Wall St protest gaining strengh?

[cjppjc]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Does anyone remember how the Million Man March was going to change things?

Did it?

How about the Million Mom March?

Nope.

How about all those SWPLs on the Washington Mall listening to Jon Stewart crack jokes? Did that change anything?

Nope.

How about all the angry chanters in the Wisconsin capitol this summer? Did they change anything?

Nope.

How can you folks keep get all excited about a bunch of what are basically 20something slackers and old terminal-1960s-hippies getting all worked up over a protest again? The whole protest march thing is completely worn out. It's a joke. In a few weeks it will be down to those hardcores who never seem to do much else except look for someplace they can go hang out at a protest scene and shout and stomp around.

And maybe take a dump right there in the streets: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...OLICE-CAR.html

And make big demands about how everyone should get a wage whether they work or not, etc etc etc, the same old socialist bullshit.

And for those idiots suggesting that several hundred people should descend on a private citizen's house in the suburbs and terrorize them, like that would accomplish something: great idea. Then when that isn't exciting enough and isn't getting you instant results fast enough, you can go pound on the windows of the house and scare the children of the family, like they did at Karl Rove's house.

Then when that's not enough, you can bust in and drag them into the street and pour boiling tar on them and douse them in feathers. That ought to entertain the window-breaking crowd for a while anyway. Then you can graduate to just plain lynching them.

That's how those brownshirt tactics evolve.

Grow the hell up.

If they stay at it long enough, who knows what change can come.

[DSpencer]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Pictures of Debt

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com

I guess Ill just be the jerk here.

"20k per year in student loans...To become a public servant with a dream to work with LGBT youth...I will have nearly 200k in student debt that I will probably never be able to pay because I CHOSE to be called to a ministry"

So this person is going to college for 10 years? To do a job that really isn't in demand? By borrowing money they already believe they won't pay back?

I do have sympathy for many of these stories, including the common theme of student debt. But I find complaints like the one above insulting to people who've actually tried to make good choices.

[aaron]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I went down to Seattle today (Occupy Seattle). I took pictures of every sign I could find. There is quite a bit of diversity down there. Keep in mind, Seattle is hippie central in the Northwest.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68439481@N03/

[LazyBoy]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Occupy Sesame Street.jpg
Occupy Sesame Street

[LazyBoy]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Look at their list of demands for congress. It doesn't seem so out of whack to me.

Wow, that's a good list!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

I guess Ill just be the jerk here.

"20k per year in student loans...To become a public servant with a dream to work with LGBT youth...I will have nearly 200k in student debt that I will probably never be able to pay because I CHOSE to be called to a ministry"

So this person is going to college for 10 years? To do a job that really isn't in demand? By borrowing money they already believe they won't pay back?

I do have sympathy for many of these stories, including the common theme of student debt. But I find complaints like the one above insulting to people who've actually tried to make good choices.

+1. DSpencer, I thought this too. On that page, some are legit. But some are silly. I'd say it's about 50/50.

People who all of the sudden went underwater after dropping a $65k down payment you have to feel for - people with a huge pile of debt from public school or a one-off surgery too.

BUT...if you can't find a job you might, just might, want to try picking a hair color instead of having 3. And get those piercings out of your face. And figure out whether you're bipolar or depressed or add or whatever. Also, if you want to be transgendered that's fine, but damn it, don't complain that you can't afford an elective surgery.

It's grown-up time. Solving this basic stuff would probably, just probably, do wonders.

The actual grown-ups on there tend to be much better reads, though, that point to real issues.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

It costs very little to hire some thugs to stir up trouble. Then they will have their excuse. If a few kids and old ladies get hurt, that is just collateral damage.

Well, that didn't take long:

An editor of the American Spectator went to a peaceful protest with the express intent of escalating things to make the protesters look bad, then posted a story about it. I thought one of the requirements of being an agent provocateur was to, you know, keep what you are doing a secret. Not immediately post a story on the internet about it.

They are going to have to find some smarter people to do their dirty work.

American Spectator Editor Admits to Being Agent Provocateur at D.C. Museum

Immediately after the incident began hitting the newswires Howley published a “Breaking News” story with The American Spectator online in which he reveals that he had consciously infiltrated the group on Friday with the intent to discredit the movement. He states that “as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause — a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator — and I wasn’t giving up before I had my story.”

