Occupy Wall Street is Wrong

Jump to Last Post 1-32 of 32 discussions (130 posts)

60
Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago
Hey all,

Here's a video I stumbled upon that uses *gasp* facts and statistics -- and history -- to illustrate that the current Occupy Wall Street movement is incorrect, naive, hypocritical, and just plain ol' misinformed.

Robert Murphy - an economist who is still waiting for Krugman to get off his high horse and debate him so that $60k can be donated to charity - illustrates that 1) decreased tax revenue is NOT responsible for the debt crisis; 2) tax cuts for the wealthy did NOT lead to the debt crisis; 3) that the same people who were demanding bailouts (most liberals) are now demanding that they are evil; 4) and that we need to start rethinking who are enemies are (not the companies).

Here's the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXm4j2OR … afe=active
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've noticed that it is possible to find facts and statistics to back up anything politically. I guess that explains why we can't all agree.
  
  I don't agree with every statement from the Occupy Wall Street people, but you can't over simplify this problem. They have some valid points too.
  
  I agree with a lot of the statements you've posted over the time I've been here, but I think it is naive in one way. You think government is our primarily problem and you don't appear to think any blame should be laid at the feet of corporations. Exactly who do you think the driving force was behind all of this mess the world economy is in?
  reply report
  59
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Governments.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You have been duped by the Koch brothers, et al, who have co-opted all the branches of our government.
  reply report
2. 60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I watched about 3 minutes of his mumbling, stumbling, drivel. He eventually sort of got to a point - it's Obama's fault. Do you have a link to someone who can actually make your case effectively?
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ... that... actually... wasn't ... his ... point at ... all..
  
  ... jeezus, I guess 10 minutes of people's time is too much to ask.
  
  You had to get back to demanding that I live in a shack, right?
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who are our enemies?
  Hmmmm.
  Let's see now.
  Who owns the government?
  Hint: the SCOTUS rubber stamped this arrangement.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The post you replied to was of me correcting Montgomery.
  
  I'm at a complete loss in trying to understand what you wrote and it's meaning.
  reply report
  61
  Smart Rookieposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You probably shouldn't be posting threads on the subject if you can't comprehend the very basic implication of a statement like Mighty Mom's response.
  
  It has something to do with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If you're going to deride a movement as complex and far reaching as OWS, you might want to get more information than one libertarian economist's perspective.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for defending my honor, Smrookie
  
  Seriously. I wear my brain on my sleeve (er, cape).
  What you read is what you get.
  Ain't no hidden meaning or agenda.
  I just calls 'em as I sees 'em!
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've never demanded such a thing. Living in the shack was your choice and I'm happy for you. I may even buy your manifesto if you make it available on kindle.
  reply report
3. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Wall Street banks are taking every opportunity to fxxk the poor and middle class. Here are some examples based on my personal experience:
  
  Chase Manhattan Bank--ten or fifteen years ago I refinanced my mortgage with GMAC. GMAC sold the Mortgage to Chemical Bank in NY. Chemical Bank was acquired by Chase Manhattan Bank. Shortly thereafter I received a bill for a $3200/year homeowner's insurance policy because I had allegedly allowed my homeowner's policy to lapse. I immediately called Chase and informed them that my homeowner's insurance policy with USAA with whom I had been insured for twenty years or so had not lapsed. And, moreover, I was paying only $900/year as I recall, not the more than $3,000 the policy purchased for me by Chase. It took me nearly a year with threats to call David Rockefeller at home at 2am, call the Michigan banking regulator, my Senator, et al, to get the bank to stop billing me of a duplicate exorbitantly priced policy. Finally, they blamed the incident on the records not being transferred to Chase from Chemical Bank. None of the Chase people with whom I spoke were able to explain why the Chase homeowner's policy cost three times what my USAA policy cost.
  
  Currently I have two credit cards one with USAA and a Southwest Airlines card issued through JPMorganChase. The USAA card charges me 6% APR on all balances. the JPMorgan card charges on the following balance types: 14.24% on purchases, 19.24% on cash advances, and 14.24 % on balance transfers.
  
  Several years ago on a CitiBank card my payment of the balance in full was late by a couple of days. CitiBank charged me 30%, as I recall for the two or three day late payment. I called and complained, pointing out that I had had the card for several years and never missed a payment and had an A-one credit rating. No relief, so I cancelled the card.
  
  These banks are the ones (not JPMorganChase) whose toxic sub-prime mortgage antics plunged the world into the worst recession since the thirties. Now they are balls-out lobbying to prevent effective regulation to prevent a future debacle.
  
  If I were in New York I would be in Wall Street with a Goldmine Sucks sign.
  
  BTW, Murphy mischaracterized Reich's excellent presentation. The astounding gap between the rich and the middle class and poor and the current unemployment is causing millions of Americans to lose faith in our democratic capitalistic system.
  
  Six things to ask of Wall Street:
  
  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6
  
  Here is Robert Reich's video:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS … r_embedded
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, Murphy's representation was pretty spot on. The video was just about exactly what Murphy described it as.
  reply report
  61
  GoGreenTipsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was going to respond to this, but when I got to your statement it pretty much covered what i wanted to say...except that I have never bought a house. I too have an account with USAA, cheaper car insurance, loan rates, bank fees everything! So ditto!
  reply report
4. 69
  thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that the tax cuts for the super rich created the debt crisis, but I do think it's wrong that the super rich pay 7% tax while the average joe pays 30% - 50%.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In the fifties and sixties- which was pretty much the golden age for ordinary joes in the West, the rich paid 95% of their income in tax in many western countries. Did it inhibit investment? No, that was tax deducible. Did it curtail their life styles? No, you can only spend so much.
  
  So why were the rich so desperate for tax cuts? Because money is power.
  
  With enough money you can employ armies of lawyers to pursue your agenda. You can buy or start up media. You can back grass roots movements (like the Tea Party) that serve your interests. You can contribute lavishly to Presidential campaigns.
  
  You can influence events in direct proportion to what you are willing to spend.
  
