Home > Protest > Open Access

Open Access

These photos were submitted by Janelle Egger late last week in advance of the anti-Occupy protest. The anti group says access to the Humboldt County courthouse is blocked by the 24-hour protest. Egger says the photos show plenty of room for comers and goers.
Click photos to biggify.

  1. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 7:45 am

    Sure, take photo when hardly anybody is there. That proves a al

  2. Decline To State
    February 6, 2012 at 7:57 am

    While I agree that access to the courthouse is not blocked these pictures are really no evidence of that. First there is the narrow field of vision provided by the camera that skews perspective and makes distances between objects hard to discern. Secondly having signs on both sides of the sidewalk make approaching the building from the west a bit like running a gauntlet. Scary stuff for the faint of heart.

  3. just middle class
    February 6, 2012 at 8:07 am

    When wanting to do business at the courthouse, you need to pass through the mess, which is an access issue. Yes you can get there by wending your way through the mess. I just do not get the point now that the Occupiers are making by turning their movement into the right to “camp”. The message that had some resonance is now overshadowed by the non-sympethetic appearance of the mess. To be successful, the message must grow and gain additional appeal, and this mess is not doing that!

  4. tra
    February 6, 2012 at 9:20 am

    “…a bit like running a gauntlet. Scary stuff for the faint of heart.”

    For the very, very, very faint of heart, maybe.

  5. High Finance
    February 6, 2012 at 9:32 am

    While the entrance is not “blocked” it is impeded and we have to walk around the bums lounging around. They also make comments to people passing by, some of the comments are merely annoying and others are derogatory.

    They have no intention of ever leaving. The right of protest is not unlimited. The entire fifth street side of that block is now a mess. Big old tough Tra might not mind running the gaunlett but there are a lot of older people and women who do.

    It is time to force them to go.

  6. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Holy fucking christ almighty…I can’t believe what I’m reading….” Scary stuff for the faint of heart”…”When wanting to do business at the courthouse, you need to pass through the mess, which is an access issue”…

    The dinosaurs have spoken.

  7. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 10:13 am

    the security gauntlet inside is far more annoying .

  8. What Now
    February 6, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Anonymous says:
    “February 6, 2012 at 9:54 am
    Holy fucking christ almighty…I can’t believe what I’m reading….” Scary stuff for the faint of heart”…”When wanting to do business at the courthouse, you need to pass through the mess, which is an access issue”…

    The dinosaurs have spoken.”

    You must have nissed poor little Charles Douglas’ earlier posts.
    He barely escaped with his life!
    Highly Fried actually got some detritus on his spats_!!!!!) and is still hungover from dealing with the fall-out.

    Oh, the humanaity……

  9. owltotem
    February 6, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Does anyone remember back in the mid-late 80’s when the “homeless” (I think we called them “transient population” back then…but they werent) frequented the beautiful cast iron benches peppered around old town and the “clarke plaza” where there were big round benches and sometimes street musicians. Our city council back then, lead by business owners said things like “we have to see these bums lounging around, they make comments to people passing by, it is really effecting people who want to shop “North of Fourth'”. So by a brilliant sweep of the pen Eureka’s City Council had all the benches removed.

    (Then very shortly after gave MacMurray the go ahead to develop the Bayshore mall property.)

    We are still governed and lead by business people and city leaders who can not recognize the root problems and only see the immediate symptoms of how they are “impacted” by something uncomfortable, therefore they can not find effective solutions, only band-aids.

    The homeless are at the Courthouse because they have a safe place to go and people who will speak up for them. They have been silenced and forced into the bushes around the bay for decades.

    If you want to see something uncomfortable, drive down 3rd and B,A, toward commercial. Houston we have a problem. It is hunger, poverty, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction and houselessness. We have a throwaway population who has found some solace in a free meal once in a while. And now some safety and advocacy.

    Not recognizing the roots of these problems is not only allowing them to remain but now in the “economic crisis” we will see them grow.

    Realignment has drastically effected funding for some of the effective treatment and transition programs, if someone actually does want to try to “get clean” the supported subsidized options are dwindling.

    Funding for mental health support has been slashed, MediCal no longer offers any dental care (until it is a medical emergency or infection.)

    Parolees are being released without any aftercare expectations (no treatment, no AA requirements etc), because there is no enforcement funds available, often now they are getting cut loose without even parole.

    You think mentally ill Fredrika looking for a bowl of soup is uncomfortable, just wait!

    Did you see the pictures of the 6 with tattooed faces arrested on the news lastnight? That is what we are in for, OK? And if they only have drug convictions, they will probably remain in County Jail, then they will be right back out with no treatment, and probably little to no parole oversight.

    It is going to get worse.

    Occupy is bringing light to the specific, root problems that are being exacerbated by the “portion of the pie that goes to the 99.9% degrading to crumbs”.

    There is a smaller and smaller pie so local government is grabbing anything it can get just to keep the xerox machines in toner, what we need to see is what is happening to our people, and as a society how we can work together to find new solutions.

    Thank you Occupyers for continuing to carry the message.

  10. just middle class
    February 6, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Talk about missing the point! So the goal of the “occupation” is to…………..?
    1. Protest for the right to mess up public property?
    2. Get in the face of the police?
    3. Communicate what message?
    4. Create a homeless sancutary .. where and why?
    I guess the point is that everyone else should put up with the mess?
    My tninking is that the message is so far off track as to be totally ineffective and will accomplish none of the original goals.

  11. owltotem
    February 6, 2012 at 10:44 am

    The message is what ever the message needs to be in each community. The messengers are the people.

  12. What Now
    February 6, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Good posts ,Owl.
    Thank you.
    It’s obvious that “just middle class” is too intelectually incapaciated to see how THEY miss the point.

    “In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people then to control a million people.”
    — Zbigniew Brzezinski

    The right wing reactionaries co-opted the left’s play book by utilizing teachings fromTrotsky, Guevara, Mao and Alinsky to achieve their goals of freeing up money and restricting people.

    Perhaps the left should consider co-opting the right’s fundamental underlying goal of “starving the beast”, ie, “…shrink(ing) government to a size that it can be easily drowned in a bath tub (Holmes Tuttle).
    If conditions make it too expensive for them to continue “business as usual” we can proceed to the next critical stage in this morass.

  13. just middle class
    February 6, 2012 at 11:05 am

    So if the message is “the people” then a bunch of homeless hanging out says…….?

  14. Bolithio
    February 6, 2012 at 11:13 am

    Take the stupid fence down and let them protest on the grass. No camping. No access issues. Done.

  15. February 6, 2012 at 11:19 am

    “Hanging out?” You make it sound like a bunch of teenagers out on a lark. These folks “live” on the street.

  16. Just Middle Class
    February 6, 2012 at 11:24 am

    So, at this point, the protest is like a chuck hole in the road, something to go around and an irritant.

  17. What Now
    February 6, 2012 at 11:48 am

    “Just Middle Class says:
    February 6, 2012 at 11:24 am
    So, at this point, the protest is like a chuck hole in the road, something to go around and an irritant.”

    The right to peaceful assembly and free speech was not abriged by in any disclaimer in the bilol of rights or qualified by the reactionary tastes of simple minded people or those who can’t see outside of their own little sub-culture.

  18. jr
    February 6, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Owltotem is right on in his/her post of 10:33am. The economy will not improve for the vast majority of people until the economic playing field is brought up to more or less level. Perhaps readers saw the article by Adam Davidson in the Sunday N.Y. Times magazine about four economists who think that the country, and the world, will have an even greater crash in the coming two years than was experienced in 2008-10. (Yes, I remember the benches in Old Town and thought that it was an inappropriate way to deal with the “problem”.)

  19. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Those pic’s were not taken last Thursday evening!!

    Those pic’s don’t prove squat.

    Thurdsay evening, the 2nd, they were blocking the sidewalk ! A bunch of assholes.

  20. just middle class
    February 6, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    If the goal is to improve the economy for the vast majority of people, how is it helping to use scarce government resources to police the occupy site? The occupy mess in front of the courthouse is having no impact on changing the national economy for the benefit of the 99%, so identified by the occupy movement. So claiming that someone who does not agree with you is not smart enought to understand is code for saying that there is nothing to understand.

  21. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Ask yourself “have YOU turned against your fellow man in protest?”

    Defeat the nation by dividing the people against a common foe.

  22. walt
    February 6, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    If you want to keep creating more homeless people and more drug addicts, you’d better get used to having to walk around them, or run away from them.

  23. jr
    February 6, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    “The ‘trickle down” theory is the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.”–William Blum

  24. High Finance
    February 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    So the hypocrites “What Now” and Owltotem cry the homeless don’t have a safe place to go ? Therefore they should be allowed to set up a permanent camp on the Courthouse steps ?

    Take them to your houses and ruin and trash your property. Otherwise stop pretending you really care.

  25. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Has the issue of the crazy, in your face, dancing fool with the maniacal look in his eye and his big portable radio been mentioned on this blog? He limits the access of people in and out of the courthouse by scaring and annoying the crap out of them! Has anyone dealt with him? Anyone from Occupy? Anyone from EPD?

  26. Down the Road
    February 6, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    It is not the faint of heart that do not want to be exposed to the
    posers at the court house that are pretending to be part of the
    99%. It is people that are older and frail. It is very
    intimidating to be approached by someone that is on drugs or
    drunk. If, you have business at the court house, I suggest the
    side entrance.

    Some of the postings excuse the bad behavior being
    exhibited as mental illness and/or poverty. Maybe, more likely they
    are 1% of the protesters. The rest should be put in the trash.

  27. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Old people, whether frail or not, got that way by having good survival skills. One of these skills is to avoid unnecessary trouble. Those old people I know (and you can call them dinosaurs, but they are tax paying, voting, contributing members of our society and deserve to be heard) don’t want to walk through an assembly of protesters who are there for the wrong reasons and have a bone to pick with those who aren’t there.

  28. Richard
    February 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Everyone does know that there is an entrance on 4th St with no protesters in front of it, right?

    I read someone at the anti protest rally said they should protest somewhere else, but I think that whole “…the right to peaceably assemble [&]…petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances” thing in the document the Tea Party claims to love was all about addressing the government. Where else exactly would you have citizens do that if not at the government building?

    A wise friend pointed out to me recently, when I was commenting on being put in a position of defending the actions of folks whose behavior I don’t agree with, that that was the whole point of truly believing in civil liberties, it meant defending the rights of those you disagree with too.

    Democracy is messy. No such problems when King George’s Men could just enforce order, but we over threw that authority and decided to try this messy approach instead. I don’t think I’m ready to give up on the experiment, even if it means stepping around a few folks to get to the courthouse.

  29. What Now
    February 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    High Finance says:
    “February 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    So the hypocrites “What Now” and Owltotem cry the homeless don’t have a safe place to go ? Therefore they should be allowed to set up a permanent camp on the Courthouse steps ?

    “Take them to your houses and ruin and trash your property. Otherwise stop pretending you really care.”

    Go get stuffed, you lying, arrogant shitstain.
    Go back to your liquor bottle and your slum housing profiteering.

  30. February 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    HiFi, I don’t want a WalMart in Humboldt County, but that’s my tough luck.

    You don’t want these folks exercising their right to free speech. That’s your tough luck.

    These people may look shabby most of the time, but that fence the city put up pushes protestors out to the sidewalk, so don’t blame them for encroaching upon passersby. The building itself is an architectural blight, so who really cares if the lawn get trampled?

  31. High Finance
    February 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    How old are you What Now ? I ask because you sound like an immature 15 year old. Read Joel’s post to see how adults disagree.

    Sorry Joel but you are wrong. If we were talking about a legitimate protest of a day or even of a week you would be right. But not a permanent life time encapment takeover of public property.

  32. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I have to agree with HI FI here. This is a dumb protest and all about just having a social event, not trying to make a point for the Occupy Cause, which it has done nothing but jeopardize and damage. These folks didn’t lose any jobs and they don’t have anything they are sacrificing to do this, no families to leave for the cause. They are living out there anyway, and are very happy to find a place they can gather with others who have the same problems, for which there are no solutions.

  33. Sigh
    February 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    All those pictures show is an informational table with no one manning it.

  34. Plain Jane
    February 6, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    “Legitimate protest”

    That’s the problem with “conservatives” like HiFi. They only believe in free speech which expresses what they believe. If they don’t believe in it then it isn’t “legitimate protest.” Such a basic concept of liberty and he can’t get it.

  35. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    I work at the courthouse. I believe that there is plenty of room for people to get by the people protesting. However, what this picture does not show is the people who are typically occupying this area. On a weekly basis for the past several months, I have seen people using drugs, physically assaulting each other, urinating, and all sorts of other lewd acts. I, like PJ, believe people have the right to protest. Unfortunately, this issue is now about our homeless drug users right to do their business where ever they wish to. For those who think what I’m saying is an exageration, go to the courthouse tomorrow at approximately 2 pm and simply observe what you see happening and report back if you think this about the progressives right to protest.

  36. jr
    February 6, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Is the Dept of Health and Human Services assisting the homeless at Occupy Eureka? If not, why?

  37. Starting to sound old
    February 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    As a county, we have X amount of resources. X has gotten smaller in the past couple of years. You really think that the homeless should be getting further assistance at the court house??? They can walk 10 blocks and be served two meals a day by Betty Chin and then take a shower and use the bathrooms. I think that for homeless drug addicts offering very little to our city this is plenty.

  38. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Ditto, “Starting to sound old”. They have services other places. Should we all pay to have the services follow them wherever they feel like camping? Sorry, no.

  39. High Finance
    February 6, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    PJ, protest is one thing but nowhere does it say the right of protest extends to any protest at any piece of public property at anytime without any reasonable limitations at all.

  40. Anonymous
    February 6, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    It doesn’t have to HiFi. What it says is that freedom of speech shall not be abridged.

    Abridged, in this context means restricted.

    That means the government can’t restrict protected speech even if people like you don’t agree with it.

    The more you post your ideas about what a free society looks like, the more it looks like a fascist state.

  41. February 6, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    “…nowhere does it say the right of protest extends to any protest at any piece of public property at anytime without any reasonable limitations…”

    And “nowhere does it say” that protests must comply with what some might call “reasonable limitations.”

  42. tra
    February 6, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    I believe that Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech and assembly can be subject to restrictions regarding the “time, place and manner” of these activities, as long as those restrictions are content neutral, not overly broad, and serve an important purpose.

  43. Carol
    February 6, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    “HiFi, I don’t want a WalMart in Humboldt County, but that’s my tough luck.

    You don’t want these folks exercising their right to free speech. That’s your tough luck.

    These people may look shabby most of the time, but that fence the city put up pushes protestors out to the sidewalk, so don’t blame them for encroaching upon passersby. The building itself is an architectural blight, so who really cares if the lawn get trampled?”

    Where is the LIKE button?

  44. Harold Knight
    February 6, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    “Take them to your houses and ruin and trash your property. Otherwise stop pretending you really care”.

    The courthouse is their property and protest is Constitutionally protected.

    “It is very intimidating to be approached by someone that is on drugs or drunk”.

    Public intoxication is illegal and taking place all over town.

    “If we were talking about a legitimate protest of a day or even of a week you would be right. But not a permanent life time encapment takeover of public property”.

    Constitutional rights don’t include expiration dates.

    “This is a dumb protest and all about just having a social event, not trying to make a point for the Occupy Cause, which it has done nothing but jeopardize and damage”.

    Every movement in history did some damage to itself, which is also protected by the Constitution.

    “I have seen people using drugs, physically assaulting each other, urinating, and all sorts of other lewd acts”.

    All are illegal, and all are taking place throughout Eureka.

    This is a fascinating collection of ignorance and the bigotry ignorance breeds. Every school board in America should be taking notice and finally begin requiring students to read the U.S. Constitution to understand the occupation protests that won the GI Bill, women’s right to vote, police rights to unionize, etc, etc, etc…

  45. just middle class
    February 7, 2012 at 7:04 am

    Those protests focused on their issue and did not morph into a fringe issue like the right to camp on public proerty.

  46. Buzz
    February 7, 2012 at 7:29 am

    Sure, let’s focus on “camping,” not the wholesale purchase of the US government by the kleptocracy on Wall Street.

  47. High Finance
    February 7, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Even Tra disagrees with you Harold.

  48. Fact Checker
    February 7, 2012 at 7:48 am

    High Finance said: February 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    “… a legitimate protest … a permanent life time encapment takeover of public property.”

    (spell check) en·camp·ment ( n-k mp m nt). n. 1. a. The act of encamping. b. The state of being encamped. 2. A camp; a campsite. encampment [ɪnˈkæmpmənt].

    le·git·i·mate
    1. according to law; lawful: the property’s legitimate owner.
    2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.

    per·ma·nent
    1. existing perpetually; everlasting, especially without significant change.

  49. Fact Checker
    February 7, 2012 at 7:50 am

    tra says:
    February 6, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    “I believe that Supreme Court has held …”

    (So if the Supreme Court has ruled such and such …?)

    Dred Scott v. Sandford – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._SandfordCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. … Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled the Dred Scott case …

  50. Mitch
    February 7, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Remember Bank Transfer Day? Here’s a research report indicating that 600,000 people moved their money specifically in response to that campaign, with another 1,500,000 moving their money because of fees that were too high.

    I know that (despite the media talk about how lucky the banks were to lose accounts) I keep getting offers from Chase to pay me to open an account there. At that rate, the banks have lost somewhere around $100,000,000 due to Bank Transfer Day and fees.

    A drop in the bucket to Bank of America, but every flood begins with a first drop. And remember, all it took to get the campaign rolling was one pissed-off woman making one Facebook post. Imagine what would happen if even five or ten percent of Americans started speaking up regularly in favor of fairness and against corporate shenanigans. It would be a different world.

    https://www.javelinstrategy.com/blog/2012/01/26/%E2%80%98bank-transfer-day%E2%80%99-what-really-just-happened/

  51. Down the Road
    February 7, 2012 at 8:23 am

    Tell you what Harold, I have protested. Unlike what is occupying
    the front of the court house; I or any of our group took a shit
    in front of someone’s business. Made lewd comments to people,
    took drugs or were publicly drunk. There is no bigotry in not
    wanting to be exposed to vulgar behavior.

  52. 713
    February 7, 2012 at 9:14 am

    I know that (despite the media talk about how lucky the banks were to lose accounts)

    B of A did turn a profit in the 4th quarter Mitch. I don’t think it was just the media “saying” the accounts were good for them to lose.

    Also, isn’t it a little ironic that people switched from corporations that pay taxes to credit unions that do not pay taxes? I still don’t quite get that.

  53. credulous
    February 7, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Wow. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. I have not physically walked by the courthouse (only passed by in my car, yay me!), but it seems relatively orderly and peaceful. If people are drunk or doing drugs, they can and, in most cases, should be arrested.

    I think what is most upsetting about the situation is the obvious # of homeless persons, legitimate protesters or not who ARE among the 99%. We are not Egypt yet, but we are starting to look like Greece (I love me some feta and olives by the way).

    I live near the courthouse, so some of the faces down there are familiar for looting my recycling bin and trying to sleep in my garage – most are harmless.

    This is society in the post Bush/Clinton/Reagan years. You can thank Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan and Carl Rove, among others. For now, we all need to be a little more humane to each other down here on the ground.

  54. Mitch
    February 7, 2012 at 9:35 am

    713,

    I never suggested BofA failed to make money in the quarter, I just pointed out that they and the other banks did it with around 2 million fewer suckers to rip off.

    Simple economic fact — if a bank is willing to pay $100 to a random non-customer to open an account, either the bank has a very stupid management or it feels that each random customer is worth at least $100 in profits. If that’s true, losing 2 million customers is not a big celebration for the banks, as is suggested by the propaganda some in the media pass along.

    As for switching from banks to credit unions, that’s not ironic, that’s smart. When people ban together with a primary goal of helping one another (that’s credit unions*) as opposed to making profits for shareholders (that’s banks), there are no profits to tax. That’s another reason credit unions are such a better approach. The government still gets taxes from all the salaries the credit union pays.

    * except for phony credit unions like Coast Central Faux Credit Union, which exists to get Dean Christensen his million dollar salary by charging rates higher than a genuine, member-oriented credit union would and paying interest lower than a real credit union would

  55. Mitch
    February 7, 2012 at 9:38 am

    713,

    Bank profits? Like getting free money and charging interest to loan it to the people who gave it to you.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

  56. Mitch
    February 7, 2012 at 9:44 am

    http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVDMGO1A74E901-5CG1C7JPCU5J1O688G3J3C73JE

    With the help of the Fed’s secret loans, America’s largest financial firms got bigger during the crisis. Part of the boost came from a hidden subsidy — the Fed’s below-market interest rates. The subsidy can be estimated using a figure banks call “net interest margin.” It’s the difference between what they earn on loans and investments and their borrowing cost. To calculate how much banks stood to make, Bloomberg multiplied their tax-adjusted net interest margins by their average Fed debt during the time they took emergency loans.

  57. tra
    February 7, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Just to be clear, I did not mean to suggest that the “time, place and manner” restrictions on speech and assembly should be used against ongoing Occupy protests, I was just reminding folks that this is probably the basis that would be used, and that therefore those who wish to maintain a 24 hour vigil may want to pay close attention to whether the restrictions that authorities try to enforce overreach the criteria that the courts have given for when those “time, place, and manner” restrictions are constitutionally acceptable

    In my opinion, these kinds of restrictions have in fact been stretched to the limit by authorities in recent years, a prime example of which was the so-called “free speech zones” that protesters were herded into at the last round of presidential nominating conventions. In those cases, the “free speech zones” where people were “allowed” to protest were small, fenced-in areas, some distance away from the target of the protests. I found that to be an outrageous limitation on speech and assembly, and I absolutely do not approve of those sorts of restrictions.

    I would also note that in some other cities, Occupy protests have been allowed to continue, including the use of canopies and tents. I believe that in D.C. the rule they’re enforcing is that tents and canopies are allowed, but to address (supposed) security concerns these shelters are supposed to remain open on at least one side. It seems to me that Eureka has gone to an unnecessary and unjustified extreme by claiming that even having a sleeping bag draped over you while you sit somehow constitutes “illegal camping” because those people are “under cover.”

  58. 713
    February 7, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Mitch,
    that was three years ago. There was a crisis, what would you have done? Let the economy implode? I was talking about December, 2011. The quarter everybody switched their accounts.

  59. Richard
    February 7, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    BTW, the County’s “official” reason for the fence being up is “to let the lawn grow back”. Well, the lawn is more then grown back. They either need to take the fence down or come clean and admit that it’s there to keep protesters off the lawn. Then at least they’d be telling the truth.

  60. Mitch
    February 8, 2012 at 7:26 am

    713,

    What would I have done?! Just about nothing the administration did and everything it didn’t do. For starters, I would have funded the banks by guaranteeing missed homeowner payments for six months. In other words, I would have made the loans to the homeowners, not to the banks. The mechanics could have been handled identically. Then I would have given the banks a six month window to either work things out or be temporarily nationalized.

    And I’d have made it clear that during nationalization, the executives would have been paid minimum wage. They would have worked things out.

    As for the banks once again making profits… yes, that’s exactly the problem.

  61. just middle class
    February 8, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Mitch, if banks do not make a profit there will be no banks.

  62. 713
    February 8, 2012 at 7:52 am

    Mitch,
    6 months would have just kicked the can down the road. The reason those people werent making payments is because they couldnt afford them anymore. It wasnt because they lost their jobs, it was because they got an interest only loan for three or five years and speculated the value of their house would go up so they could refi to a conventional loan at that time or sell it and keep the equity. Lots of people have done that, the people who lost their homes got caught up in the hype and made deals they could NEVER afford. Lots of guilt to spread around, but the homeowners have their share, and it’s a big piece.

    From what I read the loans to the banks you posted about were for liquidity. The government Paying my home loan rather than giving the banks a loan would not allow you to access the funds in your checking account.

    I agree they have f*d things up, but to crash the whole economy over the principle of loaning banks money for a few days doesn’t make sense to me.

  63. Mitch
    February 8, 2012 at 8:20 am

    713,

    Kicking the can down the road would have enabled the new administration enough breathing space that they would not have needed to rely on advice from those responsible for the problem.

    Sometimes, kicking the can down the road is appropriate.

    just middle class,

    Yes. Exactly. You’ve got it.

    Now take the next step: what does it mean when all profits generated by a capitalist banking system over decades turn out to be based not on wise capital investment but instead on a fundamental misunderstanding of risk, yet the system continues to generate profit by displacing that newly-revealed risk onto an external victim (the population at large).

  64. Mitch
    February 8, 2012 at 8:26 am

    713,

    About liquidity, maybe you missed part of my point, or maybe I don’t understand yours. The mechanics could have been EXACTLY the same as what was done. The only difference would have been in whose name the cash injections were performed.

    The same amount of liquidity would have been injected into the system, because the same amount of transfer would have taken place.

    The reason the death spiral began is that banks wouldn’t loan to banks, because nobody could value the worthless trash they’d “created.” If the trash were guaranteed for six months, overnight loans would have continued during that period.

    Meanwhile, a lot of homeowners would have been given breathing room, and the administration could have investigated approaches lacking the “moral hazard” of the approach the Geithners and Blankfeins of the world thought best.

    It’s been the biggest theft in history — the biggest mugging in history. If there is any justice left in the world, it will be the end of capitalism as a respected system.

  65. just middle class
    February 8, 2012 at 9:00 am

    The money provided in the bank bailouts was in the forms of loans and capital invenstments, that is purchasing stock (onership) in the banks. The banks paid back the loans and most of the stock was sold at a profit by the gov. The banks were not gifted public funds.
    Most homeowners who had loans restructured are now back in the same spot they were before, that is behind on payments.

  66. Mitch
    February 8, 2012 at 9:16 am

    just middle class,

    Those are the talking points, yes. If you investigate, you’ll find out it’s a ridiculous lie. If you can add, a few moments of honest thought will be sufficient.

  67. Mitch
    February 8, 2012 at 9:55 am

    just middle class,

    If you really want to explore beyond comforting platitudes, check out the book ECONned, by “Yves Smith.” Or, at least, look at the Introduction and Afterword, which are online at Amazon.

  68. janelle
    February 8, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    For those who think the perspective in these photos makes distances between objects hard to discern, please check out the link below. Also, for the person who thought things had been cleaned up because of the demonstration the next day, please note the photos above were taken Thursday and we had no knowledge that 250 people had been invited to our Friday afternoon gathering.

  69. Noble
    February 20, 2012 at 6:55 am

    What they mean by “blocked” is that they had to look at poor people to go to the courthouse, nothing more.

    Reminds them of what they could, and probably will be, as the economy continues to collapse. Keep insulting them. You’ll be them soon.

    PS the first amendment doesn’t have a time limit morons. It gives you the right to whine like babies, too, which you obviously take advantage of.

  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