make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Occupy Wilmington takes message on the road

READ MORE:

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- Occupy Wilmington was back at it again this afternoon, sharing the group's message with drivers at one of the city's busiest intersections.

Protestors took their movement to the corner of S. College Road and Oleander Drive this afternoon. The Wilmington protesters waved signs, played the drums and even used a loud speaker as part of their demonstration.

The movement is part of the wider national group that says it represents the 99 percent of people suffering in the economy. Protestors had specific reasons for being there.

"I'd like them to pass some legislation that would help not only people get jobs, but that would help us to save our homes," protestor Kris Gupton said.

Another protestors, Brian Cox, said, "I would like to see a more equitable distribution of the wealth in this country, but more than that I'd like to see a better future for my daughter."

Protestors say they can achieve their goals by continuing these demonstrations, sharing their message on Facebook and by letting congress know what they want.

Members of Occupy Wilmington say they will hold another protest October 29 at Riverfront Park.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

idiots

Quit complaining! You have free income (unemployment), free health benefits (medicare+medicaid), free retirement (SSI) and you "Occupy" folks want more? My family works hard for all the above (and to pay your part) and I'm sick of giving the fruits of my labor to you ungrateful people. If you don't like your financial situation; it's America people YOU can change it. So shut up and get back to work.
And don't even think about requesting debt forgivness for your home, credit cards or student loan. Becoming debt free takes a lot of hard work and smart decision. Taking out loans you can't pay was stupid on your part. It's not my fault because I worked hard to pay off my home.

I agree that our culture is

I agree that our culture is turning into a welfare state. Everyone expects something for nothing. Way too many people expect the government to take care of them in one way or another. All governement programs such as unemployment,welfare,food stamps,medicare,medicaid,SSI,public schools,FHA,Freddie Mac,and Fannie Mae are costing us tax payers in one way or another. Some people truly need these services but many people just take them because they don't want to work. All these programs are broke yet they won't fix them. Occupy isn't about "changing the system" it's about asking for more handouts. They may have one point regarding the 99%. They want 1% to be the producers while 99% become the parasites......Take,take,take with nothing in return. Go home occupy losers and enjoy the life the rest of us are paying for.

guest9909, i have a job, i

guest9909, i have a job, i earn my salary, i pay my health insurance and i have a 401k i have seen turn into a 201k. i am not ungrateful for what i have. i do, however, see the crooks for what they are. and yes, it's America and we ARE changing it. when I am not at work, i will practice free speech as much as i want. you can too. get ready! change is in the air.

Missing The Point

First, your comments about unemployment, you only receive that from a previous employer. You don't just get unemployment if you don't have a job or can't find one. Maybe you're thinking of welfare? Also, there is no free health care with Medicare or Medicaid, unless, again, you're on welfare. Also, free retirement? Social Security is far from free, only working people that contribute to their own social security are able to get any money back when they retire. Plus, most of the "Occupy" people are in their early to mid twenties, which means that, unless something changes, Social Security benefits will be all dried up and they will be left with nothing. For you to not know the above leads me to believe you've never worked for anything in your life, you've just been given a free ride.

As for the idiots, I believe you're missing the point. Occupy isn't about getting free money or for the government to pay off loans or their houses. It's about corporations running the country. The U.S. is supposed to be a democracy, but we can't even vote for our president. Ever hear of electoral colleges? Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

"If you don't like your financial situation; it's America people YOU can change it."
What do you think they're trying to do? They're protesting like people did all throughout history to make changes. There was once a time when black people weren't considered citizens, protesting changed that. There was a time when women were treated as second rate citizens, protesting has changed that. There was once a time when the British government was taxing people in the United States, and there was a huge protest ( Boston Tea Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party ) that started the changes ( it ended in a war that the U.S. won ) ). Protesting is how change comes about. They are trying to make change.

Now, that being said, what I don't understand is how are these people protesting giant corporations, then using computers, laptops, cellphones and other technology made by these giant corporations they're protesting against? I also saw pictures of a guy at one of the protests that was wearing a $300 pair of pants. Why are they using social media sites, such as Facebook, another multi-billion dollar company? They are very hypocritical and it's hard to take them seriously.

I've been watching the

I've been watching the Occupy movement since the day it started, and also the criticisms. It appears to me that everybody is missing the point. Corporations (large and small) are products of government. They could not exist without a government charter. Corporations as we know them in America today did not exist before the Civil War. The owners (shareholders) enjoy limited liability, while the corporation enjoys "person" status. It is a person with no soul to save and no body to incarcerate. When a corporation breaks the law, is caught, prosecuted, and found guilty, it pays a fine. The fine is usually a tiny percentage of the annual income of the corporation. While it hurts profits, it is not the same as the threat of going to jail, or the thought of answering to a Higher Power for its misdeeds. I have owned businesses, as have many of my closest friends. We have owned sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations. Large corporations enjoy distinct advantages that small businesses, especially sole proprietorships, do not. From experience I know that many of these advantages create an unlevel playing field, and corrupt free enterprise and capitalism. Essentially, government allows large corporations to exist and corrupt the market system. They do this because it allows for double taxation, increasing government revenues. I appreciate what the Occupy movement is trying to do. In my humble opinion, the Occupy movement should concentrate on eliminating the power of government to grant corporate charters. This will force individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions in business, and prevent them from being able to hide behind the "corporate veil".

Funny

I think you just proved my point. By the way, I have a Ph.D. with a minor in Economics, and I have been investing on Wall Street since 1984. I put myself through school. I have owned businesses. I have a good job and have succeeded on my own. I have lent assistance to more people than I can count, so they could do the same. I don't resent success, I resent lack of accountability. The financial crisis of 2008 was brought about in part because the "big 5" Wall Street investment banks switched from being partnerships to corporations (after they were large companies). Incorporating allowed them to leverage money at a 40:1 ratio, with limited liability in the event their strategy failed, which of course it did. We are all now paying the price for their failure.

First, you are wrong....second your idea is nonsense

Corporate officers can be indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned when criminal intent can be proven. This is especially true in environmental law, though it is not restricted to only that area. Ever heard of Bernie Ebbers? Donald Spencer? They're just two of many corporate officers who went to prison for the misconduct of their companies, the former for knowingly falsifying the books, the latter for improper and fraudulent disposal of oil.

The notion of no corporate charters may be the silliest proposal I've heard yet from an OWS supporter. You act as if multi-billion dollar corporations incorporate AS multi-billion dollar corporations. Perhaps you need to go back to school and study exactly WHY C corporations are created.

When Apple was incorporated they were still working out of Steve Jobs' garage. They're now worth $365 billion.

Ford incorporated in 1903 with $28,000 from twelve investors, several of them Ford's own employees. They're now worth $47 billion.

Phillips Petroleum (now part of Conoco-Phillips) incororated in 1917 with only $3 million and two dozen employees. They're now worth $99 billion.

I doubt that any of them would be where they are now as a sole proprietorship or S Corporation.

It sounds that like the majority of OWS people, you simply resent success and the power that multi-billion dollar corporations command simply because of their valuation.

what we resent is socialized

what we resent is socialized losses and privitized profit. it's common sense. corporate america just set up risky investments they knew would collapse and sold them to customers. then they dipped into the public till screaming save us, save us. then they took the profit, and didnt generate capital as a good capitalist should. they sat on the cash, csinct

Thank you for that lesson in revisionist history

How can you expect to be respected or taken seriously if you don't know the facts and spout pure opinion?

Have you actually READ the documents surrounding the TARP program; the ones that were made public by JudicialWatch under an FOI request?

Are you aware that JPM, GS, USB, BK,WFC, and several others all told Paulson that they neither wanted nor needed the TARP money, and certainly had no desire to issue preferred stock to the governmnet? (At which time Paulson made the famous statement, "You're not getting out of this room until you sign those papers") The TARP was structured to save C and BAC, which Paulson felt could not be done if only they received bailout money. He feared that their stocks would be dumped en masse, and wanted to spread the pain to all banks.

I would hardly claim that the majority were crying to be saved. Blame Paulson if you want to - don't blame the banks that were FORCED to take the money and have paid it back with interest.

The second thing to realize is that playing favorites in bailouts and arranging takeovers was one of the worst things that Paulson could have done. They found a buyer for Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. They found a buyer for Bear Stearns. They then told Lehman Brothers to drop dead, at which time the economy went from steep decline into vertical free-fall.

Our biggest problem is in Washington, politicians and their unelected henchmen who think they are kings and crowned princes. We saw Paulson do it with Bush's blessing and we saw Obama's team do it during the Chrysler restructuring, when they blatantly threatened Oppenheimer for initially insisting that secured bondholders retain the rights they were legally entitled to.

What about the impact of the CRA of 1977 and some associated policies during the Clinton years in forcing banks to make loans to people with weak or no credit because of the neighborhood they lived in? Why did Bawney Fwank and the Democrats fight so fiercely about investigating and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac less than a year before their house of cards collapsed?

Wall Street is not blameless for the current state of our economy, but the majority of blame rests with Washington. Economics isn't "fair" and it can't be made fair by Washington's attempts at tweaking. We need reasonable, sensible regulation, but we don't need the velvet glove that hides the iron hand.

By blaming Wall Street you're shooting at the cub and ignoring mama grizzly who is in full charge.

Corporations

Large public corporations as we know them (C corporations) were created by industrialists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who were seeking a way to privatize profits while socializing liability. In other words, the shareholders receive all the profits while everybody else in society assumes the risk when they fail. That is exactly what allows them to grow to such immense size and wield so much power. It is such a great deal for the shareholders that thousands of people will invest millions or even billions of dollars without knowing or caring what they do.

There's a wonderful book you should read

It's called "Understanding Wall Street (5th Ed)" by Little and Rhodes.

The statement that "everybody else in society assumes the risk when they fail" is pure, over-the-top hyperbole. What about the shareholders, who lose all their investment? How about the bondholders, who often get pennies back on the dollar? Do you even know why common shareholders get an apology and bondholders may get something back?

You act as if we've spent 150 years bailing out corporation after corporation. Large corporations fail regularly and the government simply watches thenm die, come back as a ghost of what they once were, or merge when another company picks up the pieces at the fire sale: Penn Central? Montgomery Ward? TWA? United Fruit?

However, your description of risk is very close to accurate if we applied it to two formerly traded stocks: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were intentionally structured to give all benefit to shareholders while posing the highest risk to taxpayers BY WASHINGTON! Washington invented them! They were Frankenstein corporations established to assist in home ownership, and like everything else Washington does, were quickly bastardized by politicians who saw the potential for buying votes.

Do not underestimate the role played by Fannie mae and Freddie Mac in the 2008 collpase. The only reason that the credit rating agencies were rating pure crap as AAA bonds was because there was an implicit guarantee that the government (via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)was standing behind those bonds.

It seems that OWS people know HALF the story, and run on emotion more than fact. You'd all increase your credibility if you'd go back to school and take a few classes in Economics and History.

HALF the story?

Perhaps you should mention the part of the story about how former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (during 2008) was also a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, during the time when Goldman was packaging subprime mortgages and selling them as AAA-rated securities to unwary investors (including pension funds) while simultaneously buying investments for themselves that were based on making big returns in the event of failure of the very products they were selling to their clients.
What school are you talking about that you would like me to go back to? I have attended five institutions of higher education (including the University of Tennessee and Auburn University), hold multiple degrees including a Ph.D., have taken a great many courses at both the undergrad and graduate levels in history, business, and economics, and none of this was covered in any of them. Universities teach about legitimate business practices. I learned what I know about these topics in the school of hard knocks, running businesses on Main Street.

....and?

Have you ever seen me write anything good about Paulson? No, you haven't.

And while Goldman Sachs' conduct may have been unethical, it was not illegal. There's a distinct difference and that's why prosecutions are next to impossible. Even if they had been involved in illegal activity, where do you assemble twelve Americans who can all understand how bonds are rated, what credit default swaps even are, and how the government agencies backing these crap bonds were staking their reputation and the taxpayers' dollars that they weren't crap at all? Look what happened at the unsuccessful prosecution of the two Merrill Lynch traders.

Good God, man - you have a PhD and think that shareholders of a corporation incur no risk when they invest! What does that say about the prospects of assembling an intelligent jury from twelve people off the street? Read some of these posts - do you want their authors sitting in judgment on a case involving stripped interest derivatives or the spreads on CDSs.

Goldman Sachs is guilty of simply trying to hedge their own exposure when they awoke TOO LATE to the fact that it was all coming crashing down. If you read "The Big Short" you know that a lot of people awoke to the smoke and shattering mirrors much earlier. Hell, even I saw the cracks appearing and dumped almost all my financial stocks before I got hurt too badly.

Should GS and the others have dropped out of selling MBS when they saw what was coming? Yes. COULD they have dropped out? Highly doubtful. The home loan business would have slammed shut like a vault door. We would have seen exactly what we DID see, only with a lot more panic thrown in. Read the transcripts of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hearings earlier and tell me what the reaction of people like Fwank, Dodd, and Paulson would have been if they had dared rear up to the giant and said, "We're not selling this junk any more." Tell me what would have happened to GS if they suddenly presented a roadblock and possible chink in the armor of the federal mortgage giants? What would the governmnet have told them? (What did the governmnet tell the banks that didn't need TARP? What did the governmnet tell Oppenheimer when they said no to the terms of the Chrysler bankrutcy?)

I have no idea who you are, have no idea what you do, have no idea if you're an honest businessman or a thief. But if someone else is guaranteeing your loan, I'd lend you $1000 sight unseen. That's the exact circumstance banks found themselves in and they did get sloppy, from little community S&Ls like Cooperative up to giants like Citigroup. The money was flowing like wine and Uncle Sam was covering all bets.

Ultimate blame lies on the doorstep of Washington, who kept guaranteeing far too many loans of dubious quality that they were completely aware of.

My original point is...

I don't disagree with you. You obviously are very intelligent and well informed but I still think you are missing my point. All I'm trying to say is that limited liability sometimes leads to irresponsible behavior. The owners of (limited liability) corporations have liability only to the extent of their initial investment, which of course is often substantial. The owners of sole proprietorships and (regular) partnerships have full liability, to the extent of the last penny they have (except for what is preserved by personal bankruptcy). The owners of partnerships and sole proprietorships therefore take a much greater interest in what their company is doing. This is accountability, something that is sorely lacking in many of our citizens, certainly in our government (which is run by bureaucrats, not elected officials) and in some of our large corporations. When you remove or even reduce accountability, as happens in a welfare state (for individuals), or in government with basically lifetime-appointed bureuacrats, or in a business with limited liability, the result is often irresponsible or unethical behavior. It seems to me that limited liability for business owners has the potential to be just as destructive to the company and the economy as the welfare state is to the family or as big government is to individual liberty. I know that CEOs and other officers of the company can be and often are held accountable for their misdeeds. But if the owners themselves are held accountable, there would be fewer misdeeds in the first place, because the owners would be watching. I have held this view for a very long time, long before OWS or Tea Party or any other recent dissent groups. I am not a participant in any of them, because I don't completely agree with any of them, although I do think many of them have some good ideas. My original post was intended to present a fresh idea that I haven't seen expressed by anybody. You haven't said anything to change my mind. Calling it silly or rediculous is not a valid rebuttal!

References

Here is a website that I highly recommend, that provides a series of refereed journal articles on the subject of limited liability and corporate accountability:
http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/5.toc

Limited Liability

I should also point out that the notion of granting limited liability to joint-stock companies (resulting in the creation of modern C corporations) was a highly contentious issue throughout the first half of the 19th Century. It was opposed by a great many political and economic thinkers when America was young, including many of the founding fathers. The debate over this issue raged for decades, but the industrialists of the latter half of the 19th Century finally won out, and limited liability for corporations became the law of the land. Adam Smith himself expressed reservations about it in The Wealth of Nations. Many modern-day libertarian thinkers also believe it was a mistake that should now be corrected.

...and here's my point

The liability issue rarely surfaces because most corporations are well run. If they weren't, investors wouldn't be making money and C-Corporations would have faded into history a long time ago.

Hmmmmm.....

It appears to be surfacing now. Corporations and their actions, in one way or another, have at least some effect on almost everybody, not just their investors. Consider the effects of the early transcontinental railroads on the Native Americans, who at the time were not even part of American society (they already had their own society, which was more than 10,000 years old. That all ended in a few decades). And of course, they had a huge effect on American society, altering forever the future course of history. The question is, for OWS, the Tea Party, and every citizen of this country, what effect are they having now, and how will it affect our future?

Will never happen

That will never happen since they wouldn't be allowed to bang on drums in class. They would also all demand to receive A+ no matter what grade they actually earned. Their mommies told them they were special and they believe it.

PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT (WITHIN

PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT (WITHIN THE LAW) TO DO AS THEY PLEASE. BUT I THOUGHT IT VERY UPSETTING LAST EVENING (A LITTLE AFTER 5PM)TO SEE ADULTS LETTING CHILDREN DART ACROSS OLEANDER AT COLLAGE AND STAND ON THE CORNER OF A BUSY AND DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. IT WAS A DISTRACTION OF DRIVERS ATTENTION. IT'S ENOUGH TO WATCH TRAFFIC AND LIGHTS AND REGULAR PEDS. WITHOUT HAVING TO WATCH OUT FOR DEMONSTRATORS DANCING BACK AND FORTH WITH SIGNS AND YELLING.

This was a peaceful

This was a peaceful demonstration by people who care about America and all her children. Take a look around you; things are not the way they were back in the fifties and sixties when folks looked forward to their children having better lives than they did. Now people know their kids' lives will be harder unless we turn this Titanic around. If you are not in favor of this movement please tell me this: despite your hard work at your job, are things really good for you and for all the people you love? Do you know anyone who is suffering? Do you really support politicians who say we've got to cut back on food stamps for poor people, and block health care coverage for sick people? This movement is about social justice, economic justice, political justice, and the ability of the American people to know when enough is enough.

I

can say that I am comfortable making what I make with the work I do...if I want more..I WORK MORE...it's fairly simple...here it is in its simplest form...

Money = Energy...Energy represents ALL of those things you are unwilling to do to survive. It means you PAY for someone else to expend their energy so you don't have to. Energy in this example is your doctor, your medicine, your food, etc. Back in the 50's and 60's...people didn't need more money because they did more things for themselves..bottom line...you want to sit on your rear end..YOU NEED MONEY...corporations are just supplying energy, THEIR ENERGY, to do the things you cannot and will not do for yoursef....if you don't need what they offer...DON'T BUY and they go away! You are on a computer to access this site...you OBVIOUSLY don't believe what you say!

"social justice, economic justice" = SOCIALISM..of which I will FIGHT YOU TO MY DYING BREATH TO STOP!

Occupy This

So the computer that you used to type your comment on...did you build it yourself from scratch? How about overbloated bandwidth service subscriptions that timewarner, comcast, and at&t provides without giving you a low cost minimum bandwidth option to choose from that isn't part of a sales gimmic that only lasts for one year. Taxes have been cut for them and their prices keep going up because they're spending your money on lobbying congress for a tax holiday on tax deffered profits that were transferred to offshore subsidiaries that serve no other purpose but for tax evasion. North Carolina republicans blocked an attempt in the spring that the people of the town of Wilson made at providing their own ISP so they wouldn't have to depend on the corporate masters for it. Small government my a$$. You are giving socialism a good name the more you argue your point. I'm glad that you didn't say economic equality is socialism like most of the media is training people to think. It is about justice not equality.

from scratch

yes, i built my computer from scratch. i bought some of the parts, scavenged others. recycled others. still, ows is right. we have been robbed.

Uhhh

You know why that phone bill is high..because government adds fees, those fees get passed to you. The Feds also add taxes to the bill. Again...your protesting the wrong people,!!! In addition the government ALLOWED atandt to acquire other carriers. Want to offer a low bandwidth option? Put up your own towers and start a business...

why yes

"Do you really support politicians who say we've got to cut back on food stamps for poor people"

yes I do, along with stop enabling people to stay on welfare for generations or even years. All was intended to be assistance, not a way of life.

Agree 100%

Exactly!

Occupy Wall Street

Bank of America just took their house. That's the way of life your talking about.

Well

Had they paid their mortgage AS THEY PROMISED to do....boa wouldn't have taken the house...

home mortgages

I am college educated & I can't understand that "gibberish" from realtors & banker, so how do we expect poor;y educated people to understand. Not to even mention the contract itself that might as well be written in Latin with all the "legal eagle language" based on Latin.

Bankers knew that people w/out jobs & no money for down payments count not afford what the bank was financing. The BIG banks knew they would be baled out: mainly the small, local bank like Cooperative would not.