Like I said, I don't mean to be attacking your statement directly as much as a general sentiment. I keep hearing various expressions of, "get a job at Wendy's," and I don't agree with it. Sure, if I'm in a difficult moment of my own life and I need to support myself or my family I'm willing to shovel shit if that's what it takes to do so. But that's not the situation we're in here - the shitshow that is the current state of the economy is due to the public's willingness (or just plain apathy) to allow special interest manipulations of regulations designed to prevent this very thing from happening. In the meantime, those who are doing the manipulation have grown and continue to grow wealthier by the minute as the bulk of the population struggles harder. You said yourself, you've been working your ass off - is that the way we're supposed to live? Killing ourselves to make a decent life? I have no issue with working hard to get ahead, but not to then go home to insurance payments I can't afford that in the end won't pay for the care being promised, or to find that the people I trusted my retirement fund to have mismanaged it so mightily that it's suddenly disappeared while they're still getting rich on my business, or to discover that the people I trust to regulate what schools are allowed to feed my children have declared that pizza is a fucking vegetable while I'm busy trying to earn enough to pay them to do so. I shouldn't have to be considering getting a job at Wendy's, not with the amount of wealth that exists in this country even still, after the collapse. I've spent the last three years teaching at the University level, and in the vast majority of places, junior faculty are all employed as adjuncts, which means they have no rights, no protections, no benefits, and no security. Why is that so? Because of the cost of those benefits, because of the corporate profit model that's been adopted by the University system, designed to put profit before education, designed to consider bodies graduating as the product, rather than well educated human beings. Because of the pressure from shareholders and litigators. Because the system has failed. It can't be sustained, and there is no reason that it should be. It's time for change, I reject the notion that while a few people have gotten unspeakably rich mismanaging the money the public entrusted them with, I might be expected to go from teaching at Yale to flipping burgers at Mc-fucking-Donalds. Fuck that. That's not being down to earth and hard working, that's being a fucking sucker. EDIT: Because Scotchcrotch is thrilled to discover that I'm in the public sector, I will add for his benefit - I also own a business designing and building furniture bought and sold by collectors and have been a working artist for 25 years.
It's about all that and more! Its an all encompassing movement, so broad in fact, people can't agree on focal points. It's about protesting income inequality, deregulation, bailouts, everything bad about our country, yet few solutions to the problem. It's about a system so corrupt, that speaking with govt reps is futile. An easy way to avoid discussing details. A hierarchy is considered evil, so OWS refuses to have leadership. Yes Zuccotti park is split into two groups, the dirty hippies and the relatively wealthy college students. Thats class warfare! This board is arguing over what OWS is all about, a board with above average intelligence. Is that our fault for misinterpreting their message? Maybe their message doesn't have a clear consesus or even a message at all beyond bad banks. Let's say OWS picks up steam and becomes a major movement praised by the people, now what? Cant organize, that's against their beliefs. Cant work with the current govt, they're against that too. Seems the only thing they can agree on is that they're angry and aren't going to take it anymore. But as far as offering solutions, overthrowing the govt is unrealisticly stupid and would screw over the country of people who are working everyday trying to get ahead.
Seems to me they have no problem organizing, and that there is also at least some kind of loose leadership within the movement (call it a central group or whatever)... And yes they are completely against the current govt., but I'm not sure that would preclude them from working with it at some level if they were allowed. In fact I have no idea. I do know that a few councilmen have been arrested in association with the movement..., so...weird... So it's about all the bad things in the US that you agree are bad, yet you are mad at them for not giving the answers to these problems? Why? Let's imagine what would be going on if they weren't there. Do you think there'd be even half the dialogue there is in the world (this is NOT a point about the media or govt., but people), about how damaging and unsustainable the American system is? And now it's as if people are saying, "Ok, I see you there, now tell us what to do." Why is that their job, why do you even want that from them? Here it appears that most people can't actually be mad at the protesters for what they actually are, because most people actually agree that shitz' bad mmmk, so they decide to be mad at them for what they aren't, or they laugh at the few idiots with signs that read "Forgive all loans!!! Wagawaga!!!." But why does anyone need to be mad at them in the first place? I think it has something to do with our normal response to these bailout corruption whatever kind of things; which is to simply thrust in to place our numbing distanciation and say, "Oh, fuck the govt., it's all corrupt...whatever" and go about our lives.
