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 07, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/300942_10150369364053177_312411568176_8502440_1746641106_n.jpg)




A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   

Completely. Buying local goods, from local stores keeps 0.70 of every dollar in your community, vs. buying at a big name store in which only 0.43 cents stays in your area. The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters.

That other 27 cents doesn't just go to some company's pockets, it just gets sucked out of your area and will be paid through taxes elsewhere.  I'd like to hear your explanation.

I am in total agreement with you on your point of buying local for more reasons than just the tax revenues.  Its responsible on a number of levels that go beyond money.  The environment, neighborly behavior, etc. all play a part as well as the tax revenue.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 08, 2011, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 07, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 07, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM


A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   

Completely. Buying local goods, from local stores keeps 0.70 of every dollar in your community, vs. buying at a big name store in which only 0.43 cents stays in your area. The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters.

That other 27 cents doesn't just go to some company's pockets, it just gets sucked out of your area and will be paid through taxes elsewhere.  I'd like to hear your explanation.

I am in total agreement with you on your point of buying local for more reasons than just the tax revenues.  Its responsible on a number of levels that go beyond money.  The environment, neighborly behavior, etc. all play a part as well as the tax revenue.

I don't get the question. I think we said the same thing, point being, the money doesn't stay in your community.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on November 08, 2011, 01:27:14 PM
Teddy. What a socialist.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 08, 2011, 01:31:14 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 08, 2011, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 07, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 07, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM


A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   

Completely. Buying local goods, from local stores keeps 0.70 of every dollar in your community, vs. buying at a big name store in which only 0.43 cents stays in your area. The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters.

That other 27 cents doesn't just go to some company's pockets, it just gets sucked out of your area and will be paid through taxes elsewhere.  I'd like to hear your explanation.

I am in total agreement with you on your point of buying local for more reasons than just the tax revenues.  Its responsible on a number of levels that go beyond money.  The environment, neighborly behavior, etc. all play a part as well as the tax revenue.

I don't get the question. I think we said the same thing, point being, the money doesn't stay in your community.

I was unsure if your stance regarding "The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters" was meant as an argument that some fat cats are taking the other 0.27 or if it was more of an argument that 0.27 less stays in your community.  I wasn't trying to start anything, just curious which argument, because I see them a little differently.  I am on the side of 0.27 less stays in the community and that's why you should do it. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 08, 2011, 01:41:12 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 08, 2011, 01:31:14 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 08, 2011, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 07, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 07, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM


A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   

Completely. Buying local goods, from local stores keeps 0.70 of every dollar in your community, vs. buying at a big name store in which only 0.43 cents stays in your area. The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters.

That other 27 cents doesn't just go to some company's pockets, it just gets sucked out of your area and will be paid through taxes elsewhere.  I'd like to hear your explanation.

I am in total agreement with you on your point of buying local for more reasons than just the tax revenues.  Its responsible on a number of levels that go beyond money.  The environment, neighborly behavior, etc. all play a part as well as the tax revenue.

I don't get the question. I think we said the same thing, point being, the money doesn't stay in your community.

I was unsure if your stance regarding "The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters" was meant as an argument that some fat cats are taking the other 0.27 or if it was more of an argument that 0.27 less stays in your community.  I wasn't trying to start anything, just curious which argument, because I see them a little differently.  I am on the side of 0.27 less stays in the community and that's why you should do it.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. BTW, VA Beach denied occupiers a permit to set up in Town Center. HA HA! If you have to ask for permission, you're doing it wrong!

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 08, 2011, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 08, 2011, 01:41:12 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 08, 2011, 01:31:14 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 08, 2011, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 07, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 07, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: nab on November 06, 2011, 09:00:34 PM


A good reminder that there is a personal responsibility quotient to change.  Rallies and protests are all dramatic and all, but its the little things that really count, and they start at home.   

Completely. Buying local goods, from local stores keeps 0.70 of every dollar in your community, vs. buying at a big name store in which only 0.43 cents stays in your area. The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters.

That other 27 cents doesn't just go to some company's pockets, it just gets sucked out of your area and will be paid through taxes elsewhere.  I'd like to hear your explanation.

I am in total agreement with you on your point of buying local for more reasons than just the tax revenues.  Its responsible on a number of levels that go beyond money.  The environment, neighborly behavior, etc. all play a part as well as the tax revenue.

I don't get the question. I think we said the same thing, point being, the money doesn't stay in your community.

I was unsure if your stance regarding "The rest obviously, heads to come far off corporate headquarters" was meant as an argument that some fat cats are taking the other 0.27 or if it was more of an argument that 0.27 less stays in your community.  I wasn't trying to start anything, just curious which argument, because I see them a little differently.  I am on the side of 0.27 less stays in the community and that's why you should do it.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. BTW, VA Beach denied occupiers a permit to set up in Town Center. HA HA! If you have to ask for permission, you're doing it wrong!

1 - It is easier better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
2 - What a bunch of idiots.  You can't throw a frisbee on the BEACH.  Why would VB allow people to "protest?"  HA! Rookies.

But I just read that article, and its just about tents.  They have an amplified noise permit for a week.  The weather is supposed to be nice all week though so not really a big deal.   



Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 14, 2011, 07:59:56 AM
Occupy Oakland is about to get raided again; like right NOW.

LOTS of cops.

http://www.ustream.tv/occupyoakland

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: qop24 on November 14, 2011, 09:44:30 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 14, 2011, 07:59:56 AM
Occupy Oakland is about to get raided again; like right NOW.

LOTS of cops.

http://www.ustream.tv/occupyoakland

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

They certainly aren't messin around over there.....What is this? Phish lot at MPP?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 08:01:16 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html

Quote
Police Clear Zuccotti Park of Protesters

Hundreds of New York City police officers early Tuesday cleared the park in Lower Manhattan that had been the nexus of the Occupy Wall Street movement, arresting dozens of people there after warning that the nearly two-month-old camp would be "cleared and restored" but that demonstrators who did not leave would face arrest.

The protesters, about 200 of whom have been staying in the park overnight, initially resisted with chants of "Whose park? Our park!"

The massive operation in and around Zuccotti Park was intended to empty the birthplace of a protest movement that inspired hundreds of tent cities from coast to coast. On Monday in Oakland, Calif., hundreds of police officers raided the main encampment there, arresting 33 people. Protesters returned later in the day. But the Oakland police said no one would be allowed to sleep there anymore, and promised to clear a second camp nearby.

In Lower Manhattan, as officers moved in and began tearing down tents, the protesters rallied around an area known as the kitchen, near the middle of the park, and began putting up makeshift barricades with tables and pieces of scrap wood.

Over the next two hours, dozens of protesters left the park while a core group of about 100 dug in around the food area. Many locked arms and defied police orders to leave. By 3 a.m., dozens of officers in helmets, watched over by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, closed in on those who remained. The police pulled them out one by one and handcuffed them. Most were led out without incident.

The Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, told The Associated Press that 70 people had been arrested in the park, including some who had chained themselves together.

The officers had gathered between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges earlier and rode in vans to the one-square-block park. They entered about 1 a.m.

As they did, dozens of protesters linked arms and shouted "No retreat, no surrender," "This is our home" and "Barricade!"

The mayor's office sent out a message on Twitter at 1:19 a.m. saying: "Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared." Fliers handed out by the police at the private park on behalf of the park's owner, Brookfield Properties, and the city, spelled out the same message.

A number of other arrests were reported just outside the park, as police tried to move supporters of the protesters away from the park. Details were not immediately available. There were several additional arrests after the park was cleared when protesters who refused to leave a nearby street were taken into custody.

Early Tuesday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg issued a statement explaining the reasoning behind the action. He spoke about the need to balance the right of free speech with public safety and health concerns.

"I have become increasingly concerned – as had the park's owner, Brookfield Properties – that the occupation was coming to pose a health and fire safety hazard to the protestors and to the surrounding community," Mr. Bloomberg said. "We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park. But make no mistake – the final decision to act was mine."

Mr. Bloomberg stressed that the protesters would still be able to use the park, as long as they complied with the rules, that ban things such as tents and sleeping bags.

"Protestors have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags," he said. "Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments."

The police move came as organizers put out word on their Web site that they planned to "shut down Wall Street" with a demonstration on Thursday to commemorate the completion of two months of the beginning of the encampment, which has spurred similar demonstrations across the country.

"I have become increasingly concerned – as had the park's owner, Brookfield Properties – that the occupation was coming to pose a health and fire safety hazard to the protestors and to the surrounding community," Mr. Bloomberg said. "We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park. But make no mistake – the final decision to act was mine."

Mr. Bloomberg stressed that the protesters would still be able to use the park, as long as they complied with the rules, that ban things such as tents and sleeping bags.

"Protestors have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags," he said. "Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments."

...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 08:19:25 AM
Brookfield didn't ask that the park be vacated.
Bloomberg et al did it on their own.

While doing so, they barred the press from accessing the park area, declared the park airspace a no-fly zone (CBS helicopter turned away) and generally trampled several constitutional freedoms.

It doesn't matter. They will be back and this will grow.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 09:28:49 AM
The National Lawyers Guild says it has obtained a court [order] that allows Occupy Wall St. protesters to return with tents to a New York City park.
The guild says the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the city knew about the court order but has not seen it. He says the city plans to go court immediately.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OCCUPY_ZUCCOTTI?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-15-08-50-53
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 10:05:10 AM
Why should the protestors continue the occupation at this point? How long should it continue, since reversing income inequality and removing the power of money from the political process are not going to be solved by the 2012 election? I just don't understand why they would want to continually defy any reasonable actions.

AdBusters is admitting it is time to "declare victory" and pull the occupation back (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/occupy-movement-could-declare-victory-and-scale-back-camps-founder-suggests/). The most recent Quinnipiac poll says only 30% of the country has a favorable view of the movement. (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/occupy-wall-streets-image-problem/248421/) It seems to me that if the movement really wants to bring about change, it is time to get serious about their tactics. If they want to continue to fall out of the public's favor, than continuing the occupation (a throughly undemocratic method of protest, BTW) is a brilliant way to go about it.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 10:12:14 AM
They should stop protesting because they won't achieve their goals right away?

*reminds self why he ignored that guy to begin with*
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 10:12:14 AM
They should stop protesting because they won't achieve their goals right away?

*reminds self why he ignored that guy to begin with*

Protesting is not the same thing as occupying. I think you're smart enough to know that.

Also,

Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 08:19:25 AM
Brookfield didn't ask that the park be vacated.
Bloomberg et al did it on their own.

"Police handed out notices from the park's owner, Brookfield Office Properties, that said the continued occupation posed a health and fire hazard." (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

"He added that on Monday, Brookfield asked the city to assist in enforcing 'the no sleeping and camping rules'." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html)

"The only people inside were employees of property owner Brookfield Properties, which had asked for the city crackdown." (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/court-order-city-t-occupy-wall-street-protesters-stuff-zuccotti-park-article-1.977674)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 10:38:45 AM
The occupation is a form of protest.

The fact that it's a thorn in some toes is a good thing.

Looks like Brookfield lied to the neighborhood relations committee at ows, then.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 10:38:45 AM
The occupation is a form of protest.

The fact that it's a thorn in some toes is a good thing.

But it's not a thorn in the right people's toes.

The Fed is biding their time for QE3, which like the previous 2 installments, would directly benefit the banks at the expense of people paying ever rising food and gas prices. Fannie/Freddie just gave 10 executives $13M in bonuses while simultaneously asking for another $7B in bailouts. Un/underemployment rate is around 16%.

Meanwhile, small businesses and neighbors of Zuccotti Park were to protest the occupation last night (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/near-zuccotti-park-protesting-the-protest/). Blue collar dock workers lost a day's pay when they shut down the Port of Oakland. There have been reports of sexual assault and sanitation problems at every single encampment across the country. And 3 people dies of gun shots last week.

Is this really what a protest should look like?

Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 10:38:45 AM
Looks like Brookfield lied to the neighborhood relations committee at ows, then.

That sounds about right.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: qop24 on November 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Charlottesville is auto-renewing the protest permits at the park here to make it easier on them. This is the first time cville has ever auto-renewed a permit.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Coincidentally, I think the ire of the protestors should be focused on DC more than Wall St.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Forgive me for jumping in mid thread but....


Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

When exactly were their voices heard?

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Coincidentally, I think the ire of the protestors should be focused on DC more than Wall St.

Aren't the protestors now walking to DC?


IMO OWS will not go quietly into the night, and I personally am very happy about that.         
                           
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on November 15, 2011, 01:33:23 PM
Quote from: qop24 on November 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Charlottesville is auto-renewing the protest permits at the park here to make it easier on them. This is the first time cville has ever auto-renewed a permit.

The occupy charlottesville folks have, however, shifted their focus from economics to defending themselves from the all-out assault on them by the local hobos.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Forgive me for jumping in mid thread but....


Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

When exactly were their voices heard?

In the 60 days they've been camping out in a park which prohibits parking. Although I understand how you would have missed it since the message is so confused it's hard to hear anything coming out of it. Kinda like when Trey does his "This is what it sounds like when you guys scream stuff" bit.

Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Coincidentally, I think the ire of the protestors should be focused on DC more than Wall St.

Aren't the protestors now walking to DC?               

I'm not sure if this is a joke or if they are truly marching to DC. Either way, my point was that on my list of culpability for the financial crisis, gov't is the worst offender.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: qop24 on November 15, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: phil on November 15, 2011, 01:33:23 PM
Quote from: qop24 on November 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Charlottesville is auto-renewing the protest permits at the park here to make it easier on them. This is the first time cville has ever auto-renewed a permit.

The occupy charlottesville folks have, however, shifted their focus from economics to defending themselves from the all-out assault on them by the local hobos.

