Occupy Wall Street

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by ryoder, Oct 5, 2011.

Loading...
  1. ryoder

    ryoder New Member

    80 'Occupy Wall Street' Protesters Arrested - WSJ.com

    These guys have no idea what they are protesting or how to fix whatever problem they are upset with. Its basically a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. The problem is that teachers unions and Van Jones, Obama's former employee, are now getting behind the movement. These guys are getting arrested in droves also.
    It is definitely much more radical and disrespectful than a tea party rally.
     
  2. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Your observation is the same as mine was: these people have no idea what they are protesting. To be fair, I've come to realize that many of them actually do. I've watched a few interviews with protesters where they had some specific issues that they wanted to be vocal about. The main problem is that each of them had a different issue that weren't necessarily related. It is basically a HEAR LIBERALS ROAR rally very much like many of the Tea Party Rallys.

    Depending on which source you read, that is. The tea party rallies are very similar in that you just have a mish mosh of people who are angry, but can't intelligently specify why, and have pet scapegoats that they cry hard against.

    However, what the Wall Street protesters did to the Brooklyn Bridge was unacceptable. I've been getting incredibly frustrated with bloggers and random internet people with saying that arresting the people who blocked traffic on the bridge was sign of a "police state" "oppression" and "persecution." Are you serious bro?! They broke the law and disrupted the lives of, probably, millions of people who would have been stuck in their cars for hours at at time. I'm familiar with that area, in fact, I have walked the bridge a few times myself while visiting the city. Traffic around the bridge is already pretty complicated to navigate, with several one ways near both entrances. In other words, people were absolutely trapped in traffic and had little choice but to just sit there or leave their cars for a few hours while the mayhem ensued on the bridge.

    Truthfully, while I do believe that they all deserved to be arrested, I don't think it was the practical thing for the police to do. They probably should have just let everyone cross and then dissipate to get things moving more quickly.
     
  3. jts

    jts New Member

    And that's totally OK, if you ask me. Wall Street has been a bit ill-behaved in the last few years, and I think it's a good thing that they get a chance to feel a bit of the nation's antipathy toward them. People are angry.

    So what if the protestors are not fully organized yet? It's a democracy, at least the last time I checked. Yes, they need a coherent message, and some good marketing, but the liberal side of things has always (within my lifetime) been far less shrewd concerning political organization. We need a few liberal Karl Roves, frankly...

    As far as the TEA party goes, I just hope they have enough oomph left in them to scare everyone into voting for the calm black man again.

    Tom
     
  4. 03310151

    03310151 New Member

    Very interesting.

    Why aren't they protesting in DC?

    No good pizza take out places?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2011
  5. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    So you're a Herman Cain supporter, then? ;-)

    -=Steve=-
     
  6. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    And who is Herman Cain?
     
  7. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Just some guy who thinks that the Constitution doesn't apply to Muslims....

    Herman Cain: Muslims must show loyalty to work for me – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
    Herman Cain Says Opposing the Building of Mosques is Constitutional, Christian News

    ...that has a tax plan created by leprechauns...

    Fox News Calls Out 999 'Plan' By Herman Cain - YouTube

    ...that he gets to define what a "real black man" is...

    is Herman Cain- "A Real Black Man May Run Against Barack Obama" - YouTube

    ...that most black people in this country are brainwashed...

    Herman Cain: Black Voters 'Have Been Brainwashed Into Not Being Open-Minded' (VIDEO)

    ...and that the declaration of independence and the constitution are the same thing.

    Herman Cain confuses Constitution with Declaration of Independence | Raw Replay

    Despite all of that, I find him to be a likable, compelling speaker, which is probably why he is so popular.
     
  8. major56

    major56 Active Member

    You’re being facetious … right?
     
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    If I were in charge of such things, I would have already deployed the pepper-spray foggers and the fire hoses.
     
  10. HikaruBr

    HikaruBr Member

    Both the Tea party and Occupy Wall Street have one main point that I agree: the Wall Street bailouts were insane and immoral (but shouldn't they be also protesting at Washington then?)

    But it's amazing how the Occupy Wall Street is being well received by the media from the beginning, while the Tea Party was demonized for more than a year.

    It's difficult not to take serious the Republican accusation of Liberal bias in the media when you see this happening.
     
  11. 03310151

    03310151 New Member

    Now that the Unions are getting involved at least there is a small chance of seeing an actual message from these protests. Most of the protesters do not know what they are protesting.
     
  12. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Actually it's a democratic republic. Also I don't see a liberal Karl Rove anytime soon because even though I can't stand the guy, he's highly pragmatic. As for voting for the "calm black man", I personally like Cain too. Oh wait...you meant that other one?
     
  13. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Even though Cain has said a lot of nutty stuff I'm compelled to vote for the guy over Romney. They all have warts, but Cain's tend to be more or less more acceptable. Conservatives have to face the facts...there is no Reagan waiting in the wings to step in at the right moment. We have what we have. Romney is wrong in almost every way that counts...Rick Perry has been unopposed in Texas for so long he forgot how to debate anyone without sounding like a self destructing parody of himself (and I can't stand him as the gov. here) and so Cain is the lesser of all evils IMHO. And no I'm not a Tea Partier...but the bias in the media against them in contrast to these protests is glaring.
     
  14. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member

    The big difference between the Tea Party folks and Occupy Wall Street and similar liberal organizations is IMHO: the Tea Party folks want to more-or-less abide by our constitution, while many liberal groups want to ‘fundamentally change’ the country into Liberal Europe-West. Europe can not pay for its Nanny State, so it would be financially disastrous to continue down that path.

    Another example of Occupy Wall Street and similar liberal organizations are IMHO, suffering from head between thighs problems where financial responsibility is concerned: banks and other financial organizations only took legal advantage of conditions created by our un-wonderful elected representatives (ex. no or low down payment, and if you are breathing home loans). I did not say it was ethical, but it wasn’t illegal (mostly). Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are equally culpable.

    They also don’t seem to understand where their teacher’s and union retirement funds are invested, so that is also interesting!
     
  15. jts

    jts New Member

    Maybe it's time to talk about change. There are changes happening in society that are gradually undermining the bedrock principles of capitalism, at least for the majority. We need fewer assembly line workers, and more robot programmers, but not as many robot programmers as there were assembly line workers. You get my drift? There aren't enough jobs to maintain quality of life, and there may never be again.

    The New Deal changed how government worked. Why not do it again? What's so awful about changing a system to sync up with reality? I know reality sucks... but speaking of putting our heads in the sand---that's what you're advocating by proxy.

    I think it's good to see people questioning the system. Things have been screwed up in this world since the first greedy [email protected]#$ said "this is mine" about some land, or whatever other fruits of the Earth, and everyone else was stupid enough to believe him. Native Americans were doing just fine, for example, until our greedy Western-European forefathers showed up and drove them off/killed them/gave them Polio blankets and told them to enjoy their new desolate "reservations" and pray that we didn't further alter the deal.

    But no, that's not how it works. We need to protect the "job creators" and all their ill-begotten wealth; greedy [email protected]#$ers like the Koch brothers and the people running things at Goldman Sachs. People who will drop this country like a used kleenex as soon as something better comes along, but preach loyalty and patriotism (in the protection of profit) through their bought-and-paid-for proxies (like the Tea Party).

    You talk about financial responsibility. Do you know what the wage disparity is in this country, between workers and leadership? The top 1% make 24% of the income. That sounds more like Rwanda or Zimbabwe, not the land of the free and the home of the gullible. Let me repeat, 24% of the income--24% of the fruits of the Earth--go to 1% of the people. Sweet deal for them, no? Tell me how that makes sense, and don't resort to saying they're smarter or better somehow. They're not. If anything, they're simply better adapted to capitalism than the rest of us--a bit more sociopathic, perhaps...

    If it's broken, don't drive the majority of citizens in the ground adhering to it. Fix it!

    I'm not saying I have the answers, it's just that nobody is asking questions.

    Tom
     
  16. jts

    jts New Member

    With that kind of attitude, you'll go far... as a third-world dictator.
     
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    I disagree....if Romney is elected, there's no doubt in my mind that he'll turn the economy around (especially if the Republicans re-take the Senate). Beyond that, if he makes sound policy decisions and listens to his military leadership, he has the chance to be the next Reagan.

    There are many similarities between Reagan and Romney.....both former governors of traditionally liberal states who were initially dismissed as not being conservative enough, and who lost their first attempt at the Presidency (twice in Reagan's case).
     
  18. 03310151

    03310151 New Member

    How much of the Taxes do the top 1% of the people pay? So people who make more money are better at gaming the current system and they are sociopaths? Like Steve Jobs? Warren Buffett and George Soros? Sociopaths like them?

    Who makes up the 1%? Illuminati? Free Masons? Can anyone become part of the 1%? If yes then how do they go about doing it? If not there should be a finite number of 1%.

    I'm supposed to feel sorry for the pregnant single girl who spent $40K on an Art Degree? Her misdirected rage is comical.

    In your opinion everyone is equal. Including T.E.A. party members? Even Republicans? What about the Koch's brothers? They'are equal too?
     
  19. DLer

    DLer New Member

    Wow, I'm speechless, so I have to borrow one of the hundreds of articles written about this subject.

    Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Mortgage underwriting standards declined precipitously during the boom period. The use of automated loan approvals allowed loans to be made without appropriate review and documentation. In 2007, 40% of all subprime loans resulted from automated underwriting. The chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association claimed that mortgage brokers, while profiting from the home loan boom, did not do enough to examine whether borrowers could repay.Mortgage fraud by lenders and borrowers increased enormously.

    The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that many mortgage lenders took eager borrowers’ qualifications on faith, often with a "willful disregard" for a borrower’s ability to pay. Nearly 25% of all mortgages made in the first half of 2005 were "interest-only" loans. During the same year, 68% of “option ARM” loans originated by Countrywide Financial and Washington Mutual had low- or no-documentation requirements.

    So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a "Giant Pool of Money" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable. NPR described it this way:

    The problem was that even though housing prices were going through the roof, people weren't making any more money. From 2000 to 2007, the median household income stayed flat. And so the more prices rose, the more tenuous the whole thing became. No matter how lax lending standards got, no matter how many exotic mortgage products were created to shoehorn people into homes they couldn't possibly afford, no matter what the mortgage machine tried, the people just couldn't swing it. By late 2006, the average home cost nearly four times what the average family made. Historically it was between two and three times. And mortgage lenders noticed something that they'd almost never seen before. People would close on a house, sign all the mortgage papers, and then default on their very first payment. No loss of a job, no medical emergency, they were underwater before they even started. And although no one could really hear it, that was probably the moment when one of the biggest speculative bubbles in American history popped.

    NPR story here Return To The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life
     
  20. jts

    jts New Member

    Quite a bit, but I never said anything about taxes. I care about income, not taxes. Taxes are a red herring, because the rich are "taxed too much" and yet the poor are suffering. Why not make the poor... less poor. Then we won't need to tax the rich so much.

    Wow, I almost gagged on all those words you shoved in my mouth.

    It's a generalization, yes, but there's no need to push it to an extreme argument that I wasn't trying to make. People with sociopathic leanings tend to do rather well in business, for various reasons that make decent sense if you think about it, and the idea is supported by some research. I'll be happy to dig some of that research up and share if you want to talk more about it. Google is also your friend here.

    Quite often, success hinges on luck. Nobody, for example, chooses their parents, their upbringing, or their IQ. We're all basically made of the same stuff, and have basically the same potential. I grant there are some differences in ability, and so on, but nothing fundamental.


    I do suppose that a little empathy is probably too much to ask. No, you're right, we should let her starve in the street, or get cancer, be refused treatment on financial grounds, and die in a gutter somewhere. Absolutely right. We wouldn't want some tycoon somewhere to give up that extra yacht he wants for Christmas on her behalf.

    I can play the exaggeration game too. :swordfight:

    Tom
     

Share This Page