Occupy Wall Street

[Scoobz0202]

Saw this out of Oakland. Marine vet, two tours, was hit in the face with a canister. I believe shit was being thrown at Police which is never smart. Interested in seeing if this is brushed over, or if goes from a peaceful protest in Oakland.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But isn't that ultimately a poor personal choice? No one foced them to go to college, or go to that expensive of a college, or get that degree. They made a poor choice. Poor choices cost in spades whether it is financially, emotionally, or physically doing stupid things hurts.

Yep.

Skips over the part where you hate my profession

Its cliche or trite but money can not buy happiness (except in Nevada and only in 1 hour increments) more people need to accept that and then things will begin to improve in my opinion.

As a wise man (I believe it was Ted Nugent) once said, "money may not buy happiness but it can buy off a hell of a lot of unhappiness".

I've never found any truer words spoken anywhere.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: Nor can everyone get a 3.8 GPA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss

But they can.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Saw this out of Oakland. Marine vet, two tours, was hit in the face with a canister. I believe shit was being thrown at Police which is never smart. Interested in seeing if this is brushed over, or if goes from a peaceful protest in Oakland.

Look, the cool kids are playing war.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Dutch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss

But they can.

I really hope you're posting that in jest and don't think it's actually a valid argument, or that it proves any sort of hypocrisy on behalf of those that favor progressive tax rates.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But it's not about owing anyone anything. It's about what is best for this country. It is better for this country to help those who are struggling. It is better for this country to make education easier for everyone. That includes the 1%. I'm sure they want a more educated America. That doesn't mean people shouldn't have to work for it, but it also means we don't need to make it even harder.

It just comes down to: (1) how to define who is "struggling", (2) how much help to give to whoever we decide is struggling, and (3) what type of help exactly to give. Despite the attempt to demonize, It'd be hard to find a person who is entirely against government help of any kind. It's obviously just a scale. And for some, the answer is always just going to be "MORE!", and for others the answer is always going to be "LESS", no matter where we are.

Edit: For a while, I know "Clinton-era tax rates" were used as kind of a threshold as to what some liberals desired, and that made sense. It wasn't a drastic change, it's something we already had (in a time when the economy was booming, no less), and it was something tangible. But as I've argued before here, the mainstream goals have definitely changed, and I'm not sure what the goals of the marchers are at all, but I think they're more extreme than Clinton-era tax rates, based on the rhetoric.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Nope, that can't be true. I am rich because I work hard and all people who are rich work hard. If I am poor, it is because I don't work hard. All poor people are lazy and don't work hard.

SI

All poor people aren't lazy but this post definitely is.

[molson]

I went to a training thing today on trademark law and expanding a business's international reach on a limited budget, and how to get trademarks registered in foreign countries.

The thing that stuck out though, in the context of this discussion, is how a company, compared to just 10-15 years ago, can expand their international customer base, and their international trademark registration/recognition by literally hundreds of millions of people, or even billions of people, with almost no added costs. That's due to the internet, more uniformed trademarking procedures across countries, and the opening of more countries to U.S. business. That's a crapload of money. And it's more opportunity for a lot of people. Any idiot can register a trademark in Colombia. I wonder how much it plays into income disparity.

Obviously, there's a labor component here, that should arguably be benefiting more from that expansion. Though, it's not really American-made coats or cars that are gaining this international business, its business software, IT, a lot of intellectual property. Which requires labor, but not the kind of laborers who we consider "poor" here. The poorest laborers here now don't so much make things, as they do provide services - a job that really doesn't help any company expand internationally and make more money. And I think computer programmers do pretty well.

As I've said before, if the global trends are dramatically benefiting the top 1%, I'm on board with our tax rates recognizing that, and our country benefiting from that as a whole. But I still fail to see how the rich getting richer is anything but a really good thing for our country - at least to the extent that income is coming from China and Eastern Europe and Russia and South America. Pizza deliverers aren't tapping into that wealth, the 1% is.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

All poor people aren't lazy but this post definitely is.

