Archive for Monday, October 3, 2011

Wall Street protesters: We’re in for the long haul

October 3, 2011


The protesters who have been camping out in Manhattan’s Financial District for more than two weeks eat donated food and keep their laptops running with a portable gas-powered generator. They have a newspaper — the Occupied Wall Street Journal — and a makeshift hospital.

They lack a clear objective, though they speak against corporate greed, social inequality, global climate change and other concerns. But they’re growing in numbers, getting more organized and showing no sign of quitting.

City officials “thought we were going to leave, and we haven’t left,” 19-year-old protester Kira Moyer-Sims said. “We’re going to stay as long as we can.”

The arrests of more than 700 people on Saturday as thousands tried to cross the Brooklyn Bridge seemed to pour oil on the rage of those who camped out overnight in Zuccotti Park, a private plaza off Broadway near Wall Street.

The growing, cross-country movement “signals a shift in consciousness,” said Jared Schy, a young man sitting squeezed between three others who participated in Saturday’s march from Manhattan’s Financial District to the bridge.

“We don’t care whether mainstream media covers this or people see us on television. What counts are the more than 30,000 viewers following our online live stream,” he said. “We heard from a lot of them, and they’re joining us now!”

The Occupy Wall Street demonstration started out last month with fewer than a dozen college students spending days and nights in Zuccotti Park. It has grown significantly, both in New York City and elsewhere as people across the country, from Boston to Los Angeles, display their solidarity in similar protests.

Moyer-Sims, of Portland, Ore., said the group has grown much more organized. “We have a protocol for most things,” she said, including getting legal help for people who are arrested.

The protest has drawn activists of diverse ages and occupations, including Jackie Fellner, a marketing manager from Westchester County.

“We’re not here to take down Wall Street. It’s not poor against rich. It’s about big money dictating which politicians get elected and what programs get funded,” she said.

On Sunday, a group of New York public school teachers sat in the plaza, including Denise Martinez of Brooklyn. Most students at her school live at or below the poverty level, and her classes are jammed with up to about 50 students.

“These are America’s future workers, and what’s trickling down to them are the problems — the unemployment, the crime,” she said. She blamed Wall Street for causing the country’s financial problems and said it needed to do more to solve them.

Police officers have been a regular sight at the plaza, but NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the protest has not led the department to assign additional officers to the area. The department won’t change its approach to handling the protest and will continue regular patrols and monitoring, he said.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

"Police officers have been a regular sight at the plaza, but NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the protest has not led the department to assign additional officers to the area. The department won’t change its approach to handling the protest and will continue regular patrols and monitoring, he said."

Including the indiscriminate and unwarranted use of pepper spray and mace?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

Sigh. Government is a tool, and like all tools, it can be used wisely for good purpose, or abused. In this case, it's being abused in the service of the very gods of capitalism you so worship.

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

I'm not sure what's more pathetic. Your attempt to create a strawman argument or your inability to see the world in anything but absolutes.

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

Actually, no I can't tell when you're mocking someone by strawman arguments or just supplying them. You really should mix it up a little. Might also try mixing in some nuance. I hear it's all the rage in reasoned arguments.

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

No, I could tell it was a strawman, but I can't tell if you honestly think Bozo holds that opinion.

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

I do tend to have a reality bias, yes, but technically I haven't asked you any questions in this thread.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

The mainstream media has done its best to ignore these protests up to now-- they are corporately owned, dontcha know?

But maybe you should go up there and give these people a lesson in being sheep?

Mark Sanders 6 years, 6 months ago

Oh yes....the liberal media is no more. They have all tried to ignore this for some time.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

I had to watch Fox NC much of the day. The Fair and Balanced Network has noticed, and are furiously laying the groundwork for full-scale clampdown on these potentially "violent" slackers.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

FYI: It's much more than just a few clueless college students. Occupy Wall Street was originally conceived by a group of Canadians (Adbusters), and a group called Anonymous. It is a mass of people from all walks of life who're sick of the corrupt system that's been created. The blood sucking vampire squid, Wall Street...

"Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?"

OCCUPY WALL STREET MANIFESTO: End Goldman Sachs; Kill ALEC; End Casino Capitalism...there's a good start. Goldman Sachs rules the world?

damnitimpissed 6 years, 6 months ago

Nice summary. There is a group in Kansas City occupying the KC Federal Reserve in solidarity with the Wall Street occupiers, and they represent some of the most knowledgeable and passionate people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. Google "OccupyKC" and check out the rally that's happening in Lawrence in a few days too.

Anyone who writes these demonstrators off as "dumb college kids" fails to realize that the occupiers are fighting for THEM.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

And the butt wart strikes out on its own again. That's might courageous, no?

Getaroom 6 years, 6 months ago

It is about time that some brave and concerned and even desperate AMERICAN citizens made a big show and come out against the Robber Barons of Wall Street. Criminals who are robbing each and everyone of us, directly or indirectly. And you FalseHopeNoChange seem to be clueless that that very thing is happening to you too. LibertyOne, I thought you were all about Liberty and Freedom of Speech and you believe spraying people with pepper spray who are peacefully gathering is warranted? Such arrogance of attitude is in part why American finds its self in such troubles now. This protest is not misguided, nor is it undirected, or without objective. The fact is, all of us should be supporting this effort to bring attention to the criminal activities being allowed to flourish on Wall Street and allowed to do so for years on end. The crimes that go unpunished by these people because of secret and not so secret deals reached by greedy, immoral, unethical free market capitalists appears to be unending. Do you support those activities? Do you feel it is right they are allowed to keep it up without any form of punishment? And if you do not like it and yet complain about your fellow citizens protesting what action would you take? Keep sticking your heads in the sand until it's is too late?
You know why these people are gathering and all you feel is discomfort and embarrassment because it is happening right out in the open and you chose to do nothing. You prefer the slimy, money grubbing thieves stealing money right out from under you in darkened "unregulated" corners instead? It is about time someone stood up the bullies on Wall Street! Tools? The Tools of Thievery and Deception used by the despicable few for the gain of the few. FalseHopeNoChange: Pitts Tea Party boiling over? Your all too frequent racist comments here show your mindset. Well, at least you are not hiding your thoughts, whether that is a good thing or not. One might ask you: how is it that people publicly gathering to protest Wall Street crime is any more or less desirable than your obvious racism and slant on how things out to be? Stop blaming Obama for everything and look in the mirror.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Which means, you are, in turn, doing exactly ...

oh never mind.

Liberty275 6 years, 6 months ago

I support both even though they are silly.

somedude20 6 years, 6 months ago

I wonder how many protester conceptions will come from this? Remember, the "love" might be free but the "toy surprise" will cost ya!

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

The protester are boiling over with demands: I think they've been reading the many copy/pasted texts of a certain prolific LJW poster.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Did you actually condemn the copy and paste habits of another in the same post in which you include a copy and pasted article?

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

If you were paying attention, I slag merrill for copy/pasting the same text and links over and over. About 99.99% of the time, I link to a story once and then don't go back to it. But make up whatever fits your narrative, bea.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Oh, now I see the amazing difference.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

The link is to a "Proposed List Of Demands," which many commenter are rejecting as too much. Their basic demands are to end Goldman Sachs and Casino Capitalism from Wall Street... "Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?"

Richard Heckler 6 years, 6 months ago

Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers ate up $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.

Fraud certainly was very important in the housing bubble of recent years. But the housing bubble—like bubbles generally—did not depend on fraud, and most of its development was there for everyone to see. With the principal problems out in the open and with the authorities not only ignoring those problems but contributing to their development, one might say that the situation with the housing bubble was worse than a Ponzi scheme. And Madoff bilked his marks out of only $50 billion, while trillions were lost in the housing bubble.

Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 6 months ago

ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk. One of the biggest lies perpetrated to Amercan citizens.

What happened to all the money?

"Once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it."

Did Paulsen forget what transpired?

Henry Paulson, told them, “You’re taking this money.” But after that, the process was much more convoluted. And some banks lobbied for the money. Others banks didn’t lobby for the money but were told they were taking it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, what about that big meeting that you talk about — I think it was October 12th — the nine big banks? Eight of those banks, as you reported, ended up getting two-thirds of all of the money, 67 percent.

How did that bankers meeting come about?

JAMES STEELE: Paulson actually called that meeting. He called the heads of those banks the night before and said, “I want you here tomorrow in Washington.” He was very vague as to what the purpose of the meeting was. But once they got there, he told them, “You are taking money. We are going to buy stock in your banks. And we need to get this economy going again.” Some bankers objected, saying by accepting this money it would look like they were weak. Others simply said they didn’t need it.

The fact of the matter is, one of the things we concluded very early on in this whole process is that while Treasury was trying to create the image that there was widespread weakness in these banks. There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened.

AIG the insurer, Bank of America, Citigroup, those three were clearly in very weakened form.

AMY GOODMAN: Don Barlett, this meeting of the big nine, with Vikram Pandit of Citigroup, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America, Richard Kovacevich of Wells Fargo, John Thain of Merrill Lynch, John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Lloyd Blankfein, who succeeded Paulson as head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Kelly of the Bank of New York Mellon and Ronald Logue of State Street Bank, went to the secretary’s conference room. It was even difficult to find this information out. But what did he lay out for them there? And how does Paulson, who was former head of one of these banks, fit into it, as well?

DONALD BARLETT: Well, reduced to its simplest terms, he laid in front of them, each of them, a sheet of paper and saying, “Write on this the amount of money you’re going to take, and you are going to take it. Otherwise,” the implication was, “regulators will be looking at you and finding something wrong there. This is one of those areas in which you have no choice. By the end of the day, you will sign that you’re taking this amount of money. You know, call your boards, do whatever you need to do, but you will take the money.”

More intrigue:

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 6 months ago

Spam and fair-use violation. Why do you steal, Merrill?

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Yes, because when it comes to getting the news, it is always important that we get it from the most attractive people possible.

Walter Cronkite was the George Clooney of his era.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

If they are truly clueless, how did they ever find Wall Street in the first place? Shouldn't they just be out wandering around aimlessly? Also, how could a few thousand people be typical of the 60 million plus who voted for Obama from across the nation? Just based on math, you aren't correct. But then, you know this and are just trying to throw out broad brush comments that have know connection to reality.

Being American is the only thing that is typical of Obama supporters. I feel sorry for you if your fellow Americans bother you so.

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

How much you want to bet the articulate interviews don't make the air? Case in point:

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

I hear unemployment is great for clearing up the ol' calendar.

booyalab 6 years, 6 months ago

I'm sure I'm not the only one looking forward to the day when the 19 year old spokesperson runs out of her parents' (or the government's) money and has to find a real job. I can just imagine the first interview:

Employer: "So I see here on your resume under work experience you wrote, "Reigning in the Capitalist Beast and restoring justice and the living wage for all by yelling and waving signs at people as they walk to and from their evil Big Money jobs." so how exactly would that experience help you in an Accounts Receivable position?

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 6 months ago

Omg I hate evil corporations and I want to end carbon use so I will use my PowerBook on the gas powered generator to post about it on Facebook.

Jay Keffer 6 years, 6 months ago

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Demand #14: Free Unicorns for everybody

Demand #15: Free weed

Demand #16: No cloudy days

Demand #17: Free weed

Demand #18: Mom and Dad can never kick me out of the house

Demand #19: No tax breaks for the Masonic Temple

Demand #20: Free vacations

Demand #21: No one has to work if they don’t want to

Demand #22: Democrats-only on all ballots

Demand #23: Shape-shifting

Demand #24: Ability to fly

Demand #25: Supermodel Girlfriends

Demand #26:. Diamond encrusted cellphones

Demand #27: Free dog sitter while on free vacation

Demand #28: Law of gravity repealed

Demand # 29: EPA and DOD budget swap

Demand #30: One meeeeeeellion dollars

Demand #31: More rich, chocolatey Ovaltine please!!!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

Accurate on some "demands," needlessly hyperbolic on most. What's your point?

And more succinctly, what are your "demands" and the rationale thereof?

Jay Keffer 6 years, 6 months ago

Which demands do you consider accurate? Pick a number where they start and end.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

I looked at the link you provided. It's just my opinion, but any list of demands made that is accompanied by a closed fist, is not an invitation to have a civil discussion, rather it is a threat. I choose not to speak to people who threaten. Therefore, whatever their demands, whether just or unjust, will fall on deaf ears. Maybe if they tried a different approach, more would listen. Then the protests that now number in the hundreds could grow into the thousands and tens of thousands. But the louder someone shouts, the less I listen. Maybe I'm in the minority with this, maybe not.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

Sounds to me that you're just looking for an excuse to keep your mind closed.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

I recall just a week or so ago, in another thread, you saying that the celebrations of several thousands in a country of millions was insignificant and not to be taken seriously. I took the other side of that argument. Would you now argue that these demonstrations by many hundreds, in a country with well over 300 million are insignificant? Will they remain insignificant until they reach the point of 50% + 1 of the population? Should we ignore these insignificantly small numbers? Should the media ignore them as well? I actually agree with much of what they say. And I would love to discuss it. Not when someone is waving a fist at me, but when civil discourse is the preferred method. And I think this movement has the potential to grow in numbers. And those numbers do not have to reach 50% + 1 until they are significant. They may well be significant already. They may well be reflective of the general attitude of the population as a whole. Just like the celebrations in the streets a decade ago, the ones you claimed were insignificant because they were so small.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

Do you apply that to the T-Party in Washington that threatened to shut down the government if their demands weren't met?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

Yes. I would have locked those fools in a room and not let them out until an agreement was reached. I would have given each member of Congress a glass of water and a slice of stale bread each day they were locked up. And if the public was unhappy with the agreement that was reached, assuming one was reached, I'd lock 'em back up and give them half a glass of water and half a slice of stale bread each day. I would let them out only with a binding contract that they never enter into public life again unless they were willing to forfeit every penny of wealth they had ever accumulated as well as all future revenues. O.K., maybe that's a little extreme. But you get my point.

Bob Forer 6 years, 6 months ago

Don't be so ignorant. A closed fist is not a threat to commit violence, but instead, a symbol of resistance to violence.

Here is what wikipedia says:

The raised fist (also known as the clenched fist) is a universal symbol of solidarity and support.[1] It is also used as a salute to express, unity, strength, defiance, or resistance. The salute dates back to ancient Assyria as a symbol of resistance in the face of violence.

jhawkinsf, please show me anywhere where it states that a clenched or closed fist is a threat of violence.

Either provide the proof, or thank me for correcting you.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

I'll neither provide proof nor thank you. The fact is I'm free to interpret a clenched fist in any way I choose. You don't have to agree with me. And I don't have to agree with wikipedia. I'm telling you that I interpret a closed fist as a threatening gesture and not as an invitation to civil discourse. Something that is similar is when a person replies to a post with an opening retort of "Don't be so ignorant". That too is not an invitation to civil discourse. It's more likely to provoke so much of the vitriolic rhetoric that is sadly all to common here. You may want to examine your own motives when you make such statements.

Godot 6 years, 6 months ago

The teaparty and the Van Jones / Guy Fawkes/ Free Stuff Army have one thing in common: they both rightly identify the problem as being banks and corrupt elected officials and unelected bureaucrats that are in collusion to enrich one another at the expense of the ordinary people.

The difference is in the proposed solutions.

Teapartiers want the government to investigate and prosecute the wrongdoers, send the guilty to jail, get out of business of choosing winners and losers through excess regulation and campaign payoffs, and let the free market prevail.

Fawkers demand the government abandon due process, confiscate the wealth of all those the Fawkers consider to be "rich," (government crooks get a pass) and redistribute the wealth among the Fawkers.

Somehow I think this will not end well.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, thanks-- that displayed a fully incompetent assessment of two disparate and diverse schools of thought.

What do you have for an encore?

Godot 6 years, 6 months ago

As usual, Bozo offers no specifcs, just goes in for the personal attack. That is another characteristic of a Fawker.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

It wasn't a personal attack-- it was an honest assessment of the quality (or lack thereof) of your post.

Godot 6 years, 6 months ago

No, you misunderstand. Tea Partiers were the first to call foul on the bailout of the bankster class in 2008 with TARP and ESSA. They were ridiculed and demonized by Obots like you.

The Tea Party has been at the forefront of calling out the fraud perpetrated by the collusion of big banks and the revolving door between elected and appointed officials and government regulators. You lefties, you Obama sycophants, you called us vile names, you called us liars and crazies and racists because we dared to point out the obvious - that the Banks were in control of our government and were perpetrating a colossal fraud in the name of "government."

Now that everything we warned you about has come true, you Fawkers have co-opted our message and are turning it in to an opportunity to, not socialize, but communize, our country.

We told you what was going on, we told you to stop it. You let it go on til it was too late. It is too late, you know. There is nothing that Messiah Obama and his team of economy-wrecking PhDs have left to do. The dominoes have been tipped.

Good luck, you Mothers of Fawkers. You can now reap what you sowed.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

Guy Fawks? And you want anyone to take anything you say seriously?

Jay Keffer 6 years, 6 months ago

The term is a sexual slur, with a well-known meaning meant to insult the Tea Party in the present. Why do you want to be assoicated with it?

Jay Keffer 6 years, 6 months ago

Called it before I read it. Sure, the term was used early on, but once it was co-opted by a certain group and a new meaning applied, most rational people understood what had taken place. Quote its origins all you want, but you are well aware of how it is perceived today, and that the Tea Party does not use it now. Therefore you use it as a slur, and a filthy one at that. Why do you want to be assoicated with it? Is your given name Richard?

chootspa 6 years, 6 months ago

Dude. The sexual connotations already existed. It wasn't co-opted by anyone to mean anything different. It would be like if you decided to form a group and name them "the douches" because it's French and you like showers.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

Steamer Ag is offended that I take umbrage at the vulgar displays of disappointed progressives.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 6 months ago

Reaganomics aka Wreckanomics was the end of the republican party. Shining examples of no more republican party for which Reagan/Bush set the stage in the name of criminal led politics goes like this:

  1. Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan home loan Scandal
  2. Iran Contra = Secret weapons deal with Iran to funnel large numbers of weapons to the dictator led rebels in Nicaragua
  3. Initiating a military campaign in the oil rich nations that has yet to see an end
  4. Bush/Cheney expanding the military campaign beyond belief
  5. Bush/CheneyWall Street Banks Home Loan Scandal
  6. Bush/Cheney $700 Billion bailout in which Citicorp,Bank of Ameica and AIG were the only institutions truly at risk NOT several institutions that were MISLEAD to believe.
  7. Bush/Cheney economics that killed 11 million jobs,retirement plans,medical insurance plans which in the end destroyed USA economics.

All of the above were accomplished by republican "business people" posing as republicans yet in real life are lying, dangerous and criminally insane RINO's. RINO leadership do not want republicans in office.

Go Wall Street Protestors! This is what it takes!

Elect Ralph Nader for President!

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 6 months ago

I'm totally going to occupy your house.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

merrill, you've posted that same text 4 times already this morning. What's your limit, if you have one?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

"What's your limit, if you have one?"

Same as the butt wart's, I'd say.

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 6 months ago

You seem obsessed with the phrase "butt warts" lately. Is there a personal condition informing this obsession? Medical issues? I am really rather shocked that such discussion fits within the TOS.

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 6 months ago

Like Merrill, you seem very interested in pasting things that are both three years old and irrelevant.

uncleandyt 6 years, 6 months ago

Let us almost remember the TeaParty protests of the bank bailouts. It almost happened. Let's almost remember all the different little factions of TeaPartying with catchy, patriotic names like Patriots, and the Express, and darn it... I can't remember. Well anyway, let's almost remember how quickly the focus of the Tea-gripes switched from bailouts to birth certificates and looming Socialism. Let's almost get on the bus. Let's almost understand that we got distracted while Joe the Plumber was giving a two-minute speech, and we have no idea what he said, but that's okay, cuz Freedom isn't free, and , hey , look at that funny hat over there, and there's a wiener-dog with an American flag sweater, and I'm hungry, are you hungry? Oops, I'm missing Rush ! What am I doing here? My feet hurt.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

The Tea Party needs to show up to the Occupy Wall Street gathering and participate. I doubt the police would be so quick to pepper spray nonviolent protesters carrying AR-15s. Tea Party! Where you at?!?! Step up to the plate and represent! The Wall Street Gangsters have stolen from everyone! Even those yet to be born.... How long shall we let them continue?

The Stench of Truth: Bill Clinton and the 106th Congress are the ones who set us up for raping by Wall Street. Please see the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 for more information. The CFMA allows for Casino Capitialism, which had been illegal for most of the 20th Century.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Every one of Kansas' Representatives voted for the CFMA of was the very last bill passed into law 4 days before Xmas.

We shouldn't forget Phil Gramm, Republican from Texas, either...He introduced the Bill in 1999 repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. We the People have been setup to fail by the rich, for the rich. You better believe it. Crooks! On Wall Street...Crooks on Capital Hill. For the rich, by the rich. The rest of us can go to H. E. double-tooth picks for all they care.

In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage).

Time to wake up, smell the stench of truth, leave your comfort zone and affect change. Nobody said it would be easy. Put down the beer, turn off 'reality' television and let's make it right once again. There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of treasonous suits in prison, or hung by the neck until dead.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Bust me? Whatever...

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate

Call me crazy, but the intricacies aren't what's important here--the results are.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Investopedia Article on the Glass-Steagall Act. Read it for yourself...I don't have time or the desire to explain it all for you... I will point out, however, that it explicitly states that the Act was repealed in 1999...Mister Know-it-all.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

L1 motto: If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your B.S.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

It doesn't change the FaCt that the original Act was repealed and replaced. Jag-off. Enough with the B.S. semantics.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, well, it's no longer the Glass-Steagall Act now is it. It's called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.

"Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338) (pdf version from Government Printing Office.) Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters...." Now STFU and go mess with the dip-sticks who'll fall for your B.S.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

My previous post quoted directly from the FDIC. ""Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933." It does not matter how many line of the legislation were changed/discarded. The Act is no more. It's been replaced by GLB. I thought you were smart enough to figure this relatively simple concept out. I was wrong. I'll put you down as Sockpuppet #4. You can stop trolling. We're done here now.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Mayor Bloomberg backs mass arrests of Wall Street protesters. Bloomberg, whose net worth of some $19.5 billion derived from Wall Street, voiced unqualified support for the police repression on the Brooklyn Bridge.

Peacemaker452 6 years, 6 months ago

What do you expect from Bloomberg? He is the poster child for the “Privileges for me, police state for you” crowd.

George Lippencott 6 years, 6 months ago

I listened to an interview with one of the NY protesters. The individual said he wanted to end capitalism. The interviewer asked with what would he replace it – dead silence.

I believe that it is incumbent on all who have a problem with something to offer an alternative. Just bitching and leaving the problem solving to others is anti intellectual and cowardly

George Lippencott 6 years, 6 months ago



You have an answer

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

Capitalism is the worst form of economics man has ever devised, except for all the others. (with apologies to W.C. for borrowing and then twisting his line).

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

I agree. However, I think it unreasonable to suggest that any person outraged enough to show up at Wall Street and camp out should have a plan to change the situation. Many there wouldn't know where to begin...obviously. They just understand something is terribly wrong with our societal system. The problems are plenty...Where to begin? First things first, reign in Wall Street and end Casino Capitalism. That is the main objective. Simple. Then we can move on to restoring some balance by ending Crony Capitalism, the Too Big To Fail's, Corporate Personhood, the MICC, the PICC, etcetera, etcetera...

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

How/why did the banking system get set up this way? Very simple, Bankers lobbied and hoodwinked our politicians into giving it to them. Sigh.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Ever heard of The Jekyll Island Club? Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote: Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

Who is producing the gas for their generator? Some evil corporation? Hippogriffs!

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Not all corporations are 'evil'....but some clearly are....more specifically, Wall Street Banks. I'm sure there are a few more we can point to, but Wall Street is the most obvious.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

For all the bible thumpers out there....did you know that in biblical times, usury was considered a mortal sin? Usury! The practice of charging excessive, unreasonably high, and often illegal interest rates on loans. Originally, when the charging of interest was still banned by Christian churches, usury simply meant the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).

Why is that, I wonder? Why was usury a mortal sin?

The love of money is the root of all evil. But, hey! Wall Street is awesome!

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

Have the little scamps considered what would happen to the prices of everything if the minimum wage jumped to $20 an hour? The price of hash brownies would go through the roof!

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 6 months ago

I personally believe the foundation for this was laid on January 21, 2010 when the US Supreme Court sided with CitizensUnited and granted corporations "personhood". It's interesting to note that two of the Supreme Court justices, Scalia and Thomas, that voted in favor of Citizens United have ties to the Koch brothers. They have been entertained by them and attended their "conferences" and political "events". I suggest that concerned anti corporatists research this.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

Actually, and interestingly, corporations were granted the status of "legal personhood" quite a while ago.

CU just follows that tradition, and aligning money and speech, says that we can't limit the spending of money on political ads because of freedom of speech.

I think there are a number of problems with the decision - one, corporations aren't in fact people, and the constitution was written for actual people, not fictitious ones. And, spending money isn't identical to speech. And, even freedom of speech is limited, not absolute.

But it didn't create the status of "personhood" for corporations.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

"Corporations are people." -- Mitt Romney

I think it is also a grass roots stand against the status quo in the Republican/Tea party. The protest may not be well defined yet, but it will possibly get people out in numbers come the next election, thanks to Romney's statement.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

Doesn't that also imply that organizations such as unions are people too. Therefore, if either corporations or unions wanted to engage in the political process, buying ads in papers, that sort of thing, then it's protected free speech and cannot be limited.
I don't understand the problem with this. Any group of people can form a union to represent their similar interests. And corporations can lobby either the people directly or their representatives in government to address their concerns.
Maybe someone who is opposed to this can explain the problem, keeping in mind that anything that would limit this would be limiting free speech, and would therefore need some really compelling reason to impose this limitation.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 6 months ago

The complelling reason is the sheer amounts of money that corporations (and unions, too, for that matter) are able dump into the political process as it now stands. Yes, they have a right to "free speech". but they don't have the right to buy politicians. I personally feel the best way to deal with this is to overhaul election laws and campaign finance and make all campaign expenditures come from public funds. An extra five dollars per year in taxes from everyone in this country would be more than enough to fund every Tom, Barbara and Mitt that wants to run for office, no matter what their party is. Corporations (especially privately held corporations such as the Kochs) will fight this tooth and nail. It would, in effect, cut them out of the election process to the extent of no longer being able to influence elections to the advantage of their corporations. it would be a tough reform to pass because of the millions they will be willing to pour into the fight. But these are people who who use their money for one thing; gaining power. And they will be willing to spend it to fight this.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

Forcing any politician to abide by campaign spending limits would infringe on their freedom of speech. Wasn't it Obama himself that said he would voluntarily comply with matching fund limits, only to change his mind when it became apparent he would be able to outspend his opponent. That sort of goes against your Koch Brothers argument.
While the Koch Bothers, or Warren Buffett or any other wealthy person might dump a bunch of money trying to convince people how to vote, ultimately, they have one vote each, the same as you or I. And it seems like this whole corporations vs. unions has reached some sort of equilibrium. All this assumes that those voting have enough intelligence to see all this for what it's worth. If that's not the case, then money spent is the least of our problems.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

I think it's insidious, and mistaken, to equate spending money with speech.

If all candidates were given fair and equal airtime that didn't cost a dime, I'd be glad to see that happen, and for everybody to be prohibited from paid advertising.

By the way, given how effective advertising is at selling products, I think your assumption that most people are intelligent enough to see through it may be incorrect, sadly.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

All candidates? Equally? Sounds good. Every third party candidate getting equal time. There will be thousands. Or will Democrats and Republicans be more equal than the others. More time for them, or better time slots. The devil's in the details. No advertising, kinda like the comments on another thread about Rev. Phelps being limited in his signage. The courts ruled you can't do it. If he can't be limited, why should Romney, or Obama? Your ideas really sound good and if we didn't have that pesky Constitution, it would be great.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

I think that the constitution was not intended to allow unlimited spending of money on advertising.

I get your other point, and it's difficult to sort out.

But, I'm convinced that the ridiculous amounts of money spent on political campaigning do nothing good, and many things that aren't good.

George Lippencott 6 years, 6 months ago

Cait48 Perhapos instead of trying to limit input we should limit output.

If we limit term length - nobody is guarenteed an elected position - or enforced reclusals or defined voting, soliciting votes etc for somehing that contributes to you is a crime - it should already be.

Nobody makes our elected officials sell their office.

Get off the corporations for doing what we all do. Our elected officials not only grant special favor to solicitors (corporations, businesses, unions, PACs, contributors, etc.) they log roll so that everybody gets their piece.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

The obvious and simple difference between a union and a corporation is that a union is a voluntary association of actual people who gather together to pursue common aims.

As such, it is pretty fairly described as an association of people, all of whom have certain constitutional rights.

And, if members don't like what the unions are advocating, they can change the leadership, quit the union, etc.

A corporation is rather different - it exists for economic reasons, and people are involved in it for a variety of those, from employees to shareholders, etc. It isn't designed to be a group of people organized to lobby the government.

It's also not easy for employees or shareholders who don't like what the corporation is advocating to simply change the leadership or leave, especially these days. Or, given the complexities, for customers to withhold their business.

A compelling reason to limit this exercise of free speech is the blatant corruption of the political process this results in, and the incorrect ascription of personhood to corporations, who don't deserve such a title.

Any of the individuals in a corporation can choose to speak or advocate publicly for candidates, or join with other like minded individuals to do so - there's no need to create such a right for the corporation itself, which has been declared a "legal person", also called a "fictitious entity".

It's been pretty well established that the person who spends the most money in elections generally wins them - that in itself should make us stop and think.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

Sorry Jafs, but I think you're wrong on several points. A corporation is very much like a union. It's voluntary and it's for a common cause. I can invest or not. I can work there or not. And their ability to lobby government is equal to that of a union. Of course, if they have greater resources, so be it. The union could increase it's dues and have greater resources. That's their choice. A corporation can invest some small part of it's profits in lobbying or they can forsake greater profits now and hope their lobbying efforts bear greater profits later. It's their choice. Whether or not you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling granting personhood, it is the ruling. Until another ruling overturns that one, we have to live with it. Or there is a way to change it. I haven't seen anyone lining up to do that. The biggest problem I have with your comment is the last part, about he who spends the most wins. That is a classic problem without a solution. We can limit one's free speech, as we have been discussing. Or we could allow only informed voters to vote. Maybe have a political literacy test. Maybe only people who think a certain way can vote. You point out a problem, but all the solutions are worse than the problem. No, I don't want to limit freedom of speech. A literacy tests will present equally unconstitutional consequences. I kinda like the idea of only people who think like me being allowed to vote, but then we'd have just one person, me, deciding. :-)
The problem comes down to which right of the people are you willing to take away to get what you think are better results. Freedom of speech. The right to vote. The right to peaceful assembly.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

The difference is that a union is a group of people organizing to pursue a common aim of speech and petitioning the government, whereas a corporation is not anything like that.

So, one can make the argument that a union is merely an expression of the freedom of speech/assembly/petition rights of the individuals involved, who choose to do so collectively.

A corporation is a legal fiction - it's not an individual, and it's not a group like a union, or the NRA, for that matter.

We do have to live with it - we don't have to agree with it, and I don't agree.

I have no problem limited the spending of money on political advertising - it's not the kind of speech the founders were talking about. It's manipulative and effective, reducing our political discourse to 30-second sound bites.

Ideally, all candidates would have equal (free) airtime, be required to participate in at least one in-depth interview, several debates, etc., all of which would be scrutinized immediately by fact-checking organizations and that information made widely available.

Freedom of speech is limited when the exercise of it is harmful, as in defamation. I'd argue that modern advertising, with all of the techniques they use, is harmful, and thus can be limited.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 6 months ago

So if the number of candidates or political parties numbered in the thousands, how would that debate go? I know I'm against anything that would limit the debate to just the two parties that dominate now. And any limitation beyond that would be unfair to those left out. Corporations are exactly like unions in that they are a collection of individuals who have come together for a common purpose. That purpose would be to invest in the corporation with the expectation of making a profit. Why is that message any less valid than a union's message? I personally have a greater problem with the fact that people's voting can be swayed by 30 second info-bites than the fact that the info-bites exist.

George Lippencott 6 years, 6 months ago

Corporations are share holders - people!!! Be careful, your own retirement may be invested in some of the corporations you seem to abhor

Centerville 6 years, 6 months ago

I love the email about how they want someone to donate sleeping bags - or they can learn to knit their own.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Because EveRYoNE can be rich! Am I right?

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

So, 300 million people in America just aren't working hard enough...RiGHT! Got it. 40 hours a week just isn't enough to get rich, y'all, tack on another 20 hours and you'll be rollin' a Maybach before you know it. You're just not working hard enough!

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

You're rich, aren't you? If you work as hard at making money as you do spreading misinformation then you're in the top 1%. Oh, nevermind. You're job IS to spread misinformation. Sockpuppet #2.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

Protesters are now demanding that all Doritos be Cool Ranch because everything else is like totally bogus.

gl0ck0wn3r 6 years, 6 months ago

Such a boring protest. Let me know when they stop with the drum circles and pick up guns 1960s style.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

The current regime might outsource the job of clearing the streets to the PLA.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Maybe it's because he can't articulate an idea without calling people names or using vulgarities. Maybe? Ya think? Maybe it's because smart people can do that sort of thing, and dumb people can't? Figure it out yet? I think I have. Note: I'm not calling anyone dumb here.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Maybe it's because you're post is not based in fact. Executing activists is not the same as hanging a traitor. The law specifically allows for hanging traitors. Phil Gramm sold this country out to the banks...Phil Gramm is a traitor.

You are welcome to "suggest removal". I guarantee if enough of you "conservatives" click it, the post will be removed. So, suggest removal intead of whining. What are you waiting on, Rush Limbowel to tell you?

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

I should be called ignorant! Remind me again, was war ever officially declared in Viet Nam? BTW, I'm suggesting removal of your comment because of the BS about sex...we're here to discuss, not act like name calling third graders.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

Of course I'll suggest removal! You just called me a POS! I don't think you're grasping the concept of what exactly is going on here, and your frustration is affecting you verbiage. Me calling Rush Limbowel, Rush Limbowel, is not a direct attack on anyone in this thread. Rush Limbowel is not commenting. Rush Limbowel is a controversial public figure...just like Obama blama, banana rama fo fana!

Just keep some semblance of civility in your comment and it will never, ever, ever ever ever, be removed. Pretty simple really. But, you know, dumb people can't seem to figure it out. (take a note: i didn't call anyone in particular 'dumb') See how it works?

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

Ms. Crump! Ms. Crump! its_just_math is blowing the gaff!

Flap Doodle 6 years, 6 months ago

The only thing worse than a comment spammer is the bitter angry old man who hired him.

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 6 months ago

I like what is happening on wall street but it is too early to tell whether it will turn into a movement for positive change. It is definitely a challenge to the the political culture of our time in which political propaganda passes for reasonable discourse and lies and misinformation pass for honest debate and an effort to solve problems.

The fear is that their emotional pleas may wake up middle america which has endured the brunt of our political mistakes and has been the most undeserved by our politicians.

Is it corruption to ignore the needs of the middle class in favor of the wealthy who fund your political campaigns? You betcha!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.