Here's something concrete: <a class="postlink" href="http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/18/372361/rep-deutch-introduces-occupied-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-corporate-money-in-politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/1 ... -politics/</a>
You can't debate a POV pointing out corruption is bad, well no shit. Believe it or not, bankers didn't pull off the housing crisis alone. Eventually, OWS needs to confront their own shortcomings and realize even though we could take our three mortgages, it's not the best idea. But that's not the card they want to play. The system is evil and let us down. Boofuckinghoo.
While I agree that corruption is bad and should be beyond debate, apparently it's not obvious to a lot of those in power, so maybe a little reminder isn't a bad idea. You know, since one of the guys currently running for President took over $1,000,000 in fees from FM for 'consulting.' Again, I agree with you. They didn't do it alone, apparently they had a lot of help from the government. Again, I agree with you. But let me ask you this, when those people took out three mortgages, and subsequently defaulted, who should have borne the loss? The banks who made those loans (and insured them in case they went south - which is nothing more than betting against your clients, but I digress) or the taxpayers who didn't take out three mortgages, or any mortgages, or do anything at all? I think that's where OWS is going with all this. When the wealthy (see Bankers, widows of CEO's and buddies of the Secretary of the Treasury) make bad bets, we cover those bad bets. I know that sounds bad on its face, and well, unfair, but maybe that's what these people are a little peeved about. Those people that made bad bets and took out three mortgages? Yeah, we didn't bail them out. They didn't keep their houses. So why did their bookies get to keep theirs? With our money? Just a thought.
More than that are the banks clients. Institutions like pension funds and retirement accounts and general "slow and steady" investors. Imagine you went to your bookie and said "place my bets on low risk low margin stuff" and he comes back and says "I bet it all on the Islanders to have an undefeated season, and I did it because it's your money if I lose, and I get a higher commission this way."
He's pandering and much of his "amendment" would probably go down as unconstitutional* and/or be voted down quicker than the recent balanced budget amendment. But at least come next election he can point to his cleverly acronymed law and say he tried to stand up for the 99%. Right. * There would be a tough case against a lot of the lobbying restrictions as unconstitutional on "right to petition" grounds I'd imagine.
Or this version: "place my bets on low risk margin stuff" "sure thing boss" "OMG, I lost all my value! I thought those were low risk!" "sorry guy I know we told your bookie those were low risk but we got pressued by shysters to uprate a bunch of investments we knew were shit. Better luck next time."
<a class="postlink" href="http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8896362-exclusive-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_ ... reet-video</a> "It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.” The OWS movement won't present them a target, so their opponents are wasting money, resources, political capital and time trying to goad them into reacting. If they come up with a definitive position, there are a few large interests (Fox News for example) that can be employed to discredit, manipulate and marginalize them. Meanwhile, thanks to the Internet, tons of emails, memos and statements like this are being leaked, which fans the flames of discontent. By refusing to do this for as long as they can, the movement only garners more support and attention by sucking in people who are on the fence or politically uninvolved. You don't need to have an opinion on the banking industry to have a problem with police brutality. When you see the police response and then see that J.P. Morgan donated $4.6 million, the connection forms organically. Also, the opponents of the movement continue to make error after error, exposing their weaknesses and networks. At the very least, we are beginning to learn which politicians the banks have the closest ties to, exposing some of the corruption.
I agree with you here, though your point essentially begs the question: Why would people choose to take out three mortgages on a home? Or more simply, why would people take out a large loan for college/a car/a house/etc..., if they were uncertain of their ability to pay it back? Does this not point immediately to the ideology that permeates? i.e., the fact that our entire culture is summarily one large billboard, and it reads "Desire." People don't naturally want to buy a house, people want to buy a house because "In America today, having a house is the ultimate symbol of adulthood, responsibility, having made it, my dad owns a house, etc..." So if the desire is learned, the moral self-regulation to temper that desire with actuality must be learned as well. And what happens if some haven't learned it? Hell, what if they've been purposefully blocked from learning it, in order to form a more perfect consumer? Well, eventually some realize that the same moral self-regulation that we insult them for not having, doesn't even apply to the people that benefit from their not having it!! And then what? Oh, the people get angry and take to the streets...
All the generally intelligent, well spoken people in this thread seem to understand the movement and what it's about. Everyone with the attitude "screw those dirty hippies! get a job!" isn't terribly well-read, nor do they understand what the hell is going on. I can understand how an intelligent person may be against the occupy protest, and they may have legitimate reasons, but such a person hasn't revealed themselves in this thread, at least. Just an observation. If nothing else, Democrats are definitely going to seize onto and identify with this movement (no matter how corporately-connected that party is - politicians are politicians) - just like Republicans jumped onto Tea Party momentum with the last midterm elections. I think the Republican base knows and fears this. Especially since the Occupy Movement claims to be "independent," and it'll be hard for Republican politicians to pretend to distance themselves from corporation-run government, like Democratic politicians pretend to do.
Because theyre irresponsible and miscalculated their financial flexibility. The bank bears some responsibility, but its tough shit if they were tricked by the American Dream perception. No one is forced to sign a loan contract. Are going to? The movement is 2 months old, so wheres the wide embrace and why the hesitation?
Because as much as Neil Boortz, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, and any other pundit from any party would have their respective audiences believe, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Of course, it's much easier to ignore the root of the issue in favor of typical "fucking liberal Occutards" and "Baww, those damn Republicans won't let anyone fix anything!" 99% of Congress can step off a fucking cliff. That would be an excellent stop for progress, actually.
The movement is nonpartisan, or at least attempting to remain that way. Democrats are certainly going to try and 'convert' the followers into voting Democrat next election. Hell, Republicans would try to play for their votes to, if it wasn't so inconsistent with their pro-big-business ideology. The Democratic Party is not going to embrace them openly, of course. First, many in the party may dislike OWS. They don't want to alienate those people. Second, a few goofy liberals have already began pandering to them. But mostly, like either major political party, they don't want to alienate anyone, so they will remain lukewarm. In the meantime, they are going to subtly play to and pander to the OWS crowd during the next election cycle. Republicans will try to pander, too, what with being about "job creation" and "small business" or whatever buzz words they need. Both parties are corporate shills, and unrestricted business (Republican) and unrestricted government (Democrat) both have revealed their downfalls. However, despite that, it is much easier for the Democratic party to try to pander/ align with this crowd, especially since it is typically the party diverting resources to the poor and endorsing the regulation of banks and business.
I just want to point out real quick that the Banks WERE forced to sign the sub-prime loan contracts under penalty of charter revocation.
Are you referring to the Community Reinvestment Act? If so I'd point to: The Federal Reserve: "We find little evidence that either the CRA or the GSE goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis. Our lender tests indicate that areas disproportionately served by lenders covered by the CRA experienced lower delinquency rates and less risky lending. Similarly, the threshold tests show no evidence that either program had a significantly negative effect on outcomes." http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201136/index.html. Barry Ritholtz: "For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions. What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA. The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977. As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006." http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...s-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story_1.html And just for good measure, a Traiger & Hinckley Study finding: "ndications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas". http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
<a class="postlink" href="http://occuprint.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://occuprint.org/</a> Some of the design work on this is pretty cool. A little unrelated, because they were protesting a tuition increase, but the UC Davis pepper-spraying incident is fucking insane: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45364967/ns/us_news-life/t/video-spreads-uc-davis-cops-pepper-spraying-occupy-students/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45364967/ns ... -students/</a> Every time the police respond to these protests, they create new outrages. If this guy doesn't see jail time, I'll be amazed. The pictures from this are incredible. You can't assume a less threatening posture than those kids: