SFBG Radio: Beyond the Wall Street protests


Today we talk about the protests on Wall Street -- and Johnny offers a more effective approach. Hint: It has to do with blaring out-of-tune techno music at rich people. You'll have to listen after the jump to get the rest.

sfbgradio9192011 by endorsements2011


Good idea, but be careful about running afoul of stalking and trespassing laws. Particularly in places like San Marino which have their own police force and aren't under the jurisdiction of the very understaffed LAPD.

Posted by SparksWasTheBestBandEver on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 7:40 pm

I love it--but I'm sure the suck-up squad on this page will wring their hands and wet their beds over the idea of ever taking their taskmasters to, well, task!

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

stop it... seriously

Posted by Nusfrat Jones on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 9:56 pm
Posted by guest on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 10:18 pm

I'm rich. OMG, what if someone shouts at me?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 8:16 am

"Full of money" and "full of shit" aren't the same thing--no matter how much you'd like to think they are.

Posted by guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 10:20 am

will spring from shouting at people who are more successful than you.

Last time I checked, class warfare hadn't create any new jobs.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 10:38 am

...the "job creators" hadn't "created" any new jobs either.

I realize that it's only "class warfare" when it's have nothings demanding something from have (and inherited) everything's and it's never class warfare when austerity is imposed on working people by those who destroyed the economy, but I have news for you, PaulT: You can kiss that ass until your lips are chapped and those buttocks are raw, but you're never gonna be the equal of the upper echelon.

The house slave may have had it better than the field slave, but guess what--they were still slaves.

Posted by Beast of Bourbon on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

Like Texas, for instance, which is why Rick Perry's brief candidature for the Presidency has gotten off to an electrifying start (there's a pun in there, by the way).

So there's a proven track record that a low-tax, low-regulation, business-friendly climate really does generate jobs.

Unsuccessful people whining about successful people, as far as I know, doesn't create jobs.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

Perry is spinning for election time. His glowing job claims are fake.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:51 pm

This should be good.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:04 pm

Look it up yourself, and see the other response to you on this thread.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

Noted for future reference.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

Nope, just not going to waste time debating with a lightweight like you unless I get direct value from it. If you look back at my past debates with you, you'll see that I only do it when you are foolishly continuing to reply to me in a way that allows me to amplify on an important point of my own to the readers that I otherwise wouldn't be able to make. (Along with the occasional deep scoff at your frequent mindblowingly ridiculous assertions.) The really tricky question you have to answer now, is, why am I admitting this tactic to you... ;)

And as I said, if you read the thread now you can see perfectly adequate recent answers from others to your question, so I needn't bother.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

that you made an unsubstantiated statement in a desperate attempt to extricate yourself from a losing argument.

You probably figured I wouldn't call your bluff. But you were wrong, which makes twice.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

It was obvious you would immediately respond to my claim by asking me to prove it. You always do. Your like a debate bot. And yet I made the claim anyway, knowing that you would predictably challenge it, and knowing that I had no intention of responding to your predictable demand of proof. Again, ask yourself why...

You're definitely not picturing the entire chess board here...

(And again, once I saw that Tim and others slammed you quite effectively on your Perry bullshit, there was no need; which shows how weak your point was in the first place.)

But, you just keep telling yourself you're kicking all of our asses Pauly... ;)

Suits us just fine.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

explain why you can't substantiate your earlier point? You're trying way too hard. And of course I was always going to call your bluff - I know when I've been dealt a winning hand. Even your fellow lefties agree Perry has created a lot of jobs - they just quibble about the type of jobs. As always, you overplay your hand.

So save your breathe. It was obvious to everyone you were lying anyway. But I'm happy for you to further discredit yourself by digging yourself deeper and deeper. i know you can't resist.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

Ah! Now you're getting warmer.

Clearly I have just spent huge amounts of time and text debating -debating- with you, while spending absolutely none debating the Texas point. Why? Figure that out. And you win the big prize. ;)

I'll give you a tiny useless hint.


Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

No need to obliquely invoke the Bard.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

lol right

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:06 pm

Minimum wage jobs + government jobs = 120,000 new jobs a year in a state where you need about 180,000 to keep unemployment down, which is why unemployment has risen in TX.

The only thing that has prevented Texas from 12% unemployment is that there are stringent borrowing rules as per home ownership (fancy that, regulation) and lots and lots of government pork. While railing about the evils of DC and stimulus, Governor Pray For Rain scooped up 6.6B in direct state aid, the third largest total in America.

If by "successful", you mean, ''entirely reliant on the government", then you are accurately describing almost every rightist businessman. And if you consider yourself successful, well, shit--that's hilarious.

Dang, you are majorly dumb, ain't ya?

Posted by Beast of Bourbon on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

one third of ALL the jobs created in America since Perry became governor are in Texas?

And you prefer our structurally high unemployment and far higher taxes?

Yeah, that makes a whole bunch of sense.

And no, the government have played no role in whatever success I've enjoyed. It's more that they kept out of my way for the most part.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:37 pm

Given that the prior governor of Texas as POTUS presided over a net job loss in 8 of the ten years Perry's been governor, that's saying like....nothing.

Maybe you should move to Texas--it sounds like a wonderful place, with all those Wal Mart type jobs up for grabs.

And I can't imagine anyone here in SF missing you much, so--bon voyage!

Posted by guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

Excuse me, but Perry has "created" a state where about a quarter of the residents have no health insurance and many of those "jobs" pay minimum wage. Here's CNN:

"But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.

"Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average."

Oh, and he lies about shooting coyotes. I don't know which is worse -- shooting a coyote or pretending to shoot one.

Posted by tim on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

Perry's jobs record in Texas is way, way, way over-inflated and worse, many of the jobs there were just poached from other states with the same breaks that have left the state 25 billion dollars in deficit.

Anyone that sees that idiot as some kind of role model should have bad techno aimed at them all day too!

Posted by guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

consider this:

They were poached from places with less business-friendly policies. Like California. So given that all States are competing with each other for inward investment, it's clear that the policies of Texas have worked better than the policies of California.

And that's what we're talking about here - jobs and the economy. Their policies have created. Yelling at successful people does not.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

Texas can have them. Minimum wage worker = Medi-Cal expense.

However, that's interstate commerce--tell us again how one might "poach" outsourced jobs back from India?

Moving low paying jobs around inside the US is no different than 3 Card Monty.

Dumb as a sack of potatoes.

Posted by guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:19 pm

I worked full time at a minimum wage job while I went to school. Yes, lets dismiss these jobs as beneath our effete liberals and move on to how we can create more entitlements.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:44 pm

Delivering papers is generally a minimum wage job, yes.

"Entitlements", "effete liberals", wow--since you were exposed as a Republican a while back, you're all the way out of the closet now, ain't ya?

You must be so relieved not to play that "both sides do it" tedium--now you can spout Foxisms all day long--this is the political equivalent to a glory hole for you.

Posted by Beast Of Bourbon on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

Decent Australian side project that put out one good LP in the 80's.


By the way the whole republican thing has been debunked, not that it matters or that I care, it's just an interesting ad homonym on your part.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

one is anything right of Barbara Lee.

I wouldn't take it personally. They call me that too when arguments fail them. And I've never voted Republican in a general election.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

once or twice, for example I voted for the anti-war candidate over Pelosi last time. You remember the war right, seems to have slipped the minds of many a progressive these days.

And I voted for Campbell over Diane in 2000, as Campbell was the more liberal of the two.

Other than that I can't think of a one.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

But he was almost a Democrat anyway.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

He got some of his Germanic pro-environmental stuff through that I doubt a democrat could have.

I voted for the Herve Valachez or Mary Cary, can't remember.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

I don't think there's an extra "e" in trippy. And "effete" -- wow. Haven't heard that insult in a while. Here's the online dictionary def:


"lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent"
I am a degenerate, for sure, but nowhere near rich enough to be decadent -- and I've got lots of wholesome vigor for taxing the rich.
Posted by tim on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 3:29 pm

always had a deft touch when it came to putdowns.

I always thought "effete" had connotations of femininity in it's ascription of weakness and demure compliance.

As much as I disagree with Tim, I don't see him in that light. Then again, I've never met him.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

creating high-paid, private sector jobs in San Francisco?

And how does yelling at wealthy people help achieve that goal?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

Because it forces the rich to hire more cops and security guards. ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

Dude, anyone who tried to reply to -everything- you write to them on this blog would have no life ... just like you ....

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

It's just an amusing distraction while I work. You've probably noticed I rarely post at night.

Consider it my little peccadillo. Just like it's yours to yell at successful people.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:40 pm

perfect circle


In B flat...!

~There's a whole in the bucket....~

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

I have three ways to create jobs in San Francisco that are guaranteed to work.

1. Enact a city income tax, a commercial rent tax, a progressive parcel tax, a progressive gross receipts tax, a foreclosure fee, a higher tax on high-end property transfers and a tax on vacant residential and commercial units to bring about $500 million more a year into the city coffers.

2. Use that money to hire more teachers, nurses, Muni drivers, social workers etc.

3. Create a municipal bank to loan money to small business startups and existing small businesses that need capital to expand.

You want jobs? That would create jobs.





Posted by tim on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 2:02 pm

3. I think you could be on to something.
2. I am a bit lost on how that is a seperate train of thought from 1
1. Your talking about multiple tax increases, some of which have terrible consiquences, and legal implications. I do support a gross receipts tax if it could take into consideration high and low margin businesses. Vacant unit tax would be a disaster (how much would it cost to enforse and collect compared with the revenue it would generate etc.). Its simple to say lets collect a new tax, but think through the full implications.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

In other cities.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

It's not just Wall Street or the Tea Partiers we have to worry about. Watch out for this "bait and switch" game by the Democrats~

"..it’s now promoted by the White House that cuts in Medicare and Social Security are axiomatic, while Obama plans to make hay on the tax-the-rich campaign plank until the time comes to hunker down with Boehner and face the Republicans in all their righteous fury, just as he did with a winning hand on the debt ceiling fight at the start of August, and… blink. He always does, seemingly drawing perverse strength from polling data insistently disclosing that support for “entitlement” cuts commands a scrawny base of support of about 15 per cent among the voters Obama needs." [...]

"Meanwhile the liberals, doing their best to put a positive spin on the Jobs bill proposed by Obama in his speech to a joint session of Congress on September 8, are slow to appreciate – protectively reluctant to point out — the fact that his proposed tax break for the masses and the employers, lowering the 6.2 per cent tax on Social Security – welcomed rapturously by the Republicans — is a carefully planted depth charge. It lowers revenues into the Social Security fund, thus giving ammo to the saboteurs across the spectrum from Obama to Perry who say Social Security is in crisis."


Posted by Lisa on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 3:17 pm