Forgive the debt of the 99%? Really? So, let me get this straight — the proposal is that everyone who’s ever outspent their means, who’s run up 10s of thousands of dollars in debt on credit cards (that no one forced them to incur), who’s “had” to buy a 55 inch tv and flat-screens in every room, and everyone who “has” to lease a new Escalade because a 5 year old used SUV isn’t “good enough,” and everyone that “must” have a week or two in a shore house every year, they all now get to be free and clear of their responsibilities? And that solves the perceived “problems” in the financial sector…..how? Because people will never over-extend themselves again? Because it’s now okay to drive a 5 year old car? (Mine is 7 years old, by the way, and I’ll be driving it til it stops running.) Because it’s not “fair” that I should have to pay for all of the stuff I’ve bought? Don’t get me wrong: I opposed the bail-out of the banks, too, on the terms (or, rather, non-terms) it was done. And I’m sure this is a popular idea, as I can see from the reblogs; I just like my plans to: (a) make sense, and (b) not absolve people of responsibility for their own actions. (I mean, seriously, no one made me incur any of the credit card debt I’ve accumulated over the years — I chose to do so. I have also chosen to pay it all off because that’s what you do.) Just sayin’….
I’m going to Re-blog this comment because it seems to be a common sentiment and it needs to die.
this entire argument is based on ontological sentiment: poor people with debt are evil sinners doomed to burn in Hell for their wickedness. Flat screen tv’s are fornication and flashy ghetto SUV’s with shiny rims are gluttony. I am not going to Hell because I am frugal and pay my debts. I am a better person and you should be one too.
I don’t know why this sentiment is so popular with people. your betters don’t think it. the people being protested don’t think it, they think you and me are dumbasses because we (well you, I don’t anymore) attach morality to the check I write for my mortgage. You are not going to go to heaven if Citibank gets it’s mortgage from you. You are also not a bad person if you don’t pay your mortgage, especially if you can’t. Those being protested have no problems spending other people’s money. One could even argue that to be rich means, de facto, to spend another’s money. this was the case in the past and will be again in the future.
Anyway, this proposal, which isn’t anyone’s really, just something I read and put on Tumblr, is supposed to be irrational (or better, ambiguous), not rational. It is supposed to sound catastrophic and scary to those who have money and want the system to exist more or less like it does now and enacting this would be really really bad for them.
the reason it must also be ambiguous is because the reasoning for opposing the protestors (and what they ‘stand’ for) is ambiguous but popular sentiment. You can pick any reason you want. Herman Cain blaming the unemployed for being unemployed. Ron Paul blaming the Fed. Republicans blaming Blacks and Latinos for buying houses. Republicans blaming taxes and regulations as the cause of poor job creation. Republicans blaming the social safety net for our national debt. your own ontological opposition to debt.
In fact, I’d say now that if the protestors kept this and other ambiguous messages, they actually could be a Left’s version of the tea party. the only thing they are missing is force which hopefully they will start to now amass.