Not all Occupy protesters are lazy unemployed bums

[BubberMiley]

In other words, if that's your judgement regarding the WSJ, the same judgement has to apply to all.

Why is that? The WSJ doesn't pretend to be neutral in the debate between Wall Street and its occupiers. Why do you insist that their bias is above reproach and everyone else's is always suspect?

[GostHacked]

No. My statement wasn't saying that the WSJ puts out propaganda. My comment was in response to your claim that it does. I was saying according to what you were saying, every source puts out propaganda, so the WSJ would be no different; no different from any media source.

And we agree again.

Certainly the occupiers themselves are putting out propaganda, right? Everything being Twittered, Face Booked, You Tubed - it's all propaganda. It's all the side of the story they want to get out.

One more time we agree.

In other words, if that's your judgement regarding the WSJ, the same judgement has to apply to all. It's you who made the judgement, not me. So none of the sources/quotes/links that have posted here are to be believed by you - they are nothing but propaganda.

It seems to me that you have a hard time with the fact that we actually agree on many many things. That could be just my interpretation of it.

And Rose by any other name would still be a Rose. So your point was - pointless.

Actually it would not even be a rose.

[cybercoma]

Wow, that's just brilliant. Dude, it's the freaking name of the paper. It covers global news, local news, sports, etc. I guess without New York, there'd be no New York Times then right? No Toronto, no Toronto Star.

/facepalm

So the Wall Street Journal doesn't have a vested interest in Wall Street? Facepalm indeed.

[cybercoma]

Absolutely. It's your job to decipher the truth. The first thing to do is look at a WSJ poll about Occupation Wall Street with the same skepticism as you would for...oh, virtually everything else.

It's like looking at a poll about sex outside of marriage from the Christian Herald. If their readership's opinions on that weren't obvious to you, you're definitely not very bright.

[Black Dog]

I don't connect the WSJ with promoting the cause of the Democratic Party...

Why wouldn't it? You're making the mistake of connecting the Democratic Party with OWS and the left overall.

[Moonlight Graham]

If they aren't all lazy bums why aren't they at work or university or trade school??

They have been asked several times "what are protesting" and nobody knows.

Didn't i just give you a real-life example of people i met you do work and go to university. Read the OP & not just the title of the thread. Jesus. Shady did the same thing.

Most reporters work 9-5 or so, so they're showing the people that are there during the day. Ever seen news footage on TV or pictures of the protesters at night time? I haven't. I'm sure some exist, but it in the huge minority. Maybe there is a different demographic of protesters at night when ppl get out of school/work and go down to join in.

[ToadBrother]

Didn't i just give you a real-life example of people i met you do work and go to university. Read the OP & not just the title of the thread. Jesus. Shady did the same thing.

Most reporters work 9-5 or so, so they're showing the people that are there during the day. Ever seen news footage on TV or pictures of the protesters at night time? I haven't. I'm sure some exist, but it in the huge minority. Maybe there is a different demographic of protesters at night when ppl get out of school/work and go down to join in.

I still can't figure out what any of them want. As movements go, this one really sucks. Even neo-Nazi skinhead protests are more coherent.

[jacee]

I still can't figure out what any of them want. As movements go, this one really sucks. Even neo-Nazi skinhead protests are more coherent.

Well I guess that clarifies the dangers of knee-jerk reactions, and why the protesters are taking their sweet time to lock in a position.

But really, 99%...1% ... what more needs to be said?

The 1% sucking sound ... our money ... their pockets.

Edited October 27, 2011 by jacee

[ToadBrother]

Well I guess that clarifies the dangers of knee-jerk reactions, and why the protesters are taking their sweet time to lock in a position.

But really, 99%...1% ... what more needs to be said?

The 1% sucking sound ... our money ... their pockets.

A lot more needs to be said. If I accept these numbers (and I do, somewhat provisionally), what are the proposed remedies? Are we just talking about upping taxes on the rich (however we define that)? I can go with that, to a point. But are we talking about something else, a sort of neo-Marxism where the Bourgeoisie (again, however we define that) get to be marched to the proverbial guillotine to appease the angry masses who want "their fair share"? Is it something in between? Will we be stripping some property from the rich to give to the poor? Will we be putting limits on how rich you can get?

