#OccupyWallstreet

[davmat787]

This question comes up about the occupy movement in Washington, D. C. or Wall Street.

That's partly just some anti-government ideologues hoping for doing some hijacking.

There are some issues it'd be good to have in Washington.

But they went to the right place first. Starting with Washington would be like protesting Pearl Harbor by going to Hawaaii instead of Japan.

Are you referring to those of us that wish OWS would focus on politicians/DC? If so, we are finding some common ground finally, and I don't think that helps much. IMO, I don't see these comments as "anti government" at all. If not, who are you referring to?

 

[MagickMan]

Ah, the old chestnut of "they should target their angst at the government!".

The reason I find it silly is that the politicians are doing what they're paid to do and merely bringing to the table that which was prepared.

Do you blame the waiter when you don't like your food? Or maybe look at the chef...

Or is it that you believe that laws are written by politicians?

You believe the laws aren't written and voted on by politicians?

DC isn't doing what they're paid to do, they're taking bribes and selling out the country. Unless you plan on doing away with money, someone's always going to be there to offer a "contribution". Fix the loopholes, have the lawmakers stand accountable, and you'll see change. Until then, nothing will happen.

The gov't has tried to stop drugs from coming in by eliminating the dealers and cartels, that hasn't worked. In this instance, going after wealthy individuals and corporations won't work either, not for DC's addiction to handouts.

If they vote in real finance reform and fix the system, even if it requires an Amendment, you'll see a startling change in political efficiency.

 

[davmat787]

You believe the laws aren't written and voted on by politicians?

DC isn't doing what they're paid to do, they're taking bribes and selling out the country. Unless you plan on doing away with money, someone's always going to be there to offer a "contribution". Fix the loopholes, have the lawmakers stand accountable, and you'll see change. Until then, nothing will happen.

The gov't has tried to stop drugs from coming in by eliminating the dealers and cartels, that hasn't worked. In this instance, going after wealthy individuals and corporations won't work either, not for DC's addiction to handouts.

If they vote in real finance reform and fix the system, even if it requires an Amendment, you'll see a startling change in political efficiency.

I'm pretty much in the middle, but I find it very interesting how there is this divide between the right and left in regards to who to go after to effect change. The left seems to largely want to fix the problem via companies and wall street, while the right wants to see change through the government. Companies will come and go and will always try to seek favor through DC, which is why I think you need to fix DC first.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm pretty much in the middle, but I find it very interesting how there is this divide between the right and left in regards to who to go after to effect change. The left seems to largely want to fix the problem via companies and wall street, while the right wants to see change through the government. Companies will come and go and will always try to seek favor through DC, which is why I think you need to fix DC first.

I think that the point is to protest wallstreet so that the politicians feel they have the support to go after the problem. republicans see left wing politicians as the problem and left wing sees big business as the problem.

I think corporations and big business are the main problem and I'm glad to see these people protesting against it. Our government is owned by these big business interests and I dont think the solution to that is republican deregulation and tax cuts. No way.

 

[MagickMan]

I'm pretty much in the middle, but I find it very interesting how there is this divide between the right and left in regards to who to go after to effect change.

That's where I'm sitting. I'm what most would call a Blue Dog Democrat. On some matters I'm pretty far to the Left, and on others to the Right. Many would say that's a "moderate", but that isn't true at all. Not unless you took an average of all the issues, then I might be close to the middle.

The left seems to largely want to fix the problem via companies and wall street, while the right wants to see change through the government. Companies will come and go and will always try to seek favor through DC, which is why I think you need to fix DC first.

Yep. Bring about finance reform, enforce more transparency, and you'll squeeze out the power corporations have.

Like I said earlier, if you take all these protesters from all over the country and park them in front of the Capitol, lawmakers will really pay attention. Right now they're just thinking, "damn, I'm glad they aren't hassling us".

 

[fskimospy]

You OWS, fox news haters first.

You love to claim your open minded.

But yet, claim that anyone that doesn't support your left OWS movement is a closed minded idiot.

I'll take that as a no. Pretty pathetic.

 

[MagickMan]

I think that the point is to protest wallstreet so that the politicians feel they have the support to go after the problem. republicans see left wing politicians as the problem and left wing sees big business as the problem.

I think corporations and big business are the main problem and I'm glad to see these people protesting against it. Our government is owned by these big business interests and I dont think the solution to that is republican deregulation and tax cuts. No way.

Left Wing politicians aren't the problem, ALL politicians are the problem. Make it a felony and automatic impeachment to accept handouts, take away entity status of corporations, vote in real campaign finance reform, and set hard term limits (4 for congressmen, 2 for senators, and 12 years max on Capitol Hill).

Really, what do you expect when lawyers control >95% of our state and federal gov't?

 

[wuliheron]

I'm pretty much in the middle, but I find it very interesting how there is this divide between the right and left in regards to who to go after to effect change. The left seems to largely want to fix the problem via companies and wall street, while the right wants to see change through the government. Companies will come and go and will always try to seek favor through DC, which is why I think you need to fix DC first.

Wake up! The right wants nothing to do with compromise, nothing to do with limiting corporate influence, nothing to do with changing shit except reducing entitlements and getting more of whatever they want. What do you suggest we do to "fix" Washington? Spank them all and send them to bed without supper?

 

[MagickMan]

Wake up! The right wants nothing to do with compromise, nothing to do with limiting corporate influence, nothing to do with changing shit except reducing entitlements and getting more of whatever they want. What do you suggest we do to "fix" Washington? Spank them all and send them to bed without supper?

It's in the post right above yours. You'd notice it if you weren't a raving moron. :\

 

[cubby1223]

Just remember, time is running out for Occupy Wallstreet. They must assert their "greatness" before the cold weather sets in. Tick-tock tick-tock.

 

[wuliheron]

It's in the post right above yours. You'd notice it if you weren't a raving moron. :\

Right, your solution is to wave a magic wand and suddenly everyone will be nice to each other and follow the letter of the law. Bullshit. The American people elected these bozos, the American people keep electing them, and your magic wand has been tried before.

 

[Engineer]

Is this (wealth gap between young and old at all time high) what this is partially about?

First generation in US history to move backward?

(serous question)

 

[michal1980]

I'll take that as a no. Pretty pathetic.

I never said no.

But the OWS supports here are all us vs them. There is no middle. Maybe you should learn to read.

Or maybe you are just like most of the OWS supporters here.

So far up the OWS movement that you automaticly reject anything anyone else thinks. And accept anyone that supports your movement.

 

[Engineer]

you automaticly reject anything anyone else thinks. And accept anyone that supports your movement.

That pretty much describes anything in P&N from either side, lol.:awe:

 

[palehorse]

Right, your solution is to wave a magic wand and suddenly everyone will be nice to each other and follow the letter of the law. Bullshit. The American people elected these bozos, the American people keep electing them, and your magic wand has been tried before.

As opposed to what? Wall Street waving its own magic wand and fixing itself in response to OWS?

Do you expect the drug dealers (corps) to wake up one morning, have an epiphany, and say "oh shucks, you guys are so right. Drugs are bad mmmkay. We'll stop selling them today, we pinky swear. Deal?"

Yeah... right... good luck with that.

Obama based his entire campaign on bringing change TO WASHINGTON, and he won. Why? Because, THAT is what people want, and THAT is where the changes need to take place.

Unfortunately, for everyone, he was just as full of sh*t as every other national politician. The "changes" he has tried to implement are not the changes we need.

There is simply no chance in hell that OWS can effect the needed changes on Wall Street itself. They are wasting all of their time and energy on the half of the problem that they literally can't touch.

It's actually pretty sad...

 

[Darwin333]

I get it. You don't believe in personal property or supporting the rights of property. Typical communist. How very, very typical. Come occupy my property, I dare you.

Remember one of the tenants of communism is the abolition of personal property.

As I have repeatedly stated, i believe in ALL of our rights. I don't pick and choose which ones I want to support like you do.

I didn't realize that anyone was occupying your property but if that is the case I do not support it. I even support, and would defend, your right to protect your property. See how that works?

 

[Darwin333]

Why do we think the tea party can sniff out corruption when they are pawns of the corrupt like dick army?

I agree that the tpm has been hijacked by the Republicans but their original message does have some common ground with a lot of what OWS seems to be against. The same people are still against the same stuff, just like the story I posted about the Republicans counter protest, once they started talking to each other they found that they agreed with them on quite a few issues.

Unfortunately with politics these days most believe that you are either with us or against us. Absoulety no middle ground and that is a shame.

 

[Craig234]

I'm pretty much in the middle, but I find it very interesting how there is this divide between the right and left in regards to who to go after to effect change. The left seems to largely want to fix the problem via companies and wall street, while the right wants to see change through the government. Companies will come and go and will always try to seek favor through DC, which is why I think you need to fix DC first.

You've gotten close to a left/right issue: is the danger private corruption or government?

Let's use an analogy. There's a gang in your city wanting to extort, etc.

They're pretty powerful; the money they take from private business is used to make them stronger allowing them to take even more. It's pretty crippling.

What's needed: the people to have a strong police force that battles the gang, arrests, imprisons them to the point they are not able to do their crime.

Let's say that they are powerful enough they have enough influence over the city government and police that not much is done to them - corruption.

Now, the right's solution is 'let's slash the police budget, restrict their rights to act, cripple the police because they're serving the gang. Then the police can harm the people less'.

However, that's win-win for the gang. If they corrupt the police, that's good for them. If the police are greatly weakened, that works for them even better.

So the people will go on blaming the police all day no matter how much they weaken them while the gang gets worse and worse.

The liberals on the other hand want to get GOOD government - a strong police department that is effective against the gang. They understand that the solution is to find a way to defeat the gang influence in elections to elect anti-gang politicians, to replace the corrupt police with ones who are not corrupt - and then have them strong to fight the gang.

This is reasonably analogous to the finance issue. The finance industry can do good for society while profiting and it can do great harm sucking out huge amounts of wealth.

The answer isn't gut government, weaken it to fix the problem of it being corrupted by an overly powerful finance industry and thereby give the crooks even MORE power.

Rather, it's to get good government - starting with taking the money out of elections, to help get politicians who are not paid for by Wall Street in office and then to regulate the financial industry so that it profits by benefiting the public instead of by draining wealth from the public.

The right would basically kill democracy off and make the crooks permanently powerful.

The liberals would restore democracy as the instrument of the people to fight the crooks.

I think only the liberal approach works. History would seem to agree.

That's not to say, to answer my own question, that government can't be a major problem. But that's pretty much in two situations: when private interests are too powerful and controlling government effectively to serve them and not the people. The other is when the government is 'all-powerful', the USSR type situation.

We don't really face any danger of the latter. If we did, we could and should talk about 'limiting government to prevent tyranny'.

It's the former that's the problem, which is where the ignorant and ideological right are fighting for the crooks to beat the people.

 

[Darwin333]

That's where I'm sitting. I'm what most would call a Blue Dog Democrat. On some matters I'm pretty far to the Left, and on others to the Right. Many would say that's a "moderate", but that isn't true at all. Not unless you took an average of all the issues, then I might be close to the middle.

Yep. Bring about finance reform, enforce more transparency, and you'll squeeze out the power corporations have.

Like I said earlier, if you take all these protesters from all over the country and park them in front of the Capitol, lawmakers will really pay attention. Right now they're just thinking, "damn, I'm glad they aren't hassling us".

Wow, we agree a lot more than we disagree.

I think part of it is people have seen attempts to fix dc fail badly. The tea party, what did it fix? Obama, hope and change, what did it fix? They have tried to fix dc but at the end of the day it requires a fuckload of politicians to vote against their self interests. Short of threat of imminent death I don't see a constitutional amendment standing a snowballs chance in hell.

The best we can hope for right now is that the rule of law applies equally to all of us.

 

[Darwin333]

You've gotten close to a left/right issue: is the danger private corruption or government?

Let's use an analogy. There's a gang in your city wanting to extort, etc.

They're pretty powerful; the money they take from private business is used to make them stronger allowing them to take even more. It's pretty crippling.

What's needed: the people to have a strong police force that battles the gang, arrests, imprisons them to the point they are not able to do their crime.

Let's say that they are powerful enough they have enough influence over the city government and police that not much is done to them - corruption.

Now, the right's solution is 'let's slash the police budget, restrict their rights to act, cripple the police because they're serving the gang. Then the police can harm the people less'.

However, that's win-win for the gang. If they corrupt the police, that's good for them. If the police are greatly weakened, that works for them even better.

So the people will go on blaming the police all day no matter how much they weaken them while the gang gets worse and worse.

The liberals on the other hand want to get GOOD government - a strong police department that is effective against the gang. They understand that the solution is to find a way to defeat the gang influence in elections to elect anti-gang politicians, to replace the corrupt police with ones who are not corrupt - and then have them strong to fight the gang.

This is reasonably analogous to the finance issue. The finance industry can do good for society while profiting and it can do great harm sucking out huge amounts of wealth.

The answer isn't gut government, weaken it to fix the problem of it being corrupted by an overly powerful finance industry and thereby give the crooks even MORE power.

Rather, it's to get good government - starting with taking the money out of elections, to help get politicians who are not paid for by Wall Street in office and then to regulate the financial industry so that it profits by benefiting the public instead of by draining wealth from the public.

The right would basically kill democracy off and make the crooks permanently powerful.

The liberals would restore democracy as the instrument of the people to fight the crooks.

I think only the liberal approach works. History would seem to agree.

That's not to say, to answer my own question, that government can't be a major problem. But that's pretty much in two situations: when private interests are too powerful and controlling government effectively to serve them and not the people. The other is when the government is 'all-powerful', the USSR type situation.

We don't really face any danger of the latter. If we did, we could and should talk about 'limiting government to prevent tyranny'.

It's the former that's the problem, which is where the ignorant and ideological right are fighting for the crooks to beat the people.

I think you can keep your long term goals but for the time being both sides can find common ground in demanding that the rule of law applies equally to all.

If and when we accomplish that both sides can go back to disagreeing on everything but for the time being most people, regardless of political party, can agree on the above and work together to fix it. If such a day ever comes we just might see some changes. I do not have much hope of that happening though. Both parties are happy with the status quo and they are very good at divide and conquer.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, we agree a lot more than we disagree.

I think part of it is people have seen attempts to fix dc fail badly. The tea party, what did it fix? Obama, hope and change, what did it fix? They have tried to fix dc but at the end of the day it requires a fuckload of politicians to vote against their self interests. Short of threat of imminent death I don't see a constitutional amendment standing a snowballs chance in hell.

The best we can hope for right now is that the rule of law applies equally to all of us.

Obama wasn't a fix. He was a reduction in harm.

We didn't have him determined to start a war on Iraq, where creating a false justification to evade and weaken the UN charter against aggressive war was ok. We didn't have terrorism de-prioritized terribly before 9/11, and then terribly fought with a 'Patriot Act' and wasteful new bureacracy. We didn't have the military terribly mis-managed, with things like a terrible occupation plan of Iraq in a power grab. We didn't have catering to the radical right with things like the 'faith based' focus on giving tax dollars to religious mega size religious allies and a Terry Schiavo spectacle. We didn't have the top donor industry for the party, big pharma, rewarded with hundreds of billions of extra tax dollars by not allowing the negotiation of drug prices in a new, unfunded benefit. We didn't have massive new tax cuts weighted for the rich, though we had them temporarily extended as blackmail for extending some social benefits. We didn't have terrible radical right justices like the five who voted for Citizens United appointed in the two openings to the Supreme Court. We didn't have the top domestic priority after the tax cuts for the rich be to privatize social security, in a massive further transfer of wealth to Wall Street. We didn't have the Freedom of Information Act for citizens and the press to hold government acocuntable gutted. We didn't have a neocon foreign policy aimed at acting like dictator of the world as much, hostile to any 'cooperation' telling nations 'you're with us or against us'. We didn't have 175 senior regulators appointed from the industries they're supposed to regulate, with a K street project selling off the right to get your interests - which the lobbyists often writing the bills - passed. We didn't have a Tom DeLay and Jack Abromoff with White House support.

We had too many things that WERE continued, but a lot of reduction in damage.

The next step is to get money out of the system, which has to come from the people.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

I think you can keep your long term goals but for the time being both sides can find common ground in demanding that the rule of law applies equally to all.

Equality under the law is a nice small goal, but doesn't do much good when the laws are written to suit the whims of the powerful to legalize their crimes.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said no.

But the OWS supports here are all us vs them. There is no middle. Maybe you should learn to read.

Or maybe you are just like most of the OWS supporters here.

So far up the OWS movement that you automaticly reject anything anyone else thinks. And accept anyone that supports your movement.

You're projecting again, might want to check that out.

You proudly proclaimed how open minded you are and I asked you the simple question of what you were open minded about on here. You have no answer.

 

[jackstar7]

You believe the laws aren't written and voted on by politicians?

DC isn't doing what they're paid to do, they're taking bribes and selling out the country. Unless you plan on doing away with money, someone's always going to be there to offer a "contribution". Fix the loopholes, have the lawmakers stand accountable, and you'll see change. Until then, nothing will happen.

The gov't has tried to stop drugs from coming in by eliminating the dealers and cartels, that hasn't worked. In this instance, going after wealthy individuals and corporations won't work either, not for DC's addiction to handouts.

If they vote in real finance reform and fix the system, even if it requires an Amendment, you'll see a startling change in political efficiency.

Firstly, I specifically said written. You're adding the voting bit. And I do not believe they write most of the 1000+page bills they present, no. Do you really believe they do? And do you then think they don't vote exactly as they're told to do? Which leads to...

Secondly, and to the bolded part, you captured it right there. They are doing what they are paid to do, by those paying the most. And that isn't us.

I'm certainly for finance reform in politics. Are you saying that you oppose the Citizens United decision? Because that certainly facilitated a fresh new path for money into politics. And any reform will have to account for it.

And who's going to pass that reform? The same people it will pull money and power away from?

What might work is giving politicians the cover they need in this populist movement so that they can pass legislation that brings reform. I wonder if both parties would ever come together under the umbrella of vast public outcry for change...

 

[monovillage]

You've gotten close to a left/right issue: is the danger private corruption or government?

Let's use an analogy. There's a gang in your city wanting to extort, etc.

They're pretty powerful; the money they take from private business is used to make them stronger allowing them to take even more. It's pretty crippling.

What's needed: the people to have a strong police force that battles the gang, arrests, imprisons them to the point they are not able to do their crime.

Let's say that they are powerful enough they have enough influence over the city government and police that not much is done to them - corruption.

Now, the right's solution is 'let's slash the police budget, restrict their rights to act, cripple the police because they're serving the gang. Then the police can harm the people less'.

However, that's win-win for the gang. If they corrupt the police, that's good for them. If the police are greatly weakened, that works for them even better.

So the people will go on blaming the police all day no matter how much they weaken them while the gang gets worse and worse.

The liberals on the other hand want to get GOOD government - a strong police department that is effective against the gang. They understand that the solution is to find a way to defeat the gang influence in elections to elect anti-gang politicians, to replace the corrupt police with ones who are not corrupt - and then have them strong to fight the gang.

This is reasonably analogous to the finance issue. The finance industry can do good for society while profiting and it can do great harm sucking out huge amounts of wealth.

The answer isn't gut government, weaken it to fix the problem of it being corrupted by an overly powerful finance industry and thereby give the crooks even MORE power.

Rather, it's to get good government - starting with taking the money out of elections, to help get politicians who are not paid for by Wall Street in office and then to regulate the financial industry so that it profits by benefiting the public instead of by draining wealth from the public.

The right would basically kill democracy off and make the crooks permanently powerful.

The liberals would restore democracy as the instrument of the people to fight the crooks.

I think only the liberal approach works. History would seem to agree.

That's not to say, to answer my own question, that government can't be a major problem. But that's pretty much in two situations: when private interests are too powerful and controlling government effectively to serve them and not the people. The other is when the government is 'all-powerful', the USSR type situation.

We don't really face any danger of the latter. If we did, we could and should talk about 'limiting government to prevent tyranny'.

It's the former that's the problem, which is where the ignorant and ideological right are fighting for the crooks to beat the people.

Good analogy, it would be more honest, accurate and truthful if the gang was labeled as the government and business people were still the business people and the police would then be the conservatives fighting to limit and control the power of the criminal gang. It's just a matter of perspective, and I think my perspective is closer to the truth.