Not all Occupy protesters are lazy unemployed bums

[ToadBrother]

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.

The question is do the 99% know their own nefarious deeds, or will they continue in this fantasy where they were just victims, and not pigs at the trough in their own turn?

Edited October 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[jacee]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

Can you define "better"?

NEWSFLASH !!! The economy isn't getting better unless 'consumer confidence' returns.

ONE REASON that won't happen is that the middle class has been decimated by contracting out, attacking unions, using offshore labour, usurious interest rates, joblessness ... ie, the persistent attacks of the wealthy predators.

ANOTHER REASON 'consumer confidence' won't return is simple demographics- the population bulge that fuelled the orgy of stealing wealth from the people, the baby boomers, is retiring. They're not buying consumer goods anymore and won't be, and their kids can't because they can't get decent jobs! The 20th century is OVER and with it the era of CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION that fuelled the greed and acquisitions of the 1%.

ANOTHER REASON 'consumer confidence' won't return is that the 99% movement is both giving voice to and educating people about the theft of wealth by the 1%.

You have the order wrong: If people start buying, the economy will recover. If they don't, it won't.

Do the Math: Unemployed, underemployed and pensioned people AREN'T BUYING!!

Your contempt for the middle class - ie, THE CONSUMERS - is duly noted, and IS THE PROBLEM.

Attacking unions is one example of the insanity of the greed of the 1%: Chewing off your own leg, killing the geese that laid the golden eggs, cutting off your nose to spite your face ... INSANE GREED KILLS THE GREEDY. And that's where we are today. The effects of the insane greed of the 1% and their bank and government lackies is exposed.

[Rick]

Not all, but most. I'm not saying that if you're an occupy protester, you're a lazy unemployed bum. But chances are, if you're a lazy unemployed bum, you're probably an occupy protester.

Not all, but most Conservatives are racist. I'm not saying that if you're a Conservative, you're a racist. But chances are, if you're a racist, you're a Conservative.

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

But you don't speak for me and many others...no matter which country you pretend to co-op for your cause. Get used to more of the same!

[ToadBrother]

NEWSFLASH !!! The economy isn't getting better unless 'consumer confidence' returns.

It is considerably more complex than that. But this is typical. Angry people always trot out simplistic solutions to complex problems.

ONE REASON that won't happen is that the middle class has been decimated by contracting out, attacking unions, using offshore labour, usurious interest rates, joblessness ... ie, the persistent attacks of the wealthy predators.

This is utterly confused. Part of the problem was sustained low interest rates to keep all that consumer confidence high. But your complaining about usury. I renewed my mortgage at 3.75%.

As to offshore labor. I do love that. Wouldn't want any brown or yellow skinned people improving their lot. Standard left-wing union hall rant. The previous era of consumer glut was basically underwritten by cheap Asian labor and cheap commodities coming out of places like Africa.

If you kill overseas labor, I'm curious as to what you think will be on the shelves of the stores you shop at.

ANOTHER REASON 'consumer confidence' won't return is simple demographics- the population bulge that fuelled the orgy of stealing wealth from the people, the baby boomers, is retiring. They're not buying consumer goods anymore and won't be, and their kids can't because they can't get decent jobs! The 20th century is OVER and with it the era of CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION that fuelled the greed and acquisitions of the 1%.

Many of the problems of that bulge will peak and work their way out of the system in the next few decades. But let's never forget that we're paying the piper for the largess of the last few generations. It wasn't just business interests who profited heavily, so I return once again to the middle class having little problem spending like crazy and insisting tha their governments spend as well.

ANOTHER REASON 'consumer confidence' won't return is that the 99% movement is both giving voice to and educating people about the theft of wealth by the 1%.

But not about the profligate irresponsible ways of the other 99%. It's just more leftist class warfare diatribes. There's nothing new about your movement.

You have the order wrong: If people start buying, the economy will recover. If they don't, it won't.

Do the Math: Unemployed, underemployed and pensioned people AREN'T BUYING!!

