Occupy Wall Street into 2nd week.. Blackout continues

[andy7171]

I thought it was some retarded way of showing unity.

[danefan]

I thought it was some retarded way of showing unity.

This is a much more likely explanation.

[andy7171]

I thought it was some retarded way of showing unity.

This is a much more likely explanation.

I shut it off after the woman from behind felt the need to lead the chant about How we respect the congressman....for the work he's done.....for or against .....what we are working towards....we want him to know.....that he is neither ....more or less important...than anyone here...



If I were him right there I would have just walked away. Did they ever let him speak?

[Vidav]

There are a bunch of these assholes camping on the front lawn of the courthouse in Missoula. Someone come throw rocks or something at them until they leave. They are in my way trying to get to work.

[danefan]

This is a much more likely explanation.

I shut it off after the woman from behind felt the need to lead the chant about How we respect the congressman....for the work he's done.....for or against .....what we are working towards....we want him to know.....that he is neither ....more or less important...than anyone here...



If I were him right there I would have just walked away. Did they ever let him speak?

Not sure...

I bailed at the same point.

[kalm]

Here's a pretty good take on why the Democratic party "cannot occupy Wall Street" and fails at the progressive populism game:

Reason No. 2: The Democrats rely increasingly for votes on elite professionals. Having lost the white working class to the Republicans decades ago, Democrats have had some success in winning over upscale white professionals with liberal attitudes on social issues and the environment. But identification with the professional-class minority poses as many problems for would-be Democratic populists as does the party’s reliance on the financial sector.

The majority of Americans do not go to college and are not likely to be inspired by the elite progressive vision of a society where anyone with high test scores can study until his or her 30s, earn an expensive credential, and then get an interesting and fulfilling office job. The populist ideal is the horny-handed son of toil who can fix a car engine, not the meritocratic nerd who could flourish in a lightning round on “Jeopardy.”

Even worse, to avoid alienating their professional-class supporters the Democrats are forced to come up with absurdly restrictive definitions of “the rich” or “the wealthy” that will include billionaire hedge fund types but exclude the toilers who earn a quarter of a million dollars a year and can afford vacation homes, maids and private schools for their children. According to the Democratic version of populism, corporate lawyers who make less than $250,000 a year, along with janitors who make $15,000 a year and rely on food stamps, are both members of the suffering proletariat exploited by the rich. This explains the emphasis on the gains in income and wealth of the top 1 percent, rather than, say, the top 10 percent or 20 percent. And it explains the widespread opposition among Democrats to lifting the cap on wage income taxed by the Social Security payroll tax above the present limit of $106,800. It’s one thing for billionaires and millionaires to pay as much as their secretaries in taxes, and quite another for Democratic lawyers, consultants and professors with lower six-figure salaries to pay the same share of income in payroll taxes as their secretaries. A genuine populism of the left would go after America’s pampered and privileged professionals, not just billionaires.

Reason No. 6: The Vilification of Working-Class Lifestyles by the Cultural Left. Last but not least, Democrats are not likely to be able to compete on populist terrain with the right as long as a substantial portion of the progressive intelligentsia is identified with scorn toward the lifestyles of people in the suburbs, where the majority of working-class blacks and Latinos as well as whites are now found. Since the days of Nixon, right-wing populism has derived much of its appeal from attacks on “limousine liberals” — more recently, “latte liberals” — who, according to conservatives, look down their noses at the religious beliefs and folkways of the American working class. Unfortunately, much of the progressive intelligentsia seems determined to live up to the right’s stereotype, by demonizing the elements of modern American working-class life, from SUVs and low-price exurban box stores to the kinds of cuisine that upscale foodies frown upon.

It is all too easy for conservative populists to portray progressive thinkers and pundits who denounce suburban single-family homes, the reliance of most Americans on automobiles for commuting and shopping, church attendance and, in some parts of the country, traditions of hunting as out-of-touch elitists at war with the Main Street way of life. And what could be more anti-populist than the enthusiastic embrace by much of the center-left of Cass Sunstein’s notion of public policy based on “nudging,” in which elite liberal technocrats will use taxes and other devices to manipulate irrational working-class yokels into doing the right thing against their bad instincts?

Today’s plutocratic America could use a populist movement of the center-left, comparable to the coalition of workers and farmers and radicalized professionals who provided the backbone of the New Deal Democrats. But the prospects are remote that any genuine populism of the left will come from a party funded by Wall Street that finds its core constituencies among upper-middle-class professionals and public sector workers and reaches out to minorities on the basis of narrowly tailored patronage policies targeting particular groups. A Democratic Party that channeled popular anger for constructive liberal purposes would look and sound very different from the Democratic Party of today.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/de ... newsletter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[grizzaholic]

There are a bunch of these assholes camping on the front lawn of the courthouse in Missoula. Someone come throw rocks or something at them until they leave. They are in my way trying to get to work.

They are heading to Bozo or Billings next week.



Sure must be nice to be able to leave work for a few weeks with no consequences. Or...they are all unemployed like Travis.

[Vidav]

There are a bunch of these assholes camping on the front lawn of the courthouse in Missoula. Someone come throw rocks or something at them until they leave. They are in my way trying to get to work.

They are heading to Bozo or Billings next week.



Sure must be nice to be able to leave work for a few weeks with no consequences. Or...they are all unemployed like Travis.

One of their signs says "If you don't have a job you should be here"

I'm thinking more, if you don't have a job you should be looking for a job, not sitting on your ass at the courthouse.

[AZGrizFan]

I have no opinion on these protests and neither do I really care, but two of my friends are part of this right now. Both of them are recent university graduates and still jobless since May; one has a degree in English and the other...and this is no joke...Craft Studies.

And THAT'S the reason they're unemployed.

Oh, and I fast forwarded all the way to the end, and they never let Mr. Lewis speak. Brilliant.

[GannonFan]

Here's a pretty good take on why the Democratic party "cannot occupy Wall Street" and fails at the progressive populism game:

Reason No. 2: The Democrats rely increasingly for votes on elite professionals. Having lost the white working class to the Republicans decades ago, Democrats have had some success in winning over upscale white professionals with liberal attitudes on social issues and the environment. But identification with the professional-class minority poses as many problems for would-be Democratic populists as does the party’s reliance on the financial sector.

The majority of Americans do not go to college and are not likely to be inspired by the elite progressive vision of a society where anyone with high test scores can study until his or her 30s, earn an expensive credential, and then get an interesting and fulfilling office job. The populist ideal is the horny-handed son of toil who can fix a car engine, not the meritocratic nerd who could flourish in a lightning round on “Jeopardy.”

Even worse, to avoid alienating their professional-class supporters the Democrats are forced to come up with absurdly restrictive definitions of “the rich” or “the wealthy” that will include billionaire hedge fund types but exclude the toilers who earn a quarter of a million dollars a year and can afford vacation homes, maids and private schools for their children. According to the Democratic version of populism, corporate lawyers who make less than $250,000 a year, along with janitors who make $15,000 a year and rely on food stamps, are both members of the suffering proletariat exploited by the rich. This explains the emphasis on the gains in income and wealth of the top 1 percent, rather than, say, the top 10 percent or 20 percent. And it explains the widespread opposition among Democrats to lifting the cap on wage income taxed by the Social Security payroll tax above the present limit of $106,800. It’s one thing for billionaires and millionaires to pay as much as their secretaries in taxes, and quite another for Democratic lawyers, consultants and professors with lower six-figure salaries to pay the same share of income in payroll taxes as their secretaries. A genuine populism of the left would go after America’s pampered and privileged professionals, not just billionaires.

Reason No. 6: The Vilification of Working-Class Lifestyles by the Cultural Left. Last but not least, Democrats are not likely to be able to compete on populist terrain with the right as long as a substantial portion of the progressive intelligentsia is identified with scorn toward the lifestyles of people in the suburbs, where the majority of working-class blacks and Latinos as well as whites are now found. Since the days of Nixon, right-wing populism has derived much of its appeal from attacks on “limousine liberals” — more recently, “latte liberals” — who, according to conservatives, look down their noses at the religious beliefs and folkways of the American working class. Unfortunately, much of the progressive intelligentsia seems determined to live up to the right’s stereotype, by demonizing the elements of modern American working-class life, from SUVs and low-price exurban box stores to the kinds of cuisine that upscale foodies frown upon.

It is all too easy for conservative populists to portray progressive thinkers and pundits who denounce suburban single-family homes, the reliance of most Americans on automobiles for commuting and shopping, church attendance and, in some parts of the country, traditions of hunting as out-of-touch elitists at war with the Main Street way of life. And what could be more anti-populist than the enthusiastic embrace by much of the center-left of Cass Sunstein’s notion of public policy based on “nudging,” in which elite liberal technocrats will use taxes and other devices to manipulate irrational working-class yokels into doing the right thing against their bad instincts?

Today’s plutocratic America could use a populist movement of the center-left, comparable to the coalition of workers and farmers and radicalized professionals who provided the backbone of the New Deal Democrats. But the prospects are remote that any genuine populism of the left will come from a party funded by Wall Street that finds its core constituencies among upper-middle-class professionals and public sector workers and reaches out to minorities on the basis of narrowly tailored patronage policies targeting particular groups. A Democratic Party that channeled popular anger for constructive liberal purposes would look and sound very different from the Democratic Party of today.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/de ... newsletter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed - nice article. Certainly portrays the limitations of the current state of politics - we (GOP and Dems in general, not anyone in particular) can play the political game to the point of getting elected, but it doesn't mean we really stand for anything or can effect actual change.

The occupy movement is great in expressing frustration about this, but that's about all that is does. At the end of the day, though, it can't change the inevitable truth - you need to go out in the world and bust your butt to get what you need - it's a tough world out there, and getting tougher. Complaining about it isn't going to make it any different.

[bluehenbillk]

The occupy movement is great in expressing frustration about this, but that's about all that is does. At the end of the day, though, it can't change the inevitable truth - you need to go out in the world and bust your butt to get what you need - it's a tough world out there, and getting tougher. Complaining about it isn't going to make it any different.

True - but you're missing the core of the occupy movement - it's backlash against a system that "bailed out" Wall Street when it failed. When the "1%" had the issue - they went to the government and got a bail out as they came up with we're "too big to fail". Meanwhile, unemployment shoots up, wages stay stagnant, health care increases by double digits every year, home values crash & suddenly 99% of America sees their net worth drop by a decent amount. But we shouldn't worry about that? These people say we work hard too - where's the bail out for the other 99%?

Maybe these other movements to move $$ from Chase & BOA will grow & they'll be merged into somewhere else or maybe they will fail. The days of the Wall Street bailouts are over.

[AZGrizFan]

The occupy movement is great in expressing frustration about this, but that's about all that is does. At the end of the day, though, it can't change the inevitable truth - you need to go out in the world and bust your butt to get what you need - it's a tough world out there, and getting tougher. Complaining about it isn't going to make it any different.

True - but you're missing the core of the occupy movement - it's backlash against a system that "bailed out" Wall Street when it failed. When the "1%" had the issue - they went to the government and got a bail out as they came up with we're "too big to fail". Meanwhile, unemployment shoots up, wages stay stagnant, health care increases by double digits every year, home values crash & suddenly 99% of America sees their net worth drop by a decent amount. But we shouldn't worry about that? These people say we work hard too - where's the bail out for the other 99%?

Maybe these other movements to move $$ from Chase & BOA will grow & they'll be merged into somewhere else or maybe they will fail. The days of the Wall Street bailouts are over.

Perhaps they were in the bathroom when congress passed:

Bush stimulus package ($171 billion)
Cash for clunkers ($3 billion)
Home buyers tax break ($22 billion)
Obama stimulus package ($838 billion)
Extended unemployment ($56.4 billion)

The $700 billion used to bail out banks was ALL paid back and the government MADE $4 billion in interest in the process. How much of the above $1.034 TRILLION was paid back?

NONE. That's how much. Those fleabaggers are fucking morons. They ALL have failed Econ 101...

[GannonFan]

True - but you're missing the core of the occupy movement - it's backlash against a system that "bailed out" Wall Street when it failed. When the "1%" had the issue - they went to the government and got a bail out as they came up with we're "too big to fail". Meanwhile, unemployment shoots up, wages stay stagnant, health care increases by double digits every year, home values crash & suddenly 99% of America sees their net worth drop by a decent amount. But we shouldn't worry about that? These people say we work hard too - where's the bail out for the other 99%?

Maybe these other movements to move $$ from Chase & BOA will grow & they'll be merged into somewhere else or maybe they will fail. The days of the Wall Street bailouts are over.

Perhaps they were in the bathroom when congress passed:

Bush stimulus package ($171 billion)
Cash for clunkers ($3 billion)
Home buyers tax break ($22 billion)
Obama stimulus package ($838 billion)
Extended unemployment ($56.4 billion)

The $700 billion used to bail out banks was ALL paid back and the government MADE $4 billion in interest in the process. How much of the above $1.034 TRILLION was paid back?

NONE. That's how much. Those fleabaggers are **** morons. They ALL have failed Econ 101...

I agree with AZ here - too many people just have little to no clue about how we got to where we are and who's to blame, and there's plenty of blame to go around. Pretty much everyone had no problem spending in excess as this past decade wore on, enjoying the benefits of a housing boom, easy credit for everyone, college loans for everyone, and so on. Wall Street wasn't the only reason, and probably wasn't even the biggest reason, why we fell into recession. And the days of bailouts aren't over - heck, if anything, they're even more entrenched now in the legislation that we've passed since then since the idea of "too-big-to-fail" has been written into law.

I get that people are frustrated, but at the same time, plenty of people don't seem to have the ability to look inwards to see the problem. If you are $100k in debt, or more, with student loans for a college degree that didn't lead to a job, I can't really blame Wall Street for that. There were cheaper options and probably better majors for you to pursue than what you did. If you took out a home equity loan on an existing mortgage and are now underwater because the value of your home dropped, well, you got overextended and now you have to slug your way out of it. There is no magic answer for things getting better - we spent 20 years creating a housing bubble that is going to take another 5-10 years to climb back out of. We made credit way, way too available to people and many people didn't use it wisely. We want every wonder drug imagineable and every medical procedure there is but we don't want to pay anything for it or wait for it. There are so many reasons for why we are where we are that to think Wall St is the sole culprit behind all of this is silly. That's where I just don't find common cause with this movement - well-intentioned, down on their luck people (although many still seem to have laptops and smartphones and nice clothing) trying to find a single bogeyman responsible for their lot in life without doing the hard things they have to do themselves to get out of it. Debt isn't going to be washed away, government can't snap their fingers or write a bill to create millions of jobs. Like I said, it's a tougher world everyday out there, and there's no answer to that other than just working harder and smarter. Complaining about it just delays the inevitable.

[Rob Iola]

I have no opinion on these protests and neither do I really care, but two of my friends are part of this right now. Both of them are recent university graduates and still jobless since May; one has a degree in English and the other...and this is no joke...Craft Studies.

There's gotta be a VCU joke in there somewhere, right? Or are they ODU grads?

[kalm]

True - but you're missing the core of the occupy movement - it's backlash against a system that "bailed out" Wall Street when it failed. When the "1%" had the issue - they went to the government and got a bail out as they came up with we're "too big to fail". Meanwhile, unemployment shoots up, wages stay stagnant, health care increases by double digits every year, home values crash & suddenly 99% of America sees their net worth drop by a decent amount. But we shouldn't worry about that? These people say we work hard too - where's the bail out for the other 99%?

Maybe these other movements to move $$ from Chase & BOA will grow & they'll be merged into somewhere else or maybe they will fail. The days of the Wall Street bailouts are over.

Perhaps they were in the bathroom when congress passed:

Bush stimulus package ($171 billion)
Cash for clunkers ($3 billion)
Home buyers tax break ($22 billion)
Obama stimulus package ($838 billion)
Extended unemployment ($56.4 billion)

The $700 billion used to bail out banks was ALL paid back and the government MADE $4 billion in interest in the process. How much of the above $1.034 TRILLION was paid back?

NONE. That's how much. Those fleabaggers are fucking morons. They ALL have failed Econ 101...

What about the $9 Trillion in near zero to interest free loans the fed has made to Wall Street and foreign banks?

[AZGrizFan]

Perhaps they were in the bathroom when congress passed:

Bush stimulus package ($171 billion)
Cash for clunkers ($3 billion)
Home buyers tax break ($22 billion)
Obama stimulus package ($838 billion)
Extended unemployment ($56.4 billion)

The $700 billion used to bail out banks was ALL paid back and the government MADE $4 billion in interest in the process. How much of the above $1.034 TRILLION was paid back?

NONE. That's how much. Those fleabaggers are fucking morons. They ALL have failed Econ 101...

What about the $9 Trillion in near zero to interest free loans the fed has made to Wall Street and foreign banks?

95% of the Fed should be in prison.

[kalm]

Perhaps they were in the bathroom when congress passed:

Bush stimulus package ($171 billion)
Cash for clunkers ($3 billion)
Home buyers tax break ($22 billion)
Obama stimulus package ($838 billion)
Extended unemployment ($56.4 billion)

The $700 billion used to bail out banks was ALL paid back and the government MADE $4 billion in interest in the process. How much of the above $1.034 TRILLION was paid back?

NONE. That's how much. Those fleabaggers are **** morons. They ALL have failed Econ 101...

I agree with AZ here - too many people just have little to no clue about how we got to where we are and who's to blame, and there's plenty of blame to go around. Pretty much everyone had no problem spending in excess as this past decade wore on, enjoying the benefits of a housing boom, easy credit for everyone, college loans for everyone, and so on. Wall Street wasn't the only reason, and probably wasn't even the biggest reason, why we fell into recession. And the days of bailouts aren't over - heck, if anything, they're even more entrenched now in the legislation that we've passed since then since the idea of "too-big-to-fail" has been written into law.

I get that people are frustrated, but at the same time, plenty of people don't seem to have the ability to look inwards to see the problem. If you are $100k in debt, or more, with student loans for a college degree that didn't lead to a job, I can't really blame Wall Street for that. There were cheaper options and probably better majors for you to pursue than what you did. If you took out a home equity loan on an existing mortgage and are now underwater because the value of your home dropped, well, you got overextended and now you have to slug your way out of it. There is no magic answer for things getting better - we spent 20 years creating a housing bubble that is going to take another 5-10 years to climb back out of. We made credit way, way too available to people and many people didn't use it wisely. We want every wonder drug imagineable and every medical procedure there is but we don't want to pay anything for it or wait for it. There are so many reasons for why we are where we are that to think Wall St is the sole culprit behind all of this is silly. That's where I just don't find common cause with this movement - well-intentioned, down on their luck people (although many still seem to have laptops and smartphones and nice clothing) trying to find a single bogeyman responsible for their lot in life without doing the hard things they have to do themselves to get out of it. Debt isn't going to be washed away, government can't snap their fingers or write a bill to create millions of jobs. Like I said, it's a tougher world everyday out there, and there's no answer to that other than just working harder and smarter. Complaining about it just delays the inevitable.

So how much of the blame do you think Wall Street deserves? How much pain have they had to endure? When do you think they will start producing jobs for us?

[AZGrizFan]

So how much of the blame do you think Wall Street deserves? How much pain have they had to endure? When do you think they will start producing jobs for us?

Who is this "Wall Street" that you keep referring to?

[DSUrocks07]

Who produces jobs?

[∞∞∞]

So how much of the blame do you think Wall Street deserves? How much pain have they had to endure? When do you think they will start producing jobs for us?

Who is this "Wall Street" that you keep referring to?

The Pinky and the Brain of course!

[kalm]

So how much of the blame do you think Wall Street deserves? How much pain have they had to endure? When do you think they will start producing jobs for us?

Who is this "Wall Street" that you keep referring to?

The one GF is defending?

[Bronco]

Wall Street Responsible For One-Third Of Obama's Campaign Funds (July 22, 2011)
Business Insider ^ | Jul. 22, 2011 | Ricky Kreitner

One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports.

That percentage is up from the 20% of donations that came from Wall Street donors in 2008, and contradicts reports that a growing Wall Street animosity towards the Obama administration may jeopardize his re-election bid.

Obama's $86 million haul set a record for incumbent fundraising at this point in an election campaign. While the campaign has downplayed the larger donations by emphasizing that the average donation was $69, it also released a list of contributions by "bundlers;" those who can "bundle" more than $50,000 in contributions from friends, relatives and business associates.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

[SuperHornet]

Heard on the radio today that the Occupy Wall Street organizers are linked to President Obama....

[DSUrocks07]

[free7694]

I have no opinion on these protests and neither do I really care, but two of my friends are part of this right now. Both of them are recent university graduates and still jobless since May; one has a degree in English and the other...and this is no joke...Craft Studies.

I'm a recent university grad jobless since December, but I'm not at some idiotic protest, I'm busting my ass LOOKING FOR A JOB. What a novel idea.

These protestors in New York should head to the 7th planet. Occupy Uranus. That's where they're coming from with their ideas, anyway.