A Take on Occupy Wall Street

[Navy1960]

The right to peacefully assemble, like all rights has limits. Funny how the left adore this right NOW but complained bitterly about it when the right uses it.

Could someone point out a recent event where the right illegally took over a park, destroying it in the process, illegally blocked traffic and spent over a month in violation of the laws?

Right-wing extremists who question the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency tried to take on local law enforcement recently — and they seem to have come out on the losing end.
Right-Wing Extremists Take On Local Law Enforcement, Lose | TPMMuckraker

Angry enough, in fact, for one TPer, Jim Canelos of Golden Valley, to be arrested for trespassing during a meeting, after his refusal to comply with the regulation (he donned an American flag hat while speaking at the podium during the meeting) and then a request to leave the premises.

The Tea Partiers are also upset over this particular county's passage last year of an ordinance prohibiting weapons on county property. In March 2010 Mervin Fried of Kingman, Arizona, was arrested after violating this ordinance by bringing a pitchfork into the county administration building.

I am always gratified to see Tea Party members devoting their energy to this sort of protest
Daily Kos: Arizona Tea Party Member Arrested While Protesting For His Rights - To Wear a Hat

Point is, people are going to express themselves in one way or the other and to say that every person be they Tea Party members or Occupy Wall street can be defined as left or right is somewhat of an over simplification much less, no one here knows what each and every person who is involved with those groups political leanings are. While it's well documented that for the most part the Tea Party is associated with the Republican Party, in each and every interview with members , they are just as critical to both sides and will tell you that they are NOT a left and right movement. As for Occupy Wall Street as they have yet to have a singular message other than the one I mentioned, the same things can be said for all the people there too. I was simply pointing out to exercise one's rights under the constitution is a good thing, not something to be shouted down or denegrated be it a Tea Party gathering, or Occupy Wall Street.

With respect, Navy (and you know I do totally respect you), taking an opinion from the media is a high road to hell. Generally, the media are, these days, pushing their own agenda within their reporting. I find it wise to interrogate the source - particularly when using the media as 'evidence'.

Cali, you have to understand something here, when I look at these kids, as I do my own, when they take the time to get involved in their nation, I do not look at the way they dress, or their hair, (laughs well maybe the hair). Anyway, the point here is simply this, we live all of us in the same nation, and at least for me, when these kids take to the streets to exercise rights that are hard won they are taking part in their nation, right or wrong rather than sitting on their collective backsides playing videogames and not caring about it. What this tells me is regardless of what happens here as long as people care this much, that we have a future, it may not be the one I want 100%, but still in all it will still be American. Now that may sound old fashioned on my part perhaps, but I like to see the best in people on these sorts of things and believe even when my very liberal daughter does this stuff, they do so with the best of intentions. I also, believe the same is true for all people of of all political stripes. save for those who seek to do harm.

 

[The Gadfly]

I believe that literacy testing isn't really such a bad idea.

Yeah yeah I know that means I'm a fascist.

But we presumably do not allow CHILDREN to vote because they aren't yet smart enough to vote, right?

So why do we let imbeciles vote when we KNOW many of them are less intelligent and less informed about national issues than some of our own ten year olds?

I don't expect MUCH from voters, but some bear minimum intelligence and some slightly informed POV doesn't seem like too much to ask from constituents.

In principle, I completely agree with you; it cannot possibly be good for our nation to have illiterate and completely uninformed citizens in the jury box, or at the ballot box. I note here, that many states DO in fact have educational and/or literacy requirements for jurors, and such have been held to be constitutional by the courts. The question is, how do we have such requirements for voters, without violating the constitution? Certainly, there is no question literacy tests have been abused in the past. Can we come up with an objective standard/test that WILL pass constitutional muster? It would have to be uniform, completely objective, and tamper-proof, and we'd have to find a way to administer it that wouldn't allow for abuse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right-wing extremists who question the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency tried to take on local law enforcement recently — and they seem to have come out on the losing end.
Right-Wing Extremists Take On Local Law Enforcement, Lose | TPMMuckraker

Angry enough, in fact, for one TPer, Jim Canelos of Golden Valley, to be arrested for trespassing during a meeting, after his refusal to comply with the regulation (he donned an American flag hat while speaking at the podium during the meeting) and then a request to leave the premises.

The Tea Partiers are also upset over this particular county's passage last year of an ordinance prohibiting weapons on county property. In March 2010 Mervin Fried of Kingman, Arizona, was arrested after violating this ordinance by bringing a pitchfork into the county administration building.

I am always gratified to see Tea Party members devoting their energy to this sort of protest
Daily Kos: Arizona Tea Party Member Arrested While Protesting For His Rights - To Wear a Hat

Point is, people are going to express themselves in one way or the other and to say that every person be they Tea Party members or Occupy Wall street can be defined as left or right is somewhat of an over simplification much less, no one here knows what each and every person who is involved with those groups political leanings are. While it's well documented that for the most part the Tea Party is associated with the Republican Party, in each and every interview with members , they are just as critical to both sides and will tell you that they are NOT a left and right movement. As for Occupy Wall Street as they have yet to have a singular message other than the one I mentioned, the same things can be said for all the people there too. I was simply pointing out to exercise one's rights under the constitution is a good thing, not something to be shouted down or denegrated be it a Tea Party gathering, or Occupy Wall Street.

One, you're desperately reaching to try to excuse and legitimize the uncivilized behavior of this garbage. Two, you're wasting space on my screen trying to pretend the Internet blog trash you read constitutes any sort of real source. If you're going to link this shit, don't bother linking at all, because I think we can all guess without it that your "information" is so much diarrhea being spewed from someone's anus.

Then as a suggestion, don't read it.

I don't read your ignorant links, moron. That's why I suggested that you shouldn't waste space posting links that aren't going to be read, and are going to accomplish nothing except to verify that you're a brainless shitstain. Your posts are doing that just fine on their own, so why bother with overkiill like "And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?

Get a real news source, flatliner.

 

[Cuyo]

I've been wathing these young people at Occupy Wall Street lately and while I don't know every single detail of what they seem to want from Wall Street, the very idea that they take the time to exercise rights given to them under the constitution and for the most part peacefully should be admired. We as Americans can disagree, and we seem to be doing an awful lot of that lately, but rights such as the right to assemble , free speech, and any other are rights that are daily defended all over the world by young men and women with their very lives and has been for this nations over 200 plus year history. these young people camp out there in the street because they feel that the opportunity that their fathers and grandfathers had is no longer available to them and in some way's they are right when you look at American companies that have laid off or fired over 2.9 Million Americans in the last 10 years and Hired 2.4 Million overseas according to the Dept. of Labor. That being said, while many of us may or may not agree on why they are there, they are exercising the same right's given under the same constitution that every American lives under and should love. While many may not agree with me here, I for one admire all those young people, for taking part in the very nation they live and while I may not agree with everything they stand for, they are exercising a right that many who wore a uniform to defend, and in a small way it gives me hope that this young generation loves the nation as much as all those who came before them.

They're past the 'peacefully assemble' part. Not to mention the fact that they are being manipulated by those who are funding and organized it.

Like he said, they're not very different form the tea party.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Wall Street companies want to pay executives big bonuses, they are spending their own money and it is none of your business.

 

[Navy1960]

One, you're desperately reaching to try to excuse and legitimize the uncivilized behavior of this garbage. Two, you're wasting space on my screen trying to pretend the Internet blog trash you read constitutes any sort of real source. If you're going to link this shit, don't bother linking at all, because I think we can all guess without it that your "information" is so much diarrhea being spewed from someone's anus.

Then as a suggestion, don't read it.

I don't read your ignorant links, moron. That's why I suggested that you shouldn't waste space posting links that aren't going to be read, and are going to accomplish nothing except to verify that you're a brainless shitstain. Your posts are doing that just fine on their own, so why bother with overkiill like "And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?

