Occupy Wall Street
 

Can anyone tell me what it is that they're actually protesting? I keep reading snippets here and there--always posted by my three farthest-left Facebook friends--about it. But even at the Occupy Wall Street web site, there's no clear "we're protesting ______" type message.

Or am I correct my assumption to date that what they're protesting is "The Man" in general?

They are protesting Wall Street's influence over the economy and blaming corporate, and especially banking, America in general for our current economic troubles.

Not that this is necessarily a reliable source, but I found this interesting...

RMSMC :: Occupy Wall Street protests are childish but promising

Not one of the better or more honest protesters:

Video of George Washington Law Student ‘Occupying’ Wall Street: Hilarity Ensues « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

The entire criticism is that there isn't a "target" or a "hook" to draw people in. But if you use social networking sites like tumblr or the like, the argument seems to be like lots of people who are down on their luck and for whom feel like they've got no voice. But the lack of centralized leadership and the seemingly bizarre array of protest methods don't inspire much confidence.

i think it's interesting one week obama's tax policy is criticized as class warfare and the next you have this unfocused display on wall st.

we live in strange times.

I love that they protested on a Saturday.

They released their first statement.


It's obviously coming from a bunch of interests, but I don't think they are a force to be ignored. After the Arab Spring protests, these youth movements, organizing through social media can develop an unexpected momentum. I can't imagine anything will actually change, but there might be a lot of chaos on Wall Street.

I think it's cool. Go them!

So I read through the list of things to protest about. I can agree with SOME of what they say, even if Wall St. really isn't responsible for all of it. I'm a little confused at the illegal foreclosure process though.


So what if they don't have the original mortgage, they bought it and if they weren't going after you for not paying your mortgage, the original company who owned it would. You buy a house and assume the debt, the reality is you are going to have to make your payments. Putting that as number one on their list is kind of amusing to me.

+ 1

(to be quite frank its about bloody time ..)

It's a lot of scatter shot. It's such a wide spread of material that it's going to be hard to focus any kind of movement. I can agree with some of those things, but there are certain things in there that are going to keep me from lending any sort of vocal support overall.

There's ample evidence that thousands, perhaps millions of mortgages are not legally owned by the bank demanding payment. I agree that the borrower should pay their debts, but the legal process for mortgage transfer was too often abandoned in favor of quick transfer. If the banks rushed through the process to make more money I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when people demand proof of ownership, especially when the big banks are trying to collude with the Justice Department to make it all go away.

That's the major problem with foreclosures, but there's also plenty of instances of banks foreclosing when they don't even collect payments or after they have agreed to a mortgage modification.

dola

Where they really lose me is in all the animal rights and colonialism stuff. Probably eight of the first ten I can support. I guess I'm impressed that they aren't cynical enough to think there's no way to change the system. If I get the time I hope I can head down to NYC to see it first hand.

up the revolution !

There are also cases of foreclosures against the wrong address, leading to people being foreclosed against after they paid off the mortgage. Or other papework mishandling leading to the same thing.

I think you've just hit upon the perfect response to this collection of halfwits. After all, napalm would cause property damage.

protest the governement stealing your money != protest corporations stealing your money

Some of these I can get behind, but the irony is that these people too are beholden to their big money interests.

Is it time for Festivus?

?

Unions have latched onto the protests, but the original group doesn't have organizational ties that I'm aware of.

It appears that it's been largely grassroots up to this point (much like the Tea Party Movement was at its inception), but I can definitely see this happening as various special interests latch on (a high-end PR firm just took on OWS)...

Occupy Wall Street: A Tea Party for the Left? | Swampland | TIME.com

I'm sorry, but the majority of these people are a bunch of childish idiots. The whiny guy in the video above is a good example. Like I've said before, I'm not really a conservative or a liberal, but I must say that libs are much more cringe-worthy much more often. (No offense to the smart group on FOFC)

I'm a liberal and I generally find all protests to have plenty of cringe-worthy elements. The idea behind the protest is worthy, but there's always fools in the crowd.

There's still a group of idiots down at the Wisconsin capitol building protesting Scott Walker 7 months after the original protests. One guy has been harassing a Republican legislator and recently dumped a beer on his head.

Some people just have too much time on their hands. Instead sitting there protesting for days on end, I think they should just round up some of these Wall Street crooks and tar and feather them.

I think that Karl Marx would be really, really unimpressed by OWS. He and Lenin are probably giggling together right now.

These people need to join the tea party...

Just a couple of these items that stuck out at me:


These scream the typical PETA, Greenpeace, ACLU, etc. big money special interest group manifestos that you see from time to time.

Now, there are some items I can get behind, but the rest is pretty laughable.

The nonhuman animals one struck me a lot as PETA, yeah.

But, discrimination being... the ACLU?

Oil spills and poisoning food supply? If you had added "the dangers of nuclear energy (and earthquake tsunamis)", wouldn't you have had the newspaper headline trifecta of the last year and a half? Not any particular interest group that I can see.

I'm trying to see the lines you are drawing here

SI

A good piece by Charlie Pierce:
Occupy Wall Street Demands - What They've Come to Find at Occupy Wall Street Is America - Esquire

“Truly outrageous that 99% of the cookies are consumed by 1% of the monsters on PBS. #OccupySesameStreet”

“Police beat vampire who kept counting how many people they were arresting. #OccupySesameStreet”

“Some of us are living in garbage cans. We have every right to be grouchy. #OccupySesameStreet”

Ya, you know, poverty exists in the U.S. and it impacts way too many people....but too much of this "we are the 99%" stuff is people who might have to skip the iPhone 5. I grew up middle class and our family of 6 had 3 bedrooms, 1 used car, and 1 bathroom....such a situation would cause many today to believe they have fallen into poverty. We still have it so good.

I don't think these groups are claiming to be poor, are they? They're claiming to be underrepresented by the system.

I also don't think they're suggesting we stop creating products to buy and use. People can complain about abuses in the financial system without asking to return to paleolithic times i think.

It's funny because that protest picture with all the things labeled is just a translation of the same pictures that were being used to poke fun at the anti-Socialists complaining about taxes.

I'm all for focusing on global poverty instead, but in the context of American politics it's reasonable for struggling middle class and lower class people to complain about their situation when the system they help fund seems to be taking advantage of them. We don't have to put up with unfair or inefficient systems just because there are worse systems in the world.

All we're seeing I think is that there's a large group of Americans who don't feel represented by any political movement in power. You could make fun of the original Tea Party for the same thing, complaining about taxes. "At least you're not indentured servants. Stop being silly and throwing that good tea overboard."

I think part of it is that there isn't really a level playing ground. Banks sort of operate in this pseudo-socialized system where they can't fail and the government's top priority is to make them profitable.

Agreed. I think I'm maybe just relying more on annoying anecdotal examples from the "we are the 99%" website and acquaintances on facebook, who think they've reached Sierra Leone level of poverty....but those examples are not necessarily representative of reality - there's a damn good protest to be had here somewhere, I just hope they find it.

If you're arguing against corporate greed, why should you be supporting it by buying their products and services (We are talking about buying the latest, big brand items)? Should you be complain about student debt, but you go out and buy the latest gadgets? Should you do you complain when you go to college for a degree in basket weaving, but you come out and all you can find is a job at Starbucks? If I don't have the financial resources to buy something that I WANT (not need), I don't buy it.

We have problems and it isn't about a "rich people need to pay" argument that the left likes to tout out (I think they're totally missing the mark), but making a fundamental change in eliminating outside influence into our political system and realistically moving our country and economic foundation into the 21st century. I also think think this these people should be directing their anger with an "Occupy DC" protest, instead of an "Occupy Wall Street" protest.

My problem with the protest is it feels a lot like people who want to puff up their chest and pretend like they were fighting the man. The protest feels self-serving if that makes sense.

I don't have a problem with protests, but they have to real big to have any effect. They have to encompass multiple ideologies. It seems this is shifting toward the left-wing tea party where all the issues the left has wanted gets brought up. I mean Michael Moore and a bunch of others have already made their cameos. So we end up with those on the left cheering it, those on the right denouncing it, and those in the middle not giving a shit since it's the same old partisian crap we've seen for decades.

Ultimately it's going to come down to who you elect. I think the time would be better spent educating voters, registering voters, helping out candidates they like, and so on. Maybe raising money for groups they support. Digging up dirt on elected officials, putting together ads that show voters the dirt.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know if this accomplishes anything at all. Is anyone changing their vote over this? Is this bringing to light a new issue? Will any politicians give a crap? It seems people are much more inclined to do stuff like this then get down and dirty and do the boring stuff that does make change. A lot of people claim they want change but only want to make it happen doing something they enjoy and can brag about.

That's not saying I don't agree with the notion that banks have gotten unfair advantages over the public. As well as major corporations. At the same time I see a lot of anti-business talk and how they are horrible human beings who exploit people. My question would be, why not start your own? You have a lot of people there with passion, so why not start a business and run it the way you believe it should be (benefits, workers having strong voice, high pay, etc)? But that takes hard work and risk, something a lot of these people don't want to deal with.

Attachment 3465

Isn't that part of the issue thats being raised though? - voters don't have the economic power to influence elections, corporations and the incredibly wealthy do ... thats why the politicians pander to corporations and the incredibly wealthy rather than looking after society as a whole.

I don't think anything concrete will come from the protests, but they've already succeeded in having the issues discussed in the media more than any time since the crash.

And I do think there's something to be said for "if the process isn't reversed, it keeps going in the wrong direction". I don't think it's necessary to wait until we're all living in Sierra Leone levels of poverty to change what is broken. I'm pretty sure that we fixed nothing and we're one good five-year drought across the midwest from a dust bowl and redoing the Depression.

And then we'll be going "there was nothing we could have done"- just like all the moronic analysts talking about how each of the companies failing in 2007-2009 were "a perfect storm". You know, one "perfect storm" is unpredictable but a dozen is a systemic weakness. Yes, you cannot change things immediately but if you had fixed things over the long term, you could have prevented a broken system and its eventual crippling.

SI

Right, but the picture in this thread was pointing out things like "razor by Gilette" and "Dye by Clairon," and "marker by Sharpie." The idea that protestors shouldn't use markers because they're made by a corporation is pretty ridiculous.

Certainly anyone who is protesting corporate greed shouldn't be helping them out with conspicuous consumption. But that doesn't mean anyone who owns a video camera can't be a protestor. Nor does it mean that a protest is invalid because it includes some hypocrites.

Alllllllllllrighty then.

John Lewis denied speaking at Occupy Atlanta | The Raw Story

(Check out the video. It's a little scary.)