Right back at ya

SI

[JPhillips]

This might be something we can all agree is bullshit:

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

You're assuming the grade distributions are equal across schools.

You're also assuming the quality of the student body is the same. The overall talent level at an Ivy League school will be more impressive than the student body at a mid-tier university. Does that mean that a mid-tier university graduate can't be talented or successful? Of course not, but I'll put money on the the Ivy League body putting out better results (especially in the math and science fields).

I think we have way too many kids going to college today. What exactly is the competitive advantage that kids have today over their peers in regards to having a college degree? This forces recruiters and companies to start focus on tapping into certain colleges.

The degrees offered need to be dramatically scaled down.

Originally Posted by molson

I went to a training thing today on trademark law and expanding a business's international reach on a limited budget, and how to get trademarks registered in foreign countries.

The thing that stuck out though, in the context of this discussion, is how a company, compared to just 10-15 years ago, can expand their international customer base, and their international trademark registration/recognition by literally hundreds of millions of people, or even billions of people, with almost no added costs. That's due to the internet, more uniformed trademarking procedures across countries, and the opening of more countries to U.S. business. That's a crapload of money. And it's more opportunity for a lot of people. Any idiot can register a trademark in Colombia. I wonder how much it plays into income disparity.

Obviously, there's a labor component here, that should arguably be benefiting more from that expansion. Though, it's not really American-made coats or cars that are gaining this international business, its business software, IT, a lot of intellectual property. Which requires labor, but not the kind of laborers who we consider "poor" here. The poorest laborers here now don't so much make things, as they do provide services - a job that really doesn't help any company expand internationally and make more money. And I think computer programmers do pretty well.

As I've said before, if the global trends are dramatically benefiting the top 1%, I'm on board with our tax rates recognizing that, and our country benefiting from that as a whole. But I still fail to see how the rich getting richer is anything but a really good thing for our country - at least to the extent that income is coming from China and Eastern Europe and Russia and South America. Pizza deliverers aren't tapping into that wealth, the 1% is.

Thanks to technology and the internet, such as social networking and smart devices (iPhone/iPad, Android) and media, and the access to travel relatively easy, I think we are moving towards an entrepreneurial-employment based system. What does this mean? Contracting/consulting. Self-employment, with the ability to do your work remotely from any place in the world.

Technology is also going to reduce the need for actual labor. What use to take 10 people to do will be cut down to 2 people to do, thanks to the advances in technology and machines (It already has and will become bigger in the future). We need to start thinking for a 21st century economy, starting with our educational system and economic policies. We are in a global, knowledge-based economy.

As you noted, the wealthy and companies have a global market of 7 billion people to tap into. They will make more money, where a local employee is still limited to his area in a sense.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

You're also assuming the quality of the student body is the same.

Wasn't assuming that at all.

[SteveMax58]

Advanced education is the latest gold rush unfortunately. This was seen as the ticket to prosperity & I think we're seeing a lot of people upset that they aren't part of the exclusive club for having partaken in it.

Now we have a lot of overeducated people who can tell you everything you're doing wrong in sentence composition, tell you what researchers at a random German lab discovered during some test on tire tread, and why Paul Krugman is a genius.

But what most of them can't tell you is how they can best improve society through their own actions & initiatives. And I mean truly "their own"...not some college/corporate/government sponsored initiative, but truly their own initiative. They wouldn't dream of starting a janitorial services company because that is what the stupid & uneducated do. They wouldn't lower themselves to get out and start mowing lawns because their parents always pointed to that as something you do if you don't go to school. They wouldn't even fathom the idea that knowledge can, and in many cases IS, gained by people without formal training or education. Their ambitions are to climb the ladder that they believe they were promised. They aren't lazy, they are just looking for a world that they thought they would be a part of and now believe it is the mega rich that is to blame for it not being there.

It is really rooted in promises that couldn't possibly be met & entitlement, imho. And I mean entitlement in a purist sense...not a talking point sense. I don't think it is really their fault for believing it...after all, they believed what their parents, teachers, and the media told them all along. They believed what their authority figures told them all along and now the realization of "I went to school, went into massive debt, and now my education is useless and/or not overly valuable?" is making them look to the authority figures once again to tell them what to do.

Now, the educated class (as it were) is still employed for the most part. Unemployment is very low among them but there is certainly a lot of under-employment at play. Its part of the gigantic mess we have today but I think the fundamental problem we have is a lack of vision & quality of life improvement direction. As mentioned earlier...if we keep moving quality of life forward, this same generation will be gainfully employed as they had been led to believe.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Now we have a lot of overeducated people who can tell you everything you're doing wrong in sentence composition, tell you what researchers at a random German lab discovered during some test on tire tread, and why Paul Krugman is a genius.
*snip*
Now, the educated class (as it were) is still employed for the most part. Unemployment is very low among them but there is certainly a lot of under-employment at play.

This is true. I just had my ten year high school reunion so it's pretty interesting to see where people are these days. Without getting too personal with people, I got the impression that the people most well off at the moment are the tech school graduates with a trade skill. Four year school graduates have tended to drift around more jobs wise. Trade school graduates have more level expectations coming out into the work force.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

It is really rooted in promises that couldn't possibly be met & entitlement, imho. And I mean entitlement in a purist sense...not a talking point sense. I don't think it is really their fault for believing it...after all, they believed what their parents, teachers, and the media told them all along. They believed what their authority figures told them all along and now the realization of "I went to school, went into massive debt, and now my education is useless and/or not overly valuable?" is making them look to the authority figures once again to tell them what to do.

Very nice post. I think the big con is the relative weight we give degrees and interests. Somehow someone who does not like science, business, tech,. but loves art, philosophy or literature is encourage to spend just as much or money to follow their dreams. I think college can be divided into students who are using it to get a job and students who are using to get meaningfulness (I would be in the latter, by the way). If the two overlap then you are one of the lucky few.

The reality is most end up in a work place very far where they thought as 18 years they would be. Often the "art" crowd gets there by failure and debt which just encourages this cynicism and entitlement you talk about. I would love to see an Occupy sign that read "If you bankers bought my art I wouldn't be here!"

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Saw this out of Oakland. Marine vet, two tours, was hit in the face with a canister. I believe shit was being thrown at Police which is never smart. Interested in seeing if this is brushed over, or if goes from a peaceful protest in Oakland.

I had no part in this!!!

[Logan]

And in NYC, OWSers have moved uptown and are throwing paper airplanes at the Bank of America tower.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Logan

And in NYC, OWSers have moved uptown and are throwing paper airplanes at the Bank of America tower.

Really?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Advanced education is the latest gold rush unfortunately. This was seen as the ticket to prosperity & I think we're seeing a lot of people upset that they aren't part of the exclusive club for having partaken in it.

Now we have a lot of overeducated people who can tell you everything you're doing wrong in sentence composition, tell you what researchers at a random German lab discovered during some test on tire tread, and why Paul Krugman is a genius.

But what most of them can't tell you is how they can best improve society through their own actions & initiatives. And I mean truly "their own"...not some college/corporate/government sponsored initiative, but truly their own initiative. They wouldn't dream of starting a janitorial services company because that is what the stupid & uneducated do. They wouldn't lower themselves to get out and start mowing lawns because their parents always pointed to that as something you do if you don't go to school. They wouldn't even fathom the idea that knowledge can, and in many cases IS, gained by people without formal training or education. Their ambitions are to climb the ladder that they believe they were promised. They aren't lazy, they are just looking for a world that they thought they would be a part of and now believe it is the mega rich that is to blame for it not being there.

It is really rooted in promises that couldn't possibly be met & entitlement, imho. And I mean entitlement in a purist sense...not a talking point sense. I don't think it is really their fault for believing it...after all, they believed what their parents, teachers, and the media told them all along. They believed what their authority figures told them all along and now the realization of "I went to school, went into massive debt, and now my education is useless and/or not overly valuable?" is making them look to the authority figures once again to tell them what to do.

Now, the educated class (as it were) is still employed for the most part. Unemployment is very low among them but there is certainly a lot of under-employment at play. Its part of the gigantic mess we have today but I think the fundamental problem we have is a lack of vision & quality of life improvement direction. As mentioned earlier...if we keep moving quality of life forward, this same generation will be gainfully employed as they had been led to believe.

This is an excellent post with wonderful structure, format and flawless punctuation.

But I think you are exactly right. I know in my personal life when I first started my home tech business interacting with customers after I crawled under their house or through their attic they were shocked to learn I had a college degree. "So why are you doing THIS?" ...Just always smiled and said I enjoyed it. But maybe more to your point my brother went to tech school and became a maintenance person at a large manufacturing facility...he works a ton of overtime but makes 75k+ a year....he recently had a flag custom made with the local tech school name on it so he can hang it off his porch in a tongue in cheek poke at some of his neighbors.

[DanGarion]

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That's relevant because we bail out AIG every year, right?
To be fair, I strongly opposed the bailouts and agree they should have been allowed to fall...but that was a bit of a incongruous argument.

It's relevant because people complain about people "on the dole" and we don't really spend all that much on welfare in the grand scheme of things. This notion that there are a bunch of freeloaders putting us in debt is laughable.

And it's not just the bailout of AIG (which was 3 times what we spent on food stamps that year). It's all the other effects those bailouts had. All the banks and investment firms it saved. All the money that was made through bad investments that were bailed out. It was trillions of dollars in welfare, decades worth what we spend on welfare.

Basically what I'm saying is that the wealthiest people in this country are by far the biggest welfare recepients.

[Desnudo]

Latest images out of downtown LA

[Flasch186]

CBO stats are pretty striking about the income disparity evolved over the last 25 years between the top x% and the middle class. I'd say that there is probably fodder for an argument for a lot of people in a lot of different camps. The most important thing that I find stupidly hypocritical is that the Tea Party and many slamming the OWS people that say they shouldnt be there, is that as constitutionalists they should be supporting the OWS' people and their right to free speech and protest. You dont have to agree with them but you should vigilantly defend their right to peacefully protest.

{shrug} 'Keep the gubment out of our lives unless of course it helps me push my positions and opinions onto your wrong ones.'

[Young Drachma]

Breitbart.tv » ‘I Am The 1%’: Wall Street CEO Debates #OccupyWS

http://www.nerve.com/news/politics/o...h-the-homeless

[fpres]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The most important thing that I find stupidly hypocritical is that the Tea Party and many slamming the OWS people that say they shouldnt be there, is that as constitutionalists they should be supporting the OWS' people and their right to free speech and protest. You dont have to agree with them but you should vigilantly defend their right to peacefully protest.

Oh, but the hypocrisy doesn't end there. How many OWS protesters and supporters were in the front row shouting down the Tea Party's right to free speech and peaceful protest? I seem to recall even a few Congressmen and Congresswomen who labeled Tea Party members as extremists or violent rabble. I'm not saying that it's everybody, but it's disingenuous to say that it's not more than a tiny subset.

This seems to be human nature, I guess..."our" viewpoint is right, "their" viewpoint is wrong.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

But that bottom picture could be replaced with just about anything anyone in the United States spends their time doing. ARe the problems of the OWS crowd as bad as the billion most impoverished people in teh world? No. Does that mean every single person in America should stop trying to improve their country? We should stop paying attention to politics, stop being activists, stop volunteering to help our neighbors, just because things are better here than in Kenya?

The "perspective" that picture gives me is reminding us that it's *very, very* important how your government and society functions, and that having a country where every one one of us is responsible for that is a wonderful and necessary thing.

[JPhillips]

I don't know why anyone complains about the federal government. It isn't as bad as Sierra Leone.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by fpres

Oh, but the hypocrisy doesn't end there. How many OWS protesters and supporters were in the front row shouting down the Tea Party's right to free speech and peaceful protest? I seem to recall even a few Congressmen and Congresswomen who labeled Tea Party members as extremists or violent rabble. I'm not saying that it's everybody, but it's disingenuous to say that it's not more than a tiny subset.

This seems to be human nature, I guess..."our" viewpoint is right, "their" viewpoint is wrong.

Agreed. The generalizations should NOT be used to stifle their speech. Ive seen so much crap comparing the Tea Party to the OWS and how no Tea Party members were arrested at their protests (not true) and then later in the blog it says that you cannot compare OWS and the Tea Party. Its garbage.

Free speech, nonthreatening free speech, should be supported by all especially strict constitutionalists.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But that bottom picture could be replaced with just about anything anyone in the United States spends their time doing. ARe the problems of the OWS crowd as bad as the billion most impoverished people in teh world? No. Does that mean every single person in America should stop trying to improve their country? We should stop paying attention to politics, stop being activists, stop volunteering to help our neighbors, just because things are better here than in Kenya?

The "perspective" that picture gives me is reminding us that it's *very, very* important how your government and society functions, and that having a country where every one one of us is responsible for that is a wonderful and necessary thing.

It doesn't make any protests or complaints any less legitimate, but it does give perspective. And from a Global perspective - the 99% is still the Global 1%, of course. To much of the rest of the world, this is like what we must see when millionaires fight with billionaires. Sure, the millionaires have every right to try to improve their lot too, but there's not quite as much at stake, and there's got to be less long-lasting passion to the cause (whatever it is), when you're well fed, and have security, and are way above any global poverty scale. Modern "revolutions" can't be as successful, I don't think, when you're starting off the bat with a lifestyle and government that previous rebels would have killed for (and in fact did kill for).

Speaking of that, there's been a lot of progress in the Global reduction of poverty. I don't know how that impacts global wealth distribution, or if better economic conditions of billions has brought down everyone else, or particularly the U.S., but really, it doesn't matter. The goal for that movement was to reduce poverty, not to try to flatten global wealth distribution charts or try to vilify those who had more (i.e. us). By its own stated terms, OWS is a success if the top 1% disappeared to China and took all their money with them. Then we'd be more equal! With the OWS I hear about wealth distribution about 100,000X more than I hear about poverty. The focus is on what other people have and how mad that makes everyone.

Edit: Though for some reason, if if the huge reduction of global poverty does also play a part in the stagnating lifestyles of the U.S. 99% - should the OWS protest against African people next? And if on the other hand, the great improvement of the state of the world's poor doesn't impact the world's rich at all....then maybe the U.S. 1% isn't the enemy either (or at least, they don't need to be "brought down" to improve the lot of everyone else)....

Further Edit: Though, more that I think about it, billions rising up out of poverty is also something that the top 1% in the U.S. has been able to benefit from. Billions of new customers. And the 1% simply doesn't need the labor of the 99% to tap into that (though they do need the government structure and laws...which they should pay for in higher taxes - but it's not otherwise "bad" that they're generating all this new wealth in that manner). And the billions have improved their lifestyle with access to those products and services.

[JPhillips]

This is the kind of shit that pisses people off.

Jon Corzine was the CEO for MF Global. He spent billions buying debt from the Euro PIGS in hopes that the governments would bail out the bond holders. WHen they instead forged a plan that will cost bond holders at least 50% MF Global started a death spiral. Now the company has filed for bankruptcy.

Corzine is contractually entitled to twelve million dollars.

As a blog I read said, these people aren't financial geniuses, they're reckless gamblers.

[cuervo72]

Don't forget the "former Governor" part.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is the kind of shit that pisses people off.

Jon Corzine was the CEO for MF Global. He spent billions buying debt from the Euro PIGS in hopes that the governments would bail out the bond holders. WHen they instead forged a plan that will cost bond holders at least 50% MF Global started a death spiral. Now the company has filed for bankruptcy.

Corzine is contractually entitled to twelve million dollars.

As a blog I read said, these people aren't financial geniuses, they're reckless gamblers.

This is exactly what standard economic theory would expect. Corporations have limited liability. When you're near insolvency, this creates asymmetric incentives for the company to load up on riskier bets. If they pay off, managers and equityholders reap all the gains, while creditors gain no benefit other than to continue receiving the interest payments they were already legally entitled to. If they don't pay off, managers and equityholders lose nothing (they were already wiped out and have limited liability), while creditors bear the losses.

This-along with Corzine's salary-strike me as fundamental problems with the market the require serious examination and regulation.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

This is exactly what standard economic theory would expect. Corporations have limited liability. When you're near insolvency, this creates asymmetric incentives for the company to load up on riskier bets. If they pay off, managers and equityholders reap all the gains, while creditors gain no benefit other than to continue receiving the interest payments they were already legally entitled to. If they don't pay off, managers and equityholders lose nothing (they were already wiped out and have limited liability), while creditors bear the losses.

This-along with Corzine's salary-strike me as fundamental problems with the market the require serious examination and regulation.

Yes, but so long as we stop rewarding these actions (as is the case for bondholders) then it serves as a disincentive for future geniuses. And bondholders will stop investing in these types of geniuses & go back to putting their money into solid & tangible investments.

The fact that this scumbag happened to weasel $12M out of the company just serves to warn investors in the future. Understand the financial interests of the CEO you are buying into.

[RainMaker]

At what point does it become embezzlement? Or just plain theft? I mean that $12 million is coming from their investors.

[CraigSca]

Yeah but, when he was governor he refused his $175K salary, so he's kind of a hero for the common man.

[Galaxy]

What Have Protesters Done to Oakland's Beloved Whole Foods?

NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury - Yahoo! News

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's relevant because people complain about people "on the dole" and we don't really spend all that much on welfare in the grand scheme of things. This notion that there are a bunch of freeloaders putting us in debt is laughable.

And it's not just the bailout of AIG (which was 3 times what we spent on food stamps that year). It's all the other effects those bailouts had. All the banks and investment firms it saved. All the money that was made through bad investments that were bailed out. It was trillions of dollars in welfare, decades worth what we spend on welfare.

Basically what I'm saying is that the wealthiest people in this country are by far the biggest welfare recepients.

But at least the bailouts have been repaid, even with a return on what the government funded. AIG just made another payment the Treasury for $972 million.

Treasury Receives $972 Million From AIG - WSJ.com

With Fifth Third Out, Banks Have Repaid 99% of TARP - WSJ.com

TARP investment in banks repaid with profit - The Hill's On The Money

Originally Posted by Flasch186

CBO stats are pretty striking about the income disparity evolved over the last 25 years between the top x% and the middle class. I'd say that there is probably fodder for an argument for a lot of people in a lot of different camps. The most important thing that I find stupidly hypocritical is that the Tea Party and many slamming the OWS people that say they shouldnt be there, is that as constitutionalists they should be supporting the OWS' people and their right to free speech and protest. You dont have to agree with them but you should vigilantly defend their right to peacefully protest.

{shrug} 'Keep the gubment out of our lives unless of course it helps me push my positions and opinions onto your wrong ones.'

Is it criticism that they shouldn't be allowed to break the law/violate curfews, and the right to occupy parks that the rest can't use?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Is it criticism that they shouldn't be allowed to break the law/violate curfews, and the right to occupy parks that the rest can't use?

This is actually a very difficult constitutional issue. Without a significant public safety issue, I'd favor a fist amendment right, but I'd acknowledge that allowing the protestors does infringe to some degree on the rights of others. The problem with saying curfew laws are supreme is that it would be very easy for a government to create enough laws to effectively eliminate protests. Where to draw the line isn't an easy decision.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But at least the bailouts have been repaid, even with a return on what the government funded. AIG just made another payment the Treasury for $972 million.

And if you pay income taxes during your lifetime, you repaid welfare you received.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is actually a very difficult constitutional issue. Without a significant public safety issue, I'd favor a fist amendment right, but I'd acknowledge that allowing the protestors does infringe to some degree on the rights of others. The problem with saying curfew laws are supreme is that it would be very easy for a government to create enough laws to effectively eliminate protests. Where to draw the line isn't an easy decision.

This. You have to allow the freedom of speech first lest the people in power (or whatever) say the Curfew starts at 400pm and ends at 300pm the next day. theres probably some sort of medium I guess although I dont know what it is. Regardless, I think that they (or the middle class) based on the recent CBO stats, have ample fodder to be pissed off.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And if you pay income taxes during your lifetime, you repaid welfare you received.

Well, because of the massive deficits our government has, I don't really think we can consider anything repaid.

[Matthean]

[molson]

It sounds like some of the "good" Oakland protesters are showing up early to clean up after hooligan protesters. That's a good distinction for them to try to make as aggressively as possible. Actually, they should probably disown the entire Oakland version of this, because it's going to turn people against them.

[lcjjdnh]

Most “Occupy Wall Street� Protesters HAVE Jobs | The Big Picture

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal found:

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

Professor Hector R. Cordero-Guzman and business analyst Harrison Schultz from the Baruch College School of Public Affair puts the unemployment rate of the Occupy protesters at 13.1%. In other words, approximately 85% employment rate.

[sterlingice]

At the end of the day, does it really matter? Then again, I suppose a lot of this thread has been wasted on shooting the messenger rather than the message.

SI

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

At the end of the day, does it really matter? Then again, I suppose a lot of this thread has been wasted on shooting the messenger rather than the message.

SI

Yes. Combatting the common (mis)perceptions about the protestors was what I was getting at.

[miked]

So if they have jobs, they can't complain about Wall Street buying the government?

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by miked

So if they have jobs, they can't complain about Wall Street buying the government?

Not at all. My point was that some people seem to dismiss the protesters because they had the perception they were unemployed hippies--but that's not the case.

[Young Drachma]

Police in Riot Gear Enter Zuccotti Park, Order Protesters to Vacate | NBC New York

Hundreds of police officers, some in riot gear, descended on Zuccotti Park after midnight Tuesday in a surprise sweep of the Occupy Wall Street headquarters.

It comes just two days ahead of a massive planned demonstration Thursday marking the movement's two-month anniversary.

Police handed out letters to protesters ordering them to temporarily evacuate the park. Police said the eviction will improve health conditions.

Campers were ordered to remove all their tents. Police claimed it was a health issue.

Protesters were told they will be allowed to return to the park in several hours, after the park is inspected, but without their property, which will be brought to a sanitation garage.

Some protesters have left but a large number have stayed behind. They chanted at police, "Whose park, our park."

A Bloomberg News report Monday stated that mayors across the country had ordered police to shut down camps allied with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, saying they had deteriorated from a protest against income inequality into a backdrop for crime and violence.

Occupy camps from Oakland, Calif., to Portland, Ore., have grappled with drug overdoses, sexual assaults and thefts, reported Bloomberg News, of which the mayor is founder and majority owner.

In New York City, demonstrators were planning to march in front of the New York Stock Exchange in the morning, get on subway trains across all five boroughs in the afternoon, then rally near City Hall in the evening. Afterward, they were expected to march to area bridges.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday demonstrators won't disrupt Wall Street, and that the Stock Exchange will open on time and people will be able to get to work.

Bloomberg has gone back and forth between criticizing Occupy Wall Street and defending it, saying recently that protesters were largely law-abiding and did not bother anyone.

When he was asked Monday to address complaints of local business owners and residents about the Occupy encampment, Bloomberg, as he has been for the past few weeks, hedged on whether he planned to step in.

"We'll take appropriate action when it's appropriate," he said.

Party seems to be over...