I hope not, this guy did more to hurt that movement than Fox could ever do. Of course I strongly believe that all news organizations try to find the dumbest individuals in any situation to interview because listening to a well thought out response isn't nearly as entertaining.
It wasn't aired. And while we disagree as to the efficacy of his statements, he certainly did rip Fox a new one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is an interesting take, Citizen Pres Man. I'm not actually sure that he ever says that "Rich people suck" (although I certainly think they do) and I'm pretty sure that while he doesn't offer any ready-made solutions, he also says that what he wants is for the conversation to continue. He also spends at least half of the time discussing why he is there. He certainly does take Fox News to task, but I see no reason that he shouldn't express his opinion about the Murdoch media empire.
Anyway, you're perfectly well within your rights to dislike the interviewee, but I think you're seeing what you want to see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly what's wrong with the guys statements? He's speaking off the cuff and out of the blue, making a very valid and coherent point about how the media , especially fox media, is part of the problem. If you think you can extemporaneously spout off about random topics and sound like a power point presentation there's a 99% chance that you're sadly overestimating your own abilities.
Its not like he started spouting that at random or off topic.. i mean, he's talking to a fox news reporter after all, the media as a problem might come up for some reason.
If thats the dumbest guy in the crowd they could find the protest is doing pretty good.
|
I couldn't find a protest today. Stutid sleepy town. The people they had in the paper were the usual crowd - fifty-sixty year old grayheads with time on their hands. I'm going back into town tomorrow, so I'll see if there's anything on my way. Might have to go to Portland on Sunday.
... This thread IS for organising protests, right?
... 99% chance that you're sadly overestimating your own abilities.
That must be the 99% he is talking for.
So you finally get to be on TV and you waste the entire time ripping on the channel giving you a chance to talk instead of actually, you know, discussing the entire point of your being there.-one of the biggest things they're protesting is the corporate manipulation of public opinion through the media's blatant lies and skewing the facts. Fox news is a HUGE criminal in that regard.
Not just Faux News..any off the Evil Overlords media outlets is the same in this regard
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-My favorite quote from anybody has to be Hermain Cain "If you don't have a job blame yourself?!!!" Isn't the whole point of high unemployment that people can't GET jobs? That's like telling a guy with a broken leg to "go to a hospital" or a guy who cuts off his fingers to "pick them up."
-In a way Hermain Cain has pretty much lost the vote of every under and unemployed person in the country...
Hee hee!
Sorry, Citizen Teter, but I couldn't help myself.
Although I am surprised that you're up and active so early. I would've thought you Left Coasters would still be asleep for a couple of hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-My favorite quote from anybody has to be Hermain Cain "If you don't have a job blame yourself?!!!" Isn't the whole point of high unemployment that people can't GET jobs? That's like telling a guy with a broken leg to "go to a hospital" or a guy who cuts off his fingers to "pick them up."
-In a way Hermain Cain has pretty much lost the vote of every under and unemployed person in the country...I think its a bit more complicated than that.
There are some industries which don't have a high unemployment rate right now (IT is an example*).
There are opportunities (such as student loans) which enable people to be trained to cross over into these industries.
* its worth noting, by the way, that IT is also one of those industries which isn't well represented by labor unions
Remember in the 90s when going to school to become a paralegal was the thing to do, because they were handing out paralegal jobs on street corners? Well, when those people got out of school, the market had been flooded and there were no more jobs left.
Going to school for the latest fad isn't necessarily smart.
Even in IT, the job options are finite. As the market of trained people increases, competition will increase and wages will decrease. Older workers will find themselves laid off so their company can hire younger workers for less money and worse health insurance.
So you've gone to school for a job that pays less than advertised, put someone else out of work, and the economy hasn't improved in the slightest. Meanwhile, the company that hired you either makes record profits or files bankruptcy a year later because they didn't outsource enough jobs to India.