Sad...but true.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Forgive me for jumping in mid thread but....


Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

When exactly were their voices heard?

In the 60 days they've been camping out in a park which prohibits parking. Although I understand how you would have missed it since the message is so confused it's hard to hear anything coming out of it. Kinda like when Trey does his "This is what it sounds like when you guys scream stuff" bit.

Maybe you missed my point...who exactly heard what they are saying? demanding? Did the people they are trying to reach on Wall St, Govt, etc have some sort of secret meeting with OWS that we don't know about? Did anyone ever sit down with them, government officials, business owners, etc and listen to their list of demands and even consider what they are asking for? The answer is NO, if someone had taken the time to listen to them they wouldn't still be camped there, there wouldn't be a list of demands...Occupy movements would not be starting all over the nation.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
You sound like Bloomberg.

Next you'll be suggesting they buy suits and lobbyists.

Well I am a billionaire.

Why has every other mayor of a major city echoed his comments? Cities have gone above and beyond letting the protestors have their say. They have suspended rules and allowed the protestors' voices to be heard. But despite that it has devolved into people resisting for no better reason than they don't want the Man telling them what to do.

There is a process to affect change. You can still organize and march and protest within the confines of the law without the occupation. But insisting that this is the only way is setting the movement up for failure.

DC doesn't have problems with two parks being occupied.

/just sayin'

Coincidentally, I think the ire of the protestors should be focused on DC more than Wall St.

Aren't the protestors now walking to DC?               

I'm not sure if this is a joke or if they are truly marching to DC. Either way, my point was that on my list of culpability for the financial crisis, gov't is the worst offender.

This most certainly is not a joke, I assumed someone so up to date on world matters would have known about this....

http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-highway-99-march-washington/ (http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-highway-99-march-washington/)
Our route is as follows:
11/9/11: Liberty Square to Elizabeth, NJ
11/10/11: Elizabeth, NJ to New Brunswick, NJ
11/11/11: New Brunswick, NJ to Trenton, NJ
11/12/11: Trenton, NJ to Andalusia, PA
11/13/11: Andalusia, PA to Occupy Philly
11/14/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY PHILLY
11/15/11: Occupy Philly to Wilmington, DE
11/16/11: Wilmington, DE to Newark, DE
11/17/11: Newark, DE to Rising Sun, MD
11/18/11: Rising Sun, MD to Bel Air, MD
11/19/11: Bel Air, MD to Occupy Baltimore
11/20/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY BALTIMORE
11/21/11: Occupy Baltimore to Laurel, MD
11/22/11: Laurel, MD to Occupy DC
11/23/11: Occupy DC to The White House for Super Committee meeting
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 15, 2011, 03:22:46 PM
lolz, sweet pwnage fuzzy.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 04:10:08 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
Maybe you missed my point...who exactly heard what they are saying? demanding? Did the people they are trying to reach on Wall St, Govt, etc have some sort of secret meeting with OWS that we don't know about? Did anyone ever sit down with them, government officials, business owners, etc and listen to their list of demands and even consider what they are asking for? The answer is NO, if someone had taken the time to listen to them they wouldn't still be camped there, there wouldn't be a list of demands...Occupy movements would not be starting all over the nation.


Is that what you are expecting? For "Wall St" & gov't officials to have a high profile meeting with the protesters to work out an amicable solution? Where would this meeting take place? Since this is a "leaderless movement", who would participate in the meeting? If that's what you/they are expecting, it's going to be a loooong occupation.

The problem is this is not a serious movement. There are no serious demands. Free health care and education for all? Forgiveness of all student loan debt? Down with capitalism? These aren't solutions, even to the problems they claim to represent.

Movements are starting all over the country because people are scared, and rightfully so. They see a jobless recovery. They see bitter partisan bickering. They see the militarization of the police force. But it's not because the movement hasn't been given a chance to develop and grow into something meaningful.

Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 15, 2011, 03:15:04 PM

This most certainly is not a joke, I assumed someone so up to date on world matters would have known about this....

http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-highway-99-march-washington/ (http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-highway-99-march-washington/)
Our route is as follows:
11/9/11: Liberty Square to Elizabeth, NJ
11/10/11: Elizabeth, NJ to New Brunswick, NJ
11/11/11: New Brunswick, NJ to Trenton, NJ
11/12/11: Trenton, NJ to Andalusia, PA
11/13/11: Andalusia, PA to Occupy Philly
11/14/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY PHILLY
11/15/11: Occupy Philly to Wilmington, DE
11/16/11: Wilmington, DE to Newark, DE
11/17/11: Newark, DE to Rising Sun, MD
11/18/11: Rising Sun, MD to Bel Air, MD
11/19/11: Bel Air, MD to Occupy Baltimore
11/20/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY BALTIMORE
11/21/11: Occupy Baltimore to Laurel, MD
11/22/11: Laurel, MD to Occupy DC
11/23/11: Occupy DC to The White House for Super Committee meeting


You're right, it's hard to believe I missed the 24 people marching to Washington or the blog post about it on the OWS website. I can't believe I missed that parade on the highway on my way into work the other day.  :roll:

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a condescending personal comment though. I'll restrain from playing that game, I'd rather have a serious discussion.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 04:56:49 PM
No. You'd rather parrot your talking points.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 04:56:49 PM
No. You'd rather parrot your talking points.

LOL. Dude, every article you reference comes from HuffPo or Mother Jones and you're claiming I rely on talking points? You make wildly speculative comments that are completely detached from reality. I'd love to hear you articulate and defend an original thought, but I know how much you love brevity.

But, if you want to have a discussion about the merits of the occupation and what the protests should be aiming for and how to go about it, this conversation would take a sharp turn for the better.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 05:32:50 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Quote
New York court upholds eviction of "Occupy" protesters

New York (CNN) -- A New York Supreme Court has ruled not to extend a temporary restraining order that prevented the eviction of "Occupy" protesters who were encamped at Zuccotti Park, considered a home-base for demonstrators.

Police in riot gear cleared out the protesters early Tuesday morning, a move that attorneys for the loosely defined group say was unlawful.

But Justice Michael Stallman later ruled in favor of New York city officials and Brookfield properties, owners and developers of the privately-owned park in Lower Manhattan.

The order does not prevent protesters from gathering in the park, but says their First Amendment rights not do include remaining there, "along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park."

Earlier Tuesday, at least two people were seen jumping over a metal barricade before they were forcibly removed by authorities.

Video of the park showed security officers picking up one protester and tossing the individual over the fence.

"The mayor, the police have been itching to do this for weeks," said Bill Dobbs, a spokesman for the loosely defined group. "We're here to raise an outcry about economic conditions and not get into confrontations with police."

Hundreds of police and private security guards filled the park and the surrounding area Tuesday, as demonstrators circled their former home base.

City officials, meanwhile, said they had intended to allow protests to resume at the park, but added they would not allow demonstrators to set up tents or camp. The park would remain closed until officials sort out the legal situation, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said earlier Tuesday.

"We have an obligation to enforce the laws today, to make sure that everybody has access to the park so everybody can protest. That's the First Amendment and it's number one on our minds," he said. "We also have a similar, just as important obligation to protect the health and safety of the people in the park."

...
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 06:40:22 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2011, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 04:56:49 PM
No. You'd rather parrot your talking points.

LOL. Dude, every article you reference comes from HuffPo or Mother Jones and you're claiming I rely on talking points? You make wildly speculative comments that are completely detached from reality. I'd love to hear you articulate and defend an original thought, but I know how much you love brevity.

But, if you want to have a discussion about the merits of the occupation and what the protests should be aiming for and how to go about it, this conversation would take a sharp turn for the better.

Debating with you is less fruitful than talking to a wall.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 07:49:03 PM
ANYWAY

OccupyDC took over the DC headquarters of Brookfield Properties (owners of Zucotti Park) tonight.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/occupy-dc-marches-in-support-of-occupy-wall-street.php


In other news, evictions were coordinated:
http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: shoreline99 on November 17, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Here's a couple of links liveblogging the events in NYC today.

http://gothamist.com/2011/11/17/occupy_wall_street_tries_to_march_o.php

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Showdown_at_Zuccotti_Park_The_NYPDs_raid_on_Occupy_Wall_Street_NYC

Personally, I agree with this woman about their tactics, who commented:

Quote"If you want wealth equality and income redistribution you might as well live in a communist country," she said, "I'm part of the 99% and I don't mind it."

Furthermore, she said, the groups tactics - specifically, not working and 'occupying' parts of New York City - are not productive.

"My boss, I'm pretty sure he didn't get where he is, work his way up the ladder, by protesting and going camping for two months," she quipped.

:justsayin:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
Thanks for the links, shoreline. I was looking for somewhere to get some live updates. It's just too bad that woman you quoted doesn't understand that they're doing it for her.

Quote
Update 9:38 a.m.: Shortly after 9 a.m., there was jubilant cheering from protesters under the impression that the NYSE opening bell had been delayed. But the bell is rung daily at 9:30 a.m., and that just happened, as usual.

Lulz
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 17, 2011, 11:35:43 AM
My confusion around the Occupy protests centers on just what "fair" means.  I agree with the general sentiment of the movement, that wealth disparity is growing in the country and that disparirty has been enabled by Washington, greed, and a complacent society. I agree  that certainly feels unfair.  As a serious student of history, I am cautious of arguments based on historical data given that most people who present those arguments are unaware of the how to frame those statistics in a historically responsable way. 

I am afraid that ultimately, any number concocted to remedy that situation, weither by regulation or taxation, is really just a shot in the dark, one based on sentiment and feeling rather than rationality.  If the movement is going to gain my support I'm gonna need a little more than slogans and general anti-capitialist rhetoric.  I need a sound plan that makes a rational argument for change and I need to know that the Occupy groups espouse those arguements, at least generally.  Without central, rationally constructed arguements, its hard for me not to view the Occupy movement as little more than a left leaning party enamored with 60's style demonstration. 

It's still pretty early in the movement, I'm holding out final judgement until things mature a little bit. 

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on November 17, 2011, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
Quote
Update 9:38 a.m.: Shortly after 9 a.m., there was jubilant cheering from protesters under the impression that the NYSE opening bell had been delayed. But the bell is rung daily at 9:30 a.m., and that just happened, as usual.

That's pretty funny right there.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 12:24:27 PM
Quote from: nab on November 17, 2011, 11:35:43 AM
My confusion around the Occupy protests centers on just what "fair" means.  I agree with the general sentiment of the movement, that wealth disparity is growing in the country and that disparirty has been enabled by Washington, greed, and a complacent society. I agree  that certainly feels unfair.  As a serious student of history, I am cautious of arguments based on historical data given that most people who present those arguments are unaware of the how to frame those statistics in a historically responsable way. 

I am afraid that ultimately, any number concocted to remedy that situation, weither by regulation or taxation, is really just a shot in the dark, one based on sentiment and feeling rather than rationality.  If the movement is going to gain my support I'm gonna need a little more than slogans and general anti-capitialist rhetoric.  I need a sound plan that makes a rational argument for change and I need to know that the Occupy groups espouse those arguements, at least generally.  Without central, rationally constructed arguements, its hard for me not to view the Occupy movement as little more than a left leaning party enamored with 60's style demonstration. 

It's still pretty early in the movement, I'm holding out final judgement until things mature a little bit.

Well said, nab.

I think my frustration with the protesters comes from the lack of clarity in the movement. The financial crisis and resulting recession provided an amazing opportunity to affect real change and to address many of the underlying issues the protesters are talking about. But they have consciously chosen to make this a movement about ideas (oftentimes the wrong ideas, IMO) and not solutions.

Of course the gov't should not be bailing banks out, but that doesn't mean they should be bailing you out. Obviously money has too much influence over gov't, but you can't solve that by giving more power to the gov't. Yes, college is too expensive and anyone who wants to go should have that option, but forgiving student loan debt will make that more difficult, not less.

Like you said, greater regulation/taxation is not a systemic change. It is a reactionary response that would ultimately lead to greater inequity. Perhaps I should be as tempered in my response to the movement as you, but I just feel like I can see where this is going and it is not where it should be. I honestly do hope I am wrong.

I also feel like getting "evicted" from the park and other occupations is the best possible thing for the movement. That was a tactic to get noticed and prove that they are sick of the current state of things. It worked. Now it is time to decide what they are protesting for and how they envision implementing the change they seek. If they can't do that and continue to fixate on occupying everything and the evils of an economic system from which they continue to benefit, OWS will be this decade's WTO protest and remembered only as a fleeting pastime.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on November 17, 2011, 12:38:16 PM
Ultimately, for better or worse, change comes from within the system itself. We aren't in the habit of holding periodic coups.

The movement will remain nebulous and somewhat ineffective until it inspires (as happened with the tea party movement) candidates who are able to coalesce the OWS sentiments into coherent, actionable ideas and strategies -- and then, of course, get elected on those ideas and put them into place.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 01:56:05 PM
Sounds like chaos in Zuccotti Park

Quote
1:52 PM Anjali Mullany John Doyle reports that a cop has been hit in the head by a bottle in Zuccotti Park.


Quote
1:53 PM Meena Hartenstein DEVELOPING: Our photographer is hearing over the police radio that an officer has been stabbed in the hand in the park.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 17, 2011, 02:12:24 PM
Funny how you don't mention the protester who was stomped into a curb by the police while they prevented citizens from entering or exiting the park.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on November 17, 2011, 03:13:35 PM
You can tell Fox News is taking these folks seriously...  :roll:

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-L6Mr5DoCGDM/TsVqnieY7RI/AAAAAAAACXI/LVVnnjjAIzI/s675/Screen%252520shot%2525202011-11-17%252520at%2525203.10.56%252520PM.png)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 17, 2011, 03:15:55 PM
Yeah pretty convinced that jimbo is a mole for Fox News at this point.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 17, 2011, 03:15:55 PM
Yeah pretty convinced that jimbo is a mole for Fox News at this point.