According to Howley’s story he joined the group in its march toward the Air and Space Museum but the protesters on the march were unwilling to be confrontational. He states “they lack the nerve to confront authority. From estimates within the protest, only ten people were pepper-sprayed, and as far as I could tell I was the only one who got inside.”

Howley refers to the Museum as “the scene of my crime.” In light of his detailed description of his activities today the fact that they clearly document the commission of the crime of trespassing on federal property, if not the intent to incite a riot there, these admissions should not be taken lightly or ignored. As a result of Howley’s activities a large number of people were subjected to pepper-spray attacks including journalists and tourists who had nothing to do with the protest. Given the negative light that the press is attempting to spin this incident with regard to the ongoing occupations, from Wall Street and D.C. and now spreading to Main Streets across the country, the presence and admitted activities of this self-proclaimed agent provacateur should be brought to the attention of federal law enforcement officials.

It is highly likely that the events that occurred would not have taken the turn they did if it were not for Howley’s admitted adventure in an effort to discredit the Occupy movement. So before the public, the media, and officials turn their attention negatively towards the protests and the protesters there needs to be a critical eye turned on the role of the American Spectator and the role played in these events by its editorial staff. If arrests were made at this incident, and even if none were, the admissions of Howley published brazenly in the pages of his Conservative magazine and bragged about on his Facebook page should lead to an official investigation into his role and that of his employer in the events in Washington D.C. today and should be seen as at least part of the causal nexus that led to the inappropriate use of force that along with Howley negatively affected many who were innocent of any crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

What a scumbag.

[lektrode]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

THANK YOU for providing the voice of reason, dc.

methinks they will do themselves and The Rest of US a dis-service by highlighting the phreakshow element, rather than focusing on REAL issues vs providing a propaganda/publicity outlet for those so 'confused'...

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Well, that didn't take long:

An editor of the American Spectator went to a peaceful protest with the express intent of escalating things to make the protesters look bad, then posted a story about it. I thought one of the requirements of being an agent provocateur was to, you know, keep what you are doing a secret. Not immediately post a story on the internet about it.

They are going to have to find some smarter people to do their dirty work.

What a scumbag.

The rest of these kids will be well wired up, with camera phones everywhere. It will be more difficult than usual to pull off tactics such as these with this group.

[aaron]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Busin.../ID=2149202610

[dbarberic]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Be careful of meme management.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Here's a great article at business insider on why this is happening. (Hint: Scroll Down)

[shiny!]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Here's a great article at business insider on why this is happening. (Hint: Scroll Down)

Thanks, dcarrigg. That's one of the most interesting articles I've seen in some time. Puts things in perspective.

One only has to look at that page to see that "this will not end well."

[shiny!]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

Saw this twitter from Alan Tudyk:

"I have a feeling Wall Street has figured out a way to make money off of occupy Wall Street."

[lektrode]

Re: Wall St protest gaining strengh?

and heres another take on whats _really_ happened....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...437396142.html

• OCTOBER 12, 2011, 6:40 A.M. ET

Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers

The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis.

By PETER J. WALLISON

There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.


Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.



It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.



Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.
Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.



Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.



The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.



As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.

Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.



By 2008, Mr. Pinto has shown, this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, somewhat less than one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding. The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.



When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S. and throwing Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. Seeing these sudden losses, investors fled from the market for privately issued MBS, and mark-to-market accounting required banks and others to write down the value of their mortgage-backed assets to the distress levels in a market that now had few buyers. This raised questions about the solvency and liquidity of the largest financial institutions and began a period of great investor anxiety.


The government's rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 temporarily calmed the market. But it created significant moral hazard: Market participants were led to believe that the government would rescue all large financial institutions. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in September, investors panicked. They withdrew their funds from the institutions that held large amounts of privately issued MBS, causing banks and others—such as investment banks, finance companies and insurers—to hoard cash against the risk of further withdrawals. Their refusal to lend to one another in these conditions froze credit markets, bringing on what we now call the financial crisis.



The narrative that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This narrative stimulated the punitive Dodd-Frank Act—fittingly named after Congress's two key supporters of the government's destructive housing policies. It also gave us the occupiers of Wall Street.



Mr. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was a member Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and dissented from the majority's report.