Get a real news source, flatliner.

For someone who doesn't read my links, you sure seem to be upset over them. Let me see if I can understand your position here, rather than argue any merits with facts you resort to name calling. As I generally do not engage in debates with people who are obviously incapable of doing so on an adult level this will be my last response to your rants.


"And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?
If you can find that in my postings, then I suggest your reading some other persons or perhaps you do not know what "" mean, no matter as I never expressed that opinion in any of my postings and as you seem to have a habit of expressing your opinion without facts, I will try and clear it up for you.

As for new's sources, unlike many, I tend to gather my sources from just about everywhere and DO NOT prejudge the source based on my own political leanings prior to posting them as long as they are backed up with facts. In most if not all my links, they will come from all sources from Foxnews, all the way to DailyKos and NavyTimes as well as Aviationweek.

 

[Cuyo]

If Wall Street companies want to pay executives big bonuses, they are spending their own money and it is none of your business.

There's a deep philosophical question in the spotlight here.

It's easy to spew gimmicky slogans that support your chosen POV, but lets take a look at what's happening that's got these folks so pissed off.

1. They are earning less than their parents for now the second generation in a row, if they can find a job at all.

2. The cost of commodities has increased to a point that "Working poor" has become the new norm; Eg the middle class is disappearing.

3. We're in a terrible recession, and the taxpayer just got done bailing out the people who caused it. Meanwhile, the taxpayer is being asked to "Make sacrifices" in the form of cutting services to make up for lost time, yet the people who got bailed out are living on the high horse, have taken no haircuts whatsoever, and are making more money than ever.

At some point you have to accept that laissez faire capitalism will lead to aristocracy and ultimately revolution, and ask yourself what's to be done. Do you say "Too bad it's their money" and let the chips fall where they may? Or do you ask your government, which is supposed to be for, of, and by, what needs to be done to stop this from happening?

This is a survival mechanism on a biological scale. Some of the folks don't really understand what's happened, but they know something is desperately wrong with the way things are going.

Ignore and belittle them at your own peril.

 

[Navy1960]

If Wall Street companies want to pay executives big bonuses, they are spending their own money and it is none of your business.

Tipsy, I'm curious, would you say it was our business if say for example those companies received tax payer money to bail them out? Take for example AIG, which was rescued by the taxpayer, would you not agree that companies such as these would have some sort of obligation to the taxpayer to operate on a prudent basis and as such we the taxpayers should have some input in its executive compensation ? While I agree with you, that for the most part companies boards set the compensation level of it's executives and as such it's really not that big of a deal, however it's a little hard to justify this especially for a bank for example, or a company that lays off American workers or hires them overseas all the while taking taxpayer funds.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Wall Street companies want to pay executives big bonuses, they are spending their own money and it is none of your business.

Tipsy, I'm curious, would you say it was our business if say for example those companies received tax payer money to bail them out? Take for example AIG, which was rescued by the taxpayer, would you not agree that companies such as these would have some sort of obligation to the taxpayer to operate on a prudent basis and as such we the taxpayers should have some input in its executive compensation ? While I agree with you, that for the most part companies boards set the compensation level of it's executives and as such it's really not that big of a deal, however it's a little hard to justify this especially for a bank for example, or a company that lays off American workers or hires them overseas all the while taking taxpayer funds.

They should never have gotten taxpayer money to bail them out. IF in fact the government had intended to protect the ordinary investor that entrusted money to AIG, they should have found another way to do it other than bailing the company out. AIG is an insurance company. It insured mortgages. Under the terms of the Community Reinvestment Act, lenders were required to make mortgages to people KNOWN not to pay their bills. Had the government not made this requirement, the lenders would not have lent, AIG would not have insured. Because of feckless government regulations billions was wasted on people who never had an intention of paying their mortgage. They treated that purchased home as they did their rentals. Stay as long as they can before they are evicted. Had AIG been allowed to fail, it would have gone bankrupt, its assets seized and dealt with through receivership. The assets including what good mortages they had could have been put into a trust fund perhaps with SOME taxpayer supported funds to protect small investors. Let the company go. Enron was let go. Bernie Madoff's investors got burned. Nothing made AIG investors immune. Minimize the damage, that I would have gone along with.

Please don't bring up taxpayer money supporting businesses that go overseas. This regime is giving a carmaker in Finland millions and millions of dollars to make toys for the very rich. Not a dime for any carmaker here. Not a cent. Do you agree with that little debacle?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then as a suggestion, don't read it.

I don't read your ignorant links, moron. That's why I suggested that you shouldn't waste space posting links that aren't going to be read, and are going to accomplish nothing except to verify that you're a brainless shitstain. Your posts are doing that just fine on their own, so why bother with overkiill like "And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?

Get a real news source, flatliner.

For someone who doesn't read my links, you sure seem to be upset over them. Let me see if I can understand your position here, rather than argue any merits with facts you resort to name calling. As I generally do not engage in debates with people who are obviously incapable of doing so on an adult level this will be my last response to your rants.


"And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?
If you can find that in my postings, then I suggest your reading some other persons or perhaps you do not know what "" mean, no matter as I never expressed that opinion in any of my postings and as you seem to have a habit of expressing your opinion without facts, I will try and clear it up for you.

As for new's sources, unlike many, I tend to gather my sources from just about everywhere and DO NOT prejudge the source based on my own political leanings prior to posting them as long as they are backed up with facts. In most if not all my links, they will come from all sources from Foxnews, all the way to DailyKos and NavyTimes as well as Aviationweek.

Oh, you didn't link to Daily Kos? Yes, actually you did. If you want to tell me you linked to Daily Kos because you think it's a giant, worthless pile of shit, then I'm just going to think you're an even bigger ignoramus than I currently do.

I don't "prejudge" sources based on the political leanings of the fools who link to them, moron. Did you really think I had no idea what Daily Kos was BEFORE you whipped it out and tried to pretend that what it had to say about anything amounted to more than a giant taco fart in a warm breeze?

 

[California Girl]

I don't read your ignorant links, moron. That's why I suggested that you shouldn't waste space posting links that aren't going to be read, and are going to accomplish nothing except to verify that you're a brainless shitstain. Your posts are doing that just fine on their own, so why bother with overkiill like "And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?

Get a real news source, flatliner.

For someone who doesn't read my links, you sure seem to be upset over them. Let me see if I can understand your position here, rather than argue any merits with facts you resort to name calling. As I generally do not engage in debates with people who are obviously incapable of doing so on an adult level this will be my last response to your rants.


"And I think Daily Kos is a brilliant news source, duhhhh"?
If you can find that in my postings, then I suggest your reading some other persons or perhaps you do not know what "" mean, no matter as I never expressed that opinion in any of my postings and as you seem to have a habit of expressing your opinion without facts, I will try and clear it up for you.

As for new's sources, unlike many, I tend to gather my sources from just about everywhere and DO NOT prejudge the source based on my own political leanings prior to posting them as long as they are backed up with facts. In most if not all my links, they will come from all sources from Foxnews, all the way to DailyKos and NavyTimes as well as Aviationweek.

Oh, you didn't link to Daily Kos? Yes, actually you did. If you want to tell me you linked to Daily Kos because you think it's a giant, worthless pile of shit, then I'm just going to think you're an even bigger ignoramus than I currently do.

I don't "prejudge" sources based on the political leanings of the fools who link to them, moron. Did you really think I had no idea what Daily Kos was BEFORE you whipped it out and tried to pretend that what it had to say about anything amounted to more than a giant taco fart in a warm breeze?

Could I just interject with one small yet accurate fact... Navy1960 is one of the most respected posters on this board.... by both left and right wingers. Why? Because he is smart, and unbiased. While I see your point about 'sources', because I have the same issue... there is a huge difference between someone like Navy who uses a range of sources to inform himself, and the moronic hordes who repeat parrot fashion whatever they read in the HuffPuff as though it is the Gospel according to St Barack.

In short, on the day you are as smart as he is, you can legitimately criticize his intellect. But hell will probably freeze over first.

 

[The Gadfly]

If Wall Street companies want to pay executives big bonuses, they are spending their own money and it is none of your business.

Tipsy, I'm curious, would you say it was our business if say for example those companies received tax payer money to bail them out? Take for example AIG, which was rescued by the taxpayer, would you not agree that companies such as these would have some sort of obligation to the taxpayer to operate on a prudent basis and as such we the taxpayers should have some input in its executive compensation ? While I agree with you, that for the most part companies boards set the compensation level of it's executives and as such it's really not that big of a deal, however it's a little hard to justify this especially for a bank for example, or a company that lays off American workers or hires them overseas all the while taking taxpayer funds.

They should never have gotten taxpayer money to bail them out. IF in fact the government had intended to protect the ordinary investor that entrusted money to AIG, they should have found another way to do it other than bailing the company out. AIG is an insurance company. It insured mortgages. Under the terms of the Community Reinvestment Act, lenders were required to make mortgages to people KNOWN not to pay their bills. Had the government not made this requirement, the lenders would not have lent, AIG would not have insured. Because of feckless government regulations billions was wasted on people who never had an intention of paying their mortgage. They treated that purchased home as they did their rentals. Stay as long as they can before they are evicted. Had AIG been allowed to fail, it would have gone bankrupt, its assets seized and dealt with through receivership. The assets including what good mortages they had could have been put into a trust fund perhaps with SOME taxpayer supported funds to protect small investors. Let the company go. Enron was let go. Bernie Madoff's investors got burned. Nothing made AIG investors immune. Minimize the damage, that I would have gone along with.

Please don't bring up taxpayer money supporting businesses that go overseas. This regime is giving a carmaker in Finland millions and millions of dollars to make toys for the very rich. Not a dime for any carmaker here. Not a cent. Do you agree with that little debacle?

Ok, I think it's time to inject some honesty into BOTH sides of this, because the above is not quite correct, and neither is some of what the other side has been saying. First of all, the CRA, and the loans made under it, did not, in and of themselves cause the problem. The truth of that is that the default rate on those CRA mortgages was about 9%, which is about what it historically has been for conventional mortgages. THAT was not the source of the problem. The only contributing factor that remotely came out of the CRA was the "Bundled mortgages". As an incentive for banks to make what were presumed "riskier loans" (there's a legitimate question as to whether they really were), the government allowed the banks to do what had previously been forbidden-bundle mortgages, and sell the bundles (technically "derivatives") to the brokers as financial instruments, which could then be bought and sold, thereby spreading the risk. At the time it was done, this looked like a harmless idea, and under slightly different circumstances, it might have been. It looked at the time, like a way of helping people who might have otherwise not been able to get a mortgage into home ownership, thereby giving them a stake in society they had not had before; and in the beginning, it worked.

That was all well and good, but in 2000, the economy headed into what looked to be a mild recession. The fed did what it has been doing for years; it eased monetary policy to help the economy "soft land" instead of crash more abruptly. Then in 2001 9/11 happened and one result was a deeper recession than had been forecast; the fed acted again, easing monetary policy (and thus lowering interest rates) again, and again. Now however, there was less room to lower the rates further, and so, interest rates fell to all time lows, and remained there. Even through the recession, housing values had remained strong. Now, with plenty of mortgage money flowing a low rates, it boomed. The overall housing market overheated, and the "bubble" was born. Demand spiked, prices went up, until they no longer reflected the real values of the properties. It was essentially the same thing that had happened in the earlier tech bubble, and "dot.com" bubble in the stock market, except that it involved homes, (which are typically a family's largest asset), and thus, a lot more people. Superficially, it looked as though a lot of wealth was being created, but the "wealth: was an illusion; it existed only on paper, and only for as long as demand for housing stayed high.