If I remember correctly, you were the neocon defending the invasion of Libya and the assassination of al-Awlaki. Just because we don't see eye to eye on economic issues doesn't mean you have to get all hurtful.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: shoreline99 on November 17, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
From the NY POST

Quote
...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, “Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!”

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: “This isn’t City Hall?”

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: “There it is! That’s City Hall!” and the chanting resumed.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 17, 2011, 03:34:00 PM
Regardless of the origin or the perpetrators, violence based on percieved differences is not part of a democratic or rational process.


That goes for the protesters and the cops imo.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Quote from: shoreline99 on November 17, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
From the NY POST

Quote
...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.
LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 17, 2011, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Quote from: shoreline99 on November 17, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
From the NY POST

Quote
...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.
LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.

Your point is right on, but yes, it is idealistic.  I don't want to call it naive or unrealistic because I hope as well, I just don't see it changing anytime soon.  The reality is the $ has and probably always will make the US keep ticking. 

Hopefully there is a way to make it better, but when you go into the wrong building, its hard to make your point.   :-P
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 17, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Quote from: shoreline99 on November 17, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
From the NY POST

Quote
...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.
LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.



I suppose what I was getting at in the whole fairness descussion is that I am looking for an arguement somewhere along the lines of:


Fairness=X, where X is a real number that can be defined  by Y, where Y=emperical data used to support X.  Ideally, X would also be supported philosophically through a strong ethical arguement that can opperate outside of partisan rhetoric. 




Edit:  Now who's the idealist, lol
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 17, 2011, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 17, 2011, 03:15:55 PM
Yeah pretty convinced that jimbo is a mole for Fox News at this point.

If I remember correctly, you were the neocon defending the invasion of Libya and the assassination of al-Awlaki. Just because we don't see eye to eye on economic issues doesn't mean you have to get all hurtful.

We invaded Libya?

Necons supported our actions there?

Both news to me.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 17, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: nab on November 17, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Quote from: shoreline99 on November 17, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
From the NY POST

Quote
...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.
LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.



I suppose what I was getting at in the whole fairness descussion is that I am looking for an arguement somewhere along the lines of:


Fairness=X, where X is a real number that can be defined  by Y, where Y=emperical data used to support X.  Ideally, X would also be supported philosophically through a strong ethical arguement that can opperate outside of partisan rhetoric. 




Edit:  Now who's the idealist, lol

I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?
 
Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

Quote from: goodabouthood on November 17, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 17, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

Quote from: goodabouthood on November 17, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.

I didn't. I seriously think you might have reading comprehension issues. I'm not even trying to be a dick about that. Did you read the sentence where I asked why we can't have elected officials that work for the people? By that I mean that they're to blame as well. I'll try and write in shorter sentences with less confusion for you.

::deletes the rest of my rant on why while you're well read, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in::

Now, how the fuck do you turn ignore on? In 3+ years of being on here, I've never had to use it before.  :|
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 17, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

Quote from: goodabouthood on November 17, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.

I didn't. I seriously think you might have reading comprehension issues. I'm not even trying to be a dick about that. Did you read the sentence where I asked why we can't have elected officials that work for the people? By that I mean that they're to blame as well. I'll try and write in shorter sentences with less confusion for you.

::deletes the rest of my rant on why while you're well read, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in::

Now, how the fuck do you turn ignore on? In 3+ years of being on here, I've never had to use it before.  :|

Of course you were trying to be a dick about it. I don't give a shit, but don't kid yourself into thinking you said that for my benefit.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the second part of your comment to mean that the elected officials can't work for the people because they've been bought off by the corrupt corporations (as you say in the first part). Maybe I should have said "most of the blame," but does that really make a difference?

I don't post here to try to change anyone's mind. I have a different take than most around here on economic issues and I'm just putting that forth; what you do with it is up to you. If you want to freak out about it because you disagree, that's fine. If you want to engage me in a discussion about why I believe these things or challenge me as to how I could possibly believe that, I'm happy to have that conversation (as I often do with people like twatts and slslbs and Voodoobrew). But seeing as you don't know shit about me outside of a couple months posting on a message board, I don't know how you could assume anything about my reality and whether it does or doesn't resemble the world "the rest of us live in" where everyone thinks like you.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phuzzyfish12 on November 17, 2011, 09:33:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 17, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

Quote from: goodabouthood on November 17, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.

I didn't. I seriously think you might have reading comprehension issues. I'm not even trying to be a dick about that. Did you read the sentence where I asked why we can't have elected officials that work for the people? By that I mean that they're to blame as well. I'll try and write in shorter sentences with less confusion for you.

::deletes the rest of my rant on why while you're well read, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in::

Now, how the fuck do you turn ignore on? In 3+ years of being on here, I've never had to use it before.  :|

Of course you were trying to be a dick about it. I don't give a shit, but don't kid yourself into thinking you said that for my benefit.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the second part of your comment to mean that the elected officials can't work for the people because they've been bought off by the corrupt corporations (as you say in the first part). Maybe I should have said "most of the blame," but does that really make a difference?

I don't post here to try to change anyone's mind. I have a different take than most around here on economic issues and I'm just putting that forth; what you do with it is up to you. If you want to freak out about it because you disagree, that's fine. If you want to engage me in a discussion about why I believe these things or challenge me as to how I could possibly believe that, I'm happy to have that conversation (as I often do with people like twatts and slslbs and Voodoobrew). But seeing as you don't know shit about me outside of a couple months posting on a message board, I don't know how you could assume anything about my reality and whether it does or doesn't resemble the world "the rest of us live in" where everyone thinks like you.

In all fairness RJB, GAH's comment wasn't directed to a post of yours. You are the one that quoted it and had to make a dick comment first. I don't GAH in real life, but from what I know of him on the boards he's a pretty cool guy and I've never known him to try and provoke anyone.

So why don't you enlighten us on who you are? Not trying to be a bitch at all, but maybe if we knew who you were we could understand where you are coming from, because I for one agree 100% with GAH, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in.




Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 18, 2011, 12:15:22 AM
I have had some real life experience with GAH and can attest to his nature as a stand up guy and a real decent human being.


That said, I believe that personal attacks serve little use in a political forum. 

I've disagreed with many on this board for various reasons, but I can't think of a single regular member of this forum that I don't consider to be a thoughtful and reasonable person.


Let's keep the context of the political forum in check and attack ideas and not personalities.  We're dealing with hard realities discussing matters in this forum and attacking each other does little to enlighten anyone.   
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 08:13:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CxG4g62rnd8
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lutzpihHqe1qdhclzo1_500.jpg)
(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/12947109902/3/tumblr_lutzpihHqe1qdhclz)

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/17/interview-with-the-occupy-wall.html



Also:

(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/12960569323/1/tumblr_luu855gK3A1qdhclz)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 18, 2011, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 17, 2011, 09:33:56 PM
In all fairness RJB, GAH's comment wasn't directed to a post of yours. You are the one that quoted it and had to make a dick comment first. I don't GAH in real life, but from what I know of him on the boards he's a pretty cool guy and I've never known him to try and provoke anyone.

So why don't you enlighten us on who you are? Not trying to be a bitch at all, but maybe if we knew who you were we could understand where you are coming from, because I for one agree 100% with GAH, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in.

I wasn't questioning GAH's character, I was asking him to clarify his position. I didn't intend it to come off as anything other than that and I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to make a dick comment as you seem to think I did. Nothing I post is done maliciously or condescending; I may be a bit sarcastic at times, but I am generally doing that to make the discussion less heated, not more.

I am interested in discussing complicated issues with people who, for the most part, don't have the same viewpoint as me. I enjoy that. It gives me insight into other people's opinions and it enhances my own views as I try to articulate my position in a way that may or may not resonate with people on the other side. Mattstick and I, for example, had a discussion earlier in this thread where we both presented our opposing thoughts on OWS pretty passionately but completely rational. We probably still disagreed at the end of the conversation and while I can't speak for him I know I benefited from that interaction as I had a new found understanding and respect for his arguments. In my mind, that's what this forum should be about.

I don't see the need to lay out my life story to explain where I'm coming from. I've posted numerous times about how I went from vehemently supporting Obama through donations and volunteering during the 2008 campaign to becoming more and more disillusioned during his term. It's probably that disappointment that has made me lose faith in politicians so I've turned to free market principles as the only way to get us out of this morass. I respect people's right to make their own decisions because I don't think anyone else has a right to dictate how another should live their life as long as they are not infringing on others' rights. I'd be happy to engage in a legitimate discussion on the merits of that philosophy, but not if you insist on telling me how detached from reality I am.

I like this debate. I enjoy a healthy discussion between people of opposing views. If you want to ignore me or continue to think I'm an idiot for believing what I do, I respect that. But, like nab said, challenging my ideas and defending yours is far more productive than getting entrenched on your own side.

I really don't take myself that seriously. You shouldn't either.  :wink:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: shoreline99 on November 18, 2011, 11:30:48 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45355495

QuoteIs Occupy Wall Street Over? Many New Yorkers Hope So

The Occupy Wall Street movement marked its two-month anniversary on Thursday with a day of protests capped by a march of tens of thousands across the Brooklyn Bridge.

This morning at Zuccotti Park, where the movement has been based since Sept. 17, there are fewer than two dozen protesters.

Did Occupy Wall Street just go out with a bang?

Certainly many New Yorkers would welcome the ending of the movement. In the past two weeks, I’ve noticed a definite turn against the OWS movement among my fellow New Yorkers. They’ve gone from being a fascinating new development to an annoyance to many.

“Oh. Good. So it’s over?” one New Yorker in her mid-thirties said to me on Tuesday, the morning after the police cleared out the tents from the park.

It wasn’t over then. But today it might be.

It was always going to be a challenge to maintain the occupation through New York’s harsh winter. Yesterday saw an impressive turnout despite frigid temperatures and on-and-off-again freezing rain.

But today it looks like a lot of Occupiers have decided that two months is enough.

It’s likely that the movement can still organize big rallies on occasion. Last night’s march of thousands across the Brooklyn Bridge was impressive. But from the look of things in the park late last night and this morning, Occupy Wall Street now lacks the manpower to continue to occupy Zuccotti Park in any significant way overnight.

“Look. This was never about sleeping in a park. It was about calling attention to injustice,” one protester wrote to me over text messaging this morning.

Another protester texted to say that he felt last night’s march was actually a “missed opportunity.”

“We were basically marching about our right to protest. It’s become a movement about being a movement about being a movement. We are the meta-99 percent,” he said.

This might not be the end of Occupy Wall Street. But it is definitely transforming from a neo-shanty-town into something else. And no one really knows what that will become.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 11:51:52 AM
CNBC's reporting has been wildly flawed on this one.

There were over 32k people there by last night per NYPD reports. This isn't going away overnight.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: shoreline99 on November 18, 2011, 12:17:10 PM
QuoteMorning after 'Day of Action'
Zuccotti Park empty - a few OWS protesters but mostly sanitation with a sprinkling of TV media. A few NYPD.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Showdown_at_Zuccotti_Park_The_NYPDs_raid_on_Occupy_Wall_Street_NYC

Didn't say the movement was going away.

And there certainly were not 32,000 protestors there. No more than 5k by most reports, if there were that many.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 18, 2011, 12:43:50 PM
Quote from: shoreline99 on November 18, 2011, 12:17:10 PM
QuoteMorning after 'Day of Action'
Zuccotti Park empty - a few OWS protesters but mostly sanitation with a sprinkling of TV media. A few NYPD.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Showdown_at_Zuccotti_Park_The_NYPDs_raid_on_Occupy_Wall_Street_NYC

Didn't say the movement was going away.

And there certainly were not 32,000 protestors there. No more than 5k by most reports, if there were that many.

I just read 5-10K, but does it really matter about the #? Would x amount define success and less than that failure?

But you're right, the movement isn't going away.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 12:48:58 PM
NYPD scanner said est. 32,000k in the Brooklyn Bridge area. at ~7pm yesterday.


Estimates of 10k in Foley Square last evening ~5pm.

Either way, CNBC blows.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 18, 2011, 02:51:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

the ticket for most people to get ahead is a college education.
look at what has happened to the price of that
If I was transplanted in time from when I went to college to now, I'm not sure I could have payed for school. Or - couldn't have repayed the loans.

as far as opening up a business, try getting a loan these days.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 18, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 18, 2011, 02:51:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

the ticket for most people to get ahead is a college education.
look at what has happened to the price of that
If I was transplanted in time from when I went to college to now, I'm not sure I could have payed for school. Or - couldn't have repayed the loans.

as far as opening up a business, try getting a loan these days.

College is expensive.  I paid my way and then had some of my grad school paid for.  I'd argue that the same financial challenges existed then as they do now.  I'd have to review some statistics on what expenses in comparison to salaries, etc. but I would think they are somewhat relative.  College is available at a reasonable rate for everyone.  Yeah, maybe not everyone will have the money to go away for 4 years, but local colleges do exist. 

I think the opportunities do exist.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Might wanna check some numbers, eb.
(source: http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml)

A good rule of thumb is that tuition rates will increase at about twice the general inflation rate. During any 17-year period from 1958 to 2001, the average annual tuition inflation rate was between 6% and 9%, ranging from 1.2 times general inflation to 2.1 times general inflation. On average, tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. An 8% college inflation rate means that the cost of college doubles every nine years. For a baby born today, this means that college costs will be more than three times current rates when the child matriculates in college.