Someone please bloody well explain it to me, because when I see angry people demanding the heads of the aristocracy, the first thing that comes to mind isn't a Haight-Ashbury Love-in.

[GostHacked]

A lot more needs to be said. If I accept these numbers (and I do, somewhat provisionally), what are the proposed remedies? Are we just talking about upping taxes on the rich (however we define that)? I can go with that, to a point. But are we talking about something else, a sort of neo-Marxism where the Bourgeoisie (again, however we define that) get to be marched to the proverbial guillotine to appease the angry masses who want "their fair share"? Is it something in between? Will we be stripping some property from the rich to give to the poor? Will we be putting limits on how rich you can get?

Someone please bloody well explain it to me, because when I see angry people demanding the heads of the aristocracy, the first thing that comes to mind isn't a Haight-Ashbury Love-in.

This is the kind of thing people are protesting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386090n insider trading.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-20126156/ex-goldman-board-member-indicted-in-fraud-case/

NEW YORK - A former board member of Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble pleaded not guilty Wednesday to federal charges accusing him of acting as "the illegal eyes and ears in the boardroom" for a friend, a billionaire hedge fund founder sentenced this month to 11 years in prison in the biggest insider trading case in history.

The case, built partially on wiretaps used for the first time in insider trading, has offered unprecedented insight into greed at the highest levels of Wall Street. The arrest of Rajat Gupta took it one step higher

These guys get slaps on the wrists really. You murder one person, you do life, you screw with thousands of peoples futures, you get a light sentence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386090n

Student debt approaching 1 trillion dollars. Tuition rose 8.3% this year.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/freddiemac_ceo_resign/index.htm?iid=HP_River

Since 2008, Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers $141 billion because the federal government has poured money into them in an effort to stabilize the housing market.

This is just in the USA, next we can go to the Eurozone where many countries are introducing a second round of austerity measures.... which means .. cuts to many many things.

Ask yourself, how do countries get into this kind of debt? And ask yourself the role that privatized central banks play into all of this.

Tuition, and costs of living rising, while wages and benefits are decreasing. Which will reach an eventual breaking point.

[Moonlight Graham]

I still can't figure out what any of them want. As movements go, this one really sucks. Even neo-Nazi skinhead protests are more coherent.

I agree. But that's really beside my point.

[Shady]

Why wouldn't it? You're making the mistake of connecting the Democratic Party with OWS and the left overall.

They are connected.

[ToadBrother]

This is just in the USA, next we can go to the Eurozone where many countries are introducing a second round of austerity measures.... which means .. cuts to many many things.

Ask yourself, how do countries get into this kind of debt? And ask yourself the role that privatized central banks play into all of this.

Interest rates were too low for too long and encouraged at every level, from the consumer on up, unreasonable levels of debt. In particular Greece has been profligate for a long time, and has possibly the most ineffective revenue/tax collection regime of any industrialized country on the planet.

So, the answer to your question is "We're all to blame." Every family that racked up big credit card debts, who went out and got easy-terms lines of credit, loans and mortgages, who built up insanely high debt-to-income levels, and the same goes for lots of companies, and for the banks that now have all these so-called toxic loans on their books, and the governments who were just as keen to cash in and borrow beyond all reason, that's who is to blame.

This idea that it was all just evil bankers and CEOs is false. It was all of us. Everyone went ape-sh*t, everyone wanted 3000 square foot homes and two cars and a boat and home entertainment system, and governments, keen to deliver that bounty, maintained low interest rates and encouraged every sector of society to borrow beyond their means.

Blaming one facet of society for everyone's gluttony is absurd. If there's blame to be directed at the fatcats, it's for continuing the bonus culture after the party was over, but the solution to that as much as anything is giving shareholders more direct power over such matters, or in the case of where private concerns were bailed out with public money, to use statuatory instruments to force an end to that culture.

Tuition, and costs of living rising, while wages and benefits are decreasing. Which will reach an eventual breaking point.

Yes well, eventually we all have to pay the piper.

[GostHacked]

They are connected.

They are not connected. It's like the Tea Party, it was grassroots hijacked by the right. So the left is trying to hijack this grassroots movement.

Many of you are still stuck in this left-right mentality which is kind of hindering you looking at the bigger picture.

[ToadBrother]

They are not connected. It's like the Tea Party, it was grassroots hijacked by the right. So the left is trying to hijack this grassroots movement.

