Occupy a bathtub already

Though I do not know if this is a part of the protestors agenda I think it is totally reasonable to conclude that a lack of government oversight has created an atmosphere conducive to corporate corruption & fraud. This has had a devastating effect on our country. Every citizen has a vested interest in the success of our economic community, however we cannot allow them to operate without any oversight or regulation. Especially the large multi national corporations (MNC's); when a small company makes poor decisions the effect on the overall economy is relatively minor, BUT when a major MNC does the same the effects can be devastating ( i.e. Enron) !! This reason alone demands a gov't role. That role needs to be as unintrusive as possible to allow successful economic activity to continue. Just my 2c

Though I do not know if this is a part of the protestors agenda I think it is totally reasonable to conclude that a lack of government oversight has created an atmosphere conducive to corporate corruption & fraud. This has had a devastating effect on our country. Every citizen has a vested interest in the success of our economic community, however we cannot allow them to operate without any oversight or regulation. Especially the large multi national corporations (MNC's); when a small company makes poor decisions the effect on the overall economy is relatively minor, BUT when a major MNC does the same the effects can be devastating ( i.e. Enron) !! This reason alone demands a gov't role. That role needs to be as unintrusive as possible to allow successful economic activity to continue. Just my 2c

 

Government regulation is not a panacea. Enron operated in a highly-regulated industry for example. It wasn't lack of regulation that led to the BP oil spill, it was BP was being allowed to ignore them due to corruption at the then-called Minerals Management Institute. What often happens with government regulation is you:

 

1) Have an industry that needs some regulation

2) A regulatory agency is created

3) The big corporations in said industry lobby heavily for regulations friendly to them and for people friendly to their industry to head said regulatory agency. Oftentimes the big corporations will also push for heavy regulations on purpose so as to make it nearly impossible for small businesses to thrive in the industry (this is a century-old tactic of large corporations).

4) The big corporations form a very close, cozy relationship with said regulatory agency

5) The above happens many times over, so you then end up with a whole alphabet soup of government regulatory agencies, most of which no one has even heard of minus a few, and many of which have over-lapping regulations, so that even if the regulations are individually not that hard to meet, a company may have to prove it is meeting them to a multitude of government agencies, which is very tedious.

6) Since a whole alphabet soup of regulatory agencies exits, no one pays any attention to them except the big companies being regulated by them, which leads to lots of corruption (it also leads to big business and the government operating in bed together in the very way the Left claim to despise).

 

A complete lack of regulation isn't good either, what you want is light and efficient regulation overall. The problem is that once a regulatory agency is created and accomplishes the goal of a proper level of regulation, being like any government agency, it seeks to continually grow and grow and expand its power more and more, which thus results in it spreading its tentacles out further and further and regulating more and more, now in very asinine ways. The Environmental Protection Agency is a prime example of this. We want a base amount of environmental regulations on industry, but they are not going to sit there content and remain with that, they want to expand into regulating lots of other stuff. Not too long go for example, the EPA looked into regulating water vapor as a greenhouse gas (which it technically is, one more potent then carbon dioxide). They backed off of it, because doing that would essentially let them regulate everything. Filling your kids swimming pool? You are contributing to global warming! Washing your car? Global warming! Running sprinklers in your yard? global warming. And so forth. The latest stupid eco-regulation is the banning of the incandescent lightbulb as we know it. You will either have to use CFLs, LEDs, or high-efficiency incandecents (all of which work as well as an ordinary incandescent, but they cost far more right now).

Banking and financial regulation by the government beyond the most basic and common sense of regulations is nothing more than a disaster waiting to happen. What tore the real estate and mortgage market apart? Government regulation!!

 

Who was it that FORCED banking institutions to make sub-par loans "or else?" Who was it that claimed it was "all a lie" when the banks, and the Republicans stated that a real estate bubble was creating because of these millions of loans? (Hint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs) These same people who forced bad loans and pushed for Fannie/Freddie to expand and loosen their guidelines then turned around and feigned surprise and outrage after they played a major role in causing this disaster.

 

They were warned on not one, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5 separate occassions, even Greenspan himself getting involved. They blocked every attempt to reduce government meddling in these affairs - And you think we need MORE of this?

 

How about failed section 32 guidelines on mortgage loans in 13 states that had to be removed in ALL 13 states because it was wreaking havoc on loans for the lower income class? These morons thought it would be a good idea to come in set laws that loan officers could not get paid more than 3% on a loan - Then count payments that had nothing to do with the loan officers fee's as income for the loan officer! In other words, in low income areas, loan officers and banks were lucky to walk away with even 1,200 gross ( Which has to be spllit several ways) for spending months on a transaction in many cases... The result? Mortgage companies and loan officers simply pulled out of those areas.

 

The government calls you "greedy" for wanting to get paid well for working with people who have terrible credit? (These transactions on average take 2 - 3 times more work to close!) Nice... So what was left over was just the banks in these areas, who do NOT lend to bad/no credit individuals. So the very people the government claimed to be helping were harmed as they had no recourse for financing, and in less than 2 years from the implementation, it was all removed back to the original guidelines...

 

Honestly, these are the actions of bumbling idiots. They stick their noses where they don't belong, and screw things up all with what they claim are "good intentions." (Amazing how often their "good intentions" usually result in favorable outcomes for themselves and buddies)

 

These are the same people who pass legislation and programs that ALWAYS cost 300 - 500% more than intended, that if applied to a business, wouldn't last past their first year... How could anyone on this planet think we need MORE of this? Sorry, I don't believe our collective wallets can AFFORD more of these guys...

 

 

You raise good points (and I expect nothing different ) but to subsidize education is crucial. The idea that if everyone has it then its worthless is just wrong. The traditional thinking has been that by bearing the cost, you're signalling your abilities, but I think that's a load of crap. If everyone has the access to the education then those who take the opportunity and [potentially] excel will be just as effective at signalling their abilities.

 

Also, we pay to use the ATM here beyond a certain number of transactions. Its a price to pay, but a small one for having our banking system be one of the most highly regarded around the world for its stability. In the sense that the protesters want more accountability, I agree with them. There clearly needs to be better regulation on how the banks handle their customers' money. Just because the iphone 5 of financial instruments comes through the door doesn't mean they should just be able to hurl their (the people's) money at it.

 

On that note I do disagree with the protesters when they say "the system is corrupt" or whatever. Here the system isn't different for the most part (at least not in detail that I know) but the results are very different. Clearly its not the system that's failed, its the regulatory bodies.

 

And lets not be in denial business doesnt give two hoots about people, families, or the environment. Its all about earnings for the shareholders and bonuses for the managers. It doesnt give two hoots unless its told that it MUST. I don't think freedom is the answer here.

 

The protesters are idiots. It's been well said so I won't repeat.

 

I enjoy the debates.

Interesting to hear different perspectives...

 

This is a very cool forum (but you already knew that)

Where were the protesters when wall street was doing well? Did they think it was a bad "institution" then?

Every time I sit back and think wow there are some STUPID people out there, someone comes out and breaks the barrier into retardation.

 

 

Straight from the Horses Mouth

I hadn't really been that aware of this event, but since this was left off the original post it seemed to make sense to actually put it up. Taken straight from that link, on their website.

 

Still no actual demands.

 

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

You raise good points (and I expect nothing different ) but to subsidize education is crucial.

 

No... Nima... It ISNT.... ITS HORRIBLE AND DESTRUCTIVE..... Every time the government has "Subsidized" education, the cost to the STUDENT HAS INCREASED. You're a smart kid, you can look up the info yourself, but the U.S. government started "Subsidizing college" in the 1940s with the GI Bill.... What did colleges, those bastians of liberalism and "diversity" do? They cranked the tuition up. The government did it again in the 1960's with the "Great society". Guess what happened? Clinton and Bush 2 promised even MORE subsidies for college through loans and pell grants.... Look whats happened to tuition versus the standard rate of inflation:

 

 

You CANNOT tinker with a free market and get good results... The GOVERNMENT gave COLLEGES money, and they didnt LOWER the price of education- THe GOVERNMENT GAVE STUDENTS MONEY and that simply increased demand and colleges RAISED THE PRICE OF TUITION. So instead of borrowing $5,000 from your uncle Jim to go to college, youre borrowing $150,000 from your Uncle Sam. Who's the BIG WINNER NIMA??? STUDENTS??? fcuk NO! COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS AND PROFESSORS. But THEY- who have proven to be the MOST GREEDY, DOUBLE DIPPING "CORPORATIONS" in the world, wont be mentioned by these retards, because: 1. Theyre not smart enough to get it and ; 2. They share a common political ideology, and thats what this is really about.