  The question is- are the super-rich really the people you want to be in charge?
  reply report
5. 60
  oldhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think the idea that free markets are always the best solution to any problem and unfettered accumulation of wealth without social responsibility is always a good thing, has become kind of a religion. One can't argue rationally with the religious, because their belief comes from religion or self-interest, not facts and reason.
  reply report
6. 81
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've taken the liberty (ha get it) of quoting the mighty wisdom of Bob Murphy directly from the video accompanied by some meagre, shabby thoughts of my own. Bob's main point is:
  
  "there are plenty of filthy, stinking rich people who have their money because they have political influence, but the solution to that is not, as [Robert] Reich suggests, to give the government even more power . . . The way you combat having rich people have a lot of power because they have got political pull, is to take away the government's power".
  
  Filthy? Steady on Bob, let's not get too carried away with the rhetoric. Now then, taking away the governments power. Is that the only way? Is there no other way to prevent corporate entities exploiting the political system? What about voting the right people into office?
  
  "You can't keep [the government] honest by making sure we vote for the right people."
  
  Damn. What if we simply keep money out of politics. Perhaps create some laws that will protect the integrity of the political system?
  
  "Let's pass some laws keeping the money out of politics. That's the way to keep it honest and above board."
  
  That's it. I think we're on the same wavelength now Bob.
  
  "That's crazy, that will never happen. We all know that politicians are liars, are scumbags, what-have-you."
  
  Oh, thought we were in agreement. I'll need to look out for that sarcasm Bob. Anyhoo are ALL politicians dishonest then? Could no one in Office ever have integrity, not a single person, EVER? Guide us Bob. What shall we do?
  
  ". . . the consistent libertarian position has been no special treatment for big companies. If you make bad decisions and suffer losses, tough luck, you go down, but at the same time if you're honest and you make money and you're profitable well then you get to keep it"
  
  Now we're talking. That sounds reasonable, even sensible. But hang on. What's this stipulation about HONESTY? Bob's making it sound like HONESTY is a fundamental part of the Libertarian ideal. Surely not. Surely Bob wouldn't try to pull the wool over people's eyes like that. He'll surely mention that this is not in fact a Libertarian position at all and has nothing to do with Libertarianism.
  
  [tumble weed]
  
  Hmm. Well Bob will definitely mention that according to libertarianism.com, Libertarianism is the freedom "to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others". So the HONESTY part of what he said has got nothing to do with Libertarianism which doesn't mind what you do to make money or how you do it, so long as you don't damage property or hurt somebody physically.
  
  [crickets]
  
  Well Bob will definitely mention that according to principles of Libertarianism anyone would be allowed to refuse service to someone depending on how much melanin they have in their skin (whether they are black or white).
  
  [leaves rustling in the trees]
  
  Just an oversight I'm sure. I'm certain Bob will mention that removing power from government, simply transfers MORE power to corporations who would then be able exploit people with impunity. And the fact they will do it, because they are driven by the profit motive and can make no distinction between socially responsible and irresponsible actions, only profitable and unprofitable ones.
  
  [dog barking in the distance]
  
  Hmm. Evan you posted this video, could you clear this up? Is there anything within Libertarian ideology that stipulates that individuals and corporate entities must make money HONESTLY? And is it honest (see what I did there) for Bob to imply that honesty is part of the "consistent libertarian position" when it's not? And why is Bob so ready to trust corporations, when those "liars, . . . scumbags, what-have-you" politicians are exactly the same people would be on the board of Directors for the corporations that he is putting so much trust in? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
  reply report
  61
  Smart Rookieposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  An excellent response, Don W.
  reply report
7. 66
  SparklingJewelposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  there are a lot of things some companies do that are not correct. but mostly its because it fits in with the middleman mentality of the banking system in league with governments that have created systems to milk everyone that doesn't know any better, to line their own pockets...I like many of us are still learning how it all works, but shouldn't be working the way it is now:/
  reply report
8. 60
  GNelsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Neat graphs, does that mean we are going to bail our homeowners like we bailed out Wall Street?
  reply report
9. 61
  geebee090posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone can prove anything based on wrong statements/questions.
  1) decreased tax revenue is NOT responsible for the debt crisis
  Decreased revenue is the consequence of a lousy market
  2) tax cuts for the wealthy did NOT lead to the debt crisis
  In 2003 the debt increased by some 3 Trillions: Wars plus less taxes for rather wealthy people including the former administration members. Tax cuts just CONTRIBUTED to the debt.
  3) that the same people who were demanding bailouts (most liberals) are now demanding that they are evil
  The BANKS demanded the bailout as some industries. This saved of lot of "industrial" jobs, while the banks (which any govern the FED) have used the TARP to enhance speculations with derivatives, mainly on currencies. On top of it the republican agenda and behavior impeded disrupted the confidence into the USD and into the country. The lack of confidence impedes foreign investments to come in.
  4) and that we need to start rethinking who are enemies are (not the companies)
  The enemies are those who promote less education and R/D; less security; less health care, outsource jobs and disrupt markets creating large concerns (monopolies) and use financial derivatives to enrich themselves.
  If I were Krugman I would accept to discuss such matter with anyone provided $ 6Trillions were donated to create jobs.
  
  Otherwise it remains useless to discuss with people who show no respect at all for their real present shareholders: the middle class TAXPAYER.
  reply report
10. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But the American Nazi Party disagrees with you - doesn't this put you at odds with Ron Paul.
  http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-o … -movement/
  reply report
77
LuisEGonzalezposted 12 years ago
Like Emile R. I don't agree with all of the issues of Occupy Wall Street Movement, but I respect their right to voice their concerns and frustrations and would even join them. I am also frustrated by the way things are knowing that they could be better. If people are frustrated enough eventually it boils up to actions such as the ones happening in New York and other places.....
reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
People don't have to have a statistical justification to express their concerns through public protest.
reply report
1. 61
  GoGreenTipsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree this is still a free country? Corporations have the money to buy politicians for their concerns, right or wrong, so let these people demonstrate.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is freedom - the corporations are entitled by law to use their money as they think fit - and if this means buying politicians then so be it.
  
  Gotta be careful with that freedom b@llsh!t !
  reply report
88
Stacie Lposted 12 years ago
People don't feel heard by their elected representatives; they have to do something to be seen.
I don't know if this is effective or not, but as many as stated, the citizens are frustrated at the govt and need to make them understand that govt isn't listening
reply report
1. 77
  LuisEGonzalezposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Amen to that......................
  reply report
2. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And yet, the OWS movement is demanding that we give government more power....
  