If people buy using borrowed money the only thing that happens is a bubble. Do you actually think going hogwild on credit is going to stimulate the economy? You're making the very same assumption politicians have for the last fifteen years.

Your contempt for the middle class - ie, THE CONSUMERS - is duly noted, and IS THE PROBLEM.

I hold no special contempt for the middle classes, being a member of them myself. I'm saying everyone was to blame, but now some of those who were to blame want to shift the blame off their own profligate ways and find someone else to pin it on.

Attacking unions is one example of the insanity of the greed of the 1%: Chewing off your own leg, killing the geese that laid the golden eggs, cutting off your nose to spite your face ... INSANE GREED KILLS THE GREEDY. And that's where we are today. The effects of the insane greed of the 1% and their bank and government lackies is exposed.

And on and on the t-shirt level rhetoric goes.

Edited October 28, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

But you don't speak for me and many others...no matter which country you pretend to co-op for your cause. Get used to more of the same!

Their "cause" appears to be "ignore my complicity in the collapse, and make those other guys pay". Like I said, how many of those protesters do you suppose would be hanging out in the town square making their vague confused demands if the economy perked up? They'd be at the nearest Walmart buy Chinese-manufactured goodies on their shiny new credit cards and happily voting for whatever guy promised to keep those good times rolling.

I'm a firm believer that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and not just looking to blame others for it. The middle classes need to admit that they went hogwild with credit, stopped saving money and just as importantly made it clear to their political leaders that the gravy better keep flowing.

I have no problem laying blame on the bankers and the politicians and the corporate classes, providing those out on the streets are willing to admit that they too were grabbing at the same brass ring. It's not like they didn't have people warning them. I remember Suze Ormand constantly railing against the kind of behavior the middle classes were quickly becoming addicted to. Just imagine if all those people who had borrowed beyond all reason had instead lived within budgets, saved their money and made big efforts to clear off as much debt as they could while times were good. Those kind of people wouldn't be on the streets right now making confused demands or on web forums making posts WITH UNUSUAL CAPITALIZATION!

[cybercoma]

Not all, but most Conservatives are racist. I'm not saying that if you're a Conservative, you're a racist. But chances are, if you're a racist, you're a Conservative.

I was about to post a long rant about how this doesn't make a damn bit of sense and I'm not even conservative, then I realized you just copied what Shady was saying.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm a firm believer that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and not just looking to blame others for it. The middle classes need to admit that they went hogwild with credit, stopped saving money and just as importantly made it clear to their political leaders that the gravy better keep flowing.

They sure did, and now it's their own damn fault REGARDLESS of what government or banks were doing. Something magic happens when you get on the right side of the debt curve. The banks pay you...no kidding!

Guess what is coming back for Xmas...."layaway". The same kind we had 40 years ago.

Edited October 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

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.

As for the government forcing lower lending standards and weaker income/debt rations this is an utter and completely fabrication and often parroted misstatement. It just didnt happen. Its not in the CRA and its not in any FDIC rules, and the government does not regulate the companies like CountryWide that were making all these loans ANYWAYS. They dont accept deposits, and they arent even banks. They can lend to whoever they want at whatever rates they choose.

You need to actually follow the money.

Of the 1.5 Trillion in subprime loans (these are toxic assets that caused the subprime cluster@#$%) Fanny and Freddy secured almost NONE. They arent even allowed to make these loans, and they werent the ones buying up all the collateralized debt obligations either.

Now lets look at their behavior prior to the crisis. In 2003 Fanny and Freddy start REDUCING the number of loans they were securing. That was about the time when it became pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that a realestate bubble was forming. Between 2003 and 2006 the total ammount of loans secured by Fanny and Freddy fell from almost 3 trillion to 1 trillion.

During that same period in the private sector the ammount of subprime loans GREW from 335 to 600 billion. AA loands grew from 85 to 400 billion.

So when people blame Fanny and Freddy for the housing bubble I really get a laugh out of it. You can only do that if you havent even taken a cursory look at the data, and have no idea what was in any of these securities and who was buying them.

Edited October 28, 2011 by dre

[blueblood]

Their "cause" appears to be "ignore my complicity in the collapse, and make those other guys pay". Like I said, how many of those protesters do you suppose would be hanging out in the town square making their vague confused demands if the economy perked up? They'd be at the nearest Walmart buy Chinese-manufactured goodies on their shiny new credit cards and happily voting for whatever guy promised to keep those good times rolling.

I'm a firm believer that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and not just looking to blame others for it. The middle classes need to admit that they went hogwild with credit, stopped saving money and just as importantly made it clear to their political leaders that the gravy better keep flowing.

I have no problem laying blame on the bankers and the politicians and the corporate classes, providing those out on the streets are willing to admit that they too were grabbing at the same brass ring. It's not like they didn't have people warning them. I remember Suze Ormand constantly railing against the kind of behavior the middle classes were quickly becoming addicted to. Just imagine if all those people who had borrowed beyond all reason had instead lived within budgets, saved their money and made big efforts to clear off as much debt as they could while times were good. Those kind of people wouldn't be on the streets right now making confused demands or on web forums making posts WITH UNUSUAL CAPITALIZATION!

Curse you and being more articulate with my points than me, I demand a royalty!

Have fun with dre, me and Pliny had our go with him...

[jacee]

I'm a firm believer that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and not just looking to blame others for it.

Of course we're all to blame.

The situation we're in is still the increasingly rapidly growing income gap, the suction of money from all of us to the 1%.

And resumption of economic growth can't be assumed.

Currently the only certainty is that the richest have a bigger share of the wealth than ever before, and growing more rapidly in Canada.

Growing Gap December 1, 2010

TORONTO – Canada’s richest 1% are taking more of the gains from economic growth than ever before in recorded history, says a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

The Rise of Canada’s Richest 1% looks at income trends over the past 90 years and reveals the 246,000 privileged few who rank among the country’s richest 1% took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes between 1997 and 2007.

“That's a bigger piece of the action than any other generation of rich Canadians has taken,” says Armine Yalnizyan, CCPA senior economist and the report’s author.

“The last time Canada’s elite held so much of the nation’s income in their hands was in the 1920s. Even then, their incomes didn’t soar as fast as they are today.

It’s a first in Canadian history and it underscores a dramatic reversal of long-term trends.”

...

The study notes Canada’s tax system is playing a different role, too. In 1948, the top marginal tax rate was 80% but by 2009 it had been cut almost in half, to 42.9%

“The last time the richest Canadians were taxed at this level was in the 1920s,” says Yalnizyan.

“Combine record- breaking growth in incomes with historically low top tax rates, and the richest 1% is truly breaking new frontiers of income inequality.”

Edited October 28, 2011 by jacee

[Shady]

the suction of money from all of us to the 1%.

People earning more money than you has nothing to do with taking anything away from you. The only entity reaching into your pocket, and taking money that you've earned is the government. Somebody in the 1% earns their own money regardless of what you earn or don't earn.

There is no such thing as income inequality. People work in different industries, doing different jobs, earning different levels of compensation based on the revenue their job or industry produces. The term income inequality presupposes that there's such thing, or suppose to be such thing as income equality. That's complete nonsense. The only way to achieve income equality is if you forced everybody to do the same job, for the same amount of hours.

[GostHacked]

People earning more money than you has nothing to do with taking anything away from you. The only entity reaching into your pocket, and taking money that you've earned is the government. Somebody in the 1% earns their own money regardless of what you earn or don't earn.

There is no such thing as income inequality. People work in different industries, doing different jobs, earning different levels of compensation based on the revenue their job or industry produces. The term income inequality presupposes that there's such thing, or suppose to be such thing as income equality. That's complete nonsense. The only way to achieve income equality is if you forced everybody to do the same job, for the same amount of hours.

You are not understanding things here. It's not against rich people, it's against people who get rich through fraudulent actions at the sole expense of someone else.

[Guest American Woman]

You are not understanding things here. It's not against rich people, it's against people who get rich through fraudulent actions at the sole expense of someone else.

So you're saying the entire 1% got rich through fraudulent actions at the sole expense of someone else? And the entire 99% is innocent of getting their money in such a manner?

[Michael Hardner]

So you're saying the entire 1% got rich through fraudulent actions at the sole expense of someone else? And the entire 99% is innocent of getting their money in such a manner?

I think he's saying that they're not against all of the 1%... but I don't think that's true.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think he's saying that they're not against all of the 1%... but I don't think that's true.

I don't think they even understand who the "1%" are. And based on previous posts, there is a subset of people who are very resentful of people with "1%" wealth or income by way of inheritance...class envy to the max.

[Shady]

[cybercoma]

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.

Maybe if you read this, you'll understand the protests a little bit better. It's perhaps one of the best articles I've come across on the issues.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/a-793896.html

Writer Mark Twain coined the phrase "the Gilded Age" to describe that period of rapid growth, a time when the dazzling exterior of American life actually concealed mass unemployment, poverty and a society ripped in two.

It's translated from German, not from Google, but by an actual translator. So, don't mind that it's from Germany.

[cybercoma]

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.

First, it's not really up to the protestors to propose remedies. It's up to policy makers to consider the problems and draft policies that resolve them and prevent them from happening again. They could start by re-instating the regulations that Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. all eroded. After that we can discuss a Tobin Tax. However, the problem with the protestors proposing solutions is that people can throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, by dismissing the solutions and thinking that dismisses the problems. It doesn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

...They could start by re-instating the regulations that Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. all eroded. After that we can discuss a Tobin Tax.

None of your business in Canada...remember? Why are you telling Americans what they could/should do?

[cybercoma]

None of your business in Canada...remember? Why are you telling Americans what they could/should do?

If you would have read the article from Spiegel that I posted, you would have noticed that there is an entire section in it called "A Threat to the World Economy". So yeah. The rest of the world is paying attention. Perhaps you should write to the world's universities and tell them to all stop doing research on the United States while you're trumpeting this "stay out of America's business" cause. I only offer you that advice because I'm pretty sure you're not smart enough to understand why other nations discuss your country's affairs. I'm drawing that conclusion from the fact that it has been explained to you many times, but you still just don't get it.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you would have read the article from Spiegel that I posted, you would have noticed that there is an entire section in it called "A Threat to the World Economy". So yeah. The rest of the world is paying attention.

Relax...I'm just busting your balls/ovaries because of the smarmy remark you made in another thread. Payback is a bitch, remember?

Perhaps you should write to the world's universities and tell them to all stop doing research on the United States while you're trumpeting this "stay out of America's business" cause. I only offer you that advice because I'm pretty sure you're not smart enough to understand why other nations discuss your country's affairs. I'm drawing that conclusion from the fact that it has been explained to you many times, but you still just don't get it.

You can explain all you want, but your advice is totally unqualified and self serving. You only regurgitate what you get from American media, or in this case, Germany. And of course you will bristle at any "Yankee" opinion about cock ups in Canada.

[cybercoma]

I welcome your opinion about Canadian politics. It's just too bad you spend way more of your time whining about Canadians discussing American issues than you do actually contributing to the conversations around here. That's why I was joking with you in the other thread.

Edited October 29, 2011 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

I welcome your opinion about Canadian politics. It's just too bad you spend way more of your time whining about Canadians discussing American issues than you do actually contributing to the conversations around here. That's why I was joking with you in the other thread.

Okay...then I am just joking with you too, as your contributions on American politics are even more bereft of anything valuable. The only half good idea was "mind your own business...err...knitting" in Canada-speak, but you don't like that idea in return when it comes to bloviating about the United States.

The Americans will do whatever they damn well please...good or bad...and there is nothing you can do about it. Sorry.

Edited October 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

I'm well aware that I can't be involved in the American political process. That's quite beside the point.