Occupy Wall Street

Poll: 49% of Occupy Wall Street Protesters Think the Bank Bailouts Were Necessary

|

Some fascinating survey data from Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen:

On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Whole thing, along with a strong recommendation for professional Democrats to distance themselves from OWS, here. Reason on OWS here, including this classic Reason.tv report on the "pro-government protesters" of Occupy L.A.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

421 responses to “Poll: 49% of Occupy Wall Street Protesters Think the Bank Bailouts Were Necessary

  1. No way!!! Reason writers told us that the protests were filled with a multitude of view points, including libertarians. Unpossible!!

  2. Suspicions confirmed. Thanks for this.

    1. No shit and “almost 200” is damn near every sniveling crybaby antisemite/Nazi/Communist out there.

  3. Only 49%? Shit, I guess I have to take back some of what I said earlier.

    1. I just posted this link at Salon.com, and already two have responded to say that they agree that the bailouts were necessary.

  4. And – once again – we see the influence of Big Stupid?, a corollary of which is:

    “Never Underestimate the Power of Large Groups of Stupid People.”

    RC Dean, there may be an Iron Law in there somewhere…

    1. Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally.

    2. Actually, I think Tim Blair already has a law for this sort of thing.

      Something about the convergence of all the world’s idiots into one pullulating, whining mass of fluorescent stupidity.

  5. yet moar wingnutz LIES !

    the OWS’ers are not marxist, not unemployed, not diehard obama drones, not anarchists, not hippies, not…

    1. intelligent.

      1. when do the lies stop?…or is it agiprop designed to foamz n fundraize the wingnutz?…who remain too ignorant to detect the continual LIES.

        1. “when do the lies stop?”
          When you stop posting, your little Marxist friends go back to work, and the MSM stops giving this sideshow so much attention.

          1. the above article makes clear the OWS’ers are NOT marxists AND have [JOBZ]. poor radio entertainment

            1. opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

              How, exactly, does that make it clear that they are not Marxists?

              1. A private sector survives?

              2. It may not be clear to you, but there’s hundreds of thousands of people NOT occupying who are quietly sitting back and waiting. The polls and MSM have been spitting bias, constructed views for some time now, and that’s a fact jack. The movement is not about Money. So get it out of the convo. It’s about the world-wide bond against corporatism and government corruption. You fascist.

    2. Urine get the fuck off these discussions. You can’t construct a coherent thought, and you can’t even fucking type.

      1. roger doger colonel. over n out n stuff

  6. An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won’t vote.

    This is less surprising to me. The ‘quarter that won’t vote’ will come around during election time.

    And all of these people who now ‘disapprove’ of Barack Obama only disapprove because he hasn’t gone far enough. They’re mad because they didn’t get the full single-payer medical system they were expecting.

    1. You can see how the communists ended up killing people. Obama has been the most left wing President ever. But all of his policies have failed. The number one rule with these people is that the ideology is never wrong. So since Obama is failing, it must be his fault or the fault of saboteurs. It can never be that the ideology is wrong. As a result Obama is hated for being a sellout even though he gave them everything they wanted.

      1. My brother has a friend, a lawyer no less, who’s a “true believer” that socialism is the best way. It just hasn’t been tried yet, not really. The Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea…not genuine socialism, so they don’t count. I’ve asked him how he can ignore the entire history of the 20th century, but it’s as you say, John, the ideology is never wrong.

        1. “I’ve asked him how he can ignore the entire history of the 20th century”

          He does not know it.

          That’s been my point all along: These are people who cannot process even the most basic lessons of recent history.

          Wholesale social collapse is what happens when uneducated illiberal, and greedy people elect an uneducated, illiberal, and greedy affirmative action beneficiary in lieu of a chief executive.

          1. Reason socialism never worked in the countries mentioned is because they were not advanced industrial nations with major industry and resources as Marx intended. They were poor under the free market so stands to reason they would be poor as socialists.

            1. Oh, bullshit. When North and South Korea broke apart, South Korea was poorer than North Korea. Now South Korea is wealthy, and North Koreans periodically die in the millions from starvation.

              Hmmm, I wonder what caused that change in circumstances.

              Oh, and Miami versus Havana … lots of Cubans, the same climate, right next to each other — why is one prosperous and the other not?

              1. There’s been an American embargo in Cuba for forty years. North Korea has no trade partners either since the US refuses to deal with socialist nations. The true test would be allowing open trade with these countries.

                1. The true test would be allowing open trade with these countries.

                  You mean, like free trade?

                  1. Yes, free trade, that one unconscionable freedom according to the Communist Manifesto.

                2. What is socialist about open trade?

                  In a socialism, are individuals forced to participate in the socialist economy or forced to give up resources? If not, what distinguishes this from a free market?

                  1. Excess capital going to either few private hands or back to the public in some form.

                    1. So, pointing guns at people.

                      “few private hands”

                      And the right people in charge, rewarded for their wisdom.

                3. This may not be the most self-unaware comment ever, but it’s pretty damn close.

                4. The embargo is not the reason for Cubas desitution. Other nations do not have an embargo on Cuba. the US has no problems trading with socialist nations, we’ve imported over a million barrels of oil per day from them. In fact, the only thing keeping cuba hanging around is because the US won’t trade with them. The moment we do the Cuban communists lose their biggest antagonists and sole reason for maintaining power.

                  1. by them I refer to Venezula specifically.

                    1. “US has no problems trading with socialist nations, we’ve imported over a million barrels of oil per day from them”
                      “by them I refer to Venezula specifically”

                      And Canada.

                    2. Canada is hardly socialist.

                      While its welfare state is more extensive since the 1970s (it wasn’t before that) business regulation is less onerous for the most part than that in the USA.

                    3. Maybe so for the businesses that are not nationalized or price fixed by the government.

                5. There’s been an American embargo in Cuba for forty years. North Korea has no trade partners either since the US refuses to deal with socialist nations. The true test would be allowing open trade with these countries.

                  If you studied up on the Marxist rhetoric, you’d know that these nations were supposed to succeed in spite of any capitalist intervention or embargos. We were supposed to have hanged ourselves with the rope we sold ourselves decades ago.

                6. There is a whole lot of world besides the US capable of trading with the NK & Cuba.

                7. There’s been an American embargo in Cuba for forty years.

                  So? It’s an embargo, not a blockade–other nations are free to trade goods with Cuba to their heart’s content.

                8. the US refuses to deal with socialist nations

                  I guess those Made In China stickers all over everything I buy are an illusion?

              2. Strike that; 50 years. And south Korea benefited from American help and sweet trade deals. if there is no trade or industry and no mney generated then there is no money to redistribute through public works.

                1. Jack’s under the mistaken impression that America is the only country in the world to trade with.

                  South Korea major export markets (2009)–China (23.2%), U.S. (10.1%), Japan (5.8%), Hong Kong (5.3%), Singapore (3.6%). Major importers to South Korea (2009)–China (16.8%), Japan (15.3%), U.S. (9.0%), Saudi Arabia (6.1%), Australia (4.6%).

            2. Why didn’t socialim work in Russia, then?

            3. Inform yourself, Start with Robert Conquest’s work.

            4. @jack, were they to try capitalism first (in order to industrialize), they would have completely lost any support for the communist bullshit as the now-highly developed nations would recognize the value and abundance created by capitalism, and they’d only want more of it.

            5. jack|10.18.11 @ 2:00PM|#
              Reason socialism never worked in the countries mentioned is because they were not advanced industrial nations with major industry and resources as Marx intended.

              So, not enough booty to steal to make the racket pay off, then? Now I understand.

          2. Complete privatization over the economy creates a de facto fascism as moneyed interests then control public polcy. Do we not already see the malignant effects of the corporate/financial sector on American politics but your and Rand’s answer would be please give me more of that?

            1. “Complete privatization” means no government and hence no “public policy” — do you even think before you type?

              The problem is a lack of privatization and a lot of crony capitalists rent-seeking from a government that has seized way too much power.

              1. we would still be a nation of laws wouldnt we?

            2. i am jack’s raging bile duct

              *barf*

            3. No, public policy makers attract moneyed interests.

              1. no, moneyed interests buy public policy makers to make public policy that suits them hence the end of Glass Steagal(?).

                1. The problem is that public policy makers exist in the first place.

                2. They can only buy what the other is selling.

                3. no, moneyed interests buy public policy makers to make public policy that suits them hence the end of Glass Steagal(?).

                  Ahhh…the Glass-Steagall Act. The favored meme of the Left. Somehow this act caused all sorts of havoc on our nation, yet they never seem to be able to produce any evidence.

            4. Wrong. There is fundementally no difference between a facsit state and a socialist state. Nazi Germany, a socialist state, had no problem dealing with the Italians, a fascist state, because fundementally the ideologies were the same. Govermental control on the morality and livelihood of its people. The diatribes Hitler made about communists had nothing to do with their ideology and everything to do with the fact that Hitler saw them as nothing more than a tool to expand Russian influence. If you look at Germanys position in Europe and eastern Europes history with Russia you will see that Germanys’ move against Russia had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with realpolitiks.

            5. I just want to congratulate o2 for no longer being the dumbest commenter on this site.

              1. And that’s a difficult thing to do.

            6. Do we not already see the malignant effects of the corporate/financial sector on American politics

              This statement assumes that business offer bribes to the government rather than pay tribute. Both happen, but it’s an example of gullibility to cry about the one and pretend the other doesn’t happen.

      2. obama is a DLC guy & therefore centrist. or didnt wingnutz like john notice all the continued boosch policies…which did upset the true leftwingers

        1. What’s with this “wingnutz” meme you’ve got going here, o2?

          1. word-o-teh-daze

            word

          2. basically if you’re not sucking blue-team cock, you’re a wingnutz.

            1. word-o-teh-daze

              word

              ?

              I’ll just assume that was a spoofer, though I can’t tell half the time.

              1. Perhaps just dazed?

            2. nah, wingnutz actually believe radio entertainers.

              1. Can you provide an etymology?

              2. What the fuck did they do to you in the army, man?

                Christ, it must have been bad.

                I’m imagining some sort of Jacob’s Ladder scenario, but instead of rage pills you get retard pills.

                1. What the fuck did they do to you in the army, man?

                  Based on his gibberings, I believe it had something to do with “infiltrating the Cobra Command Center” alongside a couple guys called “Duke” and “Major Flint.”

        2. He continued all of Bush’s anti-terror policies, which pleased real left wingers because they love government power.

          Domestically, the raised baseline domestic spending by 50%, regulated the hell out of the banking industry, and nationalized much of the auto industry. And of course passed Obamacare, which I recall liberals crying with joy over.

          He is the most liberal President the country will ever have. And the people who will end up hating him most are liberals. That is because no one eats their own like liberals. The party is never wrong after all.

          1. Let’s be fair. He modified one anti-terrorist policy by having the New York Times broadcast everybody on the capture/kill list to the terrorist he is looking for.

          2. He has yet to open concentration camps, like FDR. Just give him time.

          3. He is the most liberal President the country will ever have.

            While FDR, it is claimed, was not an adherent to any ideology, his policies and rhetoric make Obama look like an amateur.

          4. He is the most liberal President the country will ever have.

            While FDR, it is claimed, was not an adherent to any ideology, his policies and rhetoric make Obama look like an amateur.

      3. Obama has NOT given them everything they wanted. Israel still exists, Jews still roam the streets. Corporations, partnerships and private business still operate, poets are not in charge of industry and we still have free elections. He has a LONG way yo go to please them.

        1. which neatly exposes moar wingnutz LIES that obama is a muslim socialist

        2. “we still have free elections”

          Hee, hee. I wish I’d written that one.

    2. The ‘quarter that won’t vote’ will come around during election time.

      Not necessarily. There are a significant number of people of all political bents that only vote when fired up. Obama did that in 2008, he wont in 2012.

      1. Yes, being fired up appears to be as significant as actually convincing people.

        Right now Republicans are still considerably more fired up about voting, according to polls.

    3. I voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for change. I voted for an end to the wars and bringing our troops home. I voted for closing Guantanamo Bay, ending illegal torture, and giving them due process. I voted for equal civil rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters. I voted for change and I got same s**t different day. I am now registered as a republican and I am voting for Ron Paul.

      1. Better late than never.

      2. Ever feel like you’ve been cheated?

      3. The key is either to not vote, or vote for a non-politician. If I feel like wasting my time on a Tuesday morning in November, I go in and write my own name. Or my dad’s. Or Ed Witten. Or The Jacket. It’s a good excuseto show up late to work.

      4. “I voted for change.”

        We could “change” the law to restore slavery and Jim Crow. Do you vote for that too, since you are for “change?”

        Are you still wondering how someone like Barack Obama managed to scrape into office? That happened only because some people actually mistake “change” for meaningful social policy.

        1. You would beat the prodigal son for being late to dinner wouldn’t you?

          1. +1 fatted calf.

      5. And I’ll bet Obama didn’t even send flowers.

      6. I like Ron Paul and will be voting for him, but I just want to warn you, he’s definitely not perfect, and quite frankly will probably be a rather shitty president.

        1. I think he’ll be an above average president simply because he will be able to resist the urge to “do something” every time something goes wrong in this country. He won’t be a “great” president because none of his ideas can get through Congress.

  7. What they are are a bunch of fucking idiots.

  8. Well since we’ve seen some photos of “End the Fed” and in support of Ron Paul, I’ll assume there are a few sane people there. But otherwise, this whole thing looks like a wash. Communism rears it’s ugly head in America in 2011. Who’dve thunk it.

    *sigh* Next in line please?

    1. Well since we’ve seen some photos of “End the Fed” and in support of Ron Paul, I’ll assume there are a few sane people there.

      Unlikely. From the Paul supporters I’ve come across, a decent percentage have no coherent political philosophy. They simply like some of the sound bites they hear from Paul and run with it.

      Even if you are against the Fed, the idea of protesting Wall Street and not the White House brings your intelligence into question.

      1. Uh, the main branch of the Federal Reserve Bank is on Wall Street.

        1. OK, technically it’s on liberty street. Ironically, it’s closer to Zuccoti Park.

    2. Bear in mind that his chief ally in going after the fed has been Bernie Sanders. “End the Fed” doesn’t necessarily mean “libertarian” or “Paul supporter”.

  9. You just can’t make up the level of stupid this group is mired in.

    1. Yes. Now tell us how you feel about the OWS gang.

    2. au contraire, reasonoids are all about making stuff up about OWS…which were proven false in the article

      1. For once, you’re correct. We thought that there might actually be a small grain of sanity and intelligence in OWS. Instead, we find that they range from confused to batshit crazy. You would fit right in.

        1. yep im a unemployed marxist hipster living-off daddy’s capitalist credit cards alright…or some-wingnutz-thing like that right?

          1. Not even remotely. Now who’s making stuff up?

  10. Holy shit, how do these people figure out how to breathe? This is weapons-grade stupid.

    1. They have been teaching weapons grade stupid in all of the colleges for what thirty years now? This is what that gives you.

    2. This has to be the least scary or even troubling street protest in decades.

      But this is the best part. Turns out, when mommy’s little angel goes to protest at Zucotti park with his $5k worth of techno-gear, for some reason the more realistic elements of the Big Apple stand up and take notice, and then proceed to rob these stupid trust fund babies for every penny they can.

      Thieves preying on fellow protesters
      It’s a den of thieves!

      Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops — and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

      “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

      “I had my Mac stolen — that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

      Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said.

      “The worst thing is there’s people sleeping in the kitchen when they come, and they don’t even know about it! There are some really smart and sneaky thieves here,” Terrie said.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

      1. In a few more days this all turns into Altamont.

        Or Jonestown.

        1. Maybe you should write back to MoveOn and suggest they hire the Hell’s Angels for security given all of the theft going on.

        2. Hippies being beaten by Hell’s Angels?

          1. Four words, MADE FOR TV ENTERTAINMENT

          2. That is ripe for some video, or at least a PhotoShopping.

          3. Hippies being beaten by Hell’s Angels?

            That is an unpossibility.

            Most Hell’s Angel’s members that are still living would fall over in a full on cardiac arrest if confronted with any sort of violence.

            Unlike stupid dirty hippies the Hell’s Angels have not had the long tail to bring in the next generation.

            1. That’s kind of why I was asking. Hell’s Angels are kind of like the old sicilian mob. They’re a fading force in the world of biker gangs. Fragmentation, globalism, the lack of high-paying manufacturing jobs, twitter, facebook have all lead to the fragmentation of our best and brightest scofflaws. There’s no dedication or loyalty with the youth these days.

              In one short generation the Italian Mob went from The Godfather to Jersey Shore.

              1. I can’t bring myself to lament the fall of a group of gang rapists.

                But I am funny that way.

                1. It’s a spontaneous thing I call Humor. Try it some time.

            2. How about the Mongols?

      2. Holy Shit, that made me LOL.

      3. Holy Shit, that made me LOL.

      4. I had my Mac stolen — that was like $5,500

        And they keep. Getting. Stupider. Oh my god.

        1. I call bullshit on that number. I just configured a 17″ MacBook Pro on Apple’s site, maxing out every option except warranties and accessories, and could only get it up to $4100.

          1. Well, maybe he brought a 12 core Mac Pro desktop to the protests?

          2. The desktops can easily get that high (Apple charges thick people shit tons of money for those SSDs), maybe it was a desktop set up in a tent?

          3. They payed full retail at the iShoppe, plus New York City sales tax. Probably.

          4. It just shows that this guy has no idea what his MacBook was worth because his parents bought it for him.

          5. Most likely explanation: Mommy and Daddy bought it for her, therefore she has no idea what it costs.

          6. That figure is either 1) the number she’ll claim when she commits insurance fraud; or 2) standard SWPL status-mongering. I’m thinking the latter.

      5. I said on the morning link thread that if I were a criminal in New York I would be down there. Target rich environment.

        1. Same here. Even more so, since the OWSers have no respect for property rights, my conscious would be clean during the pilfering.

          1. my conscious was clean

        2. If I were a marketing agency, I would have my enterprises be setting up booths and get some people on email lists for “drawings” and shit.

      6. “I had my Mac stolen — that was like $5,500.

        *spits out jack daniels all over monitor*

        How the fuck do unemployed “99 percenters” afford $5,500 dollars for a fucking computer?!!

        1. You can’t spend $5,000 on a Macbook, AFAIK. That’ll get you the absolute top of the line Mac Pro desktop. I suppose one could try to defraud an insurer for that amount, however.

          1. I’ll bet he bought a mac and installed a whole bunch of for pay software – hence the pricey tag.

            1. $2,500+ worth of software??? Doubtful.

              1. 99 cent iTunes downloads add up. I’ve had multiple friends freak out over losing multiple thousands of dollars of music and movies in hard drive crashes.

                1. Your friends sound like easy marks. They’re probably at the Wall Street Fest right now.

              2. Adobe CS5 Design Premium is approaching 2 grand. I can see where they’d have that type of software on their Macs.

            2. He’d still have the original disks unless it was download only, but there are ways of dealing with that.

              Or as mentioned below, it’s DRM’d iTunes which are irreplacable. Mac users and koolaid. They go so well together.

          2. I think it has more to do with the fact that these people have no idea how much anything costs, even their own stuff. Everything they own was paid for by their parents, after all.

            1. ^This, exactly this.

            2. I think it has more to do with the fact that these people have no idea how much anything costs

              Either that or they’re real, honest-to-goodness socialists and the price inputs have been obscured through government policy, leaving the costs of goods obscured to their five year plans.

          3. I was able to get on-line store up to $4100 for the big MacBook Pro by choosing all the upgrades including the half-terabyte SSD.

            $4850 by including every dongle they make and all the “care” plans available.

            You can break $5500 pretty easily if you include the separate monitor and a whopping big backup RAID, but why the hell would you bring that kind of stuff to a protest?!?

            For that kind of money I think I’d look at a Toughbook. Or get a cheaper laptop (even an Apple, since I like the interface) and take the Ball-n-Chain on a vacation.

            1. Anyone notice that this “Nan” person who lost the $5,500 Mac is part of the “kitchen and legal team”. I’m suspecting that OWS protesters are sticking to their roots by aggressively ignoring “division of labor” lessons.

              Let’s get the physicians spending half their time working in the fields, and the farmers spending half their time doing surgery. Why are so many people starving? Solution: Get every collective farm making steel.

          4. Payed the geniuses full retail, and the NYC sales tax.

        2. Why do you think they manage to rack up $150k in student loan debt for their MFA in Theatrical Writing? As much as their education costs, and as overpriced as it is, you’d be astonished how much of the money taken out in student loans is used for consumer purchases, from computers to cars to fancy meals. That is precisely why so many are so indebted, and precisely why they’re so vocal about student loan forgiveness (instead of free college per se), student loans were the consumer debt of choice (lower interest rate), but now they’re left with the tab and a useless degree (if they got one at all).

          1. you’d be astonished how much of the money taken out in student loans is used for consumer purchases, from computers to cars to fancy meals.

            Mmmno, no I wouldn’t be.

            It kind of amazes me how rapidly things changed from one generation to another. When I was of college age, we all drove beat up chevy Vegas and AMC pacers. A lot of college now drive later model cars than I do.

            1. ^ this. Fifteen year old Mustang, and when that went kaput, an eight year old Chrysler Le Baron which was way out of style by the early nineties. Gen X – we’re the last okay generation. We disdained our parents for their flaky boomer tripe, kept apolitical, laughed at the political correctness on campus and worked our way through college instead of sponging and protesting. Most of us majored in useful areas of inquiry, did not run up ridiculous levels of debt, and now we are trapped between two generations of conceit.

              1. I was born in 80 so i’m the very beginning of y (sometimes the tail end of x, depending on who you talk to). I was fortunate enough to get through my undergrad thanks to my dad’s savvy investments and his being really good at his job. Not so lucky when it came to grad school. But unlike the other conceited ass give me fuckers in my generation, I plan on paying back all the 80k I ended up spending (to be fair I had my fair share of consumer spending with some of that and it did get my wife and I through some tough times). My point is don’t write us all off.

                Of course if it wasn’t decided by the protectionist members of my profession that a master’s was necessary to practice what it is I’m really good at, my little anecdote wouldn’t exist.

          2. Not that astonished. A friend’s daughter used her student loan money to finance a trip to Vegas.

      7. It’s only just desserts that a bunch of people who favor theft-by-proxy find themselves victims of theft.

      8. they’re not stealing. They’re redistributing the wealth.

      9. I had my Mac stolen — that was like $5,500

        I dont buy Macs, but that cant possibly be right, just based on other laptop prices.

      10. This is the wrong type of theft, of course. The government needs to take stuff from rich people, rather than any of this free-lance theft from the smart people.

        1. Exactly. Theft needs to be well-regulated and democratic. We don’t want to leave theft to the free market and the corporations.

      11. Epic lulz. How does that wealth redistibution taste now?

      12. The looters are being looted.

      13. I’m wondering who in their right mind would think it a good idea to bring valuables to a protests? And furthermore this shows how incompetant leftists really are. They didn’t think of appointing guards over their money and food supplies? Did they not consider the possibility that there were going to be thieves amongst them? I mean incompetance to the extreme. Next thing you know they will be bitching that this is the police fault for not stopping the thieves from taking their food.

        1. Like others have said, their rich parents paid for all their shit so they are not thinking about how much it is worth.

          1. Worth is relative.

            Since the stuff all came from someone else, it ain’t worth much.

            Same with all the free shit they want from Nanny government. It ain’t worth enough for them to do something about it for themselves. No, they want someone else to do it.

      14. This was the best:

        “The worst thing is there’s people sleeping in the kitchen when they come, and they don’t even know about it! There are some really smart and sneaky thieves here,” Terrie said.

        LO fuckin’L. And these are the so-called “best and brightest,” who think they’re too smart to do menial labor like plumbing or carpentry.

        1. LO fuckin’L. And these are the so-called “best and brightest,” who think they’re too smart to do menial labor like plumbing or carpentry.

          That is a feature, not a bug!

    3. What the fuck did you expect?

      1. I don’t know. I knew they were stupid, but this is so fucking stupid that I can’t really comprehend it. How can you be that stupid and not be in a special ed program somewhere?

        1. I’m sure plenty of them are NYU and Columbia students, but there’s no need to be cruel.

          1. NYU is 50K a year. It offers some good degrees like nursing and dentistry. But it also has things like “the school of individualized studies” and “Liberal studies” and “social work”. Who the hell would pay 200+K to get a social work degree?

            1. Idiots and trust-funders. Not mutually exclusive categories, I know.

            2. I went to high school with one. He is a professor of social work now, at a Southern university with a great football program. He thinks he has to hide his Jewishness in the “deep south” to avoid problems and yet fully supports the Occupy types.

              1. What a conceited bastard. Have you told him that that drama is all in his head? I bet he wont venture five feet into a wooded area out of fear he’ll stumble on a clan rally. What a fool. I have nothing but contempt for him, and his ill mannered fears.

            3. I had a friend who worked for a well known (and very worthwhile) non profit agency that didn’t pay any of its employees over 30K per year (in a large city no less). Her husband made a lot of money so salary didn’t matter to her. She said most of her co workers had a high-earning spouse, were trust fund babies, or had rich parents who paid them a generous “allowance.” The rest just lived in poverty and scraped by.

        2. This is what New York deserves for putting a stop for the short bus next to Zucotti Park.

    4. Threadjack: Anyone here want to buy a slightly used mac notebook wiht a Che guevara sticker on it? I’ll give it to you for, like, $500 or some weed.

      1. Not me. No telling where it’s been.

        1. c’mon man. I won’t even delete the files. You could print them out and get a BA in comparative lit at almost any liberal arts school in the country wihtout having to do any work at all.

          1. Okay, $400, final offer.

            To be honest, there’s some malware on it. Every time I start up the browser, it goes to some site called “Daily Kos,” which appears to be the livejournal account for a special ed school. I can’t bear to delete it because those ‘tards appear to be trying really hard.

            1. Wellll, that’s more like it! (I just got new glasses, and I swear I read that malware as ‘analware’).

              I’ll meet you at Roosevelt and 47th at 9:30 tonight. Just ignore all my groupies and hangers-on.

      2. Only if it is this Che sticker at the bottom of the post.

  11. 2008:

    A new Gallup Poll, conducted March 24-27, shows that 6 in 10 Americans oppose the federal government taking steps to help prevent major Wall Street investment companies from failing.

    Maybe people are just way more for bailouts now, and the Occupiers “look like America.” But better. Certainly more libertarian! Because…uh…Twitter…and shit.

    Or maybe they’re just more-fascist-than-average Democrats.

    If only there were some sign, some tell, something that gives them away

  12. Moveon.org sent me some emails in the last couple days about how they’re joining with OWS to demand the forgiveness of all student loan debt.

    All of it. Without reference to “need”.

    That means that they think that if Warren Buffet has a student loan, it should be forgiven.

    I’m tellin’ ya, that’s where OWS will end up. This will be the issue they choose.

    To a certain extent, the decision to change the law to make student loan debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy had to end up here. Now instead of having a trickle of people evade their student loans through bankruptcy every year, we’re going to see ongoing agitation to write off the whole kit and kaboodle, even the performing loans.

    1. I agree. You could see the…primacy…of the student loan issue in a lot of the protesters. They were stupid, gained a lot of debt, realize now it was stupid, and want others to pay for their stupidity.

      Unsurprising, really. The question is: will they get it? Will this be the catalyst for the next bubble bursting; the education bubble?

      1. They were stupid, gained a lot of debt, realize now it was stupid, and want others to pay for their stupidity.

        That’s some wishful thinking there, Epi. More than likely, they are the typical college moron who believes that his/her liberal arts degree is above the archaic “market”.

      2. I hope so. I’d love to see that bubble burst before my kids go to college.

        1. Online ed. Long live Salman Khan. May he spit his dying breath at these parasites. Truly he is the better man.

    2. Yup. They should have made them at least partially discharged. OR certainly put in a decent hardship exception. Not everyone who can’t pay those loans back is a deadbeat or a moron who took out 150K in loans to get a hate studies degree. Bad things happen to people. You can get sick. You can totally fucked at your job and have it be a long time finding a new one. You can have your ex wife run off with all the credit cards and empty the bank account.

      Making them nondischargable like tax liens and intentional tort judgments was just wrong.

      1. I still don’t understand why these student loans were made nondischargable but the gigantic FM&FM; mortgage loans for McMansions that were written with zero credibility towards ability to pay are not.

        Is it because of State Universities wanting to keep up with the Private schools tuititions so they made all the loans nondischargable? I’m trying to find the root cause of this bubble.

        I guess the place to start is the government intervention in the market, period.

        1. Because making them nondischargable and guaranteed was the only way to get the big money flowing. If they were discharable, they would have looked at who was getting them.

          1. I see what you mean, but this wasn’t an obstacle to get the big money flowing through the FMFM loans.

            Of course, the reason for that was because FMFM ate all the bad loans. What is it, $200 billion worth now?

            In retrospect I suppose we should be happy that the students loans went this way and Sallie Mae never grew to the size of FMFM.

            Unless of course, President Not My Fault steps in and somehow pushes Sallie in to taking over the loans. Then they will get discharged, I would bet.

            1. The dischargeability was seen as acceptable with mortgages because they were backed by collateral that was (mistakingly) considered to be large enough to make most of the loss whole. Student loans have no collateral short of the career earnings of a college graduate (albeit considered mistakenly higher than actual in certain degrees). But since the student loan was based off of the assumption that your collateral was not physical but rather the lifelong potential earnings of a college graduate, it had to be made non-dischargeable in order to recapture the entire loan over the long haul.

              1. Credit card debt has no collateral, but it’s dischargeable.

                The default position in our law up until a few years ago was that ALL debt other than tax liens, including student loans, was dischargeable in bankruptcy. Whether there was collateral for the lender to pursue or not. If you made a loan without collateral and your debtor declared bankruptcy and you got nothing, that was just your punishment for being a dumbass.

                The problem with student loans is that the government started guaranteeing them. That meant the banks could just write as many student loans as they wanted and never had to worry whether or not they would be repaid. If the debtor bailed or declared bankruptcy, it wasn’t the lender’s problem – the federal government would write them a check to make them whole.

                Not unsurprisingly, a system where lenders didn’t have to worry about loans being repaid led to massive amounts of such debt being created. And then students realized that bankruptcy only stays on your credit for seven years, and really only severely impacts your ability to obtain new credit for two years – so many people saw that they could “fit” a tactical bankruptcy into their life plan right there in their early 20’s after they got out of school. So people were loading up on student debt, and then declaring bankruptcy when they graduated, and the lenders went right along with it because the lenders didn’t have to give a damn – the federal government was on the hook for it all.

                If the feds didn’t like paying off their guarantees on bad student loan debt, all they had to do was say, “Program cancelled. We’re done writing guarantees.” But they refused to do that. They just decided to brutalize debtors who couldn’t pay their student loans instead. And that makes a certain amount of sense, and I realize that there’s a subset of people here who think that bankruptcy shouldn’t exist and all debt contracts should be 100% permanent forever – but I think we’re seeing now the predictable result of such a policy, namely, radicalization of the indebted.

                1. Really well said. Copy/paste/save.

                2. Credit card debt has no collateral, but it’s dischargeable.

                  It still involves assets that can be seized in most cases.

                  Your argument may be correct for the story behind the story, but the sob story explanation given at the time was various excited newspaper articles about lawyers and doctors and MBAs graduating with tons of debt from fancy private schools, declaring bankruptcy, and then proceeding to have fabulous lives later with no debt. I.e., “gaming the system.”

                  There never were that many such people doing it, but it was the stated reason why.

              2. The dischargeability was seen as acceptable with mortgages because they were backed by collateral

                Yes, but I still think Tman’s point is more valid. Without collateral, if these loans are discharge-able that makes them riskier and the interest rate would rise to reflect that.

                Basically it’s buying the votes of academia to keep them pumping out left wing bullshit.

        2. Because you can’t foreclose on an education?

          Well, maybe we should allow bankruptcy for students that get a lobotomy, that would be fair.

          1. Because you can’t foreclose on an education?

            Exactly. There were a few scare stories of lawyers or doctors or MBA students graduating with a ton of debt, declaring bankruptcy immediately, then going on to make money with their degree that no one could take away from them.

            It wasn’t actually all that many people, but it and the threat of moral hazard was enough to scare Congress into action.

            1. ” . . . it and the threat of moral hazard was enough to scare Congress into action.”

              Yes, along with some well placed bribes, er, ah, campaign contributions.

              1. Well, the initial change was only on the “public option” of federal loans. It was then later than it was extended to private (gov’t backed) loans and then later still all private loans in the name of “fairness.”

        3. Basically, the student loan program started out as a “low-cost” way for the government to subsidize college education.

          “We won’t just hand out money for college. That would cost too much. What we’ll do is harness the private sector by backing student loan debt with a federal guarantee. That way, lenders will make lots of student loans even to kids with no credit or collateral!”

          The problem with that brilliant idea is that when kids started to default, the Feds had to actually fork over the money to pay for the guarantees they gave banks.

          “Holy shit! When you guarantee somebody else’s loan, you sometimes have to pay for it? Get the fuck out of here! Nobody told us that!”

          So then the Congress got tired of paying off the guarantees they had written deliberately and as a matter of policy, and rather than end the guarantee program, they got the bright idea to just make the debt nondischargeable.

          So now we have a government policy that instructs lenders to deliberately make loans without regard to credit, collateral or ability to repay – and then cuts the debtors to ribbons if they take that subsidized credit and then can’t pay.

          The other problem, of course, being that the presence of all that subsidized credit inflated the higher education bubble, so kids who might say, “Yikes, nondischargeable debt sounds pretty scary; maybe I shouldn’t do that!” are priced out of the market by the kids who take the money and roll the dice.

          It’s just the usual clusterfuck where a “cheap” program turns out to be not so cheap, and the government makes the problem even worse because it can’t admit it made a mistake and would rather tweak the program than kill it.

          1. My sister works at a local college. You are totally correct.

        4. I still don’t understand why these student loans were made nondischargable but the gigantic FM&FM; mortgage loans for McMansions that were written with zero credibility towards ability to pay are not.

          Apparently in the late 70s and early 80s, there was a rash of medical students who took out huge loans for school, then declared bankruptcy as soon as they graduated. With their debts wiped clean and on doctor salaries, it didn’t take them long to restore their credit. So Congress passed some laws in the late 70s and again in the mid-90s that limited, and then eliminated, this possibility only except in the most dire circumstances.

          Like a lot of government interventions in the late 20th-century, they had good intentions, but the inevitable happened because the federal loan backstops were never removed.

    3. There’s already a debt forgiveness program for student loans: the night shift at TGI Fridays.

      1. Well, prior to the creation of the student loan guarantee program, we already had a natural market limit on student loan debt creation:

        The fact that banks wouldn’t loan people money if they or their parents didn’t have collateral.

        That was the correct limit to have.

        I don’t think banks making student loans should be any more protected than banks issuing credit cards or making personal loans.

        When you decide that you want to try to defy the market limit on the extension of capital to people with no collateral, you deserve to lose. The Feds didn’t want to take the losses they so richly deserved, though, so we ended up with the situation we have now.

      2. Death.

    4. I enrolled in graduate school and got a deferment until 2018 on my 2% interest loan on my debt. I have no idea how Sallie Mae expects to make any money off of me and I can pay my entire loan balance tomorrow if I wanted to. The whole edifice has to crumble sooner or later.

      1. Sallie Mae will make money off you because the government is picking up a substantial part of the tab. You just don’t see that part.

        1. Where so? I’m admittedly ignorant about the details of the student loan game, so bear with me. As an example, let’s say that I owed $25k at the end of my 4 years in school, and consolidated my eight individual loans into a single fixed rate 2% loan payable over 15 years. 8 years later, and without applying for it, I received a deferment on the remaining $16k such that it won’t build any interest for another 7 years. Does the government cover the missed interest payments as I “attend school” for the next seven years, thereby keeping the loan performing as intended until I resume paying interest + principal? Or have they put up a subsidy on the outset to push the interest rate so low in the first place? Both? Neither?

          The terms of the loan itself are exactly as they would be if I were to be offered a 2% loan for 15 years from a bank and I haven’t received any financial aid aside from the academic scholarships offered from the college. So where is the government already wasting more of my money to pay off the loan?

        2. I don’t think that’s the case anymore–from what I understand, one of the provisions of Obamacare was that the government would take over the student loan racket from Sallie Mae, et al., except a non-profit would take the place of Sallie as the go-between for the money.

          http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2…..card-debt/

    5. They’re gonna have to give my shark a lot of bread to forgive my college debt. I never broke on the white lady, most of it disappeared on weekends.

  13. Soooooo, 49% are economically retarded? Is this news?

    1. News that it’s that low.

  14. And the 51% who do not think banks should be bailed out nonetheless demand personal bailouts to clear all debt they have amassed.

    Did anyone really fancy that these people were out for anything other than personal profit at others’ expense?

    1. poor radio comedy. a laughtrack would help

      1. I doubt it. It did not help Air America either.

  15. So on one hand, the bankers are evil capitalists who deserve to be run out of NYC. But on the other hand, capitalism would collapse if the banks hadn’t been bailed out.

    Seems to fit right into the observations that the protesters are mostly white middle class college kids. Gonna fight the corporations via their iphones.

    1. They probably used their Chase Visa card to buy the iPhone.

  16. Wonder how they’d do on the dihydrogen monoxide ban survey?

    1. It would get at least 90% support. Have to save mother earth from the evil corporations.

      1. Someone seriously needs to go down there and do that.

        1. Maybe try an End Women’s Suffrage petition while they’re at it…

          1. They’ve been suffraging mightily ever since men forced the franchise on them.

            1. on a roll today ProL

              1. It’s Monkey Tuesday–always inspirational.

    2. Ask them if politicians should have the power to ban books and movies and then ask them what they think of Citizens United.

    3. Somebody also should get an “End Womyns Suffrage” booth down there and get it filmed ASAP. Women have been suffering too damn long.

  17. This country is being destroyed, because the greedy bankers got rich through a system of socialized loses, and privatized gains. Oh yeah, and the government should forgive my student loan debt.

  18. What binds a large majority of the protesters together?regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education?is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

    1. And here I thought they were really libertarians in waiting…

  19. Thank you, OWS, for confirming my latest book, Demonic, and helping to spur sales.

  20. okay, let’s see how many FB friends (wait, I have some left?) I can piss off posting a link to this.

    Of course the OWS ‘movement’ is so uh, random and unformed that people tend to impress their own wishes and hopes on it.

    1. okay, let’s see how many FB friends (wait, I have some left?) I can piss off posting a link to this.

      It sounds like you’re playing the same game I’m playing.

      1. I gave up FB when they f’d up the format. A conversation only lasts a day now, where a debate could go on for weeks. Screw that.

        1. yeah, ever since the recent changes, my FB time has dropped like a rock. I only go on to post links to annoy.

          1. And where is the fun in that, when you can’t follow the screaming replies of the true believers?

    2. Reminds me of some event circa 2008 where people (mostly these same people) projected their own desires onto something random and unformed.

      1. *ding* and the man wins a ceegar.

  21. I’ll try again.

    What would these people say about the awesomeness of radical wealth redistribution if you posted one of those “Everything must go! Come and get it!” Craigslist ads with their address?

  22. I am so sick of hearing about these drooling idiots. I’m starting to fear my generation is going to be as stupidly partisan and defined by their “radical”, protesty past as the boomers are.

    1. No. It is worse than that. The boomers at least knew how to throw a good party. And they also went home. They had big marches that lasted for a few days or maybe a week or two. They didn’t just camp out aimlessly for months.

      1. It’s pretty scary to imagine that just as the boomers are starting to die off, fucking Millennials or whatever the hell people in their 20’s are supposed to be called, will be taking up the mantle of being all partisanly mobilized and Passionate About Issues they know nothing about and constantly reminding people about how they took to the streets and Did Something. Barf.

        1. History repeats itself as tragedy and then comedy. Kent State was a tragedy. This is comedy.

          What amazes me about my neighbors’ kids who are all about this age is how so many of them want to work for a “non profit”. Jesus don’t you want to make something with yourself? The only one who is different is the one going to pastry chef school.

          1. “What amazes me about my neighbors’ kids who are all about this age is how so many of them want to work for a “non profit”.

            So they are two-bit greedy corporate fucks who refuse to distribute profits, and demand to keep them all and gorge as long as they can?

            Fuck them and their corporate greed.

          2. You can make a lot of money working for a non-profit. We do a service for a non-profit that we get paid for, and then on top of that, under the laws of Panama, we have a joint venture with the non-profit that we split 49% of the profit from. Yeah, not-for-profits can make a profit on some businesses as long as they make no profit overall in the long run, and they can also pay their employees and contractors and vendors well.

          3. Oh, and if the non-profit’s expenditures are forms of consumption that benefit you, so much the better! Seriously, folks, don’t write off (heh) non-profits as a good career.

        2. Don’t worry, Dagny. I’m an X’er, and we had our fair share of this type of nitwit, too. The vast majority of them will grow up and discover the necessity of earning an income within a few years, leaving a few hardcore stragglers to Carry the Torch into middle age and beyond. The mainstreamed ones will still talk a good game when it comes to being statist fucks, but it won’t go any further than that.

          1. I thought X’ers were in their 30s and 40s now. These kids (myself included) are aughts, or millennials, or Generation Y.

        3. I think every generation has its idiots. Unforunately with advances in medicine and overprotective boomer parents, us millenials have to deal with more survivors.

      2. John,

        Shilling for big boomer are we?

        1. A little bit. For all of its problems, the 60s would have been more fun than this. This is just pathetic.

          1. tell me about it, less warning labels for one.

    2. I thought it was going to be funny to watch when my generation starts running things. But now that I see all this happening, I’m terrified.

      1. My generation (gen-X, bitches!) appears to be divided into three different camps. One is the idiots that think they can help make a change, one wants to curl up in a corner, and the third is waiting to watch the world burn.

        No points for guessing which group I’m in.

        1. I have a folding chair and a well stocked cooler already.

          1. And a walkman?

    3. You really want to feel depressed or get a laugh check this out:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJPKMvWDmY

      1. Jesus, there is so much fucking stoopid there.

      2. Damn. An entire generation baby talked from K through 12 by commie instructors has finally bore fruition.

        Watch the world burn, indeed.

  23. No shit. Their complaints aren’t that banks got to rob the taxpayer, but that they didn’t get a cut of the loot. You can understand how they think they deserve one, given that they voted for the party that supported the bailouts in Congress 3 to 1 and brought the votes to get the Wall-Street-backed candidate into office.

    Fuck these looters.

    1. If I catch someone taking graft and I don’t get my share, we line them up against the wall….

  24. Well with such a small sample to begin with, is it really all that surprising how skewed the results are? I will admit to be mildly surprised that such dedicated leftists can actually hold down some kind of job.

    I love the 1/3rd Democrat and 1/3 not affiliated with a party – what the hell is the last third?

      1. We also would have accepted Democratic Socialists.

        1. it’s all the same to me.

    1. whatever these libtoidz guess, it’ll be waay wrong…based on past false descriptions of the OWS’ers.

  25. Their rationale may be something to the effect of, the evil banks got in a lot of trouble that threatened to destroy the country, so the benevolent government has to step in this one time to make sure the banks don’t destroy the country, and going forward the wise government will keep a really really close eye on the banks to ensure this does not happen again.

    1. Sounds like a program I could get behind.

  26. Our system of wealth inequality has squeezed the middle class to the point where we now have TV’s and DVD players in our cars. In our cars!

    1. Yes, but the wealthy drive cars that are almost 5% more comfortable than your typical middle class car. That is a travesty that must end!

  27. I’m sure plenty of them are NYU and Columbia students, but there’s no need to be cruel.

    Don’t forget the New School.

    And, of course, it’s just a hop, skip, and a jump from Oberlin, in that new BMW X5.

    1. And just a short New York Thruway drive in your Subaru Forrester from Bard.

      1. Hey, no dissing the Forrester. They’re great in the snow here in the wastelands of Iowa.

        1. I didn’t say it was a bad vehicle. A quite good one actually. Just the marketing and some of the people who drive them are not so good.

          1. Just making sure there 😉

            I was somewhat shocked by the flood of “green” advertising that I started getting from Subaru after we bought the Forrester. I had 5 or 6 Subarus between ’85 and ’98 or so.

            Oh well. Marketing is always about finding and exploiting weaknesses in the public’s mentality.

            1. I got my first Subaru a couple years ago, a nice Legacy. After my brother saw it he started calling me a green hippy. And here I was thinking what a great idea it was to have an AWD car for the stupid New England winters.

              1. Modest size, compact, well-made, run-for-ever, good gas mileage, and ALL WHEEL DRIVE.

                As an engineer, I really appreciate these machines. And I do hate getting smeared with the “green” label.

    2. The rally in Victoria this weekend was all about the “evils of consumerism”.

      The denisity of laptops, iPods & other tech gear was only surpassed by the denisity of the protesters.

  28. I wish there were a link to the full results, instead of a handful of incomplete numbers. If anyone can find such a link, please post it.

    1. Full results are here:

      http://www.capitalnewyork.com/…..crats-who-

      Despite the source, the headline here is not unreasonable: “Doug Schoen Grossly Misrepresents His Own Poll Results To Smear Occupy Wall Street”
      http://thinkprogress.org/polit…..ll-street/

      …dave

  29. what the hell is the last third?

    Oompa loompas.

    1. Hey you leave them out of it. They are hard working tough little shits. They have jobs. Someone has to make the chocolate.

      1. oompa loompas do the job no one else would do, namely sing out every mishap into a lesson teaching lymric.

        1. Oompa
          Loompa
          Oompuddy Do,
          How’s Socialized Risk working out for you?

          What will you do when your economy’s a wreck, government spending further into debt?
          What will you do when the bill comes due,
          And there’s nobody left to bail-out you?

          Then you’ll see real panic start!

          You’ll need austerity to see you through, since you didn’t spend as frugally as the Oompa-Loompas frugally-do!

          1. Nice.

          2. Top notch work.

          3. Fuckers, I have a cramp from suppressing my laughter.

            Better than having to explain what I was laughing about at work.

          4. Put this on the back of a t-shirt. Oh, and write something for Friday Funnies.

            1. Hell, get some short people who can sing and don’t mind embarrassing themselves together and do a YouTube version.

          5. Great. And given that OWS types remind me a little of the victims kids, oddly appropriate.

  30. so many of them want to work for a “non profit”. Jesus don’t you want to make something with yourself?

    Don’t be so naive, john. Just because it says, “Non-Profit” on the door doesn’t mean you can’t make a hell of a packet of loot. Ask Mrs Dole.

    1. True. I have made a lot of dough working out of the private sector. But trust me, you don’t like what it does to your soul.

    2. Or Mrs Obama. “Vice President of Community Relations” my ass.

  31. “Dihydrogen Monoxide? That sounds like some new poison Monsanto came up with. We should definitely ban that.”

  32. I followed a bunny trail on this topic. First, Think Progress attacks the pollster.

    There’s a link in there to a survey by Time which shows 54% of people have a favorable view of OWS, but only 27% of people have a favorable view of the Tea Party.

    Of course, when you preface your question about OWS with:

    IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM.

    It’s not surprising people have a favorable view of them, when the question is framed that way. And it doesn’t even line up with the results of the poll of the participants, half of whom support the bailouts! Of course, there’s no correspondingly favorable explanation of the Tea Party movement in the Time survey.

    1. And I am sure the intro to the Tea Party question was

      BEGINNING IN 2009 IN REACTION TO THE HISTORIC ELECTION OF AMERICA’S FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT, AN OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE BUNCH OF EXTREMIST PROTESTERS BEGAN PROTESTING THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE POOR AND LESS FORTUNATE AND TO VENT THEIR RACIST ANGER OVER THE ELECTION OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

      1. John, that isn’t even an exaggeration. The other day this article ran on Jezebel (executive summary for those not masochistic enough to click through: Sean Penn said some intentionally inflammatory shit about how the Tea Party wants to lynch Obama) and produced a whole lot of “he’s right!” type comments.

        1. It is just insanity. At some point if you convince yourself that your political enemies mean to do real harm, is there any action against them you would not support?

        2. 98% of those Jezebel comments are terrifying. I find that Jezebel is really useful if I’m trying to formulate arguments against those types of people–they’re all so unabashed in expressing their idiocy because they’re surrounded by an incredibly undiverse groupthink in the commenting section over there, so it’s a good way to educate yourself about what certain types of people really think and the 10 or so ‘facts’ that they all use to defend or condemn diverse causes and ideologies. But perhaps that’s most commenting sections on news websites (a few sites not included, such as this one…).

    2. There’s a whiff of the manufactured about the whole OWS thing. Like ThinkProgress and MoveOn.org decided it was time for a Movement and… voila! And now they have to cover their bases and make sure the PR machine keeps running.

      1. Ehh, there are always groups running to pretend to lead things. I don’t think this is manufactured.

        1. My brain is just futilely trying to grasp the “why” of this. It seems too stupid to be real, but unfortunately few things are.

        2. Adbusters started it, but I doubt they knew it would go as far as it has. No doubt something like this has been building for awhile. All of the anti-capitalist fervor of the WTO protests and such is now quite awhile in the past, and this current generation of shiftless hippies needed something to call their own.

  33. Someone (Judge Napalitono?)played a clip where they asked one of the protestors, what specifically would you do to lower unemployment? And the kid said, well, I have a good answer, but I don’t have it right now (or words to that effect). WTF ? That sounds like someone raised on participation trophies, and everyones a winner self esteem nonsense. He couldn’t articulate an actual answer, but was confident that he had a good answer.

    1. “And the kid said, well, I have a good answer, but I don’t have it right now (or words to that effect).”

      Sounds like Barack Obama: He really doesn’t grasp that he has nothing of value to offer.

  34. Occupy Wall Street’s solution to crony capitalism is to get rid of the capitalism and keep the cronies.

    1. I’m stealing that, post haste.

    2. No, they just demand payment and crony status.

  35. What kind of “jobs” can the Zuccotti Park squatters possibly have that allows them to spend a month away from work sleeping, pissing, and shitting in a park? Most of them probably think that taking part in the protest counts as a job.

    1. obviously shift work. duh

    2. I’m thinking baristas at Starbucks.

  36. Interesting letter on Instapundit right now that explains why these kids are so dumb and incoherent.

    MORE: Reader Matthew Knecht writes:

    You tag this post with the line “Actually, lots of liberals used to be smart enough to see things like that coming. Now they’ve either gotten dumber, or complicit.”

    Speaking as a public school educator in Pennsylvania for most of the last 20 years, I say “both.” The savvy ones are complicit. Most are victims of the decaying public school system. We spent so much time for the last 30 years filling their heads with nonsense that there was no time to teach the important things, like how government and economics actually work. Real, time-tested knowledge about how human beings behave in real life (AKA history and philosophy), are rarely even referred to in public school curricula any longer except in the most superficial ways. We’re now into a second and even third generation of public school teachers raised on politically correct revisionism. They’re not engaging in deliberate social engineering any more; many if not most of the teachers actually believe that the fluff ideas they’ve been taught to promulgate are how the world really works? leading to whole generations of kids without a single clue as to how any human societies ? especially messy, complicated democratic ones that require a lot of personal responsibility ? actually function. It’s no wonder our political class has sunk to the current depths. Their map doesn’t match the territory.

    Bottom line: not dumb, just brainwashed, most of them. They were never taught any better, because they were taught by people who were never taught any better, who were taught by people who were deliberating trying to alter the American culture through the public school system. We’re rapidly approaching, if not already in, the educational Dark Age that Jerry Pournelle talks about: not only have we forgotten certain knowledge we had in the past, but we’ve forgotten (institutionally speaking) that we ever even knew that stuff. Because it’s not nice, and it doesn’t make us feel good to learn about it.

    1. As a father I view it to be my responsibility to help to deprogram my daughter, or help her resist the programming, when the time comes.

      1. My eight year old took an attitude when I warned that her teacher was going to lie to her about global warming.

        1. My only hope is to teach her to think and evaluate for herself, rather than to blindly accept.
          I will have to start by instilling in her a healthy distrust of authority, especially of government authority.

          1. Heh, the challenge of being the authority figure and trying to instill a distrust of authority. I figure my kids will pick it up through osmosis.

            1. I figured I could innoculate my kids in this way by acting as an authoritarian prick. So what happens?

              My 10 year old runs for class president and gets elected.

        2. I had to begin the enviro-education deconstruction with my 9-year-old son this past weekend when I was buying 75 watt incandescent light bulbs…

        3. Don’t confuse lying with incompetence. Ed school students are the most cognitively challenged of any university subset, and they really cannot think past whatever story might happen to be fashionable from day to day.

      2. “It’s never to early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a tax payer’s teet until they have sore, chapped nipples…I’m going to need a different metaphor to give this 9-year old.” -Ron Swanson

        More seriously, I’m either going to have to find a way for private school or be the the guy all the teachers hate.

    2. The scariest part of all is that this current generation of college graduates may well be the most self-confident generation of youth in our history, while at the same time being the most ill-prepared to deal with reality. They have all been taught to believe that they are brilliant and special and wonderful, yet they have been given an education that in many key ways is worse than what our parents and grandparents received.

      As you have correctly noted in the past, our horrible system has really done a number on these poor kids. Part of me feels sorry for them, because it largely isn’t their fault what has happened.

      1. “Part of me feels sorry for them, because it largely isn’t their fault what has happened.”

        I know what you mean, but when they demand the very policies that wreaked the devastation, I cannot feel anything for them excapt contempt.

        I adopt the old legal maxim: No damage can be done to those who consent. Maybe one day they will figure out what they did to themselves, but I will not be holding my breath on that insight.

      2. “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

    3. Sounds like the only solution is to get rid of everything in the schools except the three Rs. Whittle it down to the stuff that is actually useful. Defund the crap in public universities, if not make them depend entirely tuition-supported. Get rid of federally subsidized student loans.

      Curriculum reform won’t fix this, if Knecht is right.

      1. Sounds like the only solution is to get rid of everything in the tax funded schools

  37. Maybe something different could have been done but “let it all burn” only functions to titillate armchair anarchists. It’s unfortunate that everyone’s livelihood depends on the health of the financial services sector, but that was baked into the moral hazard cake. I’m guessing libertarians aren’t for any of the regulations that would be necessary to make it possible for large banks to fail without causing widespread collateral damage.

    1. Large banks would be a lot more careful with the funds of their investors and depositors if they knew that the taxpayer piggy bank was off-limits to them. Privatize both the gains and risks.

    2. It’s unfortunate that everyone’s livelihood depends on the health of the financial services sector, but that was baked into the moral hazard cake.

      Given the dollar amounts that were deployed, we could certainly have intervened in a less-morally-hazardous way.

      Since the Federal Reserve started directly writing commercial paper ANYWAY, the whole “we had to save the money center banks or the ‘real’ economy would have shut down” story is debunked right off the bat.

      If they were worried about contagion to the “real” banking system, instead of spending money on TARP we could simply have put the full faith and credit of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve behind the FDIC regardless of its nominal premium-funded cash levels, and then let the big banks go.

      That would have innoculated the “real” economy against a cascade of defaults, while (quite properly) utterly fucking the shareholders and bondholders and counterparties of insolvent banks.

      This would have cratered asset prices and the prices for certain financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities and led to price declines that were much greater than the declines we experienced anyway, but that would have been a good thing from the perspective of snapping back sharply from the recession.

      1. Kinda like avoiding drowning by plummeting all the way to the bottom and pushing back up hard, instead of sputtering and inhaling water before going under permanently.

        1. What reason do you guys have to believe such a quick snap-back was ever in the cards? After a housing bubble collapse?

          1. What reason do you guys have to believe such a quick snap-back was ever in the cards?

            Perhaps because they trusted the numbers that the White House team put out, about how a quick snap-back would happen if only the stimulus were passed?

    3. What necessary regulations?

      Let them fail. Let them go through bankruptcy. Allow capital to be reallocated, without political interference, so markets and the economy can function.

      You don’t need regulations for that. Just bankruptcy court.

    4. Re: Stoppid In Amerika,

      Maybe something different could have been done but “let it all burn” only functions to titillate armchair anarchists.

      Leftist schizophrenia:

      “We bailed out those crooks on Wall Street!”
      “We needed the bailouts to avoid another Great Depression!”
      “We bailed out those crooks on Wall Street!”
      “We needed the bailouts to avoid another Great Depression!”
      “We bailed out those crooks on Wall Street!”
      “We needed the bailouts to avoid another Great Depression!”
      “We….”

      1. It’s not my fault life is more complicated than your little brain can handle.

  38. Please publish your methodology, otherwise your “poll” really means nothing.

    –Pingry

    1. The methodology used was explained in the very first sentence of the excerpt printed here.

      You might be able to quibble with the claim in the second sentence as to whether this constitutes a true systematic random sample of OWS opinion. But Schoen is a long time professional pollster who knows what he’s doing, so I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  39. OT:

    Apparently Ron Paul is talking anti-Cain smack to the press today.

    Man, I have those two rumble at the debate tonight. To Paul Cain is a tax-raising Federal Reserve hack. It will be interesting to see if the other candidates pile on if Paul goes there (assuming he ever gets called on to speak that is).

    1. Yes, Paul said he doesn’t like attacking other candidates in debates, but then went ahead and said Cain’s plan is “dangerous”. Delightfully inflammatory, and I’d be shocked if his handlers didn’t script it that way and with this timing (release economic plan, attack Cain, go to debate) on purpose.

      1. “Duh, it’s because Paul’s racist.”
        – Max

        1. Well, he’s got to practice for the general election.

      2. In all seriousness, I wonder if Cain getting the nomination will be the straw that pushes Paul into an independent run, if that’s not already the plan.

        1. No. However, if Cain does get nominated, Paul intends to start a pizza chain to crush Godfather’s for good.

    1. Have Ph.D
      Finished 3 PostDocs
      Published 6 papers
      Will work for food

      I wonder what his degree is in? In my subfield only six papers after three postdocs and grad school would add up to totally unemployable on account of potential employers feeling that you might work well under close supervision or when cornered like a trapped rat, but certainly can’t be expected to get things done otherwise.

      1. “Published” also must be questioned. Published in peer-reviewed journals, or published on Blogger?

  40. If I was their employer, and they’re taking time off to participate in this horse shit, vacation time or not, they would not have jobs.

  41. One of the recent polls asked if people blamed Wall Street or Blamed Washington. The fact that lots of people picked “Washington” was cited as evidence that the thinking was shifting “right.” Of course, you can blame Washington for not doing enough to regulate Wall Street, so I don’t buy the argument. The TP and OWS are both made about the same situation, but their views of what caused it and what to do about it are much different. That said, if there could be a dialogue about the issue between the two sides you could, conceptually, come up with a plan that makes both sides happy on certain points. Potentially. But in the current political climate where disagreement is seen as “lack of intelligence” or “hidden agenda” it is doubtful this dialogue will ever happen.

    1. erhm…”both mad”

    2. I disagree, NM, but that’s because your hidden agenda lacks intelligence.

      More seriously, I think the conceptual bases of the TP and OWS are too far apart to forge any meaningful consensus. It comes to down to TP = .gov is problem and OWS = .gov is solution. So I don’t think you going to get much agreement.

      1. TP = .gov is problem and OWS = .gov is solution

        The thing is that “government is the problem” and “government is the solution” are both solved by changing the rules under which government operates. It is that common ground under which a discussion can happen, theoretically. What rules would reduce the chances of this situation repeating itself? You would end up with some reductions in government power and some restrictions on how corporations can act, I would guess. You could even end up with fewer regulations, but greater accountability in the system if the rules were written with the shared goals in mind. It seems. But, like I said, the political discourse will get in the way of this happening. Look at Dems and Reps, who mostly agree on what needs to be done…can’t even talk about the stuff they agree on because of the importance of “winning” and saving face in “who’s right” game.

        1. You could even end up with fewer regulations, but greater accountability in the system if the rules were written with the shared goals in mind. It seems. But, like I said, the political discourse will get in the way of this happening.

          Isn’t that just another way of saying “everything will work this time if we just get the right people in charge”?

          1. As opposed to what? Nobody in charge?

            It is not logically sound to say “look government failed at something, therefore government is bad (and we should have anarchy).” That is not a straw man, that is exactly what you’re saying.

            Unless you’re saying everything would be OK as long as we had the right people in charge and all they did was protect property entitlements.

            1. As opposed to what? Nobody in charge?

              yes. It is called freedom. And the fact that you find such a statement to be pejorative ought to cause you to do a lot of soul searching. Think about it Tony. Do you really think people need a slave master?

              1. “Do you really think people need a slave master?”

                You really do not get it: Yes, he does, because he himself needs one.

                Slave mentality is impenetrable to freemen.

            2. As opposed to what? Nobody in charge?

              You mean nobody in charge of the economy by law?

              Yup i think by sheer dumb luck (and a whole magazine and web site and 100s of commenters have been pounding in your head over and over again) you stumbled upon what libertarianism at least in large part is.

              1. What a stupid red herring.

          2. Isn’t that just another way of saying “everything will work this time if we just get the right people in charge”?

            I have talked about how many people conflate “government” with “government agents.” I said absolutely nothing about “who is in charge.” My comment was entirely about the rules under which government agents would operate…no matter who is in charge.

        2. Re: Neu Mejican,

          The thing is that “government is the problem” and “government is the solution” are both solved by changing the rules under which government operates. It is that common ground under which a discussion can happen, theoretically.

          You’re being too simplistic. For the TP, the problem is not government, is BIG government. For the OWS, the problem is that the bankers robbed the money that the poor needed to fight global warming by paying for green jobs that would’ve hired the people smoking pot on the OWS rally that worship Che Guevara.

          See now?

          1. Old Mexican,

            You’re being too simplistic. For the TP, the problem is not government, is BIG government.

            Now who is being too simplistic. The TP is about government being smaller in very specific ways, ignoring other aspects of government.

            For the OWS, the problem is that the bankers robbed the money that the poor needed to fight global warming by paying for green jobs that would’ve hired the people smoking pot on the OWS rally that worship Che Guevara.

            You should write comic books.

            1. They seem to be writing themselves.

            2. Re: neu Mejican,

              Now who is being too simplistic[…]You should write comic books.

              Now how is the one lacking a sense of humor???

              1. Now how is the one lacking a sense of humor???

                Not me…I always laugh at your posts.

        3. NM, you go from “changing the rules under which government operates” to “some reductions in government power and some restrictions on how corporations can act.”

          I’m not sure how new restriction on how corporations can act follows from changing the rules under which government operates.

          Doesn’t the government have pretty much total freedom, now, to restrict how corporations act? So, more restrictions on corporations don’t depend on changing the rules for govenrment, do they?

          1. RC,
            I’m not sure how new restriction on how corporations can act follows from changing the rules under which government operates.

            Changing the specifics of the rules changes how the government operates. The TP has lots of “constitutional” solutions that they propose. These change the rules under which government operates. Also true of more mundane rule changes. Government is a set of rules at its core. Change them and you change how it operates.

            Doesn’t the government have pretty much total freedom, now, to restrict how corporations act?

            Government agents don’t have freedom, they have power, and no, the government agents don’t have “total power.” The rules under which they operate may be broader than you like, but the are far from being such that government agents are unchecked.

            So, more restrictions on corporations don’t depend on changing the rules for government, do they?

            See above. Sure it does. Changing the rules involving corporations changes the government of corporations and how that government operates.

            1. Re: Neu Mejican,

              Government agents don’t have freedom, they have power[…]

              What is the difference, Neu?

              […] and no, the government agents don’t have “total power.”

              Well, they’re certainly no gods.

              The rules under which they operate may be broader than you like,

              Read: The rules are meaningless to them.

              but the are far from being such that government agents are unchecked.

              Indeed, they’re checked by just how much people are willing to put up with. Which is why the agents actively try to bamboozle people into believing they need the agents lest the world breaks appart at the seems, the sun stops shinning and children starve on the streets.

            2. NM, you are all over the place here.

              You slide from talking about changing the rules for government (presumably as an entity), to talking about what specific agents can do. It seems like you are the one conflating “government” with “government agents.”

              Then you slide from changing “the rules under which government operates” to “changing the rules involving corporations”. Government can change the rules involving corporations any time, now, and needs no change in the rules under which government operates to do so.

              So, if there was a point in there somewhere about common goals, I’ve totally lost in the shifting sands.

              1. You slide from talking about changing the rules for government (presumably as an entity),

                No. As a process.

                to talking about what specific agents can do.

                The process will limit the powers that agents have. Why are you confused.

                It seems like you are the one conflating “government” with “government agents.”

                Nope.

                Then you slide from changing “the rules under which government operates” to “changing the rules involving corporations”.

                The government of corporations is defined by a set of rules. Some will involve the corporations behaviors and some will involve the behaviors of the agents of government.

                Government can change the rules involving corporations any time, now, and needs no change in the rules under which government operates to do so.

                A change in the rules for corporate behavior is a change in the rules under which government agents operate. So…in the “shifting sands” we have one group wanting to write rules related to corporate behavior that limits their involvement in the political process. In the other group you have a desire to limit the involvement of government agents in corporate activity. Both are looking to change the rules. There might be enough common ground there to right rules that both sides can agree on.

                But not until people from both sides have the discussion with the GOAL of finding that common ground rather than “winning.”

                So, if there was a point in there somewhere about common goals, I’ve totally lost in the shifting sands.

          2. Doesn’t the government have pretty much total freedom, now, to restrict how corporations act?

            If they had total power they could have just shot the management of Gibson Guitar on the spot. The Gibson people likely being slightly above the income bracket and public notice where summary judgements of execution can just be made on the spot by government officials. Given the limits of their power, they were only able to harass them for allegedly not being in compliance with a very old law concerning the applicability of an importer nation’s laws on the manufacturer where that nation’s reps insist that Gibson did not break their laws.

            That hardly sounds like absolute power.

            1. Missing the point, Chris.

              I’m not talking about the current laws on the books.

              I’m talking about the lack of restrictions on the government putting whatever laws it wants on the books. And right now, those restrictions are pretty weak, meaning:

              You don’t have to change the rules under which government operates to impose new rules on how corporations operate.

              But, like everything else inspired by the Occupados, this is pretty pointless.

              1. I was really making a dig at NM’s response to that same quote:

                The rules under which they operate may be broader than you like,

                That kind of irked me. Broader than you or I like? How about anyone interested in maintaining a just order would like, NM?

                1. That kind of irked me. Broader than you or I like? How about anyone interested in maintaining a just order would like, NM?

                  “You” in the sentence would denote anyone who felt the laws are too broad. If you think that is synonymous with “anyone interested in maintaining a just order would like” I have no problem with that.

              2. Agree with you though. I could have quoted NM in the original and kept my response the same. It would have been much less obscure for whom and what my cynicism was aimed at. My apologies.

            2. Hadn’t heard about the Gibson thing.
              Sounds like a clear example of a rule that could be changed. Certainly the fact that the coverage of the raid I found first was from very, very left wing sites that were very critical of the actions of the government agents…it would be a good way to start the discussion towards finding common ground.

              You could say “Here is an example of how government regulations hurt ‘the 99%'” And then listen when that OWS gal talks about whatever she wants to talk about…which would probably be about rent-seeking and you’d be off.

    3. Of course, you can blame Washington for not doing enough to regulate Wall Street

      You can also blame Wall Street for falling for Washington’s Fanny and Freddy mortgage scam.

    4. But in the current political climate where disagreement is seen as “lack of intelligence” or “hidden agenda” it is doubtful this dialogue will ever happen.

      You mean the current climate where Obama and democrats are set in a little over the year to lose complete power?

      Leave the propaganda and the doublespeak to the professionals New Mex. Your transparent attempts to manipulate the subject of partisanship is too embarrassing to watch.

      Cringe worthy even.

      1. You mean the current climate where Obama and democrats are set in a little over the year to lose complete power?

        No. The climate whereby policy discussions take a back seat to the demonizing of the opposition.

        Leave the propaganda and the doublespeak to the professionals New Mex. Your transparent attempts to manipulate the subject of partisanship is too embarrassing to watch.

        Not sure what you are talking about. I don’t play on either team, so I am not sure who I am “propagandizing” for…The idea that partisanship has gotten in the way of constructive discourse is not “partisan” propaganda. Sure, you can use it that way by accusing “the other side” of it, but I am not doing that. I am saying “all sides” in the current political discourse focus too much on the “win the game” aspects of the discussion rather than “find the solution.”

        I, of course, have to say that you, Joshua Corning are among the worst in this regard among the regular H&R crowd (from the right). At least as much so as Joe or Tony is from the other side. So, I can see how you would view my accusation of “partisanship” as being an attack on “your team” simply by virtue of the fact that you view me as being part of “the other team.”

        While I ain’t part of your team, for sure… I ain’t part of “the other team” either.

        Cringe worthy even.

        1. The climate whereby policy discussions take a back seat to the demonizing of the opposition.

          It seems to me that we’ve had a lot of profound policy discussions in the current Congress. The problem is that there have been disagreements. I agree with you that President Obama has slipped into demonizing Republicans on occasion, but for the most part it has been simple differences of opinion.

          You’re committing some sort of logical error when you leap from the idea that there have been strong disagreements to the idea that there hasn’t been policy discussion.

          I think that there’s actually been more policy discussion than during most of the time when Congress was “getting things done” in a bipartisan but intellectually vacuous way.

          1. John Thacker,

            I agree with you that President Obama has slipped into demonizing Republicans on occasion, but for the most part it has been simple differences of opinion.

            He has more than occasionally. And the other side has replied in kind.

            You’re committing some sort of logical error when you leap from the idea that there have been strong disagreements to the idea that there hasn’t been policy discussion.

            I didn’t say they don’t occur, I said they take a back seat. It is a different point.

  42. a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

    What’s the problem with these folks supporting the bank bailouts? They certainly don’t have anything to do with free-market capitalism, they were support for radical [upward] redistribution of wealth, and they featured some intense regulation of the [nominally] private sector.

  43. I hate to say “I told you so…”

    Who the fuck am I kidding? I fucking love saying it. It’s the only political satisifaction libertarians get.

    I told you so.

    1. That was directed at Neu.

      1. Does it lower the satisfaction level for you that I don’t recall you telling me anything worth remembering?

        Some context, perhaps?

        1. Aww, I’m hurt (and the answer is no, most people forget when they’re wrong).

          Here you go:

          https://reason.com/blog/2011/10…..tcontainer

          Coeus|10.13.11 @ 5:31PM|#
          Not completely, not perfectly, but non-trivially. When you look at proposals from BOTH sides,they are about changing the RULES, not who implements them.

          You’re fundamentally missing the point. The solution isn’t to change the rules of the game, it’s to end the game. We’ve been putting rule patches on fiat currency since it’s inception, and this is where it got us. More of the same isn’t gonna cut it. And therein lies the rub.

          These people, with very few exceptions, aren’t willing to sacrifice the power government wields with fiat currency. They just want to redirect it. But there are players already in the game, with far more power, intelligence an influence than they will ever wield. You cannot jump into a game and win when the other players can change the rules at will.

          Most of them will never accept this. That is why they will ultimately be tools for the regime instead of reformers. Allying with them is pointless.

          1. “Ending the game” is equivalent to “changing the rules,” so I am not sure “I told you so” applies. As for the topic, when you talk about the TP, generally, the “end fiat currency” discussion is not what they are talking about. So, again, “I told you so” doesn’t apply as it is off-topic.

            I think you are conflating my assessment of the positions be espoused by both sides with a personal proposal for what needs to happen.

            1. “Ending the game” is equivalent to “changing the rules,” so I am not sure “I told you so” applies.

              No his “I told you so” does apply here. Changing the rules means tweaking policy here and there, slapping band aids on the gaping wounds of “unintended” consequences.

              Ending the game means no more distortions, no more “nudging” or guiding the masses or whatever the latest buzzword for coercion and control is.

              Let freedom ring.

            2. “Ending the game” is equivalent to “changing the rules,” so I am not sure “I told you so” applies. As for the topic, when you talk about the TP, generally, the “end fiat currency” discussion is not what they are talking about.

              It is not equivalent in the slightest. I’m going to need a cite about the magority of the tea party not supporting ending the fed and fiat currency. As John Stewart said (common it was funny), Ron Paul is Tea Party patient zero. I went to one of the first events in Houston and I saw that the majority of the handouts and signs proposed just that. So yes, it does apply. These people have the world outlook I predicted, which makes them incompatible with the Tea Party, as evinced by this poll. So yes, I told you so.

  44. Occupy Seattle protestor is a public masturbator:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local…..224403.php

    1. Aren’t they all?

    2. Don’t hate!!

      Diogenes happens to be a hero of mine.

      His imitators should not be flogged for their self flogging.

  45. Excellent work, our minions. The research shows that a majority of the OWS supporters do not support the bank bailouts, but you focused on the minority who DO and then said that a movement where a majority don’t support statist bailouts should be avoided because a minority DO support them!

    Excellent propaganda work for us. Keep up the good work and we might invite you to the first Romney/Cain campaign dinner. Just don’t… ummm… touch us. OK?

  46. ask your own reason mag writer katherine mangu-ward whether she thinks saving the banks were necessary. since in her recent reason clip appearance she said and i quote, ‘it’s still unclear what caused the financial crisis’, i suspect her answer to be yes.

  47. I for one am pleaslantly surprised that a slim majority of theses flesh pierced, tattoo-bearing idiots can at least be against government waste when it directly and obviouslty benefits the actual monocle wearing bad guys they claim to be against.

    Thats better than I thought it’d be really.

  48. Re: Stoppid In Amerika,

    Maybe something different could have been done but “let it all burn” only functions to titillate armchair anarchists.

    Leftist schizophrenia:

    “We bailed out those crooks on Wall Street!”
    “We needed the bailouts to avoid another Great Depression!”
    “We bailed out those crooks on Wall Street!”
    “We needed the bailouts to avoid another Great Depression!”
    “We bailed out those crooks on Wall Street!”
    “We needed the bailouts to avoid another Great Depression!”
    “We….”

    1. You bail them out to save the world economy. Then you take all of the bailout money back in the form of taxes. Don’t you get it Mexican?

    2. Why is the bankrupting of all of Wall Street through heavy taxation to pay for free health care, free college tuition etc. not cause a great depression yet letting a few bad operators go bankrupt would have caused a great depression?

  49. “protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.”
    And keep American products from being sold overseas. I’ve always wondered what protectionists have against people in 3rd world countries. Maybe they’re RACIST!

  50. “Moveon.org sent me some emails in the last couple days about how they’re joining with OWS to demand the forgiveness of all student loan debt.

    All of it. Without reference to “need”.”

    I have though about this and you know, the total student debt figures I have seen are $500 billion. I forget from where, but recall it was a reliable source like the WSJ or something. That’s less than wat was spent on TARP and would have likely better stimulated the economy.

    1. That’s less than wat was spent on TARP and would have likely better stimulated the economy.

      Agreed. So where were they when the money was spent?

  51. Do you know what happens when Capitalism gets fucked up? The Communists come back. They come out of the bushes. Don’t kid yourself, they’re waitin’ in there.

    But maybe that’s not so bad. Because you know what happens when the Commies take over? The first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers!

  52. Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. ~ Rene Descartes

  53. Incoherent right winger tries to make sense of the incoherent OWSers with smarm and cutie pie phrasing.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-c-w-cooke

    I have seen this tone of voice before with the right, especially Gnational Review articles, but I have no idea to whom it is suppose to appeal. It has none of the elitist charm of say a P J P’Roark or even the founder.

    1. I’m sitting here trying to figure out if your horrible misspellings are intentional “smarm and cutie pie phrasing,” and, even if they are, if that’s supposed to be intentionally ironic combined with your first sentence or unintentionally so.

      1. The only one that got by me was the unintentional extra ‘p’ in P. J. O’Rourke. Otherwise, intended (obviously. Ass.).

  54. This is good sort-of-news and bad news. The good sort-of-news is the reaffirmation that the far “left” has been extremely marginalized, that free enterprise as a general rule is overwhelmingly supported, leaving these malcontents on the fringe where even the farther-“left” party is well advised to leave them, and probably will.

    The bad news is that the only alternative to the Establishment on the horizon is this leftist fringe. That is, for the time being the best we can hope for is to keep things as they are. Fortunately that looks likely to happen (see 1st para.).

  55. This is good sort-of-news and bad news. The good sort-of-news is the reaffirmation that the far “left” has been extremely marginalized, that free enterprise as a general rule is overwhelmingly supported, leaving these malcontents on the fringe where even the farther-“left” party is well advised to leave them, and probably will.

    The bad news is that the only alternative to the Establishment on the horizon is this leftist fringe. That is, for the time being the best we can hope for is to keep things as they are. Fortunately that looks likely to happen (see 1st para.).

    1. I swear, Groucho stole that joke from me.

  56. I like that protester’s sign on the clip’s thumbnail “Unemployed why arnt you here”.

    Two reasons
    1. I can spell.
    2. I’m looking for a job, not expecting someone to just give me the one I’m “owed”.

  57. Not to sound cynical, but how can we verify that most of them are acutally “employed”? We can take their word on the baiouts and civil disobedience because they actions speak louder.

    I’m supposed to believe that 80% plus of them are at least working part time, and yet they’re forming by thousands in business hours? Surely They’re not ALL teachers and union members?

    And after participating in protests and sleeping in makeshift tent villages, they can seamlessly blend into the workforce with nary an objection from their employers?

    1. What objection did you expect?

  58. We’ve already seen video on how some “polling firm” selectively grabbed people who support ultra-left to “interview” in a “round table” discussion for the specific purpose of discrediting this protest. Nice try, bud, but you’re too late. We’re on to you. We ARE the 99% and we don’t support any partisan ideology. Partisanship is for the good old boys club and the 1% are the only demographic partisan politics serves. You, as the gatekeeper of the 1% are attempting to use your media influence to pander to oppressors who need lackeys like you to keep the rest of us down.

    1. Snowflake, just like my teachers told me!

      You can’t keep me down! Nothing can keep me down! Haters.

    2. Your 99% is sympathetic to the fringe 10-15% of your movement who calls for bloody revolution and other unpleasant call for action. And with this kind of left leaning protests, you only need a few knuckleheads to incite minor riots and strike up impromptu bonfires on the streets.

      I see little difference between OWS and the typical protests that consume the streets when political / economic summits hit the town. The same level of “it’s not fair the rich are so rich” class warfare discontent, and a penchant for “civil disobedience” to spread your own message. The focus on WS grabbed media attention, but it’s the same song and dance.

      You can’t stop ANYONE from co opting the movement, and in most cases you will welcome them. If a radical minority picks fight with police and use antisemitic rhetoric, who chastises them? Which leaders? Oragnizers? The Boston “occupiers” weren’t able to distinguish or stop anarchists from spitting on soldiers and venturing beyond their allotted space.

    3. “Nice try, bud, but you’re too late. We’re on to you. We ARE the 99% and we don’t support any partisan ideology. Partisanship is for the good old boys club and the 1% are the only demographic partisan politics serves. You, as the gatekeeper of the 1% are attempting to use your media influence to pander to oppressors who need lackeys like you to keep the rest of us down.”

      HEIL! HEIL! HEIL!

  59. OK. I want to see some more violence. I want to see a white shirt take a $5,000.00 mac from a hippy fuck and beat the shit of him with it.

  60. Violence is posting this post about 200 people, possibly not randomly selected (let’s look for young people who look like they have money), which you put as representatives of the Occupy Wall Street movement which consists of tens of thousands of people. You are a hate mongerer.

  61. Is it any wonder that people say they are against free markets and capitalism, when our current corporatist system is called free market by those who advocate it? People will be against privilege, maybe it is time to stat promoting real free markets as opposed to our current collusion version.

  62. Well if you go around and pick out 200 out of 1,000 people that look like they might be weird or have violent tendencies, these sort of results are bound to come about.

  63. What…all 500 of them?

  64. How could they possibly know this? I don’t believe this poll. I haven’t spoken to any Occupy people in support of the bailouts. It is the number one reason why they are protesting.

  65. Andrew Gelman exposes Doug Schoen for the liar that he is:

    http://andrewgelman.com/2011/1…..-just-lie/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.