Well, do they have an organized agenda yet?

12/25/2011 1:17:49 AM

Is it just me, or did the left widely argue in favor of bank bailouts at the time, while at least a significant element of the right was crying foul (*though not enough of the actual powers that be on the right, due to the fact that they're on the bankers' payroll)?

...now you have a bunch of left-wing OWS-types bitching about bailouts. Is it more that there has been a legitimate change of heart, or is it just different factions within the left bitching about different things at different times?

12/25/2011 2:40:49 AM

OWS is not left-wing. It is anti establishment period. Mainly anti economic-establishment. Sure the catalyst in the motivation for OWS was the realization that Obama could not and would not change the course but that doesn't mean they are all left wingers.

I was at an event friday and one of the items on their agenda for 2012 is to attack the credit score system and get it abolished. When did the people agree to this system? Never because it is not an unfair system and functions in a way that is out to screw the everyday person.

12/25/2011 3:17:35 AM

Quote :

"OWS is not left-wing."

Get the fuck outta here. Every last person involved with it might not be left-wing, but the group collectively sure as hell is.

Quote :

" When did the people agree to this system? "

I agree that the credit score system is flawed, but it's irrelevant that "the people" haven't agreed to it. The credit score system isn't for "the people"; it's for lenders--they're the only ones who need to agree to it. Don't like it? Work within the framework and raise your score, or don't borrow money from banks. You aren't entitled to have people lend you money, anyway, and you sure as shit don't set the terms when you're borrowing money from someone.

12/25/2011 3:44:06 AM

Quote :

" but that doesn't mean they are all left wingers. "

No, they're not all left-wingers. Just about 99% of them are.

12/25/2011 4:27:51 AM

Quote :

"Get the fuck outta here. Every last person involved with it might not be left-wing, but the group collectively sure as hell is."

You have it backwards. Every person involved could very well be left wing (they are not) that still doesn't mean it is a left wing group.

OWS is not about raising taxes, social programs or socialism. Its not about race rights, gender rights or gay rights. Its not even about environmental regulation. It is about ending the culture that allows wall street to dominate our lives.

OWS is simply about the chokehold Wall street has on the country and how they are sucking the life out of everything. Many OWSers including myself are pure capitalists and would like to see this nation return to capitalism. What we have no is a perversion of capitalism.

Quote :

" it's irrelevant that "the people" haven't agreed to it."

Oligarchy principals are nowhere in our constitution. People should not be playing by any kind of system they haven't agreed to. Especially when livelihoods are at stake.

Quote :

"The credit score system isn't for "the people"; it's for lenders"

Thats the problem. The system should not be for wall street. The people should not be working for banks. Banks should be working for the people. This quote is exactly why people are so mad. Nothing is "for the people" and everything is "for the banks". Thats a huge problem. I don't know what kind of banana society you are from and can't see that.

Quote :

"or don't borrow money from banks. You aren't entitled to have people lend you money, anyway, and you sure as shit don't set the terms when you're borrowing money from someone."

1. Its our money in the first place. If you don't believe that then look into how the FED actually works.
2. Society has been alterered in a way that forces us to borrow money from banks. You'd be at a huge disadvantage.
3. If wall street banks hadn't put all the real banks out of business then we would still have local banks that cared about people and everything would be fine.

Quote :

"No, they're not all left-wingers. Just about 99% of them are."

Its probably a lot more like 70-30. There are a lot of OWSers that are also tea partiers. Its doesn't matter though since OWS is not a political movement.

[Edited on December 25, 2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason : k]

12/25/2011 12:26:38 PM

At its core, the occupy movement is left-wing libertarian. While I agree that many Democrats supported the bailouts of Wall St., many left-wing libertarians opposed the bailouts for enabling banks to profit at the taxpayers' expense.

12/25/2011 5:23:36 PM

Demanding more financial regulation, higher taxes on the rich and witch-hunt prosecution of wall street executives based on ambiguous "fraud" allegations doesn't sound libertarian to me.

12/25/2011 9:22:39 PM

Speaking of Fraud...


Special Report: The watchdogs that didn't bark

Quote :

"(Reuters) - Four years after the banking system nearly collapsed from reckless mortgage lending, federal prosecutors have stayed on the sidelines, even as judges around the country are pointing fingers at possible wrongdoing. The federal government, as has been widely noted, has pressed few criminal cases against major lenders or senior executives for the events that led to the meltdown of 2007. Finding hard evidence has proved difficult, the Justice Department has said. The government also hasn't brought any prosecutions for dubious foreclosure practices deployed since 2007 by big banks and other mortgage-servicing companies. But this part of the financial system, a Reuters examination shows, is filled with potential leads. Foreclosure-related case files in just one New York federal bankruptcy court, for example, hold at least a dozen mortgage documents known as promissory notes bearing evidence of recently forged signatures and illegal alterations, according to a judge's rulings and records reviewed by Reuters. Similarly altered notes have appeared in courts around the country. Banks in the past two years have foreclosed on the houses of thousands of active-duty U.S. soldiers who are legally eligible to have foreclosures halted. Refusing to grant foreclosure stays is a misdemeanor under federal law. The U.S. Treasury confirmed in November that it is conducting a civil investigation of 4,500 such foreclosures. Attorneys representing service members estimate banks have foreclosed on up to 30,000 military personnel in potential violation of the law. In Alabama, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled last month that Wells Fargo & Co. had filed at least 630 sworn affidavits containing false "facts," including claims that homeowners were in arrears for amounts not yet due. Wells Fargo "took the law into its own hands" and disregarded laws banning perjury, Judge Margaret A. Mahoney declared. And in thousands of cases, documents required to transfer ownership of mortgages have been falsified. Lacking originals needed to foreclose, mortgage servicers drew up new ones, falsely signed by their own staff as employees of the original lenders - many of which no longer exist. But the mortgage-foreclosure mess has yet to yield any federal prosecution against the big banks that are the major servicers of home loans. UNPRECEDENTED FRAUD Reuters has identified one pending federal criminal investigation into suspected improper foreclosure procedures. That inquiry has been under way since 2009. The investigation focuses on a defunct subsidiary of Jacksonville, Florida-based Lender Processing Services, the nation's largest subcontractor of mortgage servicing duties for banks. People close to the investigation said indictments may come as early as the end of this month. Nationwide press reports had showed photos of what appeared to be obviously forged signatures on foreclosure affidavits. The Justice Department doesn't disclose pending investigations, making it impossible to say if other criminal inquiries are underway. Officials in state attorneys' general offices and lawyers in foreclosure cases say they have seen no signs of any other federal criminal investigation. "I think it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history," said Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School who has written articles analyzing the role of courts in the financial crisis. "I can't think of one where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Spokesmen for the five largest servicers - Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., JP Morgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc., and Ally Financial Group - declined to comment about the possibility of widespread fraud for this article. Paul Leonard, spokesman for the Housing Policy Council, whose membership includes those banks, said any faults in foreclosure cases are being addressed under a civil settlement earlier this year with federal regulators. FALSE STATEMENTS Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials say they have brought mortgage-fraud criminal cases through their "Operation Stolen Dreams." None, however, were against big banks. All targeted small-scale operators who allegedly defrauded banks with forged mortgage applications or took advantage of homeowners by falsely promising arrangements to get them out of default and then pocketing their money. Justice Department spokeswoman Adora Andy declined to comment on the absence of prosecutions for foreclosure practices by big banks. She said in a statement: "The Department of Justice has been and will continue to aggressively investigate financial fraud wherever it occurs, including at all levels of the mortgage industry and, when we find evidence of a crime, we will not hesitate to pursue it." Some judges have accused banks of falsely stating in court that they are working on loan modifications for homeowners in default. In a November 30 court hearing, not previously reported, a federal bankruptcy judge in New York accused Bank of America of falsely telling courts and the public that it was working to renegotiate loans. "Bank of America issues constant press releases about how it is responsive to their borrowers on these issues. They are not, period," said Judge Robert Drain, in a case involving homeowner Richard Tomasulo, a pharmacist from Crompond, New York. Drain said Bank of America had been telling the court since January that it was working to modify Tomasulo's mortgage, but hadn't done so. "Whoever is in charge of this program and their supervisor, who should be following it, should be fired" because "they are frankly incompetent." Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said the bank has completed "nearly one million" modifications since 2008. The U.S. Treasury this year suspended loan modification incentive payments to the bank because it was "seriously deficient" in responding to requests for modifications. CHEATERS AND LIARS Foreclosure fraud came to light in September 2010, with evidence that employees of Ally Financial Corp. had committed "robo-signing," in which low-level workers signed and swore to the facts in thousands of affidavits they hadn't read or checked. The affidavits were notarized outside the signers' presence, in apparent violation of state and federal criminal laws. Since then, mounting evidence of possible foreclosure fraud has convinced judges and state regulators that servicers have harmed homeowners and the investors who bought mortgage-backed securities. A unit of the Justice Department that oversees bankruptcy court cases, the U.S. Trustees Program, said in its 2010 annual report that there were "pervasive and longstanding problems regarding mortgage loan servicing," which "are not merely 'technical' but cause real harm to homeowners in bankruptcy." Banks, the Trustees Program says, have falsified affidavits by claiming homeowners owe fees for services never rendered and by overstating how much owners are behind on payments. Former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman, a professor of criminal law at Columbia University Law School, says a central question is who prosecutors would target in criminal investigations. Richman said it would be easy but not worthwhile to charge large numbers of rank-and-file workers who, directed by supervisors, falsely churned out affidavits. He said criminal investigations would be warranted, but harder to bring, "if there are particular individuals who lie at the heart of this conduct in a very significant way." In October 2010, members of Congress pressed the Justice Department to investigate. Attorney General Eric Holder said investigations were best left to the states, with help from the Justice Department. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the top bank regulator, quickly negotiated settlements with the 14 largest servicers, requiring changes in practices and "remediation" for harmed homeowners. That settlement allows the banks to choose their own contractors to determine who was harmed and by how much. Lawmakers and homeowner advocates have criticized the arrangement, contending that it will let the banks avoid making all wronged homeowners whole, because the contractors are paid by and answer to the banks. Since then, the department's civil division has worked with a shaky coalition of all 50 states, which have been seeking a civil settlement with five banks that are the largest loan servicers. The negotiations center on requiring them to pay $20 billion or more in penalties, only some of which would go to compensate wronged homeowners."

