Occupy Broadwayworld- Page 2

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 11:08am

YWIW, please read their statements with an open mind. Nobody takes something from you unless you allow them to.


They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process No, Congress wrote laws allowing the banks to take advantage of homeowners. In addition, some homeowners got greedy and tried to buy more house than they could afford.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity Bailouts were forced on them by the Obama administration, in the insane belief that they would close if the government didn't step in.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. Obama just signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Act. In addition, EEOC has been in existence for years. Just because they can't get jobs with the rotten attitude doesn't mean that discrimination exists.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 11:16am

First point: many banks violated the law with the way they foreclosed, using robo signers in many states and failing to perfect the interest in the note.

Second point. Bush Administration. Stop rewriting history.

Third point. Please. Maybe it is your attitude that is he problem.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 11:18am

Don't go to Chase to avoid fees--unless you have money. The minimums to avoid a fee were certainly higher than I could guarantee month to month, so I finally move to the Actor's credit union. Depositing is more difficult, but every McDonald's in NYC is a free ATM.

I find it terribly sad that more Tea Party folks around the country don't see that ultimately they share many of the same goals and anger as Occupy Wall St.

I find it pitiful that the same people begging us not to generalize the Tea Party by its racists and crazies or to misshape what the Tea Party is fighting for are doing precisely the same thing in return.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 11:19am

Did Goth just say that the nation's unemployment problem is because of applicants' rotten attitudes?

Posted: 10/7/11 at 11:30am

My employer does not have a credit union- are there any "open" CUs that you can join without being a member?

My "local" bank charges $8.95 a month for a "low balance" checking account.

I have generally been happy with BOA- and $60 a year is looking like a bargain compared to some of the other options.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 11:32am

And did he also say that discrimination does not exist in the workplace?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:00pm

"First point: many banks violated the law with the way they foreclosed"

Then there are laws in place to bring about justice. The problem with housing is that Barney Frank so screwed up Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac that corruption was bound to happen.


"Second point. Bush Administration. Stop rewriting history."

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bush was wrong to offer stimulus to companies. And that doesn't mean that Obama should follow suit passing out even more taxpayer money. I thought he was the president for "change". And Obama isn't even passing out money to healthy companies. If a Republican were in office, the Solondra scandal would be huge news.

"Third point. Please. Maybe it is your attitude that is he problem"

You can't refute this point because you know it's true. If there is discrimination in the workplace then maybe Obama should ask for Eric Holder's resignation.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:19pm

Blah blah blah. Goth rewriting history. And reframing his repsonses.

Where is your outrage over the 8 Billion dollars "misplaced" in Iraq?

[Q]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:26pm

Our local bank that went under was bought out by US BANK, and they have a no fee/no minimum balance checking option.

[tazber]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:33pm

Honestly, the discrimination line is out of place here and there is no evidence to support it.

The EEOC does an excellent job of handling claims and issuing judgments. Most major firms (and we are talking about the big boys here) are not in violation of this.


But as I said this is really a tangent to the bigger issues.

The question remains: what can be done?

More regulation? That will scare firms even more than they already are into NOT hiring.

There is no more monetary adjustments that the Fed can enact. All they can do at this point is keep things as they are until we come out of this liquidity trap.

The fiscal policy of stimulus isn't working. And most economists who support this model of correction contend that the stimulus would have to be massive to truly move us toward higher employment. And when they say massive, they mean something along the lines of 10 times what govt has already pumped into the economy. That's not going to happen, and if it did can you imagine the deficit?

The only thing I do know is that there is no current model or economic theory that predicted this and economists are facing a situation where so many variables are interacting that it's impossible to know what's actually causing what.

So I don't politicize this. It's not a democrat/republican issue. Both sides are right and yet neither side has a workable solution.

The occupiers are fed up and stressed out. I support their initiative, but they have no proposals that consider the consequences of their demands on a macro level. And this is obviously a macro problem.

It's a bad bad situation.

But if it's any consolation Europe is far worse off than we are.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:34pm

I am really ticked off with BoA. My ex talked me into opening an account there when I moved back here. I hate big banks to start with. In Denver I banked at a local bank with no problems. I use my debit card a lot in NYC. I don't like to carry a lot of cash. I have to find another bank by the end of the year. I haven't heard but is BoA going to get rid of that program where they put the remaining change from a purchase in your account?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:36pm

Listen, I don't want to get into a Classic Goth Bog-Down (tm). There are certain people who can't wrap their brains around a leaderless, spokesperson-free action. I've seen it my entire activist life. Well-coiffed and made-up news reporter appears with camera and microphone and asks a group, "Who's in charge here?" "No one." Blinking for several minutes. "Well SOMEBODY has to be in charge." "No." Blinking, staring.

Goth, and a lot of others, can't grasp that this is happening and evolving daily. There is no sound byte. They're having meetings a couple times a day. They're struggling to reach consensus.

They did not crystalize around tri-cornered hats and not liking that colored guy in Washington. They are articulating the sinking feeling and dawning awareness that the decks are stacked against most Americans by the very rich.

Who knows, maybe something will come of it. As I said, it's an evolving process. And it's growing daily.

As for being a tool for seeing a wish list that includes beans and rice and sugar and wanting to get some and donate it making me a tool? I call it simple Christian charity.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:46pm

Taz, I only sampled some of the issues from the group's statement.

I will have to agree to disagree on the discrimination front. Especially in light of the Wal-Mart class action ruling. Maybe overt discrimination hides itself better, but if you look at wages, women still make far less than men for the same work/job. In many companies, there is still a glass ceiling and bias that dictate hiring and advancement. It may be better than it was, but it is still there. Having to resort to the EEOC or suing, generally means that you punished/black listed from the industry you are in.

To answer you question - what can be done - I think one of the only things that can be done is to get the money out of the election process - so special interest groups (on both sides of the aisle) cannot buy favors. But with the Citizens United ruling, that is going to be very hard to do. So, I don't know. Other than get enough people screaming loudly enough that some in power react and perhaps revisit some of the decisions made.

And, I generally agree with everything Namo said.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:47pm

Exactly why the fight should be in DC.

One could have used the same argument against the tea-party rallies.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:50pm

And the thing is that it's changing and shifting and growing and spreading so fast that there is now an
Occupy DC.

[tazber]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:52pm

I agree with Namo too. And I think that a mass of really pissed off people may be the ones to arrive at some ideas that the politicos can't.


Regarding Walmart: touche. Excellent point. I still don't think it needs to be something the occupiers should focus on, but you're right to mention that it does still exist.

Updated On: 10/7/11 at 12:52 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:56pm

For so long, people have been saying "Where is the anger? Why aren't people marching in the streets?" Well, it's happening, and it's happening all over the country. 99% is a big number. So something might come out of it.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 1:10pm

"Well, it's happening, and it's happening all over the country."

But it's targeted at the wrong people.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 1:15pm

I'm not bogging down with you.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 1:24pm

I think it's great that people from the left are marching in the streets the way people from the right have been marching in the streets (or, rather, rallying in fields) for the past few years. Especially since the right has been styling their rallies on the way the way the left used to protest a generation or two ago. Both sides are saying, "Why can't we organize the way THEY do?"

I don't know what it means, but I find it incredible that, for the first time in history, both sides are angry at corporations: the Occupiers hate Corporate Bailouts and the tea-partiers hate Corporate Welfare.

Both sides are against an emerging oligarchy, with the enemies seen--by both sides--as corporations and politicians.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 1:27pm

Which someone we know says is the wrong target.

Of course, the tea party is funded by huge beneficiaries of corporate welfare. But, whatevs.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 1:59pm

Taz - I actually agree with you that the discrimination issue does seem out of place. But, the group started as a collection of diverse interests, so some of the issues resonate more than others. But, I just went with the first few from the statement and did not want to be accused of cherry-picking or deceptive editing.

The entire list includes some things that raise my eyebrows or veer off too far to the left for my specific political views, but many of them I agree with.

And PJ, don't you know we have a completely free market system - a shining example of captialism in its purest sense? Shame on you for using the O word.


Updated On: 10/7/11 at 01:59 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 2:04pm

You can really see where critics are coming from sometimes, as in this analysis of the famous liberal media bias of CNN (which, now that I read this, should totally stand for Communist News Network).


An Erin Burnett Primer

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 2:15pm

Just FYI, this addresses the illegal forceclosure claim raised in the statement.

"In a settlement agreement announced yesterday, the firm, Steven J. Baum, P.C., of Amherst, will implement a series of internal controls including a pledge not to bring foreclosure actions without reviewing the original promissory notes or reviewing a copy of the note from its client or custodian of the document.

The thrust of that condition is similar to an order issued almost a year ago by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman directing lawyers for lenders to file an affirmation that they have taken reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of papers they file to support residential foreclosures (NYLJ, Oct. 21, 2010)."


Upstate Foreclosure Firm Fined $2 Million, Agrees to Overhaul Its Filing Practices

[tazber]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 2:44pm

Wow. I am not familiar with Burnett whatsoever but if she is that ill informed they should really consider only allowing her to do pre-records with a fact checker.

The last paragraph was wonderfully written.