Why can't they do it for thenselves? (International Crisis)

[moozooh]

I'm not sure why Spec or anybody else thinks protesting is something ineffective, wrong, or otherwise bad. Apathy is bad. Blind submission is bad. Protesting is voicing your disagreement, it's much better than sitting at home silently accepting anything that gets thrown at you. Even if it doesn't reach the desired result, it's still better because it means you're ready to stand up for your ideals.

The fact that protests gets misdirected easily is, of course, saddening, but it appears that in case with OWS they have already decided what they're protesting against and what they want as a result; keep in mind that I haven't read the 99% Declaration yet.

Again, taking care of oneself does in no way go against voicing your opinion. Even if the burden is yours to carry, it doesn't mean you can't oppose those who constantly make it heavier.

[greg]

Protesting is fine, if it gets stuff done. We just don't respect these "occupiers" because their message is lost when you realize that so much of them are a bunch of selfish, self-entitled pricks who complain to be victims of circumstance. Where's the outrage against Barney Frank, who would've been nailed to the wall for his shameful sex scandal if he was a Republican, who helped drive the economy into the gutter as he presided over the Financial Services Committee and pushed banks to approve loans for people who couldn't pay for them, then blatantly lies about this repeatedly on TV news shows? President Bush was bragging about skyrocketing home ownership in America during his State of the Union Addresses, using that as an indication of the country's wealth. The government bears much of the blame for this mess we're in as the banks do, yet these protesters believe that government is going to solve all our problems.

I was sold on getting a house. At the time, we figured we'd never be able to afford a house at the rate the prices were gaining. The loan guy said, "Hey, you just want a starter home right? Just build equity, and sell it in a few years." Yeah, we believed it. Wiser people saw that the market could not sustain its momentum for long and foresaw a collapse. The loan guy was also telling me crap about how we could use equity to buy cars and crap. We knew that was a bad idea, but I'm sure plenty of people bought into that scam. "Hey, it's almost like free money!" Loan arms should be illegal. Balloon payments should be illegal. Interest free loans should be illegal. We didn't get caught up into as much of that stuff as others, but really the shame is on us for buying a house in the first place. That's just bad luck. I don't think they were trying to take advantage of us. They were just all hyped up with the momentum the market had and people were gullible to go along. We just wanted a house for a few years. Bad idea. We should have just rented. Sometimes you just take wrong turns in life. We were victims of the housing crap, and the victims of the bad job market. But you don't see me holding signs and whining about our situation. We just cut our losses, pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, as the idiom goes, and are moving on with life. The whole "bootstrap" concept is rapidly dissipating in Western society.

[moozooh]

Actually, that is an interesting difference in housing paradigm between American and, say, Russian societies. As I understand, the vast majority of newly acquired American houses/apartments these days are on mortgage, whereas Russians mostly either privatize what the government has given to them in the last half a century or so, buy new apartments if they have the money, or rent them if they don't. As a result, Americans have much better living conditions on average, whereas average Russians don't have to deal with huge debts. Mortgages came here only in the last decade, and they are still pretty unpopular. I guess having to live through the craziest time Russians had since the war — the 90s — has made people wary of taking large loans.

[greg]

Well Moozooh, I don't know what sort of news coverage of the American situation is, but it may be skewed by our own media's interpretation of what has gone wrong. Much attention has been given to these occupiers, but they really fail to realize that although there was all sorts of predatory lending going on with the banks, those banks could not have been able to approve those fishy loans if the government hadn't opened the doors for them to do so. Politicians wanted to boost the self-esteems of poor people by making it possible to twist all sorts of immoral lending to make home ownership possible. 10 year interest only, balloon payments (30 years worth of payments due in 15 years), arm payments (your interest rate will adjust every few months to the market trend, so while it's low now, you're screwed if it goes up). They stipulated to the banks that they must have more home loans for ethnic minorities, etc. In the short term, there was much money to be made. But eventually those home owners would reach the point where they couldn't pay off their monthly payments.

We have a President who thrives on creating class warfare, and has gone to great lengths to state that rich people are evil and that the wealth of the country is best in the hands of poorer people. There's so much outcry that the "rich aren't paying their fair share," despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes in the USA. If the people really want everyone to pay their fair share, then maybe there should be a push for a flat tax instead of just griping about how evil "rich people" are. It's just a bunch of class warfare crap and the propensity for Americans to blame everyone else for their own problems. I'm tired of it.

[BryanM]

All of them were beyond simple "Waaah, look at what Wall Street did to us, waaaah!" and camping, or extending their hands and expecting someone gave them their dues.

Tent cities have been on the rise since the depression started, and cities have been cracking down/tolerating them for years now. But they're invisible as long as they're out of the way and the media ignores them.

That the homeless people decide to live somewhere they can't be ignored, and drain millions of dollars passively by not sleeping under an overpass like a good Smelly Cat does, that is a protest. Maybe it's not as sexy as inter-racial bus riding, but it is a protest.

This isn't a hard line to see. You either believe campaign contributions and unbalanced media coverage are bribes, or you're a psychopath.

The fygm crowd will "win" in the short term, but you're crazy if you think society can continue in the direction it has been going. These things are cyclical, after all.

[moozooh]

There's so much outcry that the "rich aren't paying their fair share," despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes in the USA. If the people really want everyone to pay their fair share, then maybe there should be a push for a flat tax instead of just griping about how evil "rich people" are.

The problem with taxation is that a law cannot possibly differentiate between somebody who earns much money because they work so hard, and somebody who earns comparable or higher sums because it's so easy for them to do so. And you have to admit, from adequate point of view, no law can possibly justify a salary in excess of an order of magnitude above the average, yet that is the norm nowadays.

[ED-057]

We have a President who thrives on creating class warfare, and has gone to great lengths to state that rich people are evil and that the wealth of the country is best in the hands of poorer people.

Quick question, greg, do you watch Fox News? Also, can you name any real actions that the President has taken which support this characterization?

There's so much outcry that the "rich aren't paying their fair share," despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes in the USA.

Two things:
1) The bottom 50% don`t have shit. They don`t have enough assets to cover their debts.

2) The Federal government`s financials are FUBAR. They`ve been spending more than they take in almost every year for three decades. Who controls spending? How many presidents were poor? How many members of congress are poor? How many lobbiests are poor? If rich people hate taxes so much, they should`ve told their buddies in congress to be a little more responsible.

If the people really want everyone to pay their fair share, then maybe there should be a push for a flat tax instead of just griping about how evil "rich people" are. It's just a bunch of class warfare crap and the propensity for Americans to blame everyone else for their own problems. I'm tired of it.

Worker productivity has increased, while wages have not kept pace. Meanwhile, the richest of the rich have made fantastic gains. The middle class is disappearing.

Some would argue that labor is a "free market," and if a worker doesn`t think their employer is compensating them fairly they should just go somewhere else. But whether you agree with this is or not doesn`t change what is happening, or what the end result will be.

[BulletMagnet]

Also, can you name any real actions that the President has taken which support this characterization?

Pointing out, accurately, that the top few percentage points are paying less in taxes now than they have at pretty much any point in the nation's history, and that in spite of this (and the resulting record cash reserves they're sitting on) they're doing absolutely nothing when it comes to job creation, despite their apologists' assertions that you can't make the super-rich the least bit cranky or else they'll summon fire and sulphur from the skies instead of the milk and honey that invariably flows to the rest of us lazy slobs when they're appeased. Publicly stating economic truths that make the ruling class look bad is the most blatant form of "class warfare" there is, didn't you know that?

There's so much outcry that the "rich aren't paying their fair share," despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes in the USA.

The exact numbers vary depending on which source you quote, but I'm sure you've heard something to the effect of the top 10 percent or so of the country being worth as much or more than the bottom 90, or something to that effect. And I'll tell you right now, when you approach the matter from that perspective they're not paying anywhere near what they should be in taxes by almost any measure.

It's just a bunch of class warfare crap and the propensity for Americans to blame everyone else for their own problems.

Feel free to call out the Occupy bunch if you prefer, though I'm personally a good deal more indignant at the bet-against-our-own-toxic-derivatives-and-still-profit bankers and "flip your houses and go into debt, the deregulated free market will keep going up forever, what could possibly go wrong?" financial gurus who have the gall to blame the regular schlubs who believed the formers' incessant hype about how they deserved (and still do, even after all that's happened) their exorbitant compensation due to their being so much smarter than the rest of us (even though they never have any idea what the hell happened under their watch as soon as things started to go south). I see that as a much more costly and inexcusable (and profitable) abdication of personal responsibility, but that's just me.

[greg]

We have a President who thrives on creating class warfare, and has gone to great lengths to state that rich people are evil and that the wealth of the country is best in the hands of poorer people.

Quick question, greg, do you watch Fox News? Also, can you name any real actions that the President has taken which support this characterization?

I don't care to watch any of the news stations. Maybe during the daytime they show actual news, but during the evening when I am home, all I see are hysterical pundits like Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity. And President Obama has said that we need to redistribute the wealth, that wealthy people don't really need money past a certain point, and has denigrated rich people. Most of this was just Freudian slips or foot-in-mouth moments, I'll grant.

1) The bottom 50% don`t have shit. They don`t have enough assets to cover their debts.

Fair enough. But don't the top 5% pay more than 30% or something like that? I'm just saying that the argument that they don't pay their "fair share" is a bit weak.

2) The Federal government`s financials are FUBAR. They`ve been spending more than they take in almost every year for three decades. Who controls spending? How many presidents were poor? How many members of congress are poor? How many lobbiests are poor? If rich people hate taxes so much, they should`ve told their buddies in congress to be a little more responsible.

I agree completely.

Worker productivity has increased, while wages have not kept pace. Meanwhile, the richest of the rich have made fantastic gains. The middle class is disappearing.

Again, I agree completely. Small businesses are being pushed out of existence by big bully companies like Wal Mart. Decent, well-paying tech jobs are being shipped overseas. I was really hoping that Obama would have delivered on his campaign promise to put an end to job outsourcing to India, which was his only position I supported, but apparently that was not made a priority. I know people on here love to peg me as a die-hard Republican, but that's not true. It's just too easy to assume that I fit people's stereotypical views of someone who disagrees with them. Yeah, I can't stand Democrats, but that doesn't mean I fully support typical Republican viewpoints. I do not believe that companies should be free from regulation. I agree that lobbyists and politicians are all part of the problem. That's why I'm saying that pointing fingers at "rich people" is failing to see a larger problem.

[Drum]

It's like reading talk radio.

[Vyxx]

It's like reading talk radio.

Greg? Yeah

[xbl0x180]

It doesn't matter how many times you insert those stupid sunglass smileys into your posts. Spec totally pwned you and turned your examples of MLK, Ghandi, and Chavez against you. None of those guys just sat around with a cardboard sign and whined about how they were shat upon by big mean people. These guys did something. They exemplified leadership and took action. Those Occupy Wall Street losers are just protesting. Protesting doesn't do anything. Taking action does. None of these in the occupy crowd will be remembered. Saying that the reason why we're in this economic downturn is because of rich people/Wall Street/the banks... that's such a simplistic and naive assertion that it's not even worth arguing with them.

This year we lost our house and had to file for bankruptcy. Wah. We retreated, regrouped, explored our options, and taking life down a new tangent. It sucks when crap happens, but we just had to rethink our life and make serious adjustments. I think we are now better off than we were a year ago.

You're still angry about that "animu" thing from weeks ago? Wow, just... WOW. You're balls out nutz, little dude.

[greg]

It's like reading talk radio.

Except I don't listen to talk radio, and at least half of what I've said is contrary to what talk radio probably says. Most people who don't like the President don't listen to talk radio. You don't have to waste your daytime hours listening to that to know that he's no good.

You're still angry about that "animu" thing from weeks ago? Wow, just... WOW. You're balls out nutz, little dude.

No, you're just obnoxious and your constant need to denigrate others betrays some sort of inferiority complex on your part. You were trolling Spec and now you're trolling me. He's not "little" and neither am I. If anyone needs to grow up, it's you.

[Drum]

Well Moozooh, I don't know what sort of news coverage of the American situation is, but it may be skewed by our own media's interpretation of what has gone wrong. Much attention has been given to these occupiers, but they really fail to realize that although there was all sorts of predatory lending going on with the banks, those banks could not have been able to approve those fishy loans if the government hadn't opened the doors for them to do so. Politicians wanted to boost the self-esteems of poor people by making it possible to twist all sorts of immoral lending to make home ownership possible. 10 year interest only, balloon payments (30 years worth of payments due in 15 years), arm payments (your interest rate will adjust every few months to the market trend, so while it's low now, you're screwed if it goes up). They stipulated to the banks that they must have more home loans for ethnic minorities, etc. In the short term, there was much money to be made. But eventually those home owners would reach the point where they couldn't pay off their monthly payments.

We have a President who thrives on creating class warfare, and has gone to great lengths to state that rich people are evil and that the wealth of the country is best in the hands of poorer people. There's so much outcry that the "rich aren't paying their fair share," despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes in the USA. If the people really want everyone to pay their fair share, then maybe there should be a push for a flat tax instead of just griping about how evil "rich people" are. It's just a bunch of class warfare crap and the propensity for Americans to blame everyone else for their own problems. I'm tired of it.

The top 50% pay 96% of income taxes because 50% of the country is low-income or living in poverty. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes but in 2007 the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. That stat you trotted out is pernicious.

[Skykid]

[OBSCVRA]

apparently the median income in the US is about $26000
The fact that more than 90% of the tax revenue comes from people who earn more than this isn't shocking, how the hell are you going to get more money from the people who earn less??

[xbl0x180]

Well Moozooh, I don't know what sort of news coverage of the American situation is, but it may be skewed by our own media's interpretation of what has gone wrong. Much attention has been given to these occupiers, but they really fail to realize that although there was all sorts of predatory lending going on with the banks, those banks could not have been able to approve those fishy loans if the government hadn't opened the doors for them to do so. Politicians wanted to boost the self-esteems of poor people by making it possible to twist all sorts of immoral lending to make home ownership possible. 10 year interest only, balloon payments (30 years worth of payments due in 15 years), arm payments (your interest rate will adjust every few months to the market trend, so while it's low now, you're screwed if it goes up). They stipulated to the banks that they must have more home loans for ethnic minorities, etc. In the short term, there was much money to be made. But eventually those home owners would reach the point where they couldn't pay off their monthly payments.

We have a President who thrives on creating class warfare, and has gone to great lengths to state that rich people are evil and that the wealth of the country is best in the hands of poorer people. There's so much outcry that the "rich aren't paying their fair share," despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes in the USA. If the people really want everyone to pay their fair share, then maybe there should be a push for a flat tax instead of just griping about how evil "rich people" are. It's just a bunch of class warfare crap and the propensity for Americans to blame everyone else for their own problems. I'm tired of it.

The top 50% pay 96% of income taxes because 50% of the country is low-income or living in poverty. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes but in 2007 the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. That stat you trotted out is pernicious.

Right. When 6 people have amassed more wealth than almost a third of the nation's population, how the hell do they not expect to pay a little more in taxes? For a walton, it means one less mansion and yacht per year. For a walmart worker, it means not being able to pay for their primary residence. Well, it's not as if one could afford to even pay rent with the measly income the waltons pay their workers

[Specineff]

So as long as you personally are in good shape, you don`t give a crap about the rest of the country and will mock anyone who tries to raise the alarm about said descent toward hell?

I pity the fool that, seeing the storm a-comin', complains about its bad timing instead of grabbing his raincoat. It's not so much about mocking them; I myself already *KNOW* the situation is bad, and that's why taking measures to avoid getting dragged to that hell is important. Don't need to keep on hearing how or by whose hand it happened. Or what else can I do? Sit and complain about the situation, or do something about it in the sphere I have most influence about, like me and my loved ones? What good will it do me, to join in their complains?

This doesn't mean I don't care, I've handed out the proverbial raincoats to some who need it, but there are only so many spare raincoats I can hand out, and there are people who have their own, and don't use it. Will someone get my back if I run out of raincoats because I handed them out to all those who needed them?


I remember hearing how much people complained about Obama being a socialist... and now the complaint going around is how inequal taxing is. How ironic. (I guess that's what Skykid was hinting at)

[Specineff]

All of them were beyond simple "Waaah, look at what Wall Street did to us, waaaah!" and camping, or extending their hands and expecting someone gave them their dues.

Tent cities have been on the rise since the depression started, and cities have been cracking down/tolerating them for years now. But they're invisible as long as they're out of the way and the media ignores them.

And if Cesar Chavez, the homeless, de-possessed (is that a word? Sorry, I'm tired as of this post), un-educated farmer son of a farmer, was able to get out of the hole he was in, what's keeping others from at least trying?

That the homeless people decide to live somewhere they can't be ignored, and drain millions of dollars passively by not sleeping under an overpass like a good Smelly Cat does, that is a protest. Maybe it's not as sexy as inter-racial bus riding, but it is a protest.

I fail to see how that is going to improve their situation, but fine, their choice. (Also there is a difference between being forbidden by law from using the same bathroom or bus as other people just because of the color of the skin you were born with, and complaining about how other people are richer than you. I wonder why they aren't collecting signatures to at least try and pass a law or amendment that would alleviate the situation they complain about. Shouldn't be a problem with the given climate. If I'm mistaken there, please do point it out.)

This isn't a hard line to see. You either believe campaign contributions and unbalanced media coverage are bribes, or you're a psychopath.

They are. But now that I know how the ball rolls, I can do (action) something about it to either minimize their effect on me (again, it's because the first sphere I will always affect, is the one immediately around me), or eliminate the situation completely through other means besides bitching and moaning.

The fygm crowd will "win" in the short term, but you're crazy if you think society can continue in the direction it has been going. These things are cyclical, after all.

I had a really long response to that. But I'll be brief instead and quote that song that says that I can't stop the rain by complaining. If I don't want to get wet, I have to do something besides stating how bad it is that it's raining and how it came to happen, right?

Please don't think I'm defending those who supposedly control all the wealth, or that my attitude is one of "Deal with it". (I like that of "do what you can, where you are, with what you have" better). I've said everything I have to say, and stated my points, and some of the beliefs I have for myself. It's worked for me, and that's why I stand by them. Won't add more to this discussion for the time being.