12/26/2011 12:01:44 AM

...cont'd

Quote :

"STATES TAKE ACTION Federal law enforcement has been noticeably absent, even in areas hardest hit by the crisis, such as Las Vegas. In 2010 the FBI's Las Vegas office shut down its mortgage fraud task force, which had focused on small-scale swindlers. Tim Gallagher, chief of the FBI's financial crimes section, said that the Las Vegas office had asked to transfer agents to other duties. Impatient with the lack of federal prosecution, states including New York, Massachusetts, Delaware and California have launched their own investigations of the banks. In November, it became the first state to file criminal charges. The state attorney general obtained a 606-count indictment against two California-based executives of Lender Processing Services. It accuses the executives of paying Nevada notaries to forge the pair's signatures and falsely notarize them on notices of default, documents Nevada requires in foreclosure actions. State officials said more indictments are expected. In an interview, John Kelleher, Nevada's chief deputy attorney general, said the investigation began in response to citizen complaints. "We were concerned and then shocked at the sheer number of fraudulent documents we were finding that had been filed with the county recorder," Kelleher said. Investigators found "tens of thousands" of false records filed on behalf of big mortgage servicers, he said. The two executives have pleaded not guilty. In a press release, the company said: "LPS acknowledges the signing procedures on some of these documents were flawed; however, the company also believes these documents were properly authorized and their recording did not result in a wrongful foreclosure." BACK HOME IN NEW YORK The U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan is the federal prosecutors' office that traditionally has filed the most cases against top banks and financiers. But it hasn't brought any foreclosure-related criminal cases involving Wall Street's biggest financial houses or the law firms that represent them. To date the only step it has taken publicly was an October 2011 civil settlement with New York State's largest foreclosure law firm. The Steven J. Baum P.C. law firm, based near Buffalo, New York, in recent years filed approximately 40 per cent of all foreclosures in New York State, on behalf of banks and other mortgage servicers. Court records show that the firm angered state court judges for alleged false statements and filing suspect documents. Arthur Schack, a state court judge in Brooklyn, in a 2010 ruling said that pleadings by the Baum firm on behalf of HSBC Bank, a unit of London-based HSBC Holdings, in a foreclosure case were "so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous that they should have been authorized by the late Rod Serling, creator of the famous science-fiction television series, The Twilight Zone." Another state judge that year imposed $5,000 in sanctions and ordered the firm to pay $14,500 in attorneys' fees, ruling that "misrepresentation of the material statements here was outrageous." But the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan filed no criminal charges against the Baum firm. Instead, it signed a settlement with Baum ending an inquiry "relating to foreclosure practices." The agreement made no allegations of wrongdoing, but required the firm to improve its foreclosure practices. Baum agreed to pay a $2 million civil penalty, but didn't admit wrongdoing. The law firm said it would shut down after New York Times columnist Joe Nocera in November published photographs of a 2010 Baum firm Halloween party in which employees dressed up as homeless people. Another showed part of Baum's office decorated to look like a row of foreclosed houses. "The settlement between the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office and the Steven J. Baum Law Firm resulted in immediate and comprehensive reforms of the firm's business practices," said Ellen Davis, spokeswoman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office. Earl Wells III, a spokesman for Baum, said the lawyer wouldn't comment because "he's laying low right now." An HSBC spokesman said: "We are working closely with the regulators to address any matters raised regarding" the bank's foreclosure practices. BROKEN PROMISES The most serious potential foreclosure violations involve falsified mortgage promissory notes, the documents homeowners sign vowing to repay mortgage loans. Courts uniformly have ruled that unless a creditor legally owns the promissory note, it has no legal right to foreclose. For each mortgage there is only one promissory note. Bankruptcy court records reviewed by Reuters show that at least a dozen radically different documents purporting to be the authentic promissory note have turned up in foreclosure cases involving six different properties in the federal bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York. In one, Wells Fargo is battling to foreclose on the Bronx home of Tindala Mims, a single mother who works as an ambulance driver. In September 2010, Wells Fargo filed a promissory note bearing a signed stamp showing that the note belonged to defunct Washington Mutual Bank, not Wells Fargo. The judge threw out the case. In a second attempt, the court was given a different version of the note. But inspection showed physical alterations. A variety of marks on the original were missing or seemed obviously altered on the second. And the second version had a stamped endorsement, missing on the first, that appeared to give Wells Fargo the right to foreclose. The judge threw out the second attempt too. Wells Fargo is trying a third time. It declined to comment on the case. Linda Tirelli, Mims' lawyer, in October sued Wells Fargo, alleging "fabrication of documents." "It seems to me that Washington is deathly afraid of the banking industry," Tirelli said. "If you're talking about filing false documents and filing false notarizations, do you really think that the U.S. Attorney would find it too difficult to prosecute?" The office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan has routinely brought charges involving forgery and filing false documents against smaller targets. In April, the FBI arrested seven employees of the USA Beauty School in Manhattan. Bharara's office alleged that the seven suspects had forged documents such as high school diplomas, attendance records and applications for financial aid for students taking cosmetology classes. In August, Bharara's office filed felony charges against a sports-memorabilia company's CEO, accusing him of auctioning jerseys falsely advertised as "game used" by Major League Baseball players. In a press conference, a U.S. Postal Inspection Service official said prosecution was important because "victims felt that they had a piece of history only to be defrauded and left with a feeling of heartbreak." Given the record of Bharara's office, and those of his fellow U.S. Attorneys around the country, to aggressively pursue violations both big and small, the absence of cases involving the foreclosure fiasco seems to stand out. "Why there hasn't been more robust prosecution is a mystery," said Brescia, the visiting professor at Yale."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222



TL;DR version:

*Fraud of forged promissory note
*Illegal forcelosures of thousands of US veterans
*Rubber stamping of mortgages
*Banks hold multiple notes of a home, which is impossible

*FBI closed down the shop of one of their mortgage fraud offices in Las Vegas
*Banks pay small fine without admitting to wrongdoing
*Banks promise to change their ways, and they get to pick who their regulators are.
*Fraud cases have been brought up of small banks trying to defraud bigger banks.
*Fraud cases of forged beauty salon schools and sports memorabilia stores have been brought forward, but no cases of mortgage fraud have.