Or you can work at a gas station, fast food, or some other minimum wage job. Either way, you've moved down the economic ladder, whether you went to school or not. Goodbye middle class.
When unemployement is high, everyone but the rich lose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good points, Hudax. All that is the result of perfectly legal behaviors by people on Wall Street and in boardrooms all over the world.
Obama campaigned on reforming finance, and so far he's done nothing. If the Democrats won't do anything to rein in the abuses that are costing the 99% so dearly, who will?
This leads to the question: Who's running the government?
That's why there are people in the streets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of this whole "Occupy Wall Street movement" is how the "protesters" are using their iPhones (Apple) to record and upload videos to Youtube (Google) and brag about their anti-corporate actions on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook), all because they are supposedly whining about a $5 a month charge from a bank after the President and Congress forced banks to cut their fees in half for processing transactions apparently in the naive belief that banks would simply accept the wholesale wiping out of an entire profit stream for their business.
Yeah, that $400 iPhone is really making a statement about that $5.00 monthly fee.
Rubes. Useful idiots. Tools.
My favorite part of this whole "Occupy Wall Street movement" is how the "protesters" are using their iPhones (Apple) to record and upload videos to Youtube (Google) and brag about their anti-corporate actions on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook), all because they are supposedly whining about a $5 a month charge from a bank after the President and Congress forced banks to cut their fees in half for processing transactions apparently in the naive belief that banks would simply accept the wholesale wiping out of an entire profit stream for their business.
Yeah, that $400 iPhone is really making a statement about that $5.00 monthly fee.
Rubes. Useful idiots. Tools.
Right over your head. Which right-wing talker are you quoting? Or did you read that on Newsmax?
|
|
My favorite part of this whole "Occupy Wall Street movement" is how the "protesters" are using their iPhones (Apple) to record and upload videos to Youtube (Google) and brag about their anti-corporate actions on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook), all because they are supposedly whining about a $5 a month charge from a bank after the President and Congress forced banks to cut their fees in half for processing transactions apparently in the naive belief that banks would simply accept the wholesale wiping out of an entire profit stream for their business.
Yeah, that $400 iPhone is really making a statement about that $5.00 monthly fee.
Rubes. Useful idiots. Tools.
Hey, I only use Facebook to rant about Facebook!
I think the irony is appreciated and not unwelcome. Kind of like people getting elected to national office so that they can bring down the system?
You made quite a few generalisations. Protesters are all bragging and anti-corporate? They all have iPhones? All of them are protesting against a fee increase? Without citations, we can't know if these are even true for a majority.
|
|
Of course, anybody who has passed high school economics already knows this.
Firstly: I wish people would stop assuming every high school has all these classes. I know it's a rhetorical device, but I have never heard of the aforementioned classes. My high school had a couple of classes in businesses in management, statistics, and government and politics. (And no, most graduates were not dumbasses in terms of stupidity.)
I blame this credit shortage on the multiple bail-out programs for which Bush and Obamma are responsible.
I blame it on banks and investors being unable/unwilling to make investments due to the poor economy. I'm sorry, but could you explain your reasoning?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under normal situations, the growth of small business is how to get rid of high institutionalized unemployment.
In this case, there is a credit shortage which is preventing people from becoming entrepreneurs.
I blame this credit shortage on the multiple bail-out programs for which Bush and Obamma are responsible.
Lessons learned: Don't use the heavy hand of the federal government to give the invisible hand epilepsy.
Of course, anybody who has passed high school economics already knows this. Yet, they did it anyway. So, the real lesson learned is that nothing's scarier than a stampeding herd of dumbasses.
Small business doesn't amount to much compared to big business. The economy, in other words, is NOT built on small business. The crushing of the entrepreneurial spirit might be depressing to some people, but the economy shrugs it off.
The credit shortage is caused by banks being stingy. Nothing else. The bailouts you mentioned were designed to give banks more liquidity so they could lend more, but the banks decided to instead to continue penny-pinching the public while they made record profits with the bailout money.
This is why people are in the streets.
Right over your head. Which right-wing talker are you quoting? Or did you read that on Newsmax?My favorite part of this whole "Occupy Wall Street movement" is how the "protesters" are using their iPhones (Apple) to record and upload videos to Youtube (Google) and brag about their anti-corporate actions on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook), all because they are supposedly whining about a $5 a month charge from a bank after the President and Congress forced banks to cut their fees in half for processing transactions apparently in the naive belief that banks would simply accept the wholesale wiping out of an entire profit stream for their business.
Yeah, that $400 iPhone is really making a statement about that $5.00 monthly fee.
Rubes. Useful idiots. Tools.
Which Left-wing talker are you quoting? Or did you read that on MSNBC?
Which Left-wing talker are you quoting? Or did you read that on MSNBC?Right over your head. Which right-wing talker are you quoting? Or did you read that on Newsmax?My favorite part of this whole "Occupy Wall Street movement" is how the "protesters" are using their iPhones (Apple) to record and upload videos to Youtube (Google) and brag about their anti-corporate actions on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook), all because they are supposedly whining about a $5 a month charge from a bank after the President and Congress forced banks to cut their fees in half for processing transactions apparently in the naive belief that banks would simply accept the wholesale wiping out of an entire profit stream for their business.
Yeah, that $400 iPhone is really making a statement about that $5.00 monthly fee.
Rubes. Useful idiots. Tools.
Janeane Garofailo sez you're prolly racist.
Here's the deal with these protests.
The protesters are mostly the usual left-wing agitators and if you want to talk about astroturf, check out the George Soros connection and Moveon.org connection to this "movement."
If you care to observe what is happening politically around these protesters, you can see what is really going on. This is a carefully calculated effort to try to make the Republicans in the House of Representatives look bad. All you have to do is check out the comments and reactions of the leaders of the Democratic party to see that this is either coordinated by, or encouraged by, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their peers.
What is most hilarious about this effort is that the Republican Party, for all their efforts over the years, have NEVER REMOTELY been in bed with Wall Street the way this administration is. This administration is an administration of, by and for Wall Street bankers. It always has been. Just follow the money.
If you don't care to observe, or are incapable of understanding the undercurrents of politics, then your analysis will be just as meaningful as your babbling on a message board devoted to fantasy gaming.
Knock yourself out.
Here's the deal with these protests.
The protesters are mostly the usual left-wing agitators and if you want to talk about astroturf, check out the George Soros connection and Moveon.org connection to this "movement."
If you care to observe what is happening politically around these protesters, you can see what is really going on. This is a carefully calculated effort to try to make the Republicans in the House of Representatives look bad. All you have to do is check out the comments and reactions of the leaders of the Democratic party to see that this is either coordinated by, or encouraged by, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their peers.
What is most hilarious about this effort is that the Republican Party, for all their efforts over the years, have NEVER REMOTELY been in bed with Wall Street the way this administration is. This administration is an administration of, by and for Wall Street bankers. It always has been. Just follow the money.
If you don't care to observe, or are incapable of understanding the undercurrents of politics, then your analysis will be just as meaningful as your babbling on a message board devoted to fantasy gaming.
Knock yourself out.
I think people will assume this will happen because it is what they would do hence all of the right wings conspiracy theories about George Soros and Democrats. Also I have never seen Fox news say anything good about Nancy Pelosi. If you really want something interesting to do while watching fox news wait after president Obama gives a speech and take bets on how long it is until the criticize him.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was at Liberty Plaza on Thursday night, and I have to say, it is the real deal. Hundreds of people engaged in discussions, debates, making signs, talking to media, dancing, impressive music, and a whole tent city (without tents). I found the crowd diverse, and difficult to generalize. College students, professionals, hippies of all ages, crusty punks, minorities, etc. etc.
Oh yeah, and police.
Dozens, or perhaps hundreds of police. They have the park surrounded by metal fencing, and there are dozens of police cars, vans, scooters, and a mobile prison observation tower. I stood there and listened to a group of cops brag to each other about how they could "bring in some mounted units and clear the park in five minutes" as if that was some impressive feat. But that is what the protesters are up against. It is ridiculous, but it is no joke.
I've been going to protests and similar events in NYC since shortly after 9/11. I've see police trample peaceful protesters (who were sitting down) with horses. I've seen dozens of (fairly violent) arrests including the actions of the NYPD's Brute Squad- tattooed steroid freaks wearing nazi-style motorcycle helmets. I've seen police use undercover agents to start trouble, and infiltrate memorial rides for cyclists who were killed by cars. I've seen mass arrests of dozens or even hundreds of people (many of whom were just on the wrong street at the wrong time).
Back in 2004 I was arrested for participating in a monthly bicycle ride along with about 300 of my closest friends. I spent hours in "flex cuffs" and "daisy chained" to other arrestees. They brought us to Pier 57, a filthy former bus depot where we were put into dirty chainlink cages topped with coiled razor wire and held overnight. The next day I spent hours in cuffs waiting on a parked prison bus listening to someone in a bus nearby scream for hours that their hands had lost feeling from being in overly tight flex cuffs (turns out the cops didn't know how to put them on correctly). I was photographed, fingerprinted, my bike impounded, by stuff taken, and I was held for over a day. After almost a year of court appearances all charges against me were dropped when an article in the NYTimes revealed the police lying in a case identical to mine.
Anyway, say what you want about the protesters, but realize that they are standing up to an absolutely terrifying force backed by a mayor who just happens to be the 13th richest person in the US, and runs a financial media company. Just standing in that park requires more bravery then most of need in a year.
PS While I was there I saw someone waving the "Don't tread on me" flag. I don't know if they were Tea Party or whatever, but "politics" are kind if irrelevant in the scope of what the bankers/corporations/insurance companies got paid to do to this country.
If you want hear what this is all about, this is all you need to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLLR3LWtv4&feature=feedlik
PS While I was there I saw someone waving the "Don't tread on me" flag. I don't know if they were Tea Party or whatever, but "politics" are kind if irrelevant in the scope of what the bankers/corporations/insurance companies got paid to do to this country.
The OWS movement has more right to the Gadsden flag than the Tea Party, who abuse it with their misunderstanding and misrepresentation of who is oppressing them.
That said, even if this movement had been started by the Tea Party, it would still have my full support. Because finally someone is starting to go after the actual perpetrators of the global financial meltdown and the general captivity of the American people: Wall Street and the banks.
If you care to observe what is happening politically around these protesters, you can see what is really going on. This is a carefully calculated effort to try to make the Republicans in the House of Representatives look bad
of all the unbacked claims you made this one is the most ridiculous. First off, unless people ALREADY equated republicans with wallstreet (how would they ever get THAT idea) how would protesting wallstreet make republicans look bad?
The only con here isn't that republicans are in bed with wallstreet, but the idea that the democrats aren't. Sure, the dems hem and haw , but when it comes to regulating wallstreet the options are republicans and reluctant republicans.
The only solution i can see is to vote in so many democrats that the options switch from right and further right to left and further left.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a carefully calculated effort to try to make the Republicans in the House of Representatives look bad...
Wha? Most Republicans and many Democrats are doing a superb job making themselves look bad all by themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you care to observe what is happening politically around these protesters, you can see what is really going on. This is a carefully calculated effort to try to make the Republicans in the House of Representatives look badof all the unbacked claims you made this one is the most ridiculous. First off, unless people ALREADY equated republicans with wallstreet (how would they ever get THAT idea) how would protesting wallstreet make republicans look bad?
The only con here isn't that republicans are in bed with wallstreet, but the idea that the democrats aren't. Sure, the dems hem and haw , but when it comes to regulating wallstreet the options are republicans and reluctant republicans.
The only solution i can see is to vote in so many democrats that the options switch from right and further right to left and further left.
Had our friend actually read anything posted here, he'd know that the Dems are as guilty as the Repubs. This again leads to the question: Who's running our government?
If the Dems are so pro-worker, why did they do nothing, after enjoying a brief majority?
The FACTS tell us that a few of them tried, but were stopped. Wall Street is no more regulated than the day Obama took office. They did get a fat bailout, at taxpayer expense, and again sat on it.
That tells us something. Parties are pretty much irrelevant. It's the money, and who has it and how they use it.
That's why there are people in the streets.
Under normal situations, the growth of small business is how to get rid of high institutionalized unemployment.
In this case, there is a credit shortage which is preventing people from becoming entrepreneurs.
I blame this credit shortage on the multiple bail-out programs for which Bush and Obamma are responsible.
Lessons learned: Don't use the heavy hand of the federal government to give the invisible hand epilepsy.
Of course, anybody who has passed high school economics already knows this. Yet, they did it anyway. So, the real lesson learned is that nothing's scarier than a stampeding herd of dumbasses.
Hmm. I passed high school economics. And college economics -- two years worth, in fact. And yet I don't "know this." What I do know is that there are as many economic arguments out there as there are economists. In fact, this reminds me of another quotation (sorry, I must be in the mood tonight):
"If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Edit: Does anyone else find it strange that we don't expect experts to reliably predict the winner of a football game next week, but we expect economists to predict economic conditions months or years in advance? Really, does anyone seriously doubt that the global economy is orders of magnitude more complex than a football league? The uncomfortable truth is that, even in hindsight, the best we can do with respect to cause and effect in such complex systems is make educated guesses.
Both political parties are captive to Wall Street.
Both the Tea Party and the Occupationist movements started out trying to raise awareness of this.
Both will be slandered to the point where they're irrelevant.
A Tea Party activist tells the Occupationists what to watch out for.
20% of the people in this country control 85% of the wealth. That's higher than the long term historical average (where the usual ratio is the top 20% hold 70-75% of the wealth). These people will spend it on whatever they want to spend it on, and whatever will get them the best rate of return. My solution to this isn't to try and confiscate their wealth. It's to raise the net wealth of the next 10% underneath them, most of whom are largely small business owners and entrepreneurs who, while they won't become billionaire game designers, employ other people.
Right now, the best rate of return is spending it on manufacturing in China, and sitting on it, waiting for a non-confiscatory regime to take the hot seat in DC.
1) 65% of general revenue comes from income taxes paid by citizens. More than 60% of general revenue comes from income taxes paid by the top 5% of the wealth holders in the US, and when you get to the top 20%, it's closer to 64% of general revenue.
For those running numbers: The top 20% income holds 85% of the assets and pays 64% of the general revenue stream in the US. The Buffett Alternate Minimum Kazillionaire Tax won't even amount to a 10th of a percentage point on general income streams.
2) 30% of general revenue comes from corporate taxation. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees make up 96% of the employers and 70% of the workforce, they make up about 40% of the corporate tax base, or about 12% of the general revenue stream for the US government.
(The remaining ~5% of general revenue comes from excise taxes, tarrifs, fees for services rendered and lease income of government held land.)
Sources on those are the IRS for the general revenue base, and the NSBA for the percentage of employers, workforce and corporate tax base.
My quick and dirty solution would be to create a tax holiday for employers with 50 employees or less - the employer half of the tax burden is waived for FY 2013, halved for FY 2014, set to 3/4 of the current rate for FY 2014, and restored in full for FY 2015.
Wall Street made excellent (but not record) profits on the bailout money. Most Wall Street companies that got bailout money aren't actually consumer lending banks, or even business lending banks - they're investment banks. The investment banks that got bailouts have largely repaid them - many have tried to repay those bailouts early to get out from under tight regulatory scrutiny.
The bailouts of GM and Chrysler, which were roughly an order of magnitude smaller, have not been paid back at all, other than token amounts.
In round numbers, my proposed tax holiday would be about 20% of the cost of the bailouts we actually did. More to the point, they'd encourage domestic job creation. The problem we currently have with economic stimulus is that the money swirls around the American economy for about 3 months and ends up in China.
The flaw I see with this suggestion is that tax cuts haven't really proven to get the economy moving again. Also cutting those rates and then raising them again later would only work if the economy started really getting growing at a highly accelerated rate. If it is still sluggish, then the politicians will just say, "We can't raise* taxes in the economy because it will dampen job growth." So you end up having the tax rates not return to the current levels.
*Any situation where taxes are lower for a time and then higher is consider a raise in taxes, even if was really a tax holiday and it is just returning to its previous level.
So the wallstreet folks need signs that say
"Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope" every bit as much as the tea partiers do.
I Can find buns to wear on the side of my head but where am i going to find a white dress my size....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flaw I see with this suggestion is that tax cuts haven't really proven to get the economy moving again. Also cutting those rates and then raising them again later would only work if the economy started really getting growing at a highly accelerated rate. If it is still sluggish, then the politicians will just say, "We can't raise* taxes in the economy because it will dampen job growth." So you end up having the tax rates not return to the current levels.
*Any situation where taxes are lower for a time and then higher is consider a raise in taxes, even if was really a tax holiday and it is just returning to its previous level.
Historically, tax reductions have boosted the economy when those tax cuts helped encourage American manufacturing and industry.
They triggered the Reagan recovery in '83 that lasted to '90. They triggered a lot of the economic recovery that Bill Clinton got credit for, through roughly '99 (though the dot-com boom is also part of this and it's challenging to figure out how much goes where...)
They also triggered the Kennedy recovery of '61-62 that provided the revenue base for Johnson's Great Society...
The primary example where they did NOT provide a recovery was the Bush 2001 and 2003 cuts, and those...those have the same systemic problems that the Obama Stimulus package has. They funnel money to China.
(The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were referred to, in the financial industry, as a "Dead Cat Bounce..." If you throw a dead cat from high enough, it'll bounce...)
The housing boom was a desperate attempt to get the economy growing, and it's not a coincidence that all that money chased the handful of jobs that can't be shipped to China.
Lessons learned: Don't use the heavy hand of the federal government to give the invisible hand epilepsy.
Of course, anybody who has passed high school economics already knows this. Yet, they did it anyway. So, the real lesson learned is that nothing's scarier than a stampeding herd of dumbasses.
Hi. I know the guy left, but that one was too good to pass.
You see, I do business law for a living, and as such I do reporting for a financial company (also known as "den of evil").
It's there that I recently heard the stampede metaphor, but not about governments: short-term investors were compared to a raging herd of bulls, running around from the latest scare. So much for the delicateness of the so-called invisible hand... In that game, the winning bulls are the one running in front (the ones who panicked first?) and the others get trampled. That usually include the rank and file investors.
In that light, I suppose that long-term investors with a lot of cash (like Buffett) would be the ones to pick up the pieces of whatever got trampled by the stampede, and governments are the cowboys flinging dynamite sticks to try to scare the herd into the right track.
Funny how professional traders have no illusion about the way the system work, no?
Funny how professional traders have no illusion about the way the system work, no?
-But they have to maintain the illusions, otherwise
1) People would say that's nuttier than squirrel poo, and refuse to participate
2) Since you're not actually making any money, you're just moving money away from people who lost it we might question your actual contribution to society and
3) Since there's far less skill involved than is supposed in making money off of stocks , it undercuts the " we deserve champagne while you deserve to starve in a ditch" mentality of the lobbying firms.
Interesting stories/articles about the possible origin of the OWS movement. One of the sources is the hard right website infowars, the second link is for the proxy ultra right-wing rag, the NY times.
These people are involved--->?????-----> These people caused it.
The gnome underwear model of cause and effect needs some work.