The Thirteen Demands

With yesterday's tragic passing of Steve Jobs and the general negativity trend in anything remotely Wall Street related, I thought we might have a little creative, fun time of our own today...

First of all, a big thanks to Primetime7 for posting the following "demands" from our hipster friends vacationing on Wall Street the past few weeks. Second, let's have our selves a contest to see who can come up with the best responses. If we come up with something nice, I will go ahead and email them the results. Have fun and let me begin the game...

occupy wall street:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

In other words, you want a time machine and a return to late medieval policy. Are you happy to also accept the beheadings which were then a standard part of disagreeing with your government? Twenty dollars and hour sounds good, I will take a diamond encrusted, light pole length laser blasting schlong. Is that an acceptable form of "fair trade"?

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

So the seventeen gang bangers who got treated for free and their combined eighty nine friends and family who ate free hospital food when I was rushed to the emergency room last year are really trolling for Wall Street? You are right let us ban private insurers, after all, now that we are all making $20/hr. we can all afford to pay $13 of it to fund a government run system.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Guaranteed Roseanne Barr knob clean for every man with syphilis and free good looking pussy for all ugly, stupid, fat, incompetent creatures with a dick. After all, if I don't need to work to live, why should I have to attract a woman to get her pussy, why should I have to even be a man? You are telling me my German Shepherd shouldn't have a crack at Natalie Portman. That is plain racist. We were an equal opportunity bunch on Wall Street before you people showed up

Demand four: Free college education.

Why not combine #3 and #4 into one big= get paid regardless of what useless, unproductive, producer wage garnishing subject I choose to peruse while taking breaks from hitting the bong and attending Marxist rallies.

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.

Fast track? Like "click my heels three times" fast track? Why don't you take each of those 700 douche bags that got arrested last weekend, take two hours worth of their guaranteed $20/hr living wage, send the 700*40=$28K over to me and I will take my diamond dick to fuck the fuel out of all the fossils endangering our happy kingdom. See, shitburgs? Even in your deluded fantasy, you still need capitalism to make shit happen!

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

Pitch book please...

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.

At this point I feel we need a tally, simply so we don't all drown in the sea of change. Up until this point, you basically want some of the most important industries and policies that hundreds of millions of people depend upon destroyed, so that you can have an allowance that will allow you to live in Williamsburg and smoke the good shit all day while attending the Stenciling Hemp International Technical Institute. About right?

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Does this mean all transsexuals can now sue for being victims of the bamboo ceiling?

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

Border's closed down last month, I understand this is difficult for you, but your skills as a barista are highly transferable to other industries. Migration is encouraged.

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.

Ah, yes. But which one of these "international standard bearers" did you mean, specifically?

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon...

Wait...haven't even gotten to the "Ds" and now I get what you want. Access granted.

Proceed.

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.

I like Fight Club too. Where is my mind...where is my mind...wheeere is myyy mind. Oh what the hell...you guys deserve a video.


Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

But how will your dealer know if it safe to "front you some work" if he can't project prepayments and depreciation?

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.

But with Border's reopened and you making $20/hr to pour my coffee while struggling hard to be ironic in this white man's world, (even though you are most likely a white man) who needs a union?

Love what you are doing, keep up the good "work"

Your comrade,

Midas

Comments (139)

Oct 6, 2011

I have nothing to say to this... It is that utterly fucking stupid.

"All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work."

Oct 6, 2011

i lol'd...some people should not have the freedom to recreate or walk the streets. period.

Oct 6, 2011

"You are telling me my German Shepherd shouldn't have a crack at Natalie Portman"

Hhahahaha EPiC

  • you forgot to list Pakistan in Demand #10
Oct 6, 2011

Where's the "like" button?

Oct 6, 2011

Just FYI: Those list of demands are "real demands." Anything you pull off the internet related to occupywallstreet's demands is just some keyboard activist trying to toss in their two cents. There's a bunch of them floating around, but they are mostly crazy leftist screeds typed out by any ol' social recluse.

In fact you can go to that website and add a list of demands if you want to.

Don't take any of that stuff seriously.

Oct 6, 2011

yea somebody posted a link to this on WSO earlier.

as ridiculous as i thnk this is and as much as i think that OWS is ill-informed and misguieded, are we sure that these are the actual demands of the protesters? from the link that was posted earlier, it looks like these demands are coming from some annonymous poster on the OWS website and are not necessarily what the protesters want.

Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?

Oct 6, 2011

I actually heard that these aren't the real demands at all and it was a prank played by a blogger.

Oct 6, 2011

In all seriousness, this movement or whatever it is will have its fair share of left wing loons just as the tea party has its fair share of guys with assault rifles on their backs at Presidential rallies.

Oct 6, 2011

^^^You equate exercising a freedom to being a loon?

Oct 6, 2011
txjustin:

^^^You equate exercising a freedom to being a loon?

Hahaha, everyone hates protesters until it's about an issue they agree with....then, the few most vocal are denounced in order to try and lend some credibility to whatever is going down.

In other news: I'm still not sure how having a job is a right. If being employed is an inalienable right, that pretty much nullifies any form of welfare, yes? Also, open borders immigration???

Cheap immigrant labor is used to undercut unions. Immigration is the enemy of working class citizens. Rhetoric aside, these guys are making Obama's job harder, and this is bad for the country.

Oct 6, 2011

Dear God, I don't even know where to begin.

These people do realize that the 1% that they're vilifying are also responsible for creating their iphones, Ray-Ban wayfarers, Whole Foods supermarkets, and IKEA furniture with which they are furnishing their Brooklyn studio that mommy and daddy are paying for while they major in gender studies, right?

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

Oct 6, 2011

Midas, while i agree with you for 90+% of these points, i will disagree with you on the first one.

Free trade has destroyed the American working and lower middle class. James Goldsmith said it best, so I won't reinvent the wheel,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI
Free trade agreements have been good for american corporations, but has been disastrous for the american people. The US economy should serve the US people, not the other way around.

Oct 6, 2011

In the Flesh, this is the very point I've been thinking about. They are crying foul at the corporations, while they are drinking starbucks and playing on their iPad.

Oct 6, 2011

I don't see how this is any different than the Tea Party except for which side of the ideological spectrum both groups are coming from.

Also, I think it is a mischaracterization to say this is THE list of demands from OWS- it's just one random guy's thoughts.

TXJustin- protesting is also a freedom, just like bringing a gun to a presidential rally. Which one seems more absurd?

Oct 6, 2011
duffmt6:

I don't see how this is any different than the Tea Party except for which side of the ideological spectrum both groups are coming from.

Also, I think it is a mischaracterization to say this is THE list of demands from OWS- it's just one random guy's thoughts.

TXJustin- protesting is also a freedom, just like bringing a gun to a presidential rally. Which one seems more absurd?

Let me see. The Tea Party wants a reducing in government, lower taxation and defending our liberties.

OWS - wants to increase taxes, expand the Federal government, social programs, etc.

One set of demands is in line with the founding fathers and America. The other is against America.

So no, there groups are not equal. They are not the same. One is American, one is un American.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:
duffmt6:

I don't see how this is any different than the Tea Party except for which side of the ideological spectrum both groups are coming from.

Also, I think it is a mischaracterization to say this is THE list of demands from OWS- it's just one random guy's thoughts.

TXJustin- protesting is also a freedom, just like bringing a gun to a presidential rally. Which one seems more absurd?

Let me see. The Tea Party wants a reducing in government, lower taxation and defending our liberties.

OWS - wants to increase taxes, expand the Federal government, social programs, etc.

One set of demands is in line with the founding fathers and America. The other is against America.

So no, there groups are not equal. They are not the same. One is American, one is un American.

American vs. un American? Founding Fathers vs. against America? I don't even know where to begin...you sound like Joe McCarthy mixed with Sarah Palin. I'm sorry not everyone in the world agrees with your conservative viewpoints.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:
duffmt6:

I don't see how this is any different than the Tea Party except for which side of the ideological spectrum both groups are coming from.

Also, I think it is a mischaracterization to say this is THE list of demands from OWS- it's just one random guy's thoughts.

TXJustin- protesting is also a freedom, just like bringing a gun to a presidential rally. Which one seems more absurd?

Let me see. The Tea Party wants a reducing in government, lower taxation and defending our liberties.

OWS - wants to increase taxes, expand the Federal government, social programs, etc.

One set of demands is in line with the founding fathers and America. The other is against America.

So no, there groups are not equal. They are not the same. One is American, one is un American.

the tea party wanted to cause global financial arma fucking geddon by way of US govt default, seems bad to me.

Oct 6, 2011

First off, these demands ARE the movements demands, coming from the movements website. The same website that has been evolving and advancing as this thing picked up steam. Trying to distance yourself or say this is a fringe element is bullshit.

These people protesting are left wing and an arm of MoveOn.org and Obama.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-o...
Mr. President is pandering to OWS now and blaming the banks. Hmmm, interesting.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li...
Look who voted for the bail out

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=...
Wow, lot of big banks on there. Hmmmmmmm

Socialism gaining strength boys. Better stock up on guns and ammo. The enemy is drawing near.

Oct 6, 2011

There are left wingers and correct wingers. I think we all know which side OWS and Comrade Obama are on.

Oct 6, 2011

regardless of your opinions on these people......its not going away, its only getting worse

Oct 6, 2011

DP

Oct 6, 2011
mfoste1:

regardless of your opinions on these people......its not going away, its only getting worse

Who cares. Let them protest. Just like the vocal minority in Wisconsin. They were real effective.

Let them sleep in a park, put up metal barricades and wait for them to make the first move. Once they do you have legal justification to end it. People live in parks all the time.

Oct 6, 2011

Sure, I am McCarthy. I am not asking for allegiance to anything.

Sorry that I support liberty, smaller government, people keeping more of their hard earned money and personal responsibility.

Keep hoping for change comrade. Maybe one day America will die and your dream land with rise up. A place where I work and you live off my money. A place where the government decides everything.

Everyone has a right to a job and a living wage, regardless of if they work? WTF. I thought the USSR failed.

So sad. America is slowly dying from within. Tapeworms have invaded us.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:

Sure, I am McCarthy. I am not asking for allegiance to anything.

Sorry that I support liberty, smaller government, people keeping more of their hard earned money and personal responsibility.

Keep hoping for change comrade. Maybe one day America will die and your dream land with rise up. A place where I work and you live off my money. A place where the government decides everything.

Everyone has a right to a job and a living wage, regardless of if they work? WTF. I thought the USSR failed.

So sad. America is slowly dying from within. Tapeworms have invaded us.

While socially I am very liberal, I would say I'm pretty fically moderate. Your hyperbole and and pseudo nationalism makes you out as a wing nut. I acknowledge that you love America, just as I do- one of the great things about this country is that we are free to disagree on the policy choices of our government. Enough with the fear mongering- just because people are protesting and you don't happen to agree with their economic viewpoints doesn't mean we are turning into a fascist and/or communist state. There are always fringes on the political spectrum (at the risk of making a false assumption I think I could classify you as someone who resides on one of those fringes)- treat them as what they are and let them speak their piece.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:

Everyone has a right to a job and a living wage, regardless of if they work? WTF. I thought the USSR failed.

Funny thing is, these people fail to realize that in a true socialist country (like USSR, the self-proclaimed "most progressive socialist country"), you HAD TO work. If you did not, then under "anti-slacker" law you would be shipped to Siberia for a few years of "coercive educational labor" to dig uranium ore with a shovel for 16 hours a day including on holidays and weekends. There were no welfare recipients or bums in the USSR, they all landed either in the above mentioned scenario, or went to a mental hospital to get a better grasp of reality.

Oct 6, 2011

As King mentioned, these demands were posted by one extremist on the occupywallst.org official site - the post wasn't particularly well received even by the other members of the movement.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-dem...
It appears now that the admins of the site have added a note at the top reinforcing that these are not, in fact, the demands of the movement...although the admins go on to state the amusing "There is NO official list of demands."

Oct 6, 2011
Armistice:

As King mentioned, these demands were posted by one extremist on the occupywallst.org official site - the post wasn't particularly well received even by the other members of the movement.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-dem...
It appears now that the admins of the site have added a note at the top reinforcing that these are not, in fact, the demands of the movement...although the admins go on to state the amusing "There is NO official list of demands."

True, but OWS has kept the demands on their website so obviously they agree to some extent or they would have been taken down. This makes these idiots lose all credibilty, especially the fact that these unofficial demands can be read on the main site.

Oct 6, 2011
SHORTmyCDO:
Armistice:

As King mentioned, these demands were posted by one extremist on the occupywallst.org official site - the post wasn't particularly well received even by the other members of the movement.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-dem...
It appears now that the admins of the site have added a note at the top reinforcing that these are not, in fact, the demands of the movement...although the admins go on to state the amusing "There is NO official list of demands."

True, but OWS has kept the demands on their website so obviously they agree to some extent or they would have been taken down. This makes these idiots lose all credibilty, especially the fact that these unofficial demands can be read on the main site.

Fair enough. I guess we can also write off anything ever associated with the Tea Party too- because some of their members have pretty extreme views that they have published on the internet.

Oct 6, 2011

Naaa dude. They just want Glass-Steagall brought back. That's all. Nothing else.

Suuuurrreeeeee.

Vocal minority. I am pretty happy about this group. Brings Obama right back to the left and gives the Republicans a massive target to shoot at.

One and done boys. One and done.

Oct 6, 2011

Duff, neither seems absurd to me. I agree with both instances.

Oct 6, 2011

Apparantly some of these protestors got pepper sprayed last night and arrested.

Oct 6, 2011

On thier official website?

Oct 6, 2011

Off on a tangent, a group of security/conceirge workers are protesting outside of my apt. building with a giant rat in front of it (in Chicago). One of the guys had the best sign ever "Can't work for PE-NUTS" i lol'd

Oct 6, 2011

From the Tea Party Site:

NON-NEGOTIABLE CORE BELIEFS OF THE TEA PARTY
1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Please tell me how these demands compare to these demands:

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.
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.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:

5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacred
^random, but thought I would point this out- I didn't know religion was so concerned with firearms

Oct 6, 2011

These demands were on the OWS website as official and only today did the group try and distance itself, yet still continues to post these demands.

The Tea Party demands mirror the Bill of Rights. OWS mirrors something Lenin would write.

But yeah, their aims and goals are perfectly American. Keep up the good work comrade.

Oct 6, 2011

These demands are exactly the stupid crap I was afraid of. Occupy Wall Street isn't going anywhere with stuff like this.

Oct 6, 2011

I like what Herman Cain said about the protestors. He called them un-American in demanding that wealth be taken from one and given to another. I couldn't agree more.

Oct 6, 2011
txjustin:

I like what Herman Cain said about the protestors. He called them un-American in demanding that wealth be taken from one and given to another. I couldn't agree more.

How is unAmerican to say something? They can demand all they want, it doesn't manifest itself in any tangible form.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

Oct 6, 2011
eokpar02:
txjustin:

I like what Herman Cain said about the protestors. He called them un-American in demanding that wealth be taken from one and given to another. I couldn't agree more.

How is unAmerican to say something? They can demand all they want, it doesn't manifest itself in any tangible form.

I agree. I absolutely agree with their right to protest and demand what they want. I just thought Herman's response was funny.

Oct 6, 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/tennessee...
FTA: "As a result, the Tea Party organizations argue, there should be "no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.""

This list of demands is about as "official" as this^

Don't bother responding- you are like talking to a wall and I personally don't care anymore.

Oct 6, 2011

I mean, nut job demands aside, no one is going to take these people seriously anyway. They come to protests dressed like zombies, have drum circles, etc. It is one thing to have a belief and represent it in a logical, mature way while ALSO representing YOURSELF in the same fashion. It is another thing to have nut job beliefs and act like a nut job while expressing them.

Oct 6, 2011
Nefarious-:

I mean, nut job demands aside, no one is going to take these people seriously anyway. They come to protests dressed like zombies, have drum circles, etc. It is one thing to have a belief and represent it in a logical, mature way while ALSO representing YOURSELF in the same fashion. It is another thing to have nut job beliefs and act like a nut job while expressing them.

Where else have we seen politically frustrated people dress up in costumes at large communal gatherings?

fwiw: i agree

Oct 6, 2011
duffmt6:
Nefarious-:

I mean, nut job demands aside, no one is going to take these people seriously anyway. They come to protests dressed like zombies, have drum circles, etc. It is one thing to have a belief and represent it in a logical, mature way while ALSO representing YOURSELF in the same fashion. It is another thing to have nut job beliefs and act like a nut job while expressing them.

Where else have we seen politically frustrated people dress up in costumes at large communal gatherings?

fwiw: i agree

So I went to that link at Huffpo and read the article. I then went to the main source, the Tennessee paper and read that. Couldn't find any links to the actual site or where they made the demands. So I went to the main TeaParty site and looked at the Tennessee chapters they had and went to those sites. Didn't see those demands on those sites. Little confused about the source.

Regardless, if you read the article, the guy was basically saying that he wanted to state school board to not include negative information about the founding fathers when it wasn't relevant. Not saying I agree with it, I honestly don't see an issue with the Founding Fathers owning slaves. Doesn't make them any less great, just makes them doing what was done back then.

Weak attempt on your part. You find some small tea party group in Tennessee, without a reference and compare that to the main OWS site with demands listed on the site.

It isn't like I found one wacko in the movement and extrapolated what they said to the whole organization. Those wacko demands were on the main site and I posted the Tea Parties demands from their main site. Apples to apples.

Oct 6, 2011

This cannot be real. I refuse to believe it.

The fact that the media considers this a "movement" is absurd. None of this can even begin to be accomplished, and why would you want to do it?

I mean, abolish credit reporting agencies? Did a FICO score kill somebody's family? And then there is the environmental stuff...what does environmental restoration even have to do with Wall Street? Half the people on Wall Street haven't had time enough to leave Manhattan in months.

It's like they consulted a community college intro to sociology class on how to form a new world order. It would be more realistic for them to demand the Fed just start showering them with money...oh wait, that's Keynesian economics.

Oct 6, 2011

huffingtonpost, end debate.

Besides, i asked a simple question, no reason to get so butthurt about it.

Oct 6, 2011

ANT,

Rock on brother. You are 100% dead on. OWS wants to take from us by force. They want the government to FORCE us to give them more of everything. This is EXACTLY what the founders were fighting against. It is our turn now.

duffmt6,

You, my friend, are misguided. ANTS' comments speak to the heart and soul of this country.

Best Response
Oct 6, 2011

It's this simple, if you advocate socialism and/or communisim, you are an enemy to the USA.

Oct 6, 2011
txjustin:

It's this simple, if you advocate socialism and/or communisim, you are an enemy to the USA.

Bernie Sanders?

Relax, Francis.

Oct 6, 2011

Look, this sums up the intelligence of the OWS people:

They have all these outrageous demands on how to stop big business and all that bullshit but these are the same people that cry and mourn a multi-billion dollar CEO (Steve Jobs) who created and ran a tax evading company that employs slave labor in china so it can sell overpriced shit like an ipad to people in america.

These people have no idea what they are doing or what they want.

Oct 6, 2011
Nefarious-:

Look, this sums up the intelligence of the OWS people:

They have all these outrageous demands on how to stop big business and all that bullshit but these are the same people that cry and mourn a multi-billion dollar CEO (Steve Jobs) who created and ran a tax evading company that employs slave labor in china so it can sell overpriced shit like an ipad to people in america.

These people have no idea what they are doing or what they want.

Exactly. I also find it kind of funny how they're all outside of the NYSE (an equities liquidity provider) holding "Nazi Banker" signs. The bankers are over on 200 west street.

Oct 6, 2011

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Oct 6, 2011
Jimage:

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Do you have a source showing how the OWS movement is tied to Adbusters?

Oct 6, 2011
Nefarious-:
Jimage:

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Do you have a source showing how the OWS movement is tied to Adbusters?

"From the beginning, organizers -- including activist magazine Adbusters, which hatched the idea and put out a call for participants back in July -- have said they hope protesters will occupy Manhattan's Financial District for two months."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/06/technology/occupy_...

Oct 6, 2011
Nefarious-:
Jimage:

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Do you have a source showing how the OWS movement is tied to Adbusters?

Yeah, the source is occupywallstreet.org.

Oct 6, 2011
Jimage:

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Why don't we just agree that both are quasi-grass roots quasi-astroturf movements (are you seriously trying to argue the Tea Party doesn't get any "centralized funding", whatever that means?).

Oct 6, 2011
duffmt6:
Jimage:

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Why don't we just agree that both are quasi-grass roots quasi-astroturf movements (are you seriously trying to argue the Tea Party doesn't get any "centralized funding", whatever that means?).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

Oct 6, 2011
duffmt6:
Jimage:

The comparison between OWS and the Tea Party is totally off mark. The TP began as a grass-roots movement with little centralized funding. OWS was an idea promoted by the Canadian far-left activist group Adbusters. Additionally, much of its logistical support and some direct financing is coming from various union groups. There is nothing spontaneous about OWS, it is calculated.

Why don't we just agree that both are quasi-grass roots quasi-astroturf movements (are you seriously trying to argue the Tea Party doesn't get any "centralized funding", whatever that means?).

No. As I said, the Tea Party began as a grass roots movement, a real one. Things changed once it got political traction and actually influenced several elections. The Tea Party now receives funding like any political movement, and I would no longer call it grass roots.

OWS is a complete construct promoting the views of an EXTREME minority, in the guise of a peaceful/populist protest. As I mentioned, it was the brain-child of Adbusters several months ago.

Oct 6, 2011

Hmmm...

From the Tea Party Site (my comments added):

NON-NEGOTIABLE CORE BELIEFS OF THE TEA PARTY

  1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally. -- I agree, though there's got to be a middle ground between deporting everyone and amnesty (how about fines of some sort? Absolutely need to recognize that laws were broken)
  2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. -- Sounds protectionist to me
  3. Stronger Military Is Essential. -- I think everyone agrees that a strong national defense is in order. Some people just don't like overseas democracy building experiments (I imagine this includes many in the tea party)
  4. Special Interests Eliminated. -- Doesn't sound all that different from what the OWS people would say (not the wingnuts, the normal people)
  5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. -- Agree, though I do think some smart, simple rules ought to be in place (and are, generally.)
  6. Government Must Be Downsized. -- Agree for the most part. But, I find it hypocritcal when the tea party reps want to control what goes on in people's bedrooms.
  7. National Budget Must Be Balanced. -- Agree, though let's be clear...a big reason for the major recent deficits is an expansion in benefits relating to unemployment and the "great recession." These payments go away in large part when the economy recovers. JK, just cut NPR funding and we'll have a balanced budget.
  8. Deficit Spending Will End. -- Sure, this would be great.
  9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. -- Agree 1000000000% on the bailouts. Not sure certain tea party tards on this site agree with this, though. I think government spending on major R&D projects (i.e. atom bomb) is good and does something industry can't feasibly due because of cost.
  10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. -- Let's balance our budget first. Taxes can come down responsibly when the house is in order.
  11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory. -- Sure, lower the business tax rate, but close up loopholes and simplify the tax code. Drop the rate to 15%, but don't let American firms park their money overseas refusing to bring it home without a tax holiday. If anything, this would actually help the smaller, growing businesses the most.
  12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. -- Agree with this 100%. Ideally, the "average citizen" who is elected to office will also be well-informed.
  13. Intrusive Government Stopped. -- Wait...didn't congress re-authorize the PATRIOT ACT? What's that about? Also, several of these clowns are trying to legislate on issues of contraception. Not intrusive at all.
  14. English As Core Language Is Required. -- I mean...it is. If you speak no english you are at a massive disadvantage. Don't know how you punish this.
  15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. -- Wait, I thought this was about small government. This is typical Falwell Focus on the Family style bullshit. When Falwell died, it was pretty much the opposite of when Steve Jobs died. No one was sad and it was meaningless. So sick and tired of evangelical types pushing their morals on the rest of us when their leadership are a bunch of hypocritical little closet-cases.
    • 1
Oct 6, 2011

Duff, let TheKing do the heavy lifting when it comes to arguing. I can't deal with weak sauce like this. You better up your play if you want to be in my fanboi club.

Oct 6, 2011

Oh please. Traditional family values is vague. I mean fuck, one little gripe and the movement becomes Christian fundamentalists.

Compare those demands to the crap OWS is throwing up. C'mon dude.

Oct 6, 2011

To anyone saying that OWS is co-opted or whatever...you realize how much big money is involved in the Tea Party, right? You think Americans For Prosperity is grassroots? It's the Koch Brothers who may as well be George Soros of the Right.

Also, ANT, a fuck-ton of the Tea Party people are evangelicals. It's a huge part of the "movement." The religious right crap might be the only thing I detest more than the bailouts. Note, not religion generally, but the religious right.

Oct 6, 2011

So far, neither the Tea Party nor OWS have shown any signs of pragmatism. If a real third party is ever to emerge, campaign finance needs to be reformed first.

Oct 6, 2011

Does anyone know if someone owns the rights to Occupy Wallstreet and the logos?

Oct 6, 2011

I will agree that there are a lot of religious nuts in the Republicans party and by default, the Tea Party. As long as the Tea Party stays true to their limited government and Constitutional rights it will be fine. They add the religious push and they will spiral.

All I know is the stated aims of the Tea Party are a lot more moderate and historically aligned with America (Bill of Rights/Constitution) then the OWS group is.

I've said it continually since the beginning, if this was about bringing back GS or making sure all the bail out was repaid, cool, I am on board. When you start deviating from that you lose me.

I mean all these people complaining about student debt blow my mind. It used to be that only the rich could go to college. Then the government got involved at made loans available to everyone. Now people could afford college. Fast forward now and people are complaining about student loans.

See the cycle. No matter what you do, you get fucked. Government should save itself the grief and just do less and stay out of things. One could argue that college tuition prices have skyrocketed because of this quick and easy cash.

Unintended consequences.

Oct 6, 2011

Logical extension of where we are going.

When you live of another persons wages you need to make sure that they work. When atlas shrugs the left will be there with cuffs and a gun to ensure compliance.

Oct 6, 2011

I know I know, I get a bit extreme. It's not that cut and dry, and I realize that.

Oct 6, 2011

Armageddon? You mean not raising the ceiling and forcing the government to make cuts somewhere else? We really need to move past this whole debt ceiling issue. It would of never caused a default and if it wasn't for the stone walling the Dems would of pushed an increase AND additional spending.

Welcome to 2011. Fiscal austerity means you are crazy.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:

Armageddon? You mean not raising the ceiling and forcing the government to make cuts somewhere else? We really need to move past this whole debt ceiling issue. It would of never caused a default and if it wasn't for the stone walling the Dems would of pushed an increase AND additional spending.

Welcome to 2011. Fiscal austerity means you are crazy.

You realize that the Tea Party was refusing to raise the debt ceiling to pay for bills that were previously rung up, right? It's the equivalent of buying a bunch of shit and then refusing to pay when the bill comes due at the end of the month.

And, let's be clear. We can absolutely have fiscal responsibility, but let's do it in such a way that we don't cause the markets to have to deal with such insane levels of uncertainty.

You know...the uncertainty that the right is always ranting and raving about.

Oct 6, 2011

You are right. I don't understand why it was handled the way that it was. Obama could of gone on TV and guaranteed that no matter what, we would of paid our debts. If that meant we had to cut DOE funding, lay off fed workers, etc, so be it.

Instead we had threats of default, not paying SSI, etc. All to cause fear and make it look like not raising the debt suggested limit (it can't really be a ceiling if it continues to get raised) would cause a default.

In the end, the ceiling was raised, cuts were made AND we still got downgraded. Wow. We had a small drop in the markets and then back to normal.

Your analogy is a little off. It is like maxing out your credit card and then demanding a line increase so you can keep spending or else you will default, all the while having cable, cell phones, monthly massage treatments, etc, all of which you could cancel first.

There was and is PLENTY of fat which can be cut in order for us to not raise the ceiling and pay our bills.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:

...Your analogy is a little off. It is like maxing out your credit card and then demanding a line increase so you can keep spending or else you will default, all the while having cable, cell phones, monthly massage treatments, etc, all of which you could cancel first.

There was and is PLENTY of fat which can be cut in order for us to not raise the ceiling and pay our bills.

BAM! That's a spot on analogy ANT.

Regards

Oct 7, 2011
cphbravo96:
ANT:

...Your analogy is a little off. It is like maxing out your credit card and then demanding a line increase so you can keep spending or else you will default, all the while having cable, cell phones, monthly massage treatments, etc, all of which you could cancel first.

There was and is PLENTY of fat which can be cut in order for us to not raise the ceiling and pay our bills.

BAM! That's a spot on analogy ANT.

Regards

Except the cable and cellphone company employees and massagers that lost their jobs will now be receiving unemployment from you. Unfortunately, they don't pay taxes anymore so you have to borrow to pay them. But that will make us go past the debt ceiling you say. Then we'll have to cut some more. The economy then contracts further and more people lose their jobs... Why can't this be simple?

You may not have heard of Greece, but fiscal austerity doesn't lower you debt load if you can't grow. Even people in the UK can tell you that much. If the past few quarters are anything to by, the US is hardly growing at all. When the Tea Party religiously adhered to the belief that the debt ceiling couldn't be raised, they forfeited any right to the claim that they were attempting to reduce our debt. Economics may not be rocket science, but it trips up a lot of people.

Except you're the one responsible for paying unemployment benefits to the cable and cellphone employees and massagers who lose their job. Problem is, they lost their incomes and don't pay taxes anymore. How then pay for unemployment? Borrow some more. But what of the debt ceiling? Well cut some more then! But the economy will slow and more people will be unemployed... Why is this so complicated?!?

Perhaps you've never heard of a place called Greece, but austerity without growth doesn't reduce your debt load. You can even ask the UK if you need an example from a country without as many tax cheats. Bottom line, the Tea Party's solution was simplistic and poorly thought out. By religiously adhering to the belief that the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised, the Tea Party forfeited any claim on actually wanting to reduce our debt. Economics may not be rocket science, but it trips a lot of people up

Oct 6, 2011

LMAO. For the record, these aren't the real demands.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

Oct 6, 2011

ORLY? Please enlighten us on their demands then.

Oct 6, 2011
ANT:

ORLY? Please enlighten us on their demands then.

This seems to be a fairly organic uprising, I don't think they have a central government.

Their point about pharmaceutical products is spot-on. We could decrease healthcare costs by 45% this year by allowing Americans to buy drugs from other countries.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

Oct 6, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature...
(The Official Statement from the General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street)

What do you all think?

Oct 6, 2011

Wow, sounds like the demands that were posted before. Incredibly liberal, left wing demands.

Hahahahhaha. I love how these clowns pretend to speak for the "99%" of Americans. In reality their extremist opinions is representative of as small as group as the rich people represent.

Oct 6, 2011

Wait now. You say they don't have a central government or demands, yet they rolled out demands earlier in the week (which they then tried to distance themselves from).

Then they send demands to MSNBC which are nearly similar to the demands posted before. Coincidence? I think not.

They know what they want, they just don't know how to form a realistic plan.

1) They complain about foreclosures. Get real. Yes, banks fucked up by not having documents. Yes, they used turbo signers. I agree the banks were sloppy.

Let's take a step back. There is being right because you are right and there is being right because you found a technicality. The letter or the spirit of the law.

People are being foreclosed because they aren't paying their mortgage. People have been slick and figured out how to use the law to their advantage, bravo. I salute people who fight fire with fire. That being said, please shelve the righteous indignation.

Student loans killing you? Oh please. How many of us worked during school or went to a cheaper university. How many people did two years at a community college or transferred to another school. How many people went to a school close to home and lived with their parents?

Blaming someone else on your student loans is a cop out. Yes, debt sucks and no one likes paying student loans, but you incurred the debt, deal with it.

Just because the banks got a bail out doesn't mean everyones debt should be vanished. If that is what people think then we should of never bailed the banks out because Americans are little children.

If he got ice cream I want ice cream DADDY. Grow the fuck up.

They bitch about factory farming? I didn't realize feeding the world was a bad thing. Talk about being egotistically and American-centric.

Complaining about racism and unfair hiring? WTF are they talking about? We have anti discrimination laws, affirmative action, quota hiring. Get real. What more should or can we do?

I could go on and on. These are not intelligent, well formed demands. This is little kid shit. Come to the table with some adult demands and complaints and maybe I/we can respect you.

Oct 7, 2011
ANT:

Wait now. You say they don't have a central government or demands, yet they rolled out demands earlier in the week (which they then tried to distance themselves from).

Then they send demands to MSNBC which are nearly similar to the demands posted before. Coincidence? I think not.

They know what they want, they just don't know how to form a realistic plan.

1) They complain about foreclosures. Get real. Yes, banks fucked up by not having documents. Yes, they used turbo signers. I agree the banks were sloppy.

Let's take a step back. There is being right because you are right and there is being right because you found a technicality. The letter or the spirit of the law.

People are being foreclosed because they aren't paying their mortgage. People have been slick and figured out how to use the law to their advantage, bravo. I salute people who fight fire with fire. That being said, please shelve the righteous indignation.

Student loans killing you? Oh please. How many of us worked during school or went to a cheaper university. How many people did two years at a community college or transferred to another school. How many people went to a school close to home and lived with their parents?

Blaming someone else on your student loans is a cop out. Yes, debt sucks and no one likes paying student loans, but you incurred the debt, deal with it.

Just because the banks got a bail out doesn't mean everyones debt should be vanished. If that is what people think then we should of never bailed the banks out because Americans are little children.

If he got ice cream I want ice cream DADDY. Grow the fuck up.

They bitch about factory farming? I didn't realize feeding the world was a bad thing. Talk about being egotistically and American-centric.

Complaining about racism and unfair hiring? WTF are they talking about? We have anti discrimination laws, affirmative action, quota hiring. Get real. What more should or can we do?

I could go on and on. These are not intelligent, well formed demands. This is little kid shit. Come to the table with some adult demands and complaints and maybe I/we can respect you.

OK fine ANT. People will stop whining about their student loans once the banks stop demanding bailouts every time they blow themselves up/ What is more offensive, a student getting bailed out of student debt they took on at age 18 or a bank getting bailed out because of mistakes made by a mortgage origination desk compromised of people who all made a killing off of it? I'd personally rather have spent 700bn discharging student debt and I am a conservative.

It is the banks that are whiny bitches who think they are entitled to everything, not a bunch of students.

Oct 7, 2011

I'm having some iPhone trouble, the bottom argument was the original, I like it better, I'll edit after class.

Oct 7, 2011

Sigh....thoss aren't the "demands" of occupy wall street.
The wall street occupation takes place in a park. There is no access to power, except for a generator which doesn't run constantly. The juice that exists runs the live camera. No one facilitates internet dicussion, no one runs conference calls. It just doesn't work like that. Occupywallst.org gets some announcements from individuals in the park, but its not the website associated those people you see in the park. That site is nycga.net. Read all the minutes from the nyc GA and make fun of those. Most people in the park haven't read nor have any contacts with any of the people in the occupywallst.org forum. As of yet, there is no official list of demands. I don't think there will be any...but maybe I'm wrong. But no, that's not in any way shape or form the demands of OWS.

Oct 7, 2011

Oh get real. People protest and go home. They have laptops, cell phones, etc. Maybe you aren't talking to all the people in the protest.

Sorry, but those demands are on the organizing website, they were repeated later in the week on national TV.

Oct 7, 2011

And again...thays not the organizing website of the occupation. That would be nycga.net. Those posts are akin to me posting a similar screed here, linking to it, and saying that "people who work on Wall Street want reform too!"

The Occupy Wall Street movement doesn't exist on the internet, it exists in public squares. There are very few people on the plaza with laptops and ccell phones. Communication too and from the plaza is difficult due to a) lack.of power and b) lack of broad wifi. People who bring laptops and cell phones are usually taking pictures or working group minutes. Not coordinating an "occupy" movement on the internet. They did agree upon and release that statement of the occupation. That's not even close to that fake list of demands.
But of course you've never been there. But you and Google DID find a link. So therefore you obviously are 100% correct.
I can get with deregulation and limited governmemt if deregulation of property rights and the dismantling of the publicly funded police force that protects those rights comes with it. You can hire a private police force and get bent over a barrell by that cartel (and really if you think that's a great idea - you obviously haven't spent time in east africa.) Just once I'd like to see a Rand-droid actually put their money where their mouth is. Yeah government sucks....except all those pieces of government that work for you.

Oct 7, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q
Keith read an official memo from your nycga. It follows closely with the OWS demands, with more eloquent language.

But you know everything because you've spoken to some people in the park. I mean only the people physically sleeping in the park are the movement right? Non of these other protestors.

Stop being a shill. They released demands, then tried distancing themselves from it. Then Keith reads an "offical" notice which is nearly exactly similar to the OWS website demands.

Oct 8, 2011
ANT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q
Keith read an official memo from your nycga. It follows closely with the OWS demands, with more eloquent language.

But you know everything because you've spoken to some people in the park. I mean only the people physically sleeping in the park are the movement right? Non of these other protestors.

Stop being a shill. They released demands, then tried distancing themselves from it. Then Keith reads an "offical" notice which is nearly exactly similar to the OWS website demands.

Words have objective meaning. They can't mean what you want them to say. Like, socialism is different than fascism is different than communism. Those are words and ideas each with a different definition. The principles of occupation are not "demands." They are principles of occupation. Note the use of the word "occupation" on literally everything - including the statement of principles. Occupation is an action that takes place in a physical space. So yes, the residents OF the plaza are the people you should be getting your information from. "The other protesters" on twitter and internet forums are not speaking for 56 cities around the country participating in an "occupation." They are not in fact "protesters," they are people at a keyboard.

Oct 7, 2011

Jesus, I was at the protest last night. The cops are not messing around. My fleece still smells like pepper spray.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

Oct 7, 2011

More specifically we borrowed. Nothing wrong with spending less than you take, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Oct 7, 2011

Good Lord, the insanity is spreading!! Sadly this is back in my neck of the woods. Wish I was home so I could launch a counter-protest to protest the protesters. LOL.

Best quote, of course, comes from an old man..."Traditionally, it's the military that's going to start a revolution. Them? They're just killing time."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/occupy-tampa...
Also, if you look through the pictures you will see that WSO's very own Midas made his way to Tampa to protest as well, lol.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2011/photo_galler...
Regards

Oct 7, 2011

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

Pitch book please...

O god, I just LOLed during class. That's great

It is better to be vaguely right than exactly wrong - JMK

Oct 7, 2011

I am as far away from this list of demands as can be in terms of my politics, but they are no more ridiculous or offensive then much of what wall st has lobbied for lately. Below are a few bullet points that might be on the "bank demands" list if they had to protest in this way:

-When the economy collapses we need massive welfare for the banks in order to prevent even a chance of bankruptcy.
-The central bank should print money anytime the economy falters in order to shoot for a state of permanent inflation because it encourages lending. This policy should not be questioned even after we see that unnatural levels of leverage are horribly destructive.
-The Federal Reserve should be the chief regulator of the banks despite the fact that it is owned by its member branches who are in tern owned by a banking consortium. So the banks should be regulated by what amounts to a private corporation which is owned by the banks themselves.
-Super-national orginaztions like the IMF and EU should have the power to have a say in budgets and monetary policy in individual countries.

...doesnt sound any stupider then the original list...

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 7, 2011

Jesus Bondarb, we've had our disagreements in the past, but right now I could kiss you (no homo). Well done sir.

Oct 7, 2011

i don't blame the banks. they have to look out for there shareholders, and for themselves. if i could get the govt. favor me i would do it too. it's the govt. that is meant to be looking out for the public interest.

Oct 7, 2011

Yawn.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
Many of the banks were forced to take money. Yes, it was to mask the weak banks, but now we fault the for something they didn't need to begin with.

Look at the above chart. Sure looks like the biggest sinners were quasi government agencies. Oh, and the GM bailout which was real nice to the unions (thanks comrade Obama).

Fed printing money?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm
You can thank the GOVERNMENT for the dual mandate. Most central banks only focus on inflation. We have to deal with inflation and full employment, which sometimes work against each other.

Please help me remember which banks begged for a bailout? List them out. Then we can focus on those banks.

This was a liquidity and a confidence crisis. Many of it was caused by the government, many of it by the banks themselves. A lot was people over spending and over leveraging. Everyone was to blame.

Oh and some kid maxing out his college loans and complaining about the banks is a jackass.

I can't wait for the people who run the park to kick these derelicts out.

Oct 7, 2011

Everytime I read about these guys, all I can think about is...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/165188/im-st...

Oct 8, 2011

To absolve the banks of responsibility in the financial crisis is absurd. They are the ones who lobbied to have regulations relaxed and they are the ones who kept the subprime securitization machine running until the end. That they deserved to fail is unquestionable.

Looking solely at TARP is a reductive view of the bailouts. TARP came in relatively late to the party and was a "bazooka" solution to calm the markets. Banks knew this and protested essentially for PR reasons. After all, these were the same banks that had been borrowing tens of billions from the Fed since Lehman's collapse at rock bottom rates.

How is the government responsible for what the banks went through? Are you blaming them for not saving Lehman? Should the securities industry not have been deregulated? There's a whole lot of blame to spread around but the banks were by and large masters of their own fate. Absolving them is reckless and an affront to capitalism.

Oct 8, 2011

1) Specify when you place blame. "The Banks" is nebulous and obscures the fact that not every bank wanted or needed a bail out. Also, two banks did fail, along with a bunch who were forced into mergers.

This concept that bankers fucked everything over while not losing a penny and partying the entire time is silly.

2) Bankers hold the bag when it comes to responsibility to make credit worthy loans. When they don't do this and those loans go sour, the bankers have responsibility for destroying their bank. The economy cratering can be equally blamed on many parties, INCLUDING the consumer. Just because a bank will give you a loan does not absolve you from paying it back or borrowing responsibly.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
The biggest bailout recipients are government entities and union employers. If you look at that chart you will see AIG still in the hole. Most other banks repaid in full (and then some). This was a liquidity and confidence crisis. The weak banks failed.

Citi and BoA still have issues (more so BoA). They are divesting business units and attempting to work through bad mortgages (being slowed and delayed by state and federal government).

Oct 8, 2011
ANT:

1) Specify when you place blame. "The Banks" is nebulous and obscures the fact that not every bank wanted or needed a bail out. Also, two banks did fail, along with a bunch who were forced into mergers.

This concept that bankers fucked everything over while not losing a penny and partying the entire time is silly.

2) Bankers hold the bag when it comes to responsibility to make credit worthy loans. When they don't do this and those loans go sour, the bankers have responsibility for destroying their bank. The economy cratering can be equally blamed on many parties, INCLUDING the consumer. Just because a bank will give you a loan does not absolve you from paying it back or borrowing responsibly.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
The biggest bailout recipients are government entities and union employers. If you look at that chart you will see AIG still in the hole. Most other banks repaid in full (and then some). This was a liquidity and confidence crisis. The weak banks failed.

Citi and BoA still have issues (more so BoA). They are divesting business units and attempting to work through bad mortgages (being slowed and delayed by state and federal government).

By the "banks" I mean all the top financial institutions in the US and yes they all did receive bailout money in some form or another. And unlike you, I actually did work for a bank that played a big part in originating many of the securitizations that helped blow up the World and I can tell you firsthand that yes indeed bankers did fuck up the world 100% knowingly, partied all the way, and never gave up a penny when it all went wrong. The head of that firm's mortgage desk is retired in Aspen right now and all the other top guys there made a killing and left with no clawback after everything went wrong. I was there and saw it with my own eyes while you were probably in some poli-sci class so please dont tell me its a ridiculous notion.

Secondly, the fact that they "paid back" the loans in many cases misses the point entirely. Why do you understand moral hazard for individuals but not for banks? When the Federal Reserve and the US Taxpayer step in every time a bank gets in trouble it sends the clear message that piling on excessive leverage is the smart thing to do. I have zero doubt that when some demand returns to the economy we will see the same process repeated with the same people getting rich and once again the taxpayer will step in to save the day when the scheme inevitably falls apart...its already happened twice in my 10 year career. Furthermore, the bailouts and excessively loose monetary policy cause capital that should flee a dying sector to remain there and the economy ends up in a zombie state. The loss to the economy comes not from the loans themselves but from inefficiency and the opportunity cost of misallocating resources....it is the same reason all forms of socialism and central planning fail.

You need to grasp the fact that by defending banks you are embracing a pretty malicious form of socialism...there is nothing at all conservative about your position. Only differentiation between the banks and the protestors is that the financial sector is just too flush with cash to march around downtown and instead they cut massive checks to politicians which is more effective but certainly no less offensive.

    • 1
Oct 10, 2011
Bondarb:
ANT:

1) Specify when you place blame. "The Banks" is nebulous and obscures the fact that not every bank wanted or needed a bail out. Also, two banks did fail, along with a bunch who were forced into mergers.

This concept that bankers fucked everything over while not losing a penny and partying the entire time is silly.

2) Bankers hold the bag when it comes to responsibility to make credit worthy loans. When they don't do this and those loans go sour, the bankers have responsibility for destroying their bank. The economy cratering can be equally blamed on many parties, INCLUDING the consumer. Just because a bank will give you a loan does not absolve you from paying it back or borrowing responsibly.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
The biggest bailout recipients are government entities and union employers. If you look at that chart you will see AIG still in the hole. Most other banks repaid in full (and then some). This was a liquidity and confidence crisis. The weak banks failed.

Citi and BoA still have issues (more so BoA). They are divesting business units and attempting to work through bad mortgages (being slowed and delayed by state and federal government).

By the "banks" I mean all the top financial institutions in the US and yes they all did receive bailout money in some form or another. And unlike you, I actually did work for a bank that played a big part in originating many of the securitizations that helped blow up the World and I can tell you firsthand that yes indeed bankers did fuck up the world 100% knowingly, partied all the way, and never gave up a penny when it all went wrong. The head of that firm's mortgage desk is retired in Aspen right now and all the other top guys there made a killing and left with no clawback after everything went wrong. I was there and saw it with my own eyes while you were probably in some poli-sci class so please dont tell me its a ridiculous notion.

Secondly, the fact that they "paid back" the loans in many cases misses the point entirely. Why do you understand moral hazard for individuals but not for banks? When the Federal Reserve and the US Taxpayer step in every time a bank gets in trouble it sends the clear message that piling on excessive leverage is the smart thing to do. I have zero doubt that when some demand returns to the economy we will see the same process repeated with the same people getting rich and once again the taxpayer will step in to save the day when the scheme inevitably falls apart...its already happened twice in my 10 year career. Furthermore, the bailouts and excessively loose monetary policy cause capital that should flee a dying sector to remain there and the economy ends up in a zombie state. The loss to the economy comes not from the loans themselves but from inefficiency and the opportunity cost of misallocating resources....it is the same reason all forms of socialism and central planning fail.

You need to grasp the fact that by defending banks you are embracing a pretty malicious form of socialism...there is nothing at all conservative about your position. Only differentiation between the banks and the protestors is that the financial sector is just too flush with cash to march around downtown and instead they cut massive checks to politicians which is more effective but certainly no less offensive.

Damn I owe you one kong-sized SB

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

Oct 8, 2011

Fuck politics, I'm tired of seeing my peers feeling like they have rights to things to which they did not work for plain and simple or refusing to deal with consequences of their own fucking decisions.

Forget left vs. right, forget whose fault the financial crisis is, I am more incensed and quite frankly scared of the fact that my generation just wants things and doesn't want to work hard for them.

There's a reason why a lot of WSOer's are double/triple-majors, 3.5-4.0 GPA students, ECs, internships etc. b/c you guys want something and you're smart enough to go out there and get it.

I don't get where this idea of something for nothing is coming from; it's certainly not how I was raised and I definitely don't come from wealth, but it's alarming.

'Before you enter... be willing to pay the price'

Oct 8, 2011

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
I reiterate, here is the above list of bailout recipients. The top offenders are quasi government entities and a large union employer. Many of the banks FORCED to accept bailout funds have repaid them in full. When you are FORCE to take something, it is not your fault for taking it.

I worked for a bank that also owned one of the largest subprime lenders. So thanks for your cute little comment.

I am not defending banks. I am defending shared responsibility. This idea that only banks are at fault and pooorrr wittle common man is not to blame is sickening.

Government pushed the CRA
Fed kept rates too low for too long
People over leveraged, over spent and under saved
Banks lowered their standards and made bad loans

All to blame. The economy sucks and that is life. This isn't about justice, this is about some imaginary form of revenge. These kids and their demands don't represent 99% of society, more like the fringe 20%.

The financial sector bail out benefited everyone. These protesters got a trillion dollars in stimulus. Half the people pay no federal taxes. Everyone got theirs and need to realize that the economy will take time to rebound and stabilize.

Oct 8, 2011

That's TARP, and it is the tip of the iceberg. If it weren't for the Fed being willing to lend unlimited amounts of money after Lehman, a very good chunk of the street would have collapsed: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/morgan-st...
The "struggle" put up by TARP recipients was 100% PR. They knew full well that if they didn't take the money, the market wold come back to crush them.

As far as the banks being as responsible as the "wittle common man," think about this: bank's jobs are to assess the risk they take on when they make a loan. If they make a mistake, the fault lies with them. If you won't blame banks for using and creating every regulatory loophole they can, you can't blame people for taking on absurd mortgages. Banks have a history of telling their clients "Sorry, caveat emptor." It's only fair that those who took out no-doc 2/28 ARM can say "right back at you, buddy," because the banks didn't do their due diligence.

Oct 8, 2011

And the banks are taking the responsibility. You don't want your house, give it back to the banks. All of a sudden not paying for your home also means you can keep it also.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
If anyone actually looked at the link I posted they would realize that it tracks all of the bailout, not just TARP.

Oct 8, 2011

Nope. I looked at the link. The numbers given for the banks pale in comparison to the total assistance they received. It's essentially TARP plus GM, AIG and the federal housing complex.

    • 1
Oct 8, 2011

I dont really get why that link supports your case. The whole list is banks, insurance companies, or brokerages except for the auto companies. For the record I dont support bailouts for FRE and FNM either...I think their debts should also have gone off the board at 0 which is what they were worth without government assistance. Ditto for the auto companies...they all were the recipients of massive corporate welfare because they had political influence (the agencies and the autos with the democrats, and the banks and brokers with both parties).

Just answer the question: why do you support welfare for banks, but not for students? Seems to me to be fairly hypocritical. I support neither.

And let me also reiterate that if you dont believe that pervasive fraud was the culture on wall st during the run-up to the crisis then you just werent there. So if you did work for one of these places then you were either too junior or too stupid to see what was going on around you. At least students were just stupid and werent commiting outright criminal acts...and none of the students made millions off of their mistake.

    • 1
Oct 9, 2011

These demands are fucking retarded. I personally love "open borders" but also what is essentially socialism and free healthcare and free education. Could these people just take over like California and secede?

Reality hits you hard, bro...

Oct 10, 2011

I'm probably further right than most people on this site, and I challenge anyone to explain to me how it makes sense to allow banks to operate any differently than utilities given how tightly coupled our economy is with the lending function. Things literally grind to a halt overnight if lines of credit dry up. Banks should not be for-profit institutions. Or, we should do away with fractional reserve banking and de-leverage the whole system. But it doesn't seem to me that you can have it both ways.

Oct 10, 2011
Oct 10, 2011
djfiii:

I'm probably further right than most people on this site, and I challenge anyone to explain to me how it makes sense to allow banks to operate any differently than utilities given how tightly coupled our economy is with the lending function.

IMHO we should deregulate utilities too.

The banking system is in danger because of the government not in spite of it. Because governments have tacitly or explicitly bailed out banks over and over again it has created an environment of moral hazard that encouraged the risk taking behavior that led to this crisis. If, in 1984, we let Continental Illinois fail and all the banks since then- maybe with an orderly dissolution, I could guarantee that this would not have happened. We need to find a way to stop these bailouts from occurring ever again and the markets will right themselves. Hell, listen to Dick Fuld's speech to Congress, where he essentially said "Why only us? Why let's us fail and save everyone else?" he shouldn't have been able to ask that question because no one should be or should have been saved (financially) by the American government.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

Oct 10, 2011
MMBinNC:
djfiii:

I'm probably further right than most people on this site, and I challenge anyone to explain to me how it makes sense to allow banks to operate any differently than utilities given how tightly coupled our economy is with the lending function.

IMHO we should deregulate utilities too.

The banking system is in danger because of the government not in spite of it. Because governments have tacitly or explicitly bailed out banks over and over again it has created an environment of moral hazard that encouraged the risk taking behavior that led to this crisis. If, in 1984, we let Continental Illinois fail and all the banks since then- maybe with an orderly dissolution, I could guarantee that this would not have happened. We need to find a way to stop these bailouts from occurring ever again and the markets will right themselves. Hell, listen to Dick Fuld's speech to Congress, where he essentially said "Why only us? Why let's us fail and save everyone else?" he shouldn't have been able to ask that question because no one should be or should have been saved (financially) by the American government.

I don't know that either of us has more than conjecture either way, so our opinions probably just end here. Truth be told, I'm 100% with you in principle. I think any and all companies should be left to live or die by their own merits, including banks. That said, when you get into practical application, banks aren't like other industries, in that they provide a service that is necessary for the rest of the system to function. If they fail in aggregate, it isn't just that a few hundred thousand people are out of work and maybe have to retool their skillset to be relevant (i.e. auto manufacturers). The result of an aggregate bank failure is complete systemic shutdown.

So the question is - are you right, or am I? Is it the chicken or the egg that comes first? You argue that it's government intervention that created the moral hazard. I could argue just as easily that the moral hazard already existed by virtue of banks knowing their role is vital to everything, i.e. without ever receiving implicit or explicit acknowledgement from the government, they know full well taxpayers have to bail them out if shit goes bad. Armed with that knowledge, executives can take risks accordingly.

I don't think there is evidence to support a conclusion either way, but I'm definitely open to any convincing argument that makes me believe deregulation (specific to banks) results in less risky behavior. My gut says it doesn't.

Oct 10, 2011

Glass-Steagal was an attempt at keeping risky activities from affecting systemically important retail and commercial activities. As the lines became blurred when interest rates started to rise in the 1970s, we slowly moved to the repeal of Glass-Steagal, first in practice and then by law. Reinstating Glass-Steagal could help, but it's not a panacea. Goldman isn't a player in the retail/commercial space and yet their failure would have systemic consequences due to how interrelated players in the capital markets are. There's no easy solution and bailouts have only served to make matters worse.

Oct 10, 2011

Well, the only solution I can see goes back to my first post on the subject - which is to treat lending as a utility. Remove the profit motive entirely.

Oct 10, 2011

Glass-Steagal would have done nothing in this current crisis. Let's separate commercial and investment banking...ok. But the banks hit the hardest were the "pure" investment banks. And they were not brought down by bank runs, they were brought down by investor confidence eroding.

Bailouts and the Greenspan Put should not exist and the government should take a proactive stance in stopping them. Next time a bank "fails" dismantle and sell it off- give the shareholders nothing. Fire everyone, send it into receivership, no bailout, no nothing. Eliminate the pensions, eliminate the payments to employees, everything. It needs to be an orderly dismantling of the institution, not a saving. Only if they are faced with Armageddon will the institutions act in a way that accounts for risk- only then can the moral hazard in the financial sector be reduced or eliminated.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

Oct 10, 2011

This is an endless circle jerk. Many banks wanted nothing to do with the bailout, yet are not blamed because they took the money. The most heavily damaged banks that absolutely needed the bail out were investment banks, which would of been purely investment banks if GS was still in place, yet GS is being called the solution.

What fucked everything was banks buying mortgage providers and the false security in insurance. That was the entire point of CDS, to insure in case of default. I guess people didn't think about what would happen if the insurer couldn't pay up.

People blame banks yet ignore Freddie and Fannie, the largest recipients of bailout funds and some of the largest sinners in this whole thing, yet banks need to be further regulated and controlled.

People argue that bankers scammed the system, then we should of let the banks fail. If bailing the banks out was an utter necessity we should probably not focus on compensation. People fail to realize that many CEO's and financiers got fucked hardcore because their comp was in stocks. Not crying for them, but this image of the honest, but gullible government writing checks and bankers laughing is completely biased and one sided.

A healthy and living financial sector is essential for a country. I suppose we could of allowed America to die, but remained faithful to our capitalistic roots. Yet we didn't.

I look around the world and see protests all over Europe and now here. It is because human beings are entirely selfish and have been taught to look toward the government as pseudo parents. How anyone in Europe could protest their government is beyond me. The punitive tax laws, nanny state entitlement programs and lavish labor laws only go to show you that no matter how much you give ungrateful bastards, they will always want more.

What is the common theme with this protest? If bankers got bailouts I want mine. People aren't protesting laws, constitutional revisions or the essence of America. They are pissed they didn't get their hand out.

This country is going down the tubes and I don't know the answer. I do know that increasing government spending and increasing taxation is absolutely not going to make things better. China and the rest of the developing countries will still be growing, gaining ground. Their citizens will still beat us or gain on us when it comes to education and invention. Any added taxes will simply be passed to the consumer, just like they always are.

Punish banks? Sweet. Less lending and less growth. Tax corporations more? Sweet, higher prices and lay offs. You want to push more manufacturing overseas? Make doing business in the US even harder. Real simple.

Oh, but maybe the government can force businesses to absorb the cost without passing it on.Cool, watch that stock get delisted in a week.

I fear that people will only stop looking to the government to solve their problems when this country becomes so fucked up that even the least intelligent among us can see that government meddling causes more harm than good.

Oct 10, 2011

ANT...no CEOs or high level people got fucked in any way shape or form. Some people are getting fucked now...ie the people who are left holding the bag...but you forget that the bailout plus QE1 caused stocks to approx double from march "09. to early 2010 Unlike you, I actually know high ranking people who were involved in causing the crisis of 2008 and they all made out like bandits. You need to get rid of your ridiculous idea that the people who caused this crisis on the sell-side paid ay price whatsoveer...i was there and they did not pay any price at all, i promise you.

This is why we have people sleeping downtown and this is why I support them.

    • 1
Oct 10, 2011

Oh wow dude. You are so sweet. Thanks for the dick measuring competition.

Bank of America

http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=bac&ty=c&ta=0&p=m
Morgan Stanley

http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=ms&ty=c&ta=0&p=m
Citi

http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=c&ty=c&ta=0&p=m
AIG

http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=aig&ty=c&ta=0&p=m
Yeah, bank stocks sure did rebound. The ones that didn't need the bailout and the ones who were relatively healthy during the crisis are doing decent right now. The ones that needed a bailout are still shit.

Who are the specific people who directly caused this. We can list names and gather evidence of criminal misdeeds. Or is this blame the captain of the ship stuff? Difference between blaming someone and someone committing a crime.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/24/business/f...
That is just one of many articles describing massive Wall Street layoffs.

Or does that not count because it wasn't a CEO getting the death penalty?

Oct 11, 2011

My whole point about Glass-Steagal is that had all banks been pure plays, the investment banks wouldn't have been bailed out. The TBTF label was coined especially for Citi, BofA and AIG, all three of which were in serious trouble. Otherwise, Morgan Stanley probably would have pulled a Bear/Lehman.

Oct 11, 2011
GoodBread:

My whole point about Glass-Steagal is that had all banks been pure plays, the investment banks wouldn't have been bailed out. The TBTF label was coined especially for Citi, BofA and AIG, all three of which were in serious trouble. Otherwise, Morgan Stanley probably would have pulled a Bear/Lehman.

Like i've mentioned before, I am not against rolling back GS. How about we kill Dodd Frank and just bring back Steagal?

Oct 11, 2011

Sounds good to me.

Oct 11, 2011

Response to BondArb:

You are making some good points, and I agree that some people got rich by knowingly fucking the financial system. However, I think you are missing a crucial element - Those clowns had willing buyers for every garbage security they sold. And who were the biggest buyers? Fannie and Freddie. From 2004 - 2006, Those two agencies bought over $400 BILLION in securities backed by subprime loans. In 2004, they combined to account for 44% of the total demand for subprime/alt-A securities.

Those greedy bankers were merely selling a product that these entities had a GOVERNMENT MANDATE to buy. I am not just blaming democrats here (Clinton, GHWB, GWB, and multiple congresses deserve blame for that mandate). The chain of events that led to that crisis goes back decades. By no means am I absolving the banking sector, but they were not the only parties complicit in this mess.

Bottom line - You want to crucify some bankers? Fine, but you better save some crosses for presidents, congressmen, HUD, GSE's, and mortgage brokers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Oct 11, 2011
Buyside <span class=keyword_link><a href=https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?ii=1145861&am... rel=nofollow>CFA</a></span>:

Response to BondArb:

You are making some good points, and I agree that some people got rich by knowingly fucking the financial system. However, I think you are missing a crucial element - Those clowns had willing buyers for every garbage security they sold. And who were the biggest buyers? Fannie and Freddie. From 2004 - 2006, Those two agencies bought over $400 BILLION in securities backed by subprime loans. In 2004, they combined to account for 44% of the total demand for subprime/alt-A securities.

Those greedy bankers were merely selling a product that these entities had a GOVERNMENT MANDATE to buy. I am not just blaming democrats here (Clinton, GHWB, GWB, and multiple congresses deserve blame for that mandate). The chain of events that led to that crisis goes back decades. By no means am I absolving the banking sector, but they were not the only parties complicit in this mess.

Bottom line - You want to crucify some bankers? Fine, but you better save some crosses for presidents, congressmen, HUD, GSE's, and mortgage brokers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

I agree that the blame goes all around. And that is why I dont support bailouts...not for borrowers who got in over their heads nor for banks that went crazy pumping out ridiculous financial products. I just dont understand the frothy anger from ANT at students demonstarting downtown while he gives a pass to banks and weakly attempts to justify their ridiculous, multiple bailouts. Socialism is socialism whether its for a student or a bank...and at least the students can plead the ignorance of youth and at least they didnt get rich off of the crisis like the many of the culprits from the banking sector did.

How can anybody who even has a shred of belief in free markets support transferring tax payer money to people who so royally fucked up? And how can we not expect a backlash after the checks are cut?

Oct 11, 2011

Buyside - This will never happen. Great post BTW. This movement is the working of Soro's and Obama in an attempt to mask his failed three years. Obama thinks that firing up the lefties in his base will help him come re-election. All it is doing is solidifying his opposition.

Whole bunch of Change going on.

Oct 11, 2011

Yeah, I justify their bailouts.

I love it. Banks are forced to accept bailout money to mask the weak banks. The healthy banks give the money back as soon as possible. Now all banks are blamed for being bailed out.

At this point I don't even care. Let them all fail. Doesn't matter in the slightest to me. I personally think providing liquidity to banks was a smart move because this financial collapse would of damaged this country worse than the great depression.

But yeah, bailing out the banks was only to keep rich people rich. No one else in this country would of suffered had the financial sector collapsed.

Real funny. This "backlash" comes 3 years after the bail out. What a joke.

My "frothy anger" comes from protesters who are pushing a leftist agenda, which includes government expansion and increasing tax rates. That is where my anger comes from. If these clowns want to push for Glass Steagal to come back, fine. But they are not. Their official agenda is far left.

Oct 12, 2011
ANT:

Yeah, I justify their bailouts.

I love it. Banks are forced to accept bailout money to mask the weak banks. The healthy banks give the money back as soon as possible. Now all banks are blamed for being bailed out.

At this point I don't even care. Let them all fail. Doesn't matter in the slightest to me. I personally think providing liquidity to banks was a smart move because this financial collapse would of damaged this country worse than the great depression.

But yeah, bailing out the banks was only to keep rich people rich. No one else in this country would of suffered had the financial sector collapsed.

Real funny. This "backlash" comes 3 years after the bail out. What a joke.

My "frothy anger" comes from protesters who are pushing a leftist agenda, which includes government expansion and increasing tax rates. That is where my anger comes from. If these clowns want to push for Glass Steagal to come back, fine. But they are not. Their official agenda is far left.

Every brokerage house on wall st including goldman sachs would have been out of business in 2008 without bailouts of them or their counterparties. This is fact. Instead of going out of business they received taxpayer funded transfer payments. The fact that a few banks made a show of not "needing" TARP does not mean they were not bailed out. They were and most people who work at these places have no qualms about saying it because for anyone who was in markets at the time it is obvious (especially for the non-deposit holding institutions like GS and MS).

Most of the people who actually were there in 2008 and were selling the worst of this stuff made a killing not only in the lead up to the bailout but also in 2009 when the bailout-induced bounce created record bonus pools at most firms. This is again just fact. There are no clawbacks so the fact that stocks subsequently came off matters not for many people....they squeezed out one more massive quarter on your and my dime. And yes I could give you specific people and the list would be long...many of them are actually my friends but it doesnt change the fact that it was wrong both morally and in many cases legally.

I really dont get how one can not get angry about people who are already rich benefiting from taxpayer largese and then not understand when people who are absolutely not rich get pissed off and go protest. How can you call yourself conservative and support one form of socialism but not another? Doesnt make sense to me.

And BTW how many crashes and subsequent monetary policy/government bailout do we have to have per decade before we learn the concept of moral hazard and the idea that when losses are socialized and gains privatized disaster follows every time?

Oct 12, 2011
Comment
Oct 12, 2011
Oct 13, 2011
Oct 13, 2011
Comment

Reality hits you hard, bro...

Nov 16, 2011
Comment

And the question is, is to have had and lost better than not having at all?

Pages