YearCollege InflationGeneral InflationRate Ratio
1958-19967.24%4.49%1.61
1977-19869.85%6.72%1.47
1987-19966.68%3.67%1.82
1958-20016.98%4.30%1.62
1979-20017.37%3.96%1.86
1992-20014.77%2.37%2.01
1985-20016.39%3.18%2.01
1958-20056.89%4.15%1.66
1989-20055.94%2.99%1.99
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 18, 2011, 03:35:35 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Might wanna check some numbers, eb.
(source: http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml)

A good rule of thumb is that tuition rates will increase at about twice the general inflation rate. During any 17-year period from 1958 to 2001, the average annual tuition inflation rate was between 6% and 9%, ranging from 1.2 times general inflation to 2.1 times general inflation. On average, tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. An 8% college inflation rate means that the cost of college doubles every nine years. For a baby born today, this means that college costs will be more than three times current rates when the child matriculates in college.



YearCollege InflationGeneral InflationRate Ratio
1958-19967.24%4.49%1.61
1977-19869.85%6.72%1.47
1987-19966.68%3.67%1.82
1958-20016.98%4.30%1.62
1979-20017.37%3.96%1.86
1992-20014.77%2.37%2.01
1985-20016.39%3.18%2.01
1958-20056.89%4.15%1.66
1989-20055.94%2.99%1.99

Yeah, I stated I needed to check.  Thanks for the info.  Even with all of that being said, I kind of look at it as, I am sure it was tough in the 60'2 and 70's when my dad and his family were going through school and even with my dad's salary and when I was going to school.  Its still challenging.

I mean I can see the troubles you mention, but there is still that immeasurable factor of determination.  If you really want to make it happen you can.  That's partly why deferred student loans exist.  Even with the facts presented, I still kind of lean to the side of there are opportunities.  Its clearly not the easiest thing, but it can be done.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 03:42:45 PM
More on Student Loans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-student-loans/2011/11/11/gIQAFf0sYN_story.html
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 18, 2011, 03:57:16 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 18, 2011, 03:42:45 PM
More on Student Loans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-student-loans/2011/11/11/gIQAFf0sYN_story.html

I had a few times where I filed for "forebearance" and they allowed it for a few months.

I am not so sure that these "myths" really change my opinion.  Also, just erasing debt is not really a good answer either.  Now I know that we bailed banks and companies out and I'm not suggesting that was right either, but erasing my loan debt, as much as I'd like it...I don't really deserve that.  A veteran sure, but me or anyone else, why do we have the right to expect my loan to be erased?  My loan payments are $100 per month.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: VDB on November 18, 2011, 04:18:09 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)

You'd get booed off the stage at a GOP debate for suggesting something like that. Hell, I think Mitt Romney wrote a book about it.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 18, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)





So, does the earning potential from a degree increase when everyone gets one for free as well?  Educated in what?  The education still costs 100k no matter who pays for it.  Increased taxation to fully fund a resource that produces limiting results may make philanthropic sense (in the case of an educated populace) but makes little financial sense and produces unsustainable results. 


Should there be more government money to support universities?  Probably.  But back to return to the theme of EB's message, to the savy and industirous student, many govt. monies are available in the form of grants.  Should everyone have access to all monies equally?  I don't think that is realistic, but build me a reasonable case and I'll listen.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 18, 2011, 04:31:54 PM
Quote from: nab on November 18, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)





So, does the earning potential from a degree increase when everyone gets one for free as well?  Educated in what?  The education still costs 100k no matter who pays for it.  Increased taxation to fully fund a resource that produces limiting results may make philanthropic sense (in the case of an educated populace) but makes little financial sense and produces unsustainable results. 


Should there be more government money to support universities?  Probably.  But back to return to the theme of EB's message, to the savy and industirous student, many govt. monies are available in the form of grants.  Should everyone have access to all monies equally?  I don't think that is realistic, but build me a reasonable case and I'll listen.

nab, you make a good point, that it produces a level playing field, not just now, but forever.  A hierarchy dissipates and you're still left with some way for people to try and get ahead of another.  Hence private schools, etc.  Its a vicious cycle with no clear answer. 

Phuzzy I think you're point does make some sense, but the almighty $ is always going to be in the way.  Not just from the funding aspect of it, but eventually, people are going to want to make $1 more than the next person and hence the seperation (inequalities) begin again.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: qop24 on November 18, 2011, 04:38:01 PM
Quote from: nab on November 18, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)

So, does the earning potential from a degree increase when everyone gets one for free as well?  Educated in what?  The education still costs 100k no matter who pays for it.  Increased taxation to fully fund a resource that produces limiting results may make philanthropic sense (in the case of an educated populace) but makes little financial sense and produces unsustainable results. 


I'm too lazy to look up the specifics, but another interesting/bad trend that has really come to the foreground over the past year or 2 is that people with law degrees aren't finding jobs now because there were so many of them. The great irony is that there have been many, many lawsuits filed against law schools by these students because of the false expectations that were given to them and the debt incurred because of it.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 18, 2011, 05:20:04 PM
There are tons of college grads out there that can't find work in their field.

I'm too lazy to look up the actual stats but the number of people in their 20s living with their parents right now is higher than it has been in a long time.

So with tuition costs sky rocketing, even from when I went to school 10 years ago, and since the job market has basically sucked ever since 9/11 is it really any wonder that people are pissed off and feeling like they won't have the opportunities that their parents had?

Maybe we should just roll over and accept that people who move money around for a living are entitled to make six or even seven figures and bank executives who presided over royal fuck ups that cost tax payers billions still deserve their fat bonuses.   :roll:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: nab on November 18, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)





So, does the earning potential from a degree increase when everyone gets one for free as well?  Educated in what?  The education still costs 100k no matter who pays for it.  Increased taxation to fully fund a resource that produces limiting results may make philanthropic sense (in the case of an educated populace) but makes little financial sense and produces unsustainable results. 


Should there be more government money to support universities?  Probably.  But back to return to the theme of EB's message, to the savy and industirous student, many govt. monies are available in the form of grants.  Should everyone have access to all monies equally?  I don't think that is realistic, but build me a reasonable case and I'll listen.
Just because its available to everyone doesn't mean that everyone will take advantage the option. So there would still be people with HS Diploma, BS/BA, Master, Phd, etc.

I would hope since people can get a free education more people would be more inclined to pursue degrees in what they want and go further into higher education. Instead of everyone getting a JD or an MBA because those are the degrees that pay most right now and then saturating the market with these degrees.

If everyone gets the same playing field (free education), then I would also hope it would push people to work harder, to be at the top of the class, to pursue a Masters, a Phd to get ahead. Harder work would be rewarded by the better jobs, higher pay. It would eliminate those saying they didn't get a fair shot because they couldn't get a good education, at that point if education is free and you don't take advantage of it, then you have no one to blame but yourself for not getting ahead, as opposed to now, where finances can quickly curb someone's plan to go to college.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 18, 2011, 05:50:44 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: nab on November 18, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: phuzzyfish12 on November 18, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
Personally I am for free education for all. Many other countries offer it and they have a better quality of life.  I realize that It's not free in the sense that taxes are still paid for it, but I'd rather pay taxes over time then be expected to pay out $100,000 over 4 years or that same amount for the rest of my life with HUGE interests on top of that.

What good is it going to do to America anyway if our population keeps growing but we have a bunch of uneducated citizens running around?  IMO the US should look outside its borders and see how other countries handle education, health care, etc and try and some how incorporate the things that work for them into the US. What we have from Kindergarten all the way up to PhDs is not working on both the education side and the cost side and it needs to be fixed. College's are corporations now, not places of higher learning (and if you don't that believe me may I direct your attention to the Penn State scandal)  Its time for people to realize how important it is to educate all of our citizens, not just the ones that can afford it.

But what do I know, I'm just a dreamer   8)





So, does the earning potential from a degree increase when everyone gets one for free as well?  Educated in what?  The education still costs 100k no matter who pays for it.  Increased taxation to fully fund a resource that produces limiting results may make philanthropic sense (in the case of an educated populace) but makes little financial sense and produces unsustainable results. 


Should there be more government money to support universities?  Probably.  But back to return to the theme of EB's message, to the savy and industirous student, many govt. monies are available in the form of grants.  Should everyone have access to all monies equally?  I don't think that is realistic, but build me a reasonable case and I'll listen.
Just because its available to everyone doesn't mean that everyone will take advantage the option. So there would still be people with HS Diploma, BS/BA, Master, Phd, etc.

I would hope since people can get a free education more people would be more inclined to pursue degrees in what they want and go further into higher education. Instead of everyone getting a JD or an MBA because those are the degrees that pay most right now and then saturating the market with these degrees.

If everyone gets the same playing field (free education), then I would also hope it would push people to work harder, to be at the top of the class, to pursue a Masters, a Phd to get ahead. Harder work would be rewarded by the better jobs, higher pay. It would eliminate those saying they didn't get a fair shot because they couldn't get a good education, at that point if education is free and you don't take advantage of it, then you have no one to blame but yourself for not getting ahead, as opposed to now, where finances can quickly curb someone's plan to go to college.




Many people miss an opprotunity to invest in starting a business because of finances, leading to decreased opprotunity.  Does this mean we should level the playing feild by buying them small businesses as well?  What happens when the undergraduate feild becomes so saturated that now they equal nothing, the master's, and the PhD?  Why should I pay for someone to get a degree in "what they want" through a lifetime tax burden and not expect a return on my investment?

Then there is the question of how to pay for it......

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 18, 2011, 05:54:55 PM
Obviously college tuition is rising, even faster than health care costs. But, like health care, you can't fix the problem without addressing the root causes. And the reason tuition is rising is the same reason housing prices blew up in the 2000s or tech stock valuations went through the roof in the late 90s. There is too much money being supplied too cheaply because the federal gov't guarantees the loans.

What incentive does a university have to reign in costs if they have no threat to enrollment since people have guaranteed access to funds? If colleges had to worry about whether or not students could afford the tuition, they might have a reason to control it. But since they have an unlimited source of buyers and an equally unlimited source of funding, they can make unreasonable increases in the cost of their goods (see the housing market circa 2005).

To me, this is one of the more irresponsible ideas of OWS. To think that wiping out student debt would be good for the economy or that it would somehow be just to nullify contracts that willing participants voluntarily engaged in represents a failing in their understanding of basic economic principles. Like much of OWS, I understand the frustration, but not their solutions.

As nab points out, free college only diminishes the value of that education and is inherently unstable. It also (like a certain health care law) does little to address the root cause of why tuition increases have been so steep. If anything, the cost of college would explode even faster, making the collapse of the scheme even more inevitable.

IMO, of course.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 18, 2011, 11:31:54 PM
I don't think people appreciate stuff they get for free in general.

As far as "wiping out student debt" - it depends what you mean. Right now, you can go to school on the military and pay Uncle Sam back with time. At one time, you could get the public health service to pay for med school, then work in underserved areas (usually places like Indian reservations) on a year for year basis. I don't see how making up a system like that would be bad if Uncle Sam got value back, and we could afford it.
One of my roommates had this idea that school should be free, but then you had to pay a % of your income back to the school for 10 years after graduation.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 19, 2011, 08:21:49 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 18, 2011, 11:31:54 PM
I don't think people appreciate stuff they get for free in general.

QFT

Quote from: slslbs on November 18, 2011, 11:31:54 PM
As far as "wiping out student debt" - it depends what you mean. Right now, you can go to school on the military and pay Uncle Sam back with time. At one time, you could get the public health service to pay for med school, then work in underserved areas (usually places like Indian reservations) on a year for year basis. I don't see how making up a system like that would be bad if Uncle Sam got value back, and we could afford it.

In Philly (and I'm sure many other cities), they provide emergency certification and tuition support for people who agree to teach in underperforming schools (usually inter-city) while getting education degrees. And like other seemingly well-intentioned ideas, it often exacerbates the problems for these schools as they get a lot of unexperienced teachers who bolt as soon as they get their credentials/degrees.

Plus, like you said, setting it up is easy; the hard part is finding ways to make affordable and sustainable.

Quote from: slslbs on November 18, 2011, 11:31:54 PM
One of my roommates had this idea that school should be free, but then you had to pay a % of your income back to the school for 10 years after graduation.

Isn't that kinda what we have now? Where otherwise unqualified borrowers can get a dirt cheap loan with no income and no collateral? Student loans are nothing more than people borrowing money against their future earnings which, in the long run, are dramatically higher with a college education.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 20, 2011, 02:28:20 AM
I don't think a student loan and a toxic mortgage are the same. The prospects of a student (up until the current time) to increase income significantly is fairly good. Where this falls apart is what if someone drops out or flunks out - then who's going to pay.

I wasn't specific in my post, though, my roommate was talking about med school, where the graduation rate approaches 100% (we had 1 guy quit out of 200) and the income prospects are pretty good.

getting back to what started the talk about college prices is the feeling that there is less upward mobility today. more evidence of that is the fact that income inequality is growing, as is poverty.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 20, 2011, 07:32:11 PM
got this email today - got a  :-)

Vote for the worst of the 1% to expose the small subset of elites who are exploiting the 99%.
http://whoarethe1percent.com/

QuoteWe've created a list of the 30 people doing the most to destroy our economy and democracy — a list created from the 5000 suggestions that our audience left over the last two weeks at WhoAreThe1Percent.com. This is a doozy of a list, filled with the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Rob Walton, and Jamie Dimon (of JPMorgan Chase fame). We're going to make videos exposing the worst of the bunch. Which ones? That's up to you.

Vote for the worst of the 1% to expose the small subset of elites who are exploiting the 99%.

There is no shortage of bad men on our list (and yes, they are all men). We've got Hugh Grant, for instance — not the actor, but the CEO of Monsanto, a company that produces "Frankenfood" and conquers family farms nationwide. We've got Erik Prince, the founder of the mercenary company Blackwater. And of course, we'd never leave off our friends the Koch Brothers.

Cast your vote to help America understand exactly how our democracy is being taken from us — and who's doing the taking.

Yours,
Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New Foundation team

P.S. I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 20, 2011, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 20, 2011, 02:28:20 AM
I don't think a student loan and a toxic mortgage are the same. The prospects of a student (up until the current time) to increase income significantly is fairly good. Where this falls apart is what if someone drops out or flunks out - then who's going to pay.

I don't think think the loans are the same, but the reasons for the rapid increase in both housing and college tuition are exactly the same.

Now (and this may come as a surprise), I don't agree with OWS' economic message, but what is unacceptable to me is the militarization of the police that is playing out, especially in CA (I thought the West Coast was supposed to be the laid back one?).

The beating of students at Cal, the point blank pepper spray at UC Davis, and now this video from the general strike in Oakland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/18/occupy-oakland-police-beating-veteran?newsfeed=true). If one of OWS' outcomes is to raise people's awareness of how we now have an Army for what we used to call the Police, it will be a success to me.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: shoreline99 on November 21, 2011, 07:52:35 AM
Well, you have to realize that colleges and universities are corporations as well, but instead of a material good or product you get a degree out of them. They stand accountable to boards of trustees and are supposed to make a profit (they call it an 'endowment' instead of a cash balance). Even 75 years ago there were probably half the number of colleges out there that there are now. Not saying they need to die off and merge, but there is so much redundancy in the sprawl of every little college that the tuition needs to increase or they can't compete with the next one.

Plus, even with the increase in the number of colleges there are still high amounts of kids not getting in. That says two things: people are not able to meet the tuition requirements and colleges are still very selective.

The GI bill in the 1940's led to the idea that everyone should be entitled to a college education, but today a graduate degree is probably the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree just 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 21, 2011, 09:03:52 AM
An excellent article:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/21/why-tuition-costs-are-rising/
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 09:28:27 AM
Phuzzy, I'd have to disagree that MBA's are saturating the market.  Out of all of my friends/peers only 2 of my other friends have them.  And as for other post graduate degrees, I would probably say another 3-5 more maybe, including spouse's.  And I am considering my extensive network of friends and colleagues.  Its a small percentage.  And as for at my company of about 250+, I think I might be the only one with an MBA. 

It still has incredible value is not saturating the marketplace.  And whether people want to pursue a degree that they want rather than what pays, is kind of a poor argument.  The fact of the matter is that the $ is and always will make the world go round.  You have to embrace that fact to some extent.  I'm not saying pursue the dollar above all else, but money is an important piece to life.  Period. 

I give some examples.  My brother got a Criminal Justice degree because he really enjoyed that.  He then graduated and realized that there are really not that nearly as many opportunities for Criminal Justice degrees in the world as originally expected.  He went back to school and is now pursuing a pretty good career path in technology.  One of my friends mentioned above, who has an MBA.  Pursued Religion and Spanish in undergrad.  He did well and enjoyed it.  He pursued an MBA and is now a project manager in technology.

I just kind of feel like you can't go to college and just get a degree in whatever you want and then be upset that the job market for a given degree is not lucrative.  You gotta pay your bills and that means you gotta make a dollar.  Enjoying college is one thing, believe me I did my share of that, but pursuing a degree you enjoy with no regard for the financial value of it is a poor decision/argument. 




And as for level playing fields, I still think it exists.  The intangible factor of drive and motivation is what separates people. 

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."




jimbo, I also don't know that I would put college loans and mortgages in the same zip code.  I see your point, but think it is a bit of a stretch. 


And the loan forgiveness programs exist in the private sector as well.  Deloitte for example will wipe your debt clear after 2 years of working.  1 year is 50%.  My tuition reimbursement programs at 3 different companies has provided almost all of my graduate expenses AND everyone at these companies are eligible for it as well. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: shoreline99 on November 21, 2011, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 09:28:27 AM
I just kind of feel like you can't go to college and just get a degree in whatever you want and then be upset that the job market for a given degree is not lucrative.  You gotta pay your bills and that means you gotta make a dollar.  Enjoying college is one thing, believe me I did my share of that, but pursuing a degree you enjoy with no regard for the financial value of it is a poor decision/argument. 

Bingo. I wonder how many more art history/psychology/poly sci/english literature/medieval french majors the world needs. What to people really expect to do with those?

Undergrad education is the new high school, IMHO.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 21, 2011, 01:34:09 PM
70-year-old former poet laureate of the U.S. took a baton for the team @ Berkeley last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/at-occupy-berkeley-beat-poets-has-new-meaning.html
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 21, 2011, 01:47:36 PM
Short article on the top 0.1% and the capital gains tax.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the  hands of a few, but we can't have both."  - Justice Louis Brandeis

http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html

----

Also, the declaration from OWS:

http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 21, 2011, 02:21:50 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 01:47:36 PM
Short article on the top 0.1% and the capital gains tax.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the  hands of a few, but we can't have both."  - Justice Louis Brandeis

http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html




This makes sense. 

In order to cultivate participation in a political process, the people need to know that they are personally invested in both the wins and losses that incorporation and consent to govern make possible.


The Occupy movement has been instrumental in underscoring the wealth gap in the United States and keeping the issue in the news.  As far as this contributes to the democratic process, the introduction and incitement of an important issue, the movement has been very sucessful.


I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 21, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 09:28:27 AM

And as for level playing fields, I still think it exists.  The intangible factor of drive and motivation is what separates people. 


Am I to take from this then that if one has drive and motivation, that you should automatically be successful? And if so, how would you define success? Also, is the opposite true then too, if an individual is struggling in today's economy it is because he/she lacks drive and motivation? I only ask because it sure sounds a lot like Cain saying, if you don't have a job, or you're not rich, blame yourself.

Your sentences there are similar to what some might believe in as the American Dream? Are you stating that it still exists? And how do you define it?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 02:44:48 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 02:21:50 PM
I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

I think that is the real problem with this.  I tend to be in the middle (more right than left) and see this same thing.  I am interested to hear some options as well.  I am not so certain that there will ever be a fair way to do this. 

I'm kind of mixed on the capital gains stuff.  Part of my mixed emotions of that is because I feel like at some point in my life I will have a serious concern about that.  Right now its not an impact to me, but I think in time with investments, etc. I can see this being an issue. 

Just because it may not be impacting me today doesn't mean I should ignore it.  I think at varying times in our life we will be more concerned with certain elements of finance and politics and sometimes stuff is like toothpaste out of the tube.  Once its out, you can't really put it back.  I think that's why we have seen the capital gains go up and down over the years.  We've seen "loopholes" created and then become normal practice.

I'm not so sure there is a clear and perfect path to this.  The only path to righting this is probably a separate and unpopular path, which means, it probably won't change. 

Hypothetical question(s):

What if we reduced all politicians salaries to that closer to the 99%?  And capped their political campaigns to that of the 99%? 

Based on much of what I have been reading and seeing based on what has been posted here, is that the cutoff for the these thresholds are $150,000 and $400,000.  If your household income is over $150,000 you are the top 9% according to RJ's money map.  If you are over $400,000 you are in the 1%.

Senators make $174,000 per year.  The President makes $400,000.

The way I see it is, that will never change, so this argument of the 1%'s is also an attack on politicians and considering staying in power is part of politics, they will do whatever to keep it. 

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on November 21, 2011, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: shoreline99 on November 21, 2011, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 09:28:27 AM
I just kind of feel like you can't go to college and just get a degree in whatever you want and then be upset that the job market for a given degree is not lucrative.  You gotta pay your bills and that means you gotta make a dollar.  Enjoying college is one thing, believe me I did my share of that, but pursuing a degree you enjoy with no regard for the financial value of it is a poor decision/argument. 

Bingo. I wonder how many more art history/psychology/poly sci/english literature/medieval french majors the world needs. What to people really expect to do with those?

Undergrad education is the new high school, IMHO.

I majored in psychology (under the assumption that i'd go to grad school) and then decided that more school right now would push me right off the deep end. I took the GRE just in case I plan to revisit the whole thing in a few years, but right about now I'm wishing I'd majored in finance or something slightly more useful than my B.S. in psych.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 21, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 02:21:50 PM

I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

But is it the responsibility of the protesters to also present answers to the injustices that exist? While most can see and feel and experience the inequalities that they're arguing against, I seriously don't expect them to understand the inner workings of the laws that have made the system what it is. As I said before, asking the politicians to work for the people might be too much to ask at this point with the system as fucked as it is, but I see it as THEIR duty to find answers and make the changes. Is it not enough to say, hey, we see what you're doing and we think it's fucked up and while I don't know how to fix it, you do. So please do so. If nothing else, it should be a reminder that You, the politicians, are supposed to be representing Us, the people.

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on November 21, 2011, 03:06:37 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
... American Dream? Are you stating that it still exists?

you have to believe it still exists. If you don't believe in your ability to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" as it were, then you're allowing someone to tell you what dollar value your efforts are worth and there's no motivation to do anything to better one's situation.

for me at least, I feel like I wouldn't necessarily put forth much effort in my academic and professional endeavors if I felt like I was only going to make some prescribed dollar value that would cover my living expenses and not much above that for the rest of my life. If someone feels like busting their ass is going to open up new opportunities for them in the future then IMO they're more likely to bust their ass (whether those opportunities are the means/$ to live large and whatnot if that's your thing or the freedom to enjoy time with your family,etc if you're more down to earth)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 09:28:27 AM

And as for level playing fields, I still think it exists.  The intangible factor of drive and motivation is what separates people. 


Am I to take from this then that if one has drive and motivation, that you should automatically be successful? And if so, how would you define success? Also, is the opposite true then too, if an individual is struggling in today's economy it is because he/she lacks drive and motivation? I only ask because it sure sounds a lot like Cain saying, if you don't have a job, or you're not rich, blame yourself.

Your sentences there are similar to what some might believe in as the American Dream? Are you stating that it still exists? And how do you define it?

I'm not stating that at all and please don't take that out of context.  That was with respect to education and funding for education.  My point was that people have equal access to funding and education.  I went to a private college for 1 year and basically smoked that down the bong tube.  I then went to community college (on my own dime) and ultimately at Old Dominion (on my own dime) and then allowed someone else (employers) to pay for my grad school.  My point being is I had to work my ass off to get where I am at, same as you and believe me I know that you have. 

My definition of success is really two fold.  Am I happy.  How you or anyone defines happiness is relative to your own perogative, but somewhere in almost everyone's happiness equation is money. 

In a situation for a small business owner where the economics are reducing potential revenues, that blows.  Motivation and drive can only take someone so far, but that is also part of the risk in owning the business.  I am not a small business owner and as such I have some more security from the economy, but I also do not get all of the other pleasures of owning a business. 

You know me better than to think that I believe "if you don't have a job, and you're not rich, blame yourself."  I really hope your comment was more for discussion's sake.  If not, I will return your Christmas present.   :laugh:

I do think in many ways people do have a responsibility to themselves to try and fix it.  Some situations are not very easily fixable which is frustrating.

So yes, I still believe the American Dream exists.  Its not always easy, or seemingly evident, but it does exist.  I still plan on opening a brewery for "pennies on the dollar."
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 21, 2011, 03:32:01 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 02:21:50 PM

I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

But is it the responsibility of the protesters to also present answers to the injustices that exist? While most can see and feel and experience the inequalities that they're arguing against, I seriously don't expect them to understand the inner workings of the laws that have made the system what it is. As I said before, asking the politicians to work for the people might be too much to ask at this point with the system as fucked as it is, but I see it as THEIR duty to find answers and make the changes. Is it not enough to say, hey, we see what you're doing and we think it's fucked up and while I don't know how to fix it, you do. So please do so. If nothing else, it should be a reminder that You, the politicians, are supposed to be representing Us, the people.



I thought I made it pretty clear that I was looking to the Democratic party to offer solutions.  Hell, I'd take them from the republican party.  I don't, however, expect any such solutions to materialize from either party, I was just mentioning that now would be the time to show some leadership to really represent the American people.  The underlying point ot my argument is that there have been no solutions offered becasue both parites profit from not fixing the system.  If faced with that sort of situation, how is it not appropriate to suggest that leadership and argument come from the movement? 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 21, 2011, 03:37:40 PM
No, I  understand how your comments relate to education, as well. But as for this idea of a level playing field, the chance of a male born into the lowest economic 20% making it into the top 40% is his lifetime as compared to someone starting in the middle 40% already, is less than half, iirc (from a recent article in Time, cover: Can You Still Move Up in America?). Point being, you can't start at 2nd base and brag about how you got a double and look down upon those still sitting in the dugout, when they haven't even got a chance to bat yet. Being born into a middle class family puts you at a greater advantage than someone born into poverty. While the opportunities exist, as rjb and you point out, the starting point to reaching those opportunities, you have to admit, are staggered. So is the played field really level?

As for the American Dream....lol. I'm not even going to get into it with you guys. Phil, yeah, I'm sure you'll be just fine if you bust your ass. You'll more than likely have enough to live large or spend time with your family.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 03:32:01 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 02:21:50 PM

I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

But is it the responsibility of the protesters to also present answers to the injustices that exist? While most can see and feel and experience the inequalities that they're arguing against, I seriously don't expect them to understand the inner workings of the laws that have made the system what it is. As I said before, asking the politicians to work for the people might be too much to ask at this point with the system as fucked as it is, but I see it as THEIR duty to find answers and make the changes. Is it not enough to say, hey, we see what you're doing and we think it's fucked up and while I don't know how to fix it, you do. So please do so. If nothing else, it should be a reminder that You, the politicians, are supposed to be representing Us, the people.



