They also seem to be under the impression that breaking the law creates a GOOD contrast with the Tea Party. Which is the exact opposite of common sense.
Occupy Wall Street. Can someone please explain to me what it is?
- Thread starter nailz
- Start date
freakchylde
PPUSA Driver o' Doom!!!!!
Because all my money is earned through my business, as a sole proprietor single employee. As a result, whatever I do personally, is also done in the vein of business. Least, that is the thinking of the FEC and how it would be reflected on my taxes.
It was the same issue that McCain-Feingold created with bloggers - if they wrote about one candidate on their blog, it was considered campaigning for that candidate and in theory, they were supposed to give equal time to the other candidates, and if they didn't, it was considered an endorsement that had to be reported as a campaign contribution. It was really fucked up.
The most screwed up part was that Congress actually wanted the rules to be enforced arbitrarily. They never meant to include bloggers, but the way the law was written, treating bloggers differently would have been an arbitrary distinction.
Even if censoring political ads was constitutional on 1st amendment grounds, SCOTUS would still have to strike down such laws on the grounds of arbitrariness. You can't decide that some speakers are favored and others are disfavored. And McCain-Feingold only included an exception for professional journalists, so bloggers were subject to regulation.
The fundamental problem with any effort to control independent advocacy is that no matter how you write the law, you end up censoring people you don't want to censor. And once you realize that you are censoring some people you don't like while trying to protect those you do, you realize that the whole effort is just about punishing your political opposition.
Even if censoring political ads was constitutional on 1st amendment grounds, SCOTUS would still have to strike down such laws on the grounds of arbitrariness. You can't decide that some speakers are favored and others are disfavored. And McCain-Feingold only included an exception for professional journalists, so bloggers were subject to regulation.
The fundamental problem with any effort to control independent advocacy is that no matter how you write the law, you end up censoring people you don't want to censor. And once you realize that you are censoring some people you don't like while trying to protect those you do, you realize that the whole effort is just about punishing your political opposition.
Doesn't matter who can handle it, what matters is whether it's remotely accurate to blame a small group of people for the ills of society. It never is. It's not even accurate to blame a small group of people for the housing crash. Everyone who participated in the market from 2000-2007 played their part. If you made $40,000/yr and bought a $300,000 house, you failed.
Berek2000
Member
but more importantly, the system that allowed that individual to obtain that house failed also.
But what does that system consist of? The banks, yes, but also the government. When housing prices outran most people's ability to afford to buy, the banks and the government didn't just say, "Oh well, guess prices have to come down now." The government urged the banks to keep lending. The Bush administration was committed to an ownership society and wanted people to be able to afford houses. Democrats also wanted this, so they raised the limits for what housing was eligible for FHA. They even raised the capital gains exclusion for selling a home. There's no way in hell the housing bubble wouldn't have come to a complete halt in 2006 if not for government action to keep the music playing. And even after the crash, the Obama administration's goal is STILL to re-inflate housing prices and get people buying homes.
A responsible government of supposed experts, which I am assured we have(look at all the Ivy Leaguers) would have said, "Housing is too expensive for average Americans? Tough, the prices got overinflated, they'll just have to come down now." But that's not what happened at all as we know.
A responsible government of supposed experts, which I am assured we have(look at all the Ivy Leaguers) would have said, "Housing is too expensive for average Americans? Tough, the prices got overinflated, they'll just have to come down now." But that's not what happened at all as we know.
Berek2000
Member
yes that is what i meant by "system" (the government and banks). I was one of the millions that had to file for foreclosure. I work in the construction industry. when it finally hit home here in SC (we were one of the last areas to feel it) it hit hard. Lost my job and unemployment wasnt cutting it. tried to refi or renegotiate my home loan but Bank of America would not help in anyway. I went through a 2 year battle with them. After all savings and other means were tapped out, the final step was taken earlier this year.
Meanwhile, bank CEO's who broke the markets are walking away with millions, perhaps billions of severance packages for screwing up, and causing a tidal wave flood of jobless families, repackaging businesses to do more with less, expect employees to work 50-60 hours a week, never take time off, and not hire/create new positions.
Yah, you personally may never have dealt directly with a CEO, but to claim you're unaffected by profit margin maximization at the cost of ethical practices is silly.
To claim you're free of influence of lobbiests in government is also incredibly laughable.
Said Martin Luther King. Oh... wait. No he didn't.
When the law is unjust, then it's okay to break it, like civil rights marchers did. OWS isn't marching against zoning regulations, so they should abide by them.
As for CEOs, sure, I don't deny that the banks played a major role in the crash. But it's awfully convenient to blame them, since most of us aren't bankers. And we can't very well blame the government and empower them at the same time, so that's out too. Just shows that we all engage in politics even if we don't realize it. But the fact is that the whole country went mad during the bubble and all it would have taken to prevent it is for just one of the major three groups(banks, government, real estate buyers) to show an ounce of common sense. But nobody did, and in true democratic fashion, two of those groups have decided to point the finger at the third.
As for CEOs, sure, I don't deny that the banks played a major role in the crash. But it's awfully convenient to blame them, since most of us aren't bankers. And we can't very well blame the government and empower them at the same time, so that's out too. Just shows that we all engage in politics even if we don't realize it. But the fact is that the whole country went mad during the bubble and all it would have taken to prevent it is for just one of the major three groups(banks, government, real estate buyers) to show an ounce of common sense. But nobody did, and in true democratic fashion, two of those groups have decided to point the finger at the third.
Most of us aren't terrorists, either, is it "convenient" to blame them for terrorist attacks? #OWS is just as upset about corporate sponsored politics as it is about the bank systems and the bailouts.
dcowboys311
Member
Personal responsibility? Nah. Signing the dotted line on a loan that you surely can't afford? Sure! Not being able to make loan payments? Uh......fuck you, banks!
There is no question that banks are largely at fault, but they are FAR FROM the only culprit. Of course, it's always easier and more of a self-esteem booster to blame others for your problems than it is to acknowledge that you both screwed up.
freakchylde
PPUSA Driver o' Doom!!!!!
When the law is unjust, you challenge it in court, either by martyring yourself to the justice system and appealing up the ladder - or finding an actual case from a really innocent bystander in a shitty situation.
If you choose the former, you don't get to bitch about your mal-treatment at the hands of those you seek to indict. Gandhi and MLK understood that, many of these kids in these protests don't quite understand the concept of waiting for that one opportunity when the opposition fucks up. Right now, they're doing more of that than the police and the "bankers" are.
If you choose the former, you don't get to bitch about your mal-treatment at the hands of those you seek to indict. Gandhi and MLK understood that, many of these kids in these protests don't quite understand the concept of waiting for that one opportunity when the opposition fucks up. Right now, they're doing more of that than the police and the "bankers" are.
I have a soft spot for civil disobedience, but I think modern protesters don't understand the concept very well. You disobey the laws you think are unjust, you don't disobey the law in general to show your displeasure.
Plus these protesters aren't protesting for something, they are protesting against a group of people, which frankly I think is a little creepy, no matter how deserving they might be. That kind of thing never ends well.
Plus these protesters aren't protesting for something, they are protesting against a group of people, which frankly I think is a little creepy, no matter how deserving they might be. That kind of thing never ends well.
Pellaz
Tigron of Immanion
Fixed.
As far back as 2004 we knew there were major problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Was there an effort to try and reform them? Yes. Twice.
Did Congress block the reforms? Yes. Twice.
This allowed the housing bubble to grow even further, so when it did crash, it took the rest of the economy with it.
Exactly. The government wanted it to continue, and frankly everyone invested in real estate wanted it to continue. No one wanted to see their property values fall and in fact individual homeowners fought hard to make sure that didn't happen, even to the point of threatening their neighbors when they tried to lower their asking prices. In one case down here in South Florida, condo owners sued another owner for selling at a price they deemed too low, thus threatening their own inflated values.
A nationwide bubble can't happen unless an awful lot of people get greedy. The banks couldn't do it all by themselves.
A nationwide bubble can't happen unless an awful lot of people get greedy. The banks couldn't do it all by themselves.
AngraRULES
Member
The funny part about that cartoon is that Congress passed student loan reform, yet OWSers are calling for student loan reform. OWSers are calling for Wall Street reform, when Congress passed Wall Street reform. Corporate donations are already limited by law, all politicians rely on individual donations. Barack Obama was elected with something like 70% of donors being small donors. The Tea Party for the first time sent a large group of 99 percenters to Congress: small business owners rather than lawyers and career politicians. In the past three elections, the public has sent incumbents packing in record numbers, with much higher turnout than normal.
So I think it's fair to say that they don't know what they are protesting. Unless OWS's existence is an admission that the Democrats have failed, since almost all the reforms OWS demands have already been passed by Democrats. Yet they are unsatisfied. Or simply aren't aware of them.
So I think it's fair to say that they don't know what they are protesting. Unless OWS's existence is an admission that the Democrats have failed, since almost all the reforms OWS demands have already been passed by Democrats. Yet they are unsatisfied. Or simply aren't aware of them.
dcowboys311
Member
My experience with the Atlanta leg is just that -- they are clueless. It's a bunch of people protesting 'bad stuff' but nobody can articulate exactly what is wrong. When I went to Woodruff Park to check it out, there were just hippies, crusties, 'punk rockers', etc. Their facebook page and website continually fail to say anything useful and instead rely on semantics and out of context quotes and images. Even still, I have yet to meet anyway involved with OA who can articulate ANYTHING about why corporations/banks/whatever are bad.
