Home > Economy, Humboldt County > OCCUPY HUMBOLDT: The website

OCCUPY HUMBOLDT: The website

  1. Mitch
    October 10, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Good luck, OH. You have a great photographer!

  2. October 10, 2011 at 11:36 am

    It’s like millions in the progressive movement are trying to dig a canal with spoons; while the fascist, corporate, tea-neo-con-partyiers have gigantic earth-moving equipment operated by one guy to fill it back in.
    It’s gonna be violence in the streets. When our kids start dying from preventable diseases; which is already happening. When their futures are destroyed and they’re sold into financial slavery to the sons and daughters of the ruling class; then things will get ugly fast. There has never been a bloodless revolution, and there never will be.
    Yeah, yeah..promote peace and talk about non-violence. But the traitors are not using non-violence. they’ve stolen the country through their use of a fascist police state that loves violence. They’ve destroyed the spirits of many of our young people by sending them off to war, and now they’ve put them in law-enforcement. What’s the difference between killing an Iraqi father trying to get water for his wounded son, and killing a protester demonstrating against the rich stealing our jobs to benefit their Chinese business partners? Not much, Pal; not much.
    I personally will never use or condone violence; but that will not prevent it from happening anyway.
    Citizens United is the death of American democracy.

  3. High Finance
    October 10, 2011 at 11:44 am

    The pictures of the children on that site is appropriate as this is all childish nonsense.

    But, in a way, this is child abuse. Teaching the children to protest & demand something for nothing will only lead them to a life of failure.

    Instead they should be teaching those children to stay in school, stay away from drugs and work hard. Sacrifice in the short term with the eye on the long term. Teach them that success comes slowly, one step at a time and by taking prudent risks. Take every failure as a learning experience and move on.

  4. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    High Finance

    Do you have children?

    I taught my children and let them experience life lessons less generically than your statement. One of my kids protested in Seattle. That didn’t trouble me. I certainly didn’t blame that behavior on what “they” should be teaching my kids. I spent years making certain “they” stayed out of the equation.

  5. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Occupy Humboldt plans to demonstrate support for criminals in CA state prisons. Bad idea. Put the Wall Street traitors in prison, but don’t cater to the 3strikes gangster felons we already have in there.

  6. October 10, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    High Finance, child abuse is telling your kids to work hard, stay in school and do the right thing and that they too can have the life you had. Are you in the student loan biz or something? Why would you mislead these kids? Their futures were abused and stolen by the banksters which were allowed to do it by the laws enacted by Graham, Leach & Bliley or corporate lobbyists and folks that are older than they are. The generation coming up is the first that will not do nearly as well as their parents. You would tell them to go in debt with a college education that will only do them good if they are arguing with a person like you. Yes they will be smarter but it will not guarantee they will get a job. The good jobs have either been shipped overseas or are already occupied by folks in the me, me. me generation and with a degree, one is overqualified for the crappy jobs that are left. How many people in New York have been protesting because they did all the crap your generation told them to do only to find out their college degree is worthless. They spend two years looking for a job and you and Fox News call them lazy.

  7. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Business cycles like the tides go up and down. Right now we are in a bad job market. Later we will be in a better job market. What is really despicable is for certain old people to scare hell out of young people by pretending current trends will continue until the young people starve.

    American jobs were shipped to China for many years and most Americans did not care. Most Americans only cared about getting their electronic toys at cut rate prices. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, despite what the elites told us and despite our happiness at believing their preposterous stories. Now it is time to “pay the piper.”

    See? All the answers to our problems could have been averted if we had only paid attention to the wisdom of our ancestors.

    By the way, a college degree never guaranteed anyone a good job. Not during a recession, anyway.

  8. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    And the current Tea Party favorite of the month, Godfather Cain, said, “It’s your fault if you don’t have a job and wealth.”

  9. High Finance
    October 10, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    I do 1.01pm. Every one of them takes responsibility for their own lives and don’t play the victim game. As a result they are all successful to one degree or another.

    Tom Sebourn, you sound very bitter. You are wasting energy & time by blaming your failures on others. The blame somebody else mentality is an excuse to not try.

  10. Lumpy
    October 10, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I never thought I would say it, but I almost agree with High Fi here.

    I wouldn’t consider it child abuse per se, but putting words into the mouths of children just makes them into pawns. And then i believe that they either regret it later (and resent you for using them like that) or become a person who get brainwashed into believing in the parents ideals without coming around to whatever their own beliefs are.

    I don’t care if those ideals are politically left or right. i cringe the same way when i see kids with pro/anti abortion signs, or pro/anti gay marriage signs.

    I support the Occupy Wall St Movement. But just let the kids be kids!

  11. High Finance
    October 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    And I almost agree with Lumpy ! I also cringe when the righties do the same thing.

  12. yuppers
    October 10, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Hell, I cringe when local companies use their kids in TV ads.

  13. Thorstein Veblen
    October 10, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Just because children are abused and taught to protest and demand doesn’t mean that our corporate overlords and oligarchy are not corrupting our democracy and destroying our planet.

  14. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    I don’t approve of parents involving their kids in political protests. I don’t like the exploitation aspect of it, and I don’t like the indoctrination aspect of it. But I also don’t approve of parents indoctrinating their children with nonsensical religious myths, cultural prejudices, nationalism, militarism, and so on.

    But it seems like there are a lot of folks on the right-wing who are fine with indoctrinating their kids with all kinds of cultural prejudices, political ideologies, and nutty religious beliefs, and their concern about kids being indocrtrinated and/or used as symbols only comes into play when the indoctrination doesn’t fit their own worldview.

  15. October 10, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    When these Occupy people get it figured out that this system is failed and stop asking for what is rightfully theirs/ours everyone will know exactly what their intentions are. That’s when they’ll stop cooperating and put their money or value where there mouth is.

  16. The Big Picture
    October 10, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Hear! Hear! Thorstein.

    Trolls like Hi-Liar have no sources, just the inexplicable need to provoke, by insinuating that, “children protesting with parents are demanding something for nothing, are doomed to failure, are more apt to take drugs, leave school, and not work hard”.

    Pure non-sense.

    If not for popular protests against the excesses endemic to imperial economies, Hi-Liar’s (imaginary) female children would be hard workers in textile factories, not allowed to attend college, and never allowed to vote.

    Hi-Liar’s fantasy world and its “liberal media” will not, and cannot, mention the realities of injustice in an imperial economy, the mere thought of it has Hi-Liar beating the bushes for defecating homeless people “disrupting” life, along with the Times Standard headlining the pettiest of crimes.

    Bailouts, perpetual resource wars, child-labor, outsourced jobs, offshore tax shelters, Washington D.C.’s revolving door….are ancient history and off the radar…or else!

  17. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    High Finance

    My children also have to take responsbility for their own mistakes as adults. When parents are responsible, no amount of media can ruin their children’s values. That said, there must be many kids who feel that what they are doing in protest is being responsible, right or wrong.

  18. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    It is difficult to agree with these latest protests. It was understandable why kids a decade ago were upset with the WTO.

  19. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    The protests illustrate the hard work our youths are capable of, and the persecution they’re willing to endure, to call-out the collusion between Wall Street and Washington that’s bankrupting their country.

    Better that than going door-to-door with bibles in their hands corrupting kid’s rational minds with talking snakes and forbidden fruits.

  20. Walt
    October 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    “Business cycles like the tides go up and down. Right now we are in a bad job market. Later we will be in a better job market.”

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

    -Joe Hill, 1911 (from “The Preacher and the Slave”)

  21. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    On the other hand, taking children to protests teaches them civic responsibility and the fact that maintaining a democracy requires more than voting. I’ll bet HiFi doesn’t have a problem with corporations’ ads targeting kids to manufacture desire for unhealthy foods and conspicuous consumption or the Tea Party falsely claiming they are concerned about the debt they are leaving as they demand tax cuts, deregulation and resource extraction without concern for the effect that will have on their kids’ futures.

  22. Anonymous
    October 10, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    like Lumpy said, let kids be kids!

    Jane Bill and whomever you are dumb*#$%’s

  23. Plain Jane
    October 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    GFY leg humper.

  24. Ann
    October 11, 2011 at 5:14 am

    Plain Jane has a lot of class, albeit low.

  25. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 6:23 am

    Thanks Ann. Your opinion of women who fight back when attacked will be given the consideration it deserves. GFY.

  26. Ann
    October 11, 2011 at 6:46 am

    And she’s predictable. What a pathetic existence you must lead. Oh, and I have a husband for that purpose to which you constantly refer. Apparently, it’s your only source of sexual release. Pitiful Plain Jane and her proggy causes. Endless hours on here with pointless drivel. You would do well to move to a third world country where you could live out your days doing good for the masses.

  27. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 7:05 am

    “Proggy causes.” Now it’s clear why you ignored leg humper’s insults and attacked me. Why would I care what a sexist class traitor thinks, Ann?

  28. John Henry
    October 11, 2011 at 8:20 am

    It looks like ole HumRed went on a binge drinking spree and had a sex change operation. Ann?

  29. October 11, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Kids in protest? Kinda like Kids in church. They’re not really ready to make their own decisions.
    I’ve noticed the Tea-Party-Neo-Con (so-called Conservatives) are acting just like a terrorist cell; which in my opinion is exactly what they are. They spend their time arguing about whether water is wet, or heat is warm, on progressive sites. you should see them on Craigslist. What a campaign, one guy’s been going on about Obama for a year now, non-stop.
    Jews for Hitler, no other description fits so well. They’ve aligned themselves with traitors. so what if they SAY, they’re for America. They’re in business with China. They’ve weakened the country. They’ve hurt working families beyond repair.
    They are anti-American you it gets. to them the Constitution is a Leftist Manifesto.
    I wish they’d just take the money they stole from our treasury and move to Dubai with their private army they also paid for with our money.
    It’s not going to be pretty when people finally start fighting back.

  30. John Henry
    October 11, 2011 at 8:46 am

    We’ve had people like High Finance here all along. Around about 1776 we called them Tories and booted their asses back to England or up to Canada. Hasta la bye-bye.

  31. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 9:20 am

    This is a good read today. Seems the corporations are playing Lucy to our Charlie Brown, holding the football for us to kick, promising that this time (unlike all the other times) we can trust them to create millions of jobs if only we dismantle regulations which cut into their profitability. I’m guessing they’re counting the increased jobs in the medical and funeral industries due to the increased respiratory, contagious diseases and cancer the lack of regulation will cause as well as cleanups of oil spills and rivers clogged by coal extraction.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/companies-use-fuzzy-math-in-job-claims-candidates-still-buy-in/2011/10/07/gIQAqoYBbL_story.html

  32. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Fool on you John Henry. My ancestors fought for the rebels in the Revolutionary War. I’m sure yours were protesting for better welfare from the Continental Congress.

    PJ and others don’t understand. Corportions are not in business to provide jobs for people. They are in business to provide profits for their stockholders. They are not going to start hiring until they see the need coming up in the form of an improved economy.

    Right now, under the disaster called the Obama administration, all they see is the strong possibility of a second dip recession.

  33. October 11, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Corportions are not in business to provide jobs for people. They are in business to provide profits for their stockholders.

    Exactly. That’s why all the jobs went to third world countries.

  34. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Can you BELIEVE the lies from HiFi? He repeats what we’ve been saying for YEARS and now has the nerve to claim WE DON’T GET IT!

    Cutting their taxes and regulations don’t create jobs. Only increased demand creates jobs (and increases govt. revenues) so until there are more jobs the economy won’t improve.

  35. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Your ancestors would be ashamed of you, HiFi. You are a corporate lackey just like monarchists in colonial America.

  36. Mitch
    October 11, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Let me shout a great big “ditto” to Heraldo’s latest response to HiFi, who has neatly summed up the problem with unlimited corporate money in elections.

    A corporation is an artificial entity in which people are offered the privilege of limited liability on their investments. This has long been a way of convincing people to invest capital, but it is hardly an essential core of democracy or freedom.

    No corporation feels loyalty to the naive idea of “stakeholders,” nor should it. Any corporate executive who exchanges lower profit for higher wages than necessary has committed, literally, a crime against the stockholders of the corporation. The only way out is for the executive to justify the wages in terms of higher future profits for the stockholders.

    These artificial entities may be efficient users of capital, and may arguably have done good things for our GDP in the past, but the idea that they could ever be what we think of as “good citizens” is pure propaganda. The idea that they should be able to buy elections (I mean, of course, “make unlimited donations”… our political system would never tolerate bribery) is perhaps the worst idea in the history of the United States.

  37. October 11, 2011 at 10:22 am

    That is the point Mitch. Corporate “persons” claim that their sole motivation is pure profit. If any real human being acts so selfishly in real life we label them sociopaths.

    If there is such a thing as corporate “personhood” then they must be expected to have an interest in the health and prosperity of the entire community in addition to mere self-interest.

    It is interesting that corporatations used to be chartered for a limited time only and also included language of social responsibility. Back then, corporations died after a while and they were expected to make a positive contribution to society, not just a negative extraction and transfer of wealth.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  38. owltotem
    October 11, 2011 at 10:46 am

    “Corportions are not in business to provide jobs for people. They are in business to provide profits for their stockholders.”

    Nail on the head Hi Fi exactly why they should not receive 1 iota of tax relief OR 1 cent of subsidization. Also why they should stand separately as Corporations and be taxed and treated accordingly.

    Without income people can not pay their mortgage or buy food. The deal here is we had better all figure out that it is time to help eachother in whatever small way we can. if you are at home unemployed click off the TV and go help your neighbor, volunteer, paint, offer childcare for those who are employed. Try and help reduce the cost of living through offering your craft.

    There absolutely will be a second dip, economists and investors that understand debt and its stronghold on the economy have predicted this and low and behold it is here. B of A just announced increased forclosers and if you watch the local number of notice of trustee sales locally you will see it happening here (even in our little bubble).

    This is why shipping full loads of logs OUT of our local economy without extracting the value out of our resource is a TRAVESTY! This is a corporate profiteer or 2 who cares only about their ( oh and probably their buddy selling fuel to the ships) bottom line. They care nothing about the people who could be extracting a living, a mortgage and food from their families out of the logs.

    i could go on henchman stylesqe here but the nail head is
    “Corportions are not in business to provide jobs (or ANYTHING) for people. They are in business to provide profits for their stockholders (and themselves).”

  39. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 11:14 am

    PJ, get a grip. You’re getting hysterical.

    Bill, every single person alive is concerned about their own “profits”.

    Only hypocrites (of which there are plenty posting here) pretend otherwise.

    And, pay attention here folks, corporations do make a positive contribution to society at the same time they pursue profits. They provide jobs, they pay taxes and they give their owners a return on their investments.

  40. Anonymous
    October 11, 2011 at 11:22 am

    what is the reason for our stagnant economy HiFi?

  41. Apologist Not
    October 11, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    There he goes again!

    There’s nothing patriotic about repeating the lie that taxable corporations pay taxes. 61% pay NOTHING, (“Take This Job and Ship It”, by former U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan).

    This world’s children are the benefactors of tens of millions of U.S. jobs.

    Manufacturing “terminator seeds” is a crime against humanity, although a profitable one. Flooding the U.S. market with toxic products is also profitable…the identical products are shipped to Europe without the cancerous ingredients, (“Exposed” by award winning reporter Mark Shapiro). Saturating a community in poverty wage big boxes and the homes they can’t afford is also profitable…even after the bottom falls out, thanks to the U.S. Treasury.

    Hi-Fi is a liar, and a traitor.

  42. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Apologist Not. What you lack in knowledge you make up for by insistence. Most corporations are not suppose to pay federal taxes but pass those taxes on to the owners.

    I will tell you what is NOT the reason for our stagnant economy 11.22am.

    It is NOT caused by “fascist, corporate, tea-neo-con-partyiers” or “Godfather Cain” or “Wall Street” or Ronald Reagan or George Bush. It is impossible to take people who make those claims seriously.

  43. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 12:18 pm

  44. Mitch
    October 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    The line that “corporations pay no taxes” is basically silly. It’s one of those nice-sounding rallying cries that leave me cringing. Those who own shares in corporations do pay taxes on the corporation’s earnings. You can argue, and I’d agree, that they (we) should pay more. I don’t see why long term capital gains deserve favorable tax treatment.

    But complaining that corporations pay no taxes is like complaining that a partnership between two persons pays no taxes, when the partnership’s income is equally divided between its two participants and each participant is taxed on the income.

    I am sympathetic to ensuring that corporate earnings are completely taxed, but the focus should probably be on the loopholes in the system that allow revenue to be recognized outside the US. There is plenty to criticize about the current corporate controlled system, but I’ve long felt that this particular argument just helps those who favor the corporations to discredit the critics.

  45. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Mitch, are you aware that many corporations are taxed in the same way partnerships are ? In other words, the profits show up on the individuals tax returns.

    And there is a logical reason that there is special tax treatment for long term capital gains. We may or may not agree with it, but it was put there to encourage more people to invest.

  46. Mitch
    October 11, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    HiFi,

    The small corporations you are referring to are not, by and large, the ones that are rightly being protested. We both know that.

    The protests, which I agree with completely, are about the ceding of enormous power, both political and financial, to huge, multinational entities in which no single person is ever held responsible for the damage done by the entity, in which passing the buck has evolved to an art form, and in which short term financial considerations trump all else.

  47. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Not to mention that without a healthy economy, encouraging investments in businesses that aren’t doing well only inflates bubbles which inevitably pop when “irrational exuberance” runs into low consumer spending / low corporate profits. Funny how that happens when a small percentage of the people hoard wealth and the larger percentage of people can’t spend enough to make those investments profitable.

  48. Anonymous
    October 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    There were no protests about the corporations when both the corporations and the individuals who owned shares in those corporations were being taxed (double taxation).

  49. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Mitch, there are corporations that abuse the tax laws.

    But I protest people who use that phrase “61% of corporations don’t pay income taxes” as it is very misleading.

  50. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Yet he is one of those who constantly repeats the lie that 50% of Americans pay no taxes.

  51. Anonymous
    October 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    50% of Americans pay no income taxes. PJ you know that and yet you lie.

  52. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    That is a lie, 1:59.

    “Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

  53. October 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    My 10:46 comment just posted. Thanks Heraldo

  54. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    PJ, it is indeed 47% of Americans that pay no federal income tax and your link says that very same thing.

    Maybe you better read that article closer before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

  55. Matt
    October 11, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    IMO, the biggest freeloaders in the world are the “too big to fail” banks who got bailed out after they nearly wrecked the world’s economy and then went right back to their big bonuses and their shady practices. If I was at Occupy Wall Street, that’s what I’d be protesting.

  56. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Hilarious HiFi. “I realize that it’s possible to argue that payroll taxes should be excluded from the discussion because they pay for benefits — Social Security and Medicare — that people receive on the back end. But that argument doesn’t seem very persuasive.

    Why? People do not receive benefits equal to the payroll taxes they paid. Those who die at age 70 will receive much less in Social Security and Medicare than they paid in taxes. Those who die at 95 will probably get much more.

    The different kinds of federal taxes are really just accounting categories. At the end of the day, the government has to cover the cost of all its operations with revenue from all its taxes. We can’t wish our deficit away by saying that it’s mostly a Medicare and Social Security deficit.

    If anything, the government numbers I’m using here exaggerate how much of the tax burden falls on the wealthy. These numbers fail to account for the income that is hidden from tax collectors — a practice, research shows, that is more common among affluent families. “Because higher-income people are understating their income,” Joel Slemrod, a tax scholar at the University of Michigan, says, “We’ve been overstating their average tax rates.”

    Playing word games to make the case that only the rich pay federal taxes is still a lie. People who work hard but don’t make enough to pay federal income taxes can’t be blamed. Blame their employers who exploit the workers and then exploit the taxpayers’ funded social programs which subsidize the survival of their workers and THEN have the unmitigated gall to complain that the poor don’t pay enough in taxes.

  57. Ann
    October 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Clearly Plain Jane has no life save Heraldo. Pathetic. HiFi, you da’ man.

  58. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Clearly Ann is an ignorant troll. Quit humping my leg Ann. It’s disgusting.

  59. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Jesus PJ, just admit your mistake and move on.

  60. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    I quoted the article there, HiFi. What part of “different federal taxes are just accounting categories” don’t you understand?

  61. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    I’ve finished all my work today and am unchaining myself from the computer so don’t fool yourself into thinking my lack of response to your idiocy is from lack of ability. I’m going to check out the sneaker waves expected today.

  62. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Suck on this until I get back.

    http://robertreich.org/post/11329289033

  63. High Finance
    October 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Pathetic.

  64. Mitch
    October 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    HiFi,

    FWIW, the argument that many Americans don’t pay income tax, when they and their employers each pay payroll taxes from their very first dollar of salary, has exactly the same integrity as the argument that corporations don’t pay taxes, when their shareholders clearly do.

    There are honest arguments on both sides of many issues, and there are rhetorical slogans on both sides. I generally suspect that the people who trot out the same old rhetorical slogans simply don’t believe their side can win with honesty.

  65. Anne on a Mouse
    October 11, 2011 at 6:08 pm
  66. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Cute Anne. But the objection is corporate political power, not corporations per se.

  67. Mitch
    October 11, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Not even cute, Jane. It’s the sort of smug idiocy that drives me up a wall.

  68. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    There should be a sarcasm emote, Mitch. But Anne knows better. She’s just yanking chains like she loves to do.

  69. Matt
    October 11, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Regardless of the bickering above, the main point is, the bank bailouts were a bad idea. Most middle-class people on both sides of the aisle were unhappy about them. They were the catalyst for the first tea party rallies, as well as one of the primary drivers of the OWS movement now. The middle class is tired of being crapped on, and it doesn’t matter if you’re “conservative” or “liberal”.

    Meanwhile, average Americans’ wages have been stagnant for the past *30 years* while the top 1% have increased their earnings by a factor of 3 in the same time period. That’s no way to build a stable country.

  70. Anne on a Mouse
    October 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Actually I support the Wall Street protests but I thought that pic was too funny not to share.

  71. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    This is better, if the link works.

