I read that book, “There’s got to be a Pony.” Agree with you completely.
…What? Hang on, the ability for teachers, firemen, and the police to have some leverage in their terms of employment is a major loss for the taxpayer? Excuse me for pointing this out, but just because the people who create the terms of the job are elected by the general public does not mean that it is automatically cushy and wonderful. While the teacher’s union may not be the best example for this, the ability for people in professions like this, especially ones that matter so much for our future, to apply some leverage to their working conditions should not be limited to the ability to contribute a tiny sliver of influence to someone in office who probably has other priorities. Claiming that just because their jobs are public sector, they should have no control over them is essentially saying that the public sector is useless as an employer in terms of efficiency and pricing. This is not true in the sectors where part of people’s jobs isn’t making their own salary–i.e. teachers, firemen, policemen, other non-legislative public employees.
Yay, spoiled kids! Like, say, the massive number of actual war veterans that tend to keep popping up at these protests for whatever reason. The working class folk. Man, what’s that all about?
That’s bullshit and you damn well know it. This shit isn’t, you know, actually happening. Open your fucking eyes and you’ll realize that the reality is a lot closer to a large, wide-scale protest of economic injustice, money in politics, and our broken financial institutions which are consistently being harassed by the cops.
Here is an article on Occupy Detroit by a local newspaper. The movement has decided to feed and clothe the homeless. In the beginning there were about 10 homeless people living in the park. Now there are at least 30 who have found a place to get warm and get fed. There is a medical tent and they supply haircuts too. There are stray dogs and families with kids.
We have no social programs anymore. Budgets have been slashed and employees have been laid off. So the Occupiers have taken on the problems the city , state and federal governments have quit handling. There are some church and union donations too. But most of the stuff comes from people just dropping it off.
There are problems. Some of the homeless are pretty crazy. They probably need meds or counseling. At every general assembly some crazies demand the right to speak. Then they rant on about their lives until they get tired of talking. Sometimes some pretty dangerous people come down . They scare everybody.
Downtown Detroit is not a particularly safe place at night. You can hear gunshots sometimes. But most people understand the Occupation has good intentions and it alone.
Occupy Portland is on its way out. The mayor and the cops have bent over backwards to accommodate these folks, spending lots of taxpayer dollars for police overtime and absorbing the eventual cost of cleanup. But now the violent offenders, sexual predators, crazies, and drug users have moved into the encampments, so the city administration has said “enough”. They have until midnight tomorrow to decamp or be forcibly removed. I really hope Portland doesn’t make headlines like Oakland did.
Detroit is on its way out too. The police have not attacked the camp yet, so there is very little cost. They also have not been involved in any cleanup. The city , police and campers have been on very good terms so far, but the Thanksgiving Day parade is coming and the city wants them out before then. They are worried about Detroit’s image. Too late for that. The permit is good until 11-14 but the police are trying to push them out earlier.
The local bars and restaurants will miss the business.
Well, Oakland is kicking them out, too, so let’s hope they don’t make headlines like Oakland did!
I wonder is they realize they have lost the sympathy of the nonpartisan, misanthropic curmudgeon community?
Dio was banned not that long ago.
Simple. You complain about the banks for being of loose, then you complained that they tightened. You have never said, nor given any semblance of an argument or support or the notion that the banks are too tight.
[quoteI am not arguing the same thing you think you’re defending. I’m accusing the banks of making deliberate, ongoing, and pervasive decisions.[/quote]
Well I would hope the banks would make decisions, that they would do so on an ongoing basis, and that they would apply widely throughout the banks, so…
[quoteI fully understand my own cite, and so what if I ignore the parts that disagree with me? I took the quotes from two people who ought to know something about loan demand, and that’s what I wanted from the damn news article. The fact that the article interviews other people doesn’t change the fact that the two people I quoted have the titles I mentioned and said the things that I quoted them as saying.[/quote]
I don’t think you really understand it at all.
I READ the methodology, ignatz. It’s a goddamn opinion survey. No hard data presented.
If you read it you would know that there is oth qualitative and quantitative information obtained. You would also know that the board of governors, the Feds open market committee uses this data, and has in one form or another since the 60s to formulate monetary policy. It is, in fact, the sinle most important instrument for deriving insight into the demand side of credit that is in existence.
But no. You don’t like it because it’s a survey. You dismiss it’s data and replace it with your personal opinion.
There reaches a point where you are talking to somebody, and you realize that they are imply to ignorant and stubborn to reason with.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
It is not whether demand was down. It was ,you fine bankers crashed the economy after all. But the demand that was there was not served. Banks were happy to buy government bonds with no risk.
The understanding was that banks would lend to companies to grow the economy. They did not. But since it was not zero, you can claim they were lending.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/more-lending-but-not-to-small-businesses/
Excellent point, John. Sorta. I guess. Wait, what?
I had lunch with a friend who lives in that area in NYC. And he’s increasingly frustrated with the OWS crew for threatening local business and depositing feces on their property. He said one business stopped feeding them for free and received death threats and poo wrapped up in napkins.
Shit happens.
I heard the businesses were spitting in the food anyway.
You know what would be cool? A message board where anecdotal evidence is the only kind that is acceptable! Wow, that would be…no, wait a second, that would be stupid. Never mind.
That article says small business loans have not increased. It does not say if that is because banks are not lending to small businesses in spite of demand. Or, if there is no demand.
You’ve already conceded demand is down.
Yes I clearly said demand was down. i also said it was because you guys destroyed the economy. But the fact is many small businesses were screaming for help where none was coming. You bankers rejected small business loans because the fees are not large enough. You guys got fat on huge loans , mergers and acquisitions ,CDOs and SWAPS. Who wants to waste their time on small business loans?
Of course small business is the engine of local employment. A restaurant or local construction company can not offshore it’s work. But why should you guys care? You want that bonus even if your bank nearly went out of business because you gambled with the institutions money. The tax payers bailed you out and your response was screw you, i want all I can get. I deserve a fine bonus.
Don’t be surprised if it pisses people off. if they performed their job that badly, they would be fired.Hell millions lost their jobs and homes because of greedy bankers. They were working hard and doing a good job.
Yeah, you think he should do hard time. Yet, he has not been charged. Nobody with even the slightest bit of authority has even seriously tried. I’m sure you think it’s because of the innate corruptness of the system, or cronyism, or some other thing, but, the rest of us realize that, frankly, what you are suggesting is a crackpot view.
On the other hand, I am talking about hypocrisy, and usually Bush is generally credited with saying what he meant, so you don’t even have that to make the comparison stick. Finally, and I mean this without rancor. 4 years later, I am no longer entertaining crackpot views on Bush. Moveon.org.
I find this remarkable. I typically consider you to be a fairly smart and astute guy, even if we often differ in our outlooks. But, this frankly surprises me.
What you are talking about is not a conservative failing. It is a human failing. All humans do it. It’s called bias. Ironically, by suggesting this is a conservative trait you are committing the exact same bias you accuse conservatives of.
Actually, that was my view. I thought I described it that way when I used the example of protestors at funerals or abortion clinics, or blocking traffic. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I goota go with Isocrates on this one:
“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”
No. I see the predators and the real nuts descending and the whether getting cold, and a bunch of assholes going home without having accomplished anything besides damaging the economies and infringing upon the rights of those they claim to be helping.
I do. Generally, I admire intelligence and strong execution even if I don’t agree with the goals, and despise sloth and sloppiness and lack of focus even if I do.
The French and the Germans are part of the EU. The French are doomed. The Germans will come out ok. Almost nobody else in the EU will. It will probably destroy Swedens economy as well. I can’t tell.
Greece doesn’t get fixed. Ireland doesn’t. Spain doesn’t. Portugal doesn’t. France doesn’t. It’s really simple math, and all that is happening now is the forestalling of the inevitable. I really don’t care about the promises these countries made to take care of their citizens. Why? Because they are worthless promises. They can’t sustain the expense of their social programs and it’s likely to destroy the economies of most of Europe. But again, I hope I’m wrong. Frankly what is happening over there makes our CDO crisis look sober and conservative.
Yes. I know. I think you very lucky. If you are playing blackjack and you hit on 18 and get a three, that does not mean you are smart
I only know what happened in broad outline. Frankly, my understanding is not enough to judge it on the level you’ve taken it to.
Really high taxes, I think 1/3 of the country works for the government, a ponzi scheme of social programs that are doomed to collapse. Things like that.
[quote\Blame, blame, blame. You really are stuck on the blame issue, aren’t you? There’s enough to go around.[/quote]
Not particularly. I simply resent the ignorance that places all of it on a few scapegoats.
That’s like four things there. Frankly, I think the whole 1% argument is bullshit. Everybody gets a fucking vote. It doesn’t matter how rich you are, or how poor you are. And, if anything, our recent political history shows us that power is in the hands of the people. There are a few rich people in Baltimore, and DC, and Atlanta but do they elect the mayor? No. The entire citizenry elects their representatives to make the laws. If we think our representatives are in the pocket of the 1% we have the right and the ability to vote them out and replace them with people who are not. We don’t have to sit in a park.
Thank you.
Well, that’s an interesting theory. Do you have any data to support it? Anything to suggest that what you are saying is true? Do you even have any anecdotes? A link to a picture of a pony?
You have been presented with page after page of citation, quotation, and fact. if you remain steadfastly ignorant of them, that is hardly Gonzo’s fault.