 

These idiots are bitching about corporations sitting on piles of cash.... NOBODY IN THE WORLD has the kind of cash the College and University "Endowments" have.... Harvard has 32 billion all by itself. Yale is 19 Billion... You add the tens of thousands of colleges all up, and they would be the biggest economic superpower in the world.... But you wont hear a peep from these liberal assholes about them.

 

If the government had NEVER gotten involved, you would still be able to get a college education, that was WORTH SOMETHING, for a few thousand bucks.

They are products of the gimme generation(s).

One look at the sea of Iphones and Ipads in that crowd, the plethora of designer clothing and laptops being carried around makes me wonder...

 

What would these yahoo's think of the country if they really got what they wanted? They are so in love with their music, television shows, movies, games, and electronics - But they haven't even thought ahead enough to realize what would happen to all these beloved items if their demands came to pass.

 

If 100% of all debt were just "written off" - All credit card debt, all mortgages, all car loans, all revolving debt. What would that do to our economy? Throw in their ridiculous employment demands, and "free stuff" demands and you have a recipe for a nightmare scenario where the very innovators and creators of their beloved products and gadgets and entertainment would be harmed to the point of no longer finding it worth their time to remain in this country.

 

These are the people who want the rich taxed to oblivion, no debt for themselves, jobs they don't qualify for... How much fun would they have living in what would quickly become a 3rd world country? When all their toys suddenly disappear because it's no longer desirable to remain in the U.S. as a successful business - What then?

 

Idiots I tell you... Have a look at this rocket scientist. Bragging about underwear he stole, and drugs he's doing in public?

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=z3aqv7TYSM0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=RYLvklgFrRM

 

 

 

They are products of the gimme generation(s).

 

Government regulation is not a panacea. Enron operated in a highly-regulated industry for example.

 

I disagree. What took Enron down was not the part of their business that was regulated. They utilized public sentiment and marketing to build a system that was sustainable, if enough people bought into it. Ken Lay was a genius. Enron could have easily been the Apple of the Energy industry. Lot of people don't know that Enron was where Carbon Credits originated, the whole concept of offsetting one's carbon footprint came out of the board room of Enron. I believe initially it was called a Sulfer Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide offset, if memory serves.

 

Lehman failing, Enron Failing. Both too large to do so. Both large, because people trusted that the decision makers had their best interest at heart.

 

 

 

 

I disagree. What took Enron down was not the part of their business that was regulated. They utilized public sentiment and marketing to build a system that was sustainable, if enough people bought into it. Ken Lay was a genius. Enron could have easily been the Apple of the Energy industry. Lot of people don't know that Enron was where Carbon Credits originated, the whole concept of offsetting one's carbon footprint came out of the board room of Enron. I believe initially it was called a Sulfer Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide offset, if memory serves.

 

Lehman failing, Enron Failing. Both too large to do so. Both large, because people trusted that the decision makers had their best interest at heart.

 

Yes Enron pushed for trading carbon credits. The idea of using credits to reduce pollution was actually a Republican idea, it utilized a market mechanism to incentivize companies to reduce their pollution output by adopting technologies that would do so, and this worked very well for pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide from what I understand, but it would not be workable with carbon dioxide, because CO2 isn't really a pollutant. It's like a car's exhaust. A car's exhaust is primarily CO2 with some pollutants and water vapor mixed in. You can install technology to filter out a lot of those pollutants, but there's no way to capture or "filter" the CO2 itself. You have to release it out the tailpipe. The same applies with coal plants. You burn coal, you get CO2 with some pollutants mixed in. You can filter out those pollutants, but the CO2 itself has to be released. The only way to reduce CO2 output would be to reduce electricity usage, because there is no viable energy alternative right now, so it would act as a tax.

 

I don't know if I'd call their system sustainable though.

Where were the protesters when wall street was doing well? Did they think it was a bad "institution" then?

 

Bingo!

No... Nima... It ISNT.... ITS HORRIBLE AND DESTRUCTIVE..... Every time the government has "Subsidized" education, the cost to the STUDENT HAS INCREASED. You're a smart kid, you can look up the info yourself, but the U.S. government started "Subsidizing college" in the 1940s with the GI Bill.... What did colleges, those bastians of liberalism and "diversity" do? They cranked the tuition up. The government did it again in the 1960's with the "Great society". Guess what happened? Clinton and Bush 2 promised even MORE subsidies for college through loans and pell grants.... Look whats happened to tuition versus the standard rate of inflation:

 

You CANNOT tinker with a free market and get good results... The GOVERNMENT gave COLLEGES money, and they didnt LOWER the price of education- THe GOVERNMENT GAVE STUDENTS MONEY and that simply increased demand and colleges RAISED THE PRICE OF TUITION. So instead of borrowing $5,000 from your uncle Jim to go to college, youre borrowing $150,000 from your Uncle Sam. Who's the BIG WINNER NIMA??? STUDENTS??? fcuk NO! COLLEGE ADMINISTRATORS AND PROFESSORS. But THEY- who have proven to be the MOST GREEDY, DOUBLE DIPPING "CORPORATIONS" in the world, wont be mentioned by these retards, because: 1. Theyre not smart enough to get it and ; 2. They share a common political ideology, and thats what this is really about.

 

These idiots are bitching about corporations sitting on piles of cash.... NOBODY IN THE WORLD has the kind of cash the College and University "Endowments" have.... Harvard has 32 billion all by itself. Yale is 19 Billion... You add the tens of thousands of colleges all up, and they would be the biggest economic superpower in the world.... But you wont hear a peep from these liberal assholes about them.

 

If the government had NEVER gotten involved, you would still be able to get a college education, that was WORTH SOMETHING, for a few thousand bucks.

Making access to loans easier is whats causing what you're talking about; forcing them to provide loans. With easier money the demand has skyrocketed. It makes perfect sense that then the price does too. But here in Canada, the money is going straight to the operating income of the universities, and equal amount of student fees is also given by government (about 30% each adding up to 60% of the University of Toronto's according to their income statement).

 

According to your theory if student fees were fully subsidized, then tuition would be even higher. Contrast that to Sweden where its fully subsidized for example and tuition is free from what I understand, on both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Here the universities are mostly public, though I'm pretty sure Harvard isn't, so they will likely sit on more cash than the other schools.

 

The microeconomic theories works for consumer goods. But when you have people's futures (and in this case opportunities, not outcomes as you said before) on the line, and the welfare of the economy in the future, the idea needs to be thrown out the window. If anything, the subsidization of education should be viewed as an investment in the people and future of the economy. Sure we can look at our graphs and see where supply and demand cross and use that price, but lets not forget that a big chunk of the demand schedule are young people with their futures on the lines who cant afford to go to school because they know just how much debt its going to cause them.

I disagree. What took Enron down was not the part of their business that was regulated. They utilized public sentiment and marketing to build a system that was sustainable, if enough people bought into it. Ken Lay was a genius. Enron could have easily been the Apple of the Energy industry. Lot of people don't know that Enron was where Carbon Credits originated, the whole concept of offsetting one's carbon footprint came out of the board room of Enron. I believe initially it was called a Sulfer Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide offset, if memory serves.

 

Lehman failing, Enron Failing. Both too large to do so. Both large, because people trusted that the decision makers had their best interest at heart.

 

 

SO WHAT? Listen, companies FAIL. Thats what is SUPPOSED to happen when they are doing the wrong thing (like Enron was) or when they make BAD BUSINESS Decisions (like Lehman) The managers of Enron went to jail, and the accounting firm who cooked their books went belly up.

 

The only reason Enron was a big story was that they were from TEXAS, and people on the left tried to tie them to Bush for political points. That largely failed

 

The problem we have right now is a crisis of CONFIDENCE in the markets... We have strict rules on whats SUPPOSED to happen when a business fails and which people who are supposed to SUFFER.

 

And the order of that suffering is:

 

1. Their Employees- After all they have the most direct control over the running of the business;

 

2. The investors- They BOUGHT INTO that risk for the possible reward of financial gain. If they misjudged that risk thats on them. If they were lied to, the civil courts are open to them. ;

 

3. The Creditors- Who are SUPPOSED to get paid FIRST when a company goes bankrupt.

 

 

What has LEAD to this crisis of confidence is OBAMAS handling of GM. He BROKE THOSE RULES. Instead of letting the company go BANKRUPT as he should have, which would have resulted in the employees getting fired and the stockholders losing their investment, and the bondholders splitting up the tangeble assets of the company, he flipped it on its head....

 

He took over the company (in a way I still dont understand the legality of), GAVE IT TO THE EMPLOYEES, PROTECTING BOTH THEIR JOBS, AND THEIR PENSIONS, WIPED OUT THE STOCK, and Didnt let the company file for bankruptcy, putting the holders of SECURED BONDS, in the same boat as STOCK HOLDERS. And the term "Too big to fail" entered our vocabulary.