  Anyone noticing how ludicrous this argument is:
  
  "Our government ignores us and bails out companies that shouldn't be bailed out. Let's give them more power".
  
  Anyone capable of noticing the nonsense there?
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what would you suggest, Evan?
  That the entire country go back to sleep and just roll over and keep snoring while our jobs, homes and futures are sucked out of us???
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you don't already know what my proposed solution is, then you haven't been listening to me for the 2 years that I've been typing.
  
  Why should I bother replying again?
  
  ... would big letters help?
  
  GET GOVERNMENT OUT!!! IF THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ORGANIZATION STEALING YOUR MONEY AND GIVING IT TO THE BANKS, THEN QUIT GIVING THEM THAT POWER!!!
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you assign 100% of the blame to government?
  Total hands off (aka deregulation) is the solution?
  What's that saying, the fox guarding the henhouse
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am loony, aren't I.
  
  I want to decrease the power of the people who caused the mess.
  
  What a crazy idea.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah - go for a revolution !!! your kind of revolution where we, the people, would fight for the guy with the biggest bank balance to enslave us all, you know, go back 2000 years
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The government did not steal any money. Repeating this lie ad nauseum doesn't make it true.
  
  Libertarians remind me of those guys who live in their parents' basements and spend all their money on comic books and Star Wars figurines. Fantasizing about life in a parallel universe distracts them from facing the realities of this one.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail.
  
  Taxes are theft.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please name a single person who has gone to jail for not paying taxes.
  
  If you do so, and the story checks out, I will vote for Ron Paul.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here ya go:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You'll have to try again if you want to raise the Ron Paul vote tally to 2.
  
  None of the charges listed involved failure to pay taxes.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He went to jail for lying on a tax document.
  
  He was lying to make the taxes he "owed" less.
  
  He went to jail for not paying taxes that he "owed" the state.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoida … ax_evasion
  reply report
  72
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Evan,
  
  I read your wikipedia article and no where does it say he went to jail because he did not pay his taxes. Among the charges, it says, he lied on his tax returns, he filed false tax returns, and he assisted others to file false tax returns. "On October 24, 2005, Schiff was convicted in the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, on multiple counts of filing false tax returns for the years 1997 through 2002, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns filed by other taxpayers, conspiring to defraud the United States, and income tax evasion."
  
  He also deserves a blue ribbon for hypocrisy, Evan. Take a look at "Defendant Irwin A. Schiff's Opposition to United States' Motion for Summary Judgment," United States v. Schiff, No. CV-S-01-0895 (D.C. Nev. 1/21/2004). "In pleadings filed in federal court, Schiff himself cited …the opinions of a lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a psychologist, as evidence that his actions are irrational and the result of a "mental disease or defect," so that he is unable to act "willfully" within the meaning of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to tax fraud."
  (http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/irwin-schiff)
  
  So, he claims his actions were irrational and you claim he was jailed just for not paying his taxes. He lied, he encouraged others who relied on his advice to also lie, and he filed tax returns with zeros on every line. What is worse, he ruined the lives of scores of other followers who were foolish enough to believe in his irrational dogma.
  
  Thanks for the "here ya go", Evan. It proves there are consequences for not paying taxes but it fails to prove that collecting taxes is theft.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lying isn't illegal, Lying on a tax form is.
  
  Obviously he was lying to make his taxes lower, and thus he was trying to avoid the payment of taxes that he "owed" the state.
  
  He went to jail, ultimately, for not paying taxes.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's nothing more than word play Evan and you know it.
  
  He went to prison for filing a false tax return. Not for not paying his taxes.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Filing a tax return is a violation of your fifth amendment right to not incriminate yourself. Your tax return can and will be used against you!
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You do have to pay taxes that is the law but filing a tax return is mandatory.
  
  That is not to say that you will not be audited, it is just saying that it is violating your Fifth Amendment right to force a person to file one.
  report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi RB.
  I think your sentence might be missing a word (?)
  Which is mandatory?
  Paying taxes or filing a tax return?
  If you are legally required to file (which I believe is the case) how can it violate your Fifth Amendment rights to force you to file?
  Are you saying that the IRS forcing people to file tax returns is unconstitutional?
  If so, where are the class action suits?
  report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No One is forcing anyone to file returns. Paying taxes is mandatory! Filing a return is voluntary.
  report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How are you supposed to pay the mandatory tax if you don't file a return?
  You can get in heap big trouble with Uncle Sam if you don't file tax returns and it turns out you do owe taxes.
  They have ways of making you file...
  report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you fill out your return and make the appropriate payments. You do not have to forward a signed document with the payment. Even the income tax laws themselves are a little sketchy if you study how the Law was passed. The people are just too timid to stand up to their tyrannical servants.
  
  Filing a tax return means you are voluntarily giving up your Fifth Amendment rights.
  
  You can consent to give up any Rights you wish. They cannot be taken from you without your consent.
  
  The key word is consent!
  
  No entity in the country has authority over you unless you consent to it. I do not mean breaking Laws is OK you can and should be held accountable for crimes. I mean in general nobody can order you around. You can just look them in the eye and say {{{{No, I do not Consent}}}} Done! Probably the most powerful statement in the Country.
  report
  72
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there, Reality.
  May I make a suggestion? You make a very bold and very misleading statement here. Perhaps you should define "entity" or mention the large number of exceptions and circumstances in which you are subject to the authority of others without your prior consent. For example, airline and cruise vessel personnel have the authority to order you around. Even funeral directors have the authority to control traffic, order you to stop your car or to clear a lane. DMV regulations may vary from state to state but in Pennsylvania it reads:
  " § 3102. Obedience to authorized persons directing traffic.
  No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any uniformed police officer, sheriff or constable or, in an emergency, a railroad or street railway police officer; or any appropriately attired person, including an agent or employee of the funeral director during a funeral, authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic or an employee who has been trained in traffic control by a licensed and insured private security company and who is acting in the scope of employment." (1)
  Golly, Reality, now you're beginning to sound like Arthur Porth. Back in the early 1960s he filed a tax return that was blank except for a statement declaring that he was pleading the Fifth Amendment (i.e., claiming that filling out a tax return violated his right of protection from self-incrimination). After a short career distributing tax protest literature and a book titled A Manual for Those Who Think That They Must Pay an Income Tax, Mr. Porth was convicted on various tax evasion charges and sent to prison. (2)
  When it comes to tax protest strategies, you have to be very careful you know the law and not just following the advice of some blowhard is who looking to sound macho. Irwin Schiff thought he could maneuver around the IRS code and he advised a number of clients how they could too. Today, he and most of his clients are serving hard time.
  Just a suggestion. I hope you don't mind.
  
