We're all idiots!

What's your favorite part?

No votes yet

1- the fossil fool guy
2- the burl ives impersonater
3-drum circles
4- the smothers brothers

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

My favorite is the internet is a scheme because we're all one person guy. I can never turn down a good wacko.

I do have to laugh at all the corporate showings I see like:
a. Creatine electricity with a bike while drinking your starbucks and talking on a cellphone.
b. Finishing off those McDonald's fries while complaining about the Corporatism of America.
c. Dancing hippie chick behind "Media please be honest about the spirt of this movement".... she's freaking wearing Uggs!

You're right Fred he does look like Burl Ives, I wonder if he knows Mr. In-between?

Maybe that's what Occupy Toledo needs... musicians! Fred you got your sax?

MikeyA

Downtown Phoenix where the Occupy Phoenix group, had an OWS speaker name unknown, who said now is the time to...

"Uprise against the system...
"Force of arms must be used...
"Obedience is mandatory, for we are communists...
"Obey the system, tear down the old for the new to emerge...
"All who refuse to obey must be eliminated and their families as well...

This is only part of the growing nightmare coming; Oakland is just the beginning.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

wolfie posting more veterans. I guess his last two that I debunked didn't embarass him enough.

Iraq Veterans Against the War. Good group there. Oh yeah they harbored a deserter turned terrorist and then tried to say they had no involvement with him. Only they featured his writings on a website.

Also, who only marches with two ranks? Secondly, can't even get in step with someone calling cadence. Drilling Fail!

MikeyA

When are we going to get past the silly videos, and actually talk about the issue at hand--namely that the banks and the top 1% OWN our government and influence policy at the expense of the other 99%?

Pink Slip

We won't until the OWS gets serious.

Standing in a park is not serious. It will change nothing.

Registering people to vote, contacting gov't officials to change gov't policy, and voting are the only ways they will change anything. They are not doing any of those effectively and instead are focusing on creating sideshows or even worse as in Oakland.

So plesae don't attempt to lecture us when the "movement" itself isn't taking serious steps to have any affects on what they claim to want to change. In fact the "movement" itself has struggled to come up with a decided agenda.

This is not from a lack of credible ideas. Hell several of their ideas would be supported by both liberals and tea partiers but the OWS insists on over-the-top behavior in lieu of positive change.

MikeyA

There are fringe elements in every movement. Unfortunately, some in the media and people like you in this case prefer to focus on that. But a conversation about economic inequality and a corrupt financial system is gaining traction, and that's something positive.

I'm interested--which OWS ideas do you believe would be supported by "both liberals and tea partiers"?

Pink Slip

The fringe elements have taken over in Oakland, but let’s not focus on that, right. Peaceful demonstrations with a plausible agenda will get the message across. Oh yeah just as some of the protesters are saying, lets not report the rapes that have occurred, we don't want the police to disband us.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

The majority of the OWS movement is on the fringe. There are some who are not fringe within the movement but sadly they are few and far betwee.

"But a conversation about economic inequality and a corrupt financial system is gaining traction" There is no serious conversation about economic inequality. If the US gov't took all assets from everyone tomorrow and distributed them equally on Saturday by Sunday we would have economic inequality again. This is because a fool and his money are soon parted.

Now a corrupt financial system discussion is coming. It's been coming even before the OWS. The financial system is corrupt because our gov't has allowed it to be corrupt. It's been corrupt for decades since the federal gov't allowed the banks to control our money. This was key to what the Tea Party has been preaching. The OWS backing it is just an extension of that. But again the OWS needs to be protesting their gov't instead of the private institutions because gov't is behind it.

As an example look at the housing bubble. As much as the OWS would like to blame banks and mortgage companies the fact is the subprime market was 10% of the housing market until Fannie and Freddie MAC and HUD boosted the levels of the subprime market to 40% by the time of the bubble burst. The banks were a player but they weren't the ones pulling the strings.... the gov't was. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contri...

MikeyA

Are you sure it wasn't the Federal Reserve pulling those strings, after all they are a private entity..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"The majority of the OWS movement is on the fringe."

What do you base this on?

"If the US gov't took all assets from everyone tomorrow and distributed them equally on Saturday by Sunday we would have economic inequality again."

No one is suggesting that. But let me ask this--is it healthy for a democracy to continue to increase it's wealth to fewer and fewer people? We all know of the influence of money in politics. And that money is increasingly concentrated among fewer and fewer people

"But again the OWS needs to be protesting their gov't instead of the private institutions because gov't is behind it."

Hey, I completely agree there. Our elected officials have allowed the banks and the 1% to control policy. I completely blame that on the government.

"the fact is the subprime market was 10% of the housing market until Fannie and Freddie MAC and HUD boosted the levels of the subprime market to 40% by the time of the bubble burst."

That's just not true. Frannie and Freddie did, at one time, hold 48% of subprime loans. But it was down to 24% at the time the private sector subprime market exploded:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fan...

It was private label securitizations that increased 30% in that time. But I blame the government for allowing Wall St to package this junk and sell it as AAA-rated, and then allowing them to bet against their own clients.

Pink Slip

"What do you base this on?" The many stated agendas. The reports of crime. The people's interviews themselves.

"is it healthy for a democracy to continue to increase it's wealth to fewer and fewer people?" It has nothing to do with democracy. It has to do with the monetary system. The inevitable fault of capitalism is greed. The inevitable fault of socialism is corruption. The more we revert to a socialistic society the more we will have systemic corruption.

"Hey, I completely agree there. Our elected officials have allowed the banks and the 1% to control policy. I completely blame that on the government." see there's areas where the Tea Party and OWS can be in lock step.

"That's just not true. Frannie and Freddie did, at one time, hold 48% of subprime loans. But it was down to 24% at the time the private sector subprime market exploded:" Actually it topped to 57% in 2003. Again the problem is not just Freddie and Fannie. HUD was hugely to blame.

From the article I quoted "From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs(sic government sponsored enterprises) purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD's regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate.

MikeyA

Mikey, I'll let Matt Taibbi explain why the idea that affordable housing red herrings hold no water (because really, I couldn't explain it this well):

"In order for this vision of history to be true, one would have to imagine that all of these banks were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of home lending, forced against their will to create huge volumes of home loans for unqualified borrowers.

In fact, just the opposite was true. This was an orgiastic stampede of lending, undertaken with something very like bloodlust. Far from being dragged into poor neighborhoods and forced to give out home loans to jobless black folk, companies like Countrywide and New Century charged into suburbs and exurbs from coast to coast with the enthusiasm of Rwandan machete mobs, looking to create as many loans as they could.

They lent to anyone with a pulse and they didn’t need Barney Frank to give them a push. This was not social policy. This was greed. They created those loans not because they had to, but because it was profitable. Enormously, gigantically profitable -- profitable enough to create huge fortunes out of thin air, with a speed never seen before in Wall Street's history.

The typical money-machine cycle of subprime lending took place without any real government involvement. Bank A (let’s say it’s Goldman, Sachs) lends criminal enterprise B (let’s say it’s Countrywide) a billion dollars. Countrywide then goes out and creates a billion dollars of shoddy home loans, committing any and all kinds of fraud along the way in an effort to produce as many loans as quickly as possible, very often putting people who shouldn’t have gotten homes into homes, faking their income levels, their credit scores, etc.

Goldman then buys back those loans from Countrywide, places them in an offshore trust, and chops them up into securities. Here they use fancy math to turn a billion dollars of subprime junk into different types of securities, some of them AAA-rated, some of them junk-rated, etc. They then go out on the open market and sell those securities to various big customers – pension funds, foreign trade unions, hedge funds, and so on.

The whole game was based on one new innovation: the derivative instruments like CDOs that allowed them to take junk-rated home loans and turn them into AAA-rated instruments. It was not Barney Frank who made it possible for Goldman, Sachs to sell the home loan of an occasionally-employed janitor in Oakland or Detroit as something just as safe as, and more profitable than, a United States Treasury Bill. This was something they cooked up entirely by themselves and developed solely with the aim of making more money.

The government’s efforts to make home loans more available to people showed up in a few places in this whole tableau. For one thing, it made it easier for the Countrywides of the world to create their giant masses of loans. And secondly, the Fannies and Freddies of the world were big customers of the banks, buying up mortgage-backed securities in bulk along with the rest of the suckers. Without a doubt, the bubble would not have been as big, or inflated as fast, without Fannie and Freddie.

But the bubble was overwhelmingly built around a single private-sector economic reality that had nothing to do with any of that: new financial instruments made it possible to sell crap loans as AAA-rated paper."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mike-bloombergs-mari...

Pink Slip

Wall Street Isn't Winning – It's Cheating
Matt Taibbi
October 25, 2011
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-stree...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Of course they're cheating. They are cheating in ways well known to us, since we were long the beneficiaries of it all. It climaxed in the largest investment bubble in all of Human history.

Since it was so large and was seized upon by this new globalist supremacy of capital, it also created the largest financial collapse in all of modern Human history. The general economic collapse has merely been delayed by a massive socialization of the costs and losses, but there are simply too many of those for socialization to succeed in covering up. This is merely the start of the Second Great Depression and it's only going to get worse from here.

My complaint with the OWS people is that a 25% upward bump in their 401K and other portfolios would make them VANISH off the streets. They are hypocrites. They don't actually care about the social costs of what's happening, for if they did, they'd have been out there when 2008's collapse of three major U.S. industries happened (housing, banking, automotive). Instead, they were in their houses and in their coffee shops, chewing their fingernails over their eTrade accounts. THAT is all that those people really want in life: How to "get theirs". They don't really care what Wall Street does, as long as that bottom number on their eTrade screen just keeps going up by 8% each year.

Umm, Mikey, blaming the housing bubble on the subprime sector is false. It might have taken about $150 billion in public money to clean that up. Instead we got a bailout economy that's costing us up to our GDP, which is 100 times larger. In 2009 alone, Bloomberg News tracked down about $4.5 trillion in direct costs and falls in government revenue (of course made up by borrowing). Over 2 years later, with more revelations about what the Fed has been doing with our public credit line, it's easy to conclude that we've already absorbed a total bailout cost of $15 trillion, hence our entire GDP.

The other two types of the mortgage market (Alt-A and prime mortgages) are the vast majority of failing mortgages in the nation. And whatever mortgages were created, the banksters leveraged those into securities and derivatives to arrive at that abysmal multiplier in the end. The CRA had nothing to do with any of that.

The subprime sector and its CRA enabler were just one tine of the rather large and wide fork that was used to scoop the bird of our economy into the oven where it was put on "cleaning" cycle by accident.

If you want to blame someone for the housing bubble, it's a target-rich environment:

00. The construction guy wanted as high a price as possible, since he'd book more profits. Blame him.
01. The seller wanted as high a price as possible, since he'd get the money. Blame him.
02. The buyer wanted as high as price as possible, since he was going to flip it anyway. Blame him.
03. The appraiser just wanted to get paid, so he did whatever everyone else told him. Blame him.
The realtor wanted as high a price as possible, since he'd get the highest commission. Blame him.
04. The mortgage broker wanted as high a price as possible, since he'd book more profits. Blame him.
05. The lender wanted as high a price as possible, since he'd book more profits. Blame him.
06. The securities investor wanted as high a price as possible, since his interest rate would yield the most profit. Blame him.
07. The ratings agency just wanted to get paid, so he did whatever everyone else told him. Blame him.
08. The government regulator wanted as high a price as possible, since that looked like prosperity. Blame him.
09. The politician wanted as high a price as possible, since that looked like prosperity. Blame him.

Just about the only person in all of this that you can't possibly blame, is the person like myself, who didn't work in the real-estate industrial complex (REIC) and who rented while all of this foolishness was going on. I didn't encourage any of it, but I took quite a drubbing socially when I tried to point out it was going on. In fact, I'm still being subjected to social costs, since in just the last year I got booted off ToledoTalk for daring to suggest that the housing market around here won't recover, EVER. (And it won't.)

So you have a lot of people that you need to blame, Mikey. Tell me then why the CRA's minor contribution to the crash so specifically enrages you. You had a lot more control over your fellow man when he was leaving Toledo just to sign up for a far larger mortgage in Perrysburg or Maumee, for instance. You could have stuck your neck you there, right?

I agree with everything you said GZ. That's why you don't see me out protesting or taking over a park. It's a systemic problem.

Unfortunately most of those you posted are individuals. I am all for holding individuals accountable if it's against the law but if it's just unethical then we need to change as a society.

The companies and banks, well they're already regulated. Any failure there is a failure within the regulation system.

Which brings us finally to government, the only part of the system that is fully accountable to the taxpayers. This is where the change needs to be made first. All others will fall into line as a societal change. But again, I do this through voting and educating myself on governmental issues. Again.... not holding up in a park or preventing people from entering buildings.

MikeyA

@irishspy @sistertoldjah check out this pix. on Twitpic

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

This is just too funny. What did these people accomplish other than pissing off some customers and showing themselves to be completely out of touch.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.