News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[daveb]

"Europe in financial collapse domino" http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/10/10/58493893.html
"Euro crisis spreads and puts the world economy at risk" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/09/g20-finance-ministers-euro-crisis?newsfeed=true
"As crisis widens, Europe's leaders keep talking" http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/10/8253722-as-crisis-widens-europes-leaders-keep-talking

If Europe is doing better than the U.S. they sure don't know it. Even Canada is considering a States-style bailout: (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...soon-for-economic-stimulus-in-canada-flaherty).

Since when is Europe a country? humanino said countries like Germany or Canada, he did not say Europe. Also, he said contributed to the recession; he didn't say are being affected by (and as far as Canada, the link you provided says Canada is actually doing fine right now).

 

[mheslep]

During the recent recession some other countries, especially Germany and Ireland, have implemented policies distinctly to the right of the US. Germany was very stingy with any stimulus despite encouragement by the US's Geitner to do more, and Ireland has implemented austerity policies which appear to have just begun to pay off.

Germany, however, is taking the opposite approach. Rather than take on even more debt to ramp up the economy, Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to set an example for Europe on how to cut spending and reduce budget deficits. Her government is currently looking into ways to make significant spending cuts. Many economists in Europe even view deficit and debt reduction as a key precursor to economic growth.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,697132,00.html

 

[russ_watters]

How stupid would it be to talk about them for 11 pages otherwise ? Either your radio is a serious news organization reporting worthy events, hence you quote it here; or your radio wastes your time with useless hippy slogans, in which case you should question the media you listen to.

Publicity = legitimacy is crackpot logic 101, not to mention you are using the news coverage as a sign of legitimacy while decrying the apparent fact that the news isn't taking them seriously!

 

[WhoWee]

How does anyone take this guy seriously?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

"Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009."

I challenge EVERYONE to post arrest results from TEA Party events (which occurred over a much longer time frame) that exceed the number of arrests already accumulated during the Occupy protests.

 

[MarcoD]

Since when is Europe a country? humanino said countries like Germany or Canada, he did not say Europe. Also, he said contributed to the recession; he didn't say are being affected by (and as far as Canada, the link you provided says Canada is actually doing fine right now).

Europe by and large did the same as the US, they bailed out the banks which held bad US investment with money. (My own country went to 45% to 60% in 2008.) After that, the cascade began because some countries have a large debt, money became expensive, and their debt problem became apparent.

Face it, you US guys owe me money.

 

[WhoWee]

Publicity = legitimacy is crackpot logic 101, not to mention you are using the news coverage as a sign of legitimacy while decrying the apparent fact that the news isn't taking them seriously!

Unfortunately, (usually otherwise credible http://timryan.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1) Democrats are trying to spin this to their favor. my bold
http://business-journal.com/occupy-protest-today-at-ohio-statehouse-p20151-1.htm

""Youngstown and the surrounding areas have been plagued by intolerance and immoral business practices, which have corroded the jewel that this great city once was," writes one Occupy Youngstown organizer. You have thousands of 'today's' left to enjoy in your future, but let your 'tomorrow' be remembered as the day you changed your country. ... The revolutionaries that endured the harsh winters, traversed the greatest military force of the 18th century, and declared our sovereignty to secure the future of this great country didn't do so envisioning a future where the few prosper at the expense of the majority. They labored to construct the liberation of all."

The comparison to the American Revolution by Occupy protestors is not unlike how Tea Party demonstrators depicted themselves during their rallies last year. But is the Occupy Movement a left-wing counterpart to the right-win Tea Party?

U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan believes Occupy's focus on economic inequality rather than big government, socialism and whether "Barack Obama was not born in America or all this nonsense that came out of the Tea Party movement" -- is the significant difference.

"The Tea Party movement was primarily older, whiter," Ryan says, where the Occupy movement "has really broad appeal because there are so many people who are unemployed or underemployed." Among students and youth, unemployment is near 20%, he continues. "All this all leads to high, high levels of discontent. People are squeezed and they don't know what else to do but go to the streets and start protesting.""

 

[mheslep]

How does anyone take this guy seriously?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

"Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009."

I challenge EVERYONE to post arrest results from TEA Party events (which occurred over a much longer time frame) that exceed the number of arrests already accumulated during the Occupy protests.

I think you are missing Krugman's (ridiculous) point which I believe is as follows: the accusations of one day racist slurs against members of Congress, never filmed or recorded, and the odd crackpot Obama=The Joker sign are far, far worse (assumed) behaviors than any amount of filmed and recorded illegal behavior by the Occupiers.

 

[daveb]

I challenge EVERYONE to post arrest results from TEA Party events (which occurred over a much longer time frame) that exceed the number of arrests already accumulated during the Occupy protests.

I'm not sure anyone here takes that part of what he said seriously (well, some might, but I certainly don't), but his point is still valid - why is the right criticizing the protests? Unfortunately, he (Krugman) doesn't realize the hypocrisy - the answer is because the left criticized TEA Party protests (but now supports these protests). Basically, both sides are being hypocrites if they criticize one protest but not the other. (And yes, need it be said this is IMO?)

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure anyone here takes that part of what he said seriously (well, some might, but I certainly don't), but his point is still valid - why is the right criticizing the protests? Unfortunately, he (Krugman) doesn't realize the hypocrisy - the answer is because the left criticized TEA Party protests (but now supports these protests). Basically, both sides are being hypocrites if they criticize one protest but not the other. (And yes, need it be said this is IMO?)

This might be why?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/10/national/main20118120.shtml

"DES MOINES, Iowa - More than 30 Occupy Iowa protesters have been arrested in front of the Iowa Statehouse, reports CBS Affiliate KCCI."

 

[JDoolin]

Well, the problem is that it doesn't do anything. At the risk of sounding evil, maybe that's how they ended up unemployed? Maybe instead of figuring out the system and how to work inside of it, they just complained a lot? I work with people like that... and I suspect they'll get fired the next time belts are tightened... and I suspect they'll complain about it.



Give them some of your money. Isn't that EXACTLY the idea you're supporting? Put your money where your mouth is.

I don't HAVE any money. I have debt. I am working and I am able to afford an apartment and pay interest on my loans.

In any case, what I see is YOU complaining about your fellow workers. I see YOU hoping that they are fired "next time the belt is tightened." You see that belt-tightening as inevitable; even a good thing.

I can't really tell, from what you are saying, whether you are legitimately complaining about other people's work ethic, or if you've just figured out how to work the system; primarily griping about other people, tearing them down, so you'll look better to whoever your working for, or perhaps just feel better about yourself?

 

[WhoWee]

I think you are missing Krugman's (ridiculous) point which I believe is as follows: the accusations of one day racist slurs against members of Congress, never filmed or recorded, and the odd crackpot Obama=The Joker sign are far, far worse (assumed) behaviors than any amount of filmed and recorded illegal behavior by the Occupiers.

Let's not forget the TEA Party protesters were labeled "radical" for wanting Government accountability - yet these folks can speak of revolution and not be considered radical?

 

[JDoolin]

How does anyone take this guy seriously?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share


"Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009."

I challenge EVERYONE to post arrest results from TEA Party events (which occurred over a much longer time frame) that exceed the number of arrests already accumulated during the Occupy protests.

Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested.


I think Paul Krugman is spot on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

I wouldn't say that all wealthy Americans suffer from this syndrome, but I can certainly empathize with the syndrome. I suspect that if I lived a life of luxury, surrounded by servants, (whether I were born into money, or somehow came to it through the luck of my investments,) I might also forget that my place in that hierarchy was not entirely earned, but in large part due to circumstances beyond my control.

So it should really be no surprise that one would react with hysteria when the painful truths are pointed out.

 

[daveb]

Let's not forget the TEA Party protesters were labeled "radical" for wanting Government accountability - yet these folks can speak of revolution and not be considered radical?

I don't think the TEA Party was considered radical by some because of the desire for accountability, but instead because of http://theteaparty.net/inner.asp?z=41"

We are asked all the time who does the tea party movement recommend we vote for. That is a difficult question to answer because the tea party is a movement of millions of different Americans and organizations. What we do share in common is supporting the most conservative, constitutional, limited government, free market candidates available in any given election.

To some, "most conservative" has radical connotations.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested.

Who protested against the poor? Please support.

 

[JDoolin]

I'm not sure anyone here takes that part of what he said seriously (well, some might, but I certainly don't), but his point is still valid - why is the right criticizing the protests? Unfortunately, he (Krugman) doesn't realize the hypocrisy - the answer is because the left criticized TEA Party protests (but now supports these protests). Basically, both sides are being hypocrites if they criticize one protest but not the other. (And yes, need it be said this is IMO?)

Let's say I don't support KKK rallies, but I do support Peace rallies. Would that make me a hypocrite, too, in your opinion?

I can support someone's right to free speech, but I also reserve the right to criticize what they are saying.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think the TEA Party was considered radical by some because of the desire for accountability, but instead because of http://theteaparty.net/inner.asp?z=41"

To some, "most conservative" has radical connotations.

I see your point - the word conservative seems to have an image problem.

Someone sent me this link earlier.
http://www.teapartypac.org/2011/10/09/the-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street-which-one-do-you-support/#comment-3

"The Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street which one do you support?


The Tea Party grew from a grass roots movement of hard working fiscally conservative Americans who were protesting Taxation Without Representation when the elected liberal leaders of the country decided to rob the treasury funded by the American people and hand out bail outs and stimulus to the democrat voters. The Obama democratic pay to play slush fund was the final straw for the hundreds of thousands of Americans fed up with the direction of the government. Our masses slowly grew as Tea Party events popped up across America and the peaceful crowds grew larger. We celebrated exceptionalism, we read the US Constitution and we proudly proclaimed our US Patriotism as we celebrated the Founding Fathers and their achievements in developing the greatest country in the world. Most of the press ignored us, called us denigrating names, or argued at how large the crowds were.

On 9-12-09 we came from across America to gather in DC and let the leaders know just how big we were. We shook the foundation of DC with chant by hundreds of thousands of voices, “Can you hear us now?” as they continued to ignore our message and rammed unsupported bills down our throats. "

 

[JDoolin]

Who protested against the poor? Please support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef24ZsNlxD4&feature=related

The tea party is against any safety net for the poor, because such smells of "socialism."

Maybe you have some other way of thinking, but in my dictionary, anti-poor and anti-socialist are synonymous.

You get rid of all the regulation for the richest, greediest, meanest, most power hungry people. That will spell misery for the poorest people.

Have I made some connection that you haven't, or am I missing some wonderful plan for how the richest, greediest meanest, most power hungry people are going to be kept in check in this capitalist utopia?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef24ZsNlxD4&feature=related

The tea party is against any safety net for the poor, because such smells of "socialism."

Maybe you have some other way of thinking, but in my dictionary, anti-poor and anti-socialist are synonymous.

You get rid of all the regulation for the richest, greediest, meanest, most power hungry people. That will spell misery for the poorest people.

Have I made some connection that you haven't, or am I missing some wonderful plan for how the richest, greediest meanest, most power hungry people are going to be kept in check in this capitalist utopia?

I'll assume you are joking - that you realize the cartoon video you posted doesn't support your statements?

"Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested."

 

[CAC1001]

I found it interesting how Nancy Pelosi talked about how frightened she was of the Tea Party protests, how she'd scene such behavior in the 1970s and how scary it was, but she is a-okay with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

 

[WhoWee]

I found it interesting how Nancy Pelosi talked about how frightened she was of the Tea Party protests, how she'd scene such behavior in the 1970s and how scary it was, but she is a-okay with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Post 187 by MarcoD could explain why? (my addition of ***** - to break up quotes and the bold of his response)

"MarcoD

Posts: 63
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York
Originally Posted by WhoWee
It's also possible (if the crowds remain) the end result will be escalating civil disobedience or ultimately violence and criminal damage, malicious mischief, criminal mischief, and vandalism related property destruction.

*****

It's also possible it ends up in one great orgy and you'll thoroughly regret not having been there. Whatever."

 

[JDoolin]

The Tea Party grew from a grass roots movement of hard working fiscally conservative Americans who were protesting Taxation Without Representation when the elected liberal leaders of the country decided to rob the treasury funded by the American people and hand out bail outs and stimulus to the democrat voters. [/I]

Really? Where's my check?

There was a tendency, probably in the bailout to support liberal causes; one would hope that a Democratic majority congress, a democratic majority senate, and Democratic president could get a democratic bill passed.

Unfortunately it was not nearly liberal enough. A lot of that stimulus went toward continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy and stuff to get enough Republican to stop filibustering and allow things to pass.

I really wish they had been able to do a better job, and get around the Republican obstructionism. Especially to drop the Bush tax cuts. And to keep school funding, and to keep EPA better funded, and stuff like that. I would have preferred if a lot more jobs were saved.

 

[CAC1001]

You do realize that you cherry picked a set of facts to support your fallacy. The fallacy you used is some variant of Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Would have to disagree here. Pointing out the fascist (or perceived) fascist tendencies of these protesters has nothing to do with associating the people or movement with Hitler. It has to do with looking at the history of fascist movements and what kinds of people they attracted and what the movements stood for. A hallmark of fascists is that they almost always want to tear down the established system and re-build it.

Anyway, neither the left or right have a monopoly on fascism but I will address each point individually.

Fascism I'd say is always a leftist movement. What confuses people is that you will find white power movements on both the left and the right, and even here it gets shaky, because the white power movements that tend to be very far-right in many ways are also collectivist in other ways, in that they are nationalist. But you will never find a fascist movement built around peaceful protest and calls for things like limited government, fiscal conservatism, individual rights and freedoms, economic freedom, political freedom, etc...those are classicallly liberal values, classical liberalism being the right, and classical liberalism is about as opposite of fascism as one can get.

You won't find a fascist who cites the likes of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Charles Montesquieu, John Adams, etc...as their primary inspirations. Three hallmarks of fascist movements are government control over the economy, an end to political freedom (establish a form of dictatorship), and usually nationalism (which is a collectivist type of thinking).

Now that said, fascism being leftist doesn't mean leftists are all fascists (far from it!). It's an extreme form of leftism, just as Marxist-style socialism is an extreme form of leftism.

 

[JDoolin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef24ZsNlxD4&feature=related

The tea party is against any safety net for the poor, because such smells of "socialism."

Maybe you have some other way of thinking, but in my dictionary, anti-poor and anti-socialist are synonymous.

You get rid of all the regulation for the richest, greediest, meanest, most power hungry people. That will spell misery for the poorest people.

Have I made some connection that you haven't, or am I missing some wonderful plan for how the richest, greediest meanest, most power hungry people are going to be kept in check in this capitalist utopia?

I'll assume you are joking - that you realize the cartoon video you posted doesn't support your statements?

"Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested."

No, I'm not joking. The cartoon is propaganda. Big-time-scary propaganda. Like crush the poor while they help you do it, propaganda.

I guess, maybe if people are so stupid, they watch that video and say "OH, GEEZE GOLLY, CAPITALISTS ARE GOOD, SOCIALISTS ARE BAD" then they deserve whatever is coming to them.

But as for me, I just don't think it's right; to manipulate people that way.

 

[CAC1001]

Especially to drop the Bush tax cuts.

Just a sidenote, but keep in mind that "the Bush tax cuts" were actually for everybody, poor, middle-income, and rich. It was harped throughout his presidency that they were solely "for the rich," and how they should all be ended. You'll note how when Obama became president, how the language subtley was changed from "End the Bush tax cuts" to "End the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans" which shows how silly the whole argument was from the get-go (why should anyone poor or middle-income care if taxes are cut for the wealthy when taxes were cut for themselves to?). One could argue that the wealthy pay most of the tax and thus their taxes shouldn't have been cut because it might increase the deficit by a large amount, but the argument was always framed that the taxes were cut solely for the wealthy and that was it. The one appeals to people's emotions ("The rich are getting tax cuts and you're not") the other one just appeals to reason ("Everyone is getting tax cuts, but do the rich really need them? The middle-income and poor could use them and it probably won't blow up the deficit much at all, but if we cut them for the rich, it could cause the deficit to grow...") the latter argument doesn't get people all worked up the way the former does.

 

[WhoWee]

Really? Where's my check?

There was a tendency, probably in the bailout to support liberal causes; one would hope that a Democratic majority congress, a democratic majority senate, and Democratic president could get a democratic bill passed.

Unfortunately it was not nearly liberal enough. A lot of that stimulus went toward continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy and stuff to get enough Republican to stop filibustering and allow things to pass.

I really wish they had been able to do a better job, and get around the Republican obstructionism. Especially to drop the Bush tax cuts. And to keep school funding, and to keep EPA better funded, and stuff like that. I would have preferred if a lot more jobs were saved.

Didn't you receive the $1,000 from President Obama's tax cut for 95% of all Americans? As for "the Republican obstructionism" - (as you pointed out) didn't President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have the ability to pass ANYTHING they wanted for about 2 years - before the House majority switched to Republican control? Didn't health care reform, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus benefit you personally? Also, why do you mislabel the tax cuts extended by President Obama "the Bush tax cuts" - when he signed the extension they became the Obama tax cuts. Actually, it's very difficult (I can't find one) to find a direct quote from President Obama from the day he signed the Bill extending the cuts - where he gives Bush any acknowledgment whatsoever for the original cuts. Maybe you can find a link from that day - where Obama credits Bush?

 

[WhoWee]

No, I'm not joking. The cartoon is propaganda. Big-time-scary propaganda. Like crush the poor while they help you do it, propaganda.

I guess, maybe if people are so stupid, they watch that video and say "OH, GEEZE GOLLY, CAPITALISTS ARE GOOD, SOCIALISTS ARE BAD" then they deserve whatever is coming to them.

But as for me, I just don't think it's right; to manipulate people that way.

How does the introduction of a cartoon support your comments?

 

[JDoolin]

Didn't you receive the $1,000 from President Obama's tax cut for 95% of all Americans? As for "the Republican obstructionism" - (as you pointed out) didn't President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have the ability to pass ANYTHING they wanted for about 2 years - before the House majority switched to Republican control? Didn't health care reform, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus benefit you personally? Also, why do you mislabel the tax cuts extended by President Obama "the Bush tax cuts" - when he signed the extension they became the Obama tax cuts. Actually, it's very difficult (I can't find one) to find a direct quote from President Obama from the day he signed the Bill extending the cuts - where he gives Bush any acknowledgment whatsoever for the original cuts. Maybe you can find a link from that day - where Obama credits Bush?

No. I got a $400 "making work pay" credit, which apparently is just a 2009, 2010 thing. But if that went out to 95% of Americans, I hardly think its fair to claim that it was a bribe that went out to "Democrat voters." I suppose its possible that someone could have overlooked that line in their tax forms, and not bothered to fill out form M, and maybe miss the refund? Are you suggesting that somehow the IRS informed Democrat voters about the refund, but not Republican voters?

Health care reform should benefit me personally, but it should also benefit a lot of Republican voters I know. Cash for Clunkers did not benefit me or anyone I know personally; sorry I run with a pretty poor crowd. We're not exactly in the market for a new car, even if we can get a $1000 rebate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/obama-bush-tax-cuts-video_n_793123.html

Your right, he never actually uses the phrase "Bush Tax Cuts" referring to them simply as "tax breaks/tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires."

Huffington Post here makes a good point, that Obama ran on this principle of NOT cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires, and when the opportunity came up to let the tax cuts end, he caved to the #1 economic priority of the GOP.

That's one reason that we actually NEED those people on the street occupying wall street. It seems that even with a democratic congress, democratic senate, and democratic president who's been pledging for ages to end these tax cuts, he was still unable to do it.

 

[MarcoD]

That's one reason that we actually NEED those people on the street occupying wall street. It seems that even with a democratic congress, democratic senate, and democratic president who's been pledging for ages to end these tax cuts, he was still unable to do it.

That's what I wonder about. I expect that all parties usually have their own advisors which will inform them what turn the economy will take with some given decisions (at least, in my country it works that way.) And my best guess is that all your advisors are rabid neoliberals, and that no government will take action which will cost votes in an election year, but will lead to a more stable economy long-turn.

I am pretty sure my country has the same problem, though.

Btw, I think I have never read more nonsense that taxing the ultra-rich will grow the deficit? Can someone explain how that would work?

 

[humanino]

Publicity = legitimacy is crackpot logic 101, not to mention you are using the news coverage as a sign of legitimacy while decrying the apparent fact that the news isn't taking them seriously!

You misunderstand me : I believe there are intelligent voices and worthy, legitimate complaints which fuel the movement and its now 15 pages and 5k views here on PF. I am not using the coverage as a sign of legitimacy. I am questioning the news who would spend their coverage time decrying them, yes, because it would seem strange to me to loose the audience time about a non-existent message. If I was listening to or reading a news outlet sending out such a message, I would question the quality of the medium. Hence my original question, but since you have not understood it by now, I will not insist.

 

[JDoolin]

How does the introduction of a cartoon support your comments?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Exactly what comment wasn't supported by the cartoon? Maybe it didn't make my point as well as I'd hoped but the point is that the Tea Party is anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist.

Capitalist means that you serve whoever has the money to pay you. And you don't serve the people who don't have the money to pay you.

Socialism means you provide a safety net; education, training, housing, food, basic medical care, so that those who are poor have some way of bettering themselves.

Anti-Socialism is Anti Poor. Okay, sure, they never said that in the cartoon.

But the Tea Partiers consciously or subconsciously, either way, buy into the propaganda of that cartoon. Whether they are consciously anti-poor or not, they are anti-socialist which means by extension, they are anti-poor, whether they are aware of it or not.

The poor and gullible among them are simply digging away at the financial foundations and security on which they have been relying, while the rich among them are enjoying the show.

Maybe, though, I'm misrepresenting the Tea Party. Let me ask if Craig T Nelson's feelings are typical.

Typical rant? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/video-craig-t-nelson-s-gl_n_209024.html "I've been on welfare and food stamps...did anyone help me? No. They gave me hope, they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision... and that came from my education. So to me, you know going back to California and the hedge fund... I just feel like going after my kids, and their education, and the most valuable people we have on the planet, teachers. I just got to tell you I'm so sick and tired of it, I'm just sick and tired of it, and I'm old enough, I've been in the business 45 years and they can't fire me."

(Glen, laughing: they can always fire you.)

I suppose it's quite possible that the Tea Party actually does support food stamps and welfare, and they DO support public teachers. And they DO support free clinics. And they DO support free health care. Housing, public education, etc. Maybe I have been misled by the press.

If that's your case, that somehow the Tea Party have an agenda that is strongly supportive of the poor, then make your case, and make it well, because everything I have seen says otherwise. Everything I have seen suggests that they are looking for somebody to blame, and they blame the poor people and their welfare checks, sucking up their hard-earned taxpayer money.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Exactly what comment wasn't supported by the cartoon? Maybe it didn't make my point as well as I'd hoped but the point is that the Tea Party is anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist.

Capitalist means that you serve whoever has the money to pay you. And you don't serve the people who don't have the money to pay you.

Socialism means you provide a safety net; education, training, housing, food, basic medical care, so that those who are poor have some way of bettering themselves.

Anti-Socialism is Anti Poor. Okay, sure, they never said that in the cartoon.

But the Tea Partiers consciously or subconsciously, either way, buy into the propaganda of that cartoon. Whether they are consciously anti-poor or not, they are anti-socialist which means by extension, they are anti-poor, whether they are aware of it or not.

The poor and gullible among them are simply digging away at the financial foundations and security on which they have been relying, while the rich among them are enjoying the show.

Maybe, though, I'm misrepresenting the Tea Party. Let me ask if Craig T Nelson's feelings are typical.

Typical rant? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/video-craig-t-nelson-s-gl_n_209024.html "I've been on welfare and food stamps...did anyone help me? No. They gave me hope, they gave me encouragement, and they gave me a vision... and that came from my education. So to me, you know going back to California and the hedge fund... I just feel like going after my kids, and their education, and the most valuable people we have on the planet, teachers. I just got to tell you I'm so sick and tired of it, I'm just sick and tired of it, and I'm old enough, I've been in the business 45 years and they can't fire me."

(Glen, laughing: they can always fire you.)

I suppose it's quite possible that the Tea Party actually does support food stamps and welfare, and they DO support public teachers. And they DO support free clinics. And they DO support free health care. Housing, public education, etc. Maybe I have been misled by the press.

If that's your case, that somehow the Tea Party have an agenda that is strongly supportive of the poor, then make your case, and make it well, because everything I have seen says otherwise. Everything I have seen suggests that they are looking for somebody to blame, and they blame the poor people and their welfare checks, sucking up their hard-earned taxpayer money.

Please see Post 215: my ***** - to divide our comments and BOLD to highlight your comment
" T, 04:13 PM #215
WhoWee

Posts: 1,049
Recognitions:
PF Contributor
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York
Originally Posted by JDoolin
Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested.

*****
Who protested against the poor? Please support."

Again - please support - who protested against the poor?

 

[TheCool]

That's not true, the tea party was protesting the bailouts before it was the cool thing to do.

I think it is true (that the TP hates Obama because he's the wrong color) but it's not politically correct to say that. Hence, the prejudice is mascqueraded as "anger at big government and the budget deficit".

Well, if that is the case, one has to wonder: where were these folks at from 2003 to 2008 when the Iraq war put the country in debt? They had five years to get angry. And I'm not trying to blame Obama's failures on the previous administration, it's just a statement of fact; the U.S.'s massive debt was generated in the five years preceeding Obama's election. Fact.

Saying that libs need to quit blaming Bush for Obama's handling of the economy does not change the fact that the Republicans put the country in debt. That is a fact.

Furthermore, while the Tea Partiers may have opposed the bailouts in principle, it was never the main focus of their "movement". It couldn't have been, since the Tea Party's greatest financial backers are corporate big wigs who don't oppose bailouts.

I'd like to remind everyone the TEA Party protests were held BEFORE the 2010 election. This inconvenient fact will help keep comments made by left wing pundits and a few Democrat leaders (such as Charlie Rangel) in context when they make comparisons between the 2 groups.

Maybe so, but there is no indication that OWS favors Democrats over Republicans. Yes, the protests appear to be comprised of liberals, with a few hard leftists scattered about the crowds, but Democrats? No.

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same thing. Even when the Dems had majority in the house and senate, they kowtowed to Republicans. Some people have begun to recognize that there's no difference between them. That's what sparked the protests.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe so, but there is no indication that OWS favors Democrats over Republicans. Yes, the protests appear to be comprised of liberals, with a few hard leftists scattered about the crowds, but Democrats? No.

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same thing. Even when the Dems had majority in the house and senate, they kowtowed to Republicans. Some people have begun to recognize that there's no difference between them. That's what sparked the protests.

my bold
Are you certain the Occupiers don't favor the Dems(?) - if you read earlier posts, the Dems think they are on the same side - so does moveon.org and the unions.

 

[WhoWee]

Great news for the Occupation?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html

"Masoud Jazayeri, Iran General, Calls Wall Street Protest American Spring"

"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.

"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.

"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."

Maybe this "movement" is a terror threat - considering the opinion of (our enemy) - the Iranian General?

 

[MarcoD]

Great news for the Occupation?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html

"Masoud Jazayeri, Iran General, Calls Wall Street Protest American Spring"

"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.

"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.

"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."

Maybe this "movement" is a terror threat - considering the opinion of (our enemy) - the Iranian General?

It's bull. Iran has and will take any form of protest in the west as a legitimization of its own dictatorial regime. You can't take them serious.

 

[lisab]

Great news for the Occupation?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html

"Masoud Jazayeri, Iran General, Calls Wall Street Protest American Spring"

"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.

"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.

"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."

Maybe this "movement" is a terror threat - considering the opinion of (our enemy) - the Iranian General?

I agree with Marco -- this is simply propaganda. WhoWee, if you believe this kind of stuff, the terrorists win !

 

[WhoWee]

It's bull. Iran has and will take any form of protest in the west as a legitimization of its own dictatorial regime. You can't take them serious.

That's good - considering there was a story out last week about them sailing in the Atlantic.

What about this guy - is he serious? I'm not sure what he thinks is the "end game"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-wall-street/2011/10/04/gIQAJGezLL_story.html

"Not all of the problems with the current American model of capitalism originate with banking. But Wall Street’s growth has long come at the expense of productive enterprise, diverting dollars and talent from the business of making goods. Merely occupying Wall Street doesn’t go remotely far enough. We need to diminish finance with regulations that would make our economy both more secure and more productive. Here’s hoping the disparate groups of protesters come together, grow and stay in the streets. It will take a massive, vibrant protest movement to bring America’s subservience to Wall Street to its overdue end."

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with Marco -- this is simply propaganda. WhoWee, if you believe this kind of stuff, the terrorists win !

It doesn't matter what I think Lisa. The real question is what do the Occupiers think? We still don't know exactly what they are trying to accomplish - do we?

Btw - does Huffington engage in "propaganda"?

 

[MarcoD]

It doesn't matter what I think Lisa. The real question is what do the Occupiers think? We still don't know exactly what they are trying to accomplish - do we?

Btw - does Huffington engage in "propaganda"?

It remains bull. Do you think there is any union member in the US who wishes to cooperate with an Islamic dictatorship, which wants to establish a pan-Arabic caliphate, to bomb Wall street? There are no US citizens like that, and if there are, they'll probably act anyway or on their own, unabomber style.

Anything Iran said is not aimed at the western world. It is always a message mostly aimed at the country, since they need to keep the dictatorial reigns tight, and at some of the radical Islamic factions in the Arab world. It has no bearing on you. It's like Bush would condemn our animal rights party to assure the US public that a two-party system is preferable.

Anyway, some of what the protestors want is known. An end to greed, some investors brought to court, stuff like that. Pretty harmless, if you ask me.

 

[lisab]

It doesn't matter what I think Lisa. The real question is what do the Occupiers think? We still don't know exactly what they are trying to accomplish - do we?

Btw - does Huffington engage in "propaganda"?

I have the feeling you're expecting a 12-point agenda from them, with point-by-point analyses, timelines, and flowcharts. I feel pretty certain in saying, you're not going to get that from them.

Take a step back and just look at what's happening. Those people are very *pissed off* and scared, and for every one of them there are probably hundreds who aren't at the protest but are also extremely *pissed off* and scared. Why? Well, I certainly don't mean this as an attack, but I can't help but notice that you've been given lots of reasons why (in this thread and lots of others), but I don't know if you're open to really hearing it or believing any of it. You do ask a lot of questions, though .

Huffington? Every time I go there, it takes sooooo long to load...I hardly ever try anymore. I don't have the patience. So I don't know where their bias is these days.

 

[WhoWee]

It remains bull. Do you think there is any union member in the US who wishes to cooperate with an Islamic dictatorship, which wants to establish a pan-Arabic caliphate, to bomb Wall street? There are no US citizens like that, and if there are, they'll probably act anyway or on their own, unabomber style.

Anything Iran said is not aimed at the western world. It is always a message mostly aimed at the country, since they need to keep the dictatorial reigns tight, and at some of the radical Islamic factions in the Arab world. It has no bearing on you. It's like Bush would condemn our animal rights party to assure the US public that a two-party system is preferable.

Anyway, some of what the protestors want is known. An end to greed, some investors brought to court, stuff like that. Pretty harmless, if you ask me.

my bold
"An end to greed"? Are you joking? Are the Occupiers themselves not greedy?

Also "some investors brought to court" - why should investors be brought to court?

 

[MarcoD]

Also "some investors brought to court" - why should investors be brought to court?

Why not? A criminal who robs a bank leaves some people traumatized. A guy in a suit who knowingly constructs a subprime mortgage, which he knows will blow up, wrecks thousands of families. Lots of toddlers of three and four crying because mom and dad are fighting because they have no idea anymore how to make ends meet. Who's the bigger criminal?

 

[WhoWee]

I have the feeling you're expecting a 12-point agenda from them, with point-by-point analyses, timelines, and flowcharts. I feel pretty certain in saying, you're not going to get that from them.

Take a step back and just look at what's happening. Those people are very *pissed off* and scared, and for every one of them there are probably hundreds who aren't at the protest but are also extremely *pissed off* and scared. Why? Well, I certainly don't mean this as an attack, but I can't help but notice that you've been given lots of reasons why (in this thread and lots of others), but I don't know if you're open to really hearing it or believing any of it. You do ask a lot of questions, though .

Huffington? Every time I go there, it takes sooooo long to load...I hardly ever try anymore. I don't have the patience. So I don't know where their bias is these days.

When I see unions and Move.on.org involved - I know it's more than a group of angry unemployed folks. The unions benefited from bailouts and Move.on funding has been linked to some very wealthy Capitalists.

 

[WhoWee]

Why not? A criminal who robs a bank leaves some people traumatized. A guy in a suit who knowingly constructs a subprime mortgage, which he knows will blow up, wrecks thousands of families. Lots of toddlers of three and four crying because mom and dad are fighting because they have no idea anymore how to make ends meet. Who's the bigger criminal?

What does any of that have to do with an investor? The most successful investor of our time is Warren Buffet - should he fear the Occupiers?

 

[MarcoD]

What does any of that have to do with an investor? The most successful investor of our time is Warren Buffet - should he fear the Occupiers?

Oh, terminology mix-up. In Dutch, we call them investors. No idea, I meant bankers or financial experts, hedge-fund constructors?

 

[WhoWee]

Oh, terminology mix-up. In Dutch, we call them investors. No idea, I meant bankers or financial experts, hedge-fund constructors?

Well, the most successful hedge fund person on the Forbes 400 list in 2011 is George Soros at number 7 (on the list). I doubt if the Occupiers would want to see him on trial.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/

Where does that leave us?

 

[OmCheeto]

my bold
"An end to greed"? Are you joking? Are the Occupiers themselves not greedy?

Also "some investors brought to court" - why should investors be brought to court?

There is greed, and there is the desire not to be poor, and there is science.

About 10-20 years ago I was researching a crackpot theory that magnetic monopoles might exist. I read many papers by many physicists on some CERN preprint server. I even made hard copies! I looked up one author one day and found his personal web page. He didn't say he went into the field to be rich, he said he didn't want to be poor.

There is a great difference between multi-m/billion dollar greed, and not wanting to live under a bridge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Add to this the Community Reinvestment Act (Carter) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Clinton) - and you have to reach the conclusion that Government policies are part of the problem.

Yes, that was quantified to be about 20% of the problem. The other 80% is due to a lack of regulation and failed high-risk models that even the insiders knew was a shell game. And what is the position of the right wing? Blame Carter and Clinton and deregulate!

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, that was quantified to be about 20% of the problem. The other 80% is due to a lack of regulation and failed high-risk models that even the insiders knew was a shell game. And what is the position of the right wing? Blame Carter and Clinton and deregulate!

We both know it's not that simple. My greater point was that we didn't learn anything from the S&L disaster. We knew in the 1980's that packaging and re-selling (good) mortgages was dangerous.

As for regulation of derivatives - it might be possible to set some new general rules moving forward - given you can find someone that actually understands the problems from a global perspective and doesn't have a horse in the race. However, trying to impose regulations on existing contracts could create a great many unintended consequences.

 

[John Creighto]

We both know it's not that simple. My greater point was that we didn't learn anything from the S&L disaster. We knew in the 1980's that packaging and re-selling (good) mortgages was dangerous.

As for regulation of derivatives - it might be possible to set some new general rules moving forward - given you can find someone that actually understands the problems from a global perspective and doesn't have a horse in the race. However, trying to impose regulations on existing contracts could create a great many unintended consequences.

Well, here is one possible regulation. You can't insure insurance with insurance. I mean re-insurance is okay provide you have enough other capital to insure what you are insuring to begin with.