Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[earlycuyler]

The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE. If they got a degree what was it IN. I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work. They have degrees in niche social movements. One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery. My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion. She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary. Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses. One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.

If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful. When they should be blaming themselves.

Even if your biased theory were substantive the fact remains that someone with a college education who cannot find some kind of job, even as secretary or retail sales associate, etc., is a clear indication of severe economic problems. The simple fact is there are no jobs and anyone who says there are is blowing smoke.

What do I get if I give you at least 100 listings in a random city ? There is always someone willing to pay someone to do something. Its just a lie to say otherwise. For instance, when the OWS crowed go's back to there capitalist parents house there will be lots of work cleaning up the mess they leave behind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it. The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.

"Recently members of the group calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength” sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that “you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000”—the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."

​

​

Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics. “Patriotic Millionaires” | Dissident Voice The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave. The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week. The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.

Sure, Komrade, sure

I see they already have those WWII type propaganda posters out. The "know your enemy" kindof deal.. Gee I wonder if Lebron James is the greedy Wall St type or a Patriotic type.

Do you physically have to WORK on Wall Street? Or just own a lot of stuff? Just trying to figure out which side to join..

I started on "Wall Street" (One Battery Park) and I tell you this OWS is beyond asinine, its asiten!

If these "patriotic millionaires" Want to pay more...feel free to write a check and shut the fuck up

The biggest joke is Buffett who has made a total ass clown of himself by shilling for Obama and not just about the tax disputes BRK has with the IRS. Do you know why the vast majority of BRK's acquisitions are structure as stock swaps? Take a guess!

 

[Big Fitz]

The fact that this thread is growing fast shows the Right is terrified of #OWS!!!

What are we suppose to be scared of? Dying of laughter?

I'm as terrified of the Occupados as I am terrified of running out of toilet paper.

 

[Katzndogz]

The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE. If they got a degree what was it IN. I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work. They have degrees in niche social movements. One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery. My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion. She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary. Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses. One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.

If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful. When they should be blaming themselves.

Even if your biased theory were substantive the fact remains that someone with a college education who cannot find some kind of job, even as secretary or retail sales associate, etc., is a clear indication of severe economic problems. The simple fact is there are no jobs and anyone who says there are is blowing smoke.

There are jobs for the very highly qualified. Otherwise there are no jobs. Democrats have chased too many companies out of the country.

 

[Big Fitz]

Quote:
.... Would you say that the railroad industry was more or less regulated by the government in the early 1900s than it is today?


Honestly, I know little abut the railroad, but what I do know is that in a country this size, it may be a rather dated service. It's a good local service to have, though. And, for the most part, they are government entities.

As someone who DOES know a bit about the railroad industry...

The industry went through stages of regulation based on proven need for regulation. The first 50 years of it's existence was free of accident fatalities and there was no reason to regulate it for safety. Then the Ashtabula and Angola Horrors happened. There was a public outcry for regulation for the safety of the passengers who now saw the railroads dangers as the threat they were to safety. The industry was indecisive on how to deal with the situation, and so the government stepped in for a uniform safety code for their operation because there WAS a real threat.

Then came the expansion regulations because conflicts of interests between riverboat operators, farmers, cities and the railroads came about. Again, regulations were needed to define who's rights to do what were supreme. Much of this legislation was due in large part to the work of Abraham Lincoln who while a railroad lawyer in the 1840's ironed out agreements between the states, riverboat operators and the railroads for crossing rivers and regulations there in.

But the robber barons was not a railroad issue, it was a financial industry issue and defining issue of the Guilded age and industrial revolution. Abuses of workers and consumers by everyone from J.P. Morgan to Commodore Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, Credit Mobilier's defrauding of the US govt during the building of the trans-continental railroad and J.J. Hill's geographic monopolization had it's roots in plutocracy that thankfully were broken starting in the 1880's through the 1910's. It wasn't just the railroads though. EVERY industry was doing these things because there were no laws. The panic of 1893 was caused by lack of regulations in trading on the market allowing what today would be called nothing short of financial terrorism.

All these regulations had to be done to provide guardrails for safer and more equitable as well as ethical capitalism. They used to be very broad and loose but provided protections from abuses from the populace as well as the industrialists. You got product safety, fair labor laws, unionization rights, better rules on trading for financial institutions.

This is the way regulations come about. The problem comes in when you demand a 100% 'safe' society that ossifies behavior and action into one universal code and template that nobody can consistently live up to, and viciously punishes anyone who falls short even a single iota at any step.