Meanwhile, there was a boom in demand for those mortgage derivatives; those same low interest rates depressed yields on conventional investments, from Treasury Bills, to bonds to dividends. In a now very soft money market, these derivatives offered significantly higher yields (albeit at higher risk, and many investors flocked to them., sending demand up, and brokers scrambling to find more. Now it wasn't just CRA mortgages; the relaxed rules had let them bundle mortgages, period, and the banks did so. With values still rising, and a steady stream of applicants, they issued more and more, with looser underwriting criteria; even offering adjustable rate mortgages with ultra-low "teaser rates". The situation was now becoming dangerous, but few saw it, or indeed, wanted to Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac joined in (why not; there was money to be made), and congressional regulators saw no reason to ask too many questions-why disrupt what was apparently going so well.

At the same time, home buyers continued to flood ito the market, encouraged by realtors who also saw this as a boom time to be enjoyed; and with rates and monthly payments low, many proceeded to buy more expensive and more over-priced houses than they would have dared look at before; After all, the way values were going up, they were sure they could refinance, when the higher rates on their ARM's kicked in. Still others used increased equity in their existing homes as a cash cow through home equity loans. The stage was now set, and it was only 2005. All that remained was a trigger to burst the bubble. (The then-CEO of AIG would provide that in 2008, with results we now know.

So who failed? Who could have stopped this? The uncomfortable answer is....ALL OF US! That's right, I said ALL OF US, from consumers, to bankers to Wall Street, to the regulators, to the politicians, everybody had a hand in it, and could have stopped it. Consumers COULD have stopped binging on easy credit, and buying what they could only afford as long as everything went right-THEY DIDN'T. The Bankers COULD have stopped it, by slowing down the lending (but banks are publicly owned, and have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits)-THEY DIDN'T. The Brokers COULD have stopped it (but they have a duty to their clients and shareholders to maximize profits) -THEY DIDN'T! The politicians COULD have stopped it; they at least had the power to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (but that would have been unpopular with the voters)-THEY DIDN'T. Instead, everybody carried on, with everyone who had a clue what was happening silently hoping the spending party would end on someone else's watch, or at someone else's expense. THAT IS THE COLD, HARD, BITTER TRUTH!

The finger pointing that has gone on ever since is as stupid and as disingenuous, as it is utterly predictable! There is plenty of blame to go around, and BOTH political parties, and the American people themselves, are just as damn culpable as anyone else is! The banks didn't do it, Wall ST. didn't do it, congress didn't do it, Bush didn't do it....EVERYBODY DID IT! No one group did all this by themselves, and it's high time we faced that.

Now, with all that in mind, tell me who needs to go to the guillotine!

 

[Katzndogz]

Partly right.

What I saw, and can only assume it was as widespread as what I observed was that people started treating homes as big piggy banks. As values rose, people started refinancing like crazy taking out the equity. Someone who bought a completely affordable house at $120,000 soon borrowed it up to $750,000. They went crazy with the money too. Vacations, gifts, new cars, major home improvements. Living beyond one's means took on a whole new meaning. Grandparents with long paid for homes were encouraged to borrow against homes by children seeing golden eggs under all those geese.

When borrowing was no longer possible, people started losing homes. The bubble burst, as it always will, leaving massive foreclosures in its wake.

Although, someone very clever could make out. A friend of mine continually took out real estate equity to buy rental property. Before the bubble burst, she started selling off the rentals until she had her home and two rentals completely paid for.

 

[The Gadfly]

Anyone who really cared to look could see the problem coming by 2005. All anyone had to do was look. Those who were a little smarter, or a little more cautious, did look, and acted accordingly. By 2007, I had bailed out of investments in the financial sector, paid down debt (business and personal) as far as possible, and diversified my investments. The only thing that took me a bit by surprise was the extent of the liquidity crisis that followed in the fall of 2009. As that part of it turned out, we were lucky to avoid a full scale meltdown of the international credit markets, which would have been a global economic disaster-that part of it, in fact, is what REALLY led to the bulk of the bailouts in late 2008; distasteful, to be sure, but the alternative was far worse, and we got very near the abyss, as it was.

I took some losses, of course, but comparatively minor ones;I had myself pretty well-positioned to ride out the storm, and of course being retired helped, but I had already done that as I had planned to, so for the most part I was able to simply sit back and let the markets recover. Anyone wiling to do their "homework" and sufficient planning could have easily done the same, so long as they didn't get greedy and try to squeeze the last dollar of profit out of everything. Then again, I've always had the habit of living well within my means.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is this worth educating?

Protesters again occupy Grant Park

A 27-year-old protester from Grand Rapids, Mich., who gave her name as Urban Pirate, said spreading information about the protest was a key to keeping it growing.

“I feel I’m a little more dangerous not that I’m informed,” she said. “We all have a right to expect more from each other and the American Dream.”

Based on WHAT is this presumed right? And this is why you fail, and will continue to fail.

Mitch Malinski, 19, of Grayslake, an economics student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said he wants “to talk to Mr. Obama. This is America — we’re supposed to have jobs.”

You ARE! Based on what? Tell ya what you just keep protesting maybe if you hold your breath till you turn blue someone will put a broom in your hands.

 

[The Gadfly]

Is this worth educating?

Protesters again occupy Grant Park

A 27-year-old protester from Grand Rapids, Mich., who gave her name as Urban Pirate, said spreading information about the protest was a key to keeping it growing.

“I feel I’m a little more dangerous not that I’m informed,” she said. “We all have a right to expect more from each other and the American Dream.”

Based on WHAT is this presumed right? And this is why you fail, and will continue to fail.

Mitch Malinski, 19, of Grayslake, an economics student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said he wants “to talk to Mr. Obama. This is America — we’re supposed to have jobs.”

You ARE! Based on what? Tell ya what you just keep protesting maybe if you hold your breath till you turn blue someone will put a broom in your hands.

In a word, probably not. You just can't fix stupid....or willful ignorance.

 

[Samson]

I've read a little from the postings of the OWS crowd to add to my initial conclusion that they not only want jobs (or if they have jobs they want more money), but they have also begun to rewrite history to support their fantacy. You may have seen some of it posted here:

'Post WWII USA was a golden era of cooperation between employer and employee because employers understood that employees represented more than a cost of doing business. It was a symbiotic relationship, in which companies would employ and pay workers MORE than they might be worth in terms of productivity. In return, employees would buy goods and services from the company.

This ended during the 1980's, when investors began to control employers, and employees became just another cost to be cut in return for higher ROI. This is how the actual value of US corporations began their decline: Instead of reducing costs, they actually reduced the consuming power of the population upon which they had relied for sales.

The Goal of OWS is to reverse the predominance of investor interests among public corporations, and return to the good old days when they hired people out of the goodness of their hearts; concern for the little guy.'



While this fairy tale sounds wonderful, there's no more evidence to support the theory that employers ever, before, during, or after WWII employed people because they thought they would do any more than produce a profit for the company. OWS will oftem sight Henry Ford as an example to contradict this, claiming he offered higher wages so his employees could afford a Model-A.

Sorry, um NO.

Like all employers he offered higher wages to attract better workers, so they could produce more goods and higher profits.

 

[editec]

I believe that literacy testing isn't really such a bad idea.

Yeah yeah I know that means I'm a fascist.

But we presumably do not allow CHILDREN to vote because they aren't yet smart enough to vote, right?

So why do we let imbeciles vote when we KNOW many of them are less intelligent and less informed about national issues than some of our own ten year olds?

I don't expect MUCH from voters, but some bear minimum intelligence and some slightly informed POV doesn't seem like too much to ask from constituents.

No, it's not a bad idea, it is a horrible idea. Unless you believe voting is not a right.

It is OBVIOUSLY not a right, If it was a "right" then our children could vote. If it was a RIGHT, then convicted felons could vote.

It is ironic that conservatives who squeal for 'less government' in our lives, have NO problem asking for A LOT MORE government in the lives of people they want to ostracize, silence and censor.

That is true, but I am NOT a conservative...or for that matter a liberal.

WHO is going to administer this 'test'? WHO is going to grade this 'test'? WHO gets to render what people are worthy of this new PRIVILEGE to vote? WHO is going to pay for this 'test'? Do we create a new bureaucracy?

Who oversees elections right now?

 

[Navy1960]

If Wall Street companies want to pay executives big bonuses, they are spending their own money and it is none of your business.

Tipsy, I'm curious, would you say it was our business if say for example those companies received tax payer money to bail them out? Take for example AIG, which was rescued by the taxpayer, would you not agree that companies such as these would have some sort of obligation to the taxpayer to operate on a prudent basis and as such we the taxpayers should have some input in its executive compensation ? While I agree with you, that for the most part companies boards set the compensation level of it's executives and as such it's really not that big of a deal, however it's a little hard to justify this especially for a bank for example, or a company that lays off American workers or hires them overseas all the while taking taxpayer funds.

They should never have gotten taxpayer money to bail them out. IF in fact the government had intended to protect the ordinary investor that entrusted money to AIG, they should have found another way to do it other than bailing the company out. AIG is an insurance company. It insured mortgages. Under the terms of the Community Reinvestment Act, lenders were required to make mortgages to people KNOWN not to pay their bills. Had the government not made this requirement, the lenders would not have lent, AIG would not have insured. Because of feckless government regulations billions was wasted on people who never had an intention of paying their mortgage. They treated that purchased home as they did their rentals. Stay as long as they can before they are evicted. Had AIG been allowed to fail, it would have gone bankrupt, its assets seized and dealt with through receivership. The assets including what good mortages they had could have been put into a trust fund perhaps with SOME taxpayer supported funds to protect small investors. Let the company go. Enron was let go. Bernie Madoff's investors got burned. Nothing made AIG investors immune. Minimize the damage, that I would have gone along with.

Please don't bring up taxpayer money supporting businesses that go overseas. This regime is giving a carmaker in Finland millions and millions of dollars to make toys for the very rich. Not a dime for any carmaker here. Not a cent. Do you agree with that little debacle?

Tipsy, I don't agree with any taxpayer dollars funding jobs oversea's, however, knowing that in the last 30 years the US manufacturing capability gets less and less capable each and every year, it's virtually impossible for some industries to not seek offshore manufacturing , especially for high-tech items. One need only look at the computer industry as well as the aircraft industry to understand that. I invite you to take a look at Boeing's new aircraft the 787 and look and see how many nations are involved in it's construction. While it would be nice to have all of this in the US and I for one would be all for that, today its just not possible. I rather imagine, with something as complex as an electric car, the same is true. Even if the car is assembled here, some of those tax dollars are going to be used in the purchase of parts not made in this nation. The same is true throughout the Defense industry which uses a wide range of oversea's built systems. While I for one would be for strong advocate for US built first, I would seek to have that capability eventually brought here if its not here now, but would not abandon it if its not.

 

[Katzndogz]

The main reason why we should not pay Finland to build electric cars over there is because we cannot afford to put millions in the Finnish economy while our own struggles. The cars are going to cost $100,000 base price. We are paying tax money to build cars that only the very rich will be able to afford. This is sensible to who? Especially as we war agains the rich here.

Stop spending for innovation elsewhere. Let it develop here. After all, we didn't pay Daimler to build cars in Germany when Henry Ford was cranking out less reliable cars. We didn't pay ANYONE. It developed from the Model T into the Mustang.

IF we were flush, had scads of money and manna was falling from the sky, sure, we can afford to throw a little around. Now? No.