Many of you are still stuck in this left-right mentality which is kind of hindering you looking at the bigger picture.

Yes, ignore what amount to left-of-centre demands and rhetoric, we're not really a left-of-centre movement! We just look like one.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it isn't an aardvark.

[GostHacked]

Interest rates were too low for too long and encouraged at every level, from the consumer on up, unreasonable levels of debt. In particular Greece has been profligate for a long time, and has possibly the most ineffective revenue/tax collection regime of any industrialized country on the planet.

Or maybe it was spending more than it could afford. Even here in Canada , the nation's yearly spending is more than it's yearly income. This puts the country into more debt every year. And this is at interest back to the Bank of Canada.

We spend more on a country level than we can afford, but what is said about that?

So, the answer to your question is "We're all to blame." Every family that racked up big credit card debts, who went out and got easy-terms lines of credit, loans and mortgages, who built up insanely high debt-to-income levels, and the same goes for lots of companies, and for the banks that now have all these so-called toxic loans on their books, and the governments who were just as keen to cash in and borrow beyond all reason, that's who is to blame.

Yes people are allowed to live beyond their means. Some of that is personal responsibility, but damn even my cat can get a credit card. This shows another flaw. People are in debt, but the banks and credit card entities just up the allowable credit so these people can get more into debt. They make money off the interest of these debts. The more debt you have for longer, they make money. So it's in their best interests to KEEP you in debt. If people did not need loans, there would be no reason for these entities exist.

This idea that it was all just evil bankers and CEOs is false. It was all of us. Everyone went ape-sh*t, everyone wanted 3000 square foot homes and two cars and a boat and home entertainment system, and governments, keen to deliver that bounty, maintained low interest rates and encouraged every sector of society to borrow beyond their means.

So you gotta ask yourself, why would the banks approve loans to people which they can't pay back because of their wages. They are able to borrow way beyond their means. And to mitigate that, the banks sold those mortgages to other financial institution, then repackaged and sold as derivatives. This is the crux behind several banks failing a couple years ago. And this is one of THE major reasons why this Occupy movement is happening.

It's HOW the business is done that people are not happy with.

Blaming one facet of society for everyone's gluttony is absurd.

Correct, that is why you have to blame government as well for allowing this to all take place. The financial institutions get a way with it because of some deregulation that happened previously. Accountability obviously went out the window.

If there's blame to be directed at the fatcats, it's for continuing the bonus culture after the party was over, but the solution to that as much as anything is giving shareholders more direct power over such matters, or in the case of where private concerns were bailed out with public money, to use statuatory instruments to force an end to that culture.

The shareholders only care about one thing, making money. And if a private institution is in financial troubles, why the hell is it up to the government to use taxpayer money to bail these assholes out? They sold the bad mortgages and now taxpayers are paying for it, AND loosing their homes at the same time.

Yes well, eventually we all have to pay the piper.

The piper has been screwing people over for years. And the people are not taking it anymore.

[GostHacked]

Yes, ignore what amount to left-of-centre demands and rhetoric, we're not really a left-of-centre movement! We just look like one.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it isn't an aardvark.

That's because people are buying into the whole left-right thing. It's not working anymore. There is no right, there is no left. It's an illusion to keep you in a certain line of thinking, it's a psychological thing.

Vote in the liberals? Get screwed.

Vote in the conservatives? Get screwed.

Republican or Democrat? You get screwed.

All while the nations are getting more into debt, people getting more into debt, fees and costs go up, wages not increasing to cover the cost of living... again .. that breaking point. You are now starting to see that. Globaly too, and that is something I said on these forums months ago. Before this Occupy movement started, I posted here that the protests we see in Europe would be coming here. I believe some blasted me for it as well.

[ToadBrother]

Or maybe it was spending more than it could afford. Even here in Canada , the nation's yearly spending is more than it's yearly income. This puts the country into more debt every year. And this is at interest back to the Bank of Canada.

We spend more on a country level than we can afford, but what is said about that?

A good deal. But no one wants to do without all those programs that get paid for by deficit spending. Families want all those bonus cheques of various kinds, business want their own tax breaks, so everybody points at everybody else and says "You do without, I'm the most important person in the world!"

Yes people are allowed to live beyond their means. Some of that is personal responsibility, but damn even my cat can get a credit card. This shows another flaw. People are in debt, but the banks and credit card entities just up the allowable credit so these people can get more into debt. They make money off the interest of these debts. The more debt you have for longer, they make money. So it's in their best interests to KEEP you in debt. If people did not need loans, there would be no reason for these entities exist.

Oh my goodness, somebody makes money by charging interest!!! What is this, the Middle Ages?Yes, you get charged interest when you borrow money, and if the money you are borrowing is via an unsecured loan, then you're interest rates will be much higher.

What is your point, exactly? Do you want the offering of unsecured loans banned? Do you wish people to be treated like children?

So you gotta ask yourself, why would the banks approve loans to people which they can't pay back because of their wages. They are able to borrow way beyond their means. And to mitigate that, the banks sold those mortgages to other financial institution, then repackaged and sold as derivatives. This is the crux behind several banks failing a couple years ago. And this is one of THE major reasons why this Occupy movement is happening.

It's HOW the business is done that people are not happy with.

In the United States, the Federal government basically ordered Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to begin lending money to people of marginal income levels, with the idea of increasing home ownership among lower socioeconomic groups. This did a number of things. First and foremost, it meant people whose income would normally disqualify them from any kind of mortgage were handed one anyways, and with marginal incomes that means as soon as they lose their job, or at least some percentage of their income, their mortgages become unpayable. But more importantly, what this did is create a mortgage bubble, which spread throughout the whole financial system. Since banks compete for business, as they should, other banks soon followed suit.

Couple this with sustained low interest rates, kept that way because a combination of politicians looking for easy elections and electorates looking for wide-screen TVs and all the other glories of conspicuous consumption, well you had yourself a good old fashioned bubble. Houses were being built at an insane pace because everyone was getting easy mortgages. Retail outlets were expanding because everyone was buying. Governments were spending more and more, everyone was racking up vast debts, and that whole free-wheeling approach to finance infected the financial sector. No doubt some very bad behavior there, but they too were falling victims to their greed, just like everyone else.

Correct, that is why you have to blame government as well for allowing this to all take place. The financial institutions get a way with it because of some deregulation that happened previously. Accountability obviously went out the window.

The government didn't merely allow others to get away with it all, they were encouraging it, not just in the financial and business sectors, but in everyone. You seem to be thinking that Joe and Jane Average (and their kids) were somehow just victims, and I'm telling you that they were active participants in the collapse.

The shareholders only care about one thing, making money. And if a private institution is in financial troubles, why the hell is it up to the government to use taxpayer money to bail these assholes out? They sold the bad mortgages and now taxpayers are paying for it, AND loosing their homes at the same time.

We can debate all day whether the bailouts were right or not, and in some cases they were, in some cases they weren't. But I can tell you this, without the bailouts, you wouldn't have protesters camping out on Wall Street, you'd have hobo camps and a general Depression right now.

As bad as things are, they could be a helluva lot worse.

The piper has been screwing people over for years. And the people are not taking it anymore.

The people are part of the problem.

[jacee]

A good deal. But no one wants to do without all those programs that get paid for by deficit spending. Families want all those bonus cheques of various kinds, business want their own tax breaks, so everybody points at everybody else and says "You do without, I'm the most important person in the world!

Oh my goodness, somebody makes money by charging interest!!! What is this, the Middle Ages?Yes, you get charged interest wen you borrow money, and if the money you are borrowing is via an unsecured loan, then you're interest rates will be much higher.

What is your point, exactly? Do you want the offering of unsecured loans banned? Do you wish people to be treated like children?

In the United States, the Federal government basically ordered Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to begin lending money to people of marginal income levels, with the idea of increasing home ownership among lower socioeconomic groups. This did a number of things. First and foremost, it meant people whose income would normally disqualify them from any kind of mortgage were handed one anyways, and with marginal incomes that means as soon as they lose their job, or at least some percentage of their income, their mortgages become unpayable. But more importantly, what this did is create a mortgage bubble, which spread throughout the whole financial system. Since banks compete for business, as they should, other banks soon followed suit.

Couple this with sustained low interest rates, kept that way because a combination of politicians looking for easy elections and electorates looking for wide-screen TVs and all the other glories of conspicuous consumption, well you had yourself a good old fashioned bubble. Houses were being built at an insane pace because everyone was getting easy mortgages. Retail outlets were expanding because everyone was buying. Governments were spending more and more, everyone was racking up vast debts, and that whole free-wheeling approach to finance infected the financial sector. No doubt some very bad behavior there, but they too were falling victims to their greed, just like everyone else.

