One of the most effective tactics on the part of the anti-#OccupyWallStreet and #wearethe99% movements is attempting to shame participants into silence. Got laid off? Your own fault, and go take a shower, you filthy hippie. And get a haircut and a job, while you’re at it. Lost your home? Pay your bills, dirtbag, and don’t buy more house than you can afford. Pushing the “personal responsibility” button on the Have-Nots' feel-bad issues to discourage them into giving up and wallowing has worked well for the Haves in the past. So why isn’t it working now?
In a development that bodes badly for Wall Street, a large portion of the 99% have realized that we’re all in the same boat. With the mind-bogglingly high unemployment, uninsured, foreclosure and poverty numbers--despite the positive spin constantly attempted by the mainstream media--it’s more surprising that we haven’t realized this glaring fact until now. Official unemployment numbers nationwide are 9-16%, and affect 14-25 million people. Unofficial numbers are even higher. http://www.shadowstats.com puts the “true” unemployment rate at 23%. Long term unemployment is the highest we’ve seen since the Great Depression, which indicates that things won’t get better anytime soon. In fact, unemployment numbers aren’t projected to return to normal until 2016.
Wall Street blames high unemployment on oppressive taxes and regulations. But deregulation caused the problem in the first place; two-thirds of large U.S. corporations don’t pay any federal income tax anyway, and when banks received taxpayer-funded bailouts, they sat on the funds and didn’t hire anyone.
Nearly 50 million people have no health insurance. 31% rely on government-provided insurance, such as Medicaid and Medicare.
Wall Street claims that these people are uninsured because they choose to be. But they ignore the fact that these numbers are similar to the number of people living in poverty--46 million--or the number of people receiving food stamps--46 million.
Nearly 2.9 million U.S. homes received a notice of default, auction or repossession in 2010; more than a million homes were seized, with another quarter million seizures delayed by AG lender practices investigations. Around 5 million mortgages are seriously delinquent--that’s 1 in 10 mortgages.
Wall Street blames the problem on the government, for having the audacity to suggest that minorities should have the opportunity to own homes. But the decisions to provide kickbacks to crooked appraisers in exchange for overvaluing homes were made by the banks, in order to make bad, government-backed loans they knew would not be paid off by the homeowner. This was a good business decision for the banks, who would ultimately be paid back in full several times over, from selling the mortgages to investors, collecting fat fees from investors for “servicing” the mortgages [read: dealt with homeowners to conceal the different mortgage assignments], from collecting reimbursements on foreclosed homes from the government, AND from the proceeds of selling the home following foreclosure.
Wall Street, the corporate-owned mainstream media and our federal government have done a much better spin and concealment job when it comes to the damage done to investors, public employees and taxpayers. The spin was done so skillfully that the vast majority of Americans had no idea as to the scope of the problem nor any of the details, especially the fact that EVERYONE was affected, and that the problem wasn’t accidental.
Mortgage-backed securities [MBS] were purchased by most investment funds, including those invested in by leading large financial firms, individual investors and workers with 401Ks. If you’re a public employee, it’s likely that your pension fund took a big hit from the loss in value of mortgage-backed securities [MBS]. And, of course the taxpayer is on the hook for the future expenditures from public pension funds. Every American citizen suffered, to a degree, including Wall Street; they just engineered the scheme so that they would profit much more than they lost.
Now, our federal government is trying to bail out the banks all over again, by releasing them from liability if they pay a relatively small amount of restitution. This would prevent states from investigating the banks and protect banks from civil lawsuits, all for $5-20 billion. As Matt Taibbi says, this constitutes around a TRILLION dollars of immunity. Thankfully, the Attorneys General of New York and California have refused to agree to a settlement structured this way. But you can bet that one is coming before November 2012. 
Unemployed, employed, comfortable, struggling, young, old, Republican, Democrat. Americans. We’ve ALL been screwed by Wall Street, in one way or another. Now is the time to ensure that doesn’t happen again. Add your voice. #wearethe99%; We Are the 99%; #OccupyWallStreet; Occupy Wall Street
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Farleftside
MeatMonkey
Dr William Lee
Dennis Loo
Mike Lucier
Dan O'Mahony
Salon.com
Comments
‘Nother good one!!
ᴼᴥƪ
.
:D
Rated!
Thanks, sky. I'm hoping to get another piece up tomorrow that explains exactly what the banks did; it's actually done, except for some editing and the coding when I put it up.
I'm trying to target those of the 99% that don't realize that the money they lost from investments was NOT their responsibility. How can your financial loss be due to bad choices when EVERYONE had MBS? You can't take responsibility for it if you didn't really have a choice in the first place.
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your next piece. =)
--sinclair louis
"One withstands the invasion of armies; one does not withstand the invasion of ideas."
