Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[mudwhistle]

CBSMoneywatch's Jill Schlesinger points out that, according to economists at Northeastern University, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income between the 2Q of 2009 and 4Q of 2010, during the same period aggregate wages and salaries accounted for just over 1 percent. "The money that companies have earned during the recovery has mostly stayed within corporate America," writes Schlesinger, "and has not trickled down into higher wages, nor has it created enough jobs to put some of the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work."

Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder - CBS News

What explains this????

You know......Democrats are the folks that seem to be the cause of the problems yet blame it on Republicans at the same time. It takes a slobbering press to make this possible.

Obama's policies have caused the increase. It's no mystery why the disparity started getting worse during his term in office.

Had it ever occurred to you that this is what Obama wants. Like Fast & Furious Obama is intentionally creating a crisis just to impose tougher regulations.

The only other explanation would be Obama doesn't know what in the hell he's doing and his policies are causing the exact opposite result he wanted.

Ether way, the guy is a Soup-Sandwich.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The greedy one percent that bankrupted the nation, morally and fiscally, is now facing its greatest fear: a public uprising against their accumulation of wealth and power, and with that, the best chance at change in the post-War era.

It started in New York City, as hundreds of activists literally occupied Wall Street, setting up a tent city in a nearby park and organizing daily protests. For two weeks, the movement squeaked by on minimal coverage. The national media ignored the protests, even as the protesters dug in and redoubled their efforts.

Source: Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows | Benzinga

Are they mad at Obama too for giving billions to these banks and wall street?

Just curious.

Are they mad at Obama for taking more contributions from Wall Street than any other candidate?

 

[The Infidel]

Occupy Wall Street: Nancy Pelosi comes out in support of protesters | Mail Online

 

[Dragon]

Let's say that's true. There are no real figures to support it, but let's dispense with asserting facts that are subject to verification. Let's just assume for the sake of the discussion that that contention is true.

The real figures (which are available) show that the majority of the 99% have stagnated or declined. There has been some income growth in the upper-middle-class and more of it in the somewhat-rich. So the statement isn't precisely true, but it's true enough.

THEREFORE, ----- [what follows?]

On the assumption that you want a serious answer to this question:

The reason that this has happened is because of government policies enacted at the behest of big business. The policies I'm referring to, in particular, are:

1) Flattening of the tax system in the mid-1980s to place more of the burden on the middle class and less on the rich.
2) A change in government policy with respect to enforcement of labor rights, that enabled employers to take more aggressive (and illegal) action to suppress union formation, resulting in a decline of union power.
3) Trade agreements, plus features in the tax code, that encourage manufacturers and some service providers to take advantage of dirt-cheap foreign labor in preference to employing people in the advanced economies.
4) Deregulation of the financial industry passed in the 1990s that encouraged investment in risky financial schemes like the one that triggered the recent collapse. When those schemes paid off instead of going bust, they acted as a transfer of wealth from middle and upper-middle-class investors to the very wealthy.
5) Reduction of government spending that benefits the middle class, the poor, and college students, while government spending that benefits the rich (military spending and government subsidies to industry) has increased.
6) Use of large-scale deficit spending when no national emergency requires it, thus allowing wealthy investors to lend money to the government at interest rather than paying it in taxes, and tying future revenues up in service to this debt, which amounts to a transfer of wealth through the tax system from the middle class to the rich.

The answer to "what then" is simply: reverse all of these. Make the tax system progressive again to discourage concentration of wealth. Aggressively enforce labor law and protect employees' rights to bargain collectively. Be more selective about our trade agreements, making free trade something we do with advanced economies that play by the rules, not with third-world dictatorships. Reestablish the Glass-Steagal act. Increase government spending for infrastructure, education, research, and other things beneficial to the non-rich, while cutting back on military spending and reducing our overseas commitments, and ending most corporate subsidies. And finally, use deficit spending only in emergency times (like the present), balancing the budget when the economy is strong and we are at peace.

This is what will restore the middle class and bring back prosperity.

It's not a simple program, granted. But it's the answer to your question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Therefore, we must . . . . ????

Dissolve the constitution and declare Obama dictator.

 

[Skull Pilot]

99 percent of Americans continue to struggle daily since the recession began while the richest 1 percent of the country prospers.

I'm not in the richest 1% and I have done just fine the past 5 years.

So you see OWS does not never has and never will represent 99% it's more like 9%

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only a slight exaggeration, and that is why the idea that he is behind OWS is sheer nonsense.

OWS is a union movement. Unions are Obama's only remaining constituency. (Other than the doped out hippy contingent.)

 

[Dragon]

OWS is a union movement. Unions are Obama's only remaining constituency. (Other than the doped out hippy contingent.)

LOL the weird thing is that you actually believe that crap. I think, anyway.

OWS isn't a union movement. Unions are not Obama's only remaining constituency; polls put his support in the upper 40s, and union membership is far less than that. Obama is, as you said, beholden to the big banks and very much in their pocket. And that means that OWS is protesting against Obama.

If you think that Obama would spark a movement protesting against him as a way to get re-elected, you believe he is either too stupid to breathe, or a Machiavellian genius of cosmic proportions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama = OWS. He took down the country credit rating, now he takes the Dem Party down

 

[Liability]

Let's say that's true. There are no real figures to support it, but let's dispense with asserting facts that are subject to verification. Let's just assume for the sake of the discussion that that contention is true.

The real figures (which are available) show that the majority of the 99% have stagnated or declined. There has been some income growth in the upper-middle-class and more of it in the somewhat-rich. So the statement isn't precisely true, but it's true enough.

THEREFORE, ----- [what follows?]

On the assumption that you want a serious answer to this question:

The reason that this has happened is because of government policies enacted at the behest of big business. The policies I'm referring to, in particular, are:

1) Flattening of the tax system in the mid-1980s to place more of the burden on the middle class and less on the rich.
2) A change in government policy with respect to enforcement of labor rights, that enabled employers to take more aggressive (and illegal) action to suppress union formation, resulting in a decline of union power.
3) Trade agreements, plus features in the tax code, that encourage manufacturers and some service providers to take advantage of dirt-cheap foreign labor in preference to employing people in the advanced economies.
4) Deregulation of the financial industry passed in the 1990s that encouraged investment in risky financial schemes like the one that triggered the recent collapse. When those schemes paid off instead of going bust, they acted as a transfer of wealth from middle and upper-middle-class investors to the very wealthy.
5) Reduction of government spending that benefits the middle class, the poor, and college students, while government spending that benefits the rich (military spending and government subsidies to industry) has increased.
6) Use of large-scale deficit spending when no national emergency requires it, thus allowing wealthy investors to lend money to the government at interest rather than paying it in taxes, and tying future revenues up in service to this debt, which amounts to a transfer of wealth through the tax system from the middle class to the rich.

The answer to "what then" is simply: reverse all of these. Make the tax system progressive again to discourage concentration of wealth. Aggressively enforce labor law and protect employees' rights to bargain collectively. Be more selective about our trade agreements, making free trade something we do with advanced economies that play by the rules, not with third-world dictatorships. Reestablish the Glass-Steagal act. Increase government spending for infrastructure, education, research, and other things beneficial to the non-rich, while cutting back on military spending and reducing our overseas commitments. And finally, use deficit spending only in emergency times (like the present), balancing the budget when the economy is strong and we are at peace.

This is what will restore the middle class and bring back prosperity.

It's not a simple program, granted. But it's the answer to your question.

YOu are not articulating what the OWS crew is articulating. SOME of them maybe. But by and large, you cannot generate any coherent statement of policy preference from a group consisting of marxists, socialists, communists, anarchists, 9/11 Twoofers and other assorted vaguely non-content rag-tag followers.

But back to basics. You asserting that a "claim" is true and that it supposedly "has" real figures to support it is quite clearly insufficient. Let's say I'm from Missouri. Show me.

Then, back up each of your contentions. Just as one example, tell us, in WHAT way is it that you imagine anyone should be persuaded that a so-called "progressive" income tax system is a proper or logical or desirable way to go?

Don't assert that the current economic mess(es) are traceable to deregulation. Show us.

Why would the economic mess of today not be traceable, instead, to economic laws that MADE banks issue mortgage loans to people who lacked sufficient income or equity to justify such loans -- and the contrivances banks then had to engage in to make these loans do-able?

Your notions offer no hope of returning America to its prior status as an engine of economic growth and productivity. You guys persist in the already refuted notion that your social-engineering goals are workable in making a viable economy. But you still can't support your rhetoric with even so much as basic common sense.

 

[Sky Dancer]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

 

[Liability]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

Vapid rhetoric.

Not even all that well based in fact.

 

[Sky Dancer]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

Vapid rhetoric.

Not even all that well based in fact.

It's my opinion, sir. I'm entitled. Corporate America has been whining about Obama since he was elected.

 

[Liability]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

Vapid rhetoric.

Not even all that well based in fact.

It's my opinion, sir. I'm entitled. Corporate America has been whining about Obama since he was elected.

You ARE indeed entitled to your opinion.

It is your opinion that is not entitled, though, to much weight (if any) in a discussion such as this.

Besides, be honest. You didn't STATE your opinion AS an opinion. You stated what you NOW say is your mere opinion AS THOUGH it had been a "fact."

 

[Si modo]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

Vapid rhetoric.

Not even all that well based in fact.

It's my opinion, sir. I'm entitled.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion. Just as others are entitled to tell you about your opinions lack of foundation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL the weird thing is that you actually believe that crap. I think, anyway.

OWS is a union movement - that is a matter of fact. Irrefutable.

OWS isn't a union movement.

{The interview with Michael Kink, who is a director of an Strong Economy for All, an organization very much like the ACCE/SEIU coalition I wrote about before and that is coordinating the union support march tomorrow, had this bit:

Some organizers and activists from our coalitions were part of support for the initial march and occupation on September 17}

Unions and Community Organizations May Not Be New Additions to Occupy Wall Street After All, Updated: Response from Michael Kink | Hyphenated-Republic

The unions, especially Obama's SEIU are the force behind this and have been from the start.

These are Union temper tantrums fueled by the greed of the unions who still demand a better life than the 96% of Americans who are not union.

Unions are not Obama's only remaining constituency;

ROFL

Everyone loves Dear Leader...

polls put his support in the upper 40s, and union membership is far less than that.

{The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 }

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

21% isn't the "upper 40's" where I come from.

Obama is, as you said, beholden to the big banks and very much in their pocket. And that means that OWS is protesting against Obama.

The OWS is protesting for more taxpayer money to go into the pocket of union bosses and to bail out union pension funds that lost value due to bad WALL STREET investments made by the union bosses.

The message of OWS is clear; "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

If you think that Obama would spark a movement protesting against him as a way to get re-elected, you believe he is either too stupid to breathe, or a Machiavellian genius of cosmic proportions.

OWS isn't protesting Obama - I've not seen one sign nor heard one word from them that was critical of the Messiah®. My guess is that the 21% approval Obama has with the public is at about 99% approval with the OWS morons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

Obama Akbar, indeed.

 

[Dragon]

OWS is a union movement - that is a matter of fact. Irrefutable.

It is not a fact and you have presented not one scrap of evidence in support of your contention. You have presented evidence that unions, or some unions anyway, support it. That is not the same thing, and your claiming that it is the same thing is typical of the fuzzy non-thinking I've come to expect from you.

The unions, especially Obama's SEIU are the force behind this and have been from the start.

There is no such thing as "the force behind this." That's the main flaw in your thinking: looking for something that doesn't exist, and latching onto the first plausible candidate.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.

(Emphasis added.) His approval consists of those who "strongly approve" and those who "approve" or "somewhat approve." It's in the 40s, as I said.

But even Rasmussen's "strongly approve" number is far more than the number of union members in the U.S. There is no support for your contention there.

The OWS is protesting for more taxpayer money to go into the pocket of union bosses and to bail out union pension funds that lost value due to bad WALL STREET investments made by the union bosses.

Do you even have the first idea how to answer a question or respond to a statement straightforwardly and logically? I see no sign of it.

What you originally said is that Obama is beholden to the big banks. That's more or less true. The big banks are the target of Occupy Wall Street. Obama, being the banksters' spokesperson, is not going to generate a movement against them. And, Obama being the banksters' spokesperson, the movement is protesting against Obama and his policies in support of Wall Street.

What the hell does the above have to do with that? Nothing. It's a total non-sequitur squirted out into the Internet as if you'd vomited it.

EDIT: there was a sign at OWS apparently that read, "Obama let Wall Street f**k yo mama."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB. The system always favors corporations. Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.

Sky.

The automotive company baiouts (the corporations GM and chrysler)
The economic stimulus and giant breaks given to GE (another corporation) or goldman sachs ect ect.
Bailing out the banks with tarp (all corporations)
Giant loan given to a failing company solindra (another corporation)


do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Dot Com]

Someone put together a pretty good compilation of OWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voNmBo56uE&feature=player_embedded]Occupy Wall Street - Police Riot - END THE FED - YouTube[/ame]​