The government didn't merely allow others to get away with it all, they were encouraging it, not just in the financial and business sectors, but in everyone. You seem to be thinking that Joe and Jane Average (and their kids) were somehow just victims, and I'm telling you that they were active participants in the collapse.

We can debate all day whether the bailouts were right or not, and in some cases they were, in some cases they weren't. But I can tell you this, without the bailouts, you wouldn't have protesters camping out on Wall Street, you'd have hobo camps and a general Depression right now.

As bad as things are, they could be a helluva lot worse.

The people are part of the problem.

And the people are speaking. Listen!

If you try to dismiss them, no changes will occur, nothing will change.

Personally, I think a CREDIT BOYCOTT is in order and will make the usury community take notice.

[ToadBrother]

And the people are speaking. Listen!

If you try to dismiss them, no changes will occur, nothing will change.

They're speaking, but seem profoundly unwilling to accept their own fault in this. They're just railing against the usual targets, without looking in the mirror and saying "I did it too..."

Personally, I think a CREDIT BOYCOTT is in order and will make the usury community take notice.

Credit boycott? What does that even mean? And "usury community"? Are they acting out scenes from The Merchant of Venice out on the streets? I'd love to hear how you're going to buy a house without credit, how you plan on starting businesses without credit.

This is what I mean. There's an air delusional thinking about these Occupy protests. A whole lot of people who feel someone's done them wrong, but unwilling to look inward and see that they were just as quick to do themselves harm as any big corporate interest. Instead, they end up spouting absolute moronic crap like you just did.

But along with that air of delusion thinking, is also a good deal of denial. "THEY did it to ME!!!" without any recognition of how thoroughly the middle classes screwed themselves over by sticking their own heads in the pork barrel along with the bigwigs.

Edited October 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

A good deal. But no one wants to do without all those programs that get paid for by deficit spending. Families want all those bonus cheques of various kinds, business want their own tax breaks, so everybody points at everybody else and says "You do without, I'm the most important person in the world!"

Sounds like greed.

Oh my goodness, somebody makes money by charging interest!!! What is this, the Middle Ages?Yes, you get charged interest when you borrow money, and if the money you are borrowing is via an unsecured loan, then you're interest rates will be much higher.

So the bank that got a bail out from your taxpayer money is now raising fees to cover it's bad practices. Does that sound fair to you?

What is your point, exactly? Do you want the offering of unsecured loans banned? Do you wish people to be treated like children?

We are treated like children. The media thinks you and I are stupid. The government thinks you are stupid as well. THis is why they have been able to get away with all this. They thik

In the United States, the Federal government basically ordered Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to begin lending money to people of marginal income levels,

That was a mistake. Do we agree?

with the idea of increasing home ownership among lower socioeconomic groups. This did a number of things. First and foremost, it meant people whose income would normally disqualify them from any kind of mortgage were handed one anyways, and with marginal incomes that means as soon as they lose their job, or at least some percentage of their income, their mortgages become unpayable. But more importantly, what this did is create a mortgage bubble, which spread throughout the whole financial system. Since banks compete for business, as they should, other banks soon followed suit.

And this is why I said that you have to blame government as well for creating the environment where this problem ran rampant.

Couple this with sustained low interest rates, kept that way because a combination of politicians looking for easy elections and electorates looking for wide-screen TVs and all the other glories of conspicuous consumption, well you had yourself a good old fashioned bubble. Houses were being built at an insane pace because everyone was getting easy mortgages. Retail outlets were expanding because everyone was buying. Governments were spending more and more, everyone was racking up vast debts, and that whole free-wheeling approach to finance infected the financial sector. No doubt some very bad behavior there, but they too were falling victims to their greed, just like everyone else.

So how really do we end up blaming the people for this when it was government in bed with the financial institutions to create this mess?

The government didn't merely allow others to get away with it all, they were encouraging it, not just in the financial and business sectors, but in everyone.

Now you are starting to get to the meat of the issue. Why would the government promote that knowing it would get to this situation? What's the gain here?

You seem to be thinking that Joe and Jane Average (and their kids) were somehow just victims, and I'm telling you that they were active participants in the collapse.

