Jump to content

Occupy Wall Street


Recommended Posts

I bought a perfectly functional Windows 7 laptop for $600. Can't see anything an 18 year old would need more for, unless they were a graphic arts major in college or something, and even then you probably wouldn't need anything more until junior or senior year... :shrug:

 

It's the same parents that buy their kids brand new $50K hummers, jacked up pickups and bimmers.

 

My windows 7 laptop was about the same. Works great.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hundreds of them. Like the time I went to the open carport (roof only), walked around behind my dad's car (gorgeous 1974 orange hornet station wagon with plaid seats), jumped in, cranked it, put it in reverse and ran right into my brother's Cougar parked just a few feet behind it. And I walked right between the vehicles to get to the driver's door. To this day I can't believe I did that.

 

My ex-wife did the same thing to my '92 Mustang except she had just parked the Mustang in order to change vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk to me in a year and we'll see if we even remember this. (remember how imports were the new rage and domestic muscle cars were dino's?????)

No argument there. That's because there is no organization, in the way the pundits have been remarking.

 

But more and more people within the financial system are becoming estranged from it, and thanks to the web and idea-sharing, we will see interesting things emerge, one way or another. Kinda like the young, apolitical Burgess, Maclean and Philby as undergrads at Cambridge, watching the National Hunger March pass through on the way to London in 1932: 5 years later, they were all working for the NKVD (KGB).

 

 

Similarly, worker bees in the financial industry have the opportunity to dig up and/or cause a lot of grief for the oligarchs. The question is, will they? :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy into the "they need a specific agenda" meme. The opponents of OWS would love to have a "specific agenda", so they could conveniently shoot it down point by point and figure they're done. Shooting down somebody else's specific agenda is easy to do with the internet at our fingertips. Whether we be Republicans, Democrats, Flat-Earthers or Breatharians, we can find support for our own narrow belief system, whatever it might be. What the opponents DON'T want to acknowledge - to themselves or anybody else - is that a large number of people have a legitimate gripe with the way things are going. They don't want to acknowledge that there is legitimate "gut wisdom" driving people of all stripes to attend or sympathize with these protests. It would be more convenient for them to clear their conscience by rhetorical or polemical cleverness than to acknowledge any legitimacy in the protest and seek answers with an open mind. Demanding a specific agenda - rather than being what it seems on the face of it: an honest attempt at fact-finding - to me seems like the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly saying "LALALALALA" as they walk by. We are in a situation where people are talking past one another. There is some common ground - but there is too much polarization to find it. I know it's wrong that Wall Street blew a giant bubble on deregulation and opportunism, and destroyed millions of lives, yet nobody has been called to account. I know that so-called financial professionals should be held to a higher standard of accountability for toxic assets than the $10.00/hr. jerkwad who took out a $300,000.00 mortgage. I know it's wrong that Hedge Fund Manager David Tepper could earn 265,000 years of minimum wage in 2009 trading on companies that were being bailed out by the US taxpayer. I know that unfettered globalization inexorably leads to the lowest common denominator, not the highest. But, if you wanted to out-argue me on any of those points, or find somebody with credentials taking the opposite view, you almost certainly could. I think "The Great Recession" is a watershed event, and I believe there will be some upheaval - perhaps as great as with the labor movements of the early 20th Century. The status quo (or rather the trends developing under the status quo) is not, and has not been, sustainable. First we had Canter backpedaling, now today David Gergen taking a more nuanced view: LINK. Between that and Fox running whats her names piece, you know what I see? I see that large parts of the right finally see the writing on the wall, and are scrambling for a way to co-opt the issue. That's all good, as long as it becomes a legitimate part of the discourse. Remember me on here remarking how dismayed I was that more people weren't outraged? Looks like that situation is turning. Good.

 

Meanwhile, back in the trenches, I have 4 active projects going, and three proposals out - so I am staying busy - no "job" (and not much money) so my wife keeps jabbing me in the back with that knife.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy into the "they need a specific agenda" meme. The opponents of OWS would love to have a "specific agenda", so they could conveniently shoot it down point by point and figure they're done. Shooting down somebody else's specific agenda is easy to do with the internet at our fingertips. Whether we be Republicans, Democrats, Flat-Earthers or Breatharians, we can find support for our own narrow belief system, whatever it might be. What the opponents DON'T want to acknowledge - to themselves or anybody else - is that a large number of people have a legitimate gripe with the way things are going. They don't want to acknowledge that there is legitimate "gut wisdom" driving people of all stripes to attend or sympathize with these protests. It would be more convenient for them to clear their conscience by rhetorical or polemical cleverness than to acknowledge any legitimacy in the protest and seek answers with an open mind. Demanding a specific agenda - rather than being what it seems on the face of it: an honest attempt at fact-finding - to me seems like the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly saying "LALALALALA" as they walk by. We are in a situation where people are talking past one another. There is some common ground - but there is too much polarization to find it. I know it's wrong that Wall Street blew a giant bubble on deregulation and opportunism, and destroyed millions of lives, yet nobody has been called to account. I know that so-called financial professionals should be held to a higher standard of accountability for toxic assets than the $10.00/hr. jerkwad who took out a $300,000.00 mortgage. I know it's wrong that Hedge Fund Manager David Tepper could earn 265,000 years of minimum wage in 2009 trading on companies that were being bailed out by the US taxpayer. I know that unfettered globalization inexorably leads to the lowest common denominator, not the highest. But, if you wanted to out-argue me on any of those points, or find somebody with credentials taking the opposite view, you almost certainly could. I think "The Great Recession" is a watershed event, and I believe there will be some upheaval - perhaps as great as with the labor movements of the early 20th Century. The status quo (or rather the trends developing under the status quo) is not, and has not been, sustainable. First we had Canter backpedaling, now today David Gergen taking a more nuanced view: LINK. Between that and Fox running whats her names piece, you know what I see? I see that large parts of the right finally see the writing on the wall, and are scrambling for a way to co-opt the issue. That's all good, as long as it becomes a legitimate part of the discourse. Remember me on here remarking how dismayed I was that more people weren't outraged? Looks like that situation is turning. Good.

 

Meanwhile, back in the trenches, I have 4 active projects going, and three proposals out - so I am staying busy - no "job" (and not much money) so my wife keeps jabbing me in the back with that knife.

 

It's fine that people are not happy with what happens on wall street. I actually agree with most of what you say about the financial problems. But camping out for weeks and saying "this isn't right" won't accomplish much. And not having some type of agenda so people can't attack it is a cop-out.

 

If they want specific regulation to stop specific abuses - just say so.

If they want to support candidates with specific platforms - just say so.

 

I bet most of us would probably agree with them if they were specific about what they want to accomplish. But I don't think they know what they want at all. I think this is a case of people rallying behind a battle cry but having no idea what they want to be fixed or how to do it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but the TEA PARTY is a wholly owned subsidiary of the RNC, whether they know it or not.

 

Last month Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele met with tea party leaders from across the country in an effort to court the conservative leaning grassroots movement. As The Daily Caller’s Alex Pappas reported last Friday, Chairman Steele’s efforts to woo tea party activists has extended beyond dialogue to now include financial support.

 

If they were a wholly owned subsidiary of the RNC then why did the RNC feel it necessary to "woo" tea party officials?

 

Unless they change their stance on the issues and which candidates they support it doesn't make any difference where they get funding.

 

Seriously - if the Tea Partiers just wanted to be Republicans then they didn't need to go to all this trouble now did they?

 

You are so caught up in the 2 party college football game where everything your team does is great and everything the other team does is evil.

 

Instead of blasting the Tea Party because they might be getting funds from the RNC why don't you tell us what's wrong with their ideology of smaller government with less spending.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tea party has also backed democrat's. The only reason the TP and Rep are together in some area's is that they have something in common.

 

Same as I said before, if candidate "A" has the same moral/ethical values as I do, I will back him. The TP (or anybody else) does the same.

If a Dem says "I agree, a more accountable government would be better" and went on to propose a bill backing that...the TP would back them. They are for the smaller/accountable/fiscally responsible government no matter which side of the fence they sit. Up until now though, the vast majority who agree with them have been Republican's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...says the 18 year old. With wise financial decisions like this, I can't imagine why they are all saddled with debt???

 

It's not their fault though, the bank MADE them take a loan....and now that it's gone, did they have insurance and will it cover them at a demonstration? If they don't have ins, will they pay off the loan or default on it because "you know man, they shouldn't of loaned it to me in the first place" or with the general attitudes shown , "f%^& them, they got lots of money, last year the banks made...." :shades:

 

 

 

I'm MAD!............about something!....just don't ask what......cause if I tell you, you might prove me wrong....I just FEEL like something has been done to me.

So now we went from being wronged to a perceived wrong? But we still don't know what the wrong is because if we know we can prove you weren't? :banghead:

REALLY?

 

What about facing your accusers?

 

If I'm "accused" of being an "evil rich" person or part of an "evil empire" than I find it a little telling when specific's can't be named. Basically, people are pissed off...over...life.

 

BOOHOO!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tea party has also backed democrat's. The only reason the TP and Rep are together in some area's is that they have something in common.

 

Same as I said before, if candidate "A" has the same moral/ethical values as I do, I will back him. The TP (or anybody else) does the same.

If a Dem says "I agree, a more accountable government would be better" and went on to propose a bill backing that...the TP would back them. They are for the smaller/accountable/fiscally responsible government no matter which side of the fence they sit. Up until now though, the vast majority who agree with them have been Republican's.

 

You have to wonder about a marriage of convenience, at some time in the future the more vociferous viewpoint

is going to come screaming out of the box and start hitting out at the ones trying to keep them in check.

I sense the tolerance level in TP members becomes quite low when things aren't going their way...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy into the "they need a specific agenda" meme. The opponents of OWS would love to have a "specific agenda", so they could conveniently shoot it down point by point and figure they're done. Shooting down somebody else's specific agenda is easy to do with the internet at our fingertips. Whether we be Republicans, Democrats, Flat-Earthers or Breatharians, we can find support for our own narrow belief system, whatever it might be. What the opponents DON'T want to acknowledge - to themselves or anybody else - is that a large number of people have a legitimate gripe with the way things are going. They don't want to acknowledge that there is legitimate "gut wisdom" driving people of all stripes to attend or sympathize with these protests. It would be more convenient for them to clear their conscience by rhetorical or polemical cleverness than to acknowledge any legitimacy in the protest and seek answers with an open mind. Demanding a specific agenda - rather than being what it seems on the face of it: an honest attempt at fact-finding - to me seems like the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly saying "LALALALALA" as they walk by. We are in a situation where people are talking past one another. There is some common ground - but there is too much polarization to find it. I know it's wrong that Wall Street blew a giant bubble on deregulation and opportunism, and destroyed millions of lives, yet nobody has been called to account. I know that so-called financial professionals should be held to a higher standard of accountability for toxic assets than the $10.00/hr. jerkwad who took out a $300,000.00 mortgage. I know it's wrong that Hedge Fund Manager David Tepper could earn 265,000 years of minimum wage in 2009 trading on companies that were being bailed out by the US taxpayer. I know that unfettered globalization inexorably leads to the lowest common denominator, not the highest. But, if you wanted to out-argue me on any of those points, or find somebody with credentials taking the opposite view, you almost certainly could. I think "The Great Recession" is a watershed event, and I believe there will be some upheaval - perhaps as great as with the labor movements of the early 20th Century. The status quo (or rather the trends developing under the status quo) is not, and has not been, sustainable. First we had Canter backpedaling, now today David Gergen taking a more nuanced view: LINK. Between that and Fox running whats her names piece, you know what I see? I see that large parts of the right finally see the writing on the wall, and are scrambling for a way to co-opt the issue. That's all good, as long as it becomes a legitimate part of the discourse. Remember me on here remarking how dismayed I was that more people weren't outraged? Looks like that situation is turning. Good.

 

What you just said here says more than anything I've gotten out of the OWS protests so far. At least you stated a few ideas on how to change a couple of things. Protesting against something is pointless if the protesters aren't offering up any new ideas.

 

All I would like to hear from them are answers to three questions:

 

What don't you like?

Why don't you like it?

What would you do to change it?

 

They seem to be getting the message out loud and clear on the first one, not too bad on the second one, but they haven't addressed the third one at all. Without answering the third one, the first two will never change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They seem to be getting the message out loud and clear on the first one, not too bad on the second one, but they haven't addressed the third one at all. Without answering the third one, the first two will never change.

Um, it seems that the OWS is different, in that there isn't an "OWS management committee" or GOP back room where the money is, and deals are made.

 

So, there's no official mouthpiece like you get from the Tea Party or GOP or Democratic party.

 

 

What about the future?

 

IMHO, it boils down to this: can all those who side with OWS find any way to work with the GOP and the Democratic parties?

 

If so, then maybe we can have those wants and wishes defined as a campaign platform. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, it seems that the OWS is different, in that there isn't an "OWS management committee" or GOP back room where the money is, and deals are made.

 

So, there's no official mouthpiece like you get from the Tea Party or GOP or Democratic party.

 

 

What about the future?

 

IMHO, it boils down to this: can all those who side with OWS find any way to work with the GOP and the Democratic parties?

 

If so, then maybe we can have those wants and wishes defined as a campaign platform. :)

 

That's kind of our point. OWS is aimless at the moment. Without any kind of focus or anyone stepping to be that management committee, the movement isn't going to go anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Occupy Wall Street crowd is not alone in its belief that things are not going well. The Tea Party also has a "legitimate gripe with the way things are going." Difference is that, the Tea Party has staked out actual positions in various issues relating to government and policy.

 

Sooner or later, Occupy Wall Street will have to stand for more than unhappiness with the status quo. Protesting isn't going to change anything in the long run if the protestors don't offer some actual, concrete proposals.

 

And, yes, people will criticize those proposals. That is the way democracy works. The Tea Party has received its share of ridicule and criticism, but that is part of the process. It was a staunch Democrat who said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[but lets not assume for a moment that the TEA Party represents anything other than a splinter faction of the GOP, like the Log Cabin republicans or other groups. They will not run a non-GOP candidate for president as did the Greens or the Birchers ect. They will continue to be part of the RNC and work with major movers within the GOP.

 

Whats wrong with the ideology? They don't actually have that ideology. Simple enough right? Any group advocating teaching creationism, banning Gay Marriage, against repeal of DADT is advocating large government just different large government than the Democrats.

 

So - the tea party doesn't really believe what they say they believe in and what they've published repeatedly?

 

Where does the tea party advocate (directly or indirectly) teaching creationism, banning Gay Marriage or anything else you're whining about?

 

Since the tea party platform is diametrically opposed to the democratic platform it would be shocking to see any Democrats embrace it. If they did then they wouldn't be Democrats, would they?

 

That doesn't mean that it's a Republican agenda, either. There are a lot of Republican candidates that don't get Tea Party support.

 

Stop making it about Republican vs. Democrat because it's not. It's about a specific set of beliefs that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have embraced.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tea Party is trying to effect change working within the existing (two party) system. They "primary-ed" several candidates put up by the Establishment.

 

For that, they're called a "tool" of the RNC? How does that make sense?

 

The OWS is trying to [iNSERT GOAL HERE], from outside the system. Until they can work within the system (in order to change it), they might as well keep shouting at the wall.

 

And just so I can :stirpot: , I don't recall anyone being raped at a Tea Party event. I wonder if the Tea Party or Wall Street will be blamed for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just so I can :stirpot: , I don't recall anyone being raped at a Tea Party event. I wonder if the Tea Party or Wall Street will be blamed for that?

 

The problem is that too many people are there more to protest than anything else...the act of protest has become the end, not the means. If this continues, the movement will slowly dwindle away.

 

One blogger made this point:

 

Unfortunately for the left, the more “typical” a protest looks, the less important it appears. A march of 10,000 bankers up Wall Street would get more press attention than a march of 25,000 “usual suspects”: scruffy students, angry longers, semi-professional media hounds, veterans of multiple protests. That was one reason the early Tea Party protests got coverage: they had a high proportion of the kind of people who don’t usually do this — neatly dressed suburban moms and middle aged Rotarians. 50,000 students dressed in retro leftie nostalgia gear protest “the system”: not news. 25,000 coiffed and well dressed elderly ladies with pearl necklaces and professionally groomed lapdogs shut down Times Square: news.

 

He also makes this point:

 

Right now they are more likely to hollow Wall Street out than to change its ways. Financial businesses are already looking at ways to cut costs by getting out of the high priced glass canyons of lower Manhattan; dispersing the financial center into anonymous malls and office parks across a wider area (and perhaps in states that don’t have an income tax as zillionaires nervously eye possible changes to the federal tax code) looks much more attractive if Wall Street is going to be a target for protests.

 

Just as those who wail about the "demise" of the domestic auto industry (ignoring that the domestic operations of Honda, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota are now part of the new domestic auto industry) or the steel industry (we are still one of the top three producers of steel in the world; what went away were the old, unionized dinosaur mills) are stuck in the past, so are those who think that financial companies have to locate in one particular area or part of a city.

 

"Wall Street" as the physical location of the nation's financial center can go away. "Wall Street" as shorthand for the nation's financial sector will not; it will just relocate.

 

Interestingly, given that the government of New York City is very dependent on the financial services sector for revenue to pay for its spending, I wonder if Occupy Wall Street really wants to help drive the second Wall Street out of the city.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a fine site devoted to aspects of learning and education, as well as the source for Arts and Letters Daily, one of the best intellectual portals around — check it out..

 

Anyway, their take on OWS has some interest::

 

But Occupy Wall Street's most defining characteristics—its decentralized nature and its intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making—
are rooted in other precincts of academe and activism: in the scholarship of anarchism and, specifically, in an ethnography of central Madagascar.

 

Madagascar? The point is, the organization of OWS comes from about as far away as you can get from the talking heads on FOX and the mainstream newspapers, so it's no surprise that Goppers and Baggers don't understand and disparage.

 

And as Neil Young wrote: "You are the only one you are screwing, when you put down what you don't understand". :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oddly enough if you drill down to the actual bedrock, bot the OWS and Tea Party seem to share the same core values. They distrust big organizations whether they be public or private. The more I read the words of the OWS protesters, discarding some of the more outrageous stuff: on both sides I find more and more common ground between the two views. Just as some wish to categorize the Tea Party as the religious right, people also wish to categorize the OWS as the socialist communist left. The core of both groups appear to be very similar one distrusts large corporations and the other distrusts large government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Occupy Wall Street's most defining characteristics—its decentralized nature and its intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making

 

I see no process or decision-making. All I see are people saying we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it. Which is fine, to start with, but eventually you need something to take action on.

 

How are we supposed to decide whether we support or reject their agenda when they won't publish one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madagascar? The point is, the organization of OWS comes from about as far away as you can get from the talking heads on FOX and the mainstream newspapers, so it's no surprise that Goppers and Baggers don't understand and disparage.

 

And as Neil Young wrote: "You are the only one you are screwing, when you put down what you don't understand". :)

 

I think people understand it just fine. We all understand that they are not going to accomplish anything with that sort of "system", if you can even label it as such. A system requires at least some semblance of organization. A thousand voices with similar, yet unclear messages don't have the same effectiveness as one voice with a strong single message.

 

The Tea Party has the same problem now. What started as a simple, straight-forward message at first has since had several different groups pulling it and stretching it in so many directions that the unity of the movement has been compromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude, so you love yourself some Tea Baguettes that's fine, but the ones at the rally's I've been to and the ones i know personally are all anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, anti-global warming, anti-science, want prayer in schools and all that other religious right nanny states stuff.

 

I don't think your being honest about what the majority thinks. They are not libertarians.

 

See my previous post about the original message being lost.... At least the Tea Party had one though. OWS seems not to have one from the very start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude, so you love yourself some Tea Baguettes that's fine, but the ones at the rally's I've been to and the ones i know personally are all anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, anti-global warming, anti-science, want prayer in schools and all that other religious right nanny states stuff.

 

I don't think your being honest about what the majority thinks. They are not libertarians.

 

Why are you going to tea party rallies?

 

First - just because a person attended a rally doesn't mean they're avid tea party supporters. After all, you attended one, right?

 

The official tea party platform says nothing about any of the issues you raised. The focus is on fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

The only ones bringing up those issues are the ones trying to discredit the Tea Party movement or label them as Republicans.

 

I'm sure there are Tea Partiers that are for all of those and also Tea Partiers that are against all of those. But those are personal choices that have nothing to do with the Tea Party movement itself.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, given that the government of New York City is very dependent on the financial services sector for revenue to pay for its spending, I wonder if Occupy Wall Street really wants to help drive the second Wall Street out of the city.

I'm sure the Ward Churchill types would be pleased if they did; until they realize they're still out of work and have fewer prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oddly enough if you drill down to the actual bedrock, bot the OWS and Tea Party seem to share the same core values. They distrust big organizations whether they be public or private. The more I read the words of the OWS protesters, discarding some of the more outrageous stuff: on both sides I find more and more common ground between the two views. Just as some wish to categorize the Tea Party as the religious right, people also wish to categorize the OWS as the socialist communist left. The core of both groups appear to be very similar one distrusts large corporations and the other distrusts large government.

I'm pretty sure I disagree with you.

 

True, both groups seem to have a similar distrust of large institutions, however at their core can they both claim to be American-style Capitalist?

 

A Tea Party member may not like Tepper/Koch/etc for their actions or attitudes, but he accepts that necessary "evil" that comes with a system where such success (and the economic inequality that comes with it) is possible; and would not attempt to artificially "level the playing field" by force, because to do so would be to limit his own potential. He perceives the government (either by regulation or crony capitalism) to be his nemesis.

 

According to (Democratic pollster) Douglas Schoen....

  • 77% support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody (and I'm assuming that includes the 47% who pay none);
  • 65% say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirementno matter the cost; and
  • 31% would support violence to advance their agenda.

An awful lot of Occupy-ers seem to perceive the government as a (potential) partner in crime.

 

There may be some overlap between the groups, but their core values seem to differ.

Edited by RangerM
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...