[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 12:10 AM. Reason : ]

12/26/2011 12:02:52 AM

what's the big deal about these documents being forged? my understanding is that they are only trying to make up for missing paperwork, but they're not doing so in an attempt to steal money or falsify ownership records.

12/26/2011 12:31:10 PM

Forgery is illegal, period. Well, unless you are a huge bank. I mean you have to step back and see how unfair it is that banks/lawyers are getting away with this, sometimes only paying some small fines, while most normal people would be prosecuted more harshly. Its like we live in two different worlds.

I find myself asking "why are they missing paperwork?" It's because there was a greater incentive for banks to create a large volume of mortgages (so that they could bundle them and trade them etc) than to actually file legal paperwork and keep up with it. By not prosecuting them fully we are continuing to create incentive for this behaviour and its possible it will blow up again in time.

[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 1:02 PM. Reason : plus your denying homeowners due process by just waving your hands and trusting the banks]

[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM. Reason : theres also lots of speculation that executives could be nailed if the DOJ would just get off itsass]

12/26/2011 1:00:19 PM

so what you're saying is that the banks should roll over and play dead for deadbeats that don't pay their mortgage, risking that people everywhere might decide to stop paying their mortgage and see what happens because some paperwork got lost?

12/26/2011 1:58:05 PM

Quote :

"what's the big deal about these documents being forged?"

Can not tell if joking.

What's the big deal if a promissory note if forged? Yeah, let's see...

12/26/2011 3:29:24 PM

Quote :

"so what you're saying is that the banks should roll over and play dead for deadbeats that don't pay their mortgage, risking that people everywhere might decide to stop paying their mortgage and see what happens because some paperwork got lost?"

I assure you that if you paid off your mortgage, lost your deed, and then the bank came after you later for more money, the courts wouldn't accept a forged deed from you just because "some paperwork got lost". Simply put, if the banks can't come up with the proper paperwork, or sufficient alternative evidence to convince the judge that they are the legal owners of the mortgage then yes they absolutely should take a bath on that. The bank will either go out of business or learn from its mistakes and next time they won't forge paperwork.

The whole purpose of having laws that cover these things is so that everyone knows what rules everyone else is playing by. If we just start throwing out the rules now because they're inconvenient, that's a massive violation of the social contract.

[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM. Reason : safg]

12/26/2011 6:56:43 PM

^

The banks created an entire fucking legally dubious entity because they couldn't flip houses fast enough thanks to the sluggishness of the court and didn't want to bother with the recording fee "tax" on top of that.

Just think about that for a second.

One of the things that makes our society unique is our property laws, the recording of property, and the enforcement of said rights. Something that has worked well year for what, over a century or more? And because these fucks on Wall Street couldn't churn the homes fast enough to line their bonuses these financial rapists, these dooers of absolutely nothing productive created 1 entity that "owned" all the mortgages and just shuffled them around from bank to bank MBS to MBS like fucking property cards in a monopoly game.

And you're going to side with these mother fuckers when they can't even be bothered to keep the paperwork straight on this novel little creation called MERS that they hand waved into existence? Fuck them and fuck you, too.

12/26/2011 10:32:41 PM

Easy there killer. I think you need to re-read since as near as I can figure you and I are in agreement on this issue.

12/26/2011 11:41:12 PM

Quote :

"Demanding more financial regulation, higher taxes on the rich and witch-hunt prosecution of wall street executives based on ambiguous 'fraud' allegations doesn't sound libertarian to me."

To be fair, left-wing libertarians argue for freedom from exploitation, whereas right-wing libertarians argue for the freedom to exploit.

Somehow, they're both libertarians; personally, I don't understand it.

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/27/2011 2:15:10 AM

video: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/6573316-occupy-la-protesters-can-take-free-speech-class-to-avoid-charges/


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/22/local/la-me-occupy-schooling-20111222


ummmmm......

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 9:01 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2011 8:47:14 PM

Quote :

"Easy there killer. I think you need to re-read since as near as I can figure you and I are in agreement on this issue."

Dunno what I was thinking, I left off a couple of arrows that would have been pointing at eleusis.