If the government creates the environment to get to this state in conjunction with the financial markets , how do you put the blame on Joe and Jane?

We can debate all day whether the bailouts were right or not, and in some cases they were, in some cases they weren't. But I can tell you this, without the bailouts, you wouldn't have protesters camping out on Wall Street, you'd have hobo camps and a general Depression right now.

They were wrong to get bailed out period. Do you see people getting bailed on on a personal level when they screw up and get into large debts? NO. So why are the banks allowed to use YOUR taxpayer money to bail these assholes out? How does any of this benefit the average person. It does not. And it's designed to BE this way.

As bad as things are, they could be a helluva lot worse.

This is just the start. Trust me.

The people are part of the problem.

Yes, in a way this is true, because we did not keep the government in check in order to prevent them from creating the environment where this financial abuse took place. This Occupy movement is there to try and change it. Bring awareness to the rest of the people. Those who are doing everything right, and not borrowing beyond their means, are still in the same situation as the rest of us. So even when people are doing many things right, they are still getting collectively screwed.

The people are now trying to correct those mistakes, because we won't be able to rely on government to change it for us. But even when we voice our concerns, does anything change?

Did things get better under Reagan?

Did things get better under Bush?

Did things get better under Clinton?

Did things get better under Bush JR?

Are things getting better under Obama?

Repeat the above but use a different country's leaders.

[jacee]

They're speaking, but seem profoundly unwilling to accept their own fault in this. They're just railing against the usual targets, without looking in the mirror and saying "I did it too..."

Credit boycott? What does that even mean? And "usury community"? Are they acting out scenes from The Merchant of Venice out on the streets? I'd love to hear how you're going to buy a house without credit, how you plan on starting businesses without credit.

This is what I mean. There's an air delusional thinking about these Occupy protests. A whole lot of people who feel someone's done them wrong, but unwilling to look inward and see that they were just as quick to do themselves harm as any big corporate interest. Instead, they end up spouting absolute moronic crap like you just did.

But along with that air of delusion thinking, is also a good deal of denial. "THEY did it to ME!!!" without any recognition of how thoroughly the middle classes screwed themselves over by sticking their own heads in the pork barrel along with the bigwigs.

Oh ya ... and we will make our governments BOYCOTT CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHIEST.

Get used to it.

The people are taking control, because that's where control belongs, and the wealthy and powerful and their politician lackeys have violated our trust and used their power nefariously to funnel our money into their pockets.

NO MORE!

[ToadBrother]

Oh ya ... and we will make our governments BOYCOTT CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHIEST.

Get used to it.

The people are taking control, because that's where control belongs, and the wealthy and powerful and their politician lackeys have violated our trust and used their power nefariously to funnel our money into their pockets.

NO MORE!

Oh yes, a part of the very gang that created the problem (that's you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class) will make all the other participants pay for everyone's evils. Never mind that the middle classes happily mortgaged their own kids futures, the middle classes can't be expected to be thrifty, they're just moronic sheep that do what they're told, and when it all comes falling down, they go stand out on Wall Street and look for someone else to blame.

What are you missing here? We're all to blame. Everyone did it.

[ToadBrother]

Sounds like greed.

Greed right down to the middle class. You don't think all those angry people "Occupying" weren't every bit as greedy as anyone higher up on the income scale.

So the bank that got a bail out from your taxpayer money is now raising fees to cover it's bad practices. Does that sound fair to you?

What do bank fees have to do with anything? If you don't like the fees your bank charges, find another bank.

We are treated like children. The media thinks you and I are stupid. The government thinks you are stupid as well. THis is why they have been able to get away with all this. They thik

The amount of self-denial in the above paragraph tends to confirm my view that yes, I think most people are pretty damned stupid.

That was a mistake. Do we agree?

It wasn't just a mistake. It was THE mistake. That massive mortgage bubble is one of the cores of the entire collapse. It wasn't fatcat investors stuffing their pockets, it was middle class people borrowing far beyond their means.

And this is why I said that you have to blame government as well for creating the environment where this problem ran rampant.

Not a single damned person was forced to borrow lots of money. The government doesn't get all the blame. Those that borrowed beyond their means are at fault, too. And guess what, some of them, and some of their kids are "Occupying" all these public squares and acting as if they had nothing to do with it.

So how really do we end up blaming the people for this when it was government in bed with the financial institutions to create this mess?

Why do you keep denying the role of the middle class in this?

Now you are starting to get to the meat of the issue. Why would the government promote that knowing it would get to this situation? What's the gain here?

Because politicians are stupid like everyone else. Electoral cycles are like economic cycles, so politicians, like everyone else (including the middle classes) just sorts of assumes that the blowback will happen after their time. Don't you get it, the politicians, the bankers, the corporate executives, they're just as stupid as the middle classes, just as incapable of thinking in the long term. Everyone, including all those people "Occupying" are naive, short-sighted fools.

If the government creates the environment to get to this state in conjunction with the financial markets , how do you put the blame on Joe and Jane?

Because the government is simply giving Joe and Jane what they want. If they don't, then Joe and Jane vote for someone else.

You have now discovered the most substantial flaw with democracy; an incapacity to look into the longer term, and a desire to use political power for instant short-term gratification.

They were wrong to get bailed out period. Do you see people getting bailed on on a personal level when they screw up and get into large debts? NO. So why are the banks allowed to use YOUR taxpayer money to bail these assholes out? How does any of this benefit the average person. It does not. And it's designed to BE this way.

I'm going to be blunt here. At the end of the day, the liquidity of the financial system is more important than the errant debt-laden middle classes. It sucks, but if you look at it terms of triage, you'll ultimately save more from ruin by keeping the financial system in liquidity than you will in throwing money at the middle classes.

This is just the start. Trust me.

I expect it will die down like all such things do. The economy will begin to recover sooner or later, and everyone will forget the hard times and go back to the same old behavior.

Yes, in a way this is true, because we did not keep the government in check in order to prevent them from creating the environment where this financial abuse took place. This Occupy movement is there to try and change it. Bring awareness to the rest of the people. Those who are doing everything right, and not borrowing beyond their means, are still in the same situation as the rest of us. So even when people are doing many things right, they are still getting collectively screwed.

Keep the government in check? Are you missing what I'm saying. Joe and Jane weren't interested in keeping the government in check. They were encouraging these profligate ways, because they wanted their big houses, their toys and their vacations to Mexico.

The people are now trying to correct those mistakes, because we won't be able to rely on government to change it for us. But even when we voice our concerns, does anything change?

But you're not voicing concerns, you're just looking to blame the hosts for the party that you so happily attended. I guarantee you that if, tomorrow, the economy dramatically improved, all those people out there shouting slogans would be yanking out their shiny new credit cards and going on a spending spree faster than you could say "charge it!"

Did things get better under Reagan?

Did things get better under Bush?

Did things get better under Clinton?

Did things get better under Bush JR?

Are things getting better under Obama?

Repeat the above but use a different country's leaders.

Can you define "better"?

[jacee]

A lot more needs to be said. If I accept these numbers (and I do, somewhat provisionally), what are the proposed remedies? Are we just talking about upping taxes on the rich (however we define that)? I can go with that, to a point. But are we talking about something else, a sort of neo-Marxism where the Bourgeoisie (again, however we define that) get to be marched to the proverbial guillotine to appease the angry masses who want "their fair share"? Is it something in between? Will we be stripping some property from the rich to give to the poor? Will we be putting limits on how rich you can get?

Someone please bloody well explain it to me, because when I see angry people demanding the heads of the aristocracy, the first thing that comes to mind isn't a Haight-Ashbury Love-in.

Knee-jerk 'solutions' are no answer. As anyone who knows anything about group problem-solving knows, defining the problem(s) is 99% of the process.

I don't expect conservative minds to comprehend REAL democratic processes, focused as you always are on "somebody tell us what to do" ... and corporations and wealthy profiteers - with banks as their willing slaves - are all too willing to assume authority and tell you what to do, and narrow conservative minds dutifully follow-the-wealth.

That's your problem. There will be no quick solutions, there will be no leaders speaking to you for us.

We are the 99%, and we are winning the hearts and minds of the people.

Get used to the uncertainty.

Banks, corporations, politicians and the 1% know their own nefarious deeds. The uncertainty may be productive in refocusing them on their true clients - the 99%, instead of the 1% they usually pay fealty to.

They know what they're doing that funnels money to the wealthy. Let THEM propose "solutions" .... for our consideration.