“Occupy Wall Street”

[NealOnWheels]

Yes the website is down.

 

Here is a cached version of the demands...

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=724&source=hp&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Foccupywallst.org%2Fforum%2Fproposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme%2F&pbx=1&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Foccupywallst.org%2Fforum%2Fproposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme%2F&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1352l6324l0l7919l7l4l0l0l0l0l220l747l0.2.2l4l0

[moosetracker]

OK.. So this guy will not be our next president.. (I hope).. He is pretty radical on his demands, and I see alot of debt, and some jobs gained, some lost.. But.. alot of debt..

 

Anyone got a trillion? I would like to just pocket that myself (Debt free)!!

[Stosh]

This "movement" is nothing more than a counter-balance to the efforts of another grassroots movement, the Tea Party.

 

Obviously the Dems and Reps are not really speaking for the people anymore and are more interested in their own institutional preservation than working for the people they represent.

 

So the anti-big government/pro-capitalist people began to speak up. Both established parties take potshots at them.

 

Then the anti-big business/pro-socialist people begin to speak up. Both reload and start again.

 

Both the spin off groups want their voices to be heard and both Washington institutions aren't listening. Instead Rep/Dems are spinning the existence of these groups to support the continuation of their long established institutions and have quit address the needs of the people they claim to be listening to.

 

While the Rep/Dems struggle to maintain their power base, they are both going to lose out to the voices of the people, because the real power is in the votes and once these grassroots begin to make progress, Washington is going to have to pay attention or go by the way of the Whigs, No-Nothings and Tories.

 

Stosh

 

[allenj]

This drama is so familiar. All I can say is "Seen it all before."

 

In the late 60s and early 70s I was a College Student on the GI Bill. I remember the protests, the sit ins, the campus riots, all of it. While there were a few dedicated Anti-War and Socialist individuals, most of the participants were there for the PARTY. It is the same today.

 

Most of them don't care about the economy, jobs, or social justice. They don't care that they are being used by Liberal Polititions and the Labor Unions. IT'S FUN !

 

And just like last time I wouldn't be surprised if half of New York's pot dealers are right there.

[Beavah]

And just like last time I wouldn't be surprised if half of New York's pot dealers are right there

 

Yah, no doubt. They already had shop fronts set up along with da coke dealers and madams to cater to the Wall Street banker crowd. This will just be a mass-market sideline to their regular business.

 

Beavah

[Eamonn]

I think it's fair to say that the demands of the people are not clear.

I don't know if I'm being fair when I say that this is also true of what happened in the past couple of elections.

People felt that their elected officials weren't representing them and more than electing someone or a party the vote was more about getting those who were in, out.

Anyone with half a brain can see the havoc the elected Tea Party members have caused and the harm they caused to everyone.

Why did they do this?

As far as I can see they did it just because they could.

 

It's easy for me to pretend not to see or know what's going on.

I live in a part of the country where housing didn't sky rocket and not too many people got trapped in paying for a house that they can no longer afford and are unable to sell.

Both myself and HWMBO have good jobs that at the moment seem to be fairly stable.

Still we have friends who not that long ago seemed to be living the good life. Good jobs, nice homes, nice cars and a kid or two in college. Their good jobs are gone, they struggle to pay their mortgage payment, the cost of sending their kids to a good college have gone through the roof.

They have been forced to dip into their retirement savings or whats left of their savings. Thanks to the meddling of the Tea Party members.

These people never asked, wanted or took a hand out of any kind from anyone.

Worse still is when the time does come for these people to retire, the chances are that they will have no benefits, no money and from what I'm hearing from some of the Republican candidates that are running for president, there is no chance of any help should they win.

The time for the people to take back the real power is now and I'm glad and happy to see some people doing their bit and doing what they think is right.

Ea.

[BadenP]

allenj

 

You seem to forget that this was how our own revolution got started, that people like Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and many others were branded the "whack jobs" of their day. This country was founded on free speech and the rights of the people to expect a representational government to look out for their best interests.

 

All of that has been lost in todays do nothing Congress and administration, and with our economy continuing to tank and people losing all their savings, pensions, jobs, and houses these protests will continue on. I am willing to bet if you lost your job, house and savings you would be right out there joining in.

[BS-87]

Eamonn... It seems you're placing a little more blame with the Tea Party than is due.

 

How exactly are they responsible for increased costs in universities, increased costs of healthcare, and making people dip into retirement savings?

 

They're standing against more spending to avoid further indebtedness. If we continue bailing everyone out we'll end up not even making enough in a year to pay interest on our loans, let alone actually help people with our income. Through serious debt reduction and balanced budgets, we'll actually cut down the interest we need to pay annually so that someday in the future our government is actually able to use its limited budget to help people, not enslave them.

[Beavah]

Yah, BS-87, da problem is that they're also standing up against any spending on investment too, eh? I just read recently that back in Reagan's day a federal Pell grant paid for more than 2/3 of an average student's college tuition. Now it pays less than a third. If yeh wander 'round da campuses of the U.S.'s major universities you'll find students from everywhere from China to Turkey whose governments are paying the full, out-of-state tuition, board, and travel costs for their nationals because they know that's one of the best investments they can make as a nation.

 

And at da same time, the Tea Partiers are goin' all in for the worst, most ugly parts of da Republican party. Self-aggrandizement without honor, private profit with public risk, wavin' flags to support our troops but not paying for their salaries or gear, and an almost maniacal commitment to ensuring the bankers and CEOs that cost da country trillions maintain their bonuses at the lowest possible tax rate. That they hide this under a veil of Christianity is an affront to all who remember that the real Christ warned the rich young man that not only must he follow the precepts of the bible, but he also must go, sell all that he had and give it to the poor in order to truly follow Christ.

 

Most of us who began being fairly supportive of da Tea Party crowd because they seemed to echo our conservative notions of fiscal and moral responsibility have come to see 'em as a bit of a cancer. A sort of anti-intellectual rot on da country that attracted da lingering legacy of da Strom Thurmond Democrats. For me it became clear when they were more willing to default than accept $4 trillion in proposed cuts and mild tax increases from this president. Responsible people can't continue to vote against their own best interests and those of the nation.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BS-87]

What's irresponsible is the level of debt our government is willing to take on for investment.

 

It's gotten to the point now that in order to invest tax dollars back into our country, we need to take out more debt. This is simply because of the mass of debt and the growing size of our mandatory interest payments.

 

This is not sustainable. Debt is the greatest threat to our nation, and all of us need to sacrifice and cut back now in order to make tomorrow better.

 

Saddling future generations with mandatory spending is horribly irresponsible. It's unfortunate that since the 1930's investment and promises were made that are just today proving their unsustainability, but it's happened and we're stuck with the tough choices and hardships that our predecessors should have taken on instead of sending them down the line to us.

 

I for one think that the issue of debt is worth a principled stance of immediate attention, whatever the consequences. There should be no compromise until the budget is balanced to show a surplus to allow for the start on the shrinking path immediately.

 

It doesn't matter how many 3rd world countries aren't liberated by our undeclared wars because we cut our war budget and left in only enough to defend our own borders. It doesn't matter if those in desperate need of entitlement spending have to look to their churches, neighbors, and families for help instead of their federal government. It doesn't matter if cowboys don't get their poetry festival and corn-growers don't get paid to not grow corn. All that matters is getting our fiscal house in order without taking more capital out of the private sector and citizens' pockets.

 

That's the hard line approach. There cannot be compromise in which we promise to pay Tuesday for a hamburger today.

[packsaddle]

"...until the budget is balanced to show a surplus to allow for the start on the shrinking path immediately."

How come you weren't there to support this approach in 2000?

[Beavah]

That's the hard line approach. There cannot be compromise in which we promise to pay Tuesday for a hamburger today.

 

Yah, that's what we call the "hard line like a blockhead" approach.

 

You're mixin' up entitlement commitments with debt and debt interest payments.

 

A company with aging machinery that's carrying some debt can choose to pay down its debt and let da machinery decay in further deferred maintenance, and stop trainin' its workers or let 'em be attracted by more lucrative positions with other companies. In other words, it can choose to reinforce its own decline. That might be its only choice if da credit markets are such that it can only borrow money at a very high interest rate, but it's a grim choice.

 

Alternately, if da company can borrow more money at an extremely low long-term interest rate, the company is far better off borrowing further and investing in improved machinery, efficiency, and retaining its key employees. The debt service on such an additional loan is insignificant compared to da benefits of keeping the company from declining and positioning it for recovery. Da company CEO would have to be an idiot not to borrow more.

 

Right now, da U.S. can borrow money long-term at what is effectively a negative interest rate. Yields on treasury securities are such that we can borrow at historically low rates, well below any likely long-term rate of inflation. While cutting taxes and thereby dramatically increasing the deficit going into two wars was phenomenally stupid, not borrowing money and investing in infrastructure improvements and da future workers of the country when effective interest rates are negative would also be phenomenally stupid.

 

But defaulting? Deliberately going into bankruptcy when yeh can get a negative interest rate long-term loan to rebuild and position yourself for recovery? That is something only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would contemplate.

 

Beavah

 

 

[BS-87]

Where is the anti-war crowd that drummed against Bush? Why aren't they drumming against the perpetuity of these wars when the current POTUS promised to get us out of them? The answer is plainly that we're all too apt to overlook the shortcomings of someone we agree with 90% because they're much better than someone we don't agree with hardly at all.

 

Also, Beavah, when did I suggest default? I suggested cutting back on all spending except for interest on loans, the only default-able spending. If you suggest that Social Security wouldn't get paid, then that suggests that there is no such thing as a trust fund. I keep hearing the trust fund is solvent, and so if we don't touch it right now there's no trouble, right?

 

You're right to say that debt is good when the ROI for those investments exceeds interest on loans. However, there is no return on investment for government subsidies, war, or payoffs to campaign donors.

 

You try to paint me as a willy nilly obstructionist who just wants to cut cut cut no matter who it hurts. The truth is that the level of waste by our government to artificially inflate our economy is creating debt. The corruption of our elected officials is rewarding them for picking winners and losers. We don't have many products anymore that compete globally. This is because our system stifles innovation. Big business lobbies for more regulation. They do this to make entrance barriers for innovative startups, and also so they can lobby for subsidies to offset the costs of the new regulations. It's absurd and it reflects a system that's completely broken.

 

That's what the OWS folks should be protesting. Something tells me the OWS crowd could really use some educating from the Libertarian half of the Tea Party.

[scoutingagain]

"Where is the anti-war crowd that drummed against Bush? Why aren't they drumming against the perpetuity of these wars when the current POTUS promised to get us out of them?"

 

They're out there and having about as much success as they did when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

 

SA

 

 

[Beavah]

Easy, there, BS-87, I'm not tryin' to paint you at all. Besides, Mrs. Beavah insists I'm a lousy painter. My comments are all directed at da Tea Party-supported representatives to Congress. They were willing to default rather than accept the best deficit reduction deal ever offered. Like a bumper sticker I saw recently. Republicans 2012: Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.

 

However, there is no return on investment for government subsidies, war, or payoffs to campaign donors.

 

Of course there is, for da right ones. We had an enormous ROI from da First Gulf War. Dropped da price of oil to record lows for 10 years. Cemented our position at da end of the Cold War and secured da Pax Americana, opening trade and leading to a huge economic boom that eliminated our deficit and put us into good-sizes surpluses.

 

Any company or nation can make good or bad investment choices. Just because there are some bad choices doesn't mean that there aren't also good choices. Taking out bonds to build a local school at a low interest rate strengthens communities, draws new residents, improves property values and thereby increases tax revenues leading to a net gain over da life of the bond. Even though it's also "catering to teachers unions", it's still a good investment. And that's for full-out socialized education, not even subsidies. Subsidies get yeh farther because they also trigger more collateral private investment.

 

All kinds of things government can subsidize that yield excellent returns over da 30-year life of a negative-interest loan. Education. Basic scientific research. Transportation infrastructure. Energy infrastructure. Health care and safety for young people who have many years of productive work ahead of them. Proper regulation of da financial industry to ensure investor confidence and transparency. Improving and increasing immigration of young, desirable workers and families. Great investments. Huge payoffs. Well worth takin' out an enormous loan at da current interest rates.

 

Yah, sure, and there are also poor investments. Aggressive health care for the terminally ill. Military research, hardware, and salaries beyond what's required for defense of our borders and our routes of trade (because unlike civilian scientific research, military research and spending gets "locked up" and can't be readily built on and commercialized). Unlimited campaign spending. Allowing banks and bankers to gamble in da markets rather than invest in individuals and companies that produce things. Tax relief for those who are only engaged in that gambling rather than actually investing and employing people. Building an armed border along our southern frontier. Buying tens of thousands of X-Ray scanners for airports.

 

We have to be smart enough to elect people who know da difference between good and bad investments, and also know enough about business to know that yeh don't hesitate to borrow at good terms when there are excellent investment opportunities. Used to be da Republicans had a lot of people who had worked in da real world and understood that, and were worth supportin'.

 

Beavah