Forum Index » Chaff » Editorial on Occupy Wall Street


Display Avatars Sort By:
Brian UL
(MAYNARD76)

Locale: New England
Re: Don't hold your breath on 11/23/2011 17:48:40 MST Print View

So, don't complain, ignore corruption, just accept the legislation being pushed by lobbyist, don't get involved, problems are too complicated and hard to fix, go back to work at MC D's, spend and consume your way out of your problems.....got it.

oh, and anyone who wants to better our nation and restore democracy is a filthy hippy looking for handouts.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor white trash @ David on 11/23/2011 17:56:29 MST Print View

"@ Tom.

"You are bringing issues into the discussion that have nothing to do with economic collapse. You are confusing social justice and social programs with yet allowing people to pursue their American right of capitalism and consumerism. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways."

I am merely responding to the risible Youtube clip you introduced. As for being confused, Who says capitalism of the responsible variety/consumerism can't coexist with social justice/social programs. I'd like to hear your defense of that statement.

"Round one occurred at the branch level. The crap was there, it existed long before Wall Street ever got a hold of it."

At the branch level of Wa Mu, Countrywide, B of A, J P Morgan, and a host of other big players, along with some greedy regional banks. If the mortgage bundlers, including the quasi government agencies, hadn't taken the garbage loans off their hands and, in collusion with the rating agencies, peddled them not only nationwide but worldwide, they would have quickly run out of capital to turn into more loans. The First Bank of Dogpatch type of community banks you blame simply didn't have the funds to be the main players in this debacle.

"They just smeared it globally."

Indeed they did, but not before they smeared it nationwide and brought our economy to its knees. To be followed shortly by the world.

Edited by ouzel on 11/23/2011 17:57:03 MST.

drowning in spam
(leaftye) - F

Locale: SoCal
Re: Re: Don't hold your breath on 11/23/2011 17:57:21 MST Print View

If you fail to try, you're sure to fail.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor white trash @ David on 11/23/2011 18:29:42 MST Print View

@ Tom: "Who says capitalism of the responsible variety/consumerism can't coexist with social justice/social programs. I'd like to hear your defense of that statement. "

I live in a social democratic country and it works. Very well. The issue is that most Americans want to have capitalism when things are good but social programs when things are bad. You want no government involvement when housing prices are soaring; when the government allows you to write off the interest on your mortgage; when you pay the lowest tax rates among all of the G8 countries. You want low interest rates so that you can overspend far beyond your means and then claim that Capitalism has driven your country to greatness. Any mention of increasing interest rates or taxes is met with 'torches and pitchforks.' Now the government is broke and the social programs and assistance that you want now cannot be funded.

When the crap hits the fan, you want to be coddled, saved, and taken care of by the same government that you pushed away in the first place.

"To be followed shortly by the world."

I disagree. For example, Canada has had few of the issues that now plague the US economy. This success is based heavily on our tax laws, higher interest rates, and banking regulations. Our tax rates are much higher in Canada and we complain about it all the time. On the other hand, because of this we have been far more resiliant to the global economic issues.

Brian UL
(MAYNARD76)

Locale: New England
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor white trash @ David on 11/23/2011 18:44:25 MST Print View

You paint all of America like were all neo-cons. This is a straw man argument.

Steven Paris
(saparisor) - M

Locale: Pacific Northwest
Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/23/2011 20:01:58 MST Print View

"Wealth acquired under capitalism is in and of itself no enemy of democracy, but wealth armed with political power - power to shake off opportunities for others to rise - is a proven danger." - Bill Moyers (speech link below).

I like this speech, including the above quote, for its intelligence and historical scope about how we got to this point. Not to worry, it has a little something for everyone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/occupy-wall-street_b_1071288.html

Ty Ty
(TylerD)

Locale: SE US
Re: Re: Education on 11/24/2011 09:54:36 MST Print View

My definition of greed is desire for more, faster, better for you and yours. I don't think everyone wants to be a billionaire but I do think most people want a little more than they have and certainly if they had things taken from them would their suppressed greed would surface. I think we are so well kept in America we have the luxury of not being more greedy. It is not.hard to have your basic needs met in America, it can be done with a highschool education and some common.sense.

Ty Ty
(TylerD)

Locale: SE US
Re: Re: Education on 11/24/2011 10:04:24 MST Print View

Jerry there is no such thing as free education, someone has to pay. You have to take a dollar from one man before you can give it to another man.

The question becomes where does it stop? When the government provides everything what is the point of waking up every day and going to work?

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 10:27:02 MST Print View

Who said that that the Occupy movement wasn't targeting corporations outside of the banking realm? How many people do these corporations employ?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45402815

Now they are targeting the very source of their wanton consumerism. They over spent, over consumed, over extended themselves through the leverage of debt, and now they are complaining to the 'pusher.'

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 11:50:15 MST Print View

I was going to stay out of this thread, but a few comments are in order.

First off, I would classify the original video more in the realm of satire. Yes, some of the protesters fit the stereotype, but many are in dire straights. And unemployment is much higher than the government reports, as Tom K pointed out.

Yes, many individuals who are now broke and jobless would not be there if they had done things differently... so they must assume part of the blame. But blame also rests on the shoulders of our government and "greedy" businesses.

Regarding greed... most people are not greedy, they just want to live a good life, and this applies to many corporations, as Clint pointed out. Anyone who wants something for nothing or demands that "someone" take care of them is "greedy" IMO. This includes businesses who would not be successful were it not for corporate welfare provided by the government. We can argue this over and over, but as I have stated in the past, we will never fix this as long as the government interferes with the economy and restricts a free market. They created the vehicle for the financial melt-down with the implementation of the secondary mortgage market so they could artificially manipulate the money supply. This is the root cause, and it allowed the incompetent and unethical businesses AND individuals to make money they did not earn.

So we need to fix this and it will not be easy. The solution is to get government out of the economy, which is not going to happen any time soon. Limit government and there is nothing to lobby for, whether it be corporations, unions, or special interest groups.

The OWS movement does not have a focused goal, and some say that is the point... to open discussion, but it is not going to accomplish anything. They need to identify what they feel are the true root causes, and come up with suggested solutions. Otherwise it is just going to end up in a lot of violence and bad press, with nothing accomplished.

Protest movements can make change happen, but it does not happen quickly. Just look at the Civil Rights and War protests of the 60's and 70's -- changed happened over time. For the unemployed that are participating in OWS, the time spent is not going to improve their situation, and many would be better off looking for jobs than occupying a street or park. And there are jobs out there, but you need skills, education and ability to get them. That is the responsibility of the individual.

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 11:57:45 MST Print View

"The OWS movement does not have a focused goal, and some say that is the point... to open discussion, but it is not going to accomplish anything. They need to identify what they feel are the true root causes, and come up with suggested solutions. Otherwise it is just going to end up in a lot of violence and bad press, with nothing accomplished."

+1 and this supports what I had said earlier.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 15:10:52 MST Print View

The root cause is money is in every issue.
The effect is government is a shadow of the business it serves.
The solution is not going to come about by presenting this government with demands.
Demands only make sense when they can be presented to an authority which is believed to be legitimate, and which has the desire and ability to help.

The goals of the movement are clear, to make things better.

John Vance
(Servingko) - F

Locale: Intermountain West
Solutions on 11/24/2011 16:11:21 MST Print View

Pointing out the problems and offering no solutions isn't going to go far. Combine that with not having having anyone in power wanting to make real changes, and it isn't likely to be more than news noise.

A lot of these folks have been labeled "useful idiots" and based on individual interviews I have seen and heard, I would tend to agree. They are useful in that a message of unrest is getting out, but I suspect without a charismatic figure leading the movement it will largely be dismissed. Van Jones would seem a logical choice for these folks but i don't think the general population is quite ready for him.

With an election coming few will have the stomach for any real change. One thing is for certain, nothing is going to get better until things get much worse, unfortunately.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 16:19:27 MST Print View

It is fairly obvious the solution is to get the government out of the big business family.

That can be done by itself, by constitutional convention, or a few other options.

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 16:20:49 MST Print View

You paint all of America like were all neo-cons. This is a straw man argument.

To the rest of the world (and judging by the percentage of the responses here, BPL, too) that is very much how America comes across.

David, your latest argument using the way Canada does things very much agrees with the way I see things. But just that you posted this thread now perplexes me... I think the OWS protesters are looking for the vocabulary and methods that Canada has already long employed. It's new to Americans and I don't think they understand how it works, in great part because of the very way of thinking that you bring up. I think governments of big societies naturally gravitate toward social democratic system, and that the "rugged individual pioneer" mentality of Americans is unsustainable for a large society, no matter how romantic Americans feel it is. A society is a coherent amalgamation of individuals who must learn to work together to make the society function. Constant resistance to social programs and collective thinking is bound to backfire when the very nature of society is collective.

Greed only manifests itself, and is defined, when an individual withholds wealth from the greater group the individual is a member of. WHen that wealth is shared it is no longer greed.

You have to ask yourself not what purpose of government is, but what the purpose and gain of living together is.

Edited by butuki on 11/24/2011 16:47:29 MST.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor white trash @ David on 11/24/2011 19:43:56 MST Print View

"I live in a social democratic country and it works. Very well. The issue is that most Americans want to have capitalism when things are good but social programs when things are bad. You want no government involvement when housing prices are soaring; when the government allows you to write off the interest on your mortgage; when you pay the lowest tax rates among all of the G8 countries. You want low interest rates so that you can overspend far beyond your means and then claim that Capitalism has driven your country to greatness. Any mention of increasing interest rates or taxes is met with 'torches and pitchforks.' Now the government is broke and the social programs and assistance that you want now cannot be funded.

When the crap hits the fan, you want to be coddled, saved, and taken care of by the same government that you pushed away in the first place."

Some of what you say is true, but it doesn't address my question. We had a combination of capitalism and social programs that worked reasonably up until very recently. People paid into the social programs in good times and bad, and the beneficiaries were taken care of, in good times and bad. Be aware also that a good many of us have not pushed the government away. Call us liberals, Democrats, hippies, whatever, but a substantial percentage of the population believes there is a place for government in the affairs of the country. That is why we have had Democratic presidents for 24 of the last 50 years and Democratic domination of the House up until the early 90's. Your black and white portrayal of the political attitudes of the American people is at odds with the reality.

"I disagree. For example, Canada has had few of the issues that now plague the US economy. This success is based heavily on our tax laws, higher interest rates, and banking regulations. Our tax rates are much higher in Canada and we complain about it all the time. On the other hand, because of this we have been far more resiliant to the global economic issues."

Your example, Canada, is not exactly the center of the financial universe, and it stands nearly alone among developed nations in having avoided the worst of the fallout from the 2008 crash, precisely for the reasons you mention. Personally, I am an admirer of your system, BTW, beginning with your single payer health care system, and I feel that we Americans would do well to look at your example when we finally get aropund to seriously attempting to solve our problems, starting with higher taxes. There is no free lunch.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/24/2011 19:50:47 MST Print View

"It's new to Americans and I don't think they understand how it works, in great part because of the very way of thinking that you bring up. I think governments of big societies naturally gravitate toward social democratic system, and that the "rugged individual pioneer" mentality of Americans is unsustainable for a large society, no matter how romantic Americans feel it is. A society is a coherent amalgamation of individuals who must learn to work together to make the society function. Constant resistance to social programs and collective thinking is bound to backfire when the very nature of society is collective."

+1 This is the problem we face at a very basic level. Until people grasp this concept, we are going to have a hard time making a nation of 300 million plus people function smoothly.

Ty Ty
(TylerD)

Locale: SE US
Re: Re: Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/25/2011 12:35:07 MST Print View

Collective thinking and cooperation is one thing, people throwing away the massive opportunities served up to them on a platter in this country and then after they have tossed it all away, taken advantage of the system, taken more than their fair share and wanting more is the problem. I think the producers in this country are already extremely generous. Our welfare recipients live better than billions of people in China, India, and Africa. The producers would be more likely to contribute more if they felt it wasent already being taken.advantage of on a large scale, govt wasent wasting it, promising one thing and doing another, spending the money from the various lockboxes, using public funds towards highly contoversial issues (abortion, etc). There just is no consensus of trust by the producers.

You guys think individualism is a dying notion, a lot of my fellow producers feel like the idea that the govt would take the lionshare and us it responsibly without overspending is a laughable joke at best.

Look at all these socialist tending countries and our social programs, they are all flat broke, busted. This notion that everyone is responsible, politicians are trustworthy and we should let them take most of the fruits of our labor and redistributed it, and we can all barely work and still have cradle to grave govt protection and luxury is not realistic. Societies are a collection of individual human beings and if they aren't responsible, thrifty, hard working, and able bodied no amount of govt will change the fact that society is unsuccessful and unable to survive. Thinking human beings will just act right out of a notion of a utopian society ignores the basic motivations of mankind.

James Landro
(justaddfuel) - F

Locale: MN
Re: Re: Re: Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/25/2011 12:45:32 MST Print View

All those nasty greedy people taking advantage of our generous welfare system:


http://current.com/community/92945297_ayn-rand-took-medicare-and-social-security.htm

Every single american receives government help in some way or another. It's called infra-structure.

Ty Ty
(TylerD)

Locale: SE US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Editorial on Occupy Wall Street on 11/25/2011 14:44:36 MST Print View

She took ss and Medicare, insurance programs she paid into her entire life.

Infrastructure is a unanimously accepted function of government, socializing a comfortable life is not.