"How much does your fucking sweater cost?!"

Yeah, cuz no one makes more money than a bank clerk!

Awww Damn, fucking Blabby beat me to the exact thing I was gonna say.

#OccupyPortland: 1 step forward, three steps back

STOP THE WAR ON THE WORKING CLASS, LET THEM GET TO WORK BY NOT BLOCKING THE BRIDGES!

THIS IS WHAT A DEPOSIT SLIP LOOKS LIKE

You know, we keep hearing the 'banks got bailed out, we got sold out' line, but what of the auto industry that got bailed out too?
I recall Ford didn't take any money, though it was offered, but GM did (who else?).
These bailouts, that the Tea Party has long critisized, were supported by 2 Presidents, Republican and Democrat, and it is said that perhaps these bailouts help avert another Great Depression.
I'm all for tightening up some rules on Wall Street and Banking, but I often think this 'occupy' has a very simplistic view of things.

@ Frankieb

Didn't GM pay it all back though? Ahead of schedule as I recall.

B of A paid it back too.

The sweater cost $45. Eat a dick.

re: "How much does your fucking sweater cost?!"

THIS IS WHAT A $59 CASHMERE SWEATER FROM KOHL'S THAT'S BEEN DISCOUNTED 40% LOOKS LIKE!

"Stop funding prisons"? Really, that's the best they could come up with?

"Why are you expensive-sweater-wearing one-percenters telling the cops to murder our puppies?"

The TARP bailouts are but a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of tax-payer backed fiat dollars the private Federal Reserve secretly lent to foreign banks and institutions with no collateral. The Fed only disclosed the names of banks after it was forced to do so through a court order.

Interesting to note, Arab Banking Corp, 29% owned by the Libyan central bank at the time, received 73 different loans.

In totally un-related news US debt hit 15 trill today.

"Come join us!"? Really? What if those people need the money? Not all of us can afford to not have a job. I'm still confused as to how many of the Occupy folks make a living, considering they spend their days "protesting"

@JMO - I don't think I could ever get excited about any protest. They seem to be about emotions, not about actually making things better. I'm sure okay with the idea of making changes - let's get some on the table and vote for them. But just spewing raw emotion everywhere is a waste of time. I've got work to do! Call me when you're all cried out and ready to DO something again.

@occupiedmind - I'm curious: how do you make a living, considering how you spend your days commenting on Blogtown?

Man, it's crazy how people can think they can get away with working just 40 hours a week when they should be working all 168 hours.

@JMO If the Occupy Portland protest is truly filled with employed folks that are burning their sick days or vacation days in honor of the cause, then I tip my hat to them. It doesn't look that way, and I'm sure I'm not the only person interpreting what I see this way, which is a detriment to your cause if its purpose is to sway folks into action.

@guspasho - a. apparently I do what you do ; ), b. this protest was during banking hours if employees were present, so unless all these protesters work their 40 hours a week outside of this time frame it gives the impression that they do not have "typical" jobs, thus the quandary as to what they do for a living

The occupy movement is made up of an incredibly diverse community from labor unions (yeah, people who work 40 hrs a week!), to the elderly, and yes the occasional dirty hippie. I'm a student trying to find a way to pay for college in what seems like an insurmountable sea of obstacles. I would work 40 hours a week but lack the experience to get a job with those kinds of hours, so instead I spend my time volunteering, studying, and protesting. Yes, protesting is about emotions, it's raw and you could question the effectiveness of it. But if I recall, the Civil Rights Movement was not won by educated people, who knew the graveness of their situation, who knew the depravity of their leaders, and still chose to take a back seat. It was won by courageous individuals who instigated change by displaying RAW EMOTION and discontent with the unfair circumstances they were being subjected to. I can completely understand peoples frustration with the movement, it's repetitive message, and the inconvenience of having your commute blocked by a bunch of riled up people who you feel don't represent you. But if we continue to divide ourselves it gets us no where. Meanwhile, massive multi-national corporations infiltrate our government and poison our democracy while engendering astronomical domestic debt and ruin world markets through transfer mispricing and offshore accounts. OWS is not the perfect movement by any means, but at least it is opening up a discussion that was otherwise untouchable.

The Civil Rights movement had leaders to rally around and goals to achieve. Educated leaders at that. It wasn't the result of raw emotion, but clear headed thinking and strategy.
'multi-national corps. infiltrating our government'
??
Seriously, explain that.
The discussion about bailouts has been brought up by the tea-baggers long ago, etc.... there has been discussion for quite some time if you were paying attention to it.
You are correct about dividing people gets you nowhere. So, make your points through downtown rallies, etc, without holding up a bunch of people trying to get to or from work, and so on.

The civil rights movement also was around for longer than two months, giving time for these leaders to emerge. And I agree that the goals of this particular movement are sporadic and inconsistent at best. But people are speaking freely and standing up against the corruption that has encircled the globe. It's a start.
Seriously explain what?

Dick Cheyney-CEO of Haliburton-VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
George Bush-Arbusto Energy-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

That's a minuscule example but if you google "Politicians with ties to corporations", I guarantee you you'll find a more accurate figure and if not, try reading a book. That's not to mention the billions and billions spent by corporations every year on lobbyists who attack or bribe congress to pass policy that benefits their business agenda at the expense of the lower class or the environment. If that's really not enough for you, then take a look at US planned and funded operations in Latin America during the Cold War in which Popular Leaders were violently removed or assassinated for expropriating land being used by US corporations (Dole, United Fruit, Chevron, etc) and distributing it to the people it belonged to, the population of the nation! After this, dictators that complied with the US (business interests) were instated and promptly redistributed the freed land to American Corps and violently subverted populations.