--victor hugo
occupy wall street, my speech to the masses
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/attorneys-general-settlement-the-next-big-bank-bailout-20111005
BTW - y'all wanted the bailouts AND Wall Street gave more money to Mr. Obama's campaign than it did to McCain's.
Demonizing other people by so-called class resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions in the 20th century. Okay, go for it if you like, but the result won't be pretty.
Great post, sickofstupid! Rated.
Government does not ALWAYS = BAD. Yes, government has a LOT of problems. But we, the People, have the power to fix those problems. Government is only going to be as good as the people running it. If it sucks, we need new people. It's a little more complicated that that--we need campaign finance reform and strict term limits--but not much. We need to accept responsibility, too, and OWS HAS. They've finally figured out that we don't have to just take whatever crap we're dished out. We can resist, we can protest, we can boot money out of politics, and take our country back.
I never thought the bailouts were a good idea. I think "Too Big To Fail" is a bad idea. Capitalism is not my God, and I refuse to allow my government to act as though it's theirs. We need to inject some sense into the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Yep, absolutely. Wall Street gave a TON of money to Obama's campaign; take a look at his top twenty contributors. Goldman Sachs comes in at #2, and many more make the list. That's why this isn't a problem that can be blaed on a single political party, and I didn't see anyone TRYING to blame a single party. This is about a problem with money corrupting government, and ALL of government's lack of effective response to combat those who have crushed our economy, and will again unless the People prevent it.
"Demonizing by class"? Yes, it's a terrible thing. That's why Wall Street and the GOP use it to such good effect. They try to turn the Have-Littles against the Have-Nots, instead of against the Haves, from whence the problems originated. The Dems do it against the Haves too, but it's a little more deserved, considering the evidence. That's not to say that OWS is against the wealthy; we're not. What we're against is a different set of rules for the wealthy that allows the unscrupulous among them [plenty] to take the taxpayers' money, legally and illegally, give nothing of value in return, and avoid paying the price for their crimes. That's why the movement is called Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy the Wealthy.
Mary, thanks. I have family who were harmed by the illegal actions of Wall Street, but don't believe it. I'm all for accepting responsibility for one's own actions and mistakes, but accepting full responsibility when no good choice existed due to the crimes of others only harms one further. I hope this one is forceful enough to change some minds.
Hayley, exactly. I think it's great that so many people have realized that the solution to our problems lies with US. I only wish that more of us had seen the light earlier. I do understand; they trusted their government and the media, and we SHOULD be able to trust them [though never blindly]. Hopefully, our actions will lead to a nation in which that is possible.
I'm sorry you don't find my comments useful.
I trust that in your teaching you do open your students up to other points of view.
To the author - destroying Wall Street and demonizing the "rich" does not improve the situation. If people made money by illegal means, push for their prosecution. Y'all might be better served demonstrating AGAINST the bailouts that, by the way, were supported by both parties. Y'all might also demonstrate against the presidents (both of them) who supported them AND against people like Barney Frank who heavily supported Freddie and Fanny and the forcing of banks to lend to non-credit-worthy people.
Y'all might also work to reform the tax system so that ordinary workers aren't paying a third of their earnings in taxes and work to support a lessening of corporate taxes so that corporations are not forced (they ARE in the business to make a profit) to send jobs out of the country.
Want to improve the economy? Push for lower taxes for all. Check out JFK on the subject. He definitely agreed.
Interesting the same people who get their knickers in a knot at the mere mention of "Socialism" evidently learned NOTHING about either the French or the Russian Revolutions in school. If you concentrate more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands, eventually the people at the bottom are going to get mad about it. I'm not against wealth--I am vehemently against people getting screwed over by the greed andd stupidity of other people.
But what's so ruddy fantastic about Capitalism when it allows the current state of affairs to occur?
rated
And socialism hasn't worked in Europe and its "version" never worked in the USSR. It did however help destroy Russia and, as said, in its worst form, murdered millions upon millions - about which, by the way, the left never gave a rip and still don't.
If corporations have committed crimes, urge that the people involved be prosecuted. Get your government to lower taxes so that people, ordinary working people, can keep more that 66 percent of their earnings. Tell government to get out of the banking business it is in via Freddie and Fanny schemes and encourage a lower corporate tax rate so that corporations and businesses can afford to stay in the states and hire people.
If you don't like the rich, don't hang with them.
I think the move to deregulation and lower taxation has been a long time coming. Clinton's regulatory easing of Glass-Steagal certainly opened a flood gate of profiterring by bankers and wirehouses. But, he had help from all of our elected officials.
I say that no industry can self-police. I will certainly give up all meat, and probably should anyway, if the further weaken the FDA. Will I also have to boil all my water, wear a respirator (like in Japan), give up my medicine, etc. as regulations weaken on all our basic necessities?
People wrongly think the government is our enemy. That's is just not so, our downfall is campaign financing and career politicians. They are incentivized to cater to the wealthy at our expense (and I am upper middle class).
My point is that every industry need government oversight and rules that force good citizenship and proper attention to public welfare. I'm not saying that people are just no good. People rationalize their bad behavior everyday. If you don't regulate from the outside, an industry creates its own reality over time in which what's good for the industry is good for everyone. It's human nature to be tribal.
First of all, your "y'alls" are generalizations that don't reflect "all." As your posts clearly show, we don't all agree. So, you might consider avoiding statements that lump us all into the same ideology.
What else is nonsensical?
"that federal government y'all want to organize your health care"
You forget that the federal gov't is supposed to be elected by and reflect the views of the majority of people. The people want healthcare; therefore, they elect officials who will accomplish this task. If the gov't is the arm of the American people (as it should be but is not because it is currently run by corporations and Wall St -- which is the point of OWS), then it will accomplish what the people want. I want healthcare, and I think impoverished children should have it too because rich folks aren't more deserving of it than the rest of us. The majority of Americans agree with me, which is why most were in support of the Public Option before Obama decided to throw it out without a fight.
Here's another nonsensical point:
"y'all wanted the bailouts AND Wall Street gave more money to Mr. Obama's campaign than it did to McCain's."
Very few people liked the bailouts, BJ.
Again, you're assuming that all of us are Obama fans, which ain't the case. You *do* make an accurate statement here. Obama did get a lot of his campaign money from Wall Street, and he will get more during his current campaign. That's part of what OWS is protesting, by the way. Why haven't you joined them if you're so opposed?
And finally, more nonsense.
"Demonizing other people by so-called class resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions in the 20th century."
This is hilarious seeing as you're demonizing Obama and Democrats in your posts. Only a select few of us are allowed to point fingers it seems, and when others do it, they're demonizing. When you do it . . . well, I guess its something else.
That was just your first post. Here's some more nonsense in your response to me:
"One of them was the insistence, mostly on the part of Democrats I may add, that banks lend to people who could not be deemed credit-worthy."
Again, you're assuming I like and support Democrats. So, your criticism of them is supposed to bother me, I guess. You've heard of what assuming does, right?
The banks cooked up and carried out this scheme. We need to hold ALL the actual criminals responsible. If you can prove it was Democrats that knowingly lured people into these loans, let's put them on trial.
Oh wait, we won't put them on trial because there's a separate set of laws here in the U.S. One set of laws for the rich and another for the rest of us. Again, this is what OWS protesters are upset about. If you aren't okay with this, perhaps you should join them.
If it was in fact "many things" that got us into our current situation, why are you consistently blaming Democrats? You know there are republicans in congress, right? There have been a few of them around for quite a while now.
The main problem with your posts, BJ, is that they pretend that OWS is a movement created by Democrats/Obama and in support of Democrats/Obama, which is not true. So, get passed that, and then you might start making sense.
Barbara Joanne--I'm not advocating violence against the rich. I'm pointing out that America's current wealthiest people, and the politicians who so ardently serve their interests, have failed to learn from historical example that a small, highly favored minority of wealthy people and a large, angry underclass is, eventually, a recipe for disaster. When people feel they're doing okay, and the future has the potential to be better, they're content in their lives. That's not the situation any more for a lot of people in this country who used to feel they were doing okay.
There cannot be a civil society and no real and sustainable economic recovery without a strong middle class and educated work force. I'm no fan of anarchy. I like it when lights go on and guns don't go off. I'm rather fond of living inside and having protection from the elements as well as a stocked refrigerator. But things are seriously, SERIOUSLY lopsided in the favor of a small elite class of people. It's not a sustainable situation. It's been class warfare for the last thirty years, and those at the top are beginning to realize there might be a counte roffensive in the works.
It's that "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it" lesson, again. I'd rather settle it through the ballot box and kick the bastards out. But one way or another, I think the status quo needs to change.
http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout-federal-reserve-now-backstopping-75-trillion-of.html
HOLY BAILOUT - Federal Reserve Now Backstopping $75 Trillion Of Bank Of America's Derivatives Trades
JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.
One can hope, anyway.
-r-
I think we can assume that most of the OWS people are not on the right. We can assume that Obama is not perfect for them but that they don't support people further to the RIGHT than him, so we can assume also that they support policies he favours more than ones favoured by his opposition. It was institutions like Freddie and Fanny that helped get this problem going. I think we can assume that, since they were overwhelming supported by Democrats, they were more likely to have been supported by the type of person protesting than those in, for example, the Tea Party. And it is more a case of Leftist politics causing these problems than Rightist ones, which is why, assuming that most of these people are on the Left, I call them to task for having supported those policies. Indeed, they seem to want, as much as one can tell, ones MORE to the Left.
About them favouring, as they do, some type of universal health care administered by the government, I repeat that it makes no sense to trust the government much of the Left feels allowed (or at least stood by and did nothing) 9/11 to happen or has covered up the JFK assassination for over 40 years to oversee their health care plans. It IS by and large the Left that believes these things, although not exclusively so. However it IS the Left that wants universal health care and how someone can want that dastardly government that they assume was part of these murders to do this makes no sense to me. And that they can believe that that government, which for over 40 years has covered up JFK's murder, and which has had politicians from both parties, and of all types in it over the years and through many an election cycle, is capable of handling their very LIVES makes no sense. (By the way, I don't think the US government complicit in either JFK's death or 9/11.)
By the way. I didn't say YOU were nonsensical, I was saying that I didn't think I WAS.
I am not demonizing a whole class of people. I think these are fine, but naive people and I suspect Obama is a fine, yet naive, man. The OWS people are, by the way, blaming THE RICH which from the way they talk DOES appear to be a demonization of all of the rich.
I think this dangerous. I also think it immoral. It led to death in Russia of people by class. I fear it.
Hate policies, but not people who simply did better in life legally than others did. If they broke the law, prosecute them. And if you LITERALLY believe there are two sets of laws in the USA for the rich and the poor, you are, happily, dead wrong. A rich banker is as subject to the same laws as a small town banker who has no great wealth. And the rich are subject to the same fraud and theft and murder and rape, etc., laws as the poor. If they are not being prosecuted when they should be, I suggest you vote in other attorneys general and local prosecutors. But all Americans are subject to the same laws. Believe me, I know that people get off through influence. I think the late Senator Kennedy did. (And I think him a rather sad and poor man and don't hate him at all.) Nevertheless, he was subject to the same laws technically. That those laws were not applied is something many of us lament. And those that didn't apply them should have been subject to investigation and/or recall.
Thanks for your input.
Thanks to all my readers from FB. I know it's a pain to register for every site you want to comment on, so many thanks for the "Likes".
Thanks for reading/commenting, Cathy, Shiral, Seamore, Carol, Erika, supermom, owl.
Destroying Wall Street is not an OWS goal. Demanding that they make full restitution for their crimes, serve time where appropriate, and IMMEDIATELY cease and desist all illegal/unethical activities does not constitute "destroying" Wall Street. Why should they be exempt from the law, especially when you consider what they did?
And you seem to have missed quite a lot. OWS DOES want the prosecution of those on Wall Street who were responsible for illegal activities. We DO want the complex, loophole-filled tax system changed. We DO oppose the bailouts. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the OWS movement.
And given that two-thirds of large U.S. corporations already pay ZERO federal income tax [and get taxpayer-funded refunds], I seriously doubt that lowering their rate would do any good for anyone other than the shareholders, for whom I honestly don't give a fig. Stop looking at the STATED corporate tax rate, and start looking at the EFFECTIVE tax rate. Are you saying that we should allow these corporations to pay a NEGATIVE tax rate [which many already do, particularly when you figure in the subsidies]?
You're demanding that another commenter "prove" that your statements are nonsensical. But when you don't do the work to back up your erroneous statements, why should we? The facts are readily available, for those who actually take the time to LOOK.
However, our current healthcare system is such a joke that I'm not at all sure it COULD be worse. Private insurers are directly and indirectly responsible for the large increases in healthcare costs. Eliminate them, and we can carve off a MINIMUM of 30% in expenses [the difference between their administrative costs and Medicare's]. Plus, we can chop off whatever their total annual profits are [hefty]. We'll also realize large differences in out-of-pocket costs [no more "we'll cover 80% of our approved amount IF all providers are approved, blah blah blah"]. For $1 trillion annually, we could provide every household with PRIVATE insurance. Universal single payer would cost MUCH less, and the cost could easily be covered by combining, cutting and extending existing programs; no one would pay more than they already do, most people would pay substantially less than they currently do, and quality of care would greatly improve [no more private "death panels", no more 5 minute appointments, no more 15 unnecessary "follow up" appointments, etc.].
I am truly curious as to why your comments seem to insist upon blamig everyone other than those for whom there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing? Our government should absolutely do a better job with enforcing the law, but the problem would also be fixed if the wealthy simply stopped trying to buy their way out of the consequences of their tremendously damaging crimes. The government would certainly do a better job if private money were not a factor.
On another note, I detest these video ads, or whatever keeps causing OS to give me errors and continually demand that I sign in, despite my having already done so...multiple times.