  72. Plain Jane
    October 11, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    And another

    This was posted by “I F**ked You ALL, but thanks for blaming it on the black guy”

  73. Anne on a Mouse
    October 11, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    That first one’s hot. The second sorta chill.

  74. Thorstein Veblen
    October 11, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    I’m mad as hell, and don’t want to take it anymore. So, I think I’ll go occupy Humboldt after work tomorrow. Feel free to join me, if just for an evening. Or send pizza.

  75. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 7:16 am

    Thanks for both pix, Jane. It’s good to see that Mike Peters has still got it, and the second is just perfect, regardless of your politics.

  76. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 8:15 am

    No Matt, the bank bailout was a GOOD idea. The alternative to the bailout was far worse than the few tax dollars it might have cost us.

    The main “catalyst” for the Tea Party was Obama’s Porkulus bill.

  77. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 8:16 am

    This is an excerpt from Glenn Kessler’s column today on the GOP debate last night. I know that most of you know the truth about what caused the economic crisis; but for those who keep repeating the false propaganda that it was due to CRA forcing banks to lower their lending standards, here are the facts from a conservative:

    “The notion that the CRA, approved nearly 35 years ago in 1977, had anything much to do with a lending crisis that flowered in 2007 and 2008 has been roundly discredited. In a 2008 speech, Randall Kroszner, a federal reserve board governor, a former member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers and a business professor at the University of Chicago responded to the charge.

    ”Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices,” Kroszner said, before discussing a Fed analysis of mortgage data “that runs counter to the charge that the CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current subprime crisis.”

    Other experts have noted that the majority of subprime loans were made by firms that are not subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr has testified on Capitol Hill that half of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision and another third were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts that are not subject to routine supervision.

    In a 2008 blog post, Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, noted: “It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did.”

    So you might want to change your source for facts, HiFi. Your current source(s) are lying to you so why would you continue to trust them?

  78. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 8:32 am

    No, HiFi, the bank bailout was criminal. There were any number of alternatives. The bank executives held world governments hostage, and world governments blinked. Almost anything would have been better than capitulation to the bastards. I think temporary nationalization would have been a better solution. Instead, we got Bush Administration lite.

  79. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 8:34 am

    The other relatively recent bit o news, Jane, is that the economic collapse in the quarter before Obama took office was far worse than even the incoming briefers thought it was. (I wish I had the cite, but my recollection is that there was something like an 8% drop in GDP in that quarter, where Obama was briefed to expect 3-5%, which is already awful.)

  80. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Incidentally, HiFi, you’ll easily be able to see how criminal the bank bailout was if you simply replace “bank” with “homeowner.” Remember what started the Tea Party? Rick Santelli whining about bailing out homeowners who had added an extra bathroom because of their apparent equity.

  81. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 8:46 am

    I read that too, Mitch. But some people aren’t capable of understanding that without knowing how big a problem you have (and with economics it’s usually in hindsight) you don’t know how big a solution it requires. I still believe the stimulus was too low even for an 8% drop in GDP and totally inadequate for the actually much larger drop, but Obama did what he could and tried to make the best of it. However, allowing the GOP to blame Democrats for the failure of the too small stimulus and CRA for causing the crisis in the first place is another matter entirely.

  82. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 9:20 am

    “allowing the GOP to blame Democrats”

    It’s really unclear to me what President Obama or the Democrats could have done, given the press in this country. To my taste, surrogates could have been much more aggressive in passing the blame, but I have little doubt that would have yielded another story line supporting the GOP against those who “could only point fingers instead of accomplishing anything.”

    I don’t think there’s much an elected official can do any more. It’s going to take much more than that, and that leaves me feeling incredibly sad.

  83. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 10:16 am

    No Mitch, the final report showed the quarter before Obama took office GDP dropped 6.3%

    Your hyperbole is getting as extreme as PJ’s when you say the bank bailout was “criminal”. The vote in the Senate was 74-25 in favor, including Obama.

  84. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 10:41 am

    I can believe 74-25 in favor, including Obama. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t criminal. If you consider that hyperbole, you’re welcome to your opinion. Obama campaigned on putting in new faces at Treasury. What we got was same-old, probably thanks in part to all the campaign money he received from Wall Street. These people, perhaps sincerely, were shit-scared that they were going to preside over the complete collapse of the American economy, and it would never have occurred to them that bailing out the banks wasn’t the only alternative. They got nothing, NOTHING in return. That’s criminal.

    I’ve done a cursory check for that 8% number and it looks like you’re right — the economy dropped only 6.3% in the quarter before Obama took office. It dropped another 5.5% in the first quarter of 2009. He must be a magician if he could have caused either of those drops. And yet, now, the economic collapse is blamed on Obama. It’s amazing.

  85. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Mitch didn’t say how much the GDP dropped before Obama took office. He was talking about the total GDP decline from the recession, the depth of which wasn’t known until much later.

    I personally believe there was no choice as to bail out the banks, but should have had strong ropes attached to make sure they did the right things with the money.

    Now about all those lies you’ve been telling about how CRA caused the crisis to begin with…..

  86. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Oh, sorry. Mitch did say “in the quarter before Obama was elected.” But his point is still valid. If you don’t know how much you lost, how can you know how much money you need to fix it?

  87. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Finally PJ said something correct. There was no choice as to bil out the banks.

  88. Apologist Not
    October 12, 2011 at 11:53 am

    And still, few Americans have any idea that the CFTA’s failure to regulate OTC Derivatives caused the collapse.

    Thanks to our “liberal media” (HA!), most people don’t know what OTC’s and the U.S.C.F.T.A. are, which explains why OTC’s remain unregulated today.

    “61% of taxable U.S. corporations paid no taxes in 2000”, (former U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan).

    I don’t see how this could make Mitch “cringe”. Corporate tax rates hovered around 35% for decades following WWII.

    The peasants pay taxes on their Schedule “C” business income, and then that profit is transferred to their Schedule 1040 to be taxed again.

    I also agree with Reagan and Obama that the loopholes must end. If the truth about the higher tax rates being paid by secretaries (than by their CEO’s) were to be repeated as much as Michael Jackson’s doctor-trials, there would be many more protesting against Wall Street.

  89. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Why are you so studiously ignoring the facts about CRA having nothing to do with mortgage melt down, HiFi?

  90. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Simply not true, Apologist Not. The self-employed peasants pay self-employment tax on their income, just as wage-earners and wage-payers pay self-employment tax on wages.

    Then, self-employed peasants pay income tax, just as wage-earners do. It’s identical, except if you’re self-employed you pay both employee and employer sides of the payroll tax, so you are forced into seeing that the payroll tax is really twice what the propagandists would have you believe.

    If you want to criticize the idea of a payroll tax separated out from income tax, be my guest, and I agree with you. But it was originally separated out to justify social security. If you want to criticize the special treatment of capital gains, by all means, and I agree with you.

    Taxation at the corporate level is anti-progressive and illusory. I don’t expect to convince many people of that, and you needn’t worry that I might.

  91. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    “just as wage-earners and wage-payers pay self-employment tax on wages.”

    Sorry. That should have read “just as wage-earners and wage-payers pay payroll taxes on wages.”

  92. Rat Fink
    October 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    High Apologist says:
    October 12, 2011 at 11:32 am

    “There was no choice as to bil (sic) out the banks.”

    I agree. I ran my business into near bankruptcy last year but thanks to the tax paying middle class, my company received a billion dollar bailout AND I received my “$23.8 million in salary and stock”. God I love America!!!!!!

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-25/fink-no-1-in-wall-street-pay-as-blackrock-stock-sinks-16-on-ishares-deal.html

  93. Smart 5th Grader
    October 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Visa Exposed As Massive Credit Card Scam
    SAN FRANCISCO—In coordinated raids Monday at locations in Delaware, South Dakota, and California, federal agents apprehended dozens of executives at Visa Inc., a sham corporation accused of perpetrating the largest credit card scam in U.S. history.

    According to indictments filed in U.S. District Court, Visa posed as a reputable lender, working through banks to peddle a variety of convincing-looking credit cards carefully designed to dupe consumers into spending far more money than they had. The criminal group would then impose a succession of escalating fees on unpaid balances, allegedly bilking some $300 billion from victims in the past year alone. (more)

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/visa-exposed-as-massive-credit-card-scam,21136/

  94. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    “The self-employed peasants pay self-employment tax on their income”

    Up to the $106,000 cap. People who earn millions don’t pay a penny more than those who earn $106,000. A person making a million dollars a year pays less than 2% while the working poor pay 12.6 (at today’s rates).

  95. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    After they retire, the people who earn millions don’t get one more dime of Social Security than does the person earning $106,000.

    The CRA was the beginning PJ, although I understand your enthusiasm in trying to cover up that fact.

  96. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    100% wrong. HiFi. CRA stopped banks from redlining neighborhoods in minority neighborhoods 30 YEARS AGO! It didn’t reduce loan standards or force any bank to lend to unqualified applicants. CRA has nothing to do with subprime mortgages. The beginning of the crisis was revocation of Glass-Steagall which vastly increased the number of corporations offering mortgages. To increase demand for these mortgages, and at the request of the mortgage industry, Bush’s GOP majority congress reduced the standards of the FM’s in 2004 to allow the industry to re-sell sub prime mortgages, again nothing to do with CRA. The finance industry, because they didn’t have to worry about collecting on these risky loans and made a lot of money in fees and then reselling them (and betting on them to fail) practically begged people to take them and didn’t care if they couldn’t pay it back because it wasn’t their risk.

    Now if you can offer any legitimate source (not frightwing pundits or edited you tube videos) which shows how CRA was involved in this mess, I’ll read it and get back to you. Continuing to repeat lies doesn’t make them true.

  97. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Since SS surpluses have been used to pay non-Social Security expenses and tax cuts for those millionaires, how much they receive in payment on retirement is irrelevant.

  98. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Here’s another article which explains why CRA couldn’t have caused the mortgage melt down and identifies the real culprit.

    “Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

    http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

  99. Matt
    October 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    “High Finance says:
    October 12, 2011 at 8:15 am

    No Matt, the bank bailout was a GOOD idea. The alternative to the bailout was far worse than the few tax dollars it might have cost us.”

    In your opinion. IMO, I believe that you are probably partially correct – that the bailout was unfortunately necessary – however, when using tax payer money to bail out a bunch of f*** ups, one needs to extract a “pound of flesh” on behalf of the citizens so it never happens again. As it was, the bankers were essentially rewarded for their misdeeds. Hence everyone’s anger.

    “The main “catalyst” for the Tea Party was Obama’s Porkulus bill.”

    The original start of peoples’ frustration was due to the bank bailout. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

    February 1, 2009 tea bag campaign

    [1st paragraph] On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a part-time trader and a member of Ticker Forum, posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to “Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate,” a tactic that had first been attempted by the Libertarian Party in 1973. The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach **”everyone that voted for the bailout.”** (** emphasis added by me)

    [3rd paragraph] The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO), published his own write-up on the proposed protest, titled “Tea Party February 1st?,” which was posted in direct response to President Obama’s inauguration occurring on the same day, and **railed against the bailouts, the US national debt and “the fraud and abuse in our banking and financial system” which included the predatory lending practices currently at the center of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis.** (** emphasis added by me)

  100. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    I too would have preferred a “pound of flesh” and some of them should be in jail Matt.