I thought I made it pretty clear that I was looking to the Democratic party to offer solutions.  Hell, I'd take them from the republican party.  I don't, however, expect any such solutions to materialize from either party, I was just mentioning that now would be the time to show some leadership to really represent the American people.  The underlying point ot my argument is that there have been no solutions offered becasue both parites profit from not fixing the system.  If faced with that sort of situation, how is it not appropriate to suggest that leadership and argument come from the movement?

Ah yeah, I understand that. Valid point. Now WOULD be the perfect time for EITHER party to offer solutions and show some true leadership. But as you stated, neither will, because both are too entrenched in the system to dismantle it completely. It's kind of like fixing healthcare, you can't just start over, so you have to try and implement some changes to what already exists. The easiest, and from my understanding that which the OWS folks are after as well (as one of their points), is taking $ out of politics. Personally, I think that'd make a HUGE difference in the way our elected officials behave towards the betterment of our society.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 03:37:40 PM
No, I  understand how your comments relate to education, as well. But as for this idea of a level playing field, the chance of a male born into the lowest economic 20% making it into the top 40% is his lifetime as compared to someone starting in the middle 40% already, is less than half, iirc (from a recent article in Time, cover: Can You Still Move Up in America?). Point being, you can't start at 2nd base and brag about how you got a double and look down upon those still sitting in the dugout, when they haven't even got a chance to bat yet. Being born into a middle class family puts you at a greater advantage than someone born into poverty. While the opportunities exist, as rjb and you point out, the starting point to reaching those opportunities, you have to admit, are staggered. So is the played field really level?

As for the American Dream....lol. I'm not even going to get into it with you guys. Phil, yeah, I'm sure you'll be just fine if you bust your ass. You'll more than likely have enough to live large or spend time with your family.

You're point about someone born into poverty is a good one, but I think brings on a whole different conversation altogether.  I'm not saying lets ignore that, but you and I may have to argue that one over beers.

The American Dream!  Dude, your living it.  Unfortunately right now, you're living the downside of it right now, but lets be real, it does exist and you got into it for a reason right?

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this.  I'll admit you are right that coming from a middle class family does skew some thoughts and I'm willing to hear the other side.  Probably over beers too.   :beers:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 21, 2011, 04:43:05 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 03:32:01 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: nab on November 21, 2011, 02:21:50 PM

I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

But is it the responsibility of the protesters to also present answers to the injustices that exist? While most can see and feel and experience the inequalities that they're arguing against, I seriously don't expect them to understand the inner workings of the laws that have made the system what it is. As I said before, asking the politicians to work for the people might be too much to ask at this point with the system as fucked as it is, but I see it as THEIR duty to find answers and make the changes. Is it not enough to say, hey, we see what you're doing and we think it's fucked up and while I don't know how to fix it, you do. So please do so. If nothing else, it should be a reminder that You, the politicians, are supposed to be representing Us, the people.



I thought I made it pretty clear that I was looking to the Democratic party to offer solutions.  Hell, I'd take them from the republican party.  I don't, however, expect any such solutions to materialize from either party, I was just mentioning that now would be the time to show some leadership to really represent the American people.  The underlying point ot my argument is that there have been no solutions offered becasue both parites profit from not fixing the system.  If faced with that sort of situation, how is it not appropriate to suggest that leadership and argument come from the movement?

Ah yeah, I understand that. Valid point. Now WOULD be the perfect time for EITHER party to offer solutions and show some true leadership. But as you stated, neither will, because both are too entrenched in the system to dismantle it completely. It's kind of like fixing healthcare, you can't just start over, so you have to try and implement some changes to what already exists. The easiest, and from my understanding that which the OWS folks are after as well (as one of their points), is taking $ out of politics. Personally, I think that'd make a HUGE difference in the way our elected officials behave towards the betterment of our society.

As nab says, at some point, someone has to step up and offer solutions to the problems the protesters are addressing and the politicians who profit from the current system are no more likely to fix them than the bankers are. If OWS chooses to focus less on solutions and more on general strikes or calls to shut down this port or that bridge, they will run the risk of further falling out of public favor (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/voters-moving-against-occupy-movement.html) and alienating the people they claim to represent.

As for your other point, I'm not convinced that taking money out of politics (which I assume you mean in the form of campaign contributions) is as much of a game changer as people seem to think. While politicians are explicitly bought by the exorbitant amount of donations now, there are still plenty of incentives corporations can use to tacitly buy an influential member of the Senate Banking Committee or the House Appropriations Committee. That's why my position is that as long as gov't has favors to hand out, there will always be people lining up to pay for them.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 21, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on November 21, 2011, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 21, 2011, 03:37:40 PM
No, I  understand how your comments relate to education, as well. But as for this idea of a level playing field, the chance of a male born into the lowest economic 20% making it into the top 40% is his lifetime as compared to someone starting in the middle 40% already, is less than half, iirc (from a recent article in Time, cover: Can You Still Move Up in America?). Point being, you can't start at 2nd base and brag about how you got a double and look down upon those still sitting in the dugout, when they haven't even got a chance to bat yet. Being born into a middle class family puts you at a greater advantage than someone born into poverty. While the opportunities exist, as rjb and you point out, the starting point to reaching those opportunities, you have to admit, are staggered. So is the played field really level?

As for the American Dream....lol. I'm not even going to get into it with you guys. Phil, yeah, I'm sure you'll be just fine if you bust your ass. You'll more than likely have enough to live large or spend time with your family.

You're point about someone born into poverty is a good one, but I think brings on a whole different conversation altogether.  I'm not saying lets ignore that, but you and I may have to argue that one over beers.

The American Dream!  Dude, your living it.  Unfortunately right now, you're living the downside of it right now, but lets be real, it does exist and you got into it for a reason right?

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this.  I'll admit you are right that coming from a middle class family does skew some thoughts and I'm willing to hear the other side.  Probably over beers too.   :beers:

If you have any questions regarding the American dream, simply google "end of the American dream", or "shrinking middle class", and you'll find more than enough articles to keep you busy reading for a few days.

But you're right, we can discuss this over  :beers:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 21, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
Meanwhile the Deficit Committee gave up today (no surprise).

I feel like taking out a full page ad in the Washington Post:

Hey Congress - Why the fuck don't you grow up already?


whose in?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 22, 2011, 12:52:40 AM
Quote from: slslbs on November 21, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
Meanwhile the Deficit Committee gave up today (no surprise).

I feel like taking out a full page ad in the Washington Post:

Hey Congress - Why the fuck don't you grow up already?


whose in?




I'm in
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: birdman on November 22, 2011, 07:49:04 AM
Quote from: nab on November 22, 2011, 12:52:40 AM
Quote from: slslbs on November 21, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
Meanwhile the Deficit Committee gave up today (no surprise).

I feel like taking out a full page ad in the Washington Post:

Hey Congress - Why the fuck don't you grow up already?


whose in?




I'm in


It's only 32000 bucks for the back page of the Post on Sunday.
I've got $10 to throw in.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 22, 2011, 07:50:07 AM
Quote from: birdman on November 22, 2011, 07:49:04 AM
Quote from: nab on November 22, 2011, 12:52:40 AM
Quote from: slslbs on November 21, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
Meanwhile the Deficit Committee gave up today (no surprise).

I feel like taking out a full page ad in the Washington Post:

Hey Congress - Why the fuck don't you grow up already?


whose in?




I'm in


It's only 32000 bucks for the back page of the Post on Sunday.
I've got $10 to throw in.

In for $10.

Website might be cheaper.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 22, 2011, 09:06:56 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 22, 2011, 07:50:07 AM
Quote from: birdman on November 22, 2011, 07:49:04 AM
Quote from: nab on November 22, 2011, 12:52:40 AM
Quote from: slslbs on November 21, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
Meanwhile the Deficit Committee gave up today (no surprise).

I feel like taking out a full page ad in the Washington Post:

Hey Congress - Why the fuck don't you grow up already?


whose in?




I'm in


It's only 32000 bucks for the back page of the Post on Sunday.
I've got $10 to throw in.

In for $10.

Website might be cheaper.

In.

Also,
Quote from: Superfreakie on November 21, 2011, 12:01:20 AM
you know it's serious when sl leaves out the *&%% signs.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard :hereitisyousentimentalbastard :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 22, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Here's an excellent article that illustrates my position that policy decisions created perverse incentives and unintended consequences which led to the banks' excessive risk taking and ultimate failure. It also presents a few market driven solutions that address the root causes of this behavior more than wealth redistribution would and would lead to more cautious risk management activities.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/11/22/how_government_props_up_big_finance_99381.html

One of the proposed solutions seems to have been concocted by our very slslbs:

Quote
Bank managers should also have more skin in the game. If a bank fails or receives a bailout, directors, senior managers and highly compensated employees should have to repay creditors or the government at least a portion of past compensation they received from their failed institutions - particularly compensation tied to performance. Fear of impoverishment would have a substantial impact on the risk appetites for those leading major financial institutions.

Quote from: slslbs on October 15, 2011, 12:47:30 PM
Should someone who sold a mortgage that was defaulted get their commision? From my understanding about retail sales, if someone brings a product back, the salseperson doesn't get credit for the sale. Why shouldn't the same be true in this game.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 22, 2011, 11:01:59 AM
I had a few beers with those guys last week. The least they could have done is give me credit.
:-)

good article.
other points I liked a lot

Quotethe crony capitalist system that has masqueraded as a free market.

QuoteThese regulations usually failed to achieve their intended results - especially over the long term - because financial institutions are able to wear down the restrictions by lobbying and by hiring away key regulators.

unfortunately, this influence will fight against and probably prevent the solution that rjb quoted from ever happening.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 22, 2011, 09:36:16 PM
from Michael Moore

QuoteHere is what I will propose to the General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street:

10 Things We Want
A Proposal for Occupy Wall Street
Submitted by Michael Moore
1. Eradicate the Bush tax cuts for the rich and institute new taxes on the wealthiest Americans and on corporations, including a tax on all trading on Wall Street (where they currently pay 0%).

2. Assess a penalty tax on any corporation that moves American jobs to other countries when that company is already making profits in America. Our jobs are the most important national treasure and they cannot be removed from the country simply because someone wants to make more money.

3. Require that all Americans pay the same Social Security tax on all of their earnings (normally, the middle class pays about 6% of their income to Social Security; someone making $1 million a year pays about 0.6% (or 90% less than the average person). This law would simply make the rich pay what everyone else pays.

4. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, placing serious regulations on how business is conducted by Wall Street and the banks.

5. Investigate the Crash of 2008, and bring to justice those who committed any crimes.

6. Reorder our nation's spending priorities (including the ending of all foreign wars and their cost of over $2 billion a week). This will re-open libraries, reinstate band and art and civics classes in our schools, fix our roads and bridges and infrastructure, wire the entire country for 21st century internet, and support scientific research that improves our lives.

7. Join the rest of the free world and create a single-payer, free and universal health care system that covers all Americans all of the time.

8. Immediately reduce carbon emissions that are destroying the planet and discover ways to live without the oil that will be depleted and gone by the end of this century.

9. Require corporations with more than 10,000 employees to restructure their board of directors so that 50% of its members are elected by the company's workers. We can never have a real democracy as long as most people have no say in what happens at the place they spend most of their time: their job. (For any U.S. businesspeople freaking out at this idea because you think workers can't run a successful company: Germany has a law like this and it has helped to make Germany the world's leading manufacturing exporter.)

10. We, the people, must pass three constitutional amendments that will go a long way toward fixing the core problems we now have. These include:

a) A constitutional amendment that fixes our broken electoral system by 1) completely removing campaign contributions from the political process; 2) requiring all elections to be publicly financed; 3) moving election day to the weekend to increase voter turnout; 4) making all Americans registered voters at the moment of their birth; 5) banning computerized voting and requiring that all elections take place on paper ballots.

b) A constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people and do not have the constitutional rights of citizens. This amendment should also state that the interests of the general public and society must always come before the interests of corporations.

c) A constitutional amendment that will act as a "second bill of rights" as proposed by President Frankin D. Roosevelt: that every American has a human right to employment, to health care, to a free and full education, to breathe clean air, drink clean water and eat safe food, and to be cared for with dignity and respect in their old age.


some interesting ideas
3. 4, and 5 are certainly reasonable. I like 9 and 2.
As far as 1 goes, we've been debating that here for months. There was a transaction tax on WS transactions up until the 60s or 70s - I think they're asking for 0.5% (that's right, one half of one per cent), which also seems reasonable

the other ones sound good, but I think are impractical
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 12:46:08 PM
Thanks for sharing, sls, but I had a hard time with that list. With the exception of #5, these are not serious proposals. If OWS wants to bring change to the system and make a difference, they should tell Moore to go back to his million dollar lake house and ask him to stop exploiting them for his next movie. If they choose to embrace these ideas, the movement will lose all relevancy in the political conversation IMO. Like you said, populism may sound good, but there is very little connection between these proposals and the real world and not just because the GOP are intransigent assholes. I would get specific, but that probably wouldn't lead anywhere good so I'll leave it alone for now.

Also, OWS mic checked Obama's speech last night and then a protester got close enough to hand him a note. WTF? Doesn't the Secret Service remember what happened in 24 when someone handed the president a note?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/occupy-protestor-hands-president-obama-note-201229558.html

(http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/EHquz8poxsCqt1RBb5qDZg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/obama-occupy-nh.jpg)

(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/OQZQ3HMLmTP0aEuICs7fdQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/obama-occupy-note.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on November 23, 2011, 01:19:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 12:46:08 PM
...they should tell Moore to go back to his million dollar lake house and ask him to stop exploiting them for his next movie.

lol.  yeah, moore is a real johnny come lately on the issue of corporate greed   :roll:

and i believe the end of his last movie called for this type of action.

http://vimeo.com/30174019
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 01:44:49 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 23, 2011, 01:19:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 12:46:08 PM
...they should tell Moore to go back to his million dollar lake house and ask him to stop exploiting them for his next movie.

lol.  yeah, moore is a real johnny come lately on the issue of corporate greed   :roll:

and i believe the end of his last movie called for this type of action.

http://vimeo.com/30174019

LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 23, 2011, 01:58:25 PM
I could give two shits about Moore personally, lets talk about his ideas.  My opinion of course:


1.  Appeal to fairness.  Broad based and populist.  Class warfare generalizations. 

2.  Again, too general and hard to define.  Ignores the global nature of ecconomics in the 21st century.  More class warfare drivel.

3.  First reasonable suggestion in the list.  Will require a definition of "earnings" to include money made on moving money.  Doesn't address the amount of money already paid by employers on behalf of thier employees into social security and how that factors into "balancing the playing feild".  If Moore's numbers are correct, and the groups in the upper income bracket are in fact paying less SS tax on personal incomes, I could agree that increasing those taxes could better fund SS.  Bottom line, decent suggestion but needs to be worked out a little more.

4.  Agree.  Not too much to comment on this one for me.  I agree with his stance.

5.  See #4.

6.  Shouldn't this be done on a regular basis anyway? 

7.  Appeal to populism again.  I've gone back and forth on this issue.  My current stance:  It's not as scary as the right presents it and its not as easy as the left presents it.  Still under consideration for me. 

8.  Playing to the base.  Regardless of where you stand on cabon fuels, the fact remains that carbon fuels became the standard becasue they were profitable, not because they were govt mandated.  If you want to mandate lower emmisions, fine.  This isn't nessesarily a bad goal, but please stick to the issue at hand.  If you want to work toward the ecconomic side of the carbon fuels issue, go against factors that make the marketplace for alternative energies unfair.

9.  New idea to me, need to think about this one some more.  Positives:  Places the employee in a position of ownership in the company, possibly increasing interest in employee issues and in employee participation, all without a third party (union).  Sounds like a win.  Negative:  Equivicates legally capital and interest ownership in a company.  Apples and oranges imo.

10. 

a.  Wow, did you get that all out there?  1. LOL.  "We'll call them gifts instead".  2.  Sort of like this proposal, but haven't really thought it through yet.  See #1.  3.  Is the fact that elections take place on week days really the prime reason that most people don't vote.  I could see how it could be a contributing factor, but probably a little ways down the list.  Is 9-5 M-F really still the norm for non-union employees?  4. People who want to vote will register themselves.  If you can't take the time to register, how invested are you in making informed decisions.  I'm sure there is a sympathetic NPR spot proving me wrong though.  5.  I agree.  There should be a paper trail for every vote.

b.  I still fail to see how corporate personhood has benefited anyone but the people who run the corporations.  I agree with the sentiment of this point, but question its inclusion in the Constitution.  Is personhood defined in the Constitution?  (serious question here).

c.  Hopefully this list isn't exhausitve.  These issues presented need to be quantified.  Not all of them are as black and white as presented.  See the conversation on education earlier in this tread for an example of context.




My take, worth about two shits.   

   
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
At the very least repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

We were doing just fine before they were instituted.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 23, 2011, 01:19:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 12:46:08 PM
...they should tell Moore to go back to his million dollar lake house and ask him to stop exploiting them for his next movie.

lol.  yeah, moore is a real johnny come lately on the issue of corporate greed   :roll:

and i believe the end of his last movie called for this type of action.

I tried to watch that movie, but there was something a couple minutes into it that made me turn it off. If "Capitalism is an evil" was his thesis, I'm glad I did.

I understand that Moore has been preaching this utopian socialist view for a while now. It makes perfect sense that he would embrace the movement. He'll probably even make a big show about donating all of the proceeds of the movie to the movement (since he doesn't need the money). Of course, to get it made and distributed and DVDs pressed, he'll need to embrace many of the capitalistic evils he so loathes. Maybe he should just release it for free over the internet (still using the technological advances made available by ambitious, profit-seeking entities, but much less so).

My problem with him is that he refuses to acknowledge that is is a member of the class that he now vilifies, as if being successful is something he should be ashamed of. I don't doubt that he is sincere in his desire to impose the ideals he preaches, but he's so disingenuous it's hard for me to take him seriously. At least Bernie Sanders has the balls to admit he's a socialist.

Quote from: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 01:44:49 PM
LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

I never said lower class has no one to blame but themselves, you're thinking of Herman Cain. You can distort my words all you want, but it makes me think you'd rather shout down opinions that differ from yours rather than have an intelligent conversation. You should leave that to a certain news organization I may or may not work for (IYO).
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
At the very least repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

We were doing just fine before they were instituted.

The Bush tax cuts decreased rates for everyone. So, to get to your conclusion, you'd have to let them expire for everyone.

I'll play along with nab.

#1
Assuming raising taxes during a recession is a good idea (and it isn't), doesn't Moore understand that raising corporate tax rates (already among the highest in the world) would push more companies out of the country or how it would fail to result in more revenue (since the remaininig companies will continue to use the advantageous favors already written into the complex code)? Also, trading needs to be more transparent, not less; taxing transactions would only create further distortions that would be arbitraged by those with the expertise to do so (i.e., the people Moore is railing against).

#2
Do you want to pay $1000 for an iPhone? How about $10,000 for a new computer? Protectionism is stupid, but when you combine this idea with #1 you are begging companies to flee the country. Free trade has enabled lower to middle class people to afford things they could only dream about 30 years ago and has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty. This idea would dramatically take back both of those things.

#3
Have to disagree with my friend nab here in that I don't see this as a reasonable suggestion. If Moore wants to tax people in excess of the SS Wage Base (currently $107k), would he pay benefits on the full income as well? If not, then he is changing SS from a retirement program into a welfare program. Also, would companies have to kick in the 6.5% of unlimited wages as well? If so, his first 3 ideas all result in dramatic new taxes on US companies that would directly result in an exodus in businesses. A much more reasonable solution to the SS funding problem IMO would be means testing, which would prevent unreasonable taxation but would make sure the people in need would have the most security.

#4
Glass-Steagall was never repealed, only the provision preventing the merger of investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance companies. This did not create the securitization market or the sub-prime mortgage market or reduce the standards on financial companies leverage ratios. In fact, the companies that fell apart (Bear, Lehman, Countrywide) were exactly the ones that did NOT diversify their operations and have the support of stable commercial banking deposits. Reinstating that provision would not change the banks' excessively risky behavior, especially given the explicit guarantee by the US gov't. Take away the protection of limited liability of the companies' directors and officers, on the other hand, and you would immediately see far more risk averse practices.

#5
I support this idea 100%.

#6
I fully agree the spending priorities need to be reordered, but I have sincere doubts that even after this reshuffling we could afford any of the amenities Moore dreams of.

#9
Why are the rights of the owners of the company subservient to the workers? Why 10,000 employees, why not 5,000? These types of arbitrary demands make for a nice populist sentiment, but they do little to address the issues they purport to correct. And the German example is total nonsense. Of all the reasons for Germany's manufacturing success, little to none of it has to do with letting workers elect 50% of the BoD.

#7, 8 10c
I would love to hear Moore explain how we pay for these things. How can a country who currently spends more than 40% of what it takes in afford free health care, education, and retirement for all? We have $9T in public debt and the debt service is expected to exceed all Social Security spending in 20 years and Moore is talking about massively increasing the size and scope of our spending? This is insanity.

In the last 60 years, the federal gov't collected revenues in excess of 20% of GDP exactly once, under Clinton in FY2000. I have no idea how much Moore's proposals would cost but let's pretend under the rosiest of assumptions that we would need to spend 35% of GDP to do these things (which is probably being far too generous). You simply cannot fund that by raising taxes on the rich and the corporations; you would need to massively raise taxes on everyone, resulting in an even more regressive system (not to mention economic ruin).
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 03:03:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 01:44:49 PM
LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

I never said lower class has no one to blame but themselves, you're thinking of Herman Cain. You can distort my words all you want, but it makes me think you'd rather shout down opinions that differ from yours rather than have an intelligent conversation. You should leave that to a certain news organization I may or may not work for (IYO).

Maybe not quite, but refusing to admit that opportunities are diminished for those that are less privileged is not that far off from the viewpoint of Cain et al.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?


What's preventing a lower income person from starting the next twitter?  Maybe they don't have a computer or internet access.  Maybe they are too exhausted from working multiple low paying jobs to do anything but scrape by.  It's fucking draining being poor and it's pretty frustrating how little empathy people have for others that are in that situation.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 23, 2011, 04:07:03 PM
the thing about SS tax is that you're only taxed the first 110K or so, but the benefit is also maxed out at 110k. So, if they were to increase the tax so tht everyone pays the same %, what would they do with the benefit? Maybe propose a needs test, just be honest and up front.

I think Moore's "corporation is not a person" stems from the recent (ridiculous) SC decision regarding corporation funding of campaigns.

As far as Moore himself, yes he is a Utopian, but as the article you posted said, we do not live in a free market society - I think theyword they used was cronie capitalism. And face it, there is class warfare - the 1% fix the rules so they stay there. I agree that many of his suggestions sound good but aren't reality.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on November 23, 2011, 10:34:17 PM
If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 03:03:18 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 23, 2011, 01:44:49 PM
LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

I never said lower class has no one to blame but themselves, you're thinking of Herman Cain. You can distort my words all you want, but it makes me think you'd rather shout down opinions that differ from yours rather than have an intelligent conversation. You should leave that to a certain news organization I may or may not work for (IYO).

Maybe not quite, but refusing to admit that opportunities are diminished for those that are less privileged is not that far off from the viewpoint of Cain et al.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 17, 2011, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 17, 2011, 04:22:33 PM
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?


What's preventing a lower income person from starting the next twitter?  Maybe they don't have a computer or internet access.  Maybe they are too exhausted from working multiple low paying jobs to do anything but scrape by.  It's fucking draining being poor and it's pretty frustrating how little empathy people have for others that are in that situation.

Again, you're either intentionally twisting my words or you misunderstood my point. The reason I mentioned Twitter was not to suggest it's easy to be invent something revolutionary; it was just to contrast with a more common endeavor like opening a small business (which itself is no small feat). But I do believe there are still opportunities for anyone who has an idea, is willing to take a risk and works hard to make it happen (Obama used his story very effectively while he was campaigning to illustrate this). Does that mean every person will ultimately succeed? Unfortunately, no, oftentimes by no fault of their own. But does that mean that people who don't or can't are slackers or failures who don't deserve any respect? Of course not, and I've never said that nor have I alluded to it.

As for the empathy comment (which I assume was directed at me), if you think I don't feel for people who are struggling or that I don't understand that frustration, you are mistaken. Just because I believe that the federal gov't already taxes and spends (and wastes) enough of our money doesn't mean I think people should be left to fend for themselves. In fact, I've talked about how an essential piece of the libertarian position is for people to voluntarily help those in need and I practice that to the extent I can.

So I get that we may not see eye to eye on a lot of things economically, but please don't assume that I have little empathy for people just because I have a different opinion than you. I am convinced that free market principles will benefit everyone, most notably lower to middle income people who would see increases in income mobility and purchasing power through technological advances. We can debate those ideas and whether or not they would have the outcomes I believe or whether it would result in further inequity. But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 24, 2011, 12:26:15 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 23, 2011, 10:34:17 PM
If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.

This.

Especially when those that are declaring class warfare are themselves lower or middle class.

It blows my fucking mind how people can take positions that are so diametrically opposed to their own self interest.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 24, 2011, 06:37:37 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM

I am convinced that free market principles will benefit everyone, most notably lower to middle income people who would see increases in income mobility and purchasing power through technological advances.

I agree that govt wastes $, and that obviously should be stopped. I also agree that many regulations, while well meaning, don't work and need to be changed somehow.

the problem, imo, is that the free market really isn't free. the large will dominate and take over the small. It's great that Walmart and Home Depot, and Amazon sell stuff for cheaper, the price we pay for that is the loss of the neighborhood, family owned store, and for that matter the neighborhood "downtown" area. Which way are we better off? ymmv.

To assume that the free market is really free, and all things lie in free market solutions (without government interference) in many ways is just as Utopian as some of Moore's ideas, only from a different POV.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on November 24, 2011, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 24, 2011, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 24, 2011, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

Seriously, sometimes I have to wonder if the dude himself even believes what he types.

I was gonna type out a long diatribe referencing the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that scumbags like Halliburton have profited off of and insurance companies that deny claims because of policy technicalities and Goldman Sachs robbing schmucks of their retirement funds, but what's the fucking point.

I'll just say this: when we are drifting off peacefully to sleep in our turkey comas tonight, maybe give a passing thought to all the people that are getting ready to go to work for minimum wage at Walmart or wherever because they will be open at midnight and stay open all night long so spoiled rotten consumers can save a few bucks on a new iPhone or some other piece of crap that was made by wage slaves in China and will be tossed in the trash in a couple years. 

Fuck it, William Burroughs can say it much better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nSxArk9g8

Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 24, 2011, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: slslbs on November 24, 2011, 06:37:37 AM
To assume that the free market is really free, and all things lie in free market solutions (without government interference) in many ways is just as Utopian as some of Moore's ideas, only from a different POV.

I think you're mistaking the "free" market as it currently exists (which, as you accurately point out, is not actually free) and what I mean when I say free market solutions. A free market to me does not mean "without gov't interference" since responsible regulation - rules that are easy to understand and to implement, are not based on the favored interests of the majority, and (most importantly) apply to all members - is a vital piece of a functioning free market. What I object to is our current system of arbitrary, reactionary rules that are written and then manipulated by the dominant players (oftentimes well-intentioned but foolish politicians) which results in dangerous distortions in demand, supply, price, etc., ultimately hurting those who have the least. It may be utopian in that it will never happen because people have become so dependent on gov't, but I don't see how it's less realistic than free healthcare, education, jobs and retirement for everyone.