12/28/2011 11:23:08 AM

Quote :

"To be fair, left-wing libertarians argue for freedom from exploitation, whereas right-wing libertarians argue for the freedom to exploit. Somehow, they're both libertarians; personally, I don't understand it."

It's negative liberty versus positive liberty. Negative liberty means that you are free to act as you wish, until you infringe upon someone else's freedom to do the same. Positive liberty means that you have a right to the goods, services, and labor of other individuals by virtue of the fact that you exist.

I hesitate to call the latter liberty, as it totally distorts the concept. Go ahead and define exploitation. "Left libertarians" often assert that you somehow have a right to a job and a certain wage, which is ridiculous.

12/28/2011 11:28:20 AM

The problem is that a perfect communist utopia is essentially libertarian. But a perfect anarchist utopia is also libertarian. The truest definitions of the word come full circle to meet at their ideal state so that allows both sides can claim the libertarian title. The problem arises when discussing the best route to attain this society.

Quote :

"To be fair, left-wing libertarians argue for freedom from exploitation, whereas right-wing libertarians argue for the freedom to exploit."

I think this quote explains it as well as it can be explained. Not that the right-wing approach is wrong, but right-wing libertarians generally argue for less government regardless of its purpose. This would of course be ideal, but seeing as we live in the real world and people occasionally require protection from extremely powerful entities such as a multi-billion dollar corporation, using a government created by the people and for the people is a legitimate purpose in the eyes of so called "left-wing libertarians."

Honestly, I think they deserve completely separate labels so as to more clearly define the positions. Something like civil societarian, perhaps which would be the left-wing version of libertarianism? http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=608944&page=1#14584499

12/28/2011 12:01:22 PM

Quote :

"I think this quote explains it as well as it can be explained. Not that the right-wing approach is wrong, but right-wing libertarians generally argue for less government regardless of its purpose. This would of course be ideal, but seeing as we live in the real world and people occasionally require protection from extremely powerful entities such as a multi-billion dollar corporation, using a government created by the people and for the people is a legitimate purpose in the eyes of so called "left-wing libertarians.""

That doesn't define exploitation. If a factory hires a worker at a "low" wage, is the worker better off that he would be if the factory had not been built at all? Would you say that every individual should not be responsible for ensuring their own survival?

I don't think a government for the people and by the people can exist. Governments that are allegedly democracies are anything but - only the majority has a say. The minority is told to fuck off. The only truly democratic society is one where every individual is free to pursue their own ends, free from coercion.

12/28/2011 1:05:08 PM

Exploitation is a subjective term. "Low wage" is a subjective term. I don't think the government should get involved and they don't need to get involved. The workers and the employers are the two parties with interests in the matter. If government legislates it will inherently favor one side over the other and that's totally unnecessary.

But this is the reason that unions exist. Without them, the workers of Libertarian Paradise will undoubtedly be exploited by a corporation whose sole motivation is the bottom line. This becomes perilously dangerous social behavior when combined with collusion with other corporations to keep wages as low as possible. Unions are capable of putting a stop to that as long as both sides can reasonably come to the table for an agreement, which would be in the best interests of both parties. If either party ever feels as though they're not getting a fair deal, they are free to cut their losses and strike or replace workers. Union membership can be voluntary. Both sides are free to negotiate their positions. The longer both sides hold out on an agreement, the more money is lost on both sides. In this scenario, there's no need for government involvement of any kind. But you can't expect an individual to have any power or course of action when pitted against a megacorporation.

Quote :

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. "

A quote from one of the most prolific capitalists America has ever seen. And 3 pages of quotes from the same vein.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/henry_ford.html

One of the reasons that America is so fucked up right now is because the interests of a few have been put ahead of the interests of many. OWS isn't about creating a socialist society, it's about creating a level playing field for the big and small. A fair society is one where the rules apply to everyone.

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM. Reason : grammars]

12/28/2011 1:24:56 PM

well good thing we don't have a democracy i suppose

12/28/2011 1:25:06 PM

Quote :

"Exploitation is a subjective term. "Low wage" is a subjective term. I don't think the government should get involved and they don't need to get involved. The workers and the employers are the two parties with interests in the matter. If government legislates it will inherently favor one side over the other and that's totally unnecessary. But this is the reason that unions exist. Without them, the workers of libertarian paradise will undoubtedly be exploited by a corporation whose sole motivation is the bottom line. This becomes perilously dangerous social behavior when combined with collusion with other corporations to keep wages as low as possible. Unions are capable of putting a stop to that as long as both sides can reasonably come to the table for an agreement, which would be in the best interests of both parties. If either party ever feels as though their not getting a fair deal, they are free to cut their losses and strike or replace workers. Union membership can be voluntary. Both sides are free to negotiate their positions. The longer both sides hold out on an agreement, the more money is lost on both sides. In this scenario, there's no need for government involvement of any kind. But you can't expect an individual to have any power or course of action when pitted against a megacorporation."

I agree with all of this. I have no problem with unions. I have a problem with government backed unions and government backed industries. If a union forms, and it's true that the workers are being underpaid or treated poorly, it will likely be in a company's best interests to improve those conditions, as the cost of retraining workers will generally exceed the cost of meeting their expectations.

Again, larger point - my problem is not with organization. Organization, collaboration, coalitions - these are all vital to progress. I'm just against the use of force.

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ]

12/28/2011 1:34:49 PM

Haha. Well then what exactly are we arguing about?

12/28/2011 1:43:43 PM

^ about people using this:



as their 100% convincing reasons why they aren't happy with their current country and pathetic lives.

and we wonder why only a fraction of a % of the matter in the universe makes sense and the other 99% we simply call 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'

because we are retarded and have no idea how to explain 99% of the universe.


it makes 100% sense to me why literally kids are storming the streets with no life experience demanding that real adults take care of them.

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ,]

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ,]

12/28/2011 2:47:57 PM

^No

^^As you said, "left" and "right" libertarians have essentially the same ideal: a perfectly voluntarist society. I think what varies is what we should focus on to reach that ideal. Personally, I recognize that the government is the source of the worst atrocities of our era. I think there's plenty of common ground, so let's work toward what we all agree on: not killing people, not putting peaceful people in jail, and not allowing the government to confer special benefits to corporate interests.

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

12/28/2011 2:56:41 PM

^^
you realize that capitalism by definition isn't merit-based, its capital-based? Since the advent of robots and computers, its not necessarily even (human)work-based.

and OWS has nothing to do with things not being merit based. If that's not a troll and you actually believe that you are far dumber/ignorant than anyone must realize.

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/28/2011 2:57:41 PM

Quote :

"Don't like it? Work within the framework and raise your score, or don't borrow money from banks. You aren't entitled to have people lend you money, anyway, and you sure as shit don't set the terms when you're borrowing money from someone."

this would be all fine and dandy if your credit score were only used for the purpose of lending money. A bad credit score these days can keep you from getting a job, dude.

Quote :

"so what you're saying is that the banks should roll over and play dead for deadbeats that don't pay their mortgage, risking that people everywhere might decide to stop paying their mortgage and see what happens because some paperwork got lost?"

I can't tell if you are trolling or not with this. do you really think it's OK for anyone to forge documents, notwithstanding the circumstances around the forgery?

12/28/2011 3:03:34 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, I have found empirical proof that pack_bryan is a troll and should be banned from The Soap Box. He truly pushes the frontiers of dumbfuckery to new boundaries.

I'd vote for those policies. But I think where we tend to drift apart is that I don't think the overall system is totally broken. There are parts of government that do work and do perform important functions and I'm not all for scrapping everything so quickly that it plunges us into more chaos than we already have. Some of these institutions have been around for decades or longer and need to be dismantled, not tossed.

How are we supposed to do it though?

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ]

12/28/2011 3:12:02 PM

I got it. Let's all stop paying bills and taxes.

12/28/2011 3:15:59 PM

+100 liberal 'i am superior than all other lifeform' points for using the term 'empirical' lol

12/29/2011 5:57:44 AM

Lmao you're so intellectually insecure it's painful to read your posts

12/29/2011 8:48:22 AM

You dern libruls think your so smart with you're fayncy words, clearly your just tryna impress your friends cuz no real person done talk like that. Supperiorty on a libruls like shit on a weddin dress, some stank you caint wash out, its just natcher!

12/29/2011 8:51:24 AM

hey, way to side step the entire fucking point and kick and scream to try and make some point about being superior.. lol

hey, he found empirical proof. lol.

12/29/2011 11:00:28 AM

What a sad, sad life you must live.

12/29/2011 1:10:09 PM

Quote :

" clearly your just tryna impress your friends cuz no real person done talk like that."

is this 'make fun of african-americans day' for Str8Foolish??


the point still stands. there is a blind/deaf/ignorant segment of the populace that is ranting and kicking and screaming for somebody to take care of them. and make whatever laws for them that seem fit at the time they think they are needed. and refuse to do the dirty work of actually DOing shit.

but you keep up with your 1 liner comeback rhetoric that is off topic.

im not being rude, but you have a perception problem and you are 100% insignificant



[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 1:38:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zotYU21qcU

A LOOONG-ass Chris Hedges interview, even includes some interesting stories from his past ( sounds tuff, in his day) and a bunch of religion discussion.

[Edited on January 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM. Reason : only posting because other videos of him ITT,]

1/5/2012 2:36:59 PM

haha. I actually watched that interview last night after someone linked it to me. Had no idea he was a boxer in his day. He's been arrested in like 5 different countries, written like 10 books, Harvard educated, worked for the NY Times, covered the military and witnessed multiple revolutions and societal collapses. And, he's interviewed and written about porn-stars.


I bet he drinks Dos Equis, too.

1/5/2012 9:29:34 PM

Solid interview so far.

I have serious thoughts about where I might live if things don't work out in the United States.

1/5/2012 10:26:43 PM

Quote :

"The New York City headquarters of a group cooperating with the Occupy Wall Street movement was swarmed by the NYPD on Tuesday in a raid that left half a dozen people involved with the Globalrevolution.tv website in police custody. Cops entered the Bushwick studio used by Global Revolution on Tuesday after posting a notice on the door of the space occupied by the group the night before. According to authorities, the space at 13 Thames St in the Brooklyn, NY neighborhood hosted conditions “imminently perilous to life” and had to be vacated by all occupants, although failed to provide any details on what factors had led to such a case. When cops returned the next day and found a handful of people on the premises, they were arrested. The space used by Global Revolution was the only one that was targeted by the police. Global Revolution, a website that aggregates live, streaming content pertaining to the ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement, was using the space as a production studio to manage the video output fed to the website. Nigel Parry, an organizer with Global Revolution, tells The Atlantic Wire that the group had only recently moved into the space for production purposes. While details are scarce regarding the actual inhabitants of the space, Vlad Teichberg, one of the key figures involved with Global Revolution, was living at the site when he was arrested Tuesday. According to Parry, Teichberg had been a resident of the space on Thames St. for at least a year. On Wednesday afternoon, Teichberg and five others were still in police custody for charges of trespassing, obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest. The Bushwick, Brooklyn location raided by the police has been the site of the Global Revolution production studios since as recently as December. Previously the organization operated out of Zuccotti Park, the Lower Manhattan hub of the Occupy Wall Street movement. "

http://rt.com/usa/news/studio-ows-revolution-global-221/

http://globalrevolution.tv/blog/162


[Edited on January 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2012 11:50:30 PM

assuming they were in a legitimate building in a space for which they were paying rent: F DA POLICE

1/9/2012 9:56:41 AM

Occupy America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9gfbaGoELs

1/19/2012 3:25:15 AM

Hi Guys, I'm new to the internet. where does this thread stand?

1/19/2012 10:10:26 PM

Quote :

" is this 'make fun of african-americans day' for Str8Foolish?? "

No, I was making fun of ill-educated conservative Southerners, who apparently think that anybody using a word longer than 3 syllables is just trying to impress somebody.

Funny that you read that and thought "POOR ENGLISH = BLACK"

THEM DERN NIGRAS CAINT SPAKE ANGLISH


[Edited on January 20, 2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2012 9:01:42 AM

you done ranting trying to pretend you aren't a racist? lol

1/20/2012 10:15:53 AM

Lmao you're the one who saw poor English and thought "black people!"

1/20/2012 11:53:52 AM

in my defense, I saw "black people!" and immediately thought "do doo doooooo dooooooooooooooo"

1/20/2012 12:40:56 PM