    PJ, CRA started the push toward forcing the banks to give loans to people who should never have got them.

  101. Mitch
    October 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    HiFi,

    Liar loans were being pushed by the banks. It was completely common knowledge, and the term liar loan was in wide circulation. Also something like NINJA loan — No Income, No Job or Assets. CRA did not cause that, greed did, on the part of the loan officers. As has been made clear in many reports, loan officers made money filling Wall Street’s insatiable demand for loans to securitize, and because nobody thought they’d be the last one in the game of musical chairs, no one thought twice. The Wall Street “wizards” were only too happy to play their role of stamping “Grade A” on the top tranche of bullshit.

    We agree. Lots of people belong in jail. They’re still considered respectable, which is why I don’t believe in respect.

  102. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    HiFi just repeats the same lies over and over. He’s shameless.

  103. High Finance
    October 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    PJ, do you know how to read ?

  104. Plain Jane
    October 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    A little, HiFi. Do you know how racist it is to claim that people who live in minority neighborhoods shouldn’t have been given loans? CRA was not to blame for the mortgage crises no matter how many times you lie or how hard you spin. I know that rocks your delusional world, but facts are facts. Your willful ignorance and constant lies have worn me out. I won’t waste another second on you.

  105. Mark Spritzer
    October 12, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    I am beginning to think that HiFi is that old fool Hannaford who used to lick Arley’s boots at the Eureka Reporter. The cut and paste plagiarism from Sean Hannity and Club for Growth style is almost unique here on the north coast. Never an original idea here, move along.

  106. Thorstein Veblen
    October 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Well, I’m back from Occupy Humboldt. Actually,I couldn’t find it, guess I need to re-check the web site to see where they are. Too bad, I had my harmonica, a six pack of Bud Lite, and some Doritos. And my sleeping bag, toothbrush and electric razor. Looked like I was from the Plaza, albeit better groomed. Back home now, in the recliner watching baseball, eating Doritos and drinking bud lite. But I was ready to protest as hard as I could.

  107. Left Coast/ Right-Minded Dave
    October 13, 2011 at 12:47 am

    I’m a former liberal (when I was young and clueless), and a former Eurekan. I’ve been reading this blog, along with the Humboldt Mirror and a few other Humboldt County based blogs, for about a year.

    I’ve come to a conclusion: If Hi-Fi didn’t post here, this comment section would be much shorter.

    Hi-Fi, take a break for a couple of weeks and watch this blog die; you’ll likely be doing the world a favor. Heraldo and his female (at least in name) alter ego, Plain Jane – and a few other regulars – might move on and make something of what appears to be small, petty lives.

    They don’t want to ask you any pertinent questions about your opinions that might make them think about their deeply held [and flawed] beliefs; they merely want to lambast your opinions with drivel. This allows their simple minds and egos to maintain an uneasy keel that prevents them from the ever encroaching dementia that occurs when individuals maintain far-left beliefs into adulthood.

  108. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 5:45 am

    People who think they got smarter when they got old are just displaying early signs of dementia.

  109. Anonymous
    October 13, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Mitch
    greed did, on the part of the loan officers

    no responsibility on the part of the people actually taking out the loans?

  110. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 6:05 am

    Anonymous 5:58,

    Of course there is some responsibility on the part of the people taking out the loans. But I don’t think it should come as too much of a surprise that when you offer someone the ability to buy a house with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink on the requirements, they’ll take the opportunity. These loans were actually PUSHED.

    The problem, and the outrage, is with the banks and the larger system that enabled bankers to offer mortgages at zero risk to themselves. The whole idea of the banking system is that the person making the loan is taking a RISK — that keeps them from intentionally making bad loans. What Wall Street did was eliminate the risk to the banker making the loan. That was an open invitation to make bad loans, because your company then made money with no risk. What Washington did by bailing out the banks was eliminate the risk to the banks and Wall Street firms that securitized those loans, in many cases knowing full well that they contained an unknown quantity of bad loans.

  111. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 6:24 am

    Yes Mitch, but don’t forget these banks also bought credit default swaps on these risky mortgages they sold which put the entire insurance industry at risk. Since deposits are insured by FDIC, if they had been allowed to fail, it would have cost a lot more in the long run to fix the mess they and their government whores caused. They and non-banking corporations are using economic terrorism and blackmail and I don’t think they are bluffing.

  112. Walt
    October 13, 2011 at 6:25 am

    That’s what “LLC” is all about: you can kill, rape, rob and destroy, and, rather than being held accountable, you get government assistance (and jobs). Imagine what would happen if homeless people could form LLCs. . .

  113. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 6:36 am

    PJ,

    When I say they should have been allowed to fail, I mean that the government should have nationalized them, all shareholders should have been left with zero equity, and the executives should have forfeited all bonuses and salaries beyond the GSA schedule. Their debts should then have been honored.

    The administration should have gone to Congress with emergency regulations to prevent the “too big to fail” phenomenon, and then should have re-privatized the firms.

    Alternatively, the government should have stepped in to guarantee mortgage payments for six months — that would have kept the system afloat without rewarding the banks, and during that period, the administration and the banks could have negotiated a deal without the pressure of immediate collapse.

    As it was, the bailout was a giveaway to people who screwed the entire planet due to their greed and stupidity. And they can still buy the government.

  114. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 6:41 am

    The other approach that I have long thought would have made sense would have been for the government to take partial ownership of homes that would otherwise enter foreclosure. The government would retrieve its money on the sale of the house or on the death of its owner.

    That, too, would have stabilized things long enough that the entire economy wouldn’t have been held hostage.

    But that would have involved rewarding people not in a position to make large campaign contributions, and is therefore a completely invisible idea to those in places like the Treasury and the White House.

  115. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 6:56 am

    I agree 100%, Mitch. Of course, if these banksters didn’t own our government they wouldn’t have been able to put the entire global economy at risk in the first place. That these masters of Wall Street created (with the help of their whores in govt) such a complex and disastrous system, supposedly out of ignorance of the risks, proves either they did it deliberately or shouldn’t be running a lemonade stand and certainly aren’t worth the million dollar salaries, millions more in bonuses and stock options.

  116. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 6:58 am

    Furthermore, if they didn’t realize that their scheme was risky, why would they “waste” money buying credit default swaps that they didn’t think would ever pay off?

  117. Name
    October 13, 2011 at 7:37 am

    If the banksters didn’t make million dollar salaries, bonuses and stock options they wouldn’t have the millions stuff the pockets of our public officials. Then the same government officials wouldn’t be inclined (bribed – “lobbied”) to push public money back to support the same failing businesses that give the big salaries and bonuses to the execs who are puppeteered by their shareholders to return on investments. Those shareholders are in it for the money. Those shareholders are often public employee unions funding retirement/pensions for their folks which are shrinking the profit margins of the businesses they work for by negotiating pay increases and benefits. Said union folks are fed up with the “corruption on Wall Street” and join the Occupy protests because their retirements are dwindling and pink slips are being issued. Its a mad, mad world….

  118. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 7:43 am

    You’ve summed things up very well, Name.

    One thing that would help would be for the members of the public employee unions to demand that their retirement systems became more aggressive in insisting on decency from corporations they invest in.

    The current system has truly managed to lock people out from controlling even their own assets. It deserves no one’s loyalty.

  119. October 13, 2011 at 8:00 am

    Left Coast/ Right-Minded Dave says:
    October 13, 2011 at 12:47 am

    “They don’t want to ask you any pertinent questions about your opinions.”

    High Finance has stated that he has worked in the private sector all his life and then challenged me to produce my bona fides. I did so and now it is his turn. His failure to do so is evidence that he is a liar, a fraud, a pathetic internet coward and a poser.

    I think that he works as some government employee or maybe he is a tax-farming non-profiteer who has never had to compete in the private sector. He simply knows nothing about how business really works. I do.

    I could be wrong, so if High Finance comes forward with incontrovertible evidence that he (or she) has worked all his life in the private sector I will apologize in public right here.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  120. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

    If an electrician sold a house which burned down due to faulty wiring and you then found out he had bought fire insurance on the house after selling it, who would be your prime suspect? Would you believe it if he claimed he had no idea he had screwed up the wiring? This is what the banksters have done and some people have to believe them or deal with the cataclysmic shock of realizing that having lots of money doesn’t mean you have any integrity.

  121. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 8:42 am

    “Hedge Fund Founder Raj Rajaratnam Sentenced to 11 Years in Insider Trading Case

    The fallen hedge fund billionaire Raj Rajaratnam received on Thursday the longest-ever prison sentence for insider trading, a watershed moment in the government’s aggressive two-year campaign to root out the illegal exchange of confidential information on Wall Street.

    Judge Richard J. Holwell sentenced Mr. Rajaratnam, the former head of the Galleon Group hedge fund, to 11 years in prison. A jury convicted him of securities fraud and conspiracy in May after a two-month trial.

    Calling him “the modern face of illegal insider trading,” prosecutors accused Mr. Rajaratnam of using a corrupt network of well-placed tipsters – including former executives of Intel, I.B.M. and the consulting firm McKinsey & Company – to illicitly gain about $64 million.”

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/rajaratnam-is-sentenced-to-11-years/?emc=na

  122. Hoot Ibsen
    October 13, 2011 at 8:51 am

    the mirror isn’t a blog, it’s a pixillated arkleypop shitstick right there for you conservatives to lick.

    yum.

  123. Curley
    October 13, 2011 at 11:41 am

    It’s funnier than this blog though. By far. And this one is pretty funny.

  124. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Oh, poor widdle trolls are getting pissy! Always a great sign.

  125. Hoot Ibsen
    October 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    It’s easy to see the touch of the same comedic genuis behind the mirror and the bass and brady campaigns. You know the kind of mind that never developed past the 7th grade or so. There is humor at the mirror for sure, and if it could ever get past puberty it might even be considered satire.

    It seems to be a truism these days that the republican appeal is to the lower deciles in intelligence (the fox tv demographic) and for the moment that is working for them. Smarter people will be back in charge soon.

  126. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    You’ll all be pleased to know that the Republicans have finally come up with a jobs bill which consists of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, tax cuts, tax breaks for repatriating foreign earnings, repeal of health care reform, repeal of Frank – Dodd, no new regulations until the unemployment rate drops to 7.7 and even then congressional approval required for expensive new regulations. In short, doing the same schit over and over while promising a different result.

    Who thinks giving them an incentive to keep the unemployment rate high is a good idea?

  127. skippy
    October 13, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Jane, Republicans are treading down a narrow and dangerous road. They used to have a wide tent open to all that has become increasingly closed for admittance. If they expect to attract centrist/swing/minority/young voters they may wish to examine their welcome mat. Perhaps the party of ‘No’ being fiscally conservative to the point of strangulation has its own appeal.

    Democrats haven’t been much better providing solutions, either. There’s a reason why both parties in Congress have their lowest ratings ever, the economy is on a collision course, and these ‘occupations’ are taking place. As one protester opined with his sign: “I lost my job but found an occupation.” Another: “It’s the Inequality, Stupid.”

  128. Anonymous
    October 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Mitch,
    Havent those banks paid the money back?

  129. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Sure, Anonymous. And I’d appreciate an unlimited credit line myself, so I can keep paying myself millions of dollars for destroying the economy.

  130. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    But no, I’m not at all convinced that the money has been repaid. (I’m aware that’s the official line.) It would not surprise me if there was something going on where the banks were being quietly and invisibly recapitalized by some sort of arrangement with the Fed.

  131. Mitch
  132. Plain Jane
    October 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    I agree, Skippy. I read today that David Frum, former Bush speech writer and political commentator for NPR, quit because he can no longer represent GOP views. They are shrinking their tent so small and so fast that rational conservatives aren’t comfortable there any longer.

  133. Anonymous
    October 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Mitch,
    The banks were forced to take the money, for preferred stock. They also had caps on salaries while the government owned the shares. Most paid the money back with interest.

  134. Anonymous
    October 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Oh yes, josh dowlet blog. That’s where all my news comes from…

  135. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Anonymous,

    My recollection is that SOME banks were forced to take the money, to keep it from looking as though the banks that really needed the money were somehow not as safe as others.

    Believe what you want. The American government took on the full risk of insuring these private enterprises that gambled their money away on bullshit, for a fee of zero. And they did that while letting homeowners nationwide go under.

    It’s enough to make a person wonder what’s going on.

  136. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    And you can make fun of the first source that popped up, but what it’s pointing out is that, right now, the fed is providing money to the banks at 0% and the banks get to loan it back to the government at 3 or 4%. If that’s not true, I’ll happily apologize, but I’ve heard it over and over.

  137. Anonymous
    October 13, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    How much did the UAW get?

  138. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Here you go, Anonymous. This one will be a little harder to make fun of. But please tell me, how much DID the UAW get?

    http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2011/April2011_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf

  139. Anonymous
    October 13, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Thanks for the link, looks like the UAW still owes us 27 billion, but b of a paid us back.

  140. Mitch
    October 13, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    For those who are mystified by Anonymous’ figure at 9:26, s/he is referring to GM’s underfunded pension liability to its workers. The workers’ pensions were protected during GM’s bankruptcy, so right wing media has spread the word that the Obama administration gave the UAW $27 billion. Hey, Anonymous, whatever floats your boat.

  141. Plain Jane
    October 14, 2011 at 5:31 am

    Paul Krugman’s column today “Rabbit Hole Economics” is a must read.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opinion/rabbit-hole-economics.html?hp

  142. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 6:06 am

    They didn’t get the money Mitch? It says in the report you posted GM still hasn’t paid back the 27 Billion. The UAW got their money, while the people who had stocks and bonds issued by GM in their retirement accounts got screwed. Sounds like people ought to be occupying Detroit a little too, to be fair.

  143. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Anonymous,

    I can’t disagree about the people who had stocks and bonds issued by GM being screwed — they risked their money in hopes of getting a good return, and they lost because the management their board put in was incapable of competing with other car companies. (Labor costs were probably a major contributing factor, but they were well known to all investors.)

    But at least from my point of view, a company being forced to make good on its pension obligations to people who have worked for it for decades is not unreasonable. I don’t know enough about the situation with the UAW to know where the blame lies regarding the pension obligations apparently being used for unsecured loans to GM.

    Also, I suspect if the pensions had not been made good, government insurance programs would have ended up having to pay the pensions, at least partly. So GM’s bankruptcy would probably have cost the government a major chunk of the pension obligations anyway and, if the insurance didn’t fully cover the pensions, would probably have resulted in a lot of people too old to work being thrown out of their homes and put on government support.

    To me, forcing GM to cover the pensions (which they should have been required to fully fund all along) is hardly unfair.

    As for the banks, it seems to me to be a completely different story. They were deregulated, with the help of Wall Street they invented complex investment vehicles that nobody understood, everybody got fees for involving themselves with those vehicles, they turned out to be Ponzi schemes (whether the people putting them together knew that or succeeded in fooling themselves), the result risked completely freezing the entire world capital market, and they got bailed out and rewarded when, at minimum, the executives in charge should have been personally bankrupted.

  144. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 7:59 am

    So when then union makes loans with their pensions to GM and lose them, it is ok to bail them out, but when a non union person makes loans via bonds, they don’t get bailed out. I don’t understand how a thinking person can think this is reasonable. I think they should have let them all fail or bailed them all out. The government should not be picking who stays and who goes. You can call it a right wing talking point, but it irritates the shit out of me the unions got their money while the others did not.

    I don’t like the banks either, but at least they paid the money back.

  145. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Anonymous,

    I don’t know how complicated the UAW/GM relationship gets. But a corporations’ pension obligations are different than its obligations to its shareholders and bondholders. It sounds weird that those obligations were turned around and loaned back to the corporation.

    The deal of capitalism, in theory, is very straightforward. Acting as a laborer, you get paid wages. Acting as a capitalist, you put capital at risk. The workers took the laborer side of the deal, and part of their wages was promised to them as pension. A corporation should not be able to escape that obligation through bankruptcy. Where it gets sticky is when the workers’ union acts as a lender to the corporation.

    My suspicion — I don’t know — is that the only way the UAW was able to negotiate their pensions was to loan a lot of that money back to the corporation. IMO, no union should be loaning money — let alone pension fund money — to any corporation that is hiring their workers.

    But all of this is, to me, more evidence of how our economic system is malfunctioning. Pension funds (labor) represents substantial ownership in corporations (capital). Yet the individuals who collectively own these funds don’t end up with any real say in the way the corporations are managed. That say is delegated to “professional managers,” and the pension funds often seem to put up with corporate behavior that is directly damaging to the pension holders. The responsibility and control that properly belongs with owners is diffused until the only people in the system with any real power are the executives, who are NOT supposed to own the whole show. The executives then pad their own accounts and, because no individuals besides the executives have as much knowledge of a corporations’ internal workings, or as much direct stake in executive salaries, they get away with this. They then need to keep the “professional managers” at the pension funds happy, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing right by the owners. It’s a whole group of in-people using the out-people’s money, and pocketing substantial portions of it, with the out-people having no apparent ability to stop it, even though the out-people are supposedly the owners.

    And now, hopefully, I can turn the internet off for a while.

  146. Load Me Another
    October 14, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Let’s cut to the chase. If someone showed up at the courthouse with job applications, those clowns would run for the hills. Whiners, moaners, and complainers- it’s the society we’ve become. The problem?- I’m correct. These people are fringe and insignificant and yet they are taken seriously. Only the genius of Nancy Pelosi can save us…

  147. October 14, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Let’s cut to the chase. If Humboldt County announced a hundred job openings for street sweepers at $8.00 an hour all the positions would be filled by tomorrow afternoon.

    Get a clue.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  148. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Mitch,
    Take a look at this:

    But all of this is, to me, more evidence of how our government is malfunctioning. Citizens (voters) represent substantial ownership in the government. Yet the individuals who vote don’t end up with any real say in the way the government is managed. That say is delegated to “agencies” and the elected representatives often seem to put up with agency behavior that is directly damaging to the citizens. The responsibility and control that properly belongs with citizens is diffused until the only people in the system with any real power are the executives, who are NOT supposed to own the whole show. The executives then pad their own accounts and, because no individuals besides the executives have as much knowledge of an agency’s internal workings, or as much direct stake in executive salaries, they get away with this. They then need to keep the elected representatives happy, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing right by the citizens. It’s a whole group of in-people using the out-people’s money, and pocketing substantial portions of it, with the out-people having no apparent ability to stop it, even though the out-people are supposedly the owners.

  149. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Yup. My complaint is with bigness, not business.

    The theoretical advantage of government over business is that you get to throw the bums out. But once business (or any entity) completely owns government, the game (or the match) is lost, and practice doesn’t look much like theory.

    You might find E. F. Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” an interesting read.

  150. Load Me Another
    October 14, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    High Bolt Head is a prime example of this ridiculous Occupy banter- lay down, whine, and expect the taxpayer to coddle to your every desire Not To Work. Why is it we should not feed the Yosemite bears? Because they become nuisance bears, dependant on humans, and have to be relocated or put down. And, their young learn to do this as well. This is what Bolt trains his offspring to do. Indeed, very resourceful. Holding up your sign while hula hooping and banging the bongos takes energy, drive, and determination. Imagine if all that effort was applied to acquiring a job? Again, these are merely life choices- bad ones and good ones alike. In the name of fairness, I should be able to come politely knock on Bolt’s tent and ask for a certain portion of his income so that we are both “equal.” Stands to reason, right? While Bolt sorts through the footprint of my mind boggling assertion, I’m off to occupy the beach with my longboard and monitor my investment portfolio for the remainder of this very peaceful day. I’ll shred my first wave in your honor, Bolt.

  151. Plain Jane
    October 14, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Load is just peddling a load of crap, straw man attacks and bigotry. A complete waste of pixels.

  152. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    I check the most recent entry in this thread to find these words leaping off the page into my brain. Crap. Attacks. Bigotry. Waste.

  153. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    The thing is, it isn’t a load of crap. I can see both sides here. Aside from the personal slams, I see much truth in all of the remarks.

  154. Plain Jane
    October 14, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Some people can’t tell the difference between crap and facts. Besides the fact that there aren’t any jobs and when on occasion one becomes vacant, the number of applicants is phenomenal, pretending that you know people protesting for jobs wouldn’t take one if it was offered is nothing but bigoted crap. Go peddle it at the Mirror, trolls.

  155. skippy
    October 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    While some may believe these folks are a circus sideshow fringe group of hula hooping, bongo drumming, Yosemite bear nuisances…

    About half of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

    In the most recent Time magazine poll released yesterday, 54% of respondents rated the Wall Street protests positively, with 25% saying they had a “very favorable” opinion of them. In contrast, only 27% of respondents viewed the Tea Party favorably. 33% percent of respondents expressed an unfavorable opinion — including 24% who said they had a “very unfavorable” opinion of the Tea Party.

    Though the Occupy movement is only one month old, the early polling suggests it is striking a chord with average Americans.

    Another poll question that was asked:

    Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or have things seriously gotten off the on the wrong track?

    RIGHT DIRECTION: 14%
    WRONG TRACK: 81%
    NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW: 5%

  156. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Yes, Jane, seeing both sides is not something you do much. I don’t belong here, admittedly. I don’t like the Mirror either. You have to give Load credit for the Yosemite analogy. It is quite true.

  157. Walt
    October 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    So where are the Democrats? Shhh. . .they’re in bed with You-Know-Who, LLC.

  158. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Amazingly, everyone I know is employed, no matter if they read this blog or The Mirror. “nobody is employed”??? Good example of exaggeration. Not everyone I am talking about has the job they want, but they found somewhere to work that brings in an adequate wage here.

  159. October 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Load me another says

    “Why is it we should not feed the Yosemite bears? Because they become nuisance bears, dependant on humans, and have to be relocated or put down. And, their young learn to do this as well.”

    Another stupid right wing analogy. This one is so stupid even Hi Fi never posted it. You are spending too much time at free republic.

    I will just point out that 1) The bears may have an entirely different view of the situation and 2) If the bears got a hold of a few AKs and RPGs (and there are lots of them in the world) then it wouldn’t just be bears being “put down.” Just to make this clear in the morass that is your mind, I am not advocating violence I am just showing you how fucking dumb your analogy is.

    What I want to know, “load me another” is where is just one conservative, or right winger, or tea bagger who has the cojones to come on here at the Herald and debate the rest of us using his real name? What the fuck are you afraid of? Come on lets have some real debate. Real debate requires real people.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  160. Plain Jane
    October 14, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Rejecting the other side’s false claims doesn’t mean I can’t see them, 3:45. The ability to discriminate between blatant propaganda and facts is logic, not closed mindedness. I don’t think I am capable of simplifying this enough for you if you really think that everybody’s right, except for the people who think some are wrong.

  161. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    I think Anonymous’ point about the UAW is valid. If that is perceived to be tit for tat, and if that is something that is bothering some conservatives, isn’t that worth understanding? Personally, I always find it intriguing to hear non-nasty points made by those I don’t necessarily agree with. Those with other viewpoints aren’t wrong, and may even share my goals. If they share my goals but are operating from a different set of facts, I’d like to hear their perception of the facts. Sometimes I learn things.

    I’m perfectly content to ignore the trolls, but not everyone who disagrees or has a different viewpoint is a troll. You can identify the trolls easily enough.

  162. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    I should be clear that some things are beyond the pale. I’m not interested in hearing even the sincerest racism, homophobia, sexism, etc… And when someone’s argument is “God says so,” I immediately treat them as schizophrenic.

  163. Thorstein Veblen
    October 14, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    “Small is Beautiful”, my thoughts exactly, Mitch. Paul Krugman won a nobel prize with his study of scale leading to competitive advantage and tendency toward monopoly. ‘Too big to fail’ implies a problem of scale. We probably can’t address the other problems our world faces unless we deal with scale.

    Aside from fringe racist and gun nuts and evangelicals, I believe much of the tea party rage is based in powerlessness of the individual in relation to government. The OWS similarly reflects powerlessness, but with respect to wall street and big corporations.

  164. Plain Jane
    October 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    I assumed he was talking about the protesters and whether or not they are bums who would run screaming into the hills to avoid taking a job, Mitch. I’m done with bigoted propaganda parroted from frightwing radio and Fox.

  165. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    I completely understand the frustration of dealing with people who come here specifically to cause offense, PJ, and I think that’s probably why “Load Me Another” came here.

    It’s pretty easy to tell who just wants to be a jerk (*). Sometimes it’s better to err on the side of engagement, though. After all, it’s not as though we’re forming a long term relationship with them.

    (*) Clues: comments that pick a Democratic politician and blame “whatever” on them, comments that use nasty language, comments whose wit appears to be lifted from talk radio, comment which demonstrate awareness of the existence of the Mirror, etc…

  166. Mitch
    October 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    And to Anonymous,

    Certainly many people are concerned that government social welfare fosters a dependency in its recipients. People can disagree about that. Personally, I’d rather see the kids get fed and educated, even if their parents are freeloaders. I personally know at least two people who climbed out of the dependency trap after being raised by not-the-greatest parents.

    But what “Load” posted included the following:

    “This is what Bolt trains his offspring to do.”

    That’s, well, uh, that’s just not very nice. And it happens a lot from the trolls.

  167. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    You are right. Mean comments like that have no place in a discussion. Neither do insults like some people like to throw, always stating that those who do not agree, somehow are not capable of understanding. Who is a troll, someone who lurks under the bridge and is always there or he who shows up and makes some comments he thinks are valid. I see I have more in common with Mitch than Jane. Mitch, at least, wants to talk and not offend.

  168. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    and one more comment. Living here for a long time and working in social services does jade a person. Seeing the same people bilk the system for their entire life because they never learned to be self sufficient can give you gray hairs and an attitude. The point about the kids being fed is valid and key. Thanks.

  169. October 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    If you are working in social service and the people you are dealing with are irritating you then you might be suffering from compassion fatigue. I am being serious, google it. It may be you just need a leave of absence for a while to regain your health and perspective, and then back to work.

    Ah if we just lived in some democratic socialist country.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  170. October 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    The manifestations of compassion fatigue are very similar to ptsd, or “combat fatigue” as it was once known. Compassion fatigue is real.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  171. tra
    October 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    Ironically, many right-wingers view folks who work in social services adn receive a government salary and pension as being only a slightly different variety of freeloader from those who receive the government welfare benefits those social service workers dole out.

  172. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    I believe you, Bill. Will look into it. Tra labeled me a right winger? It just isn’t that simple.

  173. October 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    One thing that the people need is adequate dental care. The non availability of dental care for the lower half of the economic ladder is a national disgrace.

    No one likes to talk about it but it is true, people with bad teeth are discriminated against in employment, in housing, in social settings and in the courtroom. If we really expect someone to go out and compete in the free job market we need to make sure that his or her dental health has been adequately addressed or he or she will simply be wasting everyone’s time.

    Then you add in the down the road costs to everyone for chronic dental disease including strokes and heart attacks it is penny wise but pound foolish not to give everyone adequate dental care.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  174. tra
    October 14, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    “Tra labeled me a right winger?”

    No, I didn’t. I pointed out that many right-wingers feel about the same way about social service workers as jaded social service workers feel about their clients.

  175. skippy
    October 14, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    From HighBoldtage:

    “Greetings,

    “Please note that there are two “Occupy” events in Humboldt this Saturday the 15th.

    In Eureka, beginning at 1pm, there will be a March from the F St.Pier to the site of Occupy Eureka (lawn of Humboldt County Courthouse/Jail) for a Speak Out Forum.

    There is an ‘Occupy the Banks’ action in Arcata beginning at 11:30am.”

  176. Anonymous
    October 14, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    I bill the government for my services so I don’t really work for the government, but with many years behind me I might say I have some compassion fatigue. Most clients really like me and ask for me though.

    The dental care comment is certainly a truth. What an awful situation we have here between lacking services, meth, and people who do not seek dental care when needed!

  177. Walt
    October 15, 2011 at 7:09 am

    This from the Beeb:

    Protests against alleged corporate greed and government cutbacks have been rippling around the world’s cities.

    A large crowd gathered near the Colosseum in central Rome, where there were reports of a bank being attacked, and cars were set alight.

    Inspired by the Occupy Wall St movement and Spain’s “Indignants”, demonstrators turned out from Asia to Europe.

    Organisers expect rallies in 82 countries, with the action due to come full circle in New York.

    In London, protesters plan to converge on the City for an “Occupy the London Stock Exchange” action.

    Organisers of the 15 October worldwide protests said on their website that the aim was to “initiate the global change we want”.

    “United in one voice, we will let politicians, and the financial elites they serve, know it is up to us, the people, to decide our future,” it said.

    Golly, it’s enough to kindle a spark of hope in even THIS cynical breast.

  178. Load Me Another
    October 15, 2011 at 9:45 am

    I have to believe that Heraldo has a job, pays taxes, etc. If so, is his evil white devil slave master boss oppressing him, keeping him down?? Did Heraldo go out and acquire his job like the rest of us, or did he lie down, whine, and expect the gov’t just hand it to him? Did Heraldo chain himself to the door of his workplace until his boss said, “well done, lad, you’re hired.” There is nothing stopping folks from acquiring one of Bolt’s $8 hr jobs while they look for another job, etc. Heraldo- how tenacious were you in getting your job or was it just handed to you after protesting, yelling, and screaming?? Am I evil and right wing for asking that? Just curious.

  179. Mitch
    October 15, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Load,

    A few sincere questions for you…

    What is your explanation for 11% unemployment, with up to 16% underemployment? If all the unemployed were to take the $8 jobs, do you think there’d be enough jobs for all the unemployed? (I don’t mean make-work jobs, I mean jobs for which a private employer is currently willing to pay $8.)

    Would you still urge people to take jobs without protest if the minimum wage were removed and if six and a half days of work per week were required to keep your job?

    Do you feel someone working 40 hours a week should, at a minimum, be paid enough to support themselves? What about themselves and a child? What about and pay off student loans?

    What would your policy be with regards to people who are illiterate, and therefore competing for $8 jobs with those who are literate? Note that I’m not asking what you’d do to improve literacy in the future… I’m asking about how you would deal with the people who exist in our community today.

    What would your policy be with regards to people who, because they are obnoxious though not clearly sick, are incapable of obtaining and keeping even an $8 job? By that I mean people who, say, literally can’t stop babbling on, or people who literally do not wash, or people who are literally incapable of consistently showing up on time. I’m sure you realize such people exist. Again, I’m not asking you to devise a method to prevent people from growing up that way, I’m asking what you would do about such people in our community today.

    Are you at all bothered by the behavior of the banks which were bailed out?

    Do you feel executives are worth exactly the pay that they can convince boards of directors to pay them?

    Do you consider our society fairer than those in, say, Western Europe? Canada? If so, have you ever traveled outside the United States?

  180. Mitch
    October 15, 2011 at 10:20 am

    I’m not asking those questions rhetorically. I’d really be grateful if you’d choose to offer serious answers for any or all of them.

  181. Mitch
    October 15, 2011 at 10:27 am

    And Load, given the sad news on the other thread, I have a question for you about bankruptcy, in which an enterprise asks a court for permission not to pay some of its debtors everything it owes them.

    Do you feel it is fair and honest for individuals or corporations to structure their businesses such that they can have one sub-business declare bankruptcy while having the other sub-businesses continue operations without being forced to pay the other sub-business’ debts?

  182. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 10:39 am

    For someone who claims to be a social worker to not know that poor people don’t have the funds, or insurance, to pay for dental care is absurd.

  183. Anonymous
    October 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Who said I was a social worker? That is a particular profession in the spectrum of social services, but it is not my profession. I am more in the medical world. MediCal aid pays for dental care but we are sadly short of dentists who can afford to offer care to too many of those with MCal. In addition, those who need it often do not understand that regular care prevents crisis care, or are not able to take the steps necessary to get it.

  184. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm
  185. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    “Anonymous says:
    October 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm
    and one more comment. Living here for a long time and working in social services does jade a person. ”

    That does imply that this Anonymous works in social services. You’ll have to forgive me if I got the multiple Anonymouses mixed up. I can’t help it when people are too lazy to even choose a pseudonym for easier identification. That’s REALLY lazy.

  186. Mitch
    October 15, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    The problem with social services is that there will always be undeserving freeloaders. In my experience with the county’s version, I encountered a lot of freeloaders. They were mostly managers at DHHS, which was top-heavy on managers and analysts, and which (in my experience) showed zero interest in the needy except as ways to grow Crandall’s grant empire. The line workers, who actually had client contact, were different.

    Unfortunately, if you want to provide a safety net, you have to put up with the freeloaders, both on the payroll and receiving services. But to the extent that there are people gaming the system, I think most of them are non-client-contact employees who don’t even believe in the mission of the department. It was a disgusting place to work.

  187. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Occupy Wall Street Run on Citibank Ends in Arrests

    Around 2:30 p.m. on Saturday, the Occupy Wall Street Livestream captured about 20 people being arrested outside a Citibank at La Guardia Place in New York. A protester announced via human mic that people had gone inside Citibank to close their accounts. They were asked to leave and complied, he said, but the bank’s security guards locked them in until the N.Y.P.D. arrived.

    “Some wanted to close their accounts with Citibank,” he read from a cell phone. “When asked to leave, they began to exit but were locked in by security. When cops arrived, Citibank security came outside and dragged two individuals back inside to hold them under arrest.”

    http://www.observer.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-run-on-citibank-ends-in-arrests/

  188. skippy
    October 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Many thousands of protesters marched peaceably throughout the world today. The events in Rome “drew tens of thousands of people” however, and along with London, saw its share of conflict and violence.

    Reuters has the report and video

  189. October 15, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Anonymous says:
    October 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    “Who said I was a social worker? That is a particular profession in the spectrum of social services, but it is not my profession. I am more in the medical world. MediCal aid pays for dental care but we are sadly short of dentists who can afford to offer care to too many of those with MCal. In addition, those who need it often do not understand that regular care prevents crisis care, or are not able to take the steps necessary to get it.”

    I have two problems with this. First of all, what do you mean “dentists who can afford?” Dentists make a shitload of money and most of them don’t work that hard. True they prob have student debt to pay off. But still, after expenses dentists are among the highest paid health care professionals, net-net. They can certainly afford to give care to poor people.

    Secondly, you are perpetuating the Billy Bob sterotype that people with bad teeth are either ignorant or meth addicts. In fact most people with bad teeth have them because they simply cannot have access to a dentist. The vast majority of dentists are insurance only. Please stop propagating this sterotype it only makes it harder for people with dental conditions.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  190. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    When there is no demand for the commodity of worker, the elites have no interest in upkeep of the surplus. They don’t care if they’re in prison working as slave labor for them or starving quietly some place, so long as they don’t have to see them or support them. Everyone is disposable in the immortal corporate machine. Their economic power is daunting. That, combined with their increasing political power, should terrify you.

    Today customers of Citibank were arrested for trying to close their accounts in protest.

  191. Anonymous
    October 15, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Who exactly are the elites,Jane?

  192. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    http://unitedtruthseekers.ning.com/video/police-macing-at-occupy-san-diego

    Please notice the random violence by police against peaceful protesters and then just walking away from them, no arrests. WHY?

  193. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    The elites are the people who own the majority of the wealth and / or political power, 5:02.

  194. Apologist Not
    October 15, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Mitch is correct about the bailouts…they should have resulted nationalized banks.

    Japan’s banks are government owned, they’re trudging through the world-depression and tsunami disaster with little foreign assistance.

  195. October 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    The GM bailout was bogus. It benefited two groups of people, the auto workers union (Democratic constituency) and the bond and stockholders (Republican constituency.) Since it benefited important constituencies in both of our “parties” it got done.

    Yes the governent that week loaned GM $30 billion on top of $20 billion previously lent, but the total of $50 billion was still less than a tenth of George Bush’s TARP theft. Republicans steal on a grand scale.

    That very week the government could have bought GM lock stock and barrel for less than $1 billion, that’s what its market cap was that week. The way they worked it – well the union assembly line workers got to keep most of their pay and bennies. The stockholders and bondholders didn’t have to take their loss at the market low – that would have wiped out some very old fortunes. Can’t have that.

    So in the end the taxpayers got the haircut just like they did under Bush, but it was a far smaller haircut. Obams is a crook just not on the scale of a Republican.

    In the governments favor there is the argument that an automobile manufacturing industry is vital to national security both economically and militarily, so it should be preserved. That may be so but it could have simply just been bought for less than $1 billion and then just run as a national asset.

    The idea that preserving a few thousand jobs at GM also preserves a hundred thousand jobs in the upstream supply chain may have been true in the past, but sadly it is a bogus claim now. Car builders here in the states have all converted to just in time global sourcing that has devestated the secondary automotive parts suppy industry especially in the middle of the country. When the earthquake hit Japan, factories in the US had to shut down for lack of parts at least temporarily.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  196. Load Me Another
    October 15, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Ok kids, gather ’round in a circle and listen up to a story from professor Load from Heraldo’s Book of Fables and Allegories. Once upon a time there was a squirrel named Anon and two grasshoppers named Bolt and Jane. Squirrel Anon worked hard and steady all summer long because he knew he’d need an adequate food source to get through the winter. He didn’t need the gov’t to tell him to do this as it was just common sense. Grasshoppers Bolt and Jane were busy at the courthouse with 8 or 9 protesters looking for a handout. You see, they were really upset over not being able to star in Corona commercials where they’d be able to kick back, relax, and be paid for doing, well, nothing. After all, it their right and entitlement. So they stood on the corner screaming at the passing motorists for some candy, none of whom paid them much attention. This enraged them immensely as no one was listening. Meanwhile, squirrel Anon and his friends continued their hard work ethic. They had such a bounty of nuts at harvest that they donoted handsomely to the local soup kitchen. In fact, they were able to sell some too and made donations to Betty Chinn’s cause. When it began to snow, grasshoppers Bolt and Jane wondered what to do next. They knocked on the door of squirrel Anon and demanded food and shelter. Anon being a compassionate sort said, “I’ll provide you with a tent, warm sleeping bags, and some nuts if you wouldn’t mind helping chop some firewood.” “Hate monger and bigot,” said Jane. “Selfish elitist,” said Bolt. This disappointed Anon, but he made the offer anyway. Bolt took the offer, but in short time decided to get an $8 hr street sweeper job while also seeking free job training to better himself and obtain a higher paying job. After many rounds of intense interviewing, Bolt was hired. It was a tough decision as the green job he wanted only paid $5 hr and that wasn’t fair. After completing his training and working hard as a street sweeper, grasshopper Bolt was able to secure some interviews for a more lucrative position. Grasshopper Jane, after insulting squirrel Anon, went back to the courthouse to continue her anger and bitterness- the contingent was 5 strong and fast losing steam. Fixed in anger and resentment, grasshopper Jane pressed on fast and furious with her philosophies. Not long after giving his 2 week notice, Bolt was happily cruising down the street in his sweeper and noticed something frozen stiff in the street- it was Jane. Not wanting to stop so that he wouldn’t be late for his bowling league, grasshopper Bolt scooped her up and deposited her in the bowels of the sweeper. He later bowled a perfect score and was eventually promoted to mid management with his hard work at his new company.

    So kids, as we can see, being rooted in bitterness and anger simply imprisons you in just that. Grasshopper Bolt liberated himself from those feelings and instead channeled his energy in a positive direction which led him to not only supporting himself, but allowing him some means to donate financially to others and thus find the real peace he was looking for.

  197. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Poor Load makes a lot of assumptions about people he knows nothing about and then builds a fantasy around it and thinks he’s said something profound. What a tool.

  198. Anonymous
    October 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Who is the enemy?

  199. October 15, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Actually I visualized that when Dave Tyson hired 100 street sweepers for $8,00 an hour that he would hand each one of them a broom, a dust pan, (cost maybe $1,200 at Costco) and a map with some highlights on it.

    I never dreamed that he could supply each one of them with a $100,000 piece of machinery. That’s a $10 million dollar hit to the old reserve account.

    But you are right I am busy as we speak liberating myself from those old angry feelings.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  200. Load Me Another
    October 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Bolt- it might suprise you that there may be some issues upon which you, me, and Jane actually agree. Maybe we could toss the issues around at a Rage Against the Machine concert? I’d pony for tickets and beer for the tailgate. Jane could dive off the stage into the crowd and we’d cheer our support- I miss that kind of fun.Tyson and Heraldo could come too just to be inclusive. You can call shotgun. What do you say- should I start the van?

  201. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Over 2000 protesters at Occupy Eugene today, the largest turnout in their history.

  202. Mitch
    October 15, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Once upon a time, there was a squirrel named Load.

    He went to work for Lion every day, earning his nuts, sharing some with Betty Chinn, eating some, and putting some away for his old age.

    Load scampered past lots of other forest animals. None of them seemed to be storing nuts.

    The chimpanzees spent their time grooming one another and having fun.

    The grasshoppers were busy tearing leaves off of trees and selling them to China.

    The wolves were running banks.

    The vultures were buying up foreclosures.

    The butterflies were practicing dance moves.

    Bambi and Thumper were running a mobile clinic and also protesting the grasshoppers, saying that the forest was going to run out of trees if they kept at it.

    Lots of other animals were protesting. Some monkeys were throwing feces at Lion, which got Load really upset.

    Then one day Load had a stroke. He went to Lion and said, I’ve worked for you for twenty years, can you help me?

    Lion called him a deadbeat.

    He went to Wolfbank and asked for his nuts, so he could pay Dr. Bear. Wolfbank’s Wolf-in-Chief had eaten all his nuts. Even worse, though, Wolf-in-Chief called in a bunch of feral pigs, who beat him up for trying to withdraw his nuts.

    So he went to Dr. Bear and asked if Dr. Bear would treat him for free. Dr. Bear called him a deadbeat, and told him to clean himself up and get a shave.

    Fortunately, twenty years ago Bambi and Thumper had started the Forest Deposit Insurance Company and gave him all the nuts that Wolf-in-Chief stole.

    So Load went back to Dr. Bear.

    Unfortunately, his nuts were just acorns, and Dr. Bear now needed cashews in payment. So Load died.

    The audience at a recent debate of the Goats, Orangutans, and Pigs heard about Squirrel’s death and cheered.

  203. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Joseph Stiglitz has a brilliant essay in Vanity Fair:

    Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

    http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105#

    Joseph Stiglitz is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls “free market fundamentalists”) and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

  204. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    We are all the 99%, but some of the 99% toady up to the 1% and are rewarded so long as they are useful. When their usefulness declines, or others are willing to work harder at toadying it for less, they’ll be kicked to the curb. As Stiglitz said in the article linked above,

    “Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

    The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

  205. Anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 11:58 am

    How many poor people have ever given you a job?

  206. Plain Jane
    October 16, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    How many rich people have ever given you a job without expecting to make a profit from it? Since there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, and since the rich people get rich by selling products or services to the poor people, I’d say it’s the poor people who actually give you a job. Rich people just facilitate it.

  207. Anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Every rich person who gave me a job made a profit off it, you imbecile. I also made a profit off of it, it’s called a paycheck.

  208. Plain Jane
    October 16, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    LOL! I think the point ricocheted and put out his eye.

  209. Mitch
    October 16, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Anonymous 12:12,

    I think Jane’s point may have been that the wealthy “job creators” are not creating jobs for your benefit. The moment they can create a replacement job for yours outside the United States, you will be unemployed.

    Yes, 12:12, you are absolutely right that every rich person who ever gave you a job did it because they thought it would make THEM more money, not out of concern for you.

    But you’re wrong about making a profit off your job, unless you were absconding with the petty cash. You received WAGES for your LABOR. That’s not PROFIT.

    There’s a very important difference. No individual has more than about 100,000 hours of work to bargain with for wages… 40 hours times 50 weeks times 50 years. On the other hand, the rich people who do the hiring can have unlimited amounts of capital to bring to the table, and can hire and fire at will. That makes the “relationship” between capital and labor inherently slanted towards capital. And that’s why unions are so important in the history of the modern world.

    Without unions, there would be no weekends. Without unions, there would be no minimum wage. When you see a non-union company offering competitive wages, it’s almost always because they know that if they don’t, they risk being unionized. They figure it’s better to keep their employees happy with wages almost comparable to those of unionized companies. Without the unionized companies, they’d pay exactly what they’d need to. In this economy, that’s the minimum wage.

    If unions continue to go under, expect the minimum wage to go away. The wealthy, left to their own devices, will pay the typical laborer exactly enough to keep them supplied with enough nutrients that they can work productively. Read history. You’ll be competing with the wage needs of a street-beggar in India.

    As the union movement was dismantled in America, starting by Reagan’s picking off the low-hanging fruit of the Air Traffic Controllers, we began to see what happens with free trade and without international unions.

    Watch and learn.

  210. Anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Mmmmmm. and unions aren’t corrupt. “of course their not, my dad got me in, my family members have never had a problem getting in.
    Try getting a job as a longshoreman.

    Oh, lets not forget the democratic politicians bought and paid for by the unions in California.

  211. Mitch
    October 16, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Nobody is suggesting that all unions are clean, Anonymous.

    I’m sure many unions are filthy dirty. Not a shadow of doubt in my mind about that.

    That doesn’t mean the union movement is not necessary.

  212. Mitch
    October 16, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    And do I think the Democratic Party is clean? You’ve got to be kidding me! But at least it’s bought and owned by groups that represent more than just the top 0.01% (the 99 vs 1% is a catchy slogan, but it’s wildly off in terms of who controls the country.)

  213. Mitch
    October 17, 2011 at 11:50 am
  214. Bolithio
    October 17, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    As much as Im with the idea of occupy walstreet, I cant help but be cynical when I see the 20 year-old dready kid waving the “End Corporate Greed” sign at me when I drive by. Really? Is honking going to ‘end corporate greed’? Or standing in front of the eureka court house? We need to ‘occupy ourselves’, by divorcing our selves from a culture of materialism and consumption. They can only profit from their greed when we all enable them by hording pointless plastic crap in our nests.

    Go protest in significant places, if you can afford to and have time.

    Until then, Occupy YOURSELF.

  215. Mitch
    October 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Ah, Bolithio, take heart. The 20 year-old dready kid is just the tip of the iceberg. The 87% of New Yorkers that no longer have a problem with what the 20 year old dready kid is saying, and the 2/3 (!) that express support are the reality of the change that is happening before our eyes.

    There’s always going to be materialism and overconsumption, greed and dishonesty. But wouldn’t it be remarkable if our political system took a tiny step back from the precipice for a change, instead of accelerating forward?

    It’s such a big and incomprehensible economic/political system, and it’s been so thoroughly compromised, that to see people finally… FINALLY… protesting en masse is just a joy to behold.

    Don’t forget: twenty years ago at this time, the big question most kids had was how to best get their share in the looting that Wall Street was committing. I’d say these 20 year-old dready kids, naive or not, are the best development in ages.

  216. Farmer
    October 17, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Give me a break B. For those who are suffering under the system, getting organized will help end corporate greed. That’s what’s really going on in many of these occupations, not just sign waving. If you took the time to attend just one march, anywhere, you might have a different understanding than someone just driving by and not stopping.

    The protest is partly against the current high rates of unemployment and you infer that people need money to be able to take the time to protest. If they could afford to, perhaps they would be the ones driving on by without so much as a show of support (honking). Not everyone is hoarding plastic crap, are you projecting a bit?

  217. Plain Jane
    October 17, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    A little Andy Borowitz to lighten your mood?

    )– The following is a letter released today by Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman of banking giant Goldman Sachs:

    Dear Investor:

    Up until now, Goldman Sachs has been silent on the subject of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. That does not mean, however, that it has not been very much on our minds. As thousands have gathered in Lower Manhattan, passionately expressing their deep discontent with the status quo, we have taken note of these protests. And we have asked ourselves this question:

    How can we make money off them?

    The answer is the newly launched Goldman Sachs Global Rage Fund, whose investment objective is to monetize the Occupy Wall Street protests as they spread around the world. At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain – but there’s plenty of money to be made on the way down.

    The Rage Fund will seek out opportunities to invest in products that are poised to benefit from the spreading protests, from police batons and barricades to stun guns and forehead bandages. Furthermore, as clashes between police and protesters turn ever more violent, we are making significant bets on companies that manufacture replacements for broken windows and overturned cars, as well as the raw materials necessary for the construction and incineration of effigies.

    It would be tempting, at a time like this, to say “Let them eat cake.” But at Goldman, we are actively seeking to corner the market in cake futures. We project that through our aggressive market manipulation, the price of a piece of cake will quadruple by the end of 2011.

    Please contact your Goldman representative for a full prospectus. As the world descends into a Darwinian free-for-all, the Goldman Sachs Rage Fund is a great way to tell the protesters, “Occupy this.” We haven’t felt so good about something we’ve sold since our souls.

    Sincerely,

    Lloyd Blankfein

    Chairman, Goldman Sachs

  218. Bolithio
    October 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Mitch and Farmer – we are more like-minded than you may realize. Dont you have cynical moments?

    I dont have a problem with said dready kids message. I also dont have problem with 20-y old kids or dreads (as silly as I find them, most of the time lol). I was just feeling that the message is lost on me – driving by in eureka – when i have no way to effect corporate greed. The walstreet protests on the otherhand are directly in the face of the people who have the ability to change things. Thats how I was looking at it in my earlier post anyhow….

  219. Mitch
    October 17, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    “Don’t you have cynical moments?”

    Every hour on the hour, Bolithio. My intent wasn’t to criticize your post, just to look on the bright side. I do that on the half hour, for at least ten seconds, when I remember, which isn’t all that often.

  220. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 12:02 am

    The protests across the country are in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, Bolithio, and to bring local attention to the damage Wall Street has done to Main Street. The storm that’s brewing is being fueled by the increasing support OWS is receiving from regular people who get their hair cut every four weeks and wear suits to work. There is a lot of chatter about the protests ending when the weather gets bad, but the outrage welling up from the people isn’t going to be dampened because it’s too cold to protest in the streets. They are giving voice to the frustrations ordinary people are feeling about our corporate owned and unresponsive legislators .It’s not just the kids in the street. It’s the mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and grandparents who are supporting these kids, financially and politically. We all know the system is broken and what broke it. If we can’t fix it now, then when?

  221. skippy
    October 18, 2011 at 12:50 am

    And now a brief interlude for comment #222:

    “Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even.”

    “America is a nation that conceives many odd inventions for getting somewhere but it can think of nothing to do once it gets there.”

    “Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.”

    “Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction.”

    “If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”

    “Lettin’ the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier than puttin’ it back in.”

    “Liberty doesn’t work as well in practice as it does in speeches.”

    (~Will Rogers 1879-1935)

  222. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Jane, aren’t people like myself also responsible for this mess, as I search for good investments for the small amount I have after my paycheck? Am I guilty for going to a firm like Goldman Sachs and buying their stocks, mutual funds, etc or using big banks for my pittance of a retirement nest egg to try to get the best yield for myself? We put them into mega competition mode when we yank our money out and put it into other banks for a half a percentage point. Their bottom line goal is to satisfy and keep their investor, not to have a lot to pay their bigwigs. That comes when they hire people that demand to be paid a lot or they will move on.

  223. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Move on to where, 5:58? Are there lots of multi-million dollar salaried jobs going unfilled? It’s time the CEO’s start taking the cuts they’ve been demanding from their workers (public and private). Since most share owners don’t have the slightest bit of input as to who is CEO or on their Boards of Directors (that’s reserved for other super rich people to decide) they have no vote on whether to pay a CEO $35 million for failure after 11 months on the job (for which he was also paid quite exorbitantly). If you think peer benchmarking is for the benefit of the share owners you might need to do a little research. There’s a vast wealth of information right at your fingertips.

  224. Mitch
    October 18, 2011 at 8:33 am

    “using big banks for my pittance of a retirement nest egg to try to get the best yield for myself”

    Are you just assuming that a big bank will provide you the best rate, or have you done any looking around? It looks to me like the best available 5 year CD rate is about 2%. Provident Credit Union will pay you 2.26% on your first $25,000 in checking.

  225. Ben
    October 18, 2011 at 8:33 am

    So, Jane, what is your remedy? You complain that the “super rich” have the ability to make decisions that you and others can not. So does increasing their taxes “even out” the wealth? To some extent yes, the more heavily taxed will have less income, but does that transfer directely into bringing up the base? Probably not since the money will so diluted that it will not have any real effect, other than the satisfaction of the lower income folks. I certainly do agree that executive compensation has gotten excessive, but in whole scheme of things when considered the size of our economy, it is just a drop in the bucket.
    In Humboldt County we have a great disparity between the “wealthy”, those folks with high non-taxible income (not reported) and working folks. So, what are your comments on this, like the TS article where growers do not even pay their fair share of electricity bills. So if we want to improve the situation,, should not all the growers be paying taxes on their income? Do you support that?

  226. Mitch
    October 18, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Correction: it looks like the best available rate is 2.2%, not 2%. (I forgot to sort.)

  227. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 9:24 am

    I don’t see the difference between huge banks credit unions who are large enough to overpay their own CEOs. I need to go for the highest interest rate and I have found mutual funds managed by large banks and stock brokerage firms to be higher than a CD in a place like Provident.

  228. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 9:27 am

    My remedy is a tax system which encourages the good jobs and wages for the majority required for a functioning economy, Ben. A tax system which doesn’t encourage democracy destroying wealth accumulation. A minimum wage that actually provides for the basic necessities of life without taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the employer. A political system which says only human beings who can be held accountable for their actions have the rights of people and requires all political donations be given by individuals with strict limitations to avoid even the appearance of bribery. I would add a judicial system that REQUIRES judges to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a conflict of interest with removal from the bench if they violate it. Much harsher punishment of both political and business corruption might help too.

    My remedy is whatever it takes to restore our country to “of, by and for the people” as it was intended to be.

  229. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Everyone has self-interest as defined in the narrow, “what’s in it for me.” Some have more enlightened self-interest, “what’s good for everyone is, by extension, good for me.”

  230. Mitch
    October 18, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Anonymous 9:24,

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Mutual funds are not insured. I really would do some research. Good luck.

  231. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 9:46 am

    I invest in both insured and non-insured, but to commit to a CD with such a low percentage rate, is hardly worth it to me. I don’t think we are understanding each other very well.

  232. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Robert Reich on what really happened to our economy

  233. Mitch
    October 18, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    I’m conflicted. But if this is what Move-on thinks it takes, I wish them luck. But people won’t pay attention to Reich for 2:15. They should license a cartoon character. Yogi Bear? no, too Hindu-sounding. Road Runner? Too smug, probably a liberal. Fred Flintstone? Now we’re talking. WILMA!!!!!

  234. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Good point, Mitch, but I don’t think you are the target audience. If you changed Rubin to Beck, they’d get more of the people who need to see it, but that’s never going to happen.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s