 

And people wonder why companies are afraid to invest and banks are afraid to lend? We no longer have any expectation that the RULES will be FOLLOWED.

 

Loan somebody money? If they pay ya back they pay ya back... If not, tough shit for you. But they get to keep the shit they bought with it.

Making access to loans easier is whats causing what you're talking about; forcing them to provide loans. With easier money the demand has skyrocketed. It makes perfect sense that then the price does too. But here in Canada, the money is going straight to the operating income of the universities, and equal amount of student fees is also given by government (about 30% each adding up to 60% of the University of Toronto's according to their income statement).

 

According to your theory if student fees were fully subsidized, then tuition would be even higher. Contrast that to Sweden where its fully subsidized for example and tuition is free from what I understand, on both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Here the universities are mostly public, though I'm pretty sure Harvard isn't, so they will likely sit on more cash than the other schools.

 

The microeconomic theories works for consumer goods. But when you have people's futures (and in this case opportunities, not outcomes as you said before) on the line, and the welfare of the economy in the future, the idea needs to be thrown out the window. If anything, the subsidization of education should be viewed as an investment in the people and future of the economy. Sure we can look at our graphs and see where supply and demand cross and use that price, but lets not forget that a big chunk of the demand schedule are young people with their futures on the lines who cant afford to go to school because they know just how much debt its going to cause them.

 

You're missing a unique feature of America: Federalism.

 

There is no "Federally run" college in America. The public Universities are run by the states... So the Federal money is filtered through them. And yes... If the Federal government said "Were going to give each state enough money to pay for each college student's tuition" the states would say "Thats awesome! Tuition is still the same price though. In fact, were going to raise it 10% next year." You can say thats crazy, but its what has happened every time its been done.

 

They MIGHT lower some taxes in the SOME states, but probably not, because politicians are whores and for every dime they get they have already thought how to spend five dollars. Theres NEVER enough money to satisfy that beast.

 

In 1950, if you had a college degree, YOU WERE THE SHIT. YOU WERE THE fcuking BOSS. You had DOZENS of people under you working white collar jobs who had High School Diplomas, and they had dozens of High school drop outs working blue collar jobs under them.

 

Thats all changed. Because we want "Everybody to go to college!" Doesnt that sound great? Of Course it does, but the problem with that is, once you spend four years and 100,000 bucks going to college, Youre worse off than that high school diploma guy in 1950.... And who the fcuk wants to work a blue collar job when "Theyve got a college degree"? Nobody! Weve got too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

 

Weve sent everybody to "Boss School" and are stymied to learn there arent that many "Boss jobs" to go around....

Nima, just accept that they are a shower of dumb cretinous lazy gormless cunt faced utopian driven protest happy mouldy wallet fuckwits that if, as a collective were required to write about their actual knowledge of how things really work in this world would struggle to fill the side of a matchstick.

 

That way this thread could die a death.

Protesting is an inalienable right, but aren't we missing the real issue here..?

 

I think she was fired for looking hideous. Who wants to bank and do business with a undead mummy? They were probably looking for a way to fire her and replace her with some hot piece of ass with legs like a giraffe and tits like a porn star.

 

Exactly which bank is this? And is there a branch in the UK?

Well here the provinces take care of education so in some sense it parallels the US. And yes things change, at some point in time having any sort of education would have made you the boss, let alone college education. But that had little to do with subsidization. Things change because of growth. There was (and still is) a demand in the growing economy for more highly educated employees, to the extent that now, having a BA isn't enough, and students need to be looking into graduate school (and employers are covering the costs for such things as MBAs).

 

Alas, the list you posted was one (uneducated) persons vision of the world. The protesters all have different ideas about what needs to change, and I doubt they would all agree with one another on the specifics (if they had any). When I say I agree with them, I speak of the idealogy, not that "the bankers need to be put in jail". Heck Im a finance student, the last thing I want is for wall street to be run over Im all for the banks investing; they are one of the engines of the economy and growth. But lets not forget that the money they invest is mostly OUR money, not theirs. Someone needs to watch them like a hawk. And they need to watch the rating agencies that inform the banks too.

Nima, just accept that they are a shower of dumb cretinous lazy gormless cunt faced utopian driven protest happy mouldy wallet fuckwits that if, as a collective were required to write about their actual knowledge of how things really work in this world would struggle to fill the side of a matchstick.

 

That way this thread could die a death.

I love you.

