Adam Carolla on the 1% (and occupy this and that) NSFW Lang.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Let's keep the blame right where it needs to be - on the cultural and social forces that lead people to believe they DESERVE a new house, new car, nice clothes, expensive toys without EARNING them.

Here here!!

As someone from this rag tag group (meaning that generation), I can honestly say that I watched in disgust as the events unfolded that led us to this point. Everything you listed happened over, and over, and over again. Hell, its STILL happening!

Its like the same damn people that go out and buy an H2 hummer for commuting to work (on perfectly paved roads) then b**** about gas prices. f*** em. f*** em all.

[Encryptshun]

Argh I hate being the guy who always feels compelled to take umbrage with things, but the housing boom was largely caused by marketing the American Dream to people who previously had not been able to get a toe-hold in it. "Flipping" for profit is a business venture and that's where lots of folks got sold down the river. I heard the sales pitch myself on more occasions that I can count. "Buy now, we'll lock you into an interest-only plan with a low ARM. By the time it's ready to adjust, you can sell this property and roll the difference into a new house at on more conservative plan. You end up with a better house than you could have afforded and you make money in the process. But why stop there? Buy a couple properties for spec and flip those too! Everybody's doing it! Real estate has appreciated at a rate of 6% per year for the last 20 years, there's no end in sight!"

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who could only rent before. Everywhere you looked all signs were pointing to this boom having no end. Cable channels had entire formats based on flipping: "Curb Appeal", "Flip This House" etc.

I'm not absolving the consumers of their blame. I'm just saying that it's not all their fault, either. There were flat-out deceptive business practices and overt collusion going on between the mortgage industry and the realtors - that's been proven. The people who got stuck holding the bag, unfortunately, were either those who were too greedy to get out when the time was right or were too gullible to realize that something that's too good to be true probably is. And they had help with that bit. Lots of help.

It's easy to point at people and say "it was their fault, they were dumb". Consumer responsibility is a skillset that I'd like to see more of, for sure. But when you are sitting on an island surrounded by liquid and everyone around you keeps saying "Go ahead, it's water, everyone says it's water, jump in and swim, I'm swimming myself RIGHT NOW", it's not only fools who are going to be taken in.

[AZhitman]

^ Okay, I accept my (and thank you for making it gentle) trip to the woodshed on that one, though methinks the owner of the Polination site might be just a wee bit biased. In the spirit of judging the message and not the messenger, though, touche.

No woodshed involved, brother - Just a different side of the same sucky story. No disagreement here on the bias - but sometimes you gotta set a fire to fight fire.

[AZhitman]

It's easy to point at people and say "it was their fault, they were dumb". Consumer responsibility is a skillset that I'd like to see more of, for sure. But when you are sitting on an island surrounded by liquid and everyone around you keeps saying "Go ahead, it's water, everyone says it's water, jump in and swim, I'm swimming myself RIGHT NOW", it's not only fools who are going to be taken in.

Love it.

Let's also not forget the push (during the Clinton Administration), modeled after the old "chicken in every pot", promises of home ownership as a "right" for all Americans... The gradual pressure on lending institutions to *ease up* on requirements (proof of income, residency length, background, credit, etc)...

Banks that refused to lend to people they saw as "high risk" felt the heat being turned up as well (it wasn't ALL about profits). IIRC, there were more than a few civil actions brought by organizations under the guise of the Fair Housing Act against lenders. Hell, the NAACP organized a boycott right here in the 602 against a large lender for its "unfair practices" (which involved actually requiring borrowers to actually prove income sources - for shame!)

So, we can't *just* blame "greedy fat cats". There's blame enough to go around: From stupid consumers (even those who really wanna go swimming), greedy investors, attorneys eager to pad their books by holding lenders hostage, political ignorance in pandering to the "entitlement mentality", and clueless lenders who failed to see the potential for disaster.

[Encryptshun]

No argument there whatsoever. The pendulum swings both ways, for sure.

[headhunt3r]

Here's a pretty well rebuttal to the Adam Corolla rant:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Ny9l57aRU[/youtube]

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Has anyone seen this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLa6c3h ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]

[headhunt3r]

Has anyone seen this?

Ya, I saw this yesterday, it's pretty good.

Although, when he does talk about the school part, and how government shouldn't guarantee loans so schools will slash prices, I don't really think that'd work. By his same logic, if the schools cut their prices, they'll most likely have to lower their pay to professors and staff. If that were to happen, wouldn't the profs want to switch careers to a full-fledge research lab rather than spend time teaching a bunch of kids?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

eh, yes and no. Most teacher's I've ever met like teaching due to the job, not the pay.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, so forgive me if it has:

Everywhere I look I see 20-something parents with little education or experience and a lot of kids.

YOU LIVE IN UTAH.

[IBCoupe]

Let's also not forget the push (during the Clinton Administration), modeled after the old "chicken in every pot", promises of home ownership as a "right" for all Americans... The gradual pressure on lending institutions to *ease up* on requirements (proof of income, residency length, background, credit, etc)...

That pressure's been pretty well in place since at least Nixon. Blame Clinton, sure, but singling out that Administration when it was in a long line of administrations that promoted home-ownership is pretty politicky of you, Greg. The American Dream was a bipartisan endeavor.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

(Not directed as a reply to anyone or anything):
So I guess I'm living the American dream then?

But I don't have a chicken in my pot... why? Cos I live alone and I don't need an entire chicken in a pot.

See what I did there? Restriction. 'Murika needs to learn that.

[headhunt3r]

eh, yes and no. Most teacher's I've ever met like teaching due to the job, not the pay.

Yes and no as well. Going through university you can definitely tell which profs are in it for the research, and which actually give a crap about their students.

Either way, at the end of the day, those profs will have families to feed and kids to supply for. It doesn't end the need for attractive salaries.

[IBCoupe]

You might be. I don't know what the American Dream is, and I'm certainly not the guy to ask. I maintain two apartments in two states. This year, my wife and I will be filing a joint federal return, but we live and work in separate states, so our filings will get a lot more complicated after that. I own two cars, and almost only one car payment. I work full time, and so does my wife. I go to school as close to full-time as I'm allowed, too. And even though we have a combined six-digit gross income in our mid-twenties, there never seems to be enough money to do the things we'd like, together.

To be honest, I don't think I'll ever live the American Dream, because I think it's just a stupid catchphrase.

[bigbadberry3]

eh, yes and no. Most teacher's I've ever met like teaching due to the job, not the pay.

Word.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwbUCI9bEvA[/youtube]

somehow, I feel that applies. Its what you make of it I guess.

[IBCoupe]

Ya like to see ****s naked?

[Jesda]

If I was three months pregnant, I would not attend such a protest.

















I would also wonder how I got pregnant.

[AZhitman]

That pressure's been pretty well in place since at least Nixon. Blame Clinton, sure, but singling out that Administration when it was in a long line of administrations that promoted home-ownership is pretty politicky of you, Greg. The American Dream was a bipartisan endeavor.

I'm not so sure.

I'll concur that it's unfair to dump it all in WJC's lap, of course, but it seems to me it was more of a left-leaning concept.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contenti ... bid=900157

(then, of course, I've gotta run across *this* turd of a speech...)
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. ... 617-2.html

Maybe you're right.

BTW, you need a nickname. Isaac is just too damn formal.

[Jesda]

The only consistent modern conservative position W held was his vocal opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
The rest of his policies were all over the place, especially on defense and economic issues (just like Barry).
W's own peers in congress (at least in the 90s) were opposed to foreign intervention and entanglements.

So we can probably agree that bad policy goes beyond ideology.

(Not directed as a reply to anyone or anything):
So I guess I'm living the American dream then?

But I don't have a chicken in my pot... why? Cos I live alone and I don't need an entire chicken in a pot.

See what I did there? Restriction. 'Murika needs to learn that.

^^The truth is sometimes best expressed in the simplest way.

The American Dream is an idealized view of a peaceful middle class life where everything is plentiful and scarcity is hardly a concern. I refer specifically to scarcity in terms of compromise -- time, money, and energy are all limited, and those who apply their limited resources most astutely will gain the most in the end.

For example:
Buying a smaller home than one can afford while setting money aside for savings and retirement.
Committing time and money to a proper education, which eats into time for pleasure, relationships, and children.


Americans want everything right now, with zero compromise, because that's what's been sold to us by Reagan, Clinton, GWB, BHO, and the media. It makes for great campaign speeches, but reality comes up short.

[AZhitman]

So we can probably agree that bad policy goes beyond ideology.

No "probably". Definitely.

We're looking at a lot of it in our local state government.

[IBCoupe]

I'll agree that it seems like a more lefty thing, but that's because Conservatives took a hard right turn under Reagan. They used to say:

"DON'T SPEND THAT MONEY! Ah, crap, you're gonna. Now you better pay for it with the proper taxes."

Now it's, "BOOGA BOOGA MONEY CUT TAXES" That attitude shift didn't happen under Reagan, though. It most clearly evolved under Gingrich.

http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearch ... /FG176.php

[AZhitman]

UPDATE:

Lest anyone be fooled, this movement has devolved into a b***-fest reminiscent of a couple ugly teenagers who didn't get invited to prom:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy ... ?hpt=hp_t2

From the "Occupy" website:

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities"

Wait, wut?

I can't take all day to dismantle that crock of horsecrap, but suffice it to say that it'd be a word-by-word pummeling.

Attention, Lowest Common Denominators, party of too-damn-many, your table is ready.

EDIT: By the way, the Union isn't even supporting these imbeciles.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy ... ?hpt=hp_t1

They're whining because they can't figure out how to protest without violating municipal codes against camping in public parks, so they disrupt Average Joe's workday and interfere with other working-class people and the ability to do their jobs... Brilliant.

There's simply not enough pepper spray to drive out stupidity.

Come to AZ and get between me and my office door. We'll see how good your taxpayer-funded healthcare works.

[AZhitman]

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, so forgive me if it has:

Everywhere I look I see 20-something parents with little education or experience and a lot of kids.

YOU LIVE IN UTAH.

Regional-stereotype-based dis' duly noted.

[IBCoupe]

UPDATE:

Lest anyone be fooled, this movement has devolved into a b***-fest reminiscent of a couple ugly teenagers who didn't get invited to prom:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy ... ?hpt=hp_t2

You tell 'em, Greg!

From the "Occupy" website:

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities"

Wait, wut?

I can't take all day to dismantle that crock of horsecrap, but suffice it to say that it'd be a word-by-word pummeling.

Attention, Lowest Common Denominators, party of too-damn-many, your table is ready.

I don't know what that means.

EDIT: By the way, the Union isn't even supporting these imbeciles.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy ... ?hpt=hp_t1

There's two unions. The longshoremen don't support them. The teamsters do.

They're whining because they can't figure out how to protest without violating municipal codes against camping in public parks, so they disrupt Average Joe's workday and interfere with other working-class people and the ability to do their jobs... Brilliant.

Because god forbid you actually make your protest effective.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Because god forbid you actually make your protest effective.

That is a dangerous statement, and a dangerous state of mind.

[skydragoness]

I have to disagree with you.
Although, yes some crazies have jumped on board, the majority have stayed on track. Proof can be seen in Occupy's next move...

Occupy Congress

IMHO, the people at OWS should have just gone to D.C. in the first place. Now that would be interesting.

[AZhitman]

Pretty chart. Great use of color to show me something I already knew.

I wouldn't employ a bunch of video-game playing, self-absorbed, entitled, spoiled, poorly-educated US youth either.

There's a LOT of jobs for the 16-19 demographic, they won't do them. Want to know how I know? Because we have NO problem employing illegals, who actually WILL do the work. (I also have 4 teenagers...)

From the "Occupy" website:

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities"

I don't know what that means.

Me neither. That was my point.

Because god forbid you actually make your protest effective.

God forbid you actually have a point to your protest, besides uninformed, loosely-constructed prattle about "The Man" and general malaise about having to actually work for a living. Not one of those whiners would take a minimum-wage job, so I could care less about them. Maybe the Longshoremen could shove 'em all off the end of the pier so they can get some work done. Occupy Underwater.

So, a protester has to break the law to get their message heard?

[Jesda]

Because god forbid you actually make your protest effective.

God forbid indeed.

The organizers took a highly focused movement and turned it (perhaps unintentionally) into a left-wing mashup with fringe groups latching on for attention, just like The Tea Party. And just like The Tea Party, the anti-corruption libertarians were squeezed out by folks with traditional ideological agendas.

A protest has to have a specific target with explicit goals in order to be effective. What began as "occupy wall street, fight corruption" followed with "free tuition", "lets hold hands", "capitalism blows"


You can't sell a message through crowded mediums like TV and the internet if the message is a 200-page tome filled with everyone's wants, needs, and whimsies. Take it from someone who has done campaign training.

Keep it brief. Keep it simple.

[AZhitman]

From the "Occupy" website:

"We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities"

OK, let's look at this steaming pile of hippie poo (it's no wonder these poor bastards can't get jobs, their message is incoherent and tangential)...

We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action - Good. Except a "day of action" needs more advance notice - but good on ya' for taking a crack at it. Carry on, you're off to a great start...

...boycott and march - Wait, what are you boycotting? And are you marching, or Occupying? Because if you march too far, you're not really Occupying the spot you originally planned to Occupy. Plus, what if someone shows up late? I mean, you guys didn't get where you are in life by getting up at the crack of dawn, right? Just tryin' to help...

...for full legalization - Of what? Marijuana? Sleeping in the park? Legalization of all illegal immigrants (I don't see many of those in the Occupy pictures, btw). What do we want "legalized"? Be clear, kids.

...and good jobs for all - Yeah, that'd be great. Let me know how you define a "good job". I think it's probably something like "video game tester" or "independently wealthy snowboarder" or maybe "Abercrombie & Fitch model". Some folks neither want, nor deserve, a "good job". Hell, I'd like to have one, mine sucks. Maybe I'll go Occupy something - Oh, wait, I have to work. Dammit.

...to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth - Because God forbid any wealth be concentrated among the people who actually EARNED it... I suppose I'm a criminal too, since I've amassed a little bit of savings for my future... STFU and move to Poland, lazy-a$$es.

...that depends on local and global exploitation of working people - Wow, where to start. So, no wealth is created unless someone's exploited? Really? Tell you what: You agree to pay $225 for a pair of Levi's, and we'll make sure everyone who makes Levi's makes $60K a year. Plus benefits. Deal? By the way, the non-English-speaking gentlemen who built my pool, my patio addition, and who clean my yard don't consider themselves "exploited". In fact, they sing while they work, and they're some pretty awesome people... I enjoyed getting to know them. Go whine about exploitation in Taiwan or Indonesia. We have Federal programs designed to prevent "exploitation" - feel free to report any such instances to the appropriate authorities (oh, wait - you wouldn't see it if you're not at work, and you don't trust authorities - bummer.)

...and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits - Tell that to the Longshoremen and the Teamsters, as you get in their way. You know, those guys who are organized? Hell, they could teach you knuckleheads a thing or two about "organizing", because you suck at it. Someone's gotta pump out the sewers and move heavy things, hippie-boy. You might not think those aren't "decent working conditions", but the guys who do it are proud and tough. Not everyone gets to be Hugh Hefner. Stop being stupid.

...in disregard for the environment - ...says the guy who just pooped in a park and left a bunch of garbage behind for the taxpayers to clean up. Morons. By the way, I hope you all WALKED to your Occupy destination, because otherwise you're wasting fossil fuels. Oh, and all those delays you're creating at the ports? Yeah, their timetables are designed to maximize efficiency - you just wasted a lot of fuel and created more unnecessary pollution. Now, STFU and pick up your discarded Rockstar cans and Occupy leaflets - better yet, go take them to a recycling center and make some money (that is, unless you're too lazy).

...and the health and safety of surrounding communities - Again, says the guy who just pooped in a park and left a bunch of garbage behind for the taxpayers to clean up. Snarling traffic and disrupting the normal pace of business impacts the health and safety of the community as well... so does scuffling with the police, who were sent in to make sure you imbeciles behave (lots of drug and alcohol arrests at the Occupy sites, imagine that). So, I don't think any of you are real invested in the "health and safety of the community". If you were, you'd organize to plant trees, clean up garbage, take a sick person to their doctor's appointment, help a disabled vet mow his yard, pick up broken glass on the project playground... "Whoa. That sounds like hard work, dude. I'd rather chill in the park and wait for the pigs to show up and harass us." Yeah. That's what I thought.

Did I leave anything out?