We are all the 99%; Let's stick it to "the Man"

Adrienne told me the OWS represented me, even if I didn’t know. I think of the protesters as lovable guys, sort of like the character in the “Big Lebowski: and I guess I am being insufficiently grateful. As a member of the 99%, I figure if they represent me, I represent them too. So I am now an associated member of OWS. Of course, I won’t actually be able to occupy any streets, since I have to work, but I have other ideas to be part of the movement and show solidarity.

First of all, I can accept much of the basics. I am honest. I would like to have a robust economy creating lots of jobs. I am against crooks in government, business and society. I am "fed up" by the mismanagement of the economy and I think we should change things next November. Good so far?

Right on! Let's stick it to "the Man". I guess that must be Barack Obama. Do the OWS know that?

I think I have the skills needed to be an OWS member. They seem to eat a lot of pizza. I know how to eat pizza. In fact, I am very good at it. I can also sleep very well, even during the day. While I cannot occupy Wall Street in person, I can occupy space in my yard, risking attack by angry birds & squirrels. I don't think Chrissy will go for this. One of the local squirrels has been giving her dirty looks lately. Who knows what he will do if given the chance? But in the bold and intrepid OWS spirit, I fear no small rodents and will bravely sleep outside for at least a few hours. I will do my part next Saturday and in preparation, and to be more like the average OWS protesters, I will avoid taking showers for at least two days.

Can you really be part of OWS by staying in your own backyard? I take my inspiration here from a poem by Emily Dickinson. To wit:

"Some keep the Sabbath going to Church -
I keep it, staying at Home -
With a Bobolink for a Chorister -
And an Orchard, for a Dome -

"Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice -
I, just wear my Wings -
And instead of tolling the Bell, for Church,
Our little Sexton - sings.

"God preaches, a noted Clergyman -
And the sermon is never long,
So instead of getting to Heaven, at last -
I'm going, all along."

I think this kind of applies to my case. I will keep up the fight by staying at home. The OWS guys are making a big deal about wanting to improve the economy, create jobs, and fight for justice. They think the way to do this is through collective political protest. I want the same things, but I think the best way to achieve this is through work and effort, working with others to build wealth, but mostly taking responsibility for my own behaviors. We are on the same team, since we are all part of that 99%. I think my way will work better.

Posted by Christine & John at November 5, 2011 8:45 PM
Comments
Comment #331534

And may I add through the ballot box, C&J.

Posted by: KAP at November 5, 2011 9:44 PM
Comment #331535

I dunno. Sounds kind of lame, C&J. I don’t know that we need to break bad on the system like what has gone on in Greece, Oakland and around the globe. But, just going along to get along probably won’t hack it re the revolution.
I am greatly encouraged by the lady who worked up her friends on the Internet in sufficient number to turn the Bank of Am. around. Such a good example of what getting off the couch and flogging the keyboard can do for a situation. Our system of gov’t could be changed just as easily if only people were motivated in that direction.
I caught a snipnet of Lou Dobbs on the Huckabee show this evening. Lou was saying we’ve got to get beyond just giving the IMF money to give to other countries and hoping that squares things. Said we have to have a different system to deal with world economies. I agree. Lou for Pres in 2016.
Right now both parties have run off in separate corners and have assigned a committee to address problems of state. I guess, so they don’t have to take any heat over the outcome and being in a position later to say ‘I told you so’. And, the Executive is going to create jobs while Rome burns, etc.
Solving our major problem, the money influence in politics/gov’t wouldn’t be hard to correct. Just need to abolish corporate personhood and implement REAL campaign finance reform. The hard part is motivizing the masses, herding them up, etc. Not near enough pain and misery to get that going yet, IMO.
Otherwise = = =

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 5, 2011 10:00 PM
Comment #331551

dbs,

Thanks for sharing. It’s hard for me to fathom today anyone posing a question questioning capitalism the way Mr. Donahue did. Our society has indeed changed over the last few decades.

Too bad Milton Freedman isn’t around anymore to breath any sense into the conservative movement. Dr. Freedman was a Monetarist, and would probably have prescribed and expansionary monetary policy in light of the strong deflationary pressures of the last three years. Unfortunately the Right Wing has done everything possible to halt any monetary stimulus in addition to their opposition to fiscal stimulus.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 6, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment #331554

This was what Milton Friedman recommended when the Japanese central bank had reduced interest rates to zero without increasing the money supply during the early 90s recession in Japan:

“It’s very simple. They can buy long-term government securities, and they can keep buying them and providing high-powered money until the high powered money starts getting the economy in an expansion. What Japan needs is a more expansive domestic monetary policy.”

In other words, Quantitative Easing. Something today’s conservative trash as “printing money” and debasing the dollar.

Posted by: Rich at November 6, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #331556

Don’t forget this gem, Milton Freedman vs a young Michael Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #331557

(and no, it isn’t REALLY Michael Moore)

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #331558

Everyone supporting OWS should watch this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SCkTFPLL-Lk

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #331560

Friedman’s comment reminds me of the non-PC joke.

This guy is trying to a woman into bed. Various things are said, but finally he asks if she would be willing to go to bed with him for $1 million. She says that she would.

He responds, “how about $10?”

She says, “what do you think I am?”

His response, “we have established what you are, and now we are haggling about price.”

Posted by: C&J at November 6, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #331599

C&J, me too, but it’s Freidman who is the whore. The consumer has no means to evaluate the risk associated with a hidden design flaw, nor did the people of Chile choose to be shot by Pinochet’s trainees from the School of Americas in Georgia. This has got to be the dumbest argument I have ever heard. This isn’t a free market, it’s fraud and a market created at the point of a gun. Friedman didn’t understand the question because he drives around in a Mercedes and doesn’t have to face Pinochet’s thugs. Ah, the wonders of eating cake.

Arrogance is what started the French Revolution. Post like C&J’s point to why America is in trouble. C&J, you don’t qualify as the 99%, you are part of the problem. See you at the guillotine.

Wake up! You simply don’t understand human beings. I’ve known a few pet owners who think they understand their pets, they are shocked when they get bit. They ask, why don’t they understand how good I am to them? I think Slaveholders asked similar questions.

King George just wanted a little tax to fund his war. When the workers revolt, all the nonsense BS in the world won’t contain them. The 1% will lose, even if it costs the 99% too. America had serious economic issues after the revolution, and raised taxes higher than King George was asking. I find it hard to believe the stupidity of the political discourse on this subject. The game is over.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at November 7, 2011 12:12 AM
Comment #331621

Tom

The OWS include me in their list. According to them, it is th 99% of the “poorer” people v the 1%.

I am not now nor have I ever been in the top 1%. Most of my life, I have actually earned below the median. Now I earn more, but I expect to be back down soon.

So the OWS has the problem. They can change their definition to say that they repesent the view of maybe 20% against 80%, but that doesn’t sound as good.

They included me; I didn’t include them.

Re the French Revolution - that didn’t work very well, did it? They overthrew a weak king, plunged Europe into a general war, murdered lots of their own people and in the end got a stronger emperor and then again a couple of weak kings.

The French Revolution, in fact, is a textbook case of how passions can create lots of nice songs, but not a good government.

Indeed, if the OWS became successfully revolutionary, we would all be in trouble. But me less than people probably like you. I adapt very quickly. I am more like Talleyrand than Louis.

Posted by: C&J at November 7, 2011 4:39 AM
Comment #331626

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/wages-of-top-1-rise-much-faster-than-bottom-90.html

This url vividly shows the disparity in wages from 1979 forward. The ‘flat line’ representing the lower 90% makes a strong statement.

I’m pleased that some are taking to streets to protest the inequity among other things. The taxpayer just pumped $108B into the sinkhole of Greece, money that we don’t have. This globalisation thing has put the worker on a hind teat while the corporate set fly around in the heavens. Italy is up next and the US doesn’t and EU combined can’t bail them out. All up to China from hereout. Woweee!

What are the 99% supposed to do when their 99 weeks run out? Thank you OWS for having the gonads to go into the streets and represent me in the 99%.

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #331627

Jack Abramoff: ‘The whole system’ is corrupt

He should certainly know, yes?

When the entire system is corrupt, a person won’t change it by staying at home, or by simply whining and complaining, or by wishing and hoping things could be different, or by going along simply to get along. No, one can only change things by getting out into the streets and loudly announcing that the system is corrupt and unjust — and that this is NOT OKAY.
Civil Disobedience is the ONLY WAY that anything that is not considered acceptable to We The People has EVER been made to change in this country — and that is what Occupy Wall Street is doing, and will continue to do until things change for the better.

I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. — Thomas Paine
I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace. — Thomas Paine
An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot. — Thomas Paine
The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance. — Thomas Paine
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.— Thomas Paine
The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few to ride them. — Thomas Jefferson
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. — Thomas Jefferson
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.- Samuel Adams
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. — Samuel Adams
Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.— Frederick Douglas
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country… corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow.— Abraham Lincoln
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people. — Abraham Lincoln
Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world. - Harriet Tubman
The blessings we associate with a life of refinement and culture can be made universal. The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life.— Jane Addams
Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world’s estimation.— Susan B. Anthony
The only chance women have for justice in this country is to violate the law, as I have done, and as I shall continue to do. — Susan B. Anthony
Here, in the first paragraph of the Declaration, is the assertion of the natural right of all to the ballot; for how can “the consent of the governed” be given, if the right to vote be denied? — Susan B. Anthony
My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.” - Mother Jones
“I will die like a true-blue rebel. Don’t waste any time in mourning — organize.” - Joe Hill
“Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization. Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation.” — Eugene Debs
“An injury to one is an injury to all.” — The IWW
Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. - Mark Twain
“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious — makes you so sick at heart — that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.” — Mario Savio
True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. — Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. — Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifices. Capitalism was built on the exploitation of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor, both black and white, both here and abroad. — Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Our opponents in the agricultural industry are very powerful and farm workers are still weak in money and influence. But we have another kind of power that comes from the justice of our cause. So long as we are willing to sacrifice for that cause, so long as we persist in non-violence and work to spread the message of our struggle, then millions of people around the world will respond from their heart, will support our efforts … and in the end we will overcome. - Cesar Chavez
The first principal of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating.- Cesar Chavez
You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation. - Marian Wright Edelman
To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.

What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places — and there are so many — where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory. — Howard Zinn

Some of you don’t like Occupy Wall Street? That’s Tough Sh*t.
You want to mock OWS? You go right ahead — this has always been the way it goes when average people dared to rise up against the corrupt and callous power structures of the wealthy status quo for any reason whatsoever.
Sarcasm and cynicism has never been any match against the iron determination of people who know they are right and that the conditions they’re living under are wrong.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2011 11:06 AM
Comment #331628

ABC News: 1 Million People Move Their Money; Banks Hiking Fees Again

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2011 12:34 PM
Comment #331631

Roy

The Greeks and Italians are in trouble for following some of the big government give-aways many of the protesters seek.

The top income tax in Greece is 40% (not much higher than ours) but SS equivalent is amounts to 28.06% on the employer and employee’s contribution is 16%, with none of the income limits we enjoy.

Capital gains are taxed at ordinary rates and the VAT tax in Greece is 4.5% to 23%.

The Italian top rate is 43%. They also get you on VAT and their SS employer’s contribution is around 30% of the salary and the employee’s contribution is around 10% of the salary.

These places are highly taxed, just like the protesters want in the U.S.

Adrienne

I ask again please tell me what the OWS want that is different than what we all agree we want and/or what methods they will use to achieve it.

I too am unhappy in the Obama doldrums. What will the OWS DO to change this?

I don’t like that I lost big money on my house. How will they OWS get that money back?

I am unhappy the unemployment has stayed so high since 2009. HOw will they lower it?

There is a lot of anger, but it is directed in ways that won’t do anything to change the facts on the ground.

The OWS is very much like the Tea Party in its list of grievances and in its grass roots origins. They even used many of the same quotes you do from Adams, Paine & Lincoln. But the TP articulated a program, which is why it became powerful.

The OWS needs to tell the other 99% of us what it would mean if they won.

You keep on using terms like average people for the OWS. If they make up more than 50% of the population, they can elect anybody they want. It is a tautology.

The other thing you keep on doing is speaking as though the OWS represents nearly all the people and then dissing those who don’t like them. You had no trouble dissing the TP, which was/is a larger movement.

If you OWS represents the 99% of the lower income, it represents me, plus all the conservatives in this blog, almost all the members of the TP, almost all Republicans …. So who are you talking to who is not under this aegis?

You know the Tea Party represented you. Did you accept their offer?

Posted by: C&J at November 7, 2011 2:10 PM
Comment #331636

Jack:

I ask again please tell me what the OWS want

What a transparent, and silly, and familiar refrain.

what methods they will use to achieve it.

Whatever will work against the 1%. Whatever it takes to transform America into a country that is by the People and for the People, rather than a country that is by and for the 1%.

There is a lot of anger, but it is directed in ways that won’t do anything to change the facts on the ground.

This is a demonstrably false statement. OWS has ALREADY changed the facts on the ground — and this will only continue as we move forward.

The OWS is very much like the Tea Party in its list of grievances and in its grass roots origins.

The Tea Party was a libertarian grassroots movement that began because people were angered by the TARP bailouts and by the rampant corruption of Wall Street. It was soon hijacked by the 1% — whose money bankrolled the Tea Party Inc. and sold it to America. That list of grievances that initially motivated the libertarian grassroots movement in the first place was quickly subverted by the money of the 1% with the full aid and cooperation of the Republican Party. The founder of the Tea Party movement understands that this is true, and this is why he is now supporting Occupy Wall Street.

You know the Tea Party represented you.

No, the Tea Party Inc. does not represent me, and it does not represent the 99%. It very clearly represents the 1%.

Did you accept their offer?

No, nor does the guy that started the tea party movement.

But Occupy Wall Street accepts every individual who understands that Wall Street and our government is corrupt. Many of us are going to disagree in many areas of politics, but the one place where we all seem to agree is that the 1% on Wall Street are corrupt crooks who intentionally collapsed our economy (and the world’s economy as well) for their own private gain, and they have stolen American taxpayer money and robbed pensions, with the full cooperation of our corrupt, bought-off American government.
A government which now erroneously claims that we must suffer severe austerity measures as a result.

At this place where we agree, and where our interests intersect, We The People can join together and act like a single hand in order to remove these Wall Street and Washington thieves from power, make the many changes that are needed, and put some of these people in jail where they belong.

After we’ve done all that — after we’ve secured a better future for the 99% — well then we can re-form ourselves into our right/left politcal-viewpoint factions and get back to haggling over all the other political stuff.

But the TP articulated a program, which is why it became powerful.


The Tea Party initially acknowledged a serious problem but articulated an extremely partisan program that was geared to specifically appeal to the libertarian right. This is exactly why it ended up getting so easily derailed by the 1% and the GOP. That is also why the Tea Party has been steadily losing so much respect, and therefore is right now losing power.

Conversely, OWS is not a partisan movement — ALL voices are welcome, and will be heard — which is why this movement is not going to be co-opted by either corrupt mainstream political party, and can certainly not be hijacked by Wall Street’s 1%.
OWS’s lack of petty partisanship, and it’s insistence on direct democracy is why it has continued to grow, and why it will only become stronger, and has so much potential to affect significant and much needed change.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2011 4:01 PM
Comment #331638

Adrienne

“But Occupy Wall Street accepts every individual who understands that Wall Street and our government is corrupt.” I accept that. I even have specifics, pease see below about Obama government and Wall Street. So I can be in OWS, right?

The Tea Party represented millions of people who actually stood with them and voted. Simple math tells us that the 1% would make up around 3 million Americans. There were more than that voting in Tea Party and it is unlikely that all those poor looking guys at Tea Party rallies were really rich fat cats.

Why do you believe the OWS is more representative of America than Tea Party? Tea Party claimed not to be partisan too.

But I do agree that they have reason to be angry … at Obama. So I agree with that. See below. Let’s vote that guy out. Later on we will talk other details.

Beside, as I wrote up top - as a member of the 99% I am happy to be representing the OWS in my own way.

Below re Obama and Wall Street

“During Obama’s Tenure, Wall Street Has Roared Back, Even As The Broader Economy Has Struggled.” “But both sides face an inconvenient fact: During Obama’s tenure, Wall Street has roared back, even as the broader economy has struggled.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

“The Largest Banks Are Larger Than They Were When Obama Took Office” And Their Profits Are Near The Same Heights As They Were In 2008. “The largest banks are larger than they were when Obama took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

Wall Street Firms Have “Earned More In The First 2 1/2 Years Of The Obama Administration Than They Did During The Eight Years Of The George W. Bush Administration.” “Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

Securities Firms Have Made Over $83 Billion In Profit Since Obama Became President, Compared To $77 Billion In The Previous 8 Years. “Securities firms — the trading arms of big banks and hundreds of other independent firms — have fared even better. They’ve generated at least $83 billion in profit during the past 21 / 2 years, compared with $77 billion during the entire Bush administration, according to data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

“Since Obama Became President, The Largest, $100 Billion-Plus Banks, Which Were At The Center Of The Financial Crisis, Have Grown In Size By 10 Percent.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

The Largest Banks Collected $34 Billion In Profits During The First Half Of 2011, Almost The Amount They Earned In The First Half Of 2007. “The largest banks, which include Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, earned $34 billion in profit in the first half of the year, nearly matching what they earned in the same period in 2007 and more than in the same period of any other year.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

It Looks Like “Their Campaign Contributions Paid Off Very Well For Them”

Mika Brzezinski: “The Washington Post this morning is reporting on new government data that shows profits for America’s largest financial firms are once again reaching record highs not seen sense before the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, Wall Street firms have earned more in the first two and a half years of the Obama presidency than all 8 years of the Bush presidency. Over 85 billion dollars in profits compared to 77 billion.” Joe Scarborough: “Wait- you mean in the first two years they made more than in eight years than in the Bush administration?” Brzezinski: “That’s correct.” Scarborough: “Well, their campaign contributions paid off very well for them then.”(MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” 11/7/11)

Obama Has “Not Shunned Wall Street,” Raking In Campaign Funds And Inviting Them To The White House For Closed Door Campaign Meetings. “The president, however, has not shunned Wall Street. He has courted financial executives for campaign donations, including inviting them to a campaign gathering at the White House.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

Obama Has Raised $15.6 Million From Wall Street For His Reelection Effort, More Money From “Than All Of The GOP Candidates Combined.” “He has attracted more money for his campaign and for the Democratic National Committee from financial firm employees than all of the GOP candidates combined — a total of $15.6 million.” (Zachary A Goldfarb, “Wall Street’s Resurgent Prosperity Frustrates Its Claims, And Obama’s,” The Washington Post, 11/6/11)

OBAMA’S OWN “WALL STREET GUY,” AND A LEADING FUNDRAISER FOR HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, IS BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI FOR ALLEGEDLY MISUSING CLIENTS’ MONEY

President Obama: Jon Corzine Is “Our Wall Street Guy.” “The rollout also provided a showcase for Corzine, the former Goldman Sachs CEO whom Obama referred to as ‘our Wall Street guy’ at a meeting of Democratic governors in Chicago on Friday.” (Claire Heininger, “Corzine Profile Rises In Obama Camp,” The Star-Ledger (NJ),6/23/08)

Corzine’s Wall Street Firm, MF Global Has Filed For Bankruptcy. “Broker-dealer MF Global, headed by former New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs chairman John Corzine, has filed for bankruptcy protection, apparently because of holdings of European debt.” (“Broker-Dealer MF Global Files For Bankruptcy,” USA Today, 10/31/11)

Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Customer Money Has Gone Missing From” Corzine’s Firm. “Federal regulators have discovered that hundreds of millions of dollars in customer money has gone missing from MF Global in recent days, prompting an investigation into the brokerage firm, which is run by Jon S. Corzine, the former New Jersey governor, several people briefed on the matter said on Monday.” (Ben Protess, Michael J. De La Merced And Susanne Craig, “Regulators Investigating Mf Global For Missing Money,” The New York Times’ “Dealbook,” 10/31/11)

“As Of Friday, $593 Million Remained Missing From Customer Trading Accounts, According To A Person Familiar With The Regulatory Probe Of The Collapsed Firm.” (Scott Patterson, “MF Global Client Funds Still Missing,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/6/11)

Corzine, One Of Obama’s “Leading Wall Street Fundraisers,” Is Now “The Center Of An FBI Investigation.” “Jon Corzine, now the center of an FBI investigation into the handling of hundreds of millions of dollars invested in his securities firm, was one of the leading Wall Street fundraisers for President Obama’s campaign and suggested to investors that he might take a top administration post if the president were re-elected.” (Michael Isikoff, “Corzine, Top Obama Fundraiser, Under FBI Investigation,” MSNBC, 11/2/11)

Corzine Played A “Central Role” In Obama’s Wall Street Fundraising Efforts. “His new legal troubles, sparked by the bankruptcy filing of his investment firm, MF Global, could complicate the president’s efforts to raise money from the financial community given Corzine’s central role in those efforts.” (Michael Isikoff, “Corzine, Top Obama Fundraiser, Under FBI Investigation,” MSNBC, 11/2/11)
Corzine Has Bundled Over $500,000 For Obama’s Reelection Campaign. (Center For Responsive Politics, Opensecrets.Org, Accessed 10/31/11)
“Corzine Has Already Held A High-End Fundraiser And Organized A Secret Meet-And-Greet Between Finance Executives And Obama’s New Chief Of Staff.” (Peter Stone, Elizabeth Lucas, John Aloysius Farrell, Paul Abowd and Rachael Marcus, “Obama Campaign Reports More Than 350 Big Bundlers, Including Solyndra Figures,”Iwatch News, 10/14/11)


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-say-occupy-obama-2011-11#ixzz1d3ZOZMrf

Posted by: C&J at November 7, 2011 4:22 PM
Comment #331639

Jack,

You only want to focus on Obama and his ties and acquiescence to Wall Street because you just want a Republican to replace him. That’s bunk. All of the Republican candidates who are running are equally corrupt, equally tied to and funded by Wall Street and are sure to acquiesce to their demands.

This is why in reality, you are clearly an advocate for the 1%.

If the 99% wants change, We The People have to stop advocating for EITHER of our corrupt mainstream political parties — and vote ALL of these crooks out of office.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #331640

Adrienne

Obama is president now. He is the problem now. If a Republican is elected in 2012, you can blame him/her about a year later.

If you are defending the establishment status quo, you must be part of that 1%. So of course, you are as angry at Obama as I am.

Anyway, I am with you on this one too about throwing the bums out. We should vote out everybody running for reelection in 2012, in fact, let’s go after everybody who was in office in 2008, when the recession really hit.

I plan to do exactly that with those who appear on my ballot in 2012, i.e. I will be voting against anybody who held Federal elective office 2008-2012. Will you promise to do the same? Or maybe you are more establishment.

The late, lamented DR used to want to vote out all incumbents. Let’s try it this time and see how it works.

Posted by: C&J at November 7, 2011 4:56 PM
Comment #331641

We have a corrupt and broken government. This is transparently true whether it’s under Republicans or Democrats. Since neither party is worth voting for, I’ll be voting for third party candidates. I get the impression many other Americans who are supporting OWS will be too.

Ever since the corrupt Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, many people have been assuming that another 1% Republican would win the next presidential election (including me). Right now that looks to be Mitt Romney. So far he’s taken the most $$$ from Wall Street. Or perhaps it’ll be that seriously stupid and clueless, Koch-Owned Sexual-Predator, Herman Cain.

Anyway, no matter who wins in 2012, the OWS movement is likely continue to grow.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #331642

OWS’s lack of petty partisanship, and it’s insistence on direct democracy is why it has continued to grow, and why it will only become stronger, and has so much potential to affect significant and much needed change.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 7, 2011

“Direct Democracy” is an interesting term to use. Could you explain how that would work? Direct democracy requires no elected representatives. So, we are rid of congress. It also requires no president, so we are rid of that. What remains is the judiciary…or, would you dispose of that as well?

How often and in what form would we directly vote for our laws and regulations? Would your direct democracy allow for government agencies and a military. Under whose direction would they be ordered?

Just wondering…

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2011 6:28 PM
Comment #331643

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/wages-of-top-1-rise-much-faster-than-bottom-90.html

This url vividly shows the disparity in wages from 1979 forward. The ‘flat line’ representing the lower 90% makes a strong statement.

I’m pleased that some are taking to streets to protest the inequity among other things. The taxpayer just pumped $108B into the sinkhole of Greece, money that we don’t have. This globalisation thing has put the worker on a hind teat while the corporate set fly around in the heavens. Italy is up next and the US doesn’t and EU combined can’t bail them out. All up to China from hereout. Woweee!

What are the 99% supposed to do when their 99 weeks run out? Thank you OWS for having the gonads to go into the streets and represent me in the 99%.

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #331644

The quote below is from the link provided by Roy just above.

“The top 1% of households still fare well from President Bush-era tax cuts and from a decrease in the estate tax, according to the EPI. Its authors argue, in a separate paper, that in light of these rising incomes, high-income households should be taxed more to reduce the deficit.”

According to this, the income of the top 1% is directly attributable to lowered tax rates and elimination of the estate tax. How does this explain why the bottom 99% are not doing better? Are they paying more taxes as would be logical if the assumptions were correct?

Beyond that, does anyone actually believe that an increase in the tax rate on the rich would be used to reduce the deficit as the article seems to believe?

And, if the increase in income of the wealthy is due to lowered taxes only, why then the OWS crowd. I don’t hear crys from them about raising taxes, but rather, that the rich folks are dishonest, criminals, or worse.

The problem we have with deficits is a combination of too much spending and an excess of deductions allowed for business. Our tax code is horrible and should be thrashed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2011 7:29 PM
Comment #331648

C&J,

You may qualify, but you are a bit thick about understanding the problem. You support the 1%. You repeat their lies. In Boston they tarred and feathered fellow Bostonians during the revolt against England. Think about it. You might stumble on it.

I do agree Obama is part of the problem, and so does OWS.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at November 7, 2011 8:48 PM
Comment #331649

Most of Obama’s expected $1B in campaign donations will be provided through the banksters. And, to put it before the public that Chris Dodd is going to redo financial regulations. Akin to stretching a gnats ass over a telephone pole, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 7, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #331650

Adrienne

I think the one who has taken the most Wall Street money is Obama. But no matter. Are we agreed to vote against anybody who was an elected Federal official when the recession his, i.e. 2007-8?

Or am I being too radical for you?

Tom

Think Talleyrand.

I actually support the 99%. It is hard to do otherwise, since I don’t think I even know anybody in that 1%.

As I said, I don’t lie, cheat or steal. I dislike corruption. I think the current U.S. government should be voted out of office. I lost lots of money in the recent recession and my kids are having trouble finding good jobs in the Obama doldrums. What is left to do?

I am even more radical than Adrienne, since I have promised - and I will - vote against anybody on my ballot (since I don’t get to vote in more than one place; I am not a Democrat after all) who was a Federally elected office holder when the recession hit. Can you be as radical as that? Will you promise the same?

Posted by: C&J at November 7, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #331658

This post is full of mis-statements and fiction.

These posts have resorted to making it up as we go along.

It’s pretty sad. The Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement are both the ying and yang of politics. It is the perfect storm.

If ying and yang work together the current system ends up in the toilet.

We’ll end up with the same thing our fore-fathers ended up with. A country, a government, that respects an individuals right to plant hogs next to a tulip factory.

And Vice verce; yes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 8, 2011 5:11 AM
Comment #331660

WW, agree, I refer to it as growing roses in a cesspool.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2011 10:14 AM
Comment #331673


Ah, that magical kingdom in the past when cesspools grew on rose bushes.

I thought the hog planter’s problems were with suburbia rather than the tulip factory.

WW, I can see individuals associated with the tea party movement finding common cause with the OWS, but never the tea party as an organization.

I can’t see the Democratic party using corpocracy or income inequity as a issue in the next election other than as a ruse.

48% of the 99% don’t vote and 30% are firmly allied with the 1%. So, the 99% is actually about 21%.

Posted by: jlw at November 8, 2011 4:22 PM
Comment #331677

jlw

We can see OWS finding common cause with Tea Party. I agree. We have many of the same sorts of people with the same sort of assessments of the problems.

The thing I find amusing and a little annoying is the different media reaction to OWS and TP.

TP by any measure is significantly bigger and very much more a true grass roots movement. Yet we talk about OWS as if it actually represents “the people”, whereas the Tea Party was always labelled as right-wing.

It is also true that there were no significant incidents of violence by TP members, yet we heard lots of characterization of the movement as violent. There have been acts of violence by OWS adherents, yet MSM makes excuses.

The MSM longing for a left-leaning alternative to the TP is palpable. But I don’t think the OWS is going to fit that bill. As you point out, many OWS are the same sorts at TP. Secondly, they evidently mostly dislike Obama.

The problem for lefties in opposing government is that we currently have a left of center government. I bet many OWS are hoping for a Republican victory in 2012, in order to give them some cred.

BTW - what is a hog “planter”? I have known people who raise hogs, but they don’t plant them.

Posted by: C&J at November 8, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #331693


C&J, some members of the tea party could find common ground, not the tea party. The tea party is a creation of and a subsidiary of the Republican Party.

The tea party has something that the OWS does not have, a record. They have elected representatives and those representatives are not representative of the people as a whole by any stretch of the imagination. This reality is reflected in the polls in which the tea party, over time, is loosing favor and members because of the far right positions of those tea party politicians.

The MSM? Who owns talk radio? Who is constantly bragging about how many viewers Fox News has or Beck has? They are spewing right wing propaganda, with little regard for accuracy or truth, like there was no tomorrow, even saying there will be no tomorrow if Obama is reelected.

Left of center government? One of the most ridiculous statements you have made. You can count on conservatives for ridiculousness, ‘Obama is so far left that the left is abandoning him.’

I would classify government actions, over the last three decades as mostly classical liberal, with some socialization of losses for corporate America, and a big dose of fiscal irresponsibility, especially on the part of the Reagan and Bush II administrations. The current government is basically following along those same lines when it isn’t stalemated. One can argue that the Prescription Drug act and Obama-care are not classic liberal, but they are closer to that than progressivism.


Hog planters? You will have to ask WW. He is the one that wants to plant hogs next to tulip factories. Maybe it makes the tulips grow faster.

Posted by: jlw at November 9, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment #331695

jlw

The Tea Party is no more a creation of the Republicans than the OWS is a creation of Democrats.

TP has conservatives, moderates and liberals, probably in that order. OWS has liberals, moderates and conservatives, probably in that order.

A movement that resembled America would be around 40% conservative, 40% moderate and 20% liberal, BTW.

So neither TP nor OWS represents America, in that both are movements by minorities. TP is closer.

Re Obama being left - his actions have been left in the American context. He is left of the American center. This is just true. Do you really think the left is abandoning him? So that means they will vote against him?

If the left abandons Obama and we know that conservatives (40%) and moderates (40%) are not fond of him, he will get fewer votes than Jimmy Carter in 1980. Do you believe that will happen?

Leftist and rightist, like all true believers, never think their leaders are pure enough. I am just pragmatic. If it is left of center, I call it left. If it is right of center, I call it right. The American center is considered right wing by the left.

Posted by: C&J at November 9, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #331697

Roy:

Most of Obama’s expected $1B in campaign donations will be provided through the banksters.

Well, thus far that’s incorrect. Although who knows? If Wall Street’s 1% sees that Obama is the projected winner they’ll no doubt start pumping tons of money into his campaign. Whomever raises the most money from the 1% seems likely to be the winner. That’s basically how politics works in America these days. And the winner is of course always happy to give Wall Street’s 1% exactly whatever they want.

Jack:

I think the one who has taken the most Wall Street money is Obama.

Nope. Also incorrect: Wall Street has donated twice as much to Romney’s campaign as any other candidate running for president. Obama comes in second. And Perry is third. You’ll note in that article that Cain has taken the least from Wall Street’s financial, insurance, and real estate sector (what is frequently referred to as “FIRE” amongst our corrupt two party system) but this is because Cain hasn’t needed to go begging on Wall Street — he’s wholly owned and bankrolled by the Koch Brothers.

Royal Flush:

“Direct Democracy” is an interesting term to use. Could you explain how that would work?

You mean how it IS working. OWS has been using direct democracy to make all of their decisions since the very beginning. Direct democracy is exactly what it sounds like: decisions being made solely by the people themselves, rather than through leaders or representatives for the people of OWS. The process is completely non-partisan, transparent, and it is driven only by consensus. For any measure to pass the OWS General Assembly, a 90% majority amongst the people is absolutely required. This means that all of the decisions the people of OWS are making are basically unanimous, or nearly so – therefore these decisions can never be labeled “the tyranny of the majority.”

Direct democracy requires no elected representatives. So, we are rid of congress. It also requires no president, so we are rid of that. What remains is the judiciary…or, would you dispose of that as well?

How often and in what form would we directly vote for our laws and regulations? Would your direct democracy allow for government agencies and a military. Under whose direction would they be ordered?

You’re not making sense because you’re talking about two separate things. The Occupy Wall Street Movement is being run by direct democracy because it’s a non-partisan movement that HAS to build consensus among all of it’s members if it wants to protest effectively against our corrupt government — a so called “representative government” whose wealthy 1% members clearly cater to the wealthy 1% of Wall Street, while completely ignoring the needs and ongoing struggles and crises of the 99%.
If we want many many people to join and support the actions of OWS to force the changes the 99% needs, everyone needs to have a voice that is directly counted and will be heard. There is no possible way this movement can hold together and be a powerful force without such consensus.

However, WITH THAT CONSENSUS we can then announce to our government exactly what we expect from them. And when we do so, it won’t matter WHAT CORRUPT POLITICAL PARTY HAPPENED TO WIN A MAJORITY. Because We the People will finally be speaking all together in one loud voice — rather than ignoring all of their corruption because we’d rather keep stupidly sniping at each other from either side of a political aisle that has a cesspool of corruption running right down the middle of it.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #331700

“For any measure to pass the OWS General Assembly, a 90% majority amongst the people is absolutely required.”

Hmmm…I am part of the 99% and I didn’t get a ballot. How do I get one?

Could you direct me to the record keeping of the votes on measures considered? Is it a voice vote or a ballot?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #331701

Jack:

the TP, which was/is a larger movement.

You keep saying this as if you think it’s a competition — but it really isn’t. The TP rallies and OWS rallies were/are all made up of American citizens who are pissed off at Wall Street and our corrupt government. As far as locations of rallies or occupations however, I think OWS may have now surpassed the TP as far as the number goes. It’s being reported that there have been OWS occupations or rallies in over 70 major cities and in over 600 communities across the US. Here’s a list (I think this is being updated pretty frequently), scroll down for US locations:
/wiki/List_of_Occupy_movement_protest_locations”>List of Occupy movement protest locations

And check out the numbers of people that were marching downtown as well as to the Port of Oakland to shut it down during our General Strike last week:

Right near City Hall

On the way to the Port

Rock and Roll — now that’s what I call a Protest!
:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #331705

Royal Flush,

If you’re as doubtful as you seem, just go to a OWS General Assembly near you and watch how it works, and how completely transparent it is. I’m sure the good folks you find there will answer any questions you have, and put your mind at ease.

Btw, my link didn’t work above, so here it is again:

List of Occupy movement protest locations

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 4:46 PM
Comment #331706

Adrienne

It depends on the time period. Obama was very popular among the Wall Street guys until he messed up so much. He still isn’t doing poorly, BTW, considering that Romney and others are actually in a primary race, while Obama is just piling up the money for next fall.

Re the 99% - that is me, Royal and Roy, BTW.

You really cannot see the fundamental contradictions in what you write. You talk about a small group of protestors are the 99% and then reject the comments of others, who actually are part of that 99%.

Re being non-partisan - you can be non-partisan but you cannot be w/o ideas and plans.

Does OWS plan to raise taxes? I suppose those among them who can count have figured out that there is not enough money among the 1% to balance the budget at today’s spending levels.

So does OWS plan to cut spending?

Obama’s health plan is disliked by more than half of the American population. Anybody who represents 99% of the people would have to get rid of it. Is this the goal of the OWS?

It seems like OWS wants to have more and pay less. That is indeed like 99% of the people. But they will have to decide who should pay more. So you can take all the money away from Oprah, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Jon Corzine, Adriana Hunfington, Micheal Moore, John Kerry, and even Barack Obama and all the other 1% and you still won’t have enough money to meet the current spending, not to mention all the free stuff the OWS is advocating.

OWS is fundamentally dishonest in this.

As it gets colder and more long in the tooth, the movement will come to include many more weirdos and street people. And as it becomes more isolated, it will turn more to violence. I am fairly confident that it will remain “non-partisan” because no politicians of either party will want to be associated with it. All will support the “ideal”, which are mainstream, but the actual OWS are not people you want to be too near.

I have seen this happen before. You really cannot maintain a long-term street movement in any major American city w/o become both scruffy and violent. The leadership will officially reject the bad behavior of it adherents, but eventually enough crap (both figurative and literal) will pile up to choke the movement.

Posted by: C&J at November 9, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #331710

Adrienne, I don’t understand how I can vote on OWS issues if I don’t get a ballot and can’t attend the meetings. Where is my voice represented, and those of others, who are unable to attend.

Is this a democracy just for those who are able to attend meetings? Doesn’t seem fair to me. You wrote above…

“If we want many many people to join and support the actions of OWS to force the changes the 99% needs, everyone needs to have a voice that is directly counted and will be heard.”

OK…how can I have a voice and be counted when I can’t attend meetings?

You wrote; “However, WITH THAT CONSENSUS we can then announce to our government exactly what we expect from them.”

“That Consensus” will not represent those who can’t vote, which is nearly everyone who is working or unable for some reason to attend meetings. Are only those who have the time and money to attend meetings going to be my representatives? Why would I support that? I don’t even know what they advocate. That doesn’t sound like the democracy you wrote about.

If the consensus is merely a small number of Americans who can attend meetings and vote, why would the government give a damn what OWS wants or says?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2011 5:41 PM
Comment #331711

This is pretty funny — the mayor of Denver demanded that OccupyDenver name a “leader” he could negotiate with — so by a landslide vote the people have elected Shelby — she’s a border collie!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 5:46 PM
Comment #331712

Yeah well, sorry Royal Flush but you can’t just phone or mail it in here. People interested in being part of this movement do indeed have to attend the OWS General Assemblies in person in order to vote. After all, it wouldn’t be a transparent process if people weren’t going there in person.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #331713

Oh, and to address your concern — most of the GA’s are being held in the evenings — so that people who do work are able to attend.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #331715

Sir, I know The Dude. And dude, you’re no Dude.

Also, do you remember the actual plot of the movie? The title character’s trophy wife runs up gambling debts, which gets her loan sharks (or some other kind of unsavory characters) to bust in on The Dude in an episode that ends with his rug (which really tied the room together) getting peed on.

Well, in the course of things, this nation’s rug has been peed on, because of Wall Street’s gambling debts, and we have decided that this aggression will not stand.

We want our rug back. We’re nice and peaceful for now, but eventually, if conditions get harsh enough for the average American, you’re going to find out how bad things can go when you find a stranger in the alps.

No, not really. I think Walter Sobchak’s more Tea Party than OWS.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2011 6:14 PM
Comment #331716

“People interested in being part of this movement do indeed have to attend the OWS General Assemblies in person in order to vote.”

It seems to me that the voting system we have in place in every state is better than what you offer at OWS. Folks who wish to vote in elections can do so by mail. I find OWS not to be democratic at all, but more like an elite club for members who have the time and wealth to attend meetings.

OWS makes it nearly impossible for the poor, working or disabled to vote. And those with families may not be able to leave their children unattended to go to a general assembly.

Frankly, I don’t see how OWS can attract more supporters with such undemocratic rules about voting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #331717

Lol, Stephen! Nicely done.
And I agree — I think Walter seems way more TP than OWS!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 6:30 PM
Comment #331718

RF,
Both hilarious and totally illogical! You sound like the type of guy who would try to claim that he was a big star in community theater productions even though he was an extra who never once showed up for rehearsal.
Hate to break the news to ya buddy, but to be involved in ANYTHING you’ve got to be willing to put a little skin in the game.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #331719

Well Adrienne, with such a restricted vote, please retract your comment about it being a democracy for the 99%. Only the wealthy and those with lots of time and opportunity to attend meetings are represented. You certainly do not represent me as I don’t get to vote.

OWS represents only those who can attend meetings and what percentage of Americans are included in that august group? I would guess about 1/100th of 1 percent.

Perhaps when the general public comes to understand what a clique is represented by OWS, interest in this little band of privileged will fade.

I fail to understand what is “hilarious” and “illogical” about wanting a voice since I am part of the 99% they claim to be representing. Do you use such words to merely deflect questions you can not answer?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2011 7:03 PM
Comment #331720

Sorry, but you really do sound both hilarious and illogical RF.
What part about this didn’t you understand?:
Most of the GA’s are being held in the evenings — so that people who do work are able to attend.

People who work are coming to OWS.
People who can’t find work are coming to OWS.
People are bringing their children with them to OWS.
Disabled people are coming — and can even set up rides in order to get there if they really need one to get to OWS.

I honestly don’t know what else you expect. No you can’t mail or phone it in. This is a movement you can easily be part of, or it is something you can whinge and complain about while doing nothing.

If you really care about America and think that Wall Street and our government is corrupt you are welcome at OWS. If want your voice to be heard, and if you want representation by this movement that has formed to fight for the 99%, all you have to do is show up and get involved.
Just like people make a little effort to get involved with local politics. Just like people have to make the effort to show up in order to vote.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #331721

Adrienne, your cavalier attitude about those of us who can’t attend is astonishing. You are not a very good spokesperson for the group. I would hope that your condescending attitude is not representative of OWS.

Would you recommend the same voting rules for elections in the US. If not, why not.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2011 8:04 PM
Comment #331723

The interesting thing about OWS proponents like Adrienne is that they claim that the OWS is inclusive of 99% of the population. She then excludes 80% of the population from participation by saying they stand for the 1%.

So we are left with OWS speaking fro something like 20% of Americans, maybe not that much.

OWS supporters try very hard NOT to define their program. Instead they want to say they are for good and against.

It is getting old and stinky, much like the protestors. Their violence and dirt will soon make even the 20% annoyed with them.

Re being involved in community - I don’t think crapping in the street is really very constructive, nor is smoking dope in the streets or attacking people in the streets or swearing at passerbys.

I am sure that Chrissy and I do more for our society in an average day than the average OWS has done since the start of this camp out.

When I was young, I used to attend such protests. This was the early 1970s and I found it an easy way to pick up girls and get free beer. You had to chant fairly simple rhymes, usually involving hey-hey and ho-ho. I suspect lots of young men at OWS are like I was. I learned better.

I am getting sick of the OWS. They are not nice like “the Dude”. They are more like those anarchist.

Posted by: C&J at November 9, 2011 8:36 PM
Comment #331724

RF:

Adrienne, your cavalier attitude about those of us who can’t attend is astonishing. You are not a very good spokesperson for the group. I would hope that your condescending attitude is not representative of OWS.

Would you recommend the same voting rules for elections in the US. If not, why not.

You seem to be very confused. OWS is not some sort of alternate American government that gives you rights or something. It’s not. It’s a movement that is protesting against the actions of our government and Wall Street. Join if wish to be part of that movement. Or don’t join. It’s really up to you.

Jack:

The interesting thing about OWS proponents like Adrienne is that they claim that the OWS is inclusive of 99% of the population. She then excludes 80% of the population from participation by saying they stand for the 1%.

No actually this is what YOU keep claiming. OWS is a movement FIGHTING FOR THE 99% because our leaders aren’t representing the 99%. They’re representing the 1% who fund their campaigns instead.
Everyone is welcome at OWS who agrees that this is the case. EVERYONE.
If people don’t agree with that, even if they are part of the 99%, then they shouldn’t join this movement.
It’s that simple.

OWS supporters try very hard NOT to define their program.

That’s bullshit you just keep trying to shovel, and you know it. The program is to get a government and an economic system that will represent the many and various needs of the 99%, rather than cater to the 1%.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #331725
I am getting sick of the OWS.

Well that’s really too bad Jack, because people like you can’t stop this. There’s far too many people of the 99% who support and are in full agreement with what OWS is doing.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 9, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #331728

Royal Flush-
Nice try, but no cigar, or suitably acceptable alternative reward.

Let’s be blunt here: you’re saying that it’s not good enough that the OWS holds votes among those present at the demonstration. To be truly democratic, it’d have to be what?

Here’s where your analogy breaks down. That this protest is acting along genuinely Democratic lines, making decisions by way of direct democracy, instead of being lead by a few people should be sufficient to consider it a very Democratic movement, with the only thing preventing it from being more democratic being that those people didn’t show up at the protest.

Even a protest of a hundred thousand people, which could be considered a large one, is going to be one out of three thousand people in the country, or a third of a tenth of one percent, if I have my math right.

The point of a protest is not to lay claim to political power by numbers alone, but to encourage like-minded though, or unleash like-minded potential by giving a popular sentiment something to crystallize around. The question I would pose is how much trouble does one have to go through to get people’s sentiments to crystallize around you.

I would say that a number of the things that the Tea Party professed to fear and dislike, a number of the things they were protesting were appealing to people. Unfortunately for them, their solutions and their further ideas about how the world works, beneath those sympathetic ideas, were not so sympathetic. But isn’t that always the story? Radical groups rarely reveal how radical they are from the get-go. Power, unfortunately, is all too often the test of what folks do with power.

C&J-
Let me ask a blunt question here: have you had any actual, personal encounters with the OWS movement, or are you just passing on the propaganda you get from Conservative media news Reports.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2011 10:53 PM
Comment #331732

Adrienne

OWS are not fighting for the 99%. They are a small number of people w/o a real agenda except to be where they are.

I better represent the 99% than they do, or than you do for that matter, since I am among the 40%+ people who identify as conservative, with about 40% moderate and 20% liberal, maybe 1% are really OWS.

I cannot make these OWS go away. Frankly, I don’t want to. As they continue to blight city streets, they provide a graphic reminder of what we don’t want. We have an election next year. OWS will prove an embarrassment to “Progressives”. And the only poll that counts is in November.

Finally - “That’s bullshit you just keep trying to shovel, and you know it. The program is to get a government and an economic system that will represent the many and various needs of the 99%, rather than cater to the 1%. “

That also is my program. That is the program of almost everybody I know. I have been advocating that since before most of the OWS were born. I welcome them to the fight, but I don’t think they will be much help.

Posted by: C&J at November 10, 2011 3:55 AM
Comment #331740

“C&J-
Let me ask a blunt question here: have you had any actual, personal encounters with the OWS movement, or are you just passing on the propaganda you get from Conservative media news Reports.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2011 10:53 PM

LOL, coming from someone who gets his talking points the Huff post and the Kos.

Re-OWS; they protested the banking system and even called for runs on the banks and yet we find th story out of Arienne’s Oakland protestors:

“OAKLAND (CBS/AP) — A group of Oakland anti-Wall Street protesters who blame large banks for the economic downturn have decided that one of those institutions is the best place to stash their money for now.

Protesters at an Occupy Oakland meeting Monday voted to deposit a $20,000 donation into a Wells Fargo account. The move comes just days after one of Wells Fargo’s branches was vandalized during a massive downtown demonstration”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/occupy-oakland-protesters-deposit-funds-at-wells-fargo-after-bank-attacks/

Again, he double standards and hipocrisy of the left. One day protesting and calling for a run on the bank, and the next day depositing thei money in the bank like good little capitalists.

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2011 9:42 AM
Comment #331743

Mike-
LOL at yourself, buster. It’s a relevant question. If the only way he knows about the conditions, goals, and other aspects of this protest are by news, then he’s full of it on this count.

The folks at Kos (I rarely read Huffington Post) are very often the actual folks protesting. It doesn’t make them objective, mind you, but it does mean they directly know what they’re talking about.

As for the Wells Fargo account? First, the vandalization was probably not a decision by the overall protest. Second, the protestors are keeping the money there for the sake of practicality as they open up an account at a local credit union. It’s perhaps surprising, but closer examination indicates that it’s not so outrageous.

Funny how that works with stories from the right. BIG! SHOCKING! BUILDUP! Dull. Pedestrian. Facts.

C&J-
You say you’re for helping people, but when your party gets the opportunity to help people directly, it rarely does. You don’t let us make tax cuts directly to the middle class, you push the bulk of them to the upper class. Rather than raise minimum wages, call on people to improve working conditions, or anything, you basically claim the market will do the job, and let the special interests have their lucrative respite from having to do right by others.

Supposedly, all these things you allow these people to do is supposed to improve the economy, get more people hired, get more people better paid, etc. That is what we are told, because naturally if the only reason we had for doing this is that the top few percent would make more money while the rest of us became worse off, we’d tell them to take a hike.

I think that’s the key point. That’s why Republicans have to phrase things the way they do. Unfortunately for you and other Republicans, all the generous secondary effects you proclaim will occur, must occur, don’t. People aren’t stupid. Sooner or later, the nature of the situation will argue against such vain hopes.

And then what are we left with? if the rich and powerful aren’t generous and altruistic with their windfalls, there’s no reason for us to be generous and altruistic enough towards them to give it to them in the first place. People are learning a hard lesson in running a democratic Republic: if you want something done right in terms of seeing to your interests, do it yourself.

Your interest and theirs aren’t always going to be at cross purposes, but it’s naive to believe that deference of the type we’ve given them over the last few decades will work to our interests.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2011 10:19 AM
Comment #331746

SD writes; “Let’s be blunt here: you’re saying that it’s not good enough that the OWS holds votes among those present at the demonstration. To be truly democratic, it’d have to be what.”

It is clear to me that both SD and Adrienne are defending the indefensible regarding OWS and what Adrienne calls direct democracy.

One can not say, with any believability, that they represent the desires of 99% of a population when no one has elected them to that position. That they exclude any of the 99% from participation who do not appear in person at their assemblies is evidence, of the first order, that they represent no one but themselves and can not, and do not, speak for anyone else.

Let’s reduce this to an absurdity and imagine that only one person shows up for an assembly. Would one person, out of over 300 million Americans presume to speak for 99% of us?

Since SD and Adrienne both have an agenda that is not revealed to us mere mortals, I shall pay no further attention to their mindless responses.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2011 2:02 PM
Comment #331754

OWS believes it represents 99% of Americans because they believe it is ONLY THEY who know what is best for all Americans.

To try and hide this fact, they shout “we represent the 99%” but yet totally ignore the “in what way?” and “what is it that you want?” questions.

I especially love all the “direct democracy” BS being tossed around lately.
I wonder what the 10% thinks if 90% means decisions can never be labeled “the tyranny of the majority?

Posted by: kctim at November 10, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #331755

Stephen
Re “helping people”

You believe that direct political action is the best way to help people. Sometimes it is. But my understanding of this is more systemic and nuanced. I have seen direct government action often be wasteful and sometimes produce the opposite of the good results it intended. This was the case with many poverty programs of the 1970s, for example.

I also believe that work and efficiency work better than protestors. You correctly perceive my contempt for the demonstrators. Their goal is not to create wealth, as you or I do. They want to take from others.

Re my personal experience with OWS. Christine has seen them. I have not been back to the U.S. since the protests began.

But I recall that you criticized the Tea Party. Did you attend meetings? I did, including a really big one in DC. I saw no overt racism and absolutely not violence. I told you about that. Did you believe it.

I also spent a year in Iraq and saw with my own eyes things that contradicted your narrative. Did that matter to you?

Let’s be blunt, I suspect if you could only write about things you actually knew about, you couldn’t write much at all.

Actually, even a person like me or Royal, who have a lot more real experience than most people, could not. We have to make choices based on information we have.

I greatly respect first-hand information. But I don’t really need to see these protestors in person to know that their methods are BS. Logic alone tells me that people who can afford to camp out on the streets for weeks don’t have steady jobs. Experience in similar areas, call is reasoning by analogy, tells me they are almost certainly making a mess. Pictures and news reports tell me that they are violent at least sometimes.

I also know that OWS doesn’t represent me. They were elected by nobody. I don’t take direction from young punks and street people.

Posted by: C&J at November 10, 2011 4:36 PM
Comment #331757

kctim


“OWS believes it represents 99% of Americans because they believe it is ONLY THEY who know what is best for all Americans.”


that’s correct. those of OWS claim to be the 99%, when in reality they are actually the 20% trying to act like you, me, RF, and C&J who are the 79%, some how support thier childish behavior. it’s really that simple.

Posted by: dbs at November 10, 2011 4:41 PM
Comment #331759

I have found that folks who most loudly call for more equal distribution of income…have none that they have earned themselves. They desire to better themselves at the expense of others. To be upset at someone who does well in life financially is abhorrent to me.

When one thinks of those who have created million of jobs, I am reminded that few, if any of them, started with much more than an idea, perseverance, tolerance for risk, and an unshakable belief in capitalism.

And, when these entrepreneurs succeed, and become wealthy, there are those who demand to participate in that success without ever investing an hour of work or dollar of investment in that enterprise. They decry the success and claim that they are owed something merely because they exist.

Government has been conditioning people for decades to rely upon others, rather than themselves. The OWS crowd are not self-reliant…they are leeches, looking for handouts to maintain their numbers. They bring nothing to the table but dissension, fear, and an open hand and mouth waiting to be filled with money, food, shelter, and sustenance by the labor of another.

Do any of the OWS crowd offer to work for their food? Is being part of this group a full time occupation? Have they become professional protesters relying upon others to satisfy their needs? If offered minimum wage employment would any accept?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #331761

Here is a great article posted on November 10, 2011 by John Hinderaker in PowerLine:

“Occupier Devolution


If you have ever wondered what would happen in a society consisting entirely of liberals, the Occupier movement is providing the answer: devolution. It is almost impossible to keep up with the downward spiral, but here are some of the highlights of the last 24 hours:

* In Portland, an Occupier was arrested for throwing a Molotov cocktail down the stairwell of a building.

* In London, employees of St. Paul’s Cathedral have had to clean up human waste left by Occupiers inside the cathedral. (What is it with the Occupiers and toilet issues?)

* In Portland, another drug overdose.

* In Vermont, a man was shot to death at the Occupy Burlington encampment.

* At Occupy San Diego, a citizen journalist was violently assaulted.

* In Atlanta, tuberculosis has broken out among the Occupiers.

* In Salt Lake City, four were arrested after a melee broke out in the Occupy encampment.

* In San Francisco, police expressed concern about escalating violence among the Occupiers, following incidents including gun possession, assault on a city worker and trespassing on the new holiday ice rink.

And this is just a smattering of today’s headlines! The Occupiers are conducting a sort of experiment in the viability of left-wing ideas, and the results aren’t pretty.”

And this is the 99% of America; I don’t think so. It IS perhaps the 20% of liberals.

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #331763

And this is the 99% of America; I don’t think so. It IS perhaps the 20% of liberals.

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2011

Good post Mike. You’re wrong about even the 20% of liberals. The OWS crowd allows no one to vote who isn’t personally present at the assembly. So, the 20% of liberals who support their actions don’t even have input into their decisions. Are they too lazy to attend? Are they satisfied with sitting on their own arse and letting someone else do the demonstrating?

When Adrienne is the last one at an OWS protest, could she please turn out the lights and clean up the place.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #331764

Mike

It isn’t even 20% of the liberals. There are many good liberals. Even some of the OWS have good intentions.

The problem for liberals is that they are blind to some of the problems of “revolutionaries”. Think of the pinheads who still wear T-shirts with pictures of that pervert Che.


Today we have OWS, which consists more and more of weirdos and petty criminals. But our liberal friends see these guys as Thomas Paine.

A related problem for leftists is that many of them dislike democracy. That is why they always invest “the street” with special wisdom. “The street” is a type of violence. That is why Nazi/communists/fascists like it so much. It allows them to overcome the manifest will of the people and they feel there is some kind of mystical justice.

You heard the slogan here. It was called “direct democracy” but it was called “All power to the Soviets” by the Bolsheviks or the mysterious power of the “Volk” by the Nazis.

Posted by: C&J at November 10, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #331765

Cleaning up would involve a pooper scooper, since these degenerates love to defecate on the sidewalk. I wouldn’t want to clean up after them.

What is it with these OWS protestors defecating and pissing in public?

“NASHVILLE, Tenn. -
The state is investigating reports that at least one staff member on Tennessee’s Capitol Hill has been urinated on from above a Legislative Plaza courtyard just a few yards from where dozens of Occupy Nashville members are continuing their protest.

A memo has gone out from the director of the Legislative Administration warning staffers to be “aware of their surroundings when in the courtyard area.”

The memo said there was “an incident involving debris/substance falling from the upper plaza down into the courtyard area behind House Hearing Rooms 29, 30 and 31.”

The memo went on to say the Tennessee Highway Patrol has been notified and is “making an effort to ensure the area is safe.”

“We are hopeful that this will not happen again,” the memo concluded.

One staffer was asked if she believed the incident was caused by Occupy Nashville members or homeless people who have gravitated to the area since protesters starting camping there in early October.

The staffer did not want to be identified, but told Nashville’s News 2, “We never had these problems in my years here before the protesters showed up.”

The staffer who believes she was urinated on, a lawmaker’s secretary, “It’s absolutely the most disgusting thing that’s happened to me up here. I was hit on the hair, my sweater, slacks and shoes.”

The woman, who also did not want to be identified, said she has thrown away everything but the sweater, which she has kept for evidence, and joked she might even have to pressure wash her hair.

The incident was witnessed by a third female staff member who said the substance that hit her co-worker was undoubtedly urine because of the “arch of the stream” she saw from above.

Occupy Nashville members nearby did not believe one of their own was involved.”

http://www.wkrn.com/story/15999336/staffer-urinated-on-near-occupy-nashville-protesters

Have you ever gone to the zoo and watched the monkeys piss on each other or play with their own shit and then throw it at people. What we are witnessing is the digression of OWS humanity to their base instincts. When you add to this the robberies and rapes, you can get a clear picture of the debase character of the people.

On a lighter note: TB has broken out in the Atlanta OWS protestors’ tent city:

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2011/11/10/tuberculosis-breaks-out-at-occupy-atlantas-base/

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2011 8:01 PM
Comment #331768

LOL! Well would you look at the big pile on here!
This is so damn great — honestly. You may not know it, but you all doth protest way, way too much! And with an such incredible amount of anger too!!!
Oh man, I’ve got to tell you: I have to love it!

Because the reason for all this anger is becoming crystal clear. You’re seeing that OWS is real, honest-to-goodness People Power — and you don’t know how to deal with that. What we’re doing all over the country is something rightwing authoritarian types have always despised. You guys always prefer power to be exercised by carefully-groomed leaders from atop a pyramid, rather than horizontally and collectively.

You’re upset because OWS is totally grassroots, raggedy and rough around the edges, creative, funny, and thoroughly do-it-yourself — not to mention, enormous and chockfull of people of every shape, color and kind. You much preferred the small, easily manageable and suburban look and feel of the Tea Party “rallies” — where most of the signs were professionally printed up by Dick Armey’s Freedom Works or the Koch Bros., and where if there was a “character” within the crowd he looked too much like he was dressed up for work at freakin’ Disneyland.

You’re attacking this movement because (even if you would never like to admit it) you KNOW that OWS has changed the national conversation entirely, and that this fact alone is making a HUGE difference.

The plain fact of the matter is this folks: if you didn’t think OWS had an important and powerful message that is obviously resonating with a gi-normous number of people (including many former members of the Tea Party), you wouldn’t be nearly this wound up about it!

Ha Ha!
Now come on down off of those high horses you righties of the 99%, and quit being so incredibly uptight. Check out We the People without any boundaries. Come on out and make friends with all kinds of your fellow liberal and progressive fellow citizens and and join with us, instead of attacking us?
I’m not being sarcastic here. Shut off the Fox News Box and put aside all the political BS for just this once. We want you to come help us take the country back from the 1% asswipes who despicably wrecked our economy and are trying to ruin our (and our children’s) futures only for their own personal gain.

We the People — we CAN do this.
And if you snooze, you lose. Literally.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 10, 2011 9:04 PM
Comment #331772

A few facts, just to clear some things up:

In Oakland the violence after we shut down the Port was caused not by OWS, but by teenaged Black Block Anarchists. The Black Block are definitely NOT OWS — they are an Anarchist group that constantly rides the coattails of ANY protest that takes place in the Bay Area (and elsewhere in the nation).
OWS (everywhere) is strictly committed to non-violent protest. OWS does not vandalize, or act combatively towards the police (who we know are of the 99%). This is of course not to say that the police aren’t acting combatively towards the people of the OWS movement — because they have done this, and are still doing this (and are clearly in the wrong for doing so). Scott Olsen, the Marine who is still recovering in the hospital and who has lost his ability to speak (while exercising his first amendment right to do so), was attacked by police while he was taking part in a strictly non-violent protest march in Downtown Oakland.
And btw, you may not have heard about this, but there was a second Iraq War veteran who was hospitalized after taking a very severe beating (for no apparent reason) from a gang of thug cops in Oakland.

OccupyOakland using Well Fargo Bank:

The $20,000 that was very generously donated to us came from from OWS in Zuccotti Park NYC, and the money was transferred here to a Well Fargo Bank so that OccupyOakland could use the funds to immediately bail many of our people out of jail (for exercising our first amendment rights to peaceably assemble). There were a huge number of people we needed to free from jail, and we needed access to that money very quickly. The most efficient way to get those funds in hand for that very purpose was for OWS in NYC to use a major bank for that particular transaction — the remaining balance will soon be transferred to one of our local credit unions. Moreover, OccupyOakland will not need to use Wells Fargo again once that Credit Union account has been completely activated.

A word on the shooting that occurred at Occupy Vermont:

The fatal shooting that took place there today was actually a suicide — and the person who tragically killed himself at that encampment was a veteran of the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, if that seems to be a shocking and surprising fact to some of you, it really shouldn’t. There have now been more veterans of the Iraq War who have come home and then committed suicide than veterans who have been killed while fighting on the field of battle in Iraq.

A word on hygiene issues for OWS across the country:

The reason that so many OWS protestors have faced problems with finding ways to defecate and urinate is due to the policies being enforced by local governments and/or police — who will not allow protesters to use public facilities, nor will they allow portable toilets to be brought to most OWS sites. They are very obviously doing this with the intention of making many people abandon their first amendment right to peaceably protest, and in order to try to discredit the entire OWS movement. Thus, we are hearing these stories of people needing to relieve themselves by taking drastic measures and sometimes doing really disgusting things.
OWS has been and is, trying very hard to address these types of problems — as we negotiate/deal with officials who clearly (punitively) do not want us to be able to solve them.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 11, 2011 1:20 AM
Comment #331781

adrienne

“Check out We the People without any boundaries.”


i think this says it all” with out any boundries”. it’s the me, me , me movement with no respect for people, or property. go home and get a job. stop destroying the lives of the 79% who are just trying to live thier lives with your selfish welfare state mentality. no body owes you a damn thing.


BTW it is you that doth protest too much. if you’re expaining then you’re losing.

Posted by: dbs at November 11, 2011 5:06 AM
Comment #331783

Adrienne

You define the ideal OWS. Great. There are a couple people who fit standard. But the group attracts lot of bad actors, crazies and weirdos, as YOU point out. These may not be OWS people by your definition, but they come along and OWS cannot or will not do anything to get rid of them. In fact, when they count numbers, they depend on these types.

There is a fundamental logistical problem with occupying a street. It always gets dirty and nasty and usually turns violent. OWS made the choice to use this method. The consequences are their responsibility. That OWS encampments are literally full of shit is a predictable outcome.In fact, we predicted it here.

I suspect OWS really doesn’t understand logistics. You get more than a couple people together for even a short time and you need to have a plan. The OWS plan was to impose their crap on others. Didn’t work. It never works.

As I said, this kind of thing make liberal and progressives look bad. I know some conservatives are really hoping to tie the liberal to OWS. And as long as liberal politicians refuse to repudiate them, it will stick.

I have seen the encampments called Obamavilles. Soon our president will have to come out against OWS or accept the movement. I look forward to his choice.

Re anarchists - yes - they are very bad. Many of the OWS leaders are anarchist. It is not a perfect syllogism, but the point is made.

So indeed, let them stay on the streets as long as they can stand it. The rain will eventually wash away their crap and we hope the protesters too.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 6:46 AM
Comment #331787

C&J-
I’ve seen and heard about protestors getting beaten with nightsticks, shot with rubber bullets and gas grenade cartridges, and otherwise manhandled and assaulted, yet we have yet to see one of them degenerate into a riot. That may change, but it’s been a month or two since we started this, and things haven’t happened the way you keep salivating for.

Hell, that might just be because you’re salivating for it. Put simply, these folks are going out of their way to make sure that they don’t justify the force used on them. They are media-savvy enough to know that violence will be used against them.

As for what you have seen? Well you say Christine has seen them. How many times, where, and in what way? I care, in part, because I’d be loathe not to hold you accountable for simply recycling second-hand narratives. You want to portray these people as dirty, disgusting- hell, why not just call them the great unwashed peasantry, while you’re at it?

You talk about how dirty and smelly these people are, having not even set foot near one of the camps yourself! Christine may have, but you’ve provided no details of the actual circumstances, so we’re left to guess just what the hell she knows from that personal experience. So, of the two of you writing these entries, one might have had some kind of encounter, while the other isn’t even in the country by his own account.

So, any points you make to me about personal experience of things, of the odor and sights of the protests have limited support.

You talk of efficiency. Oh, they’re not making an almighty buck, so how efficient can they be?

Well, as far as I can tell, OWS is a nonprofit operation, so making beaucoup bucks isn’t exactly an indication of its efficiency. Efficiency follows purpose. If their idea is to draw attention to these problem and help bring it into the public dialogue, to change the terms of the debate, then they have done their job very efficiently.

In fact, they’ve done this with less need for vitriol and hair-raising rage than the Tea Partiers have displayed.

As for helping people? We tried it your way. People got worse off, or at least remained stagnant. Your way of doing things didn’t do people much good.

Efficiency reflects purpose. If the purpose of the tax cuts was to facilitate growth in the share of income for the top few percent, it succeeded marvellously. Improving hiring and economic growth? Not so much. In fact, it didn’t even keep pace with population growth. Of course, for those who are in those top few percent, the opinion of the economic benefits of the tax cuts is suitably inflated, according to their windfalls.

Differences in viewpoints on efficiency can break along lines of interest, not merely route themselves through some objective, God’s-eye view. For many of those folks on Wall Street, even with the tumultous events of the last few years, they can say they’re better off than they were before.

OWS reflects a difference with that opinion that comes from how those decisions affected the rest of us. The mortgage chicanery, the collapse of the markets that gutted the jobs of millions of Americans. What is the externalized cost for some, the fixed problem, is for others their entire problem.

I find it interesting that you find it implausible that people wouldn’t take Wall Street’s point of view on what’s efficient, what’s good, what’s beneficial for the economy. It’s really only natural if you stop expecting people to take your point of view by default.

That doesn’t mean that overall, we can’t see an objective assessment of who’s notion of what’s best for society. The question is, can we see beyond the bottom line of corporate America in order to measure that overall bottom line?

Certainly, many on Wall Street and in the big banks see laws and policies that let them do what they want as ideal, but if all that means is that the rest of us get taken for another ride, see another huge drop in employment, despite our ability and willingness to be productive, then why should we take Wall Street’s word for these things?

Your methods of generating recovery for the economy don’t seem to depart from those bottom lines. That’s the pity of it. You are unwilling to consider that corporate America, the bug businesses, aren’t the job creators you think they are. The record sums of cash remain in their coffers though, and they aren’t spurring more job creation in quite the numbers your theory would have ua expect.

We created jobs faster under Obama’s plan, than under yours. Most certainly, your party’s brilliant plan to improve unemployment by tossing people out of work in the public sector’s only served as a weight on job growth numbers. There hasn’t been the kind of explosive growth we’d expect if your theories were true.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2011 11:24 AM
Comment #331790

Stephen

I have seen some of the same pictures along with the destruction and threat. I am not sure of the technical definition, but that behavior looks like a riot to me. Interviews with people around OWS do not inspire confidence.

Re experience - Did you believe what I told you about my personal experiences with Tea Party rallies. Did you believe what I told you about personal experiences about anti-war demonstrations?

You are trying to hold me to a standard that neither you nor anybody else can meet. If we talk only about the things we have actual first-hand experience with, none of us is entitled to an opinion on almost anything.

Let’s ask the question - how many of these OWS have you seen? The problem groups seem to be in Oakland & New York. Have you seen and talked to them? If you, you and I are equally informed … or not.

Now let’s get to something that IS my personal experience. The OWS does NOT represent 99% of the American people. I know that because I have personal experience with many people and most people I meet are not even aware of what OWS is. Tea Party was much bigger and more representative.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 11:52 AM
Comment #331793

HAPPY VETERANS DAY TO ALL WHO HAVE HONORABLY SERVED THEIR COUNTRY IN OUR ARMED FORCES. WE THANK YOU ALL. MAY GOD BLESS YOU.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #331809


“The tea party is no more a creation of the Republicans than the OWS is a creation of the Democrats.”

C&J, that is not true.

What do Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Army, Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachmann have in common?

All are Republican politicians and all have been or are inspirational or actual leaders of the tea party movement.

“Conservatives, moderates and liberals,”

A huge majority of the tea party members are confessed Republicans. They are registered as and vote Republican.

In addition, the Congressional tea party caucus has 62 members, all of them Republicans. I wonder how many of them are moderate Republicans?

The tea party is predominately conservative and libertarian types that seem determined to wrestle control of the Republican Party from the Rino’s.

Unfortunately it seems that the tea party can only attract some rather unsavory characters as presidential candidates.

Contrast the tea party with the OWS which has no true leaders, especially Democratic politicians. As a matter of fact, the Democratic politicians are standing on the sidelines, shouting words of encouragement if they so desire.

The focus of the OWS is predominate aimed at the wealthy and in specific, wealth’s influence on our elected officials.

The tea party focus of attack is on everybody and everything that isn’t hard core conservative/libertarian and wealthy, exception, Soros. They are attacking the government, Obama and the Democrats, progressives, the unions, the poor, taxes, the Rino’s. They attack almost everything that is America in favor of some imaginary golden age of the past.

The more exposure the tea party agenda has gotten the less influence the tea party has. To attract moderates you must have moderate positions. Hope of nominating a hard core conservative is dwindling. Is Newt to become the next tea party candidate of is he still the moral majority candidate? Now there is an oxymoron for you, Newt, the moral majority candidate.

We tea party members were for Romney all along?

Posted by: jlw at November 11, 2011 5:12 PM
Comment #331822

jlw

I have been for Romney for a long time.

Re OWS - they won’t tell people what they really plan to do. They are all for truth, justices, although probably not the American way.

They are disorganized, kind of dirty, with ranks fully of street people and weirdos, who crap on the streets and break things. Sorry if they seemed like liberals.

So maybe they won’t try to influence elections. This will show that either they know they don’t have much electoral clout or that they just disrespect Democracy.

Posted by: C&J at November 11, 2011 7:07 PM
Comment #331832

Colin Powell: Occupy movement ‘is as American as apple pie’

Posted by: Adrienne at November 11, 2011 9:54 PM
Comment #331833

Great conversation on the topic of OWS — via Charlie Rose:
A discussion about Occupy Wall Street

Posted by: Adrienne at November 11, 2011 9:59 PM
Comment #331869

C&J-
I really don’t see the point of your negative comments about the OWS movement here. You can’t convince Democrats who get almost hourly reports on the actual activities of OWS movement on their websites that they’re just a bunch of dirty wierdos.

The demands are simple, really, which is why we don’t restate them so often. Put succinctly, what people want is a Wall Street that is better constrained from risky behavior, from predatory lending and conflicts of interest. We’re saying it matters how Wall Street makes its money. We’re saying it matters whether they serve their clients in good faith. We’re saying that government policy needs to be change in order to be anti-cyclical, in order to counter the pressures supressing the economy.

We need an end to the political bull**** that keeps on trying to improve the economy and the fiscal picture at the expense of those who cannot afford it, while making sacred cows out of the rich in terms of increasing revenue. I mean, what your folks have basically said is that we can cut spending, but we can’t increase taxes. never mind that the effect on the economy is more or less the same, as far as austerity goes. You’re taking money out of the economy either way.

And your people have said, in the eventuality we do have to increase taxes, again the rich don’t get them, the middle class and those below them should. Looking at charts of your various proposals, from Hermain Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, Rick Perry’s tax plan, and the plan from the supercommittee Republicans, the one common feature is that their reforms raise taxes on the Middle class.

Long story short, whatever lip service about job creators Republicans give, the GOP does not seem interested in really giving a break to the average person, not even in this time when they need it.

That’s what OWS opposes: a general attitude that says whatever the fiscal or economic problem it is we’re looking to solve, hitting the little guy is our first option for solving it, and sometimes even our only option.

The rest of us want a piece of our own action. Proper rewards for good work, reform to the costly healthcare system that sucks up so much money in this country without providing better care for the premium, regulatory constraints that keep Wall Street from turning itself into a gallery of games of chance.

Long story short, the OWS movement stands for the idea that the time when Americans defer to the interests of the rich and poweful in hopes of an improving economy are over. We’re no longer asking permission to see to our own interests.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2011 11:18 PM
Comment #331877

“ut succinctly, what people want is a Wall Street that is better constrained from risky behavior, from predatory lending and conflicts of interest. We’re saying it matters how Wall Street makes its money. We’re saying it matters whether they serve their clients in good faith. We’re saying that government policy needs to be change in order to be anti-cyclical, in order to counter the pressures supressing the economy.”

This is indeed the simple message … also of the Tea Party. The problem is in the details of how it should be accomplished.

Re taking from those who “can afford it” - it depends on what you want to do. I am NOT a member of the 1% and never will be. My “median income” over my working years is almost exactly the American median, but I make good money now AND I have been careful all my life to save for my retirement. We will retire in a couple years and have enough. We didn’t buy a house we couldn’t afford. Our Honda Civic hybrid is six years old. We don’t go out to eat much. We saved to pay for our kids education. Chrissy & I paid for our own education by working (I did McDonald’s etc) and student loans.

I do take it personally when scruffy slobs who pissed away their money want to steal from me to pay off their debts and the predictable results of peculiar life styles.

I pay taxes. Lots of them. We also set up a “fund” where we regularly give to charity more than most of “your people” pay in taxes.

Re Taxes - “my people” offered to raise revenues by $500 billion over 10 years as part of a tax reform. These gains are “statistically scored” as demanded by Democrats, i.e. they don’t even take into account growth, which we know will add to revenues.

In return, “your people” would have to agree to only $750 billion in budget cuts. Democrats claim they want to get government size back down to what it was before the recession, although we expect they are not telling the truth) Changes in ObamaCare (with its 3.8-percentage point payroll tax increase) and major reform of Medicare and Medicaid were long ago ruled out by Democrats.

Your people” rejected this out of hand.

Democrats are lying that Republicans will accept no revenue gains. If you are reading only those websites you mention, you are seriously misinformed.

Reference - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577028083997201376.html

And you didn’t answer my question, so I will assume that you also have not seen the OWS in both New York & Oakland, not to mention in other places around the U.S., so we are both equally bereft of “actual experience” and you can drop the attitude.

Posted by: C&J at November 12, 2011 8:43 AM
Comment #331984

C&J-
You’re kidding me, Right? The tea party might have said no bailouts, but it’s been constantly on the attack concerning those constraints on bad business practices.

You can talk about scruffy slobs all you want to (you’re really trying to avoid sounding like an elitist, aren’t you?) but that doesn’t change the fact that the liberal activists have a pretty specific idea of the policies they will enact, not mere sentiments they don’t back up with productive policies.

Your people agreed to hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues, mostly from people around your income bracket and mine, while at the same time making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, an act which essentially takes all the new revenues and dumps them in a big bucket of deficit. So don’t tell me that’s a real deal, that’s defeating the purpose.

As for my dropping the attitude?

We’re both talking about this by second hand, here, or worse. But you were talking about things, like hygeine, sanitation, and other things in very vivid detail. Too vivid, as a matter of fact. You might think that perfectly justifiable, but I think it amounts to a reckless disregard for the truth, if you’re acting like you know exactly what’s going on, like you can characterize, demonize, and criticize these people in their very essence, despite the fact that you’re nowhere near a personal experience of their demonstrations.

That’s the attitude I’m confronting you about. My attitude? I don’t like people being bullies. It’s part of what alienated me from the GOP in the first place, and I don’t have much sympathy for rhetoric that basically sidesteps the political greivance being expressed to trash the person expressing it.

Oh, by the way: I’m as surprised as you to hear about this as you are, but the individual mandate posted better than fifty percent in the latest CNN poll on the question. That, as I recall it, seems to have been the last individual piece of the healthcare legislation that people hadn’t warmed to. Kind of interesting the way public opinion sways once people have time to think about things without the noise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment #332001

Stephen

In some cases, I am an elitist. I do feel better than then scruffy slobs. I suppose they feel better than me. You can choose sides. Your PC response, BTWm should be that both of us are right and the nobody can judge others. But we both know that is not what you think.

“Your people agreed to hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues, mostly from people around your income bracket and mine…”

This is not true. Most of the revenue will come from tightening up on tax deductions, which benefit the rich. Folks like George Soros can beat the brackets. We have to get at them with actual taxes.

Re the OWS - What I read about them AND the fact that they are camped on the streets for long times makes me think they are dirty. You cannot camp on the street for more than a short time w/o getting dirty and attracting bums. It just cannot be done. OWS choose a form of protest that will lead to dirt, disorder and ultimately defeat. Even good people like the Tea Party cannot maintain a street protest for a long time w/o making a mess.

Re people wanting stuff from government - that is always the way tyrants erode liberty. They bribe people with their own money. Everybody wants free stuff. And if government is giving it out, you would be a fool not to take it. It corrupts even good people.

Posted by: C&J at November 14, 2011 5:57 PM
Post a comment