FYI. When you count down and aggressively rush police barricade this is NO longer a peaceful assembly. You are now a RIOTER and I hope the paint on the end of their night sticks rub off on hippy heads and the pepper spray drains to the bottom of the cans on each and everyone of these dumb fucks faces.

RD - You are spot fcuking on. If we keep this up, a plumber or welder will be a $250k/yr gig because nobody will understand how to use a propane torch. Skilled trades are on the decline and mainly because it's almost frowned upon by society today. What, you don't want to go to Jr. College, you want to learn how to weld or build shit? Most parents would kick their kid in the ass for that move.

 

I am actually on the scholarship advisory board for a foundation that promotes the skilled trades.

http://www.nutsandboltsfoundation.org/

 

People building shit keeps my industry alive even though i'm the guy behind the desk.

 

The UC system is so fucked up because of all this, it cost nearly twice to attend UCI now as it did when I was there some 7yrs ago. Yet the regents are collecting $400k/yr salaries, and the UC system has a yearly STATE FUNDED operating budget of over THREE fcuking BILLION DOLLARS.

 

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/rege...pt08/fin101.pdf

 

The spending is just wildly out of control and has completely destroyed the whole purpose of the UC system, aka to make a university education affordable. For the price these days you're limping into private university dollars.

 

Another hook of it all, is you have banks that LOVE to lend money to students, be cause you can NEVER get out of repaying it. So they will give you nearly anything you want, it's really signing a deal with the devil.

Nima, just accept that they are a shower of dumb cretinous lazy gormless cunt faced utopian driven protest happy mouldy wallet fuckwits that if, as a collective were required to write about their actual knowledge of how things really work in this world would struggle to fill the side of a matchstick.

 

That way this thread could die a death.

 

I love you.

 

uhhhh Robster - hope you know you have to get in line BEHIND ME!!!

 

My take: A bunch of freeloading wastes of space who want more, more, more, on the rest of the country's (or gov't) dime. They don't understand they way things work in our country and love to reap the benefits of what others sow. They want to hinder the success of others because they are simply inferior or have made the wrong choices. Life isn't fair. I am on this forum and I do not have a Lamborghini, I do not have my own house, I don't make a lot of money, I have health problems but I do my best and I for damned sure don't look at successful people and chastise them for what they accomplished. It motivates me! I want to work to get to my goals or as damn close as I can.

 

I've heard some of the "sob stories" of the wannabe hippie trash and it is completely laughable. They blame everyone else they can think of before they look at themselves.

 

Example: (Female) "I am a college senior with $40K of debt. There are no jobs in my field [LOOK IN OTHER FIELDS!!!!!!]. My toughest decision now is whether to sell drugs or my body. I am the 99 percent." ....What a joke.

Example: (Male) “I’d like forgiveness of debt, both student and mortgages, and the retraction of law that says a corporation has the same rights as a person.”

 

I can't tell you how many I've heard say they are artists or have Fine Arts degrees - AND LIVE ON SSD OR SSI right now because they chose a shitty "career path". Even a professional portrait painter chimed in about how if only the banks would lend money more people would get portraits painted... did I miss something or is it 2011? I understand people still do that but seriously, that is a hobby or a side job. Obtain some skills that can be used in today's world, or is your brain trapped in the 1700's?

They say "knowledge should be free", well guess what - go get a damn library card and start checking out books to read - for free! Read to your heart's content and try to self-educate.

 

As usual, the people behind this protest such as - SEIU and other Labor Unions (Steven Lerner), Van Jones, and Michael Moore etc. - are using these people to push their destruction of capitalism. These protesters are useful idiots, and they really believe the people who will "come to the rescue" and destroy the "evil capitalists" are going to take care of them if it succeeds. HA! I don't think so you brainwashed punks!

 

I see violence coming from these movements at some point. I hope not, but I won't be surprised. If not now, I definitely believe 2012 is going to be a hell of a ride.

Example: (Female) "I am a college senior with $40K of debt. There are no jobs in my field [LOOK IN OTHER FIELDS!!!!!!]. My toughest decision now is whether to sell drugs or my body. I am the 99 percent." ....What a joke.

Example: (Male) “I’d like forgiveness of debt, both student and mortgages, and the retraction of law that says a corporation has the same rights as a person.”

 

I can't tell you how many I've heard say they are artists or have Fine Arts degrees - AND LIVE ON SSD OR SSI right now because they chose a shitty "career path".

 

 

Exactly.... You "invested" $40,000 in a "Fine Arts Degree"... Bad fcuking investment asshole.