substantiation of this factoid?
Hell, has Scylla substantiated anything he said in this thread? (Aside from once awhile back where he provided a cite for a change in the law?)
Just wondering. I’ve been off the Intertubes since the Friday before last, so I suppose I coulda missed something.
RT:
See post 853 and following discussion.
This banker decided that people in the occupation would not be allowed to close their accounts. Where do they get that right? It is Bank of America, so I suppose they can do whatever they want. They could have Geithner drop in and talk to them, I guess? It is not their money, it belongs to B of A.
I’m not suggesting that you are failing to back up your claims. I’m just saying that about Scylla, and not just on this particular claim, but throughout the thread AFAICT.
It’s good of you to go through the trouble of demolishing him on this point, but it’s more courtesy than he deserves.
What he really deserves is for everyone to ask, “Cite?” until he realizes nobody’s going to play with him anymore unless he backs up his claims from the get-go.
I’m kind of wondering why the cutoff is 99% vs. 1% instead of 95% vs. 5%, or 90% vs. 10% or something else like it. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/
In the last couple years the concentration of wealth has been pointed out many times using the 1 percent group.
The first time I recall the 99%/1% breakdown being popularized was in Jamie Johnson’s 2006 documentary, The One Percent, in which he makes the claim that 1% of the U.S. population controls roughly 40% of the wealth. Jamie Johnson is an heir of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical/personal care fortune.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/08/bofa-pay-137-million-settle-claims-defrauded-schools-hospitals/ Why is Bank of America mentioned so often. Well they were fined 137 million for defrauding schools and hospitals.
You can be sure the fine did not get paid by the execs who perpetrated the crime. It was passed down to customers and the execs just thought up another scam.
This was described as the tip of the iceberg. How much crap do they get away with?
No, they can’t. One part of the government forced them to absorb bad assets to become the country’s biggest bank, while another part of the government is now telling their customers to flee.
Washington Post, October 2011:
I rarely accuse people of stupidity, but this is mind-boggling. These congressional Democrats are volunteering to take the blame for having taken down the nation’s largest bank (and maybe the world’s largest, depending on how you figure), which, if it happens, will be reasonably blamed for prolonging and worsening the depression. Even if B of A is still around a year from now, Republicans can say that businesses can’t borrow because the Democrats ruined the stability of the banking system. And if B of A doesn’t survive because the Democrats killed it, you can kiss that Democratic Senate majority, and probably the White House, good bye. (And note the before Democrats starting telling people to flee the Bank, it would have been more reasonable to blame the GOP if it goes down.)
Pressure them to lower executive salaries? Absolutely. Advise constituents to flee a bank? Absolutely nuts.
…
Corporate profits at an all time high while they are cutting salaries, benefits and workers. There certainly is a reason we feel fucked over.
John Thain the boss at Merrill spent 87K on a rug and refinished his office after the deal closed. He gave 25 mill to the people he hired and rewarded his people with billions in last minute bonuses.
Bankers had no problem fucking each other. But If Bank of Amer, did not buy them, there would have been a Merrill collapse and who knows how bad it would have gotten.
It is true the government pressured them to buy, but it was a sweet deal too.
How big a bitch are you?
First off, you complain that nobody asked me for cites, and when it’s pointed out they did, and I answered promptly with one, you still bitch about it. Next, you claim Svin demolished my ass over a point we agreed on, and finally you attempt to incite everybody to spam me with “cite” requests.
I think this makes you a troll. Someone who is not a troll reads the thread before he complains about things that happened. A troll just shows up and tries to make trouble without regard to the content of the thread.
Thank you for confirming this. Now that I know you are trolling, I’ll never provide you with a cite or respond to you seriously.
Jeez, Scylla, did you just excommunicate Arty? I mean, dude!
The fun of occupation. Lyndon LaRouche fans showed up at the Detroit occupation. They set up a table with a picture of Obama wearing a Hitler moustache. That went over well. They insisted on keeping it up until the police came and told them the Lion game was finishing and a lot of drunk Lion fans would wander through the occupation. So they pulled it down.
Oh man, dig this. They’re actually going to try to accuse OWS of being antisemitic.
They’re getting really desperate now.
You posted a link to fucking Breitbart without a “shields up!” advisory? Look here, Yurpeen: in America, memory expunging chemicals are not cheap!
Hehe. What did you think, that these accusations were coming from Think Progress or Media Matters?
Anyway, it’s the #1 topic of discussion at memeorandum atm.
Boy, that’s the fun-hall-mirrors version.
My complaint wasn’t that they didn’t ask you for cites; it’s that they went ahead and took you seriously enough to rebut you, despite the fact that you spew all this unsubstantiated garbage that’s never backed up by a cite.
You didn’t come up with one, did you? Your reply to Mr. S. (post 868) is decidedly cite-free.
[QUOTE=Mr. S.]
So the division is hardly 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3. It’s more like 80% who stay rich, 2.6% who get poor, and 17.4% who are just visiting.
[/QUOTE]
3) Defining ‘agreement’ way, way down!
And you know what you did? You just waved your hands and said, “you don’t know what you’re talking about, so I’m not going to bother to respond.”
What you ARE is the guy in the barroom who thinks his opinion is just as good as anyone else’s, even though it’s just a bunch of cobbled-together nonsense that has no connection to reality.
To the extent that we allow bozos to get away with that shit, to pretend their opinions are just as worthy of rebuttal as stuff that is backed up, it undermines the point of this board.
THAT is why I am ‘inciting’ people to demand cites of you before launching into rebuttals of your horseshit, rather than rebutting before being provided with cites.
The mods kinda disapprove of starting a new Pit thread about stuff that’s going on in a different Pit thread, so consider this your well-deserved Pitting.
Go ahead, withhold your productivity from me. I’ll manage. 
You are getting creepy again.