As for the functionality of the railroads they are strictly a freight or intermediate high speed passenger hauler. No other way is more efficient to haul freight overland than trains. Passenger trains could... COULD carve out an intercity market again if they were able to maintain such high quality rail that they could compete more cheaply than smaller airlines. The problem is, that deck is stacked against them because of the nature of the travel business and risks of high speed ground travel.

The only example of government entities doing the job they set out to do and then ending is the USRA. They were organized to help with heavy traffic during WW1 and for a brief period of WW2. They are best known for creating basic platforms for steam motive power that served the railroads VERY well for the last half of steam's existence by limiting the 'standard' models to 6 different plans. They didn't do well at managing motive power distribution as well during the war because they often shifted engines and trains to where they weren't needed as much as some believed necessary.

The upshot of all this is that there always MUST be a SMALL AMOUNT of regulation to protect the public consumer from fraud and abuse. You must protect the worker from both unfair labor practices and hazards in the workplace that can instantly or chronically harm or kill them. There must also be protections to competators from unfair business practices being done to protect monopolies or powerful businesses from stifling new competition. But there are so many regulations that are completely unnecessary and intrusive they do more harm than good, hampering business from being bigger better faster cheaper as the standard SHOULD be.

Every crisis that occurs exposes needs for regulations. Over time, the regulations should be reconsidered and subjected to cost analysis. Those who do not help an economy or nation must be cut back. To demand a 100% safe society should be considered a sign of insanity, not altruism or noble goals. The world will never be 100% safe from risk, and those who demand it need to be refused power.

 

[Valerie]

These losers are scary but not for the reasons you think.

First of all this is being organized, funded and paid for by several different leftwing organizations. People involved in that have been interviewed on tv so let's not pretend this is any kind of "grass roots" bullshit.

This is mob mentality and nothing less.[...]

(Excerpt)

An inchoate, seemingly rudderless administration coupled with a sinking economy and civil unrest is a recipe for an anarchical response. Weakness, vacillation and erosion of institutional authority are an invitation to anarchical thuggery, which looks like welcome strength when compared to feebleness and arbitrariness.

It should be no surprise, then, that the Occupy Wall Street uprisings are happening. After all, such mob uprisings have historical precedent. Anarchy followed by tyranny occurs whenever weakness and a power vacuum, perceived or real, exists.

(Close)

Read more here: Articles: The American Revolution of 2012

Basically the writer is saying this could have been prevented if Obama had done what he led us to believe he would do, beginning with investigations and prosecutions of those Wall Street elements which are responsible for the collapse of our economy (see the video, Inside Job). The problem is Obama is a Wall Street puppet. Wall Street sponsored him and Wall Street owns him.

But Wall Street does not own the Mob.

Then HOW COME the Ows aren't calling for the prosecution of the OBAMA if he is a puppet of wall street?
The only puppets I see are the dummies OCCUPYING some imaginary boogyman.

Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........

January 4, 2011


Read my lips: No new taxes -- and that includes levies on wealthy New Yorkers, Gov. Cuomo vowed yesterday.

Cuomo said he was against extending a "temporary" income-tax surcharge imposed on high-income earners in 2009 and set to expire at the end of 2011, despite having to close a massive $10 billion budget gap.

Cuomo indicated that renewing the surcharge would amount to a tax hike, which would violate his campaign pledge not to boost taxes.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/let_millionaire_tax_die_out_cuomo_VEe6iLvafTp2hL2ZG9IFLP

January 4, 2011

A coalition of union leaders and others dependent on government largesse are already running radio ads that say wealthy Wall Streeters must also pitch in to solve the budget crisis.

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew said extending the tax surcharge on the wealthy has to be considered. Trying to solve the $10 billion budget gap solely through spending reductions would lead to a "catastrophic budget" akin to the city's 1975 fiscal crisis that fueled massive layoffs of teachers, cops and firefighters, and eliminated school programs and delayed crucial bridge maintenance, he said.

The tax surcharge increases the state income tax to 7.85 percent for a single taxpayer earning between $200,000 and $500,000. The tax rate jumps to 8.97 percent for taxpayers making more than $500,000.

If the surcharge lapses as scheduled, the top tax rate drops to 6.85 percent.

hmmm

 

[Dragon]

Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........

The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about, since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)

Here, this article may help.

Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com

 

[Liability]

Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........

The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about, since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)

Here, this article may help.

Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com

Horse shit.

NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.

A bunch of rag tag misty-eyed hippy wannabes aimlessly wander and mill about protesting corporate "greed."

Ok. Now we're on to something. These ass clowns are against GREED!

And? We know what they don't like. We know the thing about which they take urