“Occupy Wall Street”

[vol_scouter]

Seattle Pioneer,

 

While it was not described as violent, the group pinned a security guard at the Air and Space Museum in Washington. They were trying to force their way into the museum to attack the drone on display. They were stopped because political signs are not permitted which led to them getting enraged when everyone did not bow to their demands. The Air and Space Museum was closed for the remainder of the day which prevented law abiding people who may have traveled large distances to see the museum. So while not violent, they are the antithesis of the Tea Parties which have done nothing like this. This OWS are disgusting.

[SeattlePioneer]

In Seattle the demonstrators set up and occupied dozens of tents in one of Seattle's busiest downtown parks. Even our left wing mayor couldn't abide that. The police made several arrests of people who refused to vacate tents, and they were removed.

 

This kind of thing shows that these demonstrators are on the edge of the kind of violence that will alienate most voters --- but they haven't gone over that line --- not yet.

 

Maybe tomorrow. I suspect it's just a matter of time. The anarchist element probably can't avoid actions which will lead to police confrontations.

 

If they are smart they will cool it and play for the added support they can get if they avoid violence.

[Beavah]

Personally, I expect they wont be able to avoid turning it into a fight with police, which will destroy this as a possibly serious political movement.

 

Nah, it works either way, eh?

 

Prior to responsive democracies, da norm in feudal societies when the wealth disparity got out of hand was to throw a riot. Yeh burn da rich and their businesses to the ground. Either that, or yeh start a pogrom or a war, which really has da same effect. It works to resolve the wealth disparity, but it's not a particularly productive way to do it.

 

Sound business ethics, taxes, civil discourse, and political involvement are much better options for everybody.

 

Again, it's worth takin' a look at Greece. Huge spending cuts of the sort da Tea Partiers advocate, fixed monetary policy of da sort the Tea Partiers advocate, and what has happened? Their deficit has increased because of further economic deterioration and consequent loss of revenues. And they've had riots and general strikes, with still further economic losses.

 

Da question is, given such a timely and relevant experiment, why would we want to recreate that situation in da U.S.?

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

You only want to bash the Tea Party but it is over spending mainly by the Democrats but also due to the Republicans under Bush. If they had been more fiscally responsible, the current problems would not be so perilous.

 

One has to hope that by the Tea Party demanding draconian cuts, they will compromise for less severe cuts. At the same time, the dems will agree to tax reform and less new taxation. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that either side will compromise which could doom us.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Beavaha,

 

And if this were Rome or a feudal society, perhaps you argument would have merit.

 

It isn't.

 

 

As I noted, I EXPECT that the anarchists of the left will wind up rioting. They are a self indulgent lot these days, and I expect they will sacrifice their opportunity to exercise power to a desire to throw a riot.

 

If they restrain themselves, they might have some actual influence, just as the Tea Party has.

 

And the reason they would be sacrificing influence would be because they will alienate the working class and lower middle class that otherwise might have some sympathy for their issues --- however unformed they may be at present.

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

In little old Tampa we had an "Occupy Tampa" protest across from where I work. It reminded me VERY much of the early Tax Party protest we had there not so long ago. Many disparate groups and individuals with signs that often clashed with each other. Very early movement looking.

 

IMHO and observation the Occupy Tampa folks were better behaved (but then TPD was more in force) and less confrontational to passers-by than the Tea Party rally. The Tea Party folks had more moms with kids.

[Stosh]

The Tea Party might be the scum of the earth, but they are effective. They've caught the attention of Washington (both parties) and Washington has the option to embrace them or fight them. They were effective enough to get representation in there that disrupts the "balance" of the Rep/Dem establishment. It's almost like an organized Independent party. The Occupy group is giving it a try from the other side of the spectrum hoping to garner some sort of position the Tea Party has accomplished. However, being a Rebel without a cause, really isn't a serious attempt at anything other than getting media attention. Without some sort of stated goal, the media will eventually tire of them, especially once the media's $$ horse moves on down the road to the next big world crisis.

 

Stosh

[CalicoPenn]

I think people aren't really sure what to make of this whole Occupy Wall Street thing because the media hasn't done a very good job paying attention to it - they've come in late to the party and are struggling to catch up.

 

Occupy Wall Street started as a response to a suggestion in Adbusters Magazine, a magazine opposed to the corporatization of society - call it anti-corporate if that's your worldview, or call it pro-people, if that's your worldwiew. Adbusters, by the way, is published in Canada (hmm, maybe it's the first salvo in Canada's plan to invade the US - or is that just giving the knuckleheads at Fox News ideas?). The whole intention was for a group of people to camp out in Wall Street's "front lawn" to call attention to the damage that corporations are inflicting on people and government (and yes, corporations do a lot of good - that's not the point - the point is that they also do a lot that's bad and we need corporations to do less of the bad and more of the good).

 

What a lot of people either forget, or don't know (and I suspect the latter - again, the media was late to this whole thing) is that Occupy Wall Street didn't really start gaining any traction until violence reared it's ugly head - violence caused by one particular NYPD police officer who took it upon himself to pepper spray some peaceful female protestors. This act was captured on video and put on to You Tube - where it quickly became viral and inflamed the passions of an awful lot of people. Before those who are quick to defend the police jump in, you should know that this one particular police officer has a history of acting like this, and that the other police officers with boots on the ground at the time were disgusted by this officer's actions and filed complaints against him for his behavior BEFORE the video was viral on You Tube.

 

Once the video went viral, that's when the mass occupation of Wall Street really began - until that happened, there were never more than about 20 people involved. The police didn't start putting up the barricades around the Wall Street bull and other parts of Wall Street until this video started getting noticed - I have to hand it to the NYPD - someone there was smart enough to think "Uh oh - this is not going to be good" and got pro-active.

 

Today, the press is still struggling to figure it out - and as a result, most of us are struggling to figure it out. Apparently, the message "End Corporate Greed" isn't as coherent a message as "Lower Taxes". I figure the message makes sense to those of us who have been paying attention to the effects corporations have had on our society over the past few decades. It's also the answer as to why they are occupying Wall Street and not the Capitol. The message is end corporate greed - you take that message to the center of corporatism - and that's symbolically Wall Street.

 

It will be interesting to see if it follows the same pattern as the Tea Party. The Tea Party started off as a grass-roots movement, but it was, despite some folks not wanting to believe it, co-opted by money and influence from the right - the various national factions people know of (as seemingly separate organizations) like the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots, etc., etc., are funded by big pocket donors who are not just funding them, but telling them what to say and do. The state Tea Party groups are still more grass roots aligned but are being drowned out more and more by the astro-turf groups that popped up to take the spotlight and haven't been able to do a good job of distancing themselves from the national folks, either because they have little power, or just haven't been able to admit that they've been taken over.

 

Started as a grass roots movement, Occupy Wall Street is starting to garnish funding from deep pockets on the left - if a single message starts to emerge that is not coming from disparate sources, then I would suggest that Occupy Wall Street has been co-opted in the same way that the Tea Party was co-opted. I don't think we're seeing that, yet. The 99% campaign that's coming out is something that appears to have emerged organically and is spreading like wildfire through social media rather than being orchestrated. However, I also think this is the most likely avenue to be turned into a single, national message with huge funding behind it, and to be potentially co-opted and morphed into something else. I think that remains to be seen.

 

(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[Eagledad]

Last year the Republicans made the biggest gains of a single party since the 1940s. What has changed in the last year for the results to be any different next year, OWS?

 

The Tea Party movement really is a grass roots originated that is focused and simple. Tea Party folks, and folks who unknowing agree with the Tea party platform, are quietly waiting to make their protest heard November 2012.

 

Barry

[skeptic]

If the two "controlling parties" did not have a lock on any "real" political power, we might see them all replaced by other groups; but the other parties really have very poor chances in most cases. Part of that may be the odd choices so often running; but a lot has to do with their simple lack of exposure and financial backing.

[SR540Beaver]

Reader Harold Theurer sees another angle. Noting the passing of Steve Jobs, he wonders how many protesters carrying Apple products understand how those gadgets came to exist.

 

What started out as two men in a garage with ideas and passion would have been nothing more than two guys in a garage with ideas and passion had it not been for an IPO on Dec. 12, 1980, when Apple went public at $22 per share, he writes.

 

Big Bad Wall Street raised $101 million for Mr. Jobs to expand his ideas, create jobs and change the landscape of technology. The next time any of the Wall Street occupiers makes an iTune purchase, it can be traced back to some Big Bad Bankers belief in Mr. Jobs and his company.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/aimless_obama_walks_alone_OUgoMTkORRJioLl7B6ZYmN#ixzz1aP0i72o1

[JoeBob]

Eamonn,

 

Regarding taxes, what is a 'fair share' of income that you think millionaires should pay?

 

Specifically, what percentage of all the taxes paid should the top 1% be responsible for to satisfy your perception of them paying their 'fair share'?

 

Conversely, what percentage of all taxes paid should the bottom 47% of all taxpayers pay to pay their 'fair share'?

[JoeBob]

Millionaires = one one hundredth of a percent of taxpayers, but pay from 17 percent to 28 percent of all taxes paid.

http://mercatus.org/publication/share-total-income-taxes-paid-millionaires

 

Now THAT is unfair.

It does not matter how many times the president says it. Mllionaires are obviously paying more than their fair share.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html(This message has been edited by joebob)

[SeattlePioneer]

The left wing favors what economists call "price discrimination" in taxes. That's where you charge people different prices for the same service.

 

Charging an adult and child different prices for an airline seat would be an example.

 

Of course, left wingers want to gouge those who are successful in life, and subsidize the sick, lame and lazy.

 

 

 

Let's have REAL egalitarian tax rates --- the same for everyone.

[BadenP]

 

I think this discussion has become hysterically funny with SP and Barry defending the Republican party and giving them credit for being the only ones trying to fix this economice mess we are in, as well as blaming the liberals for this crisis. You two should study your political history more closely, every eight years the other party gets in and has their eight years to screw everything up until the American voters get fed up and boot them out of office. The truth of the matter is that NEITHER party has a clue how to fix this economic mess we are in, none of the crazy plans both sides are proposing will put a dent in this problem. This debate has truly become a "highway to nowhere".