  (1) http://www.licenserestoration.com/refus … on-75-3102
  (2) http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/tpm.asp
  report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do not mind. I am always willing to listen/read. I am not saying that it is OK to not pay your taxes. I am saying that a return is not mandatory. You may be audited but if all your calculations are correct and you have paid all appropriate taxes, then the IRS should never bother.
  
  As far as the consent issue I clearly stated that you cannot break laws and expect to go on your merry way. You cited a Law. I do not break Laws.
  
  Once a person enters upon private property they must adhere to the rules or not be on the property. I do not fly because I will not submit to a TSA molestation. Same with cruise ships or any other place where my choice is not (if you do not do what they say then you must leave)choice.
  
  I can scream at the top of my lungs in the middle of the mall. I can be told to be quiet and submit or I can yell my way out the door.
  
  Personal experience: upon entering a Court house I passed through a metal detector which buzzed. After being wanded it was determined by the Officer that it was my belt buckle and told me I was all set.
  Another lazy officer leaning on the counter flirting with the clerks demanded that I would require a pat down. I refused consent! The Officer said I would be arrested if I did not shutup and submit. I refused consent and told him to arrest me and come up with me to the Courtroom to explain his violations of my Rights. I went on my merry way.
  
  The fear of arrest causes many people to simply submit and give consent. Not me. I will appear before the Judge, NP start roundin up my peers cuz there is gonna be a trial!.
  
  They can kill you, they can change your location, but they can never take away your Honor!
  
  ps: statutes and codes are not Laws and are only enforced upon your government created corporate strawman, but that is another discussion.
  report
  59
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They tell me that Somalia is quite pleasant at this time of the year and with no government and no taxes would suit you down to the ground!
  
  You don't actually want to decrease the power of the people who caused the mess, you want to free their way to even more mess.
  Get the corporations and bankers out of government and see the difference.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Plus, living in a shack is not stigmatized the way it is here.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Comparing Somalia - a country that just came out of hundreds of years of brutal dictatorships - to modern first world countries that have had relatively free markets for centuries is like comparing apples to oranges.
  
  The only way to get Companies out of government is to reduce the size of government.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why is it like comparing apples with oranges ? Your centuries of 'free trade' started with the European wars, fought to colonise the world for themselves, then just fighting each other over trade/economics, then brutally fighting a reargaurd action as the colonies kicked us out. All about trade at bottom, control of resources and trading routes etc.
  
  Your so-called 'free trade' in oil is responsible for the UK dumping Israel on Plaestine and the Us maintaining it there (for good or bad is not the issue). Oil trade also what Iraq is about etc etc etc etc etc.
  
  And civilization (even when contorted in developed) takes long periods of time - Such a short time that only my great-great-grandfather was born before the industrial revolution. and in that time the west has had to throw religion out of government.
  
  We are such a tiny step from Somalia that they could catch up in ten years if they got peace, development and stability.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evan, usually you say smart things.
  
  But every time you repeat this "taxes=theft" mantra, you buy more stock in Bat$#!t Crazy 'R' Us.
  
  The OWS folks aren't--aren't--calling for more government power, full stop. In fact, I'm not entirely sure exactly what it is they want to do about the problem--and there is a gi-normous problem. But it's not simply "Give the government more power!"
  
  I've heard more calls to get corporate money out of politics, thus ensuring that politicians have to pay more attention to, y'know, the voters instead of the corporations who have been dumping gobs of money into their campaign funds.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's exactly what he wants.
  
  This was the first thing I saw this morning:
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … all-street
  
  Is this the country you want to live in? IS IT?
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll be damned...the Department of Homeland Security.....
  
  A blogger warned us about this long ago.
  She says she was targeted by them for that case I've spoken about...my friend being framed for murder. (Reasonable Doubt, by Peter Manso)...anyway, this blogger, who was involved, said she was a target of Homeland Security. Everybody called her kookoo.
  But she said read the report by Dana Priest...Top Secret America. The Police State is already here.....for a while.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, elect Ron Paul, then the real power will still have complete control, just a new leader.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  30 year + consistent record of following the Constitution, and you call him "just a new leader".
  reply report
  72
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evenin’ Evan,
  
  I have often wondered about whom you would like to be the GOP standard bearer in 2012. (Just kidding) I’m sure everyone on hubpages knows your preference by now. I must have read scores of your posts advocating Ron Paul and I believe you think he is the greatest thing to come along in America since peanut butter and jelly in the same jar.
  
  But, I see some problems ahead for your candidate. First, his stated position on some foreign policy matters is not in step with the GOP as a whole. Nor will his opposition to the fed encourage financial support from the power brokers controlling the big bucks. And finally, if elected in 2012, he will be 77 years old in the first year of his administration and 85 years old after two terms. Faced with these realities, his vice-presidential running mate(s) become far more significant than a 30 year record of following the Constitution and his delivering 4000+ babies,
  
  Just another thought. An echo from my inkwell.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not criticizing him as a man or a politician. I actually quite admire him in with regards to his stance on war. (in fact, I had to do a double take when I discovered he was a Republican) The problem is, until those who hold the real power are held to account, both your nation and mine will forever be, to some extent, puppets. However hard they fight for what they believe.
  reply report
3. 61
  logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then my radical idea would be to vote them out of office.
  reply report
0
RookerySpoonerposted 12 years ago
I wish such action would lead to some positive changes, and really do believe in the protests. However, I doubt much will come of them. Government and big business are so powerful, that it doesn't matter how many of the little people stand up to be counted. I think the days of Western revolutions are over, even though they have only recently begun in the Middle East.
reply report
1. 61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I understand why you say that, but pressure is pressure, the banksters and the corps have never really come under as much scrutiny, or indeed experienced quite as much venom from the public, as they have in recent times. We've always vented are anger mostly at govts. This is different somehow, I think, the focus is very much on the power, in the true sense. We may only achieve little gains, but they are gains.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wouldn't it be grand to see which of these institutions really is "too big to fail?"
  Walk the walk and invest your money locally.
  Credit unions rule!
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed it would. My savings are very small, but because of a post on this very thread I'm moving them. For such a long time I've been thinking, how can we hurt them, how can we make them pay for our actions, the way they have made us pay for theirs. I believe this is it.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  None of them are too big to fail. That's just poison Kool-Aid that our government crammed down our throats.
  
