Occupy Wall Street: A Manifesto (from Fail Quotes)

[evensgrey]

I had a bit of a poke around what's presenting itself as the Occupation group's web site.  They're even more disorganized than they look in the videos, and they don't seem to even grasp the notion that you can't get anywhere unless you know where you're trying to get. 

Looks to me like they're going to eventually peter out with no actual stated goals, just lots of poorly written rhetoric.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

I was at Occupy Jacksonville again today. Highlight of my day was a dude in a Che Guevara shirt signed a petition to get me on the ballot.

[Ibrahim90]

Funny. I think I fell into about 5 of those categories. No wonder I got beat up in public school. :-P

I only fall into one myself. One of the more recent ones....either way though, as I can guess at what some of the ones you belong to (Atheist aside), I did give you a cluon.

I was at Occupy Jacksonville again today. Highlight of my day was a dude in a Che Guevara shirt signed a petition to get me on the ballot.

now Isn't this irony just delicious to you and me?

[Gumba Masta]

This should probably be in Fail Quotes too: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/10/1024469/-But-what-do-they-want



Yeah, so maybe Mr. Tomorrow can tell us what "economic injustice" is actually supposed to mean? And injustice against whom, perpetuated by whom?

The funny thing is when I read this one for the first time I couldn't tell if this was done by a liberal who thought that he made a point or a conservative who thought he was being funny.

[AnCap Dave]

Saw this on Facebook. Had a nice laugh from it.

[Ibrahim90]

Saw this on Facebook. Had a nice laugh from it.

nah, that's for smart people.


I suggest Occupying Manchester instead....no, I'm not kidding, there is an "Occupy Manchester" movement out there:

[yt]KNFsLuuY89M[/yt]

I swear it is like a successful brand, this "Occupy sth or other" movement. Well, If you can't be them, join them I guess: I propose an "Occupy your chair" movement, where you sit down on your favorite chair, and take it easy for one hour 

[Gumba Masta]

Well, even though I believe that this wont actually do anything for anyone, except maybe a lot of feel good vibes of have done something, I can sympathise with the sentiment. I mean first these businesses loose billions of their money and then they take a trillion of other people's money, bank it as profit and qualify themselfs for a bonus. As small a part of the bailout and as much legal as they may be, it does seem to me to be slightly indecent and infuriating. Sure, it's a feeble attempt but that's what being powerless gets you.

[MrBogosity]

The problem is the government and the Fed gave them the bailout/stimulus money. Once they did that, the companies were contractually obligated to give those bonuses. They could have been sued if they didn't!

[Gumba Masta]

I did point out that I was aware of that fact. And that it leaves a very unpleasant aftertaste in my mouth.

[AnCap Dave]

The problem is the government and the Fed gave them the bailout/stimulus money. Once they did that, the companies were contractually obligated to give those bonuses. They could have been sued if they didn't!

I never knew about that. Is there any kind of news story I can read about that?

[MrBogosity]

Gee, there are tons!

War over AIG bonuses dies down http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/24/news/economy/bonus_tax_onsecondthought/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

AIG has been given access to $182 billion in taxpayer funds in the past six months. Recently it paid out $165 million in retention bonuses to employees in the company's financial products division. Those bonuses were written into employee contracts written in early 2008.

Official: AIG bonus estimates grow $53 million http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29812224/

AIG had previously disclosed that the company was contractually obligated to pay a total of about $165 million of previously awarded "retention pay" to employees in the financial products unit, based in Connecticut, by March 15.

The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at A.I.G http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17sorkin.html

Everyone from President Obama down seems outraged by this. The president suggested on Monday that we just tear up those bonus contracts. He told the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to use every legal means to recoup taxpayers’ money.

Of course, it should be reminded that it was the President's doing to bail out AIG, as it wasn't a part of Congress's package.

As much as we might want to void those A.I.G. pay contracts, Pearl Meyer, a compensation consultant at Steven Hall & Partners, says it would put American business on a worse slippery slope than it already is. Business agreements of other companies that have taken taxpayer money might fall into question. Even companies that have not turned to Washington might seize the opportunity to break inconvenient contracts.

I mean really, they WANT companies to void contracts where they agree to pay employees a certain amount of money?

Of course, if taxpayers had not bailed out A.I.G., these contracts would not be worth anything. Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, made the point on Monday, when he subpoenaed A.I.G. for the names of the people who received the bonuses. If A.I.G. had spiraled into bankruptcy, its employees would have had to get in line with other unsecured creditors.

Bottom line: the knowledge that AIG (and others) were contractually obligated to pay these bonuses was covered all over the news. Even Rachel Maddow put her own dishonest spin on it:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090317_032819_page_2.htm

MSNBC news show host Rachel Maddow, on Late Night With David Letterman: "Sometime in early 2008, that company signed contracts with its employees that said: 'Even if you cause the company to fail and nearly bring down the worldwide economic system, you will still get a bonus'...I mean, who writes those contracts?"

Yes, Rachel, executives are all clairvoyants who can see into the future to know that government was suddenly and arbitrarily going to give them a buttload of money that they'd then have to pay in bonuses. (Too bad their fortune-telling didn't extend to all the negative publicity it would get...)

Anyone who denies these bonuses were contractual obligations is just being revisionist.

[AnCap Dave]

Well damn...I look like a jackass now.

Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.

[evensgrey]

They Occupation groups seem to think that they're somehow like the protest groups in the late 60's.

Of course, they don't know that those protesters figured out what they wanted to say BEFORE they started protesting.  Yes, some of it was good, and some of it made no sense whatsoever, but they figured out what they wanted to say BEFORE trying to occupy anything.  (Mind you, rather a lot of them just wanted to not get drafted and have to fight in Vietnam, but that's a perfectly reasonable thing to want to say, especially when it's going the way of drafting you and sending you to fight in Vietnam and you don't even know why the Democrats started sending US troops or why the Republicans want to keep doing it.)

[Ibrahim90]

It wasn't really hard to figure out what to say in the 60's: the problems were staring them in the face really. little wonder that they at least had an inkling as to what to say.

of course the modern protesters I feel are much more like chattel (yes, I said it). they feel something is wrong-much as a cow would-but not necessarily know why or how to necessarily get out of this mess-just to huddle together and run in one headless direction or other. and evidently, they lack any real coherent thinking as a group to actually come up with an effective solution (or the beginnings of it)-just like cattle.

this makes them actually a pretty dangerous group: if they are headless, and lack coherency, then they are easily swayed by any idiot or jagoff with a more immoral purpose. of course, it also means that they can easily be led to the right answer, though whether they could be prevailed upon to think independently and in a truly critical manner I seriously doubt.

[MrBogosity]

They kind of remind me of a flock of starlings in that regard. Of course, the starlings actually get somewhere; whether or not the Occupiers will remains to be seen.