Occupy Wall Street - Page 84

On October 18 2011 08:29 domovoi wrote:

What I don't get is how fighting against corporate influence will fix any of our current economic problems. Hint: it won't. OWS should be protesting the Republicans and the Tea Party, not some amorphous concept like "corporations." Despite all the energy, their efforts are a waste if it doesn't translate into political success. Because despite what the protesters claim, protest isn't the highest form of democracy, fucking voting is.

The truth of the matter is that the political process is paralyzed not because of corporate influence, but because a large swath of Americans don't like Obama, no matter how wise his policies are. Unfortunately, OWS is more interested in chasing corporate conspiracies rather than tackling the root cause of the problem.

On October 18 2011 23:30 Taekwon wrote:
TBH, I'm becoming more and more lethargic towards these Occupy protests. Granted, it's only been a few weeks since they started and although they may be spread out throughout the world, they simply lack the critical elements that are included within revolutions of the past to actually precipitate a difference. And those factors are simply impossible to achieve in a world where globalization is near inescapable to live comfortably within society. The military won't budge and the majority of people are clearly unwilling to risk their lives via violence. Rome is simply a drop in the bucket. To be clear, I don't at all doubt the motivations and purposes these people are committing themselves too. It takes ample dedication to sleep outside for weeks and protest restlessly. However, civil disobedience of this magnitude and scale can't create change in entire socio-economic systems. The governments wax poetry about their sympathies and continue to gloat greed, and politicians will signal their support for mere politics sake and throw the whole event out like used up chewing gum.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and quote me and mock me incessantly should this movement actually does something but for now, I'm only seeing protestors flock and flee to the warmth of their homes when the dead beat of winter comes - case in point, the entire thing will be nothing more than a fleeting caper.

On October 18 2011 20:37 teddyoojo wrote:

i think theres a big big mistake in saying "we are 99%". because we arent. we are the people that live a good life, while the other half of this world dont. maybe/probably due to this 1%. it doesnt matter. going out there whining we are 99% that gets fucked by the greed of capitalism isnt right. maybe i misinterpret this shit, id be glad if so. i just feel bad for the "real" poor people that wont get shit no matter how this will end.

On October 18 2011 23:52 sekritzzz wrote:

I hope this isn't taken as American bashing but this guy speaks the truth. Although I support the wall street protests, looking at it in the bigger picture of the world and although this "1%" is in-fact eating up the wealth of "99%" of Americans, America as a whole in general has been doing the same thing for the rest of the world. "America" has been eating up the wealth of other nations by abusing its powers in order to maintain such a high standard of living where the poverty line is 26k/year or something. The real 99% are those people who live on gold mines yet live on 1 dollar a day, the likes of South America/Africa.

BTW - anyone check out Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan? Holy shit, how is a guy that would suggest something like that leading the republican primary? God this country is retarted.

I hope this isn't taken as American bashing but this guy speaks the truth. Although I support the wall street protests, looking at it in the bigger picture of the world and although this "1%" is in-fact eating up the wealth of "99%" of Americans, America as a whole in general has been doing the same thing for the rest of the world. "America" has been eating up the wealth of other nations by abusing its powers in order to maintain such a high standard of living where the poverty line is 26k/year or something. The real 99% are those people who live on gold mines yet live on 1 dollar a day, the likes of South America/Africa.

God this country is retarted.

BTW - anyone check out Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan? Holy shit, how is a guy that would suggest something like that leading the republican primary?

Because it's a catchy motto and that's all it really takes apparently.

On October 18 2011 23:02 dOofuS wrote:


This is my new favorite video. What an epic way to illustrate the current battle of economic theories. Thank you for linking!

On October 18 2011 23:52 sekritzzz wrote:

I hope this isn't taken as American bashing but this guy speaks the truth. Although I support the wall street protests, looking at it in the bigger picture of the world and although this "1%" is in-fact eating up the wealth of "99%" of Americans, America as a whole in general has been doing the same thing for the rest of the world. "America" has been eating up the wealth of other nations by abusing its powers in order to maintain such a high standard of living where the poverty line is 26k/year or something. The real 99% are those people who live on gold mines yet live on 1 dollar a day, the likes of South America/Africa.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

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%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions. While that 1970 election should have been a sweep against the first-term Nixon administration, it was instead one of only four midterm elections since 1938 when the president's party didn't lose seats.

With the Democratic Party on the defensive throughout the 1970 campaign, liberal Democrats were only able to win on Election Day by distancing themselves from the student protest movement. So Adlai Stevenson III pinned an American flag to his lapel, appointed Chicago Seven prosecutor Thomas Foran chairman of his Citizen's Committee, and emphasized "law and order"—a tactic then employed by Ted Kennedy, who denounced the student protesters as "campus commandos" who must be repudiated, "especially by those who may share their goals."

Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases.

Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

On October 18 2011 13:12 jubil wrote:


Not all universities...

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S31/80/01M66/index.xml?section=topstories
(Princeton endowment up 22% over the past year, to $17 billion)

You'd think they could starting putting serious cuts in tuition with that kind of money, but what do I know... : P


But for public universities, yes that is the case.

On October 19 2011 00:13 stk01001 wrote:
It's frustrating some of the people at OWS can't explain why they are there or what they want, but ignorance is everywhere, and it does not mean they don't have a legitimite gripe. I feel it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain what these protests are all about. Here are some FACTS:

The economic collapse in this country was caused by deregulation of the financial industry (Bill Clinton did have a lot to do with this) coupled with corporate greed and irresponsibility. These guys on Wall Street knew what they were doing was immoral, yet continued to do it anyway, and the financial system nearly collapsed as a result.

The same corporate assholes who caused this mess were then "bailed out" with TAXPAYER money. They were BAILED out by everyday, middle class working Americans. Not one person on Wall Street or the SEC was fired or held accountable for what happened .

Since the financial collapse, NO NEW RESTRICTION OR REGULATIONS have been imposed to prevent this from happening again. After being bailed out, these big corporations continued to ship jobs overseas to make more profits along with continuing to pay out ridiculous bonuses to their executives. Business as usual.

In the meantime, the middle and poor class CONTINUE TO SUFFER. Average income of middle / lower class Americans is GOING DOWN for the first time in history. Cost of education continues to rise and more and more people are graduating college with huge amounts of debt and are UNABLE to get a job. Yet the rich in this country are prospering more than ever, enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in the nation's history (relatively speaking).

Yea I think it's VERY CLEAR why people are angry, and anyone who can't understand why OWS is happening or does not sympathize with their cause has little to no idea of the reality of what's going on in this country. You can't just "ignore" the poor and middle class and hope they go away. The more they suffer, the more societly as a whole will suffer, yet the GOP simply wants to ignore these problems and hope the wealth "trickles down" It's really sickening how they are blocking Obama's jobs bill as we speak.

BTW - anyone check out Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan? Holy shit, how is a guy that would suggest something like that leading the republican primary? God this country is retarted.

On October 19 2011 01:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:
OWS will make Obama lose by 8 points instead of 7, or something like that.

Unless the economy significantly improves, in which case he'll win but the steam will have been taken out of OWS' sails.

The best thing for the OWS movement would be for Obama to lose, honestly... more opportunities for protest and passion in the movement with the Republicans in charge.