  Wake up - the politicians bailed out their friends using stolen money.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When will you get over just blaming govt, don't you see, they are part of the problem but not the whole.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They're the biggest part - say 75%?
  reply report
2. 77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can see I might not be welcome at OWS...no matter how much I support it:
  
  "For the Heart and Soul of the Movement"
  
  By Richard Edmondson
  
  "Are the ‘Occupy America’ protesters perhaps beginning to look just a little bit like the 3 monkeys? Monday I reported on attempts to silence blogger John Friend at an Occupy San Diego protest a few days ago. Friend got up and began to speak about the corrupt banking system, and everything was going along just peachy—peachy, that is, until midway through his talk when he shifted the topic to Israel and 9/11.
  
  “All of the wars that we’re fighting are a result of 9/11,” he said. “9/11 has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be an inside job. It was carried out by criminals in the United States government and the state of Israel.”
  
  Suddenly Friend found himself being booed and heckled. Some in the crowd got up to physically harass him and one even succeeded in using a stick to knock his sign over. In the video of the episode ( view here ) we also observe what appears to be one of the protest organizers holding up his hands in an overhead X, signifying disapproval of what the speaker is saying. Oddly enough, the man doing this is facing not Friend, but the audience, as if the gesture was intended as a signal for someone, or possibly group of someones, among the crowd.
  
  But it isn’t only in San Diego where this sort of thing is happening. Something very similar occurred several days ago on a Press TV program focusing on the American protests. Featured as guests were representatives of two of the country’s most prominent antiwar activist groups—Sarah Flounders of the International Action Center, and Debra Sweet of World Can’t Wait—along with former Senate Candidate Mark Dankoff. And somewhat like Friend did in San Diego, Dankof triggered an almost visceral reaction upon interjecting 9/11 and America’s “Zionist-driven foreign policy” into the conversation.
  
  “I think it’s abundantly clear the news media in this country reflects corporate interests. It’s that simple. All you have to look at is the fact that ranging from Fox to CNN these protests are largely being spun the same way,” he said. “And it seems to me that when you look at how the media aided and abetted some of the false stories that were circulated about 9/11, and some of the false pretexts that were offered by the Bush administration for why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s very clear that the news media is quite complicit in this whole situation that’s going on with international bankers and with the Zionist lobby, the very people who control American and domestic and foreign policy.”
  
  To this both Sweet and Flounders responded by accusing Dankof of anti-Semitism.
  
  “I don’t think the problem is international bankers, which is just a code word for being anti-Semitic, or (the) Zionist lobby. Certainly the U.S. supports Israel, but Mark and I are not in the same movement here. I just want to be very clear about that,” declared Sweet."
  
  http://leftwing-christian.net/2011/10/1 … ement.aspx
  
  *******
  
  Uh oh....no room for me either. That big elephant is still in the room!
  reply report
64
I am DB Cooperposted 12 years ago
OWS seems to be unfocused, so it can be unclear what their origins and goals really are. At the start, it seemed that they were angry for many of the same reasons the original Tea Partiers were angry. They saw that the "too big to fail" banks got huge financial bailouts from the government, the economy was badly damaged by the reckless actions of these banks, and even though there was some obvious wrongdoing nobody seemed to be held accountable.

The Tea Party was derailed as soon as the big $$$ swooped in and changed the focus to being opposed to Obamacare, less government intervention, and class warfare. OWS is drifting in the other direction, in support of social programs, more regulations for the financial industry, and higher taxes on the upper class.
reply report
85
tsmogposted 12 years ago
Simply I don't know anymore about anything that has to do with politics. I am lost, even though I read to be informed. Yet, my emotional side says If I had a buck I would be at wallstreet with them for one reason - to have a voice collectively saying 'change' is needed. However I do plead ignorance as to what that change should be. So, the need for a sense of belonging would outweigh the rhetoric of the profound or the susposed leader(s).

As far as economics goes, I have always found interest of it in 'game theory.' But, that is what I see it as a 'game.' And, honestly I do not know how to play. So, if I fail and am kicked aside as is suggested to big business for judgements of error, which does not necessarly mean wrong, then mind you my attitude will not be one of pleasantry. That to me is what Wallstreet is about, right or wrong or what is left isn't the point it comes down to the barebones of things - food, shelter, clothing, etc.

I do know from my working life that 'big' buisness is not a 'macro' organization. It is very much 'micro.' Although there are corporate entities they are illusionary, in my view. Whether or not corporate entity fails or not, the macro component is never hurt, since it is a component of a larger macro mechanism - illusion. Or, like my dotted corporate past it is a lateral change with no 'real' economic change. Who prosopers is the 'micro' component from the stock holders, board of directors, etc. all the way down to the night crew cleaning the offices.

I am blabbing about nothing. To me, my view, it is like a metaphor - do I follow Jack Canfield's "The Success Principals" or do I follow Al Siebert's "The Survivor Personality" for our present economic times - emphasis on present or 'now.' There is the thought that surviving is success and success is surviving. Right now that is my concern, not what happen 10 - 20 years ago. But, again I plead ignorance. Any 'real' leaders out there?
reply report
83
classicalgeekposted 12 years ago
For those who are not in New York, and want to participate, there are "occupy" protests in more than 900 cities in the United States, as well as solidarity protests in other cities. Go to www.occupytogether.org to find the one nearest you.

