DVD Talk
Occupy Wall Street [Archive] - Page 10 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Occupy Wall Street


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11

kvrdave
11-29-11, 11:25 PM
:lol: Votes only matter when the results are what the OWS assembly agrees with.

Superboy
11-29-11, 11:29 PM
Hmmm, so hippies tend to be liberal arts majors. No. Fucking. Way.

Yes, unfortunately.

However, the science majors smelled the worst because they had to work the hardest.

The business majors smell the best.

Th0r S1mpson
11-29-11, 11:59 PM
Yeah, those lab coats really work up a sweat.

Superboy
11-30-11, 12:10 AM
They're made to be fire and chemical resistant, so they just don't breathe well.

When I was in business school, there was always a job fair or an employment event or a tour of a firm going on at least twice a week, so you always had to look and smell your best.

wmansir
11-30-11, 02:09 AM
More on this:

Some courses of study puzzled. For example, standing in Dilworth Plaza among the Occupy tents one evening, listening to socialist speeches, I chatted with a young man who said his degree was in international relations.

"What skills do you have that would get you a job at any of these buildings around here," I asked, motioning to the lit office towers surrounding us.

"What makes you think I'd want to work in any of these buildings?" he said.

Uh -- a decent paycheck?

He told me what kinds of work a degree in international relations would get him.

"I can work at an embassy anywhere in the world," he said.

Doing what?

It's not clear. No matter. He said he would spend another five years in college obtaining his master's and doctorate degrees. He will be 30 when he graduates, carrying about $50,000 in college loans.

He may be among the millions of college grads unable to find work that pays enough to service the debt.

My alma mater has a very highly regarded International Relations program. IR as an undergrad is mostly a pre-grad school degree. At least, that was the plan for all the IR majors I knew. Thinking maybe I was a bit prejudiced I took a look at the program's career development page.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9863/internationalrelationsw.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9863/internationalrelationsw.jpg)

Based on the picture it looks like ditch digging is a common career path.

TheBigDave
11-30-11, 02:19 AM
Occupy Philly was cleared earlier tonight.

Cops are clearing Occupy LA right now. Here's live video:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/live-video/
http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/?watchLive=ktla-live-stream-6

wishbone
11-30-11, 09:30 AM
:lol: Votes only matter when the results are what the OWS assembly agrees with.From the video it looks like the Occupiers didn't even vote for themselves to be heard. :lol:

grundle
11-30-11, 09:53 AM
My alma mater has a very highly regarded International Relations program. IR as an undergrad is mostly a pre-grad school degree. At least, that was the plan for all the IR majors I knew. Thinking maybe I was a bit prejudiced I took a look at the program's career development page.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9863/internationalrelationsw.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9863/internationalrelationsw.jpg)

Based on the picture it looks like ditch digging is a common career path.

An engineering major would have had the common sense to use a giant machine instead of a shovel!

Th0r S1mpson
11-30-11, 10:27 AM
An engineering major would have had the common sense to use a giant machine instead of a shovel!

They obviously know nothing about international relations, then. -rolleyes-

Th0r S1mpson
11-30-11, 10:28 AM
I can't wait to hear who the 99% endorse for President. Talk about a landslide victory!

TheBigDave
11-30-11, 09:46 PM
Adam Carolla delivers an epic rant on the Occupy generation:

WARNING - NSFW

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cJD8pZiRIzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

“We’re dealing with the first wave of participation trophies … everybody’s a winner, there are no losers.”

“It’s this envy and shame, and there’s gonna be a lot more of it. It used to be back in the day, a father was walking his son and they’d see a guy go by in his Rolls Royce. ‘There goes Mr. Jenkins. Look up to him.’ What do we do now? Oooh, look at him. Does he need that car? Why does he need to drive that car? Let’s throw a rock at it.”

“You took guys who built something and you said, there’s a guy who accomplished something, not, ‘why isn’t this guy paying his fair share?’ When did that ever come about? That guy paid in millions of dollars last year, and you paid shit.”

“… There are two things you can do with shame. You can be shamed and go, ‘I better get my shit together,’ or you can be shamed and go, ‘I’m gonna go tear that guy’s shit down.’ That’s where we’re at now.”

gogogo31
11-30-11, 10:04 PM
Surprising no-one, Adam Carolla has no grasp of the unemployment crisis, the ever-worsening economic crises (domestic and global), the growing number of regular working people who don't have any shit left to get together no matter how willing we are to improve our increasingly unimprovable lot, or anything but his own fake nostalgia (and, from the sound of it, latent fascism: "look up" to your "betters," don't question or challenge The Order of Things, The Way Things Are and Therefore Must Always Be!). He and Frank Miller should hunker down in their posh digs watching Ma and Pa Kettle movies and pining for the good old days that exist exclusively in their shockingly sentimental imaginations while the rest of us try to sort out some very real systematic and institutional problems--problems that it apparently takes actually being downsized/laid off, losing your home, or lining up behind a thousand other applicants for one decent job to have even the most tentative, childlike understanding of. People who imagine that the bootstraps everyone is supposed to be pulling themselves up by are not quantifiably disappearing at a rapid rate so that the 1% can continue to enjoy their obscene extravagances are either self-serving or deluded.

kvrdave
11-30-11, 10:08 PM
Yeah, I want less work for more pay and no risk as well. He sucks.

Superboy
11-30-11, 11:03 PM
Yeah, I want more workers who I have to pay less and put at more risk too. Americans need to quit their bellyaching and just send their children back to work. They're not learning anything useful in school anyway. When was the last time anyone here ever learned anything useful in school that they ever applied to their job? plus when your kid comes home with no scalp, hey, that's less money you're going to have to spend on shampoo and haircuts for the kids.

kvrdave
11-30-11, 11:18 PM
Ah, the slippery slope of reverting to a time with no child labor laws.

IMAGINE THE HORRID WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE DMV!!!! :lol:

Have government jobs traditionally been so hard to fill that they need to be making higher wages with better retirement and better benefits than the private sector? There might be a happy medium between the current situation and no child labor laws.

gogogo31
11-30-11, 11:23 PM
I think everyone should be FORCED to take risks whether they like it or not by people who already have an unfrayable safety net (woven for them by our labor and our now thankfully eroding trust) and no clue what the risk of losing one's finite resources actually means! In fact, why not make everyone put their well-being and resources into the hands of those bold risk-takers and just mock them if they want to keep tabs on or demand a say in what the The Great Risk-Takers do with it?

gogogo31
11-30-11, 11:33 PM
Ah, the slippery slope of reverting to a time with no child labor laws.

IMAGINE THE HORRID WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE DMV!!!! :lol:

Have government jobs traditionally been so hard to fill that they need to be making higher wages with better retirement and better benefits than the private sector? There might be a happy medium between the current situation and no child labor laws.

Um, what was that font of wisdom Adam Carolla saying about "envy" and resentment, again? Pitting public and private workers against each other is a despicable and transparent attempt to distract from the idea that all workers should have decent wages and benefits by implying that decent wages and benefits should be taken from those who have them out of sheer misplaced, defeatist fatalism, hopelessness, spite, and vengeance (the official four pillars that contemporary conservatism clings to as it drowns in its own extreme, ludicrous bile, I believe).

X
11-30-11, 11:41 PM
How exactly are all workers going to have decent wages and benefits when we buy most of our stuff from China? What was it Pogo said?

gogogo31
11-30-11, 11:43 PM
How exactly are all workers going to have decent wages and benefits...

That is the number one most important question to be asked, not who to take them away from.

Superboy
12-01-11, 12:21 AM
Um, what was that font of wisdom Adam Carolla saying about "envy" and resentment, again? Pitting public and private workers against each other is a despicable and transparent attempt to distract from the idea that all workers should have decent wages and benefits by implying that decent wages and benefits should be taken from those who have them out of sheer misplaced, defeatist fatalism, hopelessness, spite, and vengeance (the official four pillars that contemporary conservatism clings to as it drowns in its own extreme, ludicrous bile, I believe).

*pffffttttt*

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Where's the good Dr. when you need to pass a blunt?

kvrdave
12-01-11, 12:45 AM
Um, what was that font of wisdom Adam Carolla saying about "envy" and resentment, again? Pitting public and private workers against each other is a despicable and transparent attempt to distract from the idea that all workers should have decent wages and benefits by implying that decent wages and benefits should be taken from those who have them out of sheer misplaced, defeatist fatalism, hopelessness, spite, and vengeance (the official four pillars that contemporary conservatism clings to as it drowns in its own extreme, ludicrous bile, I believe).

Boy, if you are going to be taken seriously, you at least have to say "proletariat" a few times. And not a single "bourgeois?" C'mon, comrade.

gogogo31
12-01-11, 01:16 AM
Boy, if you are going to be taken seriously, you at least have to say "proletariat" a few times. And not a single "bourgeois?" C'mon, comrade.

Right, you, Adam Carolla, and Frank Miller can go continue to fight the Cold War in imaginationland (drumming up new members for the John Birch Society and radically misinterpreting Orwell all the while, no doubt) while the rest of us deal with the immediately pressing/constricting realities of class in America that can no longer be ignored or wished away as they negatively and directly affect an exponentially increasing number of us from month to month.

Superboy
12-01-11, 01:26 AM
careful. Hippies are not welcome anywhere near his lawn with the rest of the whipper snappers!

gogogo31
12-01-11, 01:36 AM
Meh, no worries about that. I feel like I'm paying too much attention and am too politicized to be a "real" hippie! The hippies' mistake was that they got too distracted by the cultural (still a classic conservative wedge strategy--get people riled over trumped-up, mirage-like social/"values" anxieties to distract us from our widely shared economic stagnation) and weren't nearly rigorous enough about actual policy, politics, and economics. They were living in a time of economic upsurge. That kind of dropping-out laxity is not going to be an option now that we're all paying for the mistakes of the privileged and reckless few, feeling the squeeze in painful ways, and waking up to how economically interdependent we all are.

gogogo31
12-01-11, 03:56 AM
Economists stand with the Occupy movement. (http://front.moveon.org/300-economists-who-stand-with-occupywallstreet/#.TtbH5vBw55c.facebook)

crazyronin
12-01-11, 08:47 AM
Economists stand with the Occupy movement. (http://front.moveon.org/300-economists-who-stand-with-occupywallstreet/#.TtbH5vBw55c.facebook)

Going by BLS statistics there are roughly 30,000 economists in the US, so a more correct link would say, "1% of economists stand with the Occupy movement."

The Man keeping the 99% down

TheBigDave
12-01-11, 08:50 AM
Oocupy Santa Cruz has broken into a vacant building and barricaded the doors.

Occupy Santa Cruz takes over vacant building on Water Street; police move in but retreat

Santa Cruz police, clad in riot gear, moved to clear demonstrators from a vacant building taken over by Occupy Santa Cruz demonstrators late Wednesday afternoon.

Occupy Santa Cruz members and other demonstrators made entry into the former Coast Commercial Bank building at 75 River St. late Wednesday afternoon and hung an "Oocupy (sic) Everything" banner from the roof.

Just after 6 p.m., about 30 officers attempted to secure the entrance to the former Coast Commercial Bank building as demonstrators barricaded themselves from the inside using office furniture.

According to Zach Friend, spokesman for the police department, the officers were trying to secure the entrance so no additional people would go in and they were hoping to have a dialogue with the people inside.

Shouting "pigs get out" and "we are the 99 percent" demonstrators outside the building linked arms and moved toward the police. Police eventually backed up and moved away as demonstrators cheered and chanted.

Police left the scene because they didn't think it was safe, said Friend.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3962/oocupysantacruz.jpg

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19442674

wishbone
12-01-11, 09:48 AM
Nevermind, these guys are with the Oocupy movement.

Th0r S1mpson
12-01-11, 10:12 AM
:lol:

They did end up painting out part of the second O to fix it, from what I can tell by other pictures.

<img src="http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site6/2011/1130/20111130_063225_sc120111jpoccupy-01.rgb_GALLERY.jpg">

CRM114
12-01-11, 10:16 AM
Boy, are those hippies dumb.

wishbone
12-01-11, 10:32 AM
Nah, just bad proofreaders. ;)

kvrdave
12-01-11, 11:31 AM
Morans

Nausicaa
12-01-11, 11:38 AM
The police didn't think it was safe! :lol:

All those midnight drug raids have made our police forces soft I guess. Can't even hang around a bunch of unarmed hippies holed up in an abandoned building tossing peace signs at one another to make sure things stay under control. At least we can rely on the police to act in safe situations, like toddler play-dates.

kvrdave
12-01-11, 11:51 AM
Probably been sued too often. Especially with hippies on the roof.

Tracer Bullet
12-01-11, 12:30 PM
Hippies on the Roof would have been a great album title for John "Cougar" Melloncamp.

Pharoh
12-01-11, 12:47 PM
Hippies on the Roof would have been a great album title for John "Cougar" Melloncamp.

How was Europe? The beer?

Tracer Bullet
12-01-11, 01:07 PM
How was Europe? The beer?

Prague was beautiful. Not nearly as cheap as I was led to believe, except for beer, cigarettes, and public transportation. Got to taste unfiltered, unpasturized Pilsner, which was quite good. Strangely enough, graffiti was all over the place. I don't know why they don't clean it up. People bring their dogs everywhere.

dork
12-01-11, 01:11 PM
Prague was beautiful. Not nearly as cheap as I was led to believe, except for beer, cigarettes, and public transportation. Got to taste unfiltered, unpasturized Pilsner, which was quite good. Strangely enough, graffiti was all over the place. I don't know why they don't clean it up. People bring their dogs everywhere.
You should have gone out into the city and not just stayed in the Oččupy encampment.

Mabuse
12-01-11, 01:30 PM
Meh, no worries about that. I feel like I'm paying too much attention and am too politicized to be a "real" hippie! The hippies' mistake was that they got too distracted by the cultural (still a classic conservative wedge strategy--get people riled over trumped-up, mirage-like social/"values" anxieties to distract us from our widely shared economic stagnation) and weren't nearly rigorous enough about actual policy, politics, and economics. They were living in a time of economic upsurge. That kind of dropping-out laxity is not going to be an option now that we're all paying for the mistakes of the privileged and reckless few, feeling the squeeze in painful ways, and waking up to how economically interdependent we all are.

:lol: This guy cracks me up. Where did he come from? Does all this rhetoric get him laid at his dorm or something?

kvrdave
12-01-11, 01:41 PM
Prague was beautiful. Not nearly as cheap as I was led to believe, except for beer, cigarettes, and public transportation. Got to taste unfiltered, unpasturized Pilsner, which was quite good. Strangely enough, graffiti was all over the place. I don't know why they don't clean it up. People bring their dogs everywhere.

My brother-in-law did 2 years in Romania with the Peace Corp. He noticed the trash and graffiti as well. He went over as a pretty big hippie who tended to be against America's ways. He came back with a different opinion, though is still quite liberal. From what he could find out, in countries (he visited several), where there was very low private ownership of property and people had jobs relatied to clean up, or maintenance of public facilities, no one else seemed to really give a shit about them.

As a result, most of his Peace Corp projects were in trying to get people to give a shit about the land and pick up their trash. He basically gave up in the last 6 months though. Seems to be pretty engrained culturally.

Pharoh
12-01-11, 01:44 PM
Prague was beautiful. Not nearly as cheap as I was led to believe, except for beer, cigarettes, and public transportation. Got to taste unfiltered, unpasturized Pilsner, which was quite good. Strangely enough, graffiti was all over the place. I don't know why they don't clean it up. People bring their dogs everywhere.

:up:

Glad to hear you enjoyed it.

Tracer Bullet
12-01-11, 01:48 PM
My brother-in-law did 2 years in Romania with the Peace Corp. He noticed the trash and graffiti as well. He went over as a pretty big hippie who tended to be against America's ways. He came back with a different opinion, though is still quite liberal. From what he could find out, in countries (he visited several), where there was very low private ownership of property and people had jobs relatied to clean up, or maintenance of public facilities, no one else seemed to really give a shit about them.

As a result, most of his Peace Corp projects were in trying to get people to give a shit about the land and pick up their trash. He basically gave up in the last 6 months though. Seems to be pretty engrained culturally.

That is interesting. I definitely can see how that could be the case. The buildings with big Western tenants or owners were definitely better maintained than other random buildings.

I didn't notice a whole lot of litter though. And the metro was pretty spotless.

kvrdave
12-01-11, 02:05 PM
That is interesting. I definitely can see how that could be the case. The buildings with big Western tenants or owners were definitely better maintained than other random buildings.

I didn't notice a whole lot of litter though. And the metro was pretty spotless.

He was in a pretty rural area. Heavy agriculture using mostly state owned equipment, which was falling apart, etc. I think the population of the area he was in was around 40,000. He also said that some countries like Romania probably don't need the Peace Corp. They didn't really want to change. They were getting by. But they get some money for it, and it seems to be a status thing for rural areas.

gogogo31
12-02-11, 01:41 AM
:lol: This guy cracks me up. Where did he come from? Does all this rhetoric get him laid at his dorm or something?

Flattered, but I'm far from young enough (and have never been rich enough) to live in a dorm. You reveal at least a couple of pretty interesting things about your own frame of reference and life experience (not to mention presumptuousness) in that question, though, even if your lazy guesses as to where I come from are ridiculously off.

Where this guy comes from. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/bio.php?ID=277)

gogogo31
12-02-11, 02:19 AM
Going by BLS statistics there are roughly 30,000 economists in the US, so a more correct link would say, "1% of economists stand with the Occupy movement."

The Man keeping the 99% down

The link is perfectly correct. I think what you're trying to say is that a more precise or detailed link would have contextualized more.

That begs the interesting question of how many economists are in accord on other sides and galvanized enough about it to speak up against the Occupy movement. That would be the more meaningful comparison, not this number of pro-Occupiers compared to the totality of U.S. economists.

gogogo31
12-02-11, 03:47 AM
More economists align themselves with the Occupy line of criticism. (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong120/English)

‎"I got a copy of an article written by Emmanuel Saez, whose office is 50 feet from mine, on the same corridor, and the Nobel laureate economist Peter Diamond. Saez and Diamond argue that the right marginal tax rate for North Atlantic societies to impose on their richest citizens is 70%.

It is an arresting assertion, given the tax-cut mania that has prevailed in these societies for the past 30 years, but Diamond and Saez’s logic is clear. The superrich command and control so many resources that they are effectively satiated: increasing or decreasing how much wealth they have has no effect on their happiness.

So, no matter how large a weight we place on their happiness relative to the happiness of others...we simply cannot do anything to affect it by raising or lowering their tax rates."

Brent L
12-02-11, 10:28 AM
Here is Adam Carolla's thoughts on this issue...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/adam-carolla-rails-against-occupy-ass-douches-in-rant-fking-self-entitled-monsters/

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/107868" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:lol:

JasonF
12-02-11, 10:59 AM
Careful, Brent. People on the right hate when Hollywood celebrities speak out on political issues, so you're probably going to get all sorts of posts from conservatives saying that Carolla should just shut the hell up.

crazyronin
12-02-11, 11:27 AM
Careful, Brent. People on the right hate when Hollywood celebrities speak out on political issues, so you're probably going to get all sorts of posts from conservatives saying that Carolla should just shut the hell up.

Good thing people on the left are open-minded...

Surprising no-one, Adam Carolla has no grasp of the unemployment crisis, the ever-worsening economic crises (domestic and global), the growing number of regular working people who don't have any shit left to get together no matter how willing we are to improve our increasingly unimprovable lot, or anything but his own fake nostalgia (and, from the sound of it, latent fascism: "look up" to your "betters," don't question or challenge The Order of Things, The Way Things Are and Therefore Must Always Be!). He and Frank Miller should hunker down in their posh digs watching Ma and Pa Kettle movies and pining for the good old days that exist exclusively in their shockingly sentimental imaginations while the rest of us try to sort out some very real systematic and institutional problems--problems that it apparently takes actually being downsized/laid off, losing your home, or lining up behind a thousand other applicants for one decent job to have even the most tentative, childlike understanding of. People who imagine that the bootstraps everyone is supposed to be pulling themselves up by are not quantifiably disappearing at a rapid rate so that the 1% can continue to enjoy their obscene extravagances are either self-serving or deluded.

Wait, what?

oh, and...REPOST

kvrdave
12-02-11, 11:58 AM
Flattered, but I'm far from young enough (and have never been rich enough) to live in a dorm. You reveal at least a couple of pretty interesting things about your own frame of reference and life experience (not to mention presumptuousness) in that question, though, even if your lazy guesses as to where I come from are ridiculously off.

Where this guy comes from. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/bio.php?ID=277)

Right or left, this place will ruin you. Tracer Bullet and I use to just sing songs by the camp fire, and now we are jaded, irritable bastards. Glad you are here, but it only seems right to warn you. Give me another 6 months on this sub forum and I'll be too jaded to warn anyone. :lol:

CRM114
12-02-11, 01:33 PM
Flattered, but I'm far from young enough (and have never been rich enough) to live in a dorm. You reveal at least a couple of pretty interesting things about your own frame of reference and life experience (not to mention presumptuousness) in that question, though, even if your lazy guesses as to where I come from are ridiculously off.

Where this guy comes from. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/bio.php?ID=277)

:lol: Welcome to the politics forum where anything other than a right wing viewpoint is considered radical.

CRM114
12-02-11, 01:34 PM
Wait, now we are valuing Adam fucking Carolla's opinion? He hosted The Man Show and then faded into obscurity.

rotfl

JasonF
12-02-11, 02:30 PM
Good thing people on the left are open-minded...



Wait, what?

oh, and...REPOST

Look, I happen to agree with gogogo that Carolla is an idiot and is spouting nonsensical talking points. But that's not the point. The point is that the usual conservative response to any entertainment figure is to say "Shut up. I don't pay for your political opinions. I pay for your singing/acting/whatever it is Carolla does, so stick with that.". But when the celebrity agrees with conservatives (or, for that matter, heads the NRA or runs for governor of California), suddenly that "shut up and sing" sentiment goes away.

kvrdave
12-02-11, 02:36 PM
Wait, now we are valuing Adam fucking Carolla's opinion? He hosted The Man Show and then faded into obscurity.

rotfl

Truly, he is no Janeane Garofalo.

Norm de Plume
12-02-11, 03:13 PM
:lol: Welcome to the politics forum where anything other than a right wing viewpoint is considered radical.
Too true. Actually, there are more of us leftists here than it seems, but we're not as outspoken as those on the other side.
Truly, he is no Janeane Garofalo.
...who is sentient and thoughtful. At least someone like Ben Stein, for example, I can respect for his smarts and knowledge, even if I don't agree with his views. Corolla is a joke.

clappj
12-02-11, 03:46 PM
Too true. Actually, there are more of us leftists here than it seems, but we're not as outspoken as those on the other side.

Truly, there's not much good to talk about from the left hand side these days is there? Other than the claim that Obama is the lesser of two evils that is. I fear everyone in government (right and left) has unfortunately run out of good ideas.

Navinabob
12-02-11, 04:21 PM
Too true. Actually, there are more of us leftists here than it seems, but we're not as outspoken as those on the other side.

...who is sentient and thoughtful. At least someone like Ben Stein, for example, I can respect for his smarts and knowledge, even if I don't agree with his views. Corolla is a joke.

Ben Stein is a joke. He's basically Kirk Cameron if he was good at trivial pursuit. He went from being a shrewd economist to an anti-intellectual.

"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." ---Ben Stein

I'd honestly trust Corolla's opinion on just about anything any day of the week.

“My feeling is this whole country is founded on the principle of 'if you are not hurting anyone, and you're not fucking with someone else's shit, and you are paying your taxes, you should be able to just do what you want to do.' It's the freedom and the independence.” ---Adam Carolla

Superboy
12-02-11, 04:27 PM
Ben Stein turned into a nutcase. Christ almighty. That "Expelled" movie was a joke.

Rockmjd23
12-02-11, 05:50 PM
Look, I happen to agree with gogogo that Carolla is an idiot and is spouting nonsensical talking points. But that's not the point. The point is that the usual conservative response to any entertainment figure is to say "Shut up. I don't pay for your political opinions. I pay for your singing/acting/whatever it is Carolla does, so stick with that.". But when the celebrity agrees with conservatives (or, for that matter, heads the NRA or runs for governor of California), suddenly that "shut up and sing" sentiment goes away.
Adam Carolla should shut up and do whatever it is he does.

There, happy? ;)

TheBigDave
12-02-11, 05:58 PM
I'm surprised the police still haven't evicted/arrested those "Oocupy" protesters in Santa Cruz. The local newspaper tore into the protesters for breaking the law, and the city officials for allowing it to continue.

Occupying nothing: Protesters won't find support for law breaking

Breaking the law will not win the Occupy movement the kind of popular support those involved have been seeking and expecting.

Everywhere that Occupy has occupied public, or private, space in defiance of the law or order, the result has been the same. Police, backed up or directed by local government leaders, have moved in and ended encampments and unlawful behavior.

It should be no different here. What happened in Santa Cruz Wednesday can, and should, have only one resolution.

Rather than making a statement about the role of big banks in foreclosures and homelessness, the protesters who seized the building are making a statement about why even a meaningful message can be lost by breaking down the rule of law that governs community life. It's also a lesson about what can happen when illegal acts are tolerated in the name of simply keeping a peace that is just an illusion.

The people who broke into a former bank building on River Street Wednesday night and who, as of this writing, remain there, need to leave. If they haven't already or they don't, then they need to be removed and arrested.

Is this what the protesters want? To be dragged out and arrested and then post a video on YouTube, thereby, they think, sparking a popular revolt against the ... what? The 1 percent they like to say are tyrannizing them?

Or do these lawbreakers not realize that it's the 99 percent they purport to so care about who have to enforce the laws and clean up the camps -- and who have to run businesses where no one wants to come because they don't want to get in the middle of anarchic disorder?

Didn't think so.

Police so far have been restrained, to say the very least, in their response. And so have city leaders, who should consider what's happened to the public standing of Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, whose vacillating stance toward Occupy Oakland protesters has sparked a recall campaign in a city where working people wonder why Oakland's leading elected official seemed to care more about not ruffling the feathers of protesters even after it was more than clear they'd gone too far.

In Santa Cruz, after first showing up in riot gear, Police backed off Wednesday night as other protesters showed up outside the occupied building. Then, through most of Thursday, police mostly continued that posture, save removing a banner on the roof that read "Occupy Everything."

Everything?

That's a message that will build support.

And, yes, Santa Cruz is an extremely tolerant city and that's probably the only reason the San Lorenzo Park encampment has been allowed to stay. Enough, however, is enough.

Breaking into and entering an unoccupied building in the name of making a statement only adds to the impression the Occupy movement has been occupied by self-serving troublemakers whose only message is, "We can do whatever we want."

Well? Can they?

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_19454406/

kvrdave
12-02-11, 06:43 PM
Too true. Actually, there are more of us leftists here than it seems, but we're not as outspoken as those on the other side.

To be fair, Obama has done a masterful job of giving the left no reason to be outspoken in their defense of him.

Norm de Plume
12-02-11, 07:15 PM
Truly, there's not much good to talk about from the left hand side these days is there? Other than the claim that Obama is the lesser of two evils that is. I fear everyone in government (right and left) has unfortunately run out of good ideas.
To be fair, Obama has done a masterful job of giving the left no reason to be outspoken in their defense of him.
Obama was never truly on the left, but he was once a centrist with a streak of idealism. He has become disillusioned and dejected with the gridlock in domestic government. He's seen as strong on foreign policy because it's apparently easier to find and kill long-hidden terrorists than to pass anything approaching progressive in Washington. His hands are tied; he has no fight left in him.
Ben Stein turned into a nutcase. Christ almighty. That "Expelled" movie was a joke.
Ben Stein is a joke. He's basically Kirk Cameron if he was good at trivial pursuit. He went from being a shrewd economist to an anti-intellectual.
Well, there is that whole creationism laugh riot, that's true, but aside from that he's very smart, educated, and rational in terms of espousing his views without being hateful.
What other respectable, prominent rightist intellectuals are there? Let's see, there's...no. Oh wait there's...no, not him. Aha, William Buckl...no, he's dead. Krauthammer's not bad, even though he looks like a turtle as he wheezes up and down in his ill-fitting suits.

wishbone
12-02-11, 07:31 PM
5 Ways We Ruined the Occupy Wall Street Generation
By: John Cheese (http://www.cracked.com/members/John+Cheese/)
November 10, 2011
Cracked.com

At this moment, a whole lot of people, most of them 15 to 20 years younger than me, are protesting in every major city. What are they angry about? A lot of things, some of which are partially my fault.

See, I'm a part of Generation X, the post-Baby Boom era kids who grew up on a mental diet of Beavis and Butthead and Alice in Chains. We wrote poems about how angry we were at our fathers, wore goatees like weapons and made panties burst into flames by playing Pearl Jam's Black on our acoustic guitars. We were a bridge from the Baby Boomers to all you guys who are in high school and college now. And I'm pretty sure we fucked up that handoff pretty badly.

This is not a sarcastic apology, I'm not a big enough dick to write all of this as a backhanded insult about how lazy and entitled you are. Because you're not.

I'm honestly apologizing for ...

#5. Making You Ashamed to Take Manual Labor Jobs

http://i39.tinypic.com/5yt4yv.jpg

During one "Occupy Wall Street" protest, somebody from the Chicago Board of Trade dumped McDonald's applications on the protesters (http://chicagoist.com/2011/11/01/someone_at_board_of_trade_threw_mcd.php). This made me think of a viral Facebook post that David Wong (http://www.cracked.com/blog/author/David+Wong/) showed me the other day:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2qicpab.jpg

If you know who that came from, we'd love to give him/her credit for the post. And a high five or something.

Because yes, you guys are getting hammered for being too lazy or "entitled" to take on a low-paying job, and for standing up and demanding help paying for college, etc., instead of just being happy "flipping burgers." People my age and older will go on and on about how in our day we weren't too good to get our hands dirty when the good jobs dried up.

But I'm pretty sure we taught you the opposite of that. And the Baby Boomers taught us.

See, we were raised on 1980s movies and sitcoms, and the "cold, unfeeling grownup who works too hard" was the villain in half of them. The whole point of these "body switching" comedies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096380/) -- where a kid winds up in the body of a grownup -- was that the career-driven workaholic dad learned what life was really all about. The message was clear: If you work too hard, you'll lose your soul.

The characters who worked their asses off were shown to be stiff prudes who come down on the lighthearted main character with an iron fist. Or maybe that person is the main character, but by the end they realize that the only way to truly enjoy life is to lighten up and embrace their inner child. They finally stand up and quit their grindstone job in a hail of applause, and live a life of stress free bliss. As a side note, at some point, those people had to urinate ... so the little kid trapped in the dad's body was physically handling his dad's cock. That image is on the house -- you're welcome.

By the time the Grunge Era came around, the "slacker" and "loser" characters were heroes, the guys who knew that life was really all about having fun. We were a self-depreciating group of people who proudly declared that we were what our parents always wanted to be: laid back and carefree. "Loser" and "slacker" were terms of endearment. We knew that the whole suit-and-tie job was a one way ticket to becoming Principal Vernon from The Breakfast Club. So many of us ended up slacking our way into fast food jobs. We were the guys from Clerks.

Flash forward a couple of decades, and most of us are now parents. We've since found out that there's not much market for making a really good honey bear bong or winning a contest for having the dirtiest flannel shirt (first place four years running, thank you very much). We've cut our hair, bought some decent work clothes and moved on -- lesson learned. But that fast food job stuck with us. It became a scare tactic to use on our own kids. We want them to have something better.

But here's the thing: Those Baby Boomers who started this "you don't want to flip burgers" bullshit did flip burgers. Or roof houses, or mine coal, or wax porn stars' assholes. And that wasn't something to be ashamed of back then -- that was the era before you needed a bachelor's degree to get a job waiting tables (but more on that in a moment). But at some point between my grandfather's time and now, getting your hands dirty became something to be ashamed of. My generation perpetuated that. We made it socially unacceptable to:

A) Do any job that requires sweat and/or a uniform.

B) Work 70-hour weeks to get ahead.

So if you don't do either of those things, what's left? Getting an education and waiting for a good job in your field. But now, when we catch you doing that, we mock you and tell you to go flip burgers. And that's bullshit. We told you your whole lives that those jobs were for idiots and failures. You think you're too good for those jobs because that's what we've been fucking telling you since birth.

#4. Implying That College Would Guarantee You a Good Job

http://i44.tinypic.com/152jqlh.jpg

Last month, I overheard a conversation between a steakhouse waiter and an older couple he was serving. He knew the couple, but not intimately. They politely asked how his classes were coming along, and he said that he had in fact graduated with a degree in architecture. For the next several minutes, the old couple awkwardly tried to reassure him that something would come along while he attempted to justify to them why he was serving steaks for a living.

It was painfully clear that he felt like a failure, and that he dreaded having this conversation with every older member of his family he encountered. Having to put a positive spin on his own life, trying to reassure them that he wasn't a failure, or lazy, or hadn't dropped out of society due to a drug problem. Yes, I did get my degree. No, they're not hiring.

So, here's the thing. You have to go to college. Your parents told you that, I'm telling my kids that. Every high school teacher you have or had told you that. ("You don't want to wind up flipping burgers, do you?")

And they're not wrong; if I'm an employer looking at 200 applications to fill one job, and 50 of them have bachelor's degrees, those are going to be the ones I move to the top of the pile, even if the job is that poor bastard who shakes a sign outside of Little Caesars.

The problem is that we've sort of set you up to think that after high school, the next step is college, and after that you just jump in and start working at the job you went to college for. We kind of implied that this "college to job" transition is as natural and orderly as "high school to college." That is, if you get the right grades, you "graduate" to it. That's not true, and it's our fault that so many of you think that.

See, our parents told us that because they didn't actually know. As a generalized whole, they didn't go to college. You have to realize how recent the whole "everybody goes to college" thing really is. It was only two generations ago that college educations were rare -- in 1950, less than 10 percent of adults had bachelor's degrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States) (hell, only half even graduated high school). People back then were less mobile and more likely to stay in the town where they were born. That meant that their options were limited; men joined the military, or went to work at the local factory/warehouse/whatever was hiring. Women got busy having babies and being waitresses/secretaries/whatever was hiring. College was something that smart kids and people with money did. And they probably thought those college kids had a free ticket to a nice job in an air-conditioned office.

So when they worked hard and gave their kids the opportunity to get a degree, they thought they were giving us what those fancy smart kids got: an automatic job with a hotass secretary to feel up. Sexual harassment wasn't a thing yet.

Now everybody has a degree. It's the baseline minimum. So when you finally take those first steps out of university life and enter the work field, it's an absolute system shock to find out your $30,000 to $100,000+ bachelor's degree (http://www.collegesurfing.com/content/how-much-does-bachelors-degree-cost/) doesn't guarantee you a position in your field of study ... possibly ever. At least 40 percent of you who get degrees will wind up in jobs that don't require a degree at all (http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/05/40_percent_of_college_grads_end_up_settl.html). And the rest will wind up in jobs outside the field they studied.

Again, it's not that you shouldn't get a degree. Far from it. It's that the system we've declared to be the default also happens to be fucked. And not in the good way ... in the "chick breaks a porn record" way. You're not going to use 90 percent of what you learn.

I have dozens of examples of this in my inbox right now. People who have been where I've been -- poor and struggling, willing to do whatever it takes to get out of that soul-crushing hole. After years of it, they finally have enough and decide to go back to college. So I ask, "OK, that's a good idea -- then what?" And they don't know. They hadn't considered that even after graduation, they might be in exactly the same position as they are right now ... plus another $50,000 worth of debt. Nobody told them, or at least didn't tell them loud enough.

So, yes, you're frustrated and angry about that. You have a right to be.

#3. Adding Seven More Years to Being a Teenager

http://i42.tinypic.com/2rncx0g.jpg

In my parents' day, it was always just sort of assumed that at age 18, you pack your shit and get the hell out of the house. Go back 40 years and you find everybody getting drafted into the military at that age (Vietnam and before that, Korea, and before that, World War II). When you got back, you started having babies. So if you were still living at home at age 25, they made you stay in the attic and told the neighbors you had died from tuberculosis.

Things started to change with the "everybody goes to college" era. Going to college means you're probably not supporting yourself, you're living in temporary student housing and your parents keep your old bedroom in place for when you come back for the summer. So then if you don't get a job out of college, you're right back home at age 23, possibly still sleeping on a bed shaped like the Millennium Falcon.

So now you guys are living in a world where kids don't move away from Mom and Dad until their mid 20s to lower 30s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/dec/08/young-adults-living-parental-home-ons). And it's the same story with marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage#Americas) -- today you tend to marry in your late 20s, as opposed to my parents' generation, who did so five years earlier (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html).

But this has created a very annoying, ugly side effect in the culture: the phenomenon of the immature Man-Child. The twenty-something dude with his collection of anime action figures, the guy pushing 30 who's still sticking it out with his garage band and spends his nights getting in screaming matches with teenagers on XBox Live, the hipster who spends 80 percent of his income on wacky ironic clothes and mustache growth supplements.

In other words, we've extended the awkward teenage years into the mid to late 20s. Now, I would not be apologizing for this if it was just the result of social and economic factors outside our control. But the problem is that we made a hero of that person. Think Kelso in That '70s Show, or Joey from Friends. My generation aspired to be that guy, the kid in a grownup body with simple, childish appetites and aspirations. I was that guy for years -- a dude can get very popular doing that.

But let me tell you from experience, the longer you put off adulthood, the harder the transition is.

And staying home longer does delay it -- a huge part of becoming an adult is living on your own and finding out through trial and error what works, living through seemingly simple things like balancing your budget, cooking your own meals and learning how to get blood stains out of your ceiling without repainting.

And what's going to happen is you're going to run into a whole lot of people who still judge you according to the age scale set by my parents' generation -- that you should have your shit together by 23.

So you grow up in a culture that tells you maturity is for boring assholes, and then suddenly you get dumped into a world that expects maturity.

#2. Creating the Idea that Entertainment Has No Monetary Value

http://i39.tinypic.com/e7i7ux.jpg

If I type the phrase, "piracy hurts the entertainment industry," several hundred people will, without reading the following words, skip down to the comments and carefully explain that pirates don't actually download music or movies or games unless they weren't going to buy it anyway. Then they'll pull out some studies showing that music downloaders also buy the most music.

But the bottom line is the music industry lost more than half of its sales since downloading became a thing (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/). And, by what I'm sure some of you will say is pure coincidence, PC game sales (http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PC_gaming) collapsed in that exact same time period. It has nothing to do with whether you think piracy is wrong, or if you can justify your own personal habits. The black and white numbers say it's factually harder to make money by creating entertainment now.

That's bad for you. And you can thank us for getting it started.

It made sense at the time. When I was a kid, buying music was a huge pain in the ass. CDs, cassette tapes and records were expensive as fuck, so you had to be very selective about what you bought. Finding out that a record sucked was like taking a month's worth of allowance out of your wallet, wiping your ass with it and then setting it on fire (you owe my entire generation $20, Motley Crue).

And that's if you could find the album at all; if you lived in a small town, you didn't exactly have a record store on every block. The ones you had were small and basically never had the album you were looking for (try being a small town Midwestern kid in 1989 trying to find a copy of Straight Outta Compton). The rest of your music came from Wal-Mart, who by the way didn't sell the uncensored version of any record, and you usually didn't know that until you got home and played it.

What I'm trying to say is that price, availability and quality were shit. The music industry was an absolute fucking mess, and we were at the mercy of it.

Until the Internet, and specifically Napster came along.

You mean we can get just the song we want, for free? Well, hell, that's no worse than recording it off the radio. So, we jumped on that shit and never looked back. Then the dam broke. We started downloading PC games, even though that industry had done nothing to wrong us. Yes, it was illegal, but it was illegal in the way that speeding on a country road at night is illegal. You had never met anyone who had actually gotten caught doing it.

Before we knew it, we had created a new reality in which creative content is effectively worthless. Now, kids trade iPod libraries in one swipe, a few gigabytes of songs zipping invisibly over a thin wire in a few seconds -- a library that, once upon a time, would have cost more than your first car.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do that old guy "Back in MY day we APPRECIATED food because we had to KILL IT OURSELVES" thing. I'm saying that we've trained you to expect created works to be free, and that will have the effect of killing off a lot of the coolest stuff. You can snicker and say, "Oh, I REALLY feel bad that the guy who made Transformers 3 won't be able to buy his sixth summer home" but that's the point -- a blockbuster can afford that loss. A cool, risky indie film can't.

See, when piracy hit Hollywood, they didn't stop funding blockbusters -- they stopped funding edgy, creative movies (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-film-pirate-20100928). They're going with safer and safer bets.

Piracy did that. We got that ball rolling, and there is no going back. Instead of Reservoir Dogs, we get Jack & Jill ... and you have no idea how deeply sorry I am for that.

#1. Taking Away Every Reason To Go Outside

http://i40.tinypic.com/15coms3.jpg

Recently, I noticed some ads on the cartoon channels that my kids watch, urging their viewers to turn off the TV and go outside:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4RRZ4jYcbL4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Needless to say, at that moment my oldest son was on the computer, my middle son was playing a video game in his bedroom, and my youngest daughter was watching Adventure Time in the living room (because that show is fucking awesome). When they got bored, they'd switch places. And if I didn't make them take a break from it, they'd do that all weekend without batting an eye. I have to make them go outside like it's a chore, because I know they need the exercise.

Older people talk about how fat you're getting, about childhood obesity and diabetes and how you're all lazy slugs. They imply that back in their day, kids got up and did 50 jump squats every morning just because they enjoyed the sense of pride in their self discipline. But let me let you in on a little secret: We only got exercise because there was nothing fun to do indoors. If they had Modern Warfare multiplayer when I was a kid, we would have played the shit out of it.

Instead, we had three channels on the TV, video games (http://www.cracked.com/article_15243_the-next-25-years-video-games.html) were something rich kids had and there was no Internet. So when we wanted to have fun, we did live-action Modern Warfare, i.e., grabbing plastic toy guns and chasing our friends around the yard pretending to kill each other (and the toy guns back then were awesome, they had magazines and slides you could click back like you were reloading them).

All that running around burned calories. Not because we cared about fitness -- what kid does? -- but because we were waiting for somebody to invent something better. They did, and now we spend so much of our day on our asses that we have to remind ourselves that there are legs below it (no offense, Legless Carl).

Again, it's unquestionably progress -- I wouldn't go back to a time before I could pay all of my bills, catch up on missed episodes of The Office, order a pizza and do all of my work without ever leaving my keyboard. But you kids are also missing something crucial. Not just the great outdoors and swinging into a creek on a rope or tackling somebody into a pile of raked leaves. I'm talking about in-person interaction, away from the grownups, outside the structure of a classroom or organized sport. I'm talking about kids, on their own, getting in trouble and setting things on fire. Kid stuff.

Because why should my kids invite friends over to play? They're all right there, on XBox Live. Why should they go out to a movie? We have Netflix.

We talk a lot on this site about how geek culture has taken over the mainstream (http://www.cracked.com/article_16920_2008-year-geeks-took-over.html) and I worry that another part of geek culture -- the social awkwardness and inability to deal with social settings -- is also going to become the norm. We've slowly killed off most of the activities where kids get together with other kids and have fun (and in the process, learn how to interact).

We didn't do it on purpose. We didn't do any of this on purpose. But you'll suffer for it just the same.

So, uh, sorry about that. Our bad.http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-ruined-occupy-wall-street-generation/

Lengthy yet enlightening commentary from... Cracked‽ :wtf:

wishbone
12-02-11, 07:41 PM
Krauthammer's not bad, even though he looks like a turtle as he wheezes up and down in his ill-fitting suits.http://i40.tinypic.com/2cmoo07.jpg

Yeah, he should really look into paraplegic suits for those on the go.

:rolleyes:

Norm de Plume
12-02-11, 08:15 PM
Apologies to Krauthammer. Didn't realize he was a paraplegic. He's only ever behind a desk.

TheBigDave
12-02-11, 10:03 PM
I wonder how many people are going to put their life savings in the hands of the Occupy protesters.

Occupy SF Protesters to Open People's Reserve Credit Union

A few weeks ago, we got a real kick out of the fact that Occupy Oakland deposited a $20,000 donation it received into Wells Fargo -- one of the many big banks the movement has been actively protesting since September. Say what you want about Occupy SF camp (it's dirty and filled with homeless people) -- at least protesters there are practicing what they preach.

Members of Occupy SF announced their ambitious plans to turn protesters into bankers by creating the People's Reserve Credit Union. According to Occupy SF's Facebook page:

The goal of this project is to encourage San Francisco residents, businesses, as well as nonprofit and city agencies to keep their money out of the big banks and to redistribute that money locally. Initial services will include micro-loans for the working poor and homeless, and subsidized student loans at low interest rates.

FULL ARTICLE - http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/12/occupy_sf_peoples_reserve_credit_union.php

DVD Polizei
12-02-11, 10:17 PM
As long as its FDIC, I guess.

grundle
12-02-11, 10:18 PM
Obama was never truly on the left, but he was once a centrist with a streak of idealism. He has become disillusioned and dejected with the gridlock in domestic government. He's seen as strong on foreign policy because it's apparently easier to find and kill long-hidden terrorists than to pass anything approaching progressive in Washington. His hands are tied; he has no fight left in him.


Well, there is that whole creationism laugh riot, that's true, but aside from that he's very smart, educated, and rational in terms of espousing his views without being hateful.
What other respectable, prominent rightist intellectuals are there? Let's see, there's...no. Oh wait there's...no, not him. Aha, William Buckl...no, he's dead. Krauthammer's not bad, even though he looks like a turtle as he wheezes up and down in his ill-fitting suits.

Don't forget Thomas Sowell.

Norm de Plume
12-02-11, 11:01 PM
^I'm not familiar with him. I'm sure there are innumerable other thinkers on the right with whom one can cordially discuss issues and disagree, but one seldom sees these folks. They don't appeal to Tea Party yokels, who like their pundits/editorialists/scholars bombastic, one-dimensional, and unyielding.

Superboy
12-02-11, 11:50 PM
Well, there is that whole creationism laugh riot, that's true, but aside from that he's very smart, educated, and rational in terms of espousing his views without being hateful.

Ah, aside from that one time that he was totally batshit insane, showing constant clips of the horrors of the Holocaust and juxtaposing that with evolution.

Superboy
12-02-11, 11:56 PM
Don't forget Thomas Sowell.

I used to listen to Larry Elder until he spent 9 months going on and on about how much Obama sucks. Listening to grown men whine like that is why I can't stand conservative pundits.

It's sad what happened to him though. He's a libertarian, and he devoted a large portion of his show discussing Prop 8 in California and why he thought gay marriage should be legalized. That, combined with his liberal stance on drug policy and his criticism of the drug war is why his show was ultimately cancelled.

gogogo31
12-03-11, 12:57 AM
George Will (from the olden days) and Ron Christie (relative newbie) are right-wingers who conduct themselves civilly in public. But I really try hard nowadays to avoid the pundits, even Rachel Maddow and Tavis Smiley, both of whom I admire. Even when they're talking sense or being reasonable, it just gets to be too much talking to actually absorb and consider what's being said properly, and I hate to see what I feel are important issues just turn into more media noise, even if it's done inadvertently at the hands of intelligent people who don't mean to trivialize them. Maybe what Marshall McLuhan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtycdRBAbXk) said about the medium being the message is right, in which case what the chatter is about or what side it's on matters less than the fact of the nonstop chatter just leveling our interest in and detaching us from the problems of our times.

grundle
12-03-11, 10:02 AM
Oocupy Santa Cruz has broken into a vacant building and barricaded the doors.


http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19442674

"We think private property just sitting there useless is immoral," said demonstrator Mark Paschal. "It's just taunting those on the verge of foreclosure and struggling economically."

"The formerly vacant building at 75 River St. is being re-purposed by an autonomous group, in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz," stated the release. The group has taken the building "with intentions of using the space in a productive way that benefits the community of Santa Cruz."



From a strictly moral point of view, I agree with these "Oocupy" protestors - it is immoral to abandon your property.

Of course what's moral isn't always what's legal.

The Homesteading Act let 19th century settlers have 160 acres of land on the condition that they farmed the land for at least 5 years. That was a great idea.

grundle
12-03-11, 10:04 AM
^I'm not familiar with him. I'm sure there are innumerable other thinkers on the right with whom one can cordially discuss issues and disagree, but one seldom sees these folks. They don't appeal to Tea Party yokels, who like their pundits/editorialists/scholars bombastic, one-dimensional, and unyielding.

He's written dozens of books about economics, politics, and culture.

He also writes opinion columns, many of which can be read here:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

Sean O'Hara
12-03-11, 02:22 PM
From a strictly moral point of view, I agree with these "Oocupy" protestors - it is immoral to abandon your property.

Of course what's moral isn't always what's legal.

The Homesteading Act let 19th century settlers have 160 acres of land on the condition that they farmed the land for at least 5 years. That was a great idea.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Goyaale.jpg/200px-Goyaale.jpg

Disagrees.

(The excuse generally used for ethnic cleansing in the US was that the natives didn't put their land to good use and it was better for white people to take it for farmland.)

Superboy
12-03-11, 02:59 PM
From a strictly moral point of view, I agree with these "Oocupy" protestors - it is immoral to abandon your property.

Of course what's moral isn't always what's legal.

The Homesteading Act let 19th century settlers have 160 acres of land on the condition that they farmed the land for at least 5 years. That was a great idea.

The second homestead act created the dust bowl, so :shrug:

TheBigDave
12-03-11, 06:15 PM
Now that protesters are getting evicted from public parks, it seems the next phase is breaking into vacant buildings:

Protesters arrested for trespassing inside Capitol Hill building

On December 2nd at approximately 5:30 pm, Occupy Seattle protesters broke into an empty and locked building located in the 900 Block of East Union Street. The protesters then decided to hold a benefit concert as a fundraiser and allowed people to enter the building. Third watch East Precinct officers attempted to make contact with the protesters. The protesters closed and locked the door. They then barricaded the door from the inside. While the officers were at the door, protest members were on the roof and began spitting on them. The officers withdrew. The owner of the building was contacted and he stated that the protesters did not have permission to enter or remain in the building. The owner has a signed trespass agreement with the Seattle Police Department. A little after 3:00 am, officers responded to the building and contained it. At 3:24 am officers gave an announcement for all parties to leave the building. The order was repeated at 3:33 am with a second announcement. At 3:41 officers entered the building through an open door. Once inside one more announcement was made and officers asked the people to leave. Officers then cleared the building. Officers located and arrested sixteen people inside the building. All 16 were subsequently booked into KCJ for Criminal Trespass. Officers then secured the building and notified the owner.

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2011/12/03/protesters-arrested-for-trespassing-inside-capitol-hill-building/

kvrdave
12-03-11, 06:39 PM
Nothing says civil disobedience and protest like a funraiser in a building you are trespassing in. :lol:

TheBigDave
12-03-11, 07:00 PM
WARNING - NSFW Language

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tYkJdBakzRg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:lol:

DVD Polizei
12-03-11, 10:01 PM
Seems like whenever there is a protest, I always get a ton of hair on my shoes.

TheBigDave
12-04-11, 03:04 AM
Looks like the Santa Cruz Oocupiers finally left the vacant building. No thanks to the cops who sat around all week politely asking them to move along.

Occupiers of former bank have left the building leaving destruction behind

The 20 or 30 people who had been occupying a former bank building at 75 River St. fled the building Saturday night. Santa Cruz police spokesman Zach Friend said the building was empty when police arrived at 9:30 p.m. "It looks like they have left the building," Friend said.

Friend said Chief Kevin Vogel and Deputy Chief Steve Clark as well as other officers are inspecting the building and securing it for the property owner. The departure came hours before police planned to remove the occupiers from the building they took over Wednesday night.

Saturday afternoon the occupiers told police they would leave the building by 3 p.m. Sunday, a time line police said was not acceptable.

Saturday night, Clark said "We had a serious plan" to go inside and remove what police believed were about 30 people inside. "They were going to be out of there by 3 p.m. (Sunday) one way or the other," Clark said.

Clark and Vogel said there is substantial damage inside the building as well as a foul smell, though they are unsure what that is. Power was cut to the building Friday about 6 p.m. Police plan to go back into the building on Sunday to determine the full extent of damage.

Vogel said there's enough damage to arrest those inside for felony vandalism charges. Police have been documenting who's been inside the building and have several names, including a well-known anarchist.

"We'll be looking to prosecute these people to the fullest extent possible," Vogel said Saturday night. "I'm quite pleased it was resolved this way," he said. "I'm sorry it had to get to this."

Vogel warned owners of vacant property in Santa Cruz to make sure their buildings are secure to avoid a similar situation. They believe entry to the former bank building was gained by getting access to a lock box.

Mayor Ryan Coonerty said "I'm very pleased that we were able to resolve this without putting our officers and community at risk. I appreciate the strategic leadership by our Police Department."

FULL ARTICLE - http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19466011

I love this part of the article:

"(Police Chief) Vogel warned owners of vacant property in Santa Cruz to make sure their buildings are secure to avoid a similar situation."

If anyone breaks into your property in Santa Cruz, don't expect the cops to remove them.

brayzie
12-04-11, 04:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that guy in the last vid isn't represantative of the majority of OWS. Looks like someone who just wanted to get on video by acting stupid.

Dean Kousoulas
12-04-11, 09:22 PM
I'm sure it's not, but just like it's fun to film all the racists at Tea Party rallies, why not find the smelly nutcases at OWS?

Jason
12-04-11, 09:31 PM
I'm sure it's not, but just like it's fun to film all the racists at Tea Party rallies, why not find the smelly nutcases at OWS?

Have they been doing anything but that?

kvrdave
12-05-11, 12:48 AM
Have they been doing anything but that?

There may be more of them to find.

brayzie
12-05-11, 02:08 AM
I'm sure it's not, but just like it's fun to film all the racists at Tea Party rallies, why not find the smelly nutcases at OWS?

Because it's a waste of time and just continues the cycle of hypocracy.

The Tea Party had a good point about government spending. The Occupy Wall Street protests have a good point about coporate influence on congress. Instead of discussing how to solve the problems, everyone just picks the typical side of conservative or liberal and then ridicules the other side.

wishbone
12-05-11, 08:16 AM
The Tea Party had a good point about government spending. The Occupy Wall Street protests have a good point about coporate influence on congress. Instead of discussing how to solve the problems, everyone just picks the typical side of conservative or liberal and then ridicules the other side.And what solutions has the Occupy movement proffered? Case in point...Occupy Denton Moves Out After 23-year-old is Found Dead in Tent
Doug Magditch doug.magditch@cw33.com
6:47 p.m. CST, December 4, 2011

A member of Occupy Denton found Darwin Cox, 23, dead in his tent Saturday afternoon. A university spokesperson says they do not expect foul play. It will be weeks before there is an official cause of death.

Sunday, most of the occupiers broke down their tents and moved out. The organizers say the decision was made before the tragedy Saturday, because of safety concerns.

"We are constantly harassed by drunk and hostile people," said spokesman Garrett Graham.

There were also safety concerns within the organization.

"It has always been the position of Occupy Denton that this would be a no drugs and no alcohol space, but there are no walls. There are no doors. It's an open space. So, some people choose to violate that," said Graham.

When they found violators of the policy, though, they did not report it. According to Graham, that's because police are a "violent, ineffective institution."

"We enforce it through consent. If we find someone is doing something that violates the consent of the group, the most we can do is talk to them," explained Graham.

"[Cox] was specifically spoken to on a number of occasions, not to do certain things. We trust that he did that," said Graham.

"The camp was the best place he had to go. That was the place that he felt he had been given a space in this world," said Occupy Denton spokesman Ricardo Correa.

Part of the agreement with the university was that only UNT students were allowed in. Cox was not enrolled at UNT.

"We were a little surprised to learn that there was someone inside the encampment who was not a student," said Deborah Leliaert, UNT Vice President for University Relations.

Leliaert said representatives from the university checked Occupy Denton to make sure it was compliant. They didn't know anything about the drugs.

"We have a zero tolerance policy for drug use on our campus. It would not be tolerated here," said Leliaert.

"Whether or not we continue to have a camp in the future is something that may happen and we may decide on. Occupy Denton is a democratic movement. It's not a piece of geography,"

If it does plan to occupy UNT again, campus officials say they will work to make sure Occupy Denton is occupying safely.

"We would find a way to help them be compliant with the university's policies and our safety regulations," said Leliaert.

One of the big issues Occupy Denton is fighting is homelessness. Organizers say this tragedy highlights the need for change.http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-occupy-denton-moves-out-after-23yearold-is-found-dead-in-tent-20111204,0,7819940.story

http://i44.tinypic.com/2wokm5g.jpg

Perhaps an intervention, counseling, etc., would have a better solution than "enforcement through consent" which clearly failed this young man.

CRM114
12-05-11, 01:18 PM
Because it's a waste of time and just continues the cycle of hypocracy.

The Tea Party had a good point about government spending. The Occupy Wall Street protests have a good point about coporate influence on congress. Instead of discussing how to solve the problems, everyone just picks the typical side of conservative or liberal and then ridicules the other side.

C'mon people. This has to be the most commonly misspelled word on the forum. Don't you have browsers with inline spell checkers?

HYPOCRISY

movielib
12-05-11, 03:57 PM
C'mon people. This has to be the most commonly misspelled word on the forum. Don't you have browsers with inline spell checkers?

HYPOCRISY
I don't know about being the most commonly misspelled word. How about "your" for "you're"?

Jason
12-05-11, 03:57 PM
There may be more of them to find.

Leave no hippie behind.

JasonF
12-05-11, 04:44 PM
I don't know about being the most commonly misspelled word. How about "your" for "you're"?

Eye wood bet yore rite.

Rockmjd23
12-05-11, 05:34 PM
"Obama" is commonly misspelled on the forum. I see it spelled B-U-S-H all the time.

Superboy
12-05-11, 07:59 PM
C'mon people. This has to be the most commonly misspelled word on the forum. Don't you have browsers with inline spell checkers?

HYPOCRISY

Yeah, it doesn't take a nucular scientician to know how to spell hypocrisy.

and yes, I know that's a Simpsons joke.

grundle
12-05-11, 08:55 PM
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/occupier-gets-wall-street-job-165758406.html

Woman Goes From Zuccotti Park to Wall Street

By Alyssa Newcomb

December 5, 2011

Tracy Postert no longer has to answer to cries of “Get a job!” from people who passed by the Occupy Wall Street protest.

I used to say, “I’m trying!” she told ABCNews.com. Postert doesn’t have to try any longer.

The New York City woman, who split her time between Occupy Wall Street and having her “nose in the computer looking for work,” now has a job, thanks to a little marketing savvy and an executive who happened to pass by at just the right time.

Armed with 800 copies of her resume, Postert held a sign that read: “Ph.D. Biomedical Scientist Seeking Full Time Employment.”

Although Postert was looking for work in academia, she had all but given up.

Her sign caught the eye of Wayne Kaufman, the chief market analyst for John Thomas Financial Brokerage — a firm with a prime Wall Street address.

“I said a very quick hello,” Kaufman told ABCNews.com. “I took a copy of her resume and contacted her the next day. I was very impressed by it.”

Postert came in a few days later for an interview at the company’s office at 14 Wall St., where she learned that Kaufman wanted her to be a junior analyst evaluating medical companies as potential investments.

“She was not wildly enthusiastic,” Kaufman said.

Although his firm usually hires people with business or financial backgrounds for that sort of position, he said Postert could fit a certain niche.

“I thought, ‘Maybe this is a person who could help us understand these early-stage biotech companies that financial people just don’t always understand,’” he said.

Eager for a job, Postert accepted. She’s going into her fourth week in her position and said she’s learning a lot.

“There’s a lot to like about it,” she said. “And I’m learning more about the business and legal sides, too.”

Postert said she’s been down to Zuccotti Park a few brief times since she started her job because she has been busy with work.

As for that infamous sign that caught Kaufman’s eye? It’s at home now, but Postert said she plans to bring it in to keep by her desk.

“It’s a classic sign now,” she said.

grundle
12-05-11, 08:59 PM
Looks like the Santa Cruz Oocupiers finally left the vacant building. No thanks to the cops who sat around all week politely asking them to move along.



I love this part of the article:

"(Police Chief) Vogel warned owners of vacant property in Santa Cruz to make sure their buildings are secure to avoid a similar situation."

If anyone breaks into your property in Santa Cruz, don't expect the cops to remove them.

Well that's totally different.

It looks like I've been tricked by them.

Because in the original article, it said:


http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_19442674

"We think private property just sitting there useless is immoral," said demonstrator Mark Paschal. "It's just taunting those on the verge of foreclosure and struggling economically."

"The formerly vacant building at 75 River St. is being re-purposed by an autonomous group, in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz," stated the release. The group has taken the building "with intentions of using the space in a productive way that benefits the community of Santa Cruz."



If they had stuck to what they had said they were going to do, instead of vandalizing it, then that would have been awesome.

Since they vandalized it, I think they should be arrested.

TheBigDave
12-05-11, 09:36 PM
If they had stuck to what they had said they were going to do, instead of vandalizing it, then that would have been awesome.

The property wasn't abandoned. It's a privately owned building that's being maintained and it's on the market (http://ctbt.com/Web/PropertyDetail.aspx?ListingID=U100797). They even vandalized the real estate sign out front:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1685/realestateo.jpg

grundle
12-06-11, 03:39 PM
The property wasn't abandoned. It's a privately owned building that's being maintained and it's on the market (http://ctbt.com/Web/PropertyDetail.aspx?ListingID=U100797). They even vandalized the real estate sign out front:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1685/realestateo.jpg

I hadn't been aware that it was on the market. Thanks for posting that.

That means the Occupiers never had any justification whatsoever for taking over the property.

Jason
12-06-11, 04:23 PM
They even vandalized the real estate sign out front:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1685/realestateo.jpg

And they used organic, soy-based paint to do it, too!

Nausicaa
12-06-11, 04:51 PM
And they used organic, soy-based paint to do it, too!

I believe that is rectal blood.

DVD Polizei
12-06-11, 07:47 PM
Not sure why the cities across the US don't take these fuckheads to civil court, and sue them. Why bill the local taxpayer so quickly. Start growing some balls. They have the social security numbers, witnesses, video, and they could easily garnish a small portion of any paycheck or future welfare benefit these people will more than likely have.

kvrdave
12-06-11, 09:50 PM
I have taken several fuckheads to civil court. How are you going to collect on these guys? What are you going to do, ruin their credit? These aren't the yuppie OWS people, but the anarchists. No point. But they should be arrested.

TheBigDave
12-07-11, 04:58 AM
SFPD is clearing out Occupy San Francisco right now.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 10:43 PM
WARNING - NSFW Language

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tYkJdBakzRg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:lol:

Nothing to laugh about here if you're, you know, a human being. (Obviously, none of these people are representative, but this is MUCH worse!)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6ik4f1dRbP8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

gogogo31
12-07-11, 10:48 PM
Since many here seem to be very, very confused, here is the syndrome the Occupy movement is a response to:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/07/383779/30-big-corporations-taxes-lobbying/

...and you really have no right to an opinion on the protests and the very justified discontent spreading like wildfire right now unless you're familiar with each and every one of the well-documented, supported, and detailed episodes of abuse of the rest of us at the hands of the 1% compiled in this vital book (for those among you who can read a WHOLE BOOK and not just respond Pavlovianly to easily digested, simple right-wing sound bytes!):

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/book_excerpt_with_liberty_and_justice_for_some/

gogogo31
12-07-11, 10:50 PM
SFPD is clearing out Occupy San Francisco right now.

Nope, not as of 8:45 p.m. PST:

http://www.ustream.tv/occupysf#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=316210&utm_medium=social

kvrdave
12-07-11, 10:51 PM
No right to an opinion. THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!

gogogo31
12-07-11, 10:54 PM
I have taken several fuckheads to civil court. How are you going to collect on these guys? What are you going to do, ruin their credit? These aren't the yuppie OWS people, but the anarchists. No point. But they should be arrested.

Unfortunately, the fuckheads at the telecoms, AGI, and Goldman Sachs can't be taken to court for their unpaid debts/debts paid at our expense and other crimes; according to our corporate-servant government, they're simply too rich to be down here, accountable and held to the rule of law with us little people (which, unless you make over 500 grand a year, includes YOU, ME, AND the fuckheads you took to court!).

gogogo31
12-07-11, 10:55 PM
No right to an opinion. THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!

Way to respond to the substance. Evasion, evasion, evasion of the real issues = contemporary conservatism. But they're not going away this time. Too many people are feeling the injustice now.

kvrdave
12-07-11, 10:57 PM
The fucktards I took to court haven't paid a dime into any system, including ours. They haven't paid any bank fees either. They did nothing but take the money of the whatever percent that actually pays into the system. The difference in what you are talking about is that the banks were bailed out by legislation while the fucktards I sued simply didn't pay. I was, and am, against both the bailout legislation and the fucktards who I have sued for damages.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 10:59 PM
Everyone has the right to have an opinion, obviously. But there have to be those of us who will inform ourselves and relentlessly call out those whose opinions are so ill-informed and reactionary that they don't merit any more attention than a debunking by simply pointing out the reality of the situation. If you cannot acknowledge the real, immediate, pressing economic emergency (as a direct result of brazen and widespread injustice favoring economic elites) that is feeding the flames of protest right now, you'd be better off taking a look at the situation and informing yourself instead of belittling the protesters.

kvrdave
12-07-11, 11:03 PM
Way to respond to the substance. Evasion, evasion, evasion of the real issues = contemporary conservatism. But they're not going away this time. Too many people are feeling the injustice now.

It's not evasion so much as showing the pure idiocy of the idea that people "have no right to an opinion" with the following caveat of "unless you're familiar with each and every one of the well-documented, supported, and detailed episodes of abuse of the rest of us at the hands of the 1% compiled in this vital book."

It's as stupid as saying I can have no opinion about drugs unless I have tried them all or I can have no opinion about murder unless I have murdered. I can, in fact, have an opinion about the protests without reading the book. It sounds no differently than saying I can have no opinion about the bombing of the Oklahoma city government building unless I have read Timothy McVeigh's minifesto. I can still have an opinion. And I likely agree with very much of it. But given that the protests include occupying private property, shitting in holes dug in parks, and plenty of good old fashioned rape, I can have an opinion. I can also have an opinion on the effectiveness of the protests. I think they have done little to nothing.

kvrdave
12-07-11, 11:04 PM
Everyone has the right to have an opinion, obviously. But there have to be those of us who will inform ourselves and relentlessly call out those whose opinions are so ill-informed and reactionary that they don't merit any more attention than a debunking by simply pointing out the reality of the situation. If you cannot acknowledge the real, immediate, pressing economic emergency (as a direct result of brazen and widespread injustice favoring economic elites) that is feeding the flames of protest right now, you'd be better off taking a look at the situation and informing yourself instead of belittling the protesters.

Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion. I can see the exactly what you point out, and do, and still think the protests are an absolute load of horse shit that will accomplish nothing. They might actually try protesting congress if they want change.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 11:15 PM
The fucktards I took to court haven't paid a dime into any system, including ours. They haven't paid any bank fees either. They did nothing but take the money of the whatever percent that actually pays into the system. The difference in what you are talking about is that the banks were bailed out by legislation while the fucktards I sued simply didn't pay. I was, and am, against both the bailout legislation and the fucktards who I have sued for damages.

I'm very sorry to hear about your personal litigation challenges with alleged deadbeats, but I think you'd have a very difficult time legitimately claiming that our economy failed and continues to fail most of us because of some consortium of welfare cheats. That's a hyper-exaggerated sticking point for some, not an actually widespread issue staring us all in the face and directly affecting us all like the things the Occupy movement is protesting. What they (we) are protesting is a system that continues to ensure hundreds of thousands added to the ranks of the "deadbeats" (if you're the kind of person whose conscience allows you to lump those who CAN'T pay in with those who won't pay) monthly.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 11:17 PM
Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion. I can see the exactly what you point out, and do, and still think the protests are an absolute load of horse shit that will accomplish nothing. They might actually try protesting congress if they want change.

You are most, most welcome.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 11:19 PM
It's not evasion so much as showing the pure idiocy of the idea that people "have no right to an opinion" with the following caveat of "unless you're familiar with each and every one of the well-documented, supported, and detailed episodes of abuse of the rest of us at the hands of the 1% compiled in this vital book."

It's as stupid as saying I can have no opinion about drugs unless I have tried them all or I can have no opinion about murder unless I have murdered. I can, in fact, have an opinion about the protests without reading the book. It sounds no differently than saying I can have no opinion about the bombing of the Oklahoma city government building unless I have read Timothy McVeigh's minifesto. I can still have an opinion. And I likely agree with very much of it. But given that the protests include occupying private property, shitting in holes dug in parks, and plenty of good old fashioned rape, I can have an opinion. I can also have an opinion on the effectiveness of the protests. I think they have done little to nothing.

It would be interesting to see you document and verify some of those allegations. But if you don't see that things are bad enough to warrant some extreme measures including civil disobedience, you're not aware enough. Yet. We'll all be painfully aware and one degree of poor or another soon enough if the kind of change being pressed for doesn't come.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 11:21 PM
Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion. I can see the exactly what you point out, and do, and still think the protests are an absolute load of horse shit that will accomplish nothing. They might actually try protesting congress if they want change.

Conservative step A: Blame the victim, as a rule and across the board.

Conservative step B: Assume persecuted-victim posture, indulge in hyperbole, and try to distract from and evade the real point when someone challenges you substantively.

Norm de Plume
12-07-11, 11:33 PM
C'mon, Dave's a good guy. Cut him a break. From my experience, he's not a narrow-minded ideologue.

kvrdave
12-07-11, 11:47 PM
I'm very sorry to hear about your personal litigation challenges with alleged deadbeats, but I think you'd have a very difficult time legitimately claiming that our economy failed and continues to fail most of us because of some consortium of welfare cheats. That's a hyper-exaggerated sticking point for some, not an actually widespread issue staring us all in the face and directly affecting us all like the things the Occupy movement is protesting. What they (we) are protesting is a system that continues to ensure hundreds of thousands added to the ranks of the "deadbeats" (if you're the kind of person whose conscience allows you to lump those who CAN'T pay in with those who won't pay) monthly.

Please point to where I said our economy failed and continues to fail most of use because of welfare cheats. I was pointing out that going after fucktards for damages is essentially a waste of time.

It would be interesting to see you document and verify some of those allegations. But if you don't see that things are bad enough to warrant some extreme measures including civil disobedience, you're not aware enough. Yet. We'll all be painfully aware and one degree of poor or another soon enough if the kind of change being pressed for doesn't come.
Document and verify? Hell, there are youtube videos and news articles on every page of this thread that do this. Things do warrant some extreme measures. I've been saying that since they first talked about TARP. None of which include sleeping in parks for weeks on end and disrupting the lives of blue collar workers, and squatting in vacant private property.
Conservative step A: Blame the victim, as a rule and across the board.

Conservative step B: Assume persecuted-victim posture, indulge in hyperbole, and try to distract from and evade the real point when someone challenges you substantively.

Here I thought this was about the problems of the laws in our country and who they are written for, but apparently to you it is about some ideological line in the sand that can be categorized as liberal and conservative. Hey, here's an idea, perhaps sleeping in a tent in a park will make the 1% repent of their greedy ways and change. Who the fuck are you kidding? It is a joke to EVERYONE in the 1% and most of us in the 99%. Perhaps actually getting to those that make legislation will do some good. But they don't do that. They create drum circles instead. Here's hoping that healing crystals will find an answer to grown up problems.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 11:51 PM
Please point to where I said our economy failed and continues to fail most of use because of welfare cheats. I was pointing out that going after fucktards for damages is essentially a waste of time.


Document and verify? Hell, there are youtube videos and news articles on every page of this thread that do this. This do warrant some extreme measures. I've been saying that since they first talked about TARP. None of which include sleeping in parks for weeks on end and disrupting the lives of blue collar workers, and squatting in vacant private property.


Here I thought this was about the problems of the laws in our country and who they are written for, but apparently to you it is about some ideological line in the sand that can be categorized as liberal and conservative. Hey, here's an idea, perhaps sleeping in a tent in a park will make the 1% repent of their greedy ways an change. Who the fuck are you kidding. It is a joke to EVERYONE in the 1% and most of us in the 99%. Perhaps actually getting to those that make legislation will do some good. But they don't do that. They create drum circles instead. Here's hoping that healing crystals will find an answer to grown up problems.

Half of the problem is the false, long-outmoded binary of "liberal" and "conservative," which exists now solely as an excuse for the talk radio industry to perpetuate its sorry, blathering self. "Liberal" and "conservative" merely means conservative and REALLY conservative, particularly in the U.S., where there has rarely been a real left (hasn't been for decades now) if you know the big picture. That liberal-conservative binary has failed. The new binary of 1% elites and the remaining 99% who serve them is much more meaningful.

gogogo31
12-07-11, 11:51 PM
C'mon, Dave's a good guy. Cut him a break. From my experience, he's not a narrow-minded ideologue.

Cut someone a break because they're a good guy? Pffft, what kind of pinko commie talk is THAT? ;-)

kvrdave
12-08-11, 12:11 AM
Half of the problem is the false, long-outmoded binary of "liberal" and "conservative," which exists now solely as an excuse for the talk radio industry to perpetuate its sorry, blathering self. "Liberal" and "conservative" merely means conservative and REALLY conservative, particularly in the U.S., where there has rarely been a real left (hasn't been for decades now) if you know the big picture. That liberal-conservative binary has failed. The new binary of 1% elites and the remaining 99% who serve them is much more meaningful.

Which is why I didn't bring it up. You did. I think we both see the same problem, but unfortunately we see very different ways of getting a solution. Mine doesn't include drum circles or human megaphones. To me, it seems that the most effective protests have either been those outside of Washington DC in which people were killed (ie Kent State), or those that actually happened with hoardes of people in DC (ie MLK). As such, I think the OWS group would be much more effective if they were in DC with a huge number of people, or were in large groups at their Senator's and Representative's offices or homes. But I don't believe the 1% will change on their own. I don't think politicians will want to change, but I think they want to stay in office more than anything else, so that is who needs to have pressure applied to them. All the drum circles and camping does is make most people think the movement is absolutely asinine.

Superboy
12-08-11, 12:50 AM
I have taken several fuckheads to civil court. How are you going to collect on these guys? What are you going to do, ruin their credit? These aren't the yuppie OWS people, but the anarchists. No point. But they should be arrested.

I remember the day that I messed up Mrs. Dubose's camellias. My dad made me go over there every day to read to her as penance. Little did I know that she was just a hapless victim to morphine addiction, and only wanted company to keep her occupied until she passed, free of her addiction. I learned the value of other people's property, and she learned determination in the face of insurmountable odds in a hopeless situation.

TheBigDave
12-08-11, 07:47 AM
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5479/cartoonvq.jpg

Tracer Bullet
12-08-11, 08:05 AM
Well that cartoon is the stupidest fucking thing I've seen so far this week.

RunBandoRun
12-08-11, 08:33 AM
If voting actually made a difference, Congress would have outlawed it by now. :lol:

Venusian
12-08-11, 08:35 AM
I don't like how "that is stupid" or something similar to that has become an acceptable response on this forum.

TheBigDave
12-08-11, 08:39 AM
Well that cartoon is the stupidest fucking thing I've seen so far this week.

I got it from Roger Ebert's blog. He posted an editorial on the protests earlier today. Most of it was his typical loony moonbat ranting. But in the middle he commented on why the Occupiers are on a path to failure.

My hesitation all along has come with uneasiness about the Occupy tactics. The idea of physically occupying public spaces--parks, plazas, malls and so on--is a questionable strategy. The notion of pitching tents, running kitchens and maintaining libraries on a quasi-permanent basis would have Saul Alinsky tearing his hair out. If you set out to do something that will obviously not work, you're setting yourself up for inevitable failure.

FULL ARTICLE - http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/_where_i_stand_on_the_occupy_m.html

Sean O'Hara
12-08-11, 09:04 AM
I don't like how "that is stupid" or something similar to that has become an acceptable response on this forum.

I blame grundle.

Tracer Bullet
12-08-11, 09:20 AM
I got it from Roger Ebert's blog. He posted an editorial on the protests earlier today. Most of it was his typical loony moonbat ranting. But in the middle he commented on why the Occupiers are on a path to failure.

That's great, but it's still a stupid cartoon.

CRM114
12-08-11, 11:02 AM
Because when it comes to voices clarifying the American socio-econcomic dilemmas, I turn to Roger Ebert.

gogogo31
12-08-11, 11:32 PM
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/06/why_no_ones_investigating_wall_street/singleton/

kvrdave
12-09-11, 12:07 AM
Because when it comes to voices clarifying the American socio-econcomic dilemmas, I turn to Roger Ebert.

Yeah, not nearly as clear as those specific idea bastards at OWS. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
12-09-11, 08:12 AM
I don't like how "that is stupid" or something similar to that has become an acceptable response on this forum.

That's stupid.

CRM114
12-09-11, 08:21 AM
I don't like how "that is stupid" or something similar to that has become an acceptable response on this forum.

Everything is cool...as long as no one calls anyone a "Bushite." Now THAT is crossing the line!

kvrdave
12-09-11, 11:23 AM
You still have teabagger.

Tracer Bullet
12-09-11, 11:26 AM
You still have teabagger.

Yeah he does :eyebrow:

Rockmjd23
12-09-11, 06:48 PM
Macaca is still a bad word, right?

DVD Polizei
12-09-11, 08:18 PM
Sounds worse if you say it backwards.

---

What exactly is a Fascist Banker, anyway. Sounds odd to me.

kvrdave
12-09-11, 09:34 PM
Macaca is still a bad word, right?

Which party are you?

TheBigDave
12-10-11, 04:10 AM
Occupy Boston getting evicted right now.

LIVE VIDEO - http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/29967474/detail.html

wmansir
12-12-11, 12:11 PM
Apparently today is occupy the ports day on the west coast.

The port protesters are focusing on terminals owned by SSA Marine, saying it is owed by the Goldman Sachs investment firm, which they argue exemplifies corporate greed and is anti-union.

SSA Senior Vice President Bob Watters disputed the protesters' claims, saying Goldman Sachs owns less than 3 percent of an investment fund that has a minority stake in the company. He also said the company is the largest employer of International Longshore and Warehouse Union members on the West Coast.

That union, which represents 15,000 dock workers, has distanced itself from the effort. In a letter to members sent last month, union president Robert McEllrath said the organization shares Occupy protesters concerns about what they consider corporate abuses, but he said the union was not sanctioning any shutdown.

Protest organizers said on their website that they were acting independent of organized labor only because the unions are "constrained under reactionary, anti-union federal legislation."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy-ports/

One account I read said the union letter said "that protesters were attempting to co-opt the union's cause to advance their own agenda." I have to wonder if it's the other way around, considering how active the unions are within the OWS movement. I don't give the union leadership's public disapproval of illegal work action much weight.

CRM114
12-12-11, 01:04 PM
OFMAO

Occupy Freezing My Ass Off

Dr Mabuse
12-12-11, 04:45 PM
I like this article from the Post. Lays it out in simple language.

The view from the 1 percent

By Tom Ehrich| Religion News Service,

Now that the financial industry and major corporations have successfully lobbied Congress to make more people poor and to keep them that way, they are discovering the downside of unbridled greed: people are too broke to buy their products.

Heavy discounts were necessary to stimulate sales on Black Friday -- a stimulus that lost steam as the big shopping weekend proceeded. Now further discounts will be required. That bodes ill for retailers, as well as for their suppliers.

It’s one thing to own Congress, but it’s something else when consumers refuse to buy. They’re staying home, maybe shopping online; they’re not investing, not saving, not selling their houses, not feeling confident about their own jobs.

In a freer free-market economy, competitors would emerge to resolve these problems. But corporate giants do everything possible to stifle competition. Consider Verizon’s bid to buy $3.6 billion of unused wireless spectrum to prevent anyone else from having it.

Thus we see the demise of modern capitalism, brought down not by socialists or fringe elements, but by the capitalists themselves.

Their self-defeating behavior — like that of any addict — has led them into the delusional belief that they can have it all. They can kill prosperity, stifle competition, rig capital creation into an insider game, undermine countervailing forces — and yet somehow the great market will continue to shower wealth on them.

The problem is, when the only ones who have money are the ultra-wealthy, those who actually make the economy work — small business, merchants, job-creating employers, innovators, government agencies — are starved. Despite the relentless right-wing drumbeat on tax policy and government spending, the villain in that starvation drama is the greedy 1 percent.

GOP strategists have concluded that the way to defame Occupy Wall Street is to brand them as “anti-capitalist.” In fact, they’re mostly job seekers who would be thrilled to see our free-market economy succeed and put them to work. Their protest isn’t against capitalism; their protest is proof that capitalism isn’t working, a victim of delusions in high places.

The problem, you see, isn’t the economic system as such. It’s the shortsighted, avaricious people who are running the system.

It began years ago when they decided to pad profits by squeezing labor costs, thus shrinking the middle class. Then they padded their own salaries by juicing stock prices at the expense of long-range thinking, thus discouraging innovation and capital investment. Next they crippled regulators, thus undermining confidence and inviting corruption; and finally demanded tax laws that benefit only them, thus diverting spendable money into their bank accounts.

What did they think would happen? If no one wins except a very few, the economy stalls. With all the incremental wealth in a few pockets, who is left to buy $200,000 houses or $20,000 Chevrolets or even $200 lawn mowers?

How did these leaders make it out of business school, law school and glossy colleges without any understanding of the fundamentals? The system has to work for everyone, or it won’t work at all. The enemy of democracy is an entrenched elite, and the enemy of a free-market economy is greed.

Where is God in this? Where God has always been: telling the rich to share, exposing delusions like bigger and better barns and Mammon-worship, standing with the poor and hungry, and demanding justice.

kvrdave
12-12-11, 05:59 PM
best part

It began years ago when they decided to pad profits by squeezing labor costs, thus shrinking the middle class. Then they padded their own salaries by juicing stock prices at the expense of long-range thinking, thus discouraging innovation and capital investment. Next they crippled regulators, thus undermining confidence and inviting corruption; and finally demanded tax laws that benefit only them, thus diverting spendable money into their bank accounts.

TheBigDave
12-12-11, 06:00 PM
Apparently today is occupy the ports day on the west coast.

I was expecting a bigger turnout. They've been hyping this for weeks. But according to local news reports they got "about 200 protesters" (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/occupy-protesters-cleared-port-of-long-beach.html) in Long Beach, "several dozen protesters" (http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/OccupySD-Protesters-Arrested-at-Port--135445748.html) in San Diego, "about 200 protesters" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/12/BAJK1MBE5E.DTL) in Oakland, "about 300 Occupy supporters" (http://today.seattletimes.com/2011/12/occupy-the-port-protest-underway-in-seattle/) in Seattle, and around 400 (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/port_of_portland_closes_termin.html) in Portland.

Despite the weak turnout, they were still able to do some damage to the 99%ers in Portland, Seattle and Oakland.

While local International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) officials have not come out in direct support of the protests, Jennifer Sargent of the ILWU said she felt the actions did more harm than good. "We wish they would have talked to us in advance," Sargent told KATU News, "because there are ways to show support for us that are better than this, that wouldn't keep people home from work."

"To describe what's happening here today in one word, I'd say unfortunate," Josh Thomas, Port of Portland Spokesman said. "This, however well intended, is misguided, counterproductive and it sends the wrong message to the wrong people."

"We’re had to turn away hundreds of truckers today, and in some of those cases they will go home without pay today because they’re not able to do their job," Thomas added. "Then that also impacts dock workers, rail workers, office workers, anyone with a connection here at the marine terminal."

FULL ARTICLE - http://www.katu.com/news/business/Occupy-Portland-hits-some-speedbumps-before-port-protest-135437088.html

Roughly 150 longshoremen on the dayshift were sent home with little to no pay after they were either unable to get to work or the big rigs used to haul containers couldn't reach the berths, said Craig Merrilees, spokesman for the International Longshore Worker's Union. Fifty longshoremen are still working today, Merrilees said.

--------------------------

Before dawn, one trucker, clearly frustrated, blew his air horn and tried to drive through the crowd.

"It pisses me off," said Mark Hebert, 47, another trucker waiting to get into the port. "I am losing money. I don't get paid when I am just sitting here. I've got a truck payment, and insurance payment just like everyone else. "

Some longshoremen scheduled to begin work at 8 a.m. decided they didn't want to cross a picket line and went home. Others, though, said they needed the money.

"They have some legitimate points and what not, but we are part of the 99 percent and they are stopping us from coming to work," said Tim, a 44-year-old longshoreman who didn't want to give his last name. "The 1 percent's cargo doesn't come in here. The caviar comes in from Russia first class, not on a slow boat from China."

FULL ARTICLE - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/12/BAJK1MBE5E.DTL

Those hurt, it turns out, were workers who protestors said supported the movement. They were workers who protestors said were going to be paid even if they didn't work Monday.

In fact, 325 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union were not paid because of the 6 a.m. decision to shut down the port, said Mike Gardner of ILWU Local 8 of Portland. All told, shut down of the two terminals affected about 325 members on day or evening shifts, he said.

"The Occupiers were looking for the big corporations -- the 1 percent," he said. "But the people who aren't working today are the 99 percent. I'm part of that 99 percent and I didn't get paid today."

A number of other locally owned business, including trucking companies, import-export firms and distributors representing hundreds of Oregon-based hay and straw growers, said they were hurt by the decision to shut down the port in response to calls for Occupy demonstrations at ports up and down the West coast.

-------------------------------------

West Coast seaports generate more than $700 million a day in economic activity and a day-long shutdown could impact up to 260,000 person hours of employment and more than $9 million in wages, Thomas said. He did not yet have a cost calculated for the response, he said.

For Shelly Boshart, the day was a logistical headache as she attempted to reroute her Salem family businesses' four truck drivers. Normally, the company's drivers would be hauling as many as three trips each to the port of straw grown in the Willamette Valley.

The straw, grown by about 80 farmers, was headed for the troughs of cows in Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan.

"This is so frustrating because we're all small business people," said Boshart, whose father owns Bossco Trading Co and Boshart Trucking, based in Salem and Tangent. "Ironically, they shut down Terminal 6, where mostly Oregon products are going out of."

She estimates the shut down cost her company as much as $4,000.

FULL ARTICLE - http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/port_of_portland_closes_termin.html

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cg6oDmSbzKc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Way to stick it to the man!

wmansir
12-12-11, 08:40 PM
I like this article from the Post. Lays it out in simple language.
Where do the 1% keep all this money they are hoarding?

DVD Polizei
12-12-11, 08:44 PM
Well they don't keep all their money in the US. :lol:

kvrdave
12-12-11, 11:28 PM
"This, however well intended, is misguided, counterproductive and it sends the wrong message to the wrong people."


What? From the OWS crowd? No fucking way.

brayzie
12-12-11, 11:49 PM
What corporations have donated to politicians, who in turn, helped pass laws favorable to the corporations?

grundle
12-13-11, 12:14 AM
"This, however well intended, is misguided, counterproductive and it sends the wrong message to the wrong people."

"We’re had to turn away hundreds of truckers today, and in some of those cases they will go home without pay today because they’re not able to do their job," Thomas added. "Then that also impacts dock workers, rail workers, office workers, anyone with a connection here at the marine terminal."

Roughly 150 longshoremen on the dayshift were sent home with little to no pay

"I am losing money. I don't get paid when I am just sitting here. I've got a truck payment, and insurance payment just like everyone else. "

"They have some legitimate points and what not, but we are part of the 99 percent and they are stopping us from coming to work,"

In fact, 325 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union were not paid because of the 6 a.m. decision to shut down the port

"But the people who aren't working today are the 99 percent. I'm part of that 99 percent and I didn't get paid today."

A number of other locally owned business, including trucking companies, import-export firms and distributors representing hundreds of Oregon-based hay and straw growers, said they were hurt by the decision to shut down the port

"This is so frustrating because we're all small business people," said Boshart, whose father owns Bossco Trading Co and Boshart Trucking, based in Salem and Tangent. "Ironically, they shut down Terminal 6, where mostly Oregon products are going out of."

She estimates the shut down cost her company as much as $4,000.

Despite the weak turnout, they were still able to do some damage to the 99%ers in Portland, Seattle and Oakland.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cg6oDmSbzKc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Way to stick it to the man!


Those protestors are evil, because they are forcefully preventing people from working.

kvrdave
12-13-11, 12:23 AM
What corporations have donated to politicians, who in turn, helped pass laws favorable to the corporations?

I think one only needs to look at the tax code for some hints.

cdollaz
12-13-11, 07:56 AM
I kinda hope that the dock workers who aren't able to work because of this just get together and beat the shit out of the protesters.

CRM114
12-13-11, 08:30 AM
Yeah, that would be cool...



-eek-

Tracer Bullet
12-13-11, 08:40 AM
I kinda hope that the dock workers who aren't able to work because of this just get together and beat the shit out of the protesters.

Yeah, well I hope they shoot them!

Th0r S1mpson
12-13-11, 08:59 AM
Yeah, well I hope they shoot them!

Or string them up from a traffic light like the OWS mob almost sort of did to that rich guy!

Dr Mabuse
12-13-11, 09:00 AM
What corporations have donated to politicians, who in turn, helped pass laws favorable to the corporations?

:lol:

Tracer Bullet
12-13-11, 09:06 AM
Or string them up from a traffic light like the OWS mob almost sort of did to that rich guy!

And then shoot them?

I really want to see some people get fucking shot. And maybe then their corpses could be raped. And then burned. And then shot again.

DVD Polizei
12-13-11, 09:10 AM
We're quite a ways from being that confrontational.

In the meantime, it's singing songs, drinking expensive coffee drinks, and shitting in public for the next few decades.

Th0r S1mpson
12-13-11, 09:10 AM
And then shoot them?

I really want to see some people get fucking shot. And maybe then their corpses could be raped. And then burned. And then shot again.

It's Tuesday. Who has that much energy?

Tracer Bullet
12-13-11, 09:29 AM
It's Tuesday. Who has that much energy?

That's true. Let's wait until Saturday. We'll sleep in a bit, have a leisurely breakfast with the paper, and then it's shooting, raping, and burning time.

Then lunch.

kvrdave
12-13-11, 11:33 AM
And then shoot them?

I really want to see some people get fucking shot. And maybe then their corpses could be raped. And then burned. And then shot again.

Then piss on the ashes. I'm with you, man.

Th0r S1mpson
12-13-11, 11:36 AM
I've reported this thread. Drones were dispatched over both of you for surveillance. The one in Eastern Washington got bored and crashed into a liquor store. The locals are attempting to decrypt the data to find some of their farm animals that went missing a while back, though key elements of the vehicle have already been removed to patch up a shed.

Tracer Bullet
12-13-11, 11:44 AM
Then piss on the ashes. I'm with you, man.

I'm pee shy :(

wishbone
12-13-11, 01:10 PM
I've reported this thread. Drones were dispatched over both of you for surveillance. The one in Eastern Washington got bored and crashed into a liquor store. The locals are attempting to decrypt the data to find some of their farm animals that went missing a while back, though key elements of the vehicle have already been removed to patch up a shed.Invariably Dave will retrieve it when he accesses the damage to his rental property when they move away.

wishbone
12-13-11, 02:46 PM
Will Occupy Wall Street get a new camp?
By Miranda Leitsinger, msnbc.com
12/13/2011

http://i41.tinypic.com/2untspd.jpg
Occupy Wall Street activists scale a wall to get into Duarte Square after police removed the protesters early in the morning from Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011, in New York City.

NEW YORK, NY - Occupy Wall Street’s next big direct action will strike at home – literally, a potential new camp for the flagship of the grassroots movement.

Protesters plan to try and occupy a nearly half-acre plot about one mile northwest of their former camp at Zuccotti Park on Saturday, the three month-anniversary of the movement. The land is owned by Trinity Church, whose operations include an Episcopal parish, a commercial realty business and a grant-making organization.

“We’re calling it Occupation 2.0,” said Mark Bray, of the OWS public relations working group. “It’s been a vacant lot for years and will continue to be a vacant lot for years. There is no indication yet as to how they’ll respond when the time comes, so we’ll see.”

But even though the church has assisted Occupy Wall Street by providing them meeting rooms and use of their neighborhood center, it is opposed to having them stay at the Duarte Square lot. An attempt to move in there on Nov. 15 -- the day protesters were evicted from Zuccotti Park – was rejected by the church.

“We disagree with those who argue that Trinity should -- indeed, must as a matter of conscience -- allow Occupy Wall Street to liberate its Duarte Square lot … for an open encampment and large scale assemblies. In all good conscience and faith, we strongly believe to do so would be wrong, unsafe, unhealthy and potentially injurious,” its rector, The Rev. Dr. James H. Cooper, said in a statement dated Dec. 9 and posted to the church website. “The health, safety and security problems posed by an encampment here, compounded by winter weather, would dwarf those experienced at Zuccotti Park. Calling this an issue of ‘political sanctuary’ is manipulative and blind to reality.”

Linda Hanick, a spokeswoman for the church, said Tuesday that their position would not change.

The Occupy Wall Street plan comes as authorities have shuttered many 'Occupy' camps across the country.

"Occupations create space for community, values, ideas and a level of meaningful dialogue absent in the present system," Occupy Wall Street said in a statement for the Dec. 17 action. They have allowed us to realize that we cannot fix our crises isolated from one another. We need collective action, and we need civic space. We are creating that civic space."

Protesters will bring musicians and others with them in their bid to pressure the church to let them take the space. They say they’ll do things differently this time to prevent problems -- such as a few assaults -- that tainted their efforts at Zuccotti Park. There won’t be personal tents, for example, only large ones for group meetings, said Brendan Burke, 41, of Brooklyn, who helped start the Occupy Wall Street security team.

“You’re coming here to build a community,” he said. “It’s all about a different vibe. It’s not just, ‘come here and crash.’ It’s, ‘come here and work.’”http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9417835-will-occupy-wall-street-get-a-new-campThey have allowed us to realize that we cannot fix our crises isolated from one another. We need collective action, and we need civic space. We are creating that civic space.I thought with the advent of social media that we were closer than ever. http://i42.tinypic.com/6jeckk.gif

kvrdave
12-13-11, 03:55 PM
"I WILL NEVER OWN A HOME IN MY LIFE"

Somehow I doubt that has much to do with anything on Wall Street. :lol:

Rockmjd23
12-13-11, 04:09 PM
I agree with all of those signs. :up:

brayzie
12-13-11, 04:20 PM
Isn't the every-American-deserves-to-own-a-house argument that got us into the mortgage lending crisis which helped contribute to the economy going down, which resulted in the bank bailout?

Jason
12-13-11, 04:21 PM
We're quite a ways from being that confrontational.

In the meantime, it's singing songs, drinking expensive coffee drinks, and shitting in public for the next few decades.

Wow, I have been grossly misinformed about dock workers.

Jason
12-13-11, 04:23 PM
Isn't the every-American-deserves-to-own-a-house argument that got us into the mortgage lending crisis which helped contribute to the economy going down, which resulted in the bank bailout?

No, it was the market-will-regulate-itself-better-than-the-government-can argument that did it.

Th0r S1mpson
12-13-11, 04:26 PM
Clearly it was caused by circumstances opposed to each person's ideology.

wishbone
12-13-11, 04:35 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/fy259f.jpg

Why own a place when you can just take it? :shrug:

kvrdave
12-13-11, 04:53 PM
No, it was the market-will-regulate-itself-better-than-the-government-can argument that did it.

It was the government that started banks into the "make loans to people who had no business getting loans" program. The banks simply expanded it. :lol:

brayzie
12-13-11, 05:59 PM
No, it was the market-will-regulate-itself-better-than-the-government-can argument that did it.

I'm not trying to downplay the successful efforts of the banks lobbying against regulation. If someone at a Tea Party Rally or OWS protest had a sign that read, "WE NEED LESS GOVT REGULATION!!" then I would mention the how the market LIFTING regulations was what helped contribute to the eventual bank bailout.


But I don't remember people buying houses they couldn't afford using the argument you mentioned. From what I can remember it seemed that members of congress were pushing the idea of American's with low incomes buying homes with little to no downpayment, Bush promoting the idea as well, and eventually signing off on the American Dream Assistance Downpayment act among other things.

Dr Mabuse
12-13-11, 06:01 PM
Yeah... as KVR has posted many times before - the whole 2008 crash was due to people buying stuff they couldn't afford, and hippies I guess.

That's why we had the crash.

Poor people were scamming realtors, mortgage brokers, and banks. Sons a bitches!

:lol:

Jason
12-13-11, 06:31 PM
I'm not trying to downplay the successful efforts of the banks lobbying against regulation. If someone at a Tea Party Rally or OWS protest had a sign that read, "WE NEED LESS GOVT REGULATION!!" then I would mention the how the market-regulating-itself was unsuccessful and also helped contribute to the eventual bank bailout.


But I don't remember people buying houses they couldn't afford using the argument you mentioned. From what I can remember it seemed that members of congress were pushing the idea of American's with low incomes buying homes with little to no downpayment, Bush promoting the idea as well, and eventually signing off on the American Dream Assistance Downpayment act among other things.

I thought they were buying those homes with the idea that the housing bubble (which would never, ever burst) would give them short term windfalls in runaway equity gains and they would reap big profits overnight by unloading their property before they actually started paying on the principal.

Th0r S1mpson
12-13-11, 06:36 PM
I don't know about reaping big profits overnight, but things certainly were pitched as easily sustainable. Get a 5 year arm with zero down, then just refinance it within 5 years. No biggie.

That's exactly what I did. I got out of our first home at exactly the right time, fortunately.

If we'd been moving even a few months later, our financial outlook would be very different today.

General Zod
12-13-11, 06:45 PM
From what I can remember it seemed that members of congress were pushing the idea of American's with low incomes buying homes with little to no downpayment, Bush promoting the idea as well, and eventually signing off on the American Dream Assistance Downpayment act among other things.
If you remember it actually started back around 94 with Clinton and changes to the "Community Reinvestment Act" basically forcing banks to "take a chance" on loans that people would otherwise not qualify for - and for banks that wouldn't do it they were told they'd be put on a public list for scrutiny. Add to that additional incentives for banks that were giving loans help others "live the American Dream" and you set up a recipe for corruption. I mean the gov't pushed this policy for years and years through the Bush administration as well until the bubble burst and then, of course, they blame the banks for taking these loans in the first place.

But heck that's just history and it's all so much more fun to blame the current wall street fat-cats and protest against big business.

Oh did anyone see the gallup poll today that said that fear of big government is at 64% (near all time highs) and fear of big business is only at 26%? This OWS thing has had zero effect and instead of the current administration bashing big business they should be looking at themselves. Everyone else is.

brayzie
12-13-11, 07:55 PM
I read about Clinton's involvment not too long ago when looking more into how the mortgage lending crisis was created.

I haven't read that thoroughly about the whole thing but it seems like many different factors were all at play, and blame cannot be placed solely on banks, buyers, Republicans, or Democrats.

@Jason
I think all kinds of people were taking advantage of the situation. I just don't get the protestor's signs. Do they want to make it easier to buy a house again? Universal home ownership? I'm not against the OWS protests.

OWS protestor interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS6JvdYkUTo)

TheBigDave
12-13-11, 10:06 PM
More casualties in the Occupiers war against the 99%:

Milk Street Cafe, FiDi eatery that lost business due to Occupy Wall Street barricades, to close for good

Milk Street Cafe, the restaurant whose business dried up in the face of the Occupy Wall Street barricades, is shutting down. Thursday will be the last day for the 23,000 square-foot eatery that opened at 40 Wall St. in June, the Daily News has learned.

“It’s terribly sad,” Milk Street Cafe owner Marc Epstein told the News. Epstein blamed the barricades that remained in front of his restaurant even after the Occupy Wall Street protestors were removed from Zuccotti Park. “This is now the 12th straight week of the barricades,” he said.

The restaurant owner, who operates an eatery and catering business in Boston, said he pressed the city daily for their removal, but got nowhere.

Milk Street Cafe’s closure will result in the layoff of 70 workers. That’s on top of the 21 let go in October.

In recent days, Epstein tried to find resources to remain open, but in the end he couldn’t come up with the cash to keep the vast restaurant running.

“Everyone has to understand the consequences of their actions,” he said. “I have 90 plus people who put their faith in me. I feel horrible.” When asked whether he would ever open a restaurant in New York again, Epstein responded, “Never.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/milk-street-cafe-fidi-eatery-lost-business-due-occupy-wall-street-barricades-close-good-article-1.990960

brayzie
12-13-11, 10:08 PM
They should move their protest to Washington DC.

kvrdave
12-13-11, 10:13 PM
Yeah... as KVR has posted many times before - the whole 2008 crash was due to people buying stuff they couldn't afford, and hippies I guess.

That's why we had the crash.

Poor people were scamming realtors, mortgage brokers, and banks. Sons a bitches!

:lol:


That's a pretty gross micharacterization of what I said. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that government is the ultimate protector. If they were, they would not have gotten rid of Glass Steagall, nor would they have directed Fannie and Freddie to initiate the new rules that they did. As much as this is a case study in the problems of a "free market" it is a much better case study in the inability for government to control a free market and how their continual intervention leads to more problems that it fixes.

kvrdave
12-13-11, 10:17 PM
They should move their protest to Washington DC.

Shit, and do what? Actually lobby for change? I think keeping union workers and shutting down small businesses is the way to stick it to the 1%.

brayzie
12-13-11, 10:22 PM
Or it could be an example of big government trying to be smaller and it turning out disasterously.

brayzie
12-13-11, 10:30 PM
Shit, and do what? Actually lobby for change? I think keeping union workers and shutting down small businesses is the way to stick it to the 1%.

dunno if their web site already has this but OWS should have a list of the members of congress who voted for the policies that they believe were detrimental to the 99%.

wishbone
12-13-11, 10:31 PM
They should move their protest to Washington DC.The Occupiers? They have -- didn't ya hear?Issa challenges Occupy D.C.’s claim to McPherson Square
By Tim Craig
12/13/2011

http://i44.tinypic.com/20tm8aw.jpg

Amid rising tension between Occupy D.C. protesters and some congressional leaders, a House committee is investigating why the National Park Service has allowed demonstrators to remain camped in McPherson Square.

The probe by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee represents a new turn in the debate locally and nationally about whether Occupy Wall Street protesters should be allowed to stake claim to public property as part of their demonstrations against what they say are economic and political inequalities.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the committee, sparked the investigation with a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar this week, accusing Occupy D.C. of damaging McPherson Square after $400,000 in taxpayer funds were spent in recent years to improve it. He also questioned whether the Park Service has disregarded its own rules by making exceptions for the 10-week-old protest.

Citing a federal law that appears to prohibit camping in the square, Issa demanded that Salazar turn over by Jan. 3 “all communication” among Park Service officials, the White House and Occupy D.C. protesters. Issa also wants a “written explanation” on why the Park Service allowed demonstrators to “camp in McPherson Square” and a complete accounting of all arrests related to Occupy D.C.

“While the protesters’ continued occupation of the park appears to violate the law, the NPS has not taken any action to enforce the relevant statute,” Issa wrote. “This situation raises questions about why those decisions were made, who participated in making them, and whether political judgments played a role in not enforcing the law.”

Interior officials did not directly address Issa’s letter and gave no indication Tuesday that they would shift their stance toward the protesters.

The letter, which comes as three Occupy protesters enter the second week of their hunger strike for D.C. voting rights, represents the first direct congressional intervention in the protest on K Street.

But in a city where skepticism of congressional Republicans runs deep, the letter could help galvanize a movement that is struggling to come up with a plan for sustaining itself through the winter.

On Tuesday, the gaunt and weary protesters on the hunger strike held a day-long sit-in outside the Capitol Hill office House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “They are stepping all over us, and we can’t let that continue,” said Rooj Alwazir, 23, a McPherson Square dweller who accompanied the hunger strikers to the Hill.

A separate protest group, Stop the Machine, has a Park Service permit to keep tents in Freedom Plaza, but the demonstrators in McPherson Square, affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement, do not have a permit to remain in the park overnight.

While police across the country have cleared out Occupy encampments in their cities — there was an early Tuesday morning raid on a park near Baltimore’s Inner Harbor — Park Service officials largely have adopted a policy of nonconfrontation with the McPherson Square protesters.

Backed by D.C. leaders sympathetic with the protesters’ goals, federal officials have stressed that they have been trying to uphold the citizens’ right to picket the government. Although more than 100 tents crowd McPherson Square, the federal officials have said there is precedent for allowing temporary structures on Park Service land as a part of a protest.

Adam Fetcher, Salazar’s press secretary, said the agency is working with D.C. leaders to “ensure that demonstrations associated with the Occupy movement are conducted safely and in compliance with the law.”

“The National Park Service and the U.S. Park Police are firmly committed to upholding Americans’ First Amendment rights while also enforcing our nation’s laws, guarding public safety and protecting the resources with which we are entrusted,” he wrote.

In his letter to Salazar, Issa accused the Park Service of allowing protesters to kill newly planted grass and damage upgrades to the park that had been funded with a $400,000 grant from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill.

“We can all agree that once the federal government had invested the funds, no government agency should have allowed it to be damaged or destroyed when it legally could have been prevented,” Issa said.

Issa’s letter comes as some local business leaders are growing weary of the demonstrators. Over the past two weeks, more than 100 Occupy D.C. demonstrators have been arrested for blocking traffic and for other acts of civil disobedience. The protests are aimed at a host of concerns, including perceived corporate and lobbyist influence on government.

Several high-ranking D.C. officials said the Park Service should try to avoid a high-profile clash with the protesters.

“We don’t want the same thing to happen here as has happened in other cities,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). “We support their underlying message. We just want them to be careful about the rights of others while they get their message out.”

On Tuesday, the leaders of D.C. Vote, an advocacy group, accompanied the hunger strikers to Capitol Hill to press for voting rights and local control over the D.C. budget. Adrian Parsons, Kelly Mears and Sam Jewler sat in wheelchairs in front of Boehner’s office for more than four hours in an effort to speak with him.

The speaker declined because he was focused on “getting Americans back to work,” his spokeswoman said. The protesters questioned why Congress is worried “about grass seed in a park” but not “D.C. democracy.”

Staff writer Annie Gowen contributed to this report.http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/issa-questions-park-service-on-occupy-dc-encampment/2011/12/13/gIQAzC3csO_story_1.html

So park improvements, with a cost of $400,000, are only representative of the 1%? :confused:

msdmoney
12-13-11, 10:34 PM
I'm not trying to downplay the successful efforts of the banks lobbying against regulation. If someone at a Tea Party Rally or OWS protest had a sign that read, "WE NEED LESS GOVT REGULATION!!" then I would mention the how the market-regulating-itself was unsuccessful and also helped contribute to the eventual bank bailout.

I think the market did regulate itself, it's just that when it did we were too scared to deal with the repercussions so we bailed out the banks instead.

But you can't decouple all of the interplay between government policy to push people into homes, fed policy to push down interest rates during high growth to try and push down unemployment, bank greed once they realized the money that could be extracted from this new market, and personal greed from all of the people that were going to somehow just trade up houses to become rich. There isn't just one cause or one finger to point.

Tracer Bullet
12-13-11, 10:41 PM
I think the market did regulate itself, it's just that when it did we were too scared to deal with the repercussions so we bailed out the banks instead.

But you can't decouple all of the interplay between government policy to push people into homes, fed policy to push down interest rates during high growth to try and push down unemployment, bank greed once they realized the money that could be extracted from this new market, and personal greed from all of the people that were going to somehow just trade up houses to become rich. There isn't just one cause or one finger to point.

Actually, there pretty much is, but whatever.

brayzie
12-13-11, 10:44 PM
I think the market did regulate itself, it's just that when it did we were too scared to deal with the repercussions so we bailed out the banks instead.

But you can't decouple all of the interplay between government policy to push people into homes, fed policy to push down interest rates during high growth to try and push down unemployment, bank greed once they realized the money that could be extracted from this new market, and personal greed from all of the people that were going to somehow just trade up houses to become rich. There isn't just one cause or one finger to point.

Dammit, I typed it out wrong. I meant, "the government deregulating or relaxing the restrictions" is what was unsuccessful and resulted in the mortgage lending crisis. I agree with you're above post completely.

kvrdave
12-13-11, 11:14 PM
Or it could be an example of big government trying to be smaller and it turning out disasterously.

You believe there is an example of big government trying to be smaller? Glass Steagall was shitcanned during the Clinton years not because he and congress wanted government smaller, but because banks wanted to get rid of it so that brokerage firms could initiate mortgages, get into banking, and start selling mortgage backed securities that they made from application to closing. It had nothing to do with making government smaller. They got rid of a law, they didn't lay off any personel.

brayzie
12-13-11, 11:24 PM
No, not really. But wouldn't it be considered an example of less government? Doesn't less restrictions and regulation means smaller government?

kvrdave
12-13-11, 11:46 PM
I suppose, if that is why you think they did it. I don't think they did it because they were after less government. They did it because Wall Street wanted them to do it. And maybe they sold it that way (I don't remember), but it wasn't just that. With just getting rid of Glass Steagall you could do damage. But couple that with the mandates passed down to Fannie and Freddie, and you could make a disaster. Those weren't examples of small government or free market. They were examples of big government intervention and social engineering. And that HAD to be done in order to let the brokerages that became banks really run wild. Ask yourself why most every talking head has talked about this fiasco having to do with Glass Steagal being repealed, and ask yourself why it has never been reinstated. In fact, not only was it not reinstated, those top players in the brakerage/banks like Bear Sterns, Merril Lynch, etc. went on to become part of the administration or at least more powerful outside of their failed companies than they were in them. One of the only top firms I haven't heard of top dogs becoming kings is Charles Schwab.

brayzie
12-13-11, 11:53 PM
I'm not doing very well with posting today.

You're probably right that there intention wasn't to be smaller government. I was just saying that, regardless of intention, couldn't it still be used as an example of reducing the role of government.

Is the part about social engineering have to do with bringing scrutiny to the banks who wouldn't give loans to low income families, many of them minorities?

CRM114
12-14-11, 08:13 AM
If you remember it actually started back around 94 with Clinton ....

Ah, the forum's boilerplate lead-in to any rebuttal. :lol:

CRM114
12-14-11, 08:16 AM
I think the market did regulate itself, it's just that when it did we were too scared to deal with the repercussions so we bailed out the banks instead.

But you can't decouple all of the interplay between government policy to push people into homes, fed policy to push down interest rates during high growth to try and push down unemployment, bank greed once they realized the money that could be extracted from this new market, and personal greed from all of the people that were going to somehow just trade up houses to become rich. There isn't just one cause or one finger to point.

Yeah, I personally didn't want to have to go wait on line at my bank like "It's a Wonderful Life." Perhaps you did? Or perhaps you have all of your cash under your mattress?

Tracer Bullet
12-14-11, 08:24 AM
Ah, the forum's boilerplate lead-in to any rebuttal. :lol:

I'm just happy that they have Clinton now and can stop reaching back to blame everything on FDR. It was making them look out of touch.

General Zod
12-14-11, 09:07 AM
Ah, the forum's boilerplate lead-in to any rebuttal. :lol:

If you remember we started that whole rebuttal thing back in 1994 under Clinton.

kvrdave
12-14-11, 10:18 AM
I'm not doing very well with posting today.

You're probably right that there intention wasn't to be smaller government. I was just saying that, regardless of intention, couldn't it still be used as an example of reducing the role of government.

I suppose, but simply eliminating the military could also be used as an example of smaller government, but I don't think anyone that believes in smaller government thinks that having no military is a good thing, nor do I think it would be something we'd look at and say, "see? Smaller government doesn't work." Typically, smaller government types talk about getting rid of waste, reducing subsidies, some whole departments that are redundant, etc.

Is the part about social engineering have to do with bringing scrutiny to the banks who wouldn't give loans to low income families, many of them minorities?
I meant it more like trying to make home ownership available to everyone regardless of credit worthiness or ability to repay.

Dr Mabuse
12-14-11, 10:33 AM
I meant it more like trying to make home ownership available to everyone regardless of credit worthiness or ability to repay.

If we ignore the facts of the matter, this notion might seem to hold water. The default rate of people who took part in the programs the government offered was very low. IIRC lower than the norm for homeowners in general.

It's also convenient to omit, I'm sure by accident not by ideological imperative (:lol:), that the mortgage companies, homebuilders, and banks all lobbied the everloving shit out of the congress, to the tune of mucho deniro and a full court press of lobbyists, to continue to further change the rules the way they did as to Fannie and Freddie and banking, and to further expand the housing program with 'looser' rules.

But, as I said, it was all poor people scamming those poor banks, mortgage brokers, and realtors. Damned bleeding hearts and artists buying more than they could afford caused the whole thing!!1!

Oh yeah, and liberals(possibly time travelers?) in the Republican dominated government I guess?

Those poor banks, mortgage companies, and realtors were innocent victims of government intrusion and those crafty poor people who conned them....

kvrdave
12-14-11, 11:21 AM
If we ignore the facts of the matter, this notion might seem to hold water.
Thank you.

The default rate of people who took part in the programs the government offered was very low. IIRC lower than the norm for homeowners in general.
If you are talking about FHA, VA, USDA, etc., then you are correct. Those are traditionally very low default loans. However, they are not the government programs I was talking about. I have always maintained that FHA, etc. are good programs. They have (and had) very strict criteria that virtually assures their low default rate

It's also convenient to omit, I'm sure by accident not by ideological imperative (:lol:), that the mortgage companies, homebuilders, and banks all lobbied the everloving shit out of the congress, to the tune of mucho deniro and a full court press of lobbyists, to continue to further change the rules the way they did as to Fannie and Freddie and banking, and to further expand the housing program with 'looser' rules. That is the point I was making. It isn't an example of less government, it is an example of lobbying and repaying to give special interest groups what they want. The problem with what was done with Fannie and Freddie was making them give mortgage insurance to loans that didn't meet specific criteria like they did prior to the mess

But, as I said, it was all poor people scamming those poor banks, mortgage brokers, and realtors. Damned bleeding hearts and artists buying more than they could afford caused the whole thing!!1!

Oh yeah, and liberals(possibly time travelers?) in the Republican dominated government I guess?

Those poor banks, mortgage companies, and realtors were innocent victims of government intrusion and those crafty poor people who conned them....

You need to try to argue with me about what I say rather than what you think I said. :lol:

Dr Mabuse
12-14-11, 11:46 AM
If you are talking about FHA, VA, USDA, etc., then you are correct. Those are traditionally very low default loans. However, they are not the government programs I was talking about. I have always maintained that FHA, etc. are good programs. They have (and had) very strict criteria that virtually assures their low default rate

No I was talking about the... hell what was it called - 'Community Reinvestment Act'. That program had very low default rates, and the majority of loans were not of the 'sub prime' flavour in that program. It was not involved in the housing bubble or crash.

That line of bullshit that it was, however, was put out as a convenient ideological distraction in the form of propaganda to present to the masses when the house of cards the banks, mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors had built came crashing down and wrecked the world economy.

As propaganda does, it worked like a charm on a large chunk of people. It continues to obviously.

You need to try to argue with me about what I say rather than what you think I said. :lol:

I remember years of your posts on the topic, that you have apparently allowed to slip your mind.

kvrdave
12-14-11, 02:51 PM
Okay, allow to say you have nailed me. This is an example of how less government intervention is bad.

Dr Mabuse
12-14-11, 03:27 PM
Right.

:lol:

Deregulated banks did exactly what they did before they were regulated. Less government intervention and regulation caused the entire mess. The way it went down was incidental. Were it not real estate, were it some other animal entirely, it would have just been another corrupt dice game that blew up in a few years and wrecked the economy.

msdmoney
12-14-11, 04:07 PM
If you are talking about FHA, VA, USDA, etc., then you are correct. Those are traditionally very low default loans. However, they are not the government programs I was talking about. I have always maintained that FHA, etc. are good programs. They have (and had) very strict criteria that virtually assures their low default rate

Maybe you missed the recent report about growing FHA losses, with a projected bailout needed next year. The FHA just hasn't made the headlines YET, like Fannie and Freddie have. When they need a bailout next year the media attention and scrutiny, and public perception of FHA will change.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577030390221704000.html

FHA didn't use to be such a large player in the market. During the bubble their portion of the market was almost insignicant because the exotic loan products were far more lucrative for lenders and for more alluring to buyers. I would say their exposure was much smaller. Now that the cheap and easy private credit is gone, everyone is still looking for the easiest credit possible, and now it falls to the FHA. Subsequently you've seen them fill the void left by private credit, and their portion of the market, and therefore exposure to risk is growing. I don't think their loan standards, which are determined more by policy decisions, adequately assess the risk of the loans. This was probably never a problem when houses always or mostly went up for the last 30-40 years, and they weren't such a large part of the market. So you won't see the problem in the historical trends. But it is becoming a problem now as evidenced by their growing losses.

This is the same thing we went through in the private market where the projections were all based on historical default rates which were based on traditional loan standards. Nobody accounted for the change in loan products, and therefore nobody predicted the huge losses that would come from the collapse. I think the private market already went through it's losses and fallouts and has reverted back to very strict and conservative loans. Now we are seeing the same mistakes being carried out by the FHA, but policy makers, lobbyists, wanna-be borrowers pretend like it's not a big deal because they haven't gone into the red YET. The market and their portion of the market has changed, this isn't the same FHA with the same exposure in the same rising housing market that the past trends are based on.

kvrdave
12-14-11, 04:15 PM
Right.

:lol:

Deregulated banks did exactly what they did before they were regulated. Less government intervention and regulation caused the entire mess. The way it went down was incidental. Were it not real estate, were it some other animal entirely, it would have just been another corrupt dice game that blew up in a few years and wrecked the economy.

Well it sure couldn't ever be tech stocks.

kvrdave
12-14-11, 04:21 PM
Maybe you missed the recent report about growing FHA losses, with a projected bailout needed next year. The FHA just hasn't made the headlines YET, like Fannie and Freddie have. When they need a bailout next year the media attention and scrutiny, and public perception of FHA will change.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577030390221704000.html

FHA didn't use to be such a large player in the market. During the bubble their portion of the market was almost insignicant because the exotic loan products were far more lucrative for lenders and for more alluring to buyers. I would say their exposure was much smaller. Now that the cheap and easy private credit is gone, everyone is still looking for the easiest credit possible, and now it falls to the FHA. Subsequently you've seen them fill the void left by private credit, and their portion of the market, and therefore exposure to risk is growing. I don't think their loan standards, which are determined more by policy decisions, adequately assess the risk of the loans. This was probably never a problem when houses always or mostly went up for the last 30-40 years, and they weren't such a large part of the market. So you won't see the problem in the historical trends. But it is becoming a problem now as evidenced by their growing losses.

This is the same thing we went through in the private market where the projections were all based on historical default rates which were based on traditional loan standards. Nobody accounted for the change in loan products, and therefore nobody predicted the huge losses that would come from the collapse. I think the private market already went through it's losses and fallouts and has reverted back to very strict and conservative loans. Now we are seeing the same mistakes being carried out by the FHA, but policy makers, lobbyists, wanna-be borrowers pretend like it's not a big deal because they haven't gone into the red YET. The market and their portion of the market has changed, this isn't the same FHA with the same exposure in the same rising housing market that the past trends are based on.

Don't mistake what I said to mean that FHA did not have default rates go up. They obviously have. But not as much as other rates. They, like anyone, are caught up in overinflated home values coupled with job losses, etc. Their default rates are much higher than they have ever been before. But if I had to hold a mortgage backed security, it would be an FHA one. They actually had minimum credit scores, hard debt to loan ratios, etc. during the entire bubble. Notice in the article (at least as much as I can read) that they have gone from 5% of all loans to 33% of current loans. That's another story, but it essentially has to do with big banks not willingly lending money for home loans that are not backed by the government.

Rival11
12-19-11, 09:46 AM
I was thinking the other day......if things ever did in fact start to improve at the top....what motivating factor would make corporations pay their employees more? I mean, they have been getting away with paying shit wages for years...what would make them change?

I just don't see that part of it ever changing. Not being negative it's just common sense isn't it?

Sean O'Hara
12-19-11, 10:34 AM
I was thinking the other day......if things ever did in fact start to improve at the top....what motivating factor would make corporations pay their employees more? I mean, they have been getting away with paying shit wages for years...what would make them change?

Labor is a market like everything else, and it responds to market forces. Jobs for which there is a low supply of qualified workers and a high demand pay well; flipping burgers at McDonalds, not so much.

kvrdave
12-19-11, 10:37 AM
I was thinking the other day......if things ever did in fact start to improve at the top....what motivating factor would make corporations pay their employees more? I mean, they have been getting away with paying shit wages for years...what would make them change?

I just don't see that part of it ever changing. Not being negative it's just common sense isn't it?

They might want to keep those employees from leaving and going to their competition.

sracer
12-19-11, 12:41 PM
They might want to keep those employees from leaving and going to their competition.
Why would those employees leave if the competition is paying the same low wages?

I know the canned response will be "well, then that is what the going rate for that job is". That appears to ignore the concept of collusion (explicit or implicit).

Dr Mabuse
12-19-11, 12:46 PM
I was thinking the other day......if things ever did in fact start to improve at the top....what motivating factor would make corporations pay their employees more? I mean, they have been getting away with paying shit wages for years...what would make them change?

Things have been drastically improving at the top for decades.

History, even recent history of the last three years, has already answered your question.

Superboy
12-19-11, 12:50 PM
I was thinking the other day......if things ever did in fact start to improve at the top....what motivating factor would make corporations pay their employees more? I mean, they have been getting away with paying shit wages for years...what would make them change?

I just don't see that part of it ever changing. Not being negative it's just common sense isn't it?

Wages will never again improve in this country. At this point, it's nearly impossible without a socialist labor movement, or a rather obtuse restriction on what can be called "private property".

First off, let me ask what is most valuable, in a financial sense, to firms these days: is it the quality of the product, the talent and skill of the workers, specific technical specialty, patents, or something else entirely? It's the brand. Brands are the most important things to companies now. Something with a generic label could never sell a purse for $5,000, but a Prada one can.

Now, here's the cincher: you're probably going to say that quality is important even on brand-heavy companies, and that is true. But the necessary marginal costs to improve the quality of the product, including labor, to meet consumer demand is far, far outweighed by the profit margins; immensely obscene profit margins that haven't been seen since the days of the Oil and Steel tycoons that owned nearly all the wealth in America.

So there are two options to combat that: labor unions, or simply outlaw the ability of a company to sell consumer goods under a brand name. Which is really an absurd proposition.

grundle
01-03-12, 06:43 PM
One of the ways that people become super wealthy is by taking something which had previously been available only to the rich, and making it available to the masses. So as income inequality gets bigger, consumption inequality gets smaller.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577128230588463516.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The Rise of Consumption Equality

Getting rich requires serving a mass market, which means the rest of us can buy what the rich buy.

By Andy Kessler

January 3, 2012

It used to be so cool to be wealthy—an elite education, exclusive mobile communications, a private screening room, a table at Annabel's on London's Berkeley Square. Now it's hard to swing a cat without hitting yet another diatribe against income inequality. People sleep in tents to protest that others are too damn wealthy.

Yes, some people have more than others. Yet as far as millionaires and billionaires are concerned, they're experiencing a horrifying revolution: consumption equality. For the most part, the wealthy bust their tail, work 60-80 hour weeks building some game-changing product for the mass market, but at the end of the day they can't enjoy much that the middle class doesn't also enjoy. Where's the fairness? What does Google founder Larry Page have that you don't have?

Luxury suite at the Super Bowl? Why bother? You can recline at home in your massaging lounger and flip on the ultra-thin, high-def, 55-inch LCD TV you got for $700—and not only have a better view from two dozen cameras plus Skycam and fun commercials, but you can hit the pause button to take a nature break. Or you can stream the game to your four-ounce Android phone while mixing up some chip dip. Media technology has advanced to the point that things worth watching only make economic sense when broadcast to millions, not to 80,000 or just a handful of the rich.

The greedy tycoon played by Michael Douglas had a two-pound, $3,995 Motorola phone in the original "Wall Street" movie. Mobile phones for the elite—how 1987. Now 8-year-olds have cellphones to arrange play dates.

In 1991, a megabyte of memory was $50, amazing at the time. Given its memory, today's 32-gigabyte smartphone would have cost $1 million back then, certainly an exclusive item for the wealthy. Heck, even 10 years ago, 32 gig cost 10 grand. But no one could build it—volume was needed to drive down both cost and size and attract a few geeks to write some decent apps. So it wasn't until there was a market for millions of smartphones that there was a market at all. I just bought a terabyte drive for $62 to rip all my Blu-Ray movies, and with Dolby 5.1 sound we all have private screening rooms too.

True enough, if you have $2.4 million or so in cash you can drive a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport. But it's just fashion. Even a $16,500 Ford Focus can hit 80 on the highway or get stuck in the same traffic as the rich person's ride. Plus, it comes with what used to be expensive luxuries like side air bags, antilock brakes, GPS guidance and voice-activated SYNC.

Yes, the wealthy can strut around in more foo foo Jimmy Choos and Harry Winston pendants, but so what? That's all they've got left. Being envious of someone's nice outfit is no way to go through life. Last I checked, envy is noted above gluttony on the list of deadly sins. And by the way, I think Larry Page drives a Prius, a different type of fashion.

Medical care? Thanks to the market, you can afford a hip replacement and extracapsular cataract extraction and a defibrillator—the costs have all come down with volume. Arthroscopic, endoscopic, laparoscopic, drug-eluting stents—these are all mainstream and engineered to get you up and around in days. They wouldn't have been invented to service only the 1%.

I admit that a private jet beats the TSA rub-a-dub. Along with his Prius, Larry Page has a 767. But thanks to guys like Richard Branson and airline overbuild, you can fly almost anywhere in the world for under $1,000. And most places worth seeing are geared to a mass of visitors.

Spot the pattern here? Just about every product or service that makes our lives better requires a mass market or it's not economic to bother offering. Those who invent and produce for the mass market get rich. And the more these innovators better the rest of our lives, the richer they get but the less they can differentiate themselves from the masses whose wants they serve. It's the Pages and Bransons and Zuckerbergs who have made the unequal equal: So, sure, income equality may widen, but consumption equality will become more the norm.

To me, being rich means covering the basic necessities, and then having a challenging career, fun and fulfilling leisure time, and the love of family and friends. Compared to 20 years ago, or even five years ago, chances are that you're richer. Try to enjoy it.

CRM114
01-03-12, 09:44 PM
That is just about the silliest thing I've ever read. Comparing a luxury box at the Super Bowl to watching it at home? Coach airline tickets with private jets? A Ford Focus and a Bugatti? I suppose it succeeds at convincing wannabe Repubs driving Ford Focuses that, yes, one day they too will be ultra rich (or at least act ultra rich-kind of).

rotfl

JasonF
01-03-12, 10:34 PM
That is just about the silliest thing I've ever read. Comparing a luxury box at the Super Bowl to watching it at home? Coach airline tickets with private jets? A Ford Focus and a Bugatti? I suppose it succeeds at convincing wannabe Repubs driving Ford Focuses that, yes, one day they too will be ultra rich (or at least act ultra rich-kind of).

rotfl

No, the stupid part is the whole "Some people eat caviar and some people eat Hamburger Helper, but everyone gets food, so what's the difference?" attitude. Newsflash: there are large numbers of Americans who can't afford necessities like food, shelter, and transportation, and larger still numbers who can only afford those things because of various forms of public assistance.

X
01-03-12, 10:52 PM
Newsflash: there are large numbers of Americans who can't afford necessities like food, shelter, and transportation, and larger still numbers who can only afford those things because of various forms of public assistance.Solution?

JasonF
01-03-12, 11:10 PM
Solution?

As a start, people should stop writing nonsensical op-eds based on false premises.

I'd like to see some corporate tax reform that incentivizes companies to flatten their pay scales. Perhaps phase out the tax deduction for employee salaries above a certain threshold. Also, maybe some income redistribution (gasp!) via a graduated capital gains tax and additional brackets on the top end for ordinary income. On the flip side, perhaps some tax breaks for new hiring and/or wage/salary increases (for salaries below a certain threshold).

Mostly, I'd like to see some acknowledgement about the fact that we face an extremely large income gap in this country and that the gap is corrosive to our society. If we would actually have that conversation, we could talk about solutions instead of shouting "socialist" and "fascist" at each other.

X
01-03-12, 11:18 PM
As a start, people should stop writing nonsensical op-eds based on false premises.

I'd like to see some corporate tax reform that incentivizes companies to flatten their pay scales. Perhaps phase out the tax deduction for employee salaries above a certain threshold.You haven't heard about IRS Regulation Section 162(m)? -eek-

JasonF
01-03-12, 11:31 PM
You haven't heard about IRS Regulation Section 162(m)? -eek-

It covers four employees (CEO and three other executives) and kicks in at a million dollars in compensation. Not aggressive enough, IMO.

wmansir
01-03-12, 11:32 PM
No, the stupid part is the whole "Some people eat caviar and some people eat Hamburger Helper, but everyone gets food, so what's the difference?" attitude. Newsflash: there are large numbers of Americans who can't afford necessities like food, shelter, and transportation, and larger still numbers who can only afford those things because of various forms of public assistance.
If the OWS movement were about people who can't afford basic necessities they would have to change their slogan to the 9% instead of the 99%.

X
01-03-12, 11:32 PM
It covers four employees (CEO and three other executives) and kicks in at a million dollars in compensation. Not aggressive enough, IMO.:lol:

Good try.

How has income distribution changed since it was enacted?

mosquitobite
01-04-12, 07:44 AM
Mostly, I'd like to see some acknowledgement about the fact that we face an extremely large income gap in this country and that the gap is corrosive to our society. If we would actually have that conversation, we could talk about solutions instead of shouting "socialist" and "fascist" at each other.

I can agree with you about the income gap. I can even agree that it is a huge factor in what is wrong in our country.

The problem is I can't condone taking from one to give to another. At some point there is the "diminishing returns" point as people transfer income/cash to other sources to avoid paying taxes and/or people end up with less incentive to try to move up the ladder as their work is eaten by those who don't.

And on the other hand I see those on the bottom not even wanting to try since the gap just appears to large of a bridge to even attempt to cross.

So, since I realize the 1% owns this country (and the elections) and the government you so love is how you also plan to "fix" this issue - please - I await with baited breath to hear your real solutions!

RunBandoRun
01-04-12, 07:48 AM
baited breath

Please, please. The proper term is "bated" breath.

The other way makes it sound like you've got a lure hanging out'cha mouf! ;)

This GRAMMAR NAZI moment has been brought to you by Vibiana.

Thank you. As you were.

:D

mosquitobite
01-04-12, 07:50 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577062661910819078.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says, "The share of income received by the top 1% grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007."

This news caused quite a stir, feeding the left's obsession with inequality. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, for example, said this "jaw-dropping report" shows "why the Occupy Wall Street protests have struck such a nerve." The New York Times opined that the study is "likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies."

No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.

:lol: So, why would they exclude the years where the gap decreased?

mosquitobite
01-04-12, 07:50 AM
Please, please. The proper term is "bated" breath.

The other way makes it sound like you've got a lure hanging out'cha mouf! ;)

This GRAMMAR NAZI moment has been brought to you by Vibiana.

Thank you. As you were.

:D

LOL! Thanks Vibs! (I haven't brushed my teeth yet this morning so I'll stick with baited!) :lol:

Mabuse
01-04-12, 11:22 AM
No, the stupid part is the whole "Some people eat caviar and some people eat Hamburger Helper, but everyone gets food, so what's the difference?" attitude. It's easy to poke some holes in the article, but another way it could be summerized is "It's never been a better time to be working class."

Just using the car example. A three year old Acura can be purchased used for $20,000 and it contains features that 10-15 years ago were only available on the most expensive option loaded luxury brands. A Scion has more bells and whistles on it today than a 1990 BMW 750 that cost $85K. AND the Acura is more reliable. You simply get more for your money these days. The cars that were available to the working class in the past were shit boxes, that lugged, and ran up huge repair bills.

A spectacular home theater can be assembled for $2,000 and it will give you a great seat for the Super Bowl. The same set up would have been available only to the top 1% as little as 10 year ago.

You can fly anywhere in the world for less than the equivilent of one months pay for the average worker. In the 1950's an international flight was out of the question except for the very wealthy.

The real criticism that can be directed at this article is stuff like this:What does Google founder Larry Page have that you don't have? Luxury suite at the Super Bowl? Why bother?You may have a better seat at home, but Larry ain't watching the game. He's sitting next to Rupert Murdoch and they're discussing the way they're going to work together to make their next billion dollars. So yes, your seat at home in your HT room is better, but you are missing out on something.

CRM114
01-04-12, 01:15 PM
Yeah, you are missing out being AT the Super Bowl. That's a pretty big discrepancy.

grundle
01-04-12, 02:44 PM
I've never tried caviar, but I don't see why it would be any better tasting than Hamburger Helper. I think it's just a snob thing, like getting a real diamond instead of a cubic zirconium.

As long as people are free to spend their money on the goods and and services that they want, there will always be a huge income gap between the people who provide those goods and services to huge numbers of people, and the average person. If 50 million people see the new Tom Hanks movie, then of course there will be a huge income gap between Hanks and the average person - and there is nothing wrong with that. The only way to eliminate such an income gap would be by preventing people from being free to spend their money the way they want to spend it, and that would make everyone worse off.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/12/22/dear-santa-for-christmas-the-worlds-first-trillionaire-please/

Dear Santa: For Christmas, The World's First Trillionaire, Please

By Bill Flax

12/22/2011

At Christmas families celebrate a Savior descending to redeem fallen man. Gifts get no bigger, but for holiday fun, let’s right some nagging worldly wrongs. Without claiming to have been good, here’s my Christmas wish list: the world’s first trillionaire.

I’d eliminate poverty too, but capitalism in many ways already has. Modern Shepherds and stable boys fare better today materially than anyone except perhaps tax collectors when Christ came.

Caesar continues taxing us onerously and decreeing silly burdens, yet despite these barriers to prosperity the luxuries of not long ago continue to become necessities for rich and poor alike. The Wisemen’s gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh are essentially jewelry, perfume and medicinal spices; all widely available. The lure of profit heralded this magnificent splendor even while embracing unequal riches.

Suppose someone cures cancer without surgery or chemotherapy’s nasty side-effects. Pop a pill and arise, health restored. We’d endure a decade of needless death before the FDA deigned clearance and the Justice Department would eviscerate them for monopolizing treatment, but such an advance might just furnish the first trillionaire.

Is this troubling?

Our monetary masters feverishly conspire to make trillions meaningless, but wealth stems from serving your fellow man. What if this fortune satisfied some lesser need? Only Malthusians argue against curing cancer, so assume this wildly successful entrepreneur invents some nifty widget instead.

Customers must still willingly vote him rich at the cash register perceiving his wares worth more than the money spent. Most must be pleased. Nobody so prospers without prodigious repeat business. Walter Williams calls profits “certificates of performance.” Those most responsible for the overall plenty soar highest, but everyone rises when markets are free to flourish.

Here’s hoping history’s first trillionaire climbs partly by me. Far from depriving others, wealth derives by serving your neighbors. Perhaps I’ll exploit whatever advantage he offers by buying and boosting his income. Maybe I’ll even get a job or invest in his wealth expanding achievement. Ludwig von Mises observed, “Inequality of wealth and incomes is the cause of the masses’ well-being, not the cause of anybody’s distress.”

Mr. Trillionaire won’t emerge without burnishing the lives of untold millions. If his treasure has anything whatsoever to do with you it’s very likely you benefitted as a customer, employee or investor. Otherwise, coveting his riches reflects mere jealousy.

While former Alinskyite community agitator Barack Obama pretends to be Santa promising voters generous Christmas gifts, his version of fairness isn’t free. Washington has no elves conjuring goodies. The elves are taxpayers being incrementally consigned to servitude. When governments play Santa for some, they must act the Grinch snatching property from others.

Masking statism under the guise of social justice and progressivism requires artful rhetoric fostering envy. Fairness is subtly redefined as forgoing constitutional imperatives of impartiality to penalize producers through progressive taxation, estate levies and wealth redistributions.

Yet, as Mises understood, when Karl Marx advocated steeply progressive taxation and confiscatory inheritance taxes he wasn’t floating airy bromides promulgating more equitable markets. Marx espoused sowing the seeds of socialism through what he admitted were “economically untenable” precepts.

Taking capital from its rightful owners and filtering it through state artifices disenfranchises consumers. Markets reward those efficiently satisfying customers by turning them over resources in the form of profits. Punishing earnings fairly garnered represents an impoverishing injustice.

You can’t elevate the lower rungs by toppling those on top.

Now don’t misinterpret this, community organizing carries great value. Not Obama’s brand of resentment pandering for more egalitarian wealth redistribution, but in meshing the means of production in economically useful formations. It takes an effective blending of capital, genius and effort to generate goods which enrich life.

Henry Ford’s assembly line exemplified organizational brilliance. While Mr. Cancer-Curer was hypothetical, history reveals many heroes like Ford who relentlessly increased efficiency to decrease costs. He embodied Andrew Carnegie’s adage, “Capitalism is about turning luxuries into necessities.” Ford’s first Model T cost $850 in 1908. By 1924, his price had plunged to $290, thus permitting manual laborers to enjoy mobility never previously known.

Automobiles narrowed the gap between rich and poor in terms of attaining comfort, convenience and leisure. So did the fortunes amassed by fellow “Robber Barons” Rockefeller and Carnegie; whose business acumen similarly cheapened oil and steel. Sam Walton more recently grew rich improving the poor’s economic reach.

Like the intertwined successes of Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Intel, Ford stimulated steel, glass and rubber companies while spurring corollary industries such as road construction and hospitality. The many firms and myriad markets augmented by making Americans more mobile would be impossible to measure.

Affordable autos brought further benefits like elevating health through eliminating manure on city streets; alleviating the lonely isolation of rural life; and making food prices more manageable as less acreage was diverted feeding carriage horses.

Labor expert Charles Baird suggests Ford also enhanced wages more by empowering workers to shop employers than did his union-organizing antagonist, Samuel Gompers. Not only at Ford, but workers everywhere profited.

While Ford famously paid workers to afford his cars, this was less altruism than financial necessity. He began more as Scrooge seeking to drive expenses down through meager wages. But laborers seek their interests just as owners. Too many Bob Cratchit’s landed more lucrative deals. Despite being the last major automaker to unionize, Ford compensated well to attract talent and diminish profit disturbing turnover.

At his zenith, Ford surpassed Rockefeller as the world’s wealthiest, but markets kept churning and consumer expectations surged higher. GM soon supplanted Ford as the largest manufacturer by maximizing quality and offering greater variety. More fortunes followed by lifting still more livelihoods.

Who knows what the next breakthrough brings, but come it will unless Washington obstructs its way. Investors, workers and customers will benefit even as such progress will likely exacerbate inequality. The attainment of vast private riches will vault public prosperity higher.

Santa, this Christmas, me a trillionaire, and maybe two or three if you’re feeling extra generous.

kvrdave
01-04-12, 04:09 PM
Man, if I were a trillionaire, I'd pay down 1/16th of the debt. That would cover us for months.

grundle
01-04-12, 07:43 PM
Let's keep in mind that the Occupy movement is a global movement, so if they're going to be protesting against the richest 1%, they should keep this information in mind:


http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm

Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%

By Annalyn Censky

January 4, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world's rich people.

It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That's for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 -- the most recent data available -- about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.

Another four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries. Statistically speaking, none live in Africa, China or India despite those being some of the most populous areas of the world.

The numbers put into perspective the idea of a rapidly growing global middle class.

Sure, China and India are seeing their economies grow quickly, and along with that growth, large portions of their populations are also becoming richer. But remember, the emerging world is starting from a very low base to begin with, so its middle class is just that -- still emerging, says Milanovic.

"It doesn't seem right to define as middle class, people who would be on food stamps in the United States," Milanovic said.

The true global middle class, falls far short of owning a home, having a car in a driveway, saving for retirement and sending their kids to college. In fact, people at the world's true middle -- as defined by median income -- live on just $1,225 a year. (And, yes, Milanovic's numbers are adjusted to account for different costs of living across the globe.)

In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.

Venusian
01-04-12, 07:56 PM
only 29 million in the U.S. make more than 34k after taxes?

kvrdave
01-04-12, 08:26 PM
Net on IRS forms after all deductions? Wouldn't surprise me.

Jason
01-04-12, 10:06 PM
only 29 million in the U.S. make more than 34k after taxes?

I'm surprised it's that many.

kvrdave
01-04-12, 11:47 PM
I think that number is taken from the number of public employees. :lol:

Actually, if you assume that is taxable income, and about 10% of the population which includes children, retired, etc., it does seem like a fair amount.

orangecrush
01-05-12, 08:51 AM
only 29 million in the U.S. make more than 34k after taxes?For a household with 4 people, that is well over $120K after taxes. Isn't the median household income around $50K?

Venusian
01-05-12, 09:09 AM
For a household with 4 people, that is well over $120K after taxes. Isn't the median household income around $50K?

But what about single households and just married couples (not kids)? 29million - so 10% of the population here...

Pharoh
01-05-12, 09:37 AM
But what about single households and just married couples (not kids)? 29million - so 10% of the population here...

How many singles, or married couples without children, are there total?

Pharoh
01-05-12, 09:38 AM
And isn't the median income of singles less?

grundle
01-16-12, 01:20 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/ows_home_invasion_z9ApqDP6Q0boFviq8CjvAL

'They took my place!' Single dad trying to take back home occupied by OWS

By CANDICE M. GIOVE

January 15, 2012

They’re occupying his home.

Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home — even though they knew the house belonged to a struggling single father desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage, The Post has learned.

“They’re trying to take a house and say the bank is robbing the people because the mortgage is too high — so contact the owner!” fumed Wise Ahadzi, 28, who owns the home at 702 Vermont St. in East New York.

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/01/15/news/web_photos/15.1n007.owssquat1--300x300.jpg
THE OWNER: Wise Ahadzi, with daughters Imani, 3, and Kwazha, 10, is fighting to reclaim his home from OWS.

Occupiers “reclaimed” the row house on Dec. 6 and ceremoniously put out the welcome mat for a homeless family.

But Bank of America, which has been in and out of foreclosure proceedings against Ahadzi since 2009, confirmed to The Post that he is still the rightful owner.

Meanwhile, the family that OWS claimed to be putting into the vacant house has not yet permanently moved in. And it turns out the family is not a random victim of the foreclosure crisis, but cast for the part, thanks to their connection to the OWS movement.

OWS last week said it has spent $9,500 breaking into the house and setting it up for the homeless Carrasquillo family. A photo of the smiling family covers a window, under the slogan, “A place to call home.”

The head of the family, Alfredo Carrasquillo, 28, is an organizer for VOCAL- NY, a group that works with OWS. His Facebook page shows him in a “99 Percent” T-shirt at an OWS protest in November.

The Post visited the Vermont Street home last week — six weeks after OWS announced that the Carrasquillos were moving in — and the family was nowhere to be found.

In fact, the only people occupying the house were occupiers themselves.

“They only stay here sometimes,” a protester named Charlie said of the Carrasquillos. “There’s not enough room for the kids.”

The occupier refused to say how many others were inside, but at least two more protesters could be seen at the house, along with mattresses on the floor, during The Post visit.

“We’re almost done with the basement,” he said of the renovations.

The real property owner is livid because he could be raising his two little girls, Imani, 3, and Kwazha, 10, in the two-story home instead of in a meager, two-bedroom rental in Brownsville while he tries to sort out his mortgage nightmare.

Police notified him in early December that the vigilante vagrants moved into his East New York digs, he said. He immediately ran over to the house to see for himself.

“Oh, don’t call the police!” an occupier begged him.

OWS leaders and Brooklyn Councilman Charles Barron, an OWS supporter, met with Ahadzi before the press conference to discuss the future of his property, he said. Ahadzi hoped that the group would help him regain his footing.

“Why can’t you fight for me?” he asked them.

“They told me I don’t qualify,” he said. “So my lawyer asked what the qualifications are. [They said] I have to be with an organization and they’ll deal with the bank and you have to be homeless.

“They said they couldn’t help me,” he added.

Ahadzi explained that he purchased the house for $424,500 in 2007 before the housing bubble burst and the market price plummeted to $150,000. He claimed he lost his job as a day trader in 2009 and couldn’t meet his mortgage payments.

He packed up and left after foreclosure proceedings began in 2009, he said.

“I paid the mortgage on the house for two years,” he added.

Ahadzi even attended the Dec. 6 press conference at the house when the Carrasquillos were introduced. He wanted to tell reporters his story.

“[OWS] told me not to talk to them [reporters] because they [OWS] had an offer for me,” he said.

At a second meeting after the press conference, however, organizers said they would not pay him for the house. At that point, he told them to leave.

Inside the house the walls are knocked down and all of his belongings, including a stove, refrigerator and bedroom furniture, have been moved to the basement.

“I’m pissed off,” he said.

“I’m trying to get my house back, and they’re trying to take it from me.”

TheBigDave
01-16-12, 02:58 PM
They also trashed a privately-owned home in Seattle:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pwHLI2rgCzk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm amazed at how frequently the phrase "bottles of urine" pops up in Occupy news reports. Seriously, google it (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=occupy+%22bottles+of+urine%22).

DVD Polizei
01-16-12, 08:22 PM
Then entire OWS crowd needs to be deported to China to make shoes and clothing for the people they fucked over here in the US.

CRM114
01-17-12, 02:52 PM
Live stream of Occupy Congress.
http://www.ustream.tv/timcast

RoyalTea
01-17-12, 04:03 PM
Isn't Congress in recess?

Th0r S1mpson
01-17-12, 04:47 PM
Isn't Congress in recess?

All good things come to an end.

creekdipper
01-18-12, 02:40 AM
Yeah, you are missing out being AT the Super Bowl. That's a pretty big discrepancy.

On the other hand, I'm only a few steps from the bathroom.

And it doesn't take me two hours to get out of the stadium & the parking lot to get home (assuming that I don't get shot by a disgruntled loser/inebriated winner before I reach my vehicle).

Considering all that, not that big a discrepancy.

creekdipper
01-18-12, 02:42 AM
I'm amazed at how frequently the phrase "bottles of urine" pops up in Occupy news reports.

And that doesn't even take into account all of the bottles of Mt. Dew "home brew" handed out to unsuspecting celebrities & reporters.

creekdipper
01-18-12, 02:51 AM
They also trashed a privately-owned home in Seattle:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pwHLI2rgCzk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Tom Morello would be so proud of them for exercising their freedom. Sort of ironic that the owner was a "person of color". Guess Morello & other Occupy supporters felt that the owner should have donated the house for the good of "the cause".

Situations such as this always amaze me. We had a local situation a few years back where a person had bought a run-down home & was fixing it up to flip it. Some vagrants moved in and "established residency" and the owner had to go to court to evict them (at considerable expense and still having to wait to give the "residents" weeks before they would be forced to leave).

Venusian
01-18-12, 08:04 AM
Looks like the rally wasn't all that big:

http://news.yahoo.com/several-hundred-occupy-protesters-rally-capitol-233535407.html

Are they planning on staying around?

RunBandoRun
01-20-12, 09:48 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/12/06/the_problem_with_the_occupy_wall_street_generation

This says everything I would have said. Smelly hippies. :D

kvrdave
01-20-12, 10:50 AM
Tom Morello would be so proud of them for exercising their freedom. Sort of ironic that the owner was a "person of color". Guess Morello & other Occupy supporters felt that the owner should have donated the house for the good of "the cause".

Situations such as this always amaze me. We had a local situation a few years back where a person had bought a run-down home & was fixing it up to flip it. Some vagrants moved in and "established residency" and the owner had to go to court to evict them (at considerable expense and still having to wait to give the "residents" weeks before they would be forced to leave).

And renters don't think they have enough rights. They likely just don't know them. I had that happen to me, called the cops because the people were trespassing, and the cops said they couldn't do anything because it was a civil matter.