Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 And apparently more than 99% of north Americans are "really interested" in protesting!!!! How's north america's version of the Arab spring going? Did they get more than 50,000 protesters in NYC yet? Hell Cairo had another zero on top of that on their quiet days. That's the irony of it - Less than 1% claiming to speak for the 99% who aren't über rich. Honestly, with the "99%" handle, they come across as a bunch of cry babies to me. As I said, I believe in unions, I believe in a more equitable distribution of profits via higher wages/less discrepancy of wages re: workers and CEO's - but the protest doesn't seem to be about that. It's about the 1% and about bailouts - which we all benefit from. I can't help but wonder what would have happened to the country without the bailouts - which evidently the government made money on; and the government having more money = less burden on taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 If the choices are either support the status quo or support the protestors, then I choose the protestors. I don't understand how anybody can look at the factors that created the "global economic meltdown" and the aftermath of the "global economic meltdown" and not have an immense resentment of Wall Street and the banks. Not only did they create the situation, they also profited from it immensely. What lesson did they learn? That they can do whatever they want, screw up in the grandest possible fashion, suffer no consequences for themselves or the shareholders, and suck hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers to clean up their mistakes. That's not "free market capitalism", that's socialism. And it's the height of irony for people acting on behalf of the corporations to portray themselves as defenders of "free market capitalism". I think the best word to describe the politicians who are continuing to act on behalf of the banks is "sycophants". -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Yesterday, one of our TV stations was covering the protest in Montreal. As an example of who was protesting, the on-site reporter told of a lady whose name was Fawn. She was a single parent who had a child at 15. After struggliing to earn a living and support her daughter, she went back to school and got a degree in Chemistry. She said the only jobs she was offered were with large Pharmaceutical companies and she could not accept them because those companies didn't mesh with her "values". She was frustrated because she couldn't find employment with a company that had her values. I wanted to pull out my hair. I'm not surprised her name was Fawn. Talk about feeling entitled. Edited October 16, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) It's not just the money the 1% wields so much, its the power that money can buy that really gets my goat. We should redistribute that for a change. I think the power gap is where the Occupy and Arab Spring movements find their commonest ground. Edited October 16, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) If the choices are either support the status quo or support the protestors, then I choose the protestors. I choose neither. Most of them, from what I can see, are just opposite sides of the coin - both have a degree of an unwarranted sense of entitlement. Edited October 16, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Yeah. Stupid protestors and their sense of being entitled to having their concerns heard by the government and not have democracy usurped by the highest bidders. Entitled crybaby hippies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Yeah. Stupid protestors and their sense of being entitled to having their concerns heard by the government and not have democracy usurped by the highest bidders. Entitled crybaby hippies. I think we both know that their freedom of speech, having their concerns heard, isn't what I was referring to regarding their sense of entitlement - so I won't be wasting my time responding beyond pointing out that that's not what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) I don't understand how anybody can look at the factors that created the "global economic meltdown" and the aftermath of the "global economic meltdown" and not have an immense resentment of Wall Street and the banks. Not only did they create the situation, they also profited from it immensely. Where were the "protesters" before the meltdown? What were they doing besides not voting, not starting their own businesses, not employing others, and not paying much in the way of income taxes? What you are saying is that these losers didn't have a problem with the system at all, they just wanted a bigger piece of the pie. How noble. What lesson did they learn? That they can do whatever they want, screw up in the grandest possible fashion, suffer no consequences for themselves or the shareholders, and suck hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers to clean up their mistakes. The taxpayers have to spend a lot more for society's screw ups and unemployed....for decades...not one year. We get to pay for their mistakes over a lifetime. That's socialism for generations, not one recession. Edited October 16, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 I choose neither. Most of them, from what I can see, are just opposite sides of the coin - both have a degree of an unwarranted sense of entitlement. Exactly. If govt, the "bankers", and the average joe were each one person, it would be like the supervisor giving them all 3 a smack in one shot a la the 3 stooges. As far as I'm concerned everybody screwed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 If the choices are either support the status quo or support the protestors, then I choose the protestors. I don't understand how anybody can look at the factors that created the "global economic meltdown" and the aftermath of the "global economic meltdown" and not have an immense resentment of Wall Street and the banks. Not only did they create the situation, they also profited from it immensely. What lesson did they learn? That they can do whatever they want, screw up in the grandest possible fashion, suffer no consequences for themselves or the shareholders, and suck hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers to clean up their mistakes. That's not "free market capitalism", that's socialism. And it's the height of irony for people acting on behalf of the corporations to portray themselves as defenders of "free market capitalism". I think the best word to describe the politicians who are continuing to act on behalf of the banks is "sycophants". -k If your mad at one, then you got to be mad at all three areas of fault. The bankers for being stupid enough to make those loans, the average joe for being stupid enough to get a loan that they can't pay back, and the government for creating an environment for all that stupidity to take place. This isn't just a banking problem, it's a hangover from the biggest party of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) If your mad at one, then you got to be mad at all three areas of fault. The bankers for being stupid enough to make those loans, the average joe for being stupid enough to get a loan that they can't pay back, and the government for creating an environment for all that stupidity to take place. This isn't just a banking problem, it's a hangover from the biggest party of the year. If banks can legally advise customers to take out low cost mortgages (they can't afford), make loans they know are bad, bundle and sell them to unsuspecting customers as investments knowing they are bad but not disclosing that, then create a hedge fund betting that the investments they just sold will go bad, then make a bundle for themselves and their 'preferred' investors ... then get accolades for "the best trade of the year" ... Who is the problem? It's not Joe ... who is not "average" but low income ... who followed his banker's financial advice . Since bankers appear to have no professional standards and wouldn't know an ethic if they found one by accident, and in fact celebrate such usury as 'good business practice' while intentionally sacrificing innocent people to make a bundle for themselves ... obviously governments need to make tighter laws and regulations to define 'crime'. It was crime packaged as 'good business', and the laws need to reflect that. Banks are crooks. Investment banks are bigger crook. Join a credit union. Edited October 17, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 If banks can legally advise customers to take out low cost mortgages (they can't afford), make loans they know are bad, bundle and sell them to unsuspecting customers as investments knowing they are bad but not disclosing that, then create a hedge fund betting that the investments they just sold will go bad, then make a bundle for themselves and their 'preferred' investors ... then get accolades for "the best trade of the year" ... Who is the problem? It's not Joe ... who is not "average" but low income ... who followed his banker's financial advice . Since bankers appear to have no professional standards and wouldn't know an ethic if they found one by accident, and in fact celebrate such usury as 'good business practice' while intentionally sacrificing innocent people to make a bundle for themselves ... obviously governments need to make tighter laws and regulations to define 'crime'. It was crime packaged as 'good business', and the laws need to reflect that. Really? Why are people making 40000 a year considering buying 400,000 dollar houses, 50,000 dollar vehicles, vacations, etc? They should get a brain and not step into the bank in the first place. They didn't want to take responsibility and everyone is paying for it. Then they elect politicians selling them snake oil that they should get entitlements because they deserve them even though not enough wealth is created to pay for it. Then there was the easy money policy - drop interest rates, print money, create Fannie/Freddie, and create the CRA. Then some become those bankers and with all of this cheap money guaranteed by the gov't, engage in stupid lending practices because they are entitled to their pay bonuses. We don't need laws, we need common sense. What you propose is a house of cards, and it's already come down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Where were the "protesters" before the meltdown? What were they doing besides not voting, not starting their own businesses, not employing others, and not paying much in the way of income taxes? What you are saying is that these losers didn't have a problem with the system at all, they just wanted a bigger piece of the pie. How noble. Hadn't you heard? They were in college/university. Now they are looking for jobs. Are you sure you're not the "loser", BC. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The taxpayers have to spend a lot more for society's screw ups and unemployed....for decades...not one year. We get to pay for their mistakes over a lifetime. That's socialism for generations, not one recession. Hunh? You are really losing it bud. Edited October 17, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) This isn't just a banking problem, it's a hangover from the biggest party of the year. This is perhaps the most accurate and succinct truism posted in all the "occupy" threads I've read here. I would say the party went way beyond one year, more like some 20 years. And there's plenty of evidence to give it credence. Entitlement Nation: Makers vs. TakersMakers vs. Takers” is built around the idea that this nation, which was founded on an individualist and entrepreneurial spirit, has become one where people have become takers, not makers. For the first time in our history, we can be criticized for caring more about ourselves and our generation than our children, as evidenced by the soaring debt we have. That’s best seen at the government level, where spending comes in far above income. It’s evident in the private sector, too. Unions will deprive future generations jobs just to maintain lavish benefits and pay, despite the bad economy. Companies, too, will make short-sighted decisions to get their hands on government subsidies, even if those decisions don’t help their bottom line. The numbers are stark. Right now, 20 cents of every dollar of American’s income comes from a government payment. For the first time since the Great Depression, government payouts to households exceed tax receipts. That’s not surprising, because more and more people don’t actually pay income taxes anymore. They just take. And it will get worse. Programs like the massive health-care reform law will put more people in government-controlled health plans. And, for all the talk about cutting costs, big programs like Social Security remain hands-off. Some want Americans weaned off the government’s spigot, but it is easier said than done. A surprisingly high percentage of citizens derive the majority of their wealth from public-sector payments. It takes a rare form of political courage for a sitting government to cut off that flow to a constituency so grateful as to almost guarantee they continue that