There is one in my own town. The protesters have a very organized structure set up, with a volunteer legal team, volunteer medical team (M.D.s and R.N.s), a free day care center with licensed child care providers and teachers, and local businesses are donating so much food that the occupiers are giving away food to the homeless and needy (and even just the curious) who stop by. There's also a library, a play center for the children, and free music lessons and more for the occupiers. While they have had a few issues with protocols and not being allowed to have portable toilets without a permit, this occupy demonstration has remained peaceful, with cooperation between the occupiers and the police, and not one arrest or citation. Occupiers are working within the city and legal system to make sure that all local laws are obeyed, and even though there have been a few scares, including threats of searches by Homeland Security, there has been no confrontation of any sort.
reply report
1. 85
  tsmogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the info classicalgeek
  reply report
62
Daniel Carterposted 12 years ago
It would have made far more sense to bail out homeowners in foreclosures than to bail out big business, who then took the bail out money, saved their butts, and made billions more in profits during the monstrous foreclosure reign, and THEN paid out billions more in bonuses to the crooks who created, promoted and implemented what should have been illegal mortgages to begin with. This would have at least put financial power back into so many American consumer's hands, instead of instilling more greed and corruption by big business.

Yes, reduce government. But until you get big business out of the government's coffers, there is a pretty basic problem with that.

Most of congress are part of the elite 1%. They get there by the rest of the elite 1% contributing to their election campaigns. So who do you think they represent? The lower 99% or the elite 1% that got them there?

There's no rocket science in this one. Until we elect congressional reps to rep the vast majority of decimated middle income America, we are stuck where we're at.

And for me, that's quite enough to ride large in the Occupy Wallstreet movement.

No other explanation needed.
reply report
1. 59
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In reading this, I had one thought: 'if the homeowners would have been bailed out, they would have probably yelled 'yeehaw' and promptly got themselves back into debt!' No, the banks should not have been approving these mortgages, but shouldn't the homeowner have known they couldn't afford it?
  
  People today don't know how to live within their means, we always want more and will max those credit cards and remortgage that house to get it. Its a human problem that spans the masses..not just the corporate world. We all need to take responsibility for the chaos that is our economy right now.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The banks were not approving them, they were PUSHING them. And people who trusted them got HOSED.
  And just ps: I do not live beyond my means, nor did I when all this was going down. I went into poverty in 2003....I live in perpetual debt.
  --When big american hero was there (W).-- Now everybody sees the light....blame Obama.
  
  It is not the people's fault that scams were pulled. When the Mafia does it, we have names for it...Loan-Sharking. Taking Bets. Stealing.
  
  When business does it, it's Blame the People.
  
  I mean--I see your point. Materialism and greed does infect us, but...we were not breaking the law. Or having laws made for us, to make it legal!--where gvt comes in.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps some should have, but I doubt that represents most who got caught in that snare.
  
  There are many reasons to prefer a home over renting. Some are quite compelling and some are a bit illusory, but I would hope that we can agree that the desire is strong among many people.
  
  That desire can lead people to make decisions that have a bit of wishful thinking attached: "We'll struggle along for a few years, but I should be earning more money, so that will get easier."
  
  Prices kept going up and up, but the desires were strong. Why and how prices got so far out of alignment with reality is another story, but as the desire was still there. A large part of it was speculators hoping to cash in on future increases, but they also had comforting thoughts: "These payments are killing me, but I'll be able to flip one or two of these soon and that will let me continue to build my real estate empire".
  
  I have several friends who played that latter game, got out at the right time and are now sitting at least comfortably, if not wealthy. I know others whose greed caused them to hold on too long and they lost everything or close to it.
  
  On the speculation side, this was no different than buying 1,000 shares of XYZ. People bought stocks that were hard to afford, too - and still do.
  
  Some will say that speculators caused most of the false price inflation. I don't know and I'm not sure anyone does, because I know that some were not buying multiple homes; they just kept trading up to bigger homes in better neighborhoods. It's hard to say whether it was all the hope of monetary gain that drive that, but sometimes it was.
  
  When the crap hit the fan, yes, sometimes people made things worse. When jobs were lost, when expected raises didn't materialize, when unexpected pregnancies or unexpected medical expenses hit, people refinanced. Again, they rationalized that things would get better BECAUSE THINGS ALWAYS HAD.
  
  Yeah, they should have sold and moved. That's not always so easy - jobs, kids and family and friends can keep you tied to where you are. All those pressures contribute to "hope for the best".
  
  For all these reasons, I'm not ready to condemn every "upside down" homeowner or even the burned speculators as irresponsible fools. It would be very easy for me to smugly say "I knew better" and perhaps I did, but then again perhaps I didn't. As I said, some of my friends did very well in real estate speculation - I obviously didn't know better than they did! I thought the housing market would crash much earlier than it did, and that incorrect assessment kept me out of investments I might now wish I had made.
  
  So, let's not be so quick to judge. People may have been foolish, but they were not always fools.
  reply report
  59
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not implying that we are all fools. What I mean is that responsibility lies everywhere. I am angry too at the huge corporations that screwed us, but I also know that I am not my parents generation who waited to buy or who used reason when it came to consumerism. We buy and think later. And now I am not just talking about homeowners, I'm talking about every new gadget that comes off the line. We need to always have bigger and better. It is a vicious cycle. and I am not judging. Because I too am part of the problem. I think I just don't want to act as if 'poor me...I just got screwed by wall street!' I am taking part of that blame and trying to correct it.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, that's fine. But remember this:
  
  "We'll keep trading up and then in our late fifties when the kids are gone, we'll sell and move to a little bungalow and have all that money to live on".
  
  That wasn't seen as "wishful thinking" in the 80's and 90's. It was seen as SMART and many a friend chastised us for foolishly staying in our "starter" home.
  
  Who even SAYS "starter home" any more?
  reply report
  59
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess my point really is that we all feel 'entitled' to some extent. Or that we owe it to our children to give them as much as we can because we never had that growing up. I mean, why do we need an iPhone 2 or 3 or 4 or 4 and a half (or whatever it is). why do kids have to have the new model ipod? or mp3? or cell phone, or computer? or gaming console? I could understand if we upgraded every 5 years or so, but every year??? this is insane. and while i see the wisdom in replacing old appliances for saving energy's sake, is it wisdom if the 15-month interest free loan window that you thought you would pay your appliances off in turns into 20-30 months and exorbitant interest prices? for some reason or another, we lack discipline and that is getting us in trouble. and yes, I get what you're saying about the trading up thing, that was just smart and at that time the consumerism was not as excessive as now and I believe that that generation actually READ the fine print before signing their names. But that is neither here nor there, people today are chasing after the ever-elusive American dream, believing that having a huge, extravagant home with the best furnishings is the only way to have it, believing what you said earlier "it will get better, I will be able to breathe financially in a couple of years."
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When the people realize that not only are they responsible for themselves but they are also responsible for the actions of their Government, Then maybe we can see some change.
  
  The people became lackadaisical and hungered for more and more all the while ignoring the goings on of corporate/government America. They worried about their sports teams and soap operas, oooh and do not forget those dramatic trials!
  
  All the time their Liberty and Freedom, both personally and economically was being slowly taken away from them. they have been lied to for a century and are just now arising and wiping the sleep from their eyes.
  
  Once the People are fully awake I think we are going to see a lot more anger. It is going to end with either Martial Law and Chinese type society or if we are lucky the People will unelect their narcissistic representatives and replace them with real People. People that care more for the greater good then for themselves. The problem is that most people by nature are a bit narcissistic. Compassion and love for our fellow human beings is the only way we will get through this crisis with any resemblance of the United states of America left.
  
  So like a big windbag I agree it is the People's fault and it is time that society looked itself in the mirror and accepted it. Almost like a twelve step process. We must overcome the denial first.
  reply report
  59
  megs78posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My thoughts as well Reality Bytes! Its easy to pass the buck, but as the old adage goes: 'when you point your finger at someone, remember that you have four pointing back at you' or something like that.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ?
  reply report
61
Hollie Thomasposted 12 years ago
This is interesting.

http://www.billybragg.co.uk/blog/?p=193
reply report
58
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"“I don’t think the problem is international bankers, which is just a code word for being anti-Semitic," The truth is anti-semitic - how ironic.
Is there any thought that has not been called anti-semitic?
reply report
1. 77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The muslims did it"
  reply report
65
LucidDreamsposted 12 years ago
If that is the case, I guess we should keep doing what we are doing because that is obviously working!!!! Nobody is saying that taxing the rich a little more will solve all of the problems which the US faces. Of course it certainly will not hurt as they pay less percentage to income versus the average tax payer.

Did you know the average bonus for those on Wall St is around 127,000? That is more then the average joe makes each year. Are you saying that they cannot afford to contribute a fair share? Maybe these people really do need the tax break they are given...Just pay what is due...nothing more and certainly nothing less! No tax break for people making this kind of money when so many are out of work and losing everything.

The movement may have started as a Wall street thing but has evolved into people just wanting a fair shake.

If you are not tired of bought politicians that keep our country poor and struggling while a few companies and select few get rich then stay on the same track while the US turns into a 3rd world country and we all cry why!!!!!!
reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Problem is--you gotta cut to the root of the poisoned tree.

Or, like Hollie said "Who are 'they'"? That is the million dollar question.

And THAT is not allowed. Even at OWS.

It's been co-opted already.
reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Interesting!!

http://maxkeiser.com/
reply report
85
tsmogposted 12 years ago
in jest, I say "Did we learn anything from Soylent Green?
reply report
1. 61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is looking like "Soylent Green" maybe an ever increasing reality. Frightening.
  reply report
66
SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago
basically, I think there is common ground that is correct between a lot of different people, middle, left or right...we need to stop the blame games and put our hearts together to decide on the correct things together and totally quit the dividing tactics of taking sides, period. why is that so hard to do?
reply report
1. 77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here's why:
  
  "new Con meme pushed by Rove, Limbaugh, Rubin: #OWS is racist and anti-semitic."
  reply report
60
janesixposted 12 years ago
I don't think OWS is stupid or wrong, just not effective for anything
reply report
1. 61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It could well be effective in that it challenges an elitist group that have never truly been challenged before. Culture shock?
  reply report
75
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago
I read this somewhere

Statement On Tax Return Requiring Your Signature.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.

Your signature

If you have examined your return, and to the best of your knowledge and belief all the statements on the form are true, correct, and complete, and there are errors you are unaware of, you could be charged with perjury.
reply report
65
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Here's a typical example of what the banksters are doing to the middle class and poor in this country. Does anybody besides Evan and Ron Paul think we don;t need the SEC? If anything we need a stronger SEC!

WASHINGTON — Citigroup has agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil fraud complaint that it misled investors in a $1 billion derivatives deal tied to the United States housing market, then bet against the investors as the housing market began to show signs of distress, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Wednesday.
Enlarge This Image

Stephen Yang/Bloomberg News
Robert Khuzami, director of the division of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission. The S.E.C. said Citi would return $285 million to investors.

Credit Suisse Group AG
Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs Group Inc
Go to your Portfolio »
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (408) »
The S.E.C. also brought a civil action against a Citigroup employee who was responsible for structuring the transaction, and brought and settled another against the asset management unit of Credit Suisse and a Credit Suisse employee who also had responsibility for the derivative security.
reply report
1. 72
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, those who argue for minimal oversight and regulation of big business want the country to return to the time a hundred years ago when cartels and backroom deals destroyed competition in America.
  reply report
  61
  HattieMattieMaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well we just need a good ole revolution to change this country around!
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep.
  reply report
2. 74
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We need an SEC whose personnel are not allowed to go and work for the firms they're meant to have been regulating. If the wannabe foxes are guarding the henhouse, the hens get eaten.
  reply report
65
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Wrong People Arrested on Wall Street
Goldman Boss: ‘Thought They Were Finally Coming for Us’

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - Millions of Americans cheered the news on Friday that arrests had finally been made on Wall Street, but were soon disappointed to learn that the wrong people had been taken into custody.

“I was like, finally they’re going to get those bastards,” said Tracy Klugian, 27, of Queens, New York, whose hopes were raised by an “Arrests on Wall Street” graphic he saw on CNN. “I guess it was too good to be true.”

NYPD spokesman Frank Hannefy explained the controversial decision to arrest Occupy Wall Street protesters while leaving the people who had brought the nation’s economy to the brink of Armageddon unmolested.

“As far as soulless individuals pillaging the country for their personal gain, that’s none of our business,” he said. “But we’ll be damned if we’re going to let people march on newly seeded grass.”