Quote from: Hicks on November 24, 2011, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 24, 2011, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

Seriously, sometimes I have to wonder if the dude himself even believes what he types.

I was gonna type out a long diatribe referencing the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that scumbags like Halliburton have profited off of and insurance companies that deny claims because of policy technicalities and Goldman Sachs robbing schmucks of their retirement funds, but what's the fucking point.

I'll just say this: when we are drifting off peacefully to sleep in our turkey comas tonight, maybe give a passing thought to all the people that are getting ready to go to work for minimum wage at Walmart or wherever because they will be open at midnight and stay open all night long so spoiled rotten consumers can save a few bucks on a new iPhone or some other piece of crap that was made by wage slaves in China and will be tossed in the trash in a couple years.

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW). It may not seem fair that insurance companies make every attempt to uphold the terms of their contract (wait, how is that not fair?), but they've also increased access to expensive and life saving care to literally millions of times more people. Goldman can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see how you can make the argument they (indirectly) stole people's money with the express intention of harming the lower classes. Ask the wage slaves in China if they'd rather make $2 a day or $0 a day.

Quote from: Hicks on November 24, 2011, 12:26:15 AM
Especially when those that are declaring class warfare are themselves lower or middle class.

It blows my fucking mind how people can take positions that are so diametrically opposed to their own self interest.

I am middle class, but it blows my mind how people can believe the current Keynesian policies/proposals are for the benefit of one's self interest (unless of course, you're a banker). We're 3 yrs into a recession, how's it working out for people?

I just don't see how we can continue to increase federal spending year after year without ever asking "Do we actually need all this shit?" For all the talk of the "draconian" sequestration (that Congress will likely ignore), spending is projected to increase 40% over the next decade (how you call that a cut is beyond me). Debt service will cost as much as Social Security by 2020. So (to tie it all together), if OWS' only plan is to continue adding a ton of new spending, they'll first have to tell me how to pay for the $15T and counting we already spent.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on November 25, 2011, 07:55:30 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 24, 2011, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 24, 2011, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 24, 2011, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

Seriously, sometimes I have to wonder if the dude himself even believes what he types.

I was gonna type out a long diatribe referencing the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that scumbags like Halliburton have profited off of and insurance companies that deny claims because of policy technicalities and Goldman Sachs robbing schmucks of their retirement funds, but what's the fucking point.

I'll just say this: when we are drifting off peacefully to sleep in our turkey comas tonight, maybe give a passing thought to all the people that are getting ready to go to work for minimum wage at Walmart or wherever because they will be open at midnight and stay open all night long so spoiled rotten consumers can save a few bucks on a new iPhone or some other piece of crap that was made by wage slaves in China and will be tossed in the trash in a couple years.

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW). It may not seem fair that insurance companies make every attempt to uphold the terms of their contract (wait, how is that not fair?), but they've also increased access to expensive and life saving care to literally millions of times more people. Goldman can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see how you can make the argument they (indirectly) stole people's money with the express intention of harming the lower classes. Ask the wage slaves in China if they'd rather make $2 a day or $0 a day.

its official, he does believe his own bullshit.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on November 25, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 23, 2011, 10:34:17 PM
If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.



So that means we have class warfare, right? 



Since I used the term "class warfare", I'll tell you what I mean by it and why the context of my use in critiquing Moore's suggestions is entirely appropriate.


Marxism has dominated the social sciences for the last 150 years.  One of the reasons for this is that our modern conception of class owes much to the way that Marx defined the term in his various explanations of class conflict and its role in breaking down the capitalist system.  Class warfare, as defined by Marx, and as applied to the study of modernity, is nessesarily a "bottom up" as opposed to a "top down" concept due to the vision of modernity presented by Marx in his works.  Marxist theory rests on a dual conceptualization of the capitalist system as both an inherantly injust and as an evolutionary dead end in the formation of human society.  Marx also advocated the awakening of class conciousness in the proletariat, a process he envisioned as the begining of the end for capitalism and a progression toward a system that would favor the proletariat. 

In this light, when I use the term "class warfare" I mean the intentional use of communication to incite class conciousness in an attempt to bring people to your side of the argument.  I saw Moore's first two suggestions as platitudes aimed mainly at inciting class conciousness and not serious suggestions due to the difficulty in implimenting them in real life.  The first suggestion attacks "the rich" and the "wealthiest Americans" without explicitly defining who he is talking about.  The second suggestion again throws together the generalities of "profit" and "penalty tax" and makes an emotional appeal at the end of the suggestion to jobs as "a national treasure" while completely ignoring the difficulty that following his suggestion to the letter would take in real life.  For instance, if a foriegn owned company makes profit in the United States and moves a successful manager out of the United States for a peroid of time to help in another area of the world, should they be assigned a penalty tax for that personell movement? 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Superfreakie on November 25, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 25, 2011, 07:55:30 AM
Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW).

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 25, 2011, 12:02:47 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on November 25, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 25, 2011, 07:55:30 AM
Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW).

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

In any event I never said Halliburton killed anyone, I said they  profited from those deaths. 

Also, fixed your quote. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sls.stormyrider on November 25, 2011, 12:32:25 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on November 25, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 25, 2011, 07:55:30 AM
Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW).

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

true, true

profit-ocracy
commerce - ocracy
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: mbw on November 25, 2011, 04:52:04 PM
(http://www.imgjoe.com/x/377045268049.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Hicks on November 25, 2011, 04:54:12 PM
Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 25, 2011, 04:52:04 PM
(http://www.imgjoe.com/x/377045268049.jpg)

Why should we Occupy Wall Street when we can Occupy Target for piece of shit memory cards that are worth $5?

http://youtu.be/Ip11CEddIcg
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Superfreakie on November 25, 2011, 06:58:22 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/313069_264749556906573_246310432083819_710650_2129397606_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: susep on November 25, 2011, 10:08:50 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on November 25, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

Thank you.  And what was the one event, the new "pearl harbor" that catapulted Cheney's master plan?  9/11
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: Superfreakie on November 26, 2011, 01:23:25 AM
Quote from: susep on November 25, 2011, 10:08:50 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on November 25, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

Thank you.  And what was the one event, the new "pearl harbor" that catapulted Cheney's master plan?  9/11

But it must be realized that had there not been 9/11 there would been some event down the road that would have "necessitated" an enactment of the agenda so that energy might be secured and guaranteed in advance of the Chinese and Russians. The oil game is zero sum until we find an alternative, and the US will do whatever it takes to keep the market balanced. The "problem", if you will permit me using the term, is that it is extremely difficult to convince the population of a democracy to go to war, unless it is for evident self defense. It is hard to tell the public - "we are going to put in plan a motion that is going to kill thousands but our gas at the pump will stay at a level whereby our economy will keep afloat, millions will retain their jobs and you will not have to sacrifice your present lifestyle". Consider what would happen to the US economy if you paid as much for gas as the Europeans. You think you are in a recession now? It would pale by comparison.

Let's take a quick glance at historical events that have drawn the US into war:

The USS Main anchored near Cuba accidentally sunk after some explosives near the steam room caught alight. The US, however, would lay the blame at the feet of the Spaniards; an "act of war". The US would then proceed to attack and wipe out much of the Armada, establishing the US as one of the great sea powers.

Prior to the US entrance into WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania, an ammunition boat with 139 passengers aboard. Passenger vessels were not to be targeted, but any serving a military purpose were fair game. The US and British, however, purposely neglected to tell the public in the aftermath of the sinking that there were munitions aboard. This event would be used to set the US public on the path to war.

The Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964, whereby the Americans accused North Vietnamese boats of torpedoing the USS Maddox. McNamara would eventually admit that they were never attacked, that the incident was a fabrication to turn the US population in favor of launching the Vietnamese War.

Prior to Gulf War One, there was a possible miscommunication between Saddam and the US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie. When Saddam queried her about his border dispute with Kuwait, she stated that the US had no intention of regulating border disputes in the Arab world. Although she and others have since argued that this should never have been perceived as having given the green light for the invasion, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy that Saddam approached the U.S. to find out how it would react to an invasion into Kuwait. Along with Glaspie's comment that "'[W]e have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had 'no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did." Sure this, in and of itself, is not much but the US then went to the Saudi's as Saddam was launching his offensive and showed them satellite photos with Iraqi tanks massed along the Saudi border, proclaiming that the Saudis were next. Years later we would discover from Russian satellite imaging at the exact time of the purported US photos, that there were never tanks at the Saudi border. These events, however, "allowed" the US to destroy the majority of Saddam's military might while setting up permanent military bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the US now the "rescuer of the Middle East". Interestingly, they never deposed Saddam when they had the chance. Better a weak and impotent dictator than having an Iranian proxy take over the country, which just might happen two decades later as the US prepares to withdraw from Iraq..........

Round and round we go, where it stops know one knows. The only people who have seen the end of war are the dead.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming....OWS. (sorry for the thread hijack) 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on November 29, 2011, 11:47:55 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 24, 2011, 12:26:15 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 23, 2011, 10:34:17 PM
If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.

This.

Especially when those that are declaring class warfare are themselves lower or middle class.

It blows my fucking mind how people can take positions that are so diametrically opposed to their own self interest.

It's because we're all divided up left and right arguing social issues. It's a great distraction from the economic swindling that's occurring.

Also, SF, thanks for your posts. Your comments are always very insightful in regards to world affairs and an excellent outsiders perspective looking in on America.

Also, a random, but relevant quote I saw the other day, "When plunder becomes a way of life, for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: rowjimmy on December 01, 2011, 10:00:47 AM
QuoteHow the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz1fINJrzIO

That's the beginning of a great article.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: nab on December 01, 2011, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on December 01, 2011, 10:00:47 AM
QuoteHow the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz1fINJrzIO

That's the beginning of a great article.


yeah, the very beginning.



Read this a while back.  Informative and insightful.   

Also a bit on the long side, unapologetically partisan, and rambly at times.   The democrats get off practically scott free and the time tested historical analogy (paraphrasing "see, you call yourself Reagan republicans but you really aren't") approach to contoroling dialog is heavily used throughout the piece.

On the whole though, I thought the piece was a good first step in examining one of the ways that Washington keeps the elite (this time the financial elite) in power. 
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on December 01, 2011, 02:24:36 PM
Listening to a piece on npr this morning and in regards to the GOP arguing against increasing taxes on the wealthy to balance out an extension on the payroll tax, they said something to the effect of them wanting to tread lightly so as to not appear too obviously defending the wealthy. Thing that gets me is, they're completely aware of it and adjust their rhetoric accordingly, enough to get their way but not raise any suspicion amongst the clueless american idol/mickey d's crowd of supporters. Ah well...let's keep arguing about gay marriage though.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: kellerb on December 01, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on December 01, 2011, 02:24:36 PM
Listening to a piece on npr this morning and in regards to the GOP arguing against increasing taxes on the wealthy to balance out an extension on the payroll tax, they said something to the effect of them wanting to tread lightly so as to not appear too obviously defending the wealthy. Thing that gets me is, they're completely aware of it and adjust their rhetoric accordingly, enough to get their way but not raise any suspicion amongst the clueless american idol/mickey d's crowd of supporters. Ah well...let's keep arguing about gay marriage though.

They don't want to marry poor people, just continuously fuck them in the ass.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 08:10:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs)

Adam Carolla is hilarious  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: DoW on December 12, 2011, 08:25:57 AM
I refuse to post in this thread except to say that Boston told the hippies to go home.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on December 12, 2011, 11:34:56 AM
Quote from: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 08:10:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs)

Adam Carolla is hilarious  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

Wow, I always thought he was a douche. Looks like I was right. He can go fuck himself.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on December 12, 2011, 11:34:56 AM
Quote from: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 08:10:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs)

Adam Carolla is hilarious

Wow, I always thought he was a douche. Looks like I was right. He can go fuck himself.

coming from a guy with a lot of money  :roll:
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: gah on December 12, 2011, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on December 12, 2011, 11:34:56 AM
Quote from: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 08:10:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs)

Adam Carolla is hilarious

Wow, I always thought he was a douche. Looks like I was right. He can go fuck himself.

coming from a guy with a lot of money  :roll:

:roll: indeed.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: sunrisevt on December 12, 2011, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on December 12, 2011, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on December 12, 2011, 11:34:56 AM
Quote from: iamhydroJen on December 12, 2011, 08:10:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs)

Adam Carolla is hilarious

Wow, I always thought he was a douche. Looks like I was right. He can go fuck himself.

coming from a guy with a lot of money  :roll:

:roll: indeed.

Money he made, no less, specifically for sharing his all-around douchery with us on cable TV for the last 15or 20 years. Which is still not as bad as John Corzine. Holy shit, am I depressed.
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: phil on March 14, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
http://www.dorkly.com/video/27355/dorkly-bits-batman-is-the-1
Title: Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post by: runawayjimbo on November 15, 2012, 08:31:38 AM
While I'm not sure how much far they'll get with the self-bailout ($500B in credit card debt, $1T in student loans), this is clearly one of OWS' better ideas (they've apparently been doing some great work with Sandy cleanup as well, unlike that disaster of a disaster agency, FEMA).

http://rollingjubilee.org/

Quote
A bailout of the people by the people

Rolling Jubilee is a Strike Debt project that buys debt for pennies on the dollar, but instead of collecting it, abolishes it. Together we can liberate debtors at random through a campaign of mutual support, good will, and collective refusal. Debt resistance is just the beginning.

Join us as we imagine and create a new world based on the common good, not Wall Street profits.