Occupy Wall Street

[Ben E Lou]

Maybe "creepy" is a better word.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Maybe "creepy" is a better word.

Is this a protest or a cult?

[Toddzilla]

OHMYGOD! Organized Protest!

That's sooooooo scary, Ben!

[Toddzilla]

You know what, I heard that members of BOTH houses of Congress follow cultish rules, too!

Roberts Rules of Order - I can't even imagine...

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

OHMYGOD! Organized Protest!

That's sooooooo scary, Ben!

What? You seriously think "organized protests" are why some people think that's insane?

You have a senator waiting to speak and he can't because nobody in the group wants to be more important than anyone else? Anyone who speaks has to have the entire crowd speak with them so he/she doesn't feel more important than anyone else?

I'm all for protests even if I really don't go to any myself. Gay Rights Protests, Gun Rights, Gun Protests, Death Penalty Protests, etc. I really, really don't care about any of them. (FWIW, if I did attend rallies I'd attend all three of those), but what I saw on that video was insanity. I wouldn't be caught dead at a rally like that.

Hell, congress has a smoother run, less creepy operation and that's saying something.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

You know what, I heard that members of BOTH houses of Congress follow cultish rules, too!

Roberts Rules of Order - I can't even imagine...

Funny, you mentioned Congress as I was typing it up in my post.

Tell me the next time you see a speech by congress or the president happen where they stop every three words so the rest of the senate can repeat them, and get back to me, k?

[JPhillips]

The repetition is a way to "broadcast" the words because noise ordinances prohibit the use of amplification. It has nothing to do with feeling more or less important.

[Scoobz0202]

Yea, the human mic started out before they had bullhorns. It's also a way to gauge the crowds enthusiasm for an idea. I'm not sure if it was necessary in that instance since he did have a microphone. The pausing every three words was annoying, yea, but it's hardly a design for some cultish, collective mind game. Had he been smart enough to realize he could say short sentences and then pause it would have flowed better.

I knew the minute I saw this video it would make rounds as ammunition to show how "stupid" the protest is. Not surprised it has already reached FOFC.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

OHMYGOD! Organized Protest!

That's sooooooo scary, Ben!

Organization is fine. The repetition strikes me as borderline Jonestown-ish. The "leader" has a bullhorn. And don't even get me started on the "how do we feel" stuff.

[Easy Mac]

this guy just won the internet.

Occupy Herbstreit

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

this guy just won the internet.

Occupy Herbstreit

Meineke Car Care Bowl is not a living wage

That one got an LOL from me.

[larrymcg421]

No Jobs + No Showers: Occupy Wall Street or Alabama Tailgate?

LMAO

[albionmoonlight]

[Toddzilla]

that's perfect

[sterlingice]

Ok, so we basically have modern day hippies. They have a lot of disjointed causes they want to change (hell, their laundry list isn't that different than mine).

I agree with some that have said the Tea Party parallel is not a great one but it's the best one I have right now. If one views liberalism as wanting to change things and conservatism as wanting things to remain the same, the unifying message of the disparate Tea Party groups was a view of extreme conservatism, in the literal sense- we want things to go back to the way they were politically in 1799 (constitution + amendments + state decisions on everything else). But you don't see any of those things happening at all- the only result politically is that it became an extreme "no taxes" position.

So, back to the Occupy folks, there are a couple of thoughts:

1) I wasn't born yet and don't have a sense of this historically: did hippies in the 60s ever affect political change? It seemed a lot more like a cultural change and I find that highly unlikely to take root in this political and cultural climate. I mean, geez, the AP story about the protests yesterday- and most that I've read- had some woman with a "Why don't you just get a job" quote (never mind that it's Saturday, jobs aren't plentiful, etc)

2) I just can't see anything coming out of this at all. At the end of the day, conservatives are "we like things the way they are" and liberals are "we want things to change". That leads to a focus of purpose and push for ideological purity on the conservative side- the way things are is a very concrete and definable goal- and, by default, a disorganization on the liberal side- "even when you have 60 votes in the senate, you can't get stuff done" "yes, because we all want 60 different brands of change".

You see the latter in the Occupy Wall Street demands from the first page in this thread- yes, there's an item each from PETA, the ACLU, and labor but a lot of it has to do with labor situation and regulation (tho one would have a good argument that labor is intertwined with economic situation). But there's no focus and no crystallizing items to run on and become a viable political movement. At the end of the day, how does this become anything but a bunch of people protesting in a park? I mean, the GOP has always had organization and focus of purpose that can use something like the Tea Party. And as much as the original Tea Party organizers probably hate it- yeah, they got co-opted, message twisted, and a few of their demands were met while the vast majority will always be ignored. However, one cannot deny that they were able to affect some sort of change. I wanted to end with something a little better prose, but let's be honest- it's the best way to describe the situation: the Occupy Wall Street folks aren't going to agree with anything the GOP does and the Democratic party can't find its ass with two hands and a flashlight so I just don't see how any of these demands will actually come into being.

SI

[JPhillips]

I think they've already succeeded in getting things discussed in the media that have largely been ignored.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think they've already succeeded in getting things discussed in the media that have largely been ignored.

It took younger people to make opposition to some of these things cool. Two years ago, talking about government corruption, and opposing bank and corporate bailouts made one a tea party weirdo. Now we have the young, liberal, and unemployed marching about the same stuff.

Edit: The "government" and "corporation" parts of the circle in the above graph are expressed as separate, but many of us have opposed and expressed concern at the huge growth and influence of the entire corpo-government complex. That was definitely considered a "conservative" viewpoint just a few years ago. Sure, now that young liberals have taken this on, there's some attempt now to separate out the "corporation" part and vilify just that, but you don't have powerful corporations without a complicit government, obviously.

[Young Drachma]

The tea party purported to be an organic movement, when it was really financed by people who are able to articulate their demands to the mainstream. This OWS movement is truly crowdsourced without the deep pockets that the right wing populist movement benefits from.

I'd hardly compare the two in the sense that their list of demands are totally different by and large.

[sterlingice]

So, one of my oddball habits, especially when driving around at night, is to go to AM and do a seek so that you get 15-30 second snippets of a lot of stations from a lot of different places.

To hear right wing radio describe it, Occupy Wall Street is Obama's get out the vote army for next year

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

It took younger people to make opposition to some of these things cool. Two years ago, talking about government corruption, and opposing bank and corporate bailouts made one a tea party weirdo. Now we have the young, liberal, and unemployed marching about the same stuff.

Edit: The "government" and "corporation" parts of the circle in the above graph are expressed as separate, but many of us have opposed and expressed concern at the huge growth and influence of the entire corpo-government complex. That was definitely considered a "conservative" viewpoint just a few years ago. Sure, now that young liberals have taken this on, there's some attempt now to separate out the "corporation" part and vilify just that, but you don't have powerful corporations without a complicit government, obviously.

I was talking about income inequality, excessive executive compensation, and an out of control financial sector. Those ideas are now being discussed and they certainly aren't a part of the Tea Party agenda. I don't think it has anything to do with liberal media bias.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The tea party purported to be an organic movement, when it was really financed by people who are able to articulate their demands to the mainstream. This OWS movement is truly crowdsourced without the deep pockets that the right wing populist movement benefits from.

I'd hardly compare the two in the sense that their list of demands are totally different by and large.

Many people were a member of neither group, and can think independently. My point is that the tea party made the mainstream believe it was a weird/fringe idea to be concerned about big government, corruption, the influence of corporations. I'm sure the right will try to use the OWS stuff in a similar manner - anyone who talks about reasonable tax increases or government regulations will be lumped in with what they see as a silly movement led by trust fund babies and/or the "lazy" youth.

I agree the origin /organization of the movements are somewhat different, but a lot of the rallying cries have some overlap. I think members of both groups should embrace that rather than be offended by it. Partisan silliness and team politics keep people distracted and fighting each other when they really have a lot of common ground and should be on the same side. When you have Michael Moore and Ron Paul bothered by very similar things in some instances...there is common ground that people are ignoring - perhaps because of the desire to feel morally superior to people they look down on (which I believe, is generally the reason people get all interested in politics - it's a nice boost to think you're super educated and enlightened and its Bush and neo-cons that are evil, or to think that you're smart and can see the truth but that Obama and the young liberals are naive and misguided - THOSE powerful human forces keep this from being any kind of real populist movement...we won't get too upset at the government/corporations when we have another dumb party to be snooty towards and to vote against and to blame everything for).

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I was talking about income inequality, excessive executive compensation, and an out of control financial sector. Those ideas are now being discussed and they certainly aren't a part of the Tea Party agenda. I don't think it has anything to do with liberal media bias.

The Democrats supported the propping up of the financial sector, didn't they? And "stimulus" packages to well-connected business interests. Certainly, not everyone who opposed it is a Republican, or a member of the "tea party". (though some were). But clearly today, whatever the political affiliation of the OWS marchers, they're specifically objecting to, among other things, the concepts of bank bailouts and taxpayer assistance to corporations in general that we saw in the alleged "stimulus" packages (a lot of "where's MY bailout" kind of stuff). I think that's promising, that they're stepping away from traditional Democratic views on such things, as in, a powerful, corrupt, overreaching government CAN harm us, and their tool to do so is no longer tanks, but often banks and corporations. The OWS is not a Democratic party voice that happens to just be louder than normal (though certainly the Dems will try to claim that voice as their own, depending on how successful it is).

[molson]

Dola -

I think at this point, with little exception, the tea partiers, the OWS marchers, the moderate left, and the moderate right, would all agree that in a country where corporations and banks have a constitutional right to contribute, in almost unlimited ways, to specific candidates and parties, we need to look at any dealings between the government and corporations with a lot of suspicion - especially when those in power insist that it's an "emergency". The only hold-outs to that concept, I think, are the far right and the far left, those in love with corporations, and the government, respectively (and also those in love with red v. blue combat).

It's just like the Patriot Act, right? All throughout history, governments have used emergencies to increase their power, and improve their chance to hold onto power. That doesn't mean the emergency doesn't exist, obviously national security threats and financial threats require action. But if you're suspicious of a particular action it doesn't necessarily mean you "hate freedom", or "want the terrorists to win", or "hate poor people", or "love corporations".

I disagree with 99% of what Michael Moore says but I think he nailed it with that documentary a few years back that depicted the Wall Street coup of government.

[JPhillips]

Why do you continue to believe that I support everything the Dems do? How many times do I need to say the current national party is too in bed with monied interests, is spineless and has no discernible agenda?

I think the overlap between OWS and the Tea Party is much smaller than you do. OWS has called for more regulation on Wall Street while Tea Party groups have called for less regulation. OWS wants higher taxation on the top 1% and the Tea Party wants lower taxation on the top 1%. OWS wants increased access to healthcare and the Tea Party wants a purely free market system. And the list could go on.

There may be a lot of overlap on the problem, but the proposed solutions are often polar opposites. I think there are some common areas of concern with libertarians, but the differences are great enough that neither side would be happy with the other making decisions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why do you continue to believe that I support everything the Dems do? How many times do I need to say the current national party is too in bed with monied interests, is spineless and has no discernible agenda?

You don't like that the Dems are ineffective in doing what they claim it is they're in favor of (though usually you frame that in blame of others), but you're pretty much on board with the claimed agenda, right?

[JPhillips]

I don't think they have an agenda. I'm on board with a lot of FDR or Truman or Kennedy, but I don't know what the current Dems would do if they had no obstruction or opposition.

[Ksyrup]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dave Ramsey doesn't constitute more than a blip on my radar screen most days, but after reading this I was ready to stand up & cheer. It covers specific points & it isn't terrified of some (badly needed) plain language. It doesn't go nearly as far as my own version of the same thing would but I'll forgive him for being a little mild in this case. Bravo Mr. Ramsey, bravo. Nice to see someone layeth the smack down on these little bitches.

Dear Occupy Wall Street... - daveramsey.com

[Honolulu_Blue]

The Occupy Detroit movement started last Friday. They had a rally on Friday afternoon and started to occupy Detroit right after that. Since then, the Tigers can blown out of the playoffs, Michigan got smacked around by MSU and the Lions lost their first game of the season.

While I have nothing against these people and I probably agree with them more than I disagree, and it's nice to have someone occupying Detroit - we have plenty have space - if the Lions lose two in a row, I think I will rent a bulldozer and bulldoze their little campsite. I can't have them harshing on my good vibe. And, let's be honest, occupying Detroit is not the same as occupying Wall Street. Occupying Detroit is like squatting in an abandon building in the middle of nowhere. Nobody really cares.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Dave Ramsey doesn't constitute more than a blip on my radar screen most days, but after reading this I was ready to stand up & cheer.

Agreed on all counts with what's in there. Glad someone finally stood up and called not just this group but others on redistrubtion of wealth. I'm always amused when some multi-millionaire, especially a politician multi-millionaire (yes, I'm looking at you Nancy Pelosi) says the same thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Occupying Detroit is like squatting in an abandon building in the middle of nowhere. Nobody really cares.

You say that now, but talk to us again in a few weeks when the stench of the unwashed starts to waft over the city

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You say that now, but talk to us again in a few weeks when the stench of the unwashed starts to waft over the city

Starts? You haven't been to Detroit I take it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Dave Ramsey doesn't constitute more than a blip on my radar screen most days, but after reading this I was ready to stand up & cheer. It covers specific points & it isn't terrified of some (badly needed) plain language. It doesn't go nearly as far as my own version of the same thing would but I'll forgive him for being a little mild in this case. Bravo Mr. Ramsey, bravo. Nice to see someone layeth the smack down on these little bitches.

Dear Occupy Wall Street... - daveramsey.com

I'll definitely give him credit for his ability to create strawmen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'll definitely give him credit for his ability to create strawmen.

Wasn't that the point, he wasn't sure exactly what he was responding to, so he did his best to guess, based on popular sign slogans.

Edit: The only thing I disagreed with in the article was the apparent equating of taxation with "thievery" - though I'm not 100% sure whether the calls for "wealth distribution" are only about higher income taxes, or if there's other proposed means to redistribute wealth.....Taxes could be a lot higher without it being "thievery," but I wonder if he's referring to perceived calls for more specific and direct wealth distribution. I mean, are taxes the only thing in the wealth distribution debate, or do people want to go all Zimbabwe and take property away from rich people to give it to poor people?

[RainMaker]

Couple things about his piece.

- Sure they could go to D.C., but those guys work for the people on Wall Street. So why not go to the source for your protests?

- His screed about progressive taxation being "theft" is off since the more money you have, the more you rely on the government. Especially of late. So is it really theft, or getting people who benefit the most to pay the most?

I don't necessarily understand the protests, but I just thought those things were wrong.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

- His screed about progressive taxation being "theft" is off since the more money you have, the more you rely on the government. Especially of late. So is it really theft, or getting people who benefit the most to pay the most?

That's the thing I didn't really understand - he didn't talk at all about taxes specifically in that part, and I don't think he opposes all taxes as theft generally. And I don't know if there's some magic income tax % where he would consider "theft" as having occurred. I think he might be referring to more direct "wealth distribution". (he quotes the hypothetical marcher as saying, "We are the 99% of Americans who don’t have as much as the 1%, so we’re mad and think the government should take their wealth and property away so that I can have a piece of it"...which doesn't really sound like income taxation, it sounds more dramatic. Which is probably a strawman, yes, but I know there's some that would support such re-distribution.

[RainMaker]

I don't know how you'd re-distribute wealth without taxation though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know how you'd re-distribute wealth without taxation though.

Gunpoint has been fairly effective in quite a few third-world nations.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know how you'd re-distribute wealth without taxation though.

Well, you can just take it and give it directly to other people (Zimbabwe). Which, I guess is also a manner of taxation, though an extreme one.

Raising income taxes though - I'm for it, but I don't understand it as a means of wealth redistribution, or changing the "top 1% controls 40% of the wealth" thing. It would really do neither, if we're just talking Clinton-era tax rates. I think you have to be a lot more extreme if you're going to flatten out those distribute wealth charts, if that's the goal. Taking a modest amount of additional money from the rich may help with the deficit, it make improve social programs....but it's not going to change anyone's income or wealth to a game-changing degree.

Edit: That's why I've always found that whole line of argument a little disingenous. People love to post those "top 1% charts" as the depiction of ultimate evil, but then they insist, "we ONLY want to go to Clinton-era tax rates, and the rich can easily afford that!!" You're not taking down the top 1% in a way that will change that chart with Clinton-era tax rates. I think you'd have to go Zimbabwe on them to do that.

[molson]

Hypothetical for those really into the scene here - is the bigger problem that the poor don't have enough, or that the rich have too much? If we could increase the standard of living of every person in the country by 20% overnight, but the only way to do it would be to increase the standard of living of the top 1% by 250%, is that worth it? (I'm not saying that's reality, or that the poor has necessarily benefitted from the emergence of the super-rich, I'm just trying to think about what drives people here.)

[RainMaker]

I think the problem people have is that the top 1% has seen their income dramatically increase over the last couple decades while every other income bracket has remained stagnant. And it hasn't necessarily been because the 1% have created something great over that time, it's they've used policy to their advantage at the expense of the other income brackets.

[Izulde]

Most of the top 1% have also forgotten noblesse oblige, to say nothing of the principle that it pays to ensure you still have a viable and strong customer base for your products and/or services (for those who have business related income).

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the problem people have is that the top 1% has seen their income dramatically increase over the last couple decades while every other income bracket has remained stagnant. And it hasn't necessarily been because the 1% have created something great over that time, it's they've used policy to their advantage at the expense of the other income brackets.

OK - that's what I was getting at, those policies. Because the top 1% income increasing so much, so quickly, obviously isn't rectified, or even addressed, by raising their income taxes. But that policy the rich has used to take advantage of others - that's a harder thing to articulate and nail down and put on a sign. I don't doubt that that's happened, but what are those policies? What exactly are the rich doing? Which "rich" is it, which members of the top 1% - is only corporate CEOs (how many people is that), or is Manny Ramirez and Justin Bieber involved somehow? That's the biggest issue with being vague, I'm not even sure exactly what the problem is there, let alone how to solve it.

[RainMaker]

It probably would be rectified though through income taxes. Most pay lower rates than you or I. So if you're making more money and paying a less percent of it in tax than others, you're going to only increase your gap.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It probably would be rectified though through income taxes. Most pay lower rates than you or I. So if you're making more money and paying a less percent of it in tax than others, you're going to only increase your gap.

Your income doesn't change though, only the % that you give to the government does.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Your income doesn't change though, only the % that you give to the government does.

You make income on your own wealth. A lower income tax rate allows people to keep a larger portion of their income and to re-invest that into other areas that create income.

We have a sort of weird tax system. It is progressive up until the middle class and then becomes regressive as it approaches higher levels.

[sterlingice]

Honestly, I think 3 actions rectify a lot of things:

1) Publicly funded elections - yeah, you're never going to make it perfect but, hell, it's better than what we have.

2) A fee-per-trade put on all commodity trades: stocks, bonds, commodities, everything (and they all need to be regulated- no more dark pools of money). Stop allowing the fast money to continue to drain everything from long term savings. No more making money purely by gaming the system- you need to actually have some long term interest to make gains.

3) More progressive income tax with most deductions removed. Those who seek only money will, yes, need to pay in more to the system that allows them to make money

SI

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Darth Vader sez: "Luke, I am your 1%. Search your feelings. You know it to be true..."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Honestly, I think 3 actions rectify a lot of things:

1) Publicly funded elections - yeah, you're never going to make it perfect but, hell, it's better than what we have.

2) A fee-per-trade put on all commodity trades: stocks, bonds, commodities, everything (and they all need to be regulated- no more dark pools of money). Stop allowing the fast money to continue to drain everything from long term savings. No more making money purely by gaming the system- you need to actually have some long term interest to make gains.

3) More progressive income tax with most deductions removed. Those who seek only money will, yes, need to pay in more to the system that allows them to make money

SI

As a first step I'd tax the shit out of computerized micro trades. I still don't understand how taking a tiny bit out of millions of stock transactions by gaming the computer system is legal. Maybe Ramsey should add that to his things that are theft.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You make income on your own wealth. A lower income tax rate allows people to keep a larger portion of their income and to re-invest that into other areas that create income.

We have a sort of weird tax system. It is progressive up until the middle class and then becomes regressive as it approaches higher levels.

True, but if we go to the Clinton-era tax rate, does that wipe out the kind of wealth advances the super-rich have made in recent years? Did the Bush tax crates cause it? Are the tax rates really the issue here, or is it those mysterious "policies" (I don't say mysterious because I doubt their existence, I say mysterious because I really don't know what they are, and I really don't know which members of the top 1% are really guilty in all this).

Edit: If by some miracle, Obama got his tax increases passed, and we still had massive wealth disparity (which I believe we would), then what? What's the real issue here?