government in office. http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/20/entitlement-nation-makers-vs-takers/ The makers in our society are dwindling. Now the takers are asking "what can you do for me". Edited October 17, 2011 by capricorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 This is perhaps the most accurate and succinct truism posted in all the "occupy" threads I've read here. I would say the party went way beyond one year, more like some 20 years. And there's plenty of evidence to give it credence. http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/20/entitlement-nation-makers-vs-takers/ The makers in our society are dwindling. Now the takers are asking "what can you do for me". When was this rosy past where the 'makers' operated independently without taking from the people/our governments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 When was this rosy past where the 'makers' operated independently without taking from the people/our governments? The "makers" include those who participate in the labour force. With the advent of every social program under the sun, too many of these makers have become takers and now contribute nothing to building an economy. The costs to government of those social programs have resulted in increased taxation on a dwindling pool of "makers". This perfect storm resulted in a drastic reduction of disposable income for way too many people. It's all there for us to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 When was this rosy past where the 'makers' operated independently without taking from the people/our governments? Probably back when they took land and resources away from other people's governments, starting with indigenous people's. Now that the makers have it made they don't want what they've taken, taken away from them in turn. Where they expect everyone else to go instead is anyone's guess, especially now that the world has pretty much been plundered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm convinced socialism is a mental disorder. These responses are sickening. "You owe us what you've earned because you live in our society". Sorry guys, the wealthy don't owe you anything. They paid for their right to live in this society through taxes (of which they paid a hell of a lot more than the protesters making these kinds of arguments). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm convinced socialism is a mental disorder. These responses are sickening. "You owe us what you've earned because you live in our society".... Desperate people do desperate things....how else are they gonna get big flat screen televisions like those rich guys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 If the choices are either support the status quo or support the protestors, then I choose the protestors. I wasn't aware that was the choice. If it is, it's a false one. I don't understand how anybody can look at the factors that created the "global economic meltdown" and the aftermath of the "global economic meltdown" and not have an immense resentment of Wall Street and the banks. Not only did they create the situation No, they didn't create it. The government did. It was the government that lowered lending standards as to promote homeowhership amoungst middle and lower income people. If you want to hold immense resentment, it's best to start with the do-gooder politictians that started the ball rolling in the first place. Apparently the get off scott free because their intentions were good ones. Well, how did are those intentions working out for everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Anyways, back to what the media won't show you... Protesters singing f**k the USA. How charming. They continue to the win hearts and minds of the American people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 No, they didn't create it. The government did. It was the government that lowered lending standards as to promote homeowhership amoungst middle and lower income people. If you want to hold immense resentment, it's best to start with the do-gooder politictians that started the ball rolling in the first place. Apparently the get off scott free because their intentions were good ones. Well, how did are those intentions working out for everyone? What you fail to ...well actually I am pretty damn sure you do know but will obfuscate, is that WALL ST is the one to blame, along with politicians, but they are one and the same. Donald Reagan- Head of Merrill Lynch, Sct'y of Treasury Ron Reagan presidency.(said to own Reagan) Timothy Geitner-Head of Fed Reserve Bank of NY Henry Paulson- CEO Golodman Sachs Sec of Treasury ....need I go on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 What you fail to ...well actually I am pretty damn sure you do know but will obfuscate, is that WALL ST is the one to blame, along with politicians, but they are one and the same. Donald Reagan- Head of Merrill Lynch, Sct'y of Treasury Ron Reagan presidency.(said to own Reagan) Timothy Geitner-Head of Fed Reserve Bank of NY Henry Paulson- CEO Golodman Sachs Sec of Treasury ....need I go on? So you don't think the average joe had a hand in this? All righty then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 So you don't think the average joe had a hand in this? All righty then... The average Joe had a hand in this, insofar as money was easy to come by and people asked for and recieved too much for their net worth or ability to pay. That said, the people who lent them the money, and the controllers who allowed it, knew the profit made would more than make up for any losses to come. They packaged bad debt and sold it, making money from poor loans. (not a problem for me) And the buyers...?...they sold it off for a profit once again. And when the shit hit the fan, who was asked for advice or was advising the Feds and the agencies it operates? Wall St CEO's. Thus the .....'we are too big to fail' They knew it long before they had to ask for the money. (On a side note, when I read of people not paying their mortgage because they know the original papers are not anywhere to be found(because they have changed hands too much) I laugh and say good for you ! Afterall, no bank would do anything for you without paperwork and turnabout is fair play.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 So you don't think the average joe had a hand in this? All righty then... I was going to say ..... there's personal accountability to add to the equation too; there's no reason why they should get a free pass in the blame game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.