-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
Karma Kramer
Banned
marrec said:
haha yes it is. I should have been more specific and clarified US revolution. There have certainly been revolutions recently that have benefitted from computers/internet
Are you kidding me? Character attacks? I was just describing his behavior, it's absolutely impossible to take that seriously if 1. He acts like a 12 year old 2. There was absolutely zero substance in the video.Karma Kramer said:
I didn't see the whole clip they're referring to, so if she actually asked people on the street what they were up to, then he even lacks any form of a coherent point; why would it be wrong to do that? (Same has been done to the Tea Party, and rightfully so)
If she didn't ask people and only showed a couple of clips of people there (i.e. that they showed the whole clip on that youtube-video), then he could have gotten his point across a lot better than acting like a 12 year old. I didn't get the impression that this was the case though, but that might be that he's awful at getting his point across.
What about looking about toward those who are actually succesful political commentators and are more skilled at actually doing something fun with it.
I'm seriously wondering what the fuck you were thinking if you thought that my point was to attack him with "insults". If you act like an idiot, you're gonna get called out for your behavior.
Karma Kramer
Banned
ksan said:
I'm gonna go watch the video again and then I will respond. I definitely remember some substance towards the end of his rebuttal. So I don't agree with your statement that there is absolutely no substance. I will need to quote the video to support that though.
Karma Kramer said:
The internet is great for that and saying that this movement is fueled by advances in social networking is giving short shrift to how necessary it was and still is. Now if only social networking would allow a more clear message to be delivered to those of us watching... they might having something then.
Karma Kramer
Banned
marrec said:
The reason why it can't be as clear is because media focus has been minimal, so the only avenue to deliver a clear message to a wide range of people is through the internet and the only people who can pay attention to that are people who use the internet for the purpose of learning more about it. Basically you need to actively search out information rather then receive it while you listen to the news at dinner. This movement is also 21 days old... do you think these things get the job done overnight?
you're not answering the questionKarma Kramer said:
i don't feel like supporting an organization with no real focus or any real goals
when will they decide as an organization whether they will support financial reform to prevent this economic bullshit from happening again? or will they listen to Ron Paul and support his solutions? what about the people who want to just flat out get rid of the IRS? what about the anarchists who are there not only to get rid of the IRS, but flat out everything?
what exactly would I devote my time to?
the group's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness
as long as it remains vague and undefined i don't feel the need to throw in my lot
nuff said dawg
Karma Kramer
Banned
Jenga said:
as you have said they don't have a decisive stance on how we approach the future... so why don't you try and influence it
you participate and voice what you think... the tea party was mostly grounded under one ideology, this has people of many backgrounds, mostly younger people, who at the very least can come to agreement that the status quo is not good enough
BotoxAgent
Member
there's no focus because Wall St has gotten away with so much bullshit, it's hard to narrow your anger on just one problem. The country is too fucked up.
Dominican Power
Member
Jenga said:
Worse in the sense that the occupy movement has no voice, no agenda, no plan, no history and no future. Give it 90-120 days and it will die off because people will lose interest. I'm guessing most in this thread wish the Tea Party did the same but it hasn't.... for better or for worse depending on which isle of the spectrum you stand on. I didn't explicitly say Fazio was a hypocrite however, one questions timing. Also--- when did the baby with the bathwater get thrown out? Democrat or Republican, I'd like people on either side to compromise. Apparently I live in the wrong country for that to happen though.Karma Kramer said:
My point on him going back to the "Bush Era" yet again is that while yes he does speak plainly about the corruption that was ongoing, what is he going to do to be part of the solution? Is the occupy movement part of the solution? I don't think so but again, difference of opinion. I didn't want any bailouts yet we have weasel's in place that caved (on both sides) of which are not being held accountable.
TL
R - We're in a fucked position right now and the in-action is action when nothing gets done in government. If I had to put my finger on just one thing the occupy movement was for it would be that the government is not helping fix the problems we have today, but that is just my opinion/speculation.Karma Kramer
Banned
Pctx said:I didn't explicitly say Fazio was a hypocrite however, one questions timing. Also--- when did the baby with the bathwater get thrown out? Democrat or Republican, I'd like people on either side to compromise. Apparently I live in the wrong country for that to happen though.
My point on him going back to the "Bush Era" yet again is that while yes he does speak plainly about the corruption that was ongoing, what is he going to do to be part of the solution? Is the occupy movement part of the solution? I don't think so but again, difference of opinion. I didn't want any bailouts yet we have weasel's in place that caved (on both sides) of which are not being held accountable.
TL
I agree with everything you said above, but isn't government corruption related to corporate corruption?
In part because of lobbyists. Money talks right? My issue is if we (as Americans) really want to get rid of the morons in Washington, need to do so more constructively in order to get people to step down, resign or otherwise not run again. Right now it seems like the politicians in DC are pointing and laughing just like they do with the Tea Party.Karma Kramer said:
teruterubozu
Member
Pctx said:
I know! We should have politicians wear uniforms with all their corporate sponsors, like NASCAR drivers.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
can someone post the text of the declaration? a lot of sites are blocked at work. :\
On the bailout meme.
It's easy to sit back three years later and say we don't need it. I don't think people who say they don't want bailouts know what it really means to make these financial institutions fail.
People like to think fondly of the depression, FDR and his alphabet soup agencies, but one of the reasons for the depression was the collapse in credit and wiping out of savings because the goverment allowed all the banks to fial and didn't bail anyone out.
Granted it's not exactly the same situation as there are institutions built since them to safeguard some of people's savings and the financial institutions that were about to fail in 08 were much much larger than the depression era mom and pop banks.
It's easy to sit back three years later and say we don't need it. I don't think people who say they don't want bailouts know what it really means to make these financial institutions fail.
People like to think fondly of the depression, FDR and his alphabet soup agencies, but one of the reasons for the depression was the collapse in credit and wiping out of savings because the goverment allowed all the banks to fial and didn't bail anyone out.
Granted it's not exactly the same situation as there are institutions built since them to safeguard some of people's savings and the financial institutions that were about to fail in 08 were much much larger than the depression era mom and pop banks.
Deku said:
I think people are mad and rightfully so, that these banks were given these bailouts despite the fact that their situation was comepletely self-inflicted. How is it fair that these rich assholes can commit fraud and insider trading and still get bailed out while a college graduate saddled with thousands of dollars of debt can't even go into bankruptcy to escape? Maybe the bailouts were necessary but it sure as hell doesn't seem like there has been any consequence for their failures.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
:lolteruterubozu said:
That'd be amazing.
I'm pretty disappointed with the statement...
Half of the list mentions illegal practices, the rest mentions the incompetence of elected governments. Why are they protesting Wall Street? Shouldn't they protest the congress, the courts, and the people that have been voting for the same parties every four years?
Half of the list mentions illegal practices, the rest mentions the incompetence of elected governments. Why are they protesting Wall Street? Shouldn't they protest the congress, the courts, and the people that have been voting for the same parties every four years?
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Wow.Dechaios said:
Divvy said:
They would be equally mad if the government sat and did nothing and let these banks fail.
When the asset bubble burst, those with reason to get angry would angry irregardless of government policy.
Now, Obama and the Dems could be blamed for not pumping enough cash to fix things when he had the political capital, but it would be wholly disingenous to say people would be happier today because the banks got their just desserts by being forced to go belly up because of some punitive concept of justice.
And most people here act like this is the first ever asset bubble and were living in strange new times.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
After that we will dine on the fleshy thighs of overweight conservatives, so watch out.Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
LegendofJoe
Member
I'm going to get involved with this movement. I'm tired of emailing and writing my representatives and never receiving a reply. Meanwhile the Obama Administration and everyone else in DC sits in the bubble of our political system oblivious to the reality that no matter what they do they cannot institute the changes that need to be made to turn the economy around. Our political system is corrupt and broken, systemic broad-ranging reform is needed. It is long past clear to me that these reforms will never make it through the political process as it stands today. A strong push from the people is necessary to make it happen. I ask everyone here this: If not now then when?
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Divvy said:
YOU DO REALIZE THAT A LIQUIDITY CRISIS AFFECTS EVERY COMPANY OF EVERY SECTOR, RIGHT?
Bailout didn't fix the banks because it never meant to do it.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
The economy would probably be better off if the debtors were bailed out instead of the banks. It's more direct. I read in some book that the bailout was big enough to erase all housing debt in the nation, and then buy homes for everyone who didn't have one. I'm not sure what a fair method of doing this would be, but even an unfair method should be more palatable than throwing money at sick banks and condensing the banking system further.Divvy said:
So after bailing that out, the government could've taken over the banking system for a short-term evaluation and recovery aided by precise money injections and the FED doing its usual shit to keep the economy flowing. And then based on what was found, create new regulations to keep the economy stable in the future.
And then they should've followed that up with an economic recovery plan based on increasing taxes and closing loopholes on the rich to create government funded jobs in infrastructure, technology, and arts.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
BobsRevenge said:
What book was that? That's the dumbest thing I've heard. The real estate mortgage market is in the trillions.
BobsRevenge said:
I don't think giving people who can't make good financial decisions a free house is the right answer either.
The idea is broadly populist but as you can see, it's all fairly awful and it's much easier to rage and offer vague solutions than to think things through. It would cause increadible stress in the economy as people who are diligently paying for their homes decide to cash in, and you'll end up with an out of control tab to bail out all these new unforseen forecloseures. But props for suggesting something that a Soviet bureaucrat might dream up.
There's broadly two strains here. There's the (not sure if serious) group who are suggesting communism in the worst sense of the word, and the rest who are broadly just in-support and being optimistic something changes.
Tons of people are guard dogs for the rich, if it was not for them there wouldn't even be a problem.Dechaios said:
With the new Euro-tax rates the rich will hopefully get someday in the USA (just think of how many people we could help with all that money). It should be a global policy really, don't fight against extremism or whatever but against those who protect the rich people in the world for doing their job to help their fellow humans.Marleyman said:
gutter_trash
Banned
ontop of it, the CEOs continue to reward failure with big CEO bonusesDivvy said:
RJT said:
People are angry at Wall street because it symbolizes the wealthy class who escaped the recession relatively unscathed.
Let's look at the disparity of the situation:
Governments around the world spent trillions to bail out these banks, but despite all the lessons learned, the financial industry still manages to resist the introductions of new regulations to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. In fact, while the rest of the population suffers from unemployment and lowered standard of living, these thanks are still able to pay massive bonuses to their CEOs. How many people have had their wages cut due to companies having to weather the recession while at the same time management salaries remain stable.
Thanks to the recession, governments on all levels are now struggling to balance budget deficits. Their predominate solution is to cut social programs rather than boosting taxes for the wealthy. Here in Toronto, our new mayor froze property taxes and is in the process of cutting various social institutions such as libraries, public transit, arts, and environmental programs. How is this reasonable in any way? Why do the rich escape any losses while the rest of the population get their services cut?
I've already mentioned in a previous post how despite being critical in the creation of this crisis, these financial institutions still get bailed out while students and homeowners are shit out of luck? How is it fair that in America, student debt cannot be cleared through bankruptcy when getting an education is so important for employment?
Finally, the reason this will not be solved by trying to elect better politicians is due to the fact that the financial sector is one of the largest source of campaign donations. Due to the increase in income inequality, people are becoming less and less influential in their political system. This is why protests have sprung up to vent frustration at this disparity. Why do the great majority of people who had no hand in this financial crisis be the ones who have to suffer while the rich have not given up an inch? Some people continually criticize the movement for having no clear goals, but this crisis was complex in its making and any solution will be equally complex.
Hasphat'sAnts said:
Obviously, but I think the chief complaint is that the taxpayers were the ones that funded the bailout. The lower and middle class suffered, while those responsible in many cases benefited financially from the bailouts. It's also hard to trust claims of doom without the bailouts from people like John Paulson since he bought CDS on mortgage back securities en mass right before the crash and made a killing off of them.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
RJT said:
I bet he's for real, guys.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
What a whiner, you know how much I have? 250K from law school and grad school.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Divvy said:
GE was hours from liquidating because they couldn't pay their bills as the Money Market funds dried up.
We were staring into the abyss on September 15th, 2008. No doubt about it.
Deku said:
Yes the government were screwed either way. They were essentially caught with their pants down because they were blinded by lobbyist money. I don't think any of them saw this coming until Paulson blew the panic horn. I'm not saying that the bailouts shouldn't have happened, but politicians and investors got us (the whole freaking world wtf) into this no-win scenario and they deserve all the shit they get even if they had no better option.
Evil Benius
Member
Divvy said:
See this is my problem with the situation. There are a lot of great paying jobs out there that do not require a college education. As a country we place going to college too highly and it results in a lot more people attending than should be. This results in people with degrees they do not really need with all of the debt tagging along for the ride. People without a lot of technical background still go to college and choose a degree which better fits their interests (which is fine), but then cannot use that degree to find a job that pays enough to get rid of those debts.
For instance I went to an engineering school that cost over $30,000 a year (paid for by myself, not my parents) and always had to wonder what the plans were of those attending the same school, but majoring in history, various art programs, English, etc. I was able to get a job to handle my $500 a month in student loans, but I could see that being a real hardship for someone making half my salary.
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
It is not supposed to be that terrifying because something went very wrong if you ended up with an 11% interest rate on student loans.
I see this so much these days, people need to understand that they need to vote for THEMSELVES not for the companies. The wealth won't trickle down (insert funny .jpeg), all they'll do is buy a bigger island or a faster car.Marleyman said:
Talk for your class, work for your class and vote for your class. That's what the rich have been doing for ages and well, that's why they're still so rich. They defend themselves while the middle and lower class is full of idiots who go out of their way to protect those who don't even give a damn if you can pay the loans they gave you.
She isn't a whiner, $60.000 with 11% interest rate is beyond crazy. It's criminal (figuratively). (at least for EU standards)Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
What a whiner, you know how much I have? 250K from law school and grad school.
I can't even believe how you could handle a 250k depth, it's insane how much the companies and government have worked together to screw you guys up.
- Status