At banking giant Goldman Sachs, chairman Lloyd Blankfein admitted that when he heard police sirens outside his building, “I was sure they were finally coming for us.”

The Goldman chief said he started running up and down the halls “screaming at people to feed the document shredder like Chris Christie at a pie-eating contest.”

Mr. Blankfein said that he felt “palpable relief” when he realized that the police had come to arrest the protesters and were leaving the bankers at large.

“That was a close one,” he said, chuckling. “We’re all going to have a good laugh about this over the weekend in the Caymans.”

Elsewhere, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced what he called his "1-1-1" plan: "Every American gets 1 percent tax, 1 mandatory vaccination, and 1 execution."
reply report
0
Cromperposted 12 years ago
Evan,
Occupy Wall Street is about things like printing more money which just goes straight to the banks. Yes, it's also about government cuts, but all governments affected by the current economic climate seem to bailing out THEMSELVES and NOT taxpayers like you and me.
Why can't they bail ME AND YOU out? Why can't they give US the money? Even if they give us the freshly printed money, THE BANKS WILL GET IT ANYWAY!!! But the banks will just have to wait a few weeks until they get it.
If the government gave us all a windfall, we could either spend it (boost the economy), save it (boost the banks), or get drunk and party (boost tax revenues and uplift the spirit of the nation).
But they won't allow us to see ANY money, because we live in a straight-jacket society. Money is democracy these days. Without money, what can you do?
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Printing more money just to give to banks, right?
  
  That's a bad thing, right?
  
  The second I tell you "Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking out against such things", you'll tell me that Ron Paul is a loony whack job who can't win.
  reply report
  0
  Cromperposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I'm not familiar with Ron Paul. I'm coming from a European perspective.
  reply report
60
Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago
B of A wants to or is transferring it's worthless derivatives from it's Merrill Lynch division to a B of A depositor division so when the worthless play money (derivatives) blows up they will be FDIC insured. With The Un Federal Reserve supporting this act and the FDIC crying foul, how can you not support the OWS movement with crap like this happening. Not one banker has been jailed yet for these crimes.We should be taking much more drastic action than just "Protesting".
reply report
1. 77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Bank of America made nearly $6 billion in profits in the 3rd quarter. This is before they start charging debit card fees! #moveyourmoney #p2"
  
  When does it become comedy? Tragedy/Comedy: laugh or you cry.
  reply report
  60
  Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/20 … -progress/
  http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout- … on-of.html
  http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no- … rt-ii.html
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  HA! I think you got the answer:
  
  "This is a recipe for Armageddon. Bernanke is absolutely insane."
  
  They are all psychopaths! Clinically insane...for real.
  
  I think their programming is breaking down.......soon they will be reduced to little porky-pigs: abba abba abba abbabbabababababa that's all folks.
  
  Exit stage Right!!!!
  reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Stasi...just what my grandpa was escaping in Lithuania.
Hitler's SS.

Bush's Homeland Security> Heil!

...and before anyone says "it's not Bush anymore".....oh yes it is! daddy and crew. IMO
reply report
74
Jeff Berndtposted 12 years ago
"Personal experience: upon entering a Court house I passed through a metal detector which buzzed. After being wanded it was determined by the Officer that it was my belt buckle and told me I was all set.
Another lazy officer leaning on the counter flirting with the clerks demanded that I would require a pat down. I refused consent! The Officer said I would be arrested if I did not shutup and submit. I refused consent and told him to arrest me and come up with me to the Courtroom to explain his violations of my Rights. I went on my merry way. "

Good for you! This, friends, is the difference between a citizen and a subject.
reply report
1. 75
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Jeff, I am a sovereign individual willing to die for my Rights. IDC nothing about any submissive BS. I stand my ground and I stand alone!
  reply report
85
rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

I found this on my FB feed - expressed very clearly, he says it well.
reply report
1. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, he does. Something is badly out of kilter--we are laying off our teachers and police and firefighters, closing public libraries, not repairing our schools,, roads and bridges. Real wages for middle Americans stopped increasing and have now declined but CEO earnings average in the millions, and the Wall Street banks are up to the same or similar tricks that led to the worldwide recession. And recent college grads are living with their parents and working at MacDonalds if they have a job at all.
  reply report
  61
  GoGreenTipsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't forget about the trillions we're spending to fight wars and defend countries that should be paying for their own defense. Think of how many schools that could build?
  reply report
2. 94
  melbelposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is a really good letter.
  
  I am all for Occupy Wall Street. In fact, I am going to the occupy protests in Chicago. I think, and have thought for a long time, that what the banks are doing is terrible.
  
  Source: Google+
  reply report
  61
  GoGreenTipsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! Those figures are staggering....And to think many of those getting bug salaries were running bankrupt companies..Nothing wrong their. I should take a page from their book and screw up at work maybe that will get me a decent pay raise?
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
"The wealth and power of the few should never be allowed to outweigh the wealth and power of the many."

This is the true problem we are facing. The 1%'ers have more wealth and power than the other 99% of humanity combined. That is simply unacceptable.
reply report
1. 60
  GNelsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are right and it is distroying the country that allowed them to accumulate the wealth.
  reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Scientists discover the truth!

"The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group."

Read the list:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=36238
reply report
1. 60
  GNelsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So now we know who we bailed out. Too big to fail is too big to exist. Time for some trust busting.
  reply report
60
Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago
Are you smarter than a 5 th grader? Please wake up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScS9Re_osac
reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
"OMG! A few cops joined in the march tonite! A 1st! 2 of them were even singing along w/ the crowd! In Egypt, when cops joined in...game over"

"It's the OccupationThatNeverSleeps! Most people who were here R grandparents. 57% of US backs #OWS http://twitpic.com/73wubk" »

"Crowd now dispersing @ Columbus Circle. Just one of hundreds of actions taking place all over America tonight & tomorrow. Unstoppable. #OWS"

"Holy S***! Now ArloGuthrie is here! 92-yr old PeteSeeger just marched 36 blocks w/ 2 canes 2 b here. Crowd growing-NYPD is like, "WTF?"
reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
It's the energy of the 60's, but with more savvy!

same wish: Peace and Love!!!

That is the kind of world we demand. Who wants different?

Pffffffft.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Occupy Wall Street is Wrong

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Occupy Wall Street is Wrong

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies