• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Adam Carolla: OWS Movement "Self-entitled monsters"

Didn't the democrats vote against the civil rights bill? just sayin....
Ah...see...you just dont understand. The democrats WERE the majority oppressors of minorities until about the mid 60's when through a stunning media coup, the parties completely switched polarity. Robert Byrd, KKK leader became Robert Byrd...swell guy and champion of the oppressed. Dont you think that message just SINGS when you are buying votes?
 
Yes, they should, as long as the government has had no roll in their failure.

So that's the condition you put on the bail-outs? They're okay given to firms that failed because government didn't properly regulate them?

So, if a company went under during the recession, because business slowed down, because people weren't spending, because consumer confidence went down, because the markets were down, because, in part, of something the Gov did or didn't do...???

Do you see where I'm going?

With your conditional bail-out approval, anyone hurt is entitled. Joe lost his job at the butchers because they had to lay some staff off because fewer customers were buying quality meat, because consumer confidence was low, because the markets were tanking, because Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac gave mortgages to people who couldn't pay and AIG insured that paper...

Shouldn't Joe get unemployment benefits? And why do we put a limit on Joe's unemployment benefits, but allowed executives to receive bonuses equal to 100 times what Joe gets. The people running BofA when they were sitting on a ton of bad mortgages got their bonus compensation, as did the CEO of GM, Rick Wangoneer for running a company that built cars no one wanted and lost $38 billion in 2007 under his watch.

The GM pension plan at the time of the bail out allowed executives to retire at 60 with full benefits. So those running the failing company get full benefits, yet the far-right outrage is at the public sector workers making $40k year or less.
 
The GM pension plan at the time of the bail out allowed executives to retire at 60 with full benefits. So those running the failing company get full benefits, yet the far-right outrage is at the public sector workers making $40k year or less.

I got the thrust of the initial part of your post. Yes, the line of bailout/no bailout is grey in the suppositions.

The above section is somewhat ambiguous. Comparing pensions of private companies versus public sector workers is not legitimate. The bailouts that protected the ‘executives pensions’ also protected auto workers union pensions. It is not that we on the right are outraged by public sector workers income or pensions but rather the sustainability of them especially considering the current plight of those low/middle income non-public workers.
 
First, I do not support the principal of bailouts but given the specific situation I have not come up with a more plausible idea. Allowing the financial system to fail does not seem to be ‘moving forward’. The auto industry is a whole different issue. Too often many fail to realize that the ‘bailouts’ were significantly paid back, with interest, hence not affecting tax payers much. Self-centered monster? Maybe but that judgment is a personal opinion on one’s character and not specifically helpful in solving the problem.



True, the GOP did take the House back but since Congress is divided, not in 2008, we are back into gridlock which is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, we did bail them out and they paid the majority of it back. The BTCs cut taxes on ALL brackets what logic is it to raise only one portion of payers? The growth during the Clinton years was built on the dotcom bubble as he admitted in the 2009 GDI forum. Clinton also pontificated on the basis of growth in the ‘00’s being housing, personal and public debt the three of which are not sustainable and highly volatile, which I agree with. We can raise taxes now but on what basis? What is the basis of our economic growth now? Green energy?...Really?



Why just the 1% untouchable? Why not either the 100% untouchable or 100% touchable?


Again, the funds were mostly paid back with interest.


I personally don’t demonize the OWS protestors wholly only the few that hold extreme positions and participate extreme actions. I wish they had a better message in HOW they plan to execute their demands legitimately.


All good points.

But, for the record, Citicorp was the only bank the tax-payers made any profit on. The banks were able to pay back so fast because the fed manipulated an entire industry.

What's more, government agencies and the Federal Reserve rushed to the assistance of the banking sector by guaranteeing banks' debt, intervening in capital markets, and slashing interest rates to zero. In essence, the government altered the banking environment so that it would be astonishingly easy for the banks to profit and thus earn their way out of trouble. As a result, critics said, the banks were being spared many difficult and painful decisions. All carrots and no stick.


After TARP, the banks borrowed money at a below market Fed window rate, then were sold 2-year Government bonds at a higher rate.

The Federal Reserve Bank loaned funds to major Wall Street banks at rates of between 0.10 percent and 0.25 percent and at the same time banks were encouraged to purchase U.S. Treasury bills. Two-year Treasury bills the federal government was selling were fetching more than one percent interest. The deal — borrowing at a discounted rate from one agency of the federal government and taking loans earning interest at a higher rate from another agency of government — amounted to a cash transfer from the federal government to the big banks that Bloomberg estimated netted the banks some $13 billion in profit.
 
I got the thrust of the initial part of your post. Yes, the line of bailout/no bailout is grey in the suppositions.

The above section is somewhat ambiguous. Comparing pensions of private companies versus public sector workers is not legitimate. The bailouts that protected the ‘executives pensions’ also protected auto workers union pensions. It is not that we on the right are outraged by public sector workers income or pensions but rather the sustainability of them especially considering the current plight of those low/middle income non-public workers.

But, at the time of the bailout, GM temporarily became the public sector. We owned them.

The people that ran the company, not the factory workers, were highly compensated for failure. I believe the UAW did later on negotiate for a large sum of back pay.

The businessmen all over the country who lost their dealerships and were stuck with cars no one wanted; they laid off their employees. Some of whom had mortgages. It comes full circle.
 
But, for the record, Citicorp was the only bank the tax-payers made any profit on. The banks were able to pay back so fast because the fed manipulated an entire industry.

This is false. TARP made money on all the major financial institutions with the exception of AIG.
 
It's hard to blame Carolla or anyone else who are taking an opportunity to trash the idea behind the OWS movement. It's most public face is in fact kids that ought to be out trying to earn a living rather than talking about raising taxes on those that earn or get the most money in our society.

Unfortunately OWS's public face isn't the average guy who has, in fact, gone out and worked hard and chose a profession that has been downsized, outsourced or outright eliminated, and can't react to the changes in the market fast enough to find work doing something else.

And no matter what any defending of the 1% may say, earnings of the 1% have SKYROCKETED in the past few decades while earning of the 99% have stagnated at best. The 1% have all of the leverage to determine how much they get paid and the 99%, due to weakening of unions and an overall pro-corporate/anti-employee culture, have virtually none. It's hard for me to keep a straight face when someone suggests that the people on the lower rungs of the social ladder just need to climb higher. This profound disparity in wages is shameful and immoral.

All that still doesn't address the people Corolla is talking about which make up a large percentage of the people in the OWS movement. Most of the people you are talking about aren't at the OWS protests. They are probably out looking for another job, taking care of their families or just sitting around riding the movement from the safety of their couches. The entitlement crowd Corolla is talking about are just glomming on to the economic situation to try and get what they can out of it.
 
But, for the record, Citicorp was the only bank the tax-payers made any profit on. The banks were able to pay back so fast because the fed manipulated an entire industry.

Yes, the banks were able to pay back fast partially due to FED manipulation but Citi was not the only bank.to include just a couple more of the several who returned profit.

After collecting repayments, dividends and proceeds from warrant sales, the government earned a 14 percent return on the $10 billion it gave Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a 13 percent return on the $10 billion that went to Morgan Stanley. Both firms are based in New York

Bank Bailout Returns 8.2% Beating Treasury Yields - Bloomberg

After TARP, the banks borrowed money at a below market Fed window rate, then were sold 2-year Government bonds at a higher rate.

True, but the FED is a quasi-government entity thus their actions are not directly regulated by the government. To be sure the FED needs to be abolished but TARP is not the reason.
 
All that still doesn't address the people Corolla is talking about which make up a large percentage of the people in the OWS movement. Most of the people you are talking about aren't at the OWS protests. They are probably out looking for another job, taking care of their families or just sitting around riding the movement from the safety of their couches. The entitlement crowd Corolla is talking about are just glomming on to the economic situation to try and get what they can out of it.

The entitlement crowd Corolla is talking about is partially made up. The OWS protestors are actually quite diverse. Sure, there are traditional granola hippie types, and a small contingent of leftist anarchists, but you will also find laid off software engineers, would-be accountants, out of work bartenders and construction workers, and pretty much anyone else you can think of. The problem is, these people don't draw viewers for the 24 hour news networks, so they tend not to show up on camera all that much.
 
The people that ran the company, not the factory workers, were highly compensated for failure. I believe the UAW did later on negotiate for a large sum of back pay.

The businessmen all over the country who lost their dealerships and were stuck with cars no one wanted; they laid off their employees. Some of whom had mortgages. It comes full circle.

My desire is to conclude this side discussion as I believe it has no relevance to the OP...thx
 
And I care what Adam Carolla says because of what now?
 
It's hard to blame Carolla or anyone else who are taking an opportunity to trash the idea behind the OWS movement. It's most public face is in fact kids that ought to be out trying to earn a living rather than talking about raising taxes on those that earn or get the most money in our society.

Unfortunately OWS's public face isn't the average guy who has, in fact, gone out and worked hard and chose a profession that has been downsized, outsourced or outright eliminated, and can't react to the changes in the market fast enough to find work doing something else.

And no matter what any defending of the 1% may say, earnings of the 1% have SKYROCKETED in the past few decades while earning of the 99% have stagnated at best. The 1% have all of the leverage to determine how much they get paid and the 99%, due to weakening of unions and an overall pro-corporate/anti-employee culture, have virtually none. It's hard for me to keep a straight face when someone suggests that the people on the lower rungs of the social ladder just need to climb higher. This profound disparity in wages is shameful and immoral.

You took the words right out of my mouth! You get major props for this post because as a Conservative, it must not have been easy for you to speak on this matter objectively. So many take the position that participants of this movement are just a bunch of lazy bums walking around with their hand held out screaming and yelling about things they know nothing about. Based on the images we see on our TV's, I can understand how many people get this impression. But it's really not like that with many of the Occupiers.

As I've said time and again concerning the Occupy Movement, it's not just about a bunch of wiley-eyed college kids putting up peace symbols and looking for government handouts. Unfortunately, that's pretty much how the movement has been portrayed. It's sad really because there are alot of people who support the movement but aren't doing things in a disruptive manner. But the grandeur of violence and/or civil unrest is what makes news not the quite protestors who are able to articulate their message and are working within the law. You don't see those people making the 10 o'clock headlines. Take Monique's story, for example, an African American female living in Minneapolis, MN. From what I gathered from her video testimony, she wasn't even part of the Occupy Movement initially, but when her home went into foreclosure, she turned to the movement for help. Since there is no video of their march on her home, I can't tell you what how things have gone on since the video was posted. There's no follow-up footage to say what happened during or after her home was occupied or if it ever was, but the point is her message.

She wants to work. She wants to continue being responsible for her family. She's just asking for alot more cooperation from the bank which seemed to be following a very similar pattern of losing paperwork or selling mortgages which in turn forces homeowners seeking to modify their mortgages to start the paperwork process all over again. (Note: I listened to Sara's story, too, but since Monique's was more compelling as a family tragedy and she did seek the movement for assistance, I found her story to be more appropriate to the thread.)

It's real easy for much of America to look at this movement through the storylines and images placed on our televisions, but until you attend a rally or general assembly meeting or review online streaming videos that don't just show the protesters clashing with police or some ignorant young adult or homeless person who has no idea what the movement is about - they're just there saying or doing whatever - it's easy to paint the movement in a very broad brush. But then you see videos like Monique's and you're reminded what's truly at stake - family, personal pride, dignity, a sense of belonging, a sense of being able to make do on your own. Many people are struggling just as this woman is. I find it deeply troubling that her story has been co-opted by the stories of civil unrest we're starting to see more frequently about the movement, and it's really unfair to those who are truly trying to do the right thing but aren't being given a fair shake.
 
Last edited:
This is false. TARP made money on all the major financial institutions with the exception of AIG.

I meant to insert the word 'real' before profit.

TARP made limited interest on most loans because of the conditions setup by the Fed.

I supported Tarp from a pragmatic survival standpoint. But lets not kid ourselves, it was our Government taking extraordinary measures to save our economy, maintain our quality of life. A giant safety net, if you will. Moral hazard.

But these 'monsters' that Carolla (the less successful of the original man show duo) talks about... it's very disingenuous on his part and kind of strawman to focus only on OWS...
 
And I care what Adam Carolla says because of what now?

Far-righties will attach themselves to just about anyone who can get on the air and sing their song.

"Look what the President of NABLA said about too many free handouts to youngsters you're courting"....
 
It would be nice if the OWS would clearly define what they want on a list rather than having a huge mob of people shout contrasting ideas. So far the most prominent I have seen are the members who think they are entitled to whatever they want but I recall an video that explained their goals in a much more reasonable light. Can't quite recall the name of it or else I would link it.
 
It would be nice if the OWS would clearly define what they want on a list rather than having a huge mob of people shout contrasting ideas. So far the most prominent I have seen are the members who think they are entitled to whatever they want but I recall an video that explained their goals in a much more reasonable light. Can't quite recall the name of it or else I would link it.

They have. Read the NYC Occupy Wall Street Declaration that started it all.
 
Ending child labor: "self entitled monsters"
Women can vote: "self entitled monsters"
Civil rights for blacks: "self entitled monsters"

Didn't the democrats vote against the civil rights bill? just sayin....

No...atleast not the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Northern Democrats same as Northern Republicans voted highly in favor of its passage. It was the southern vote from both parties that were less than accomodating to say the least.

Source: Wikipedia

By party

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

By party and region

(Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.)

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

By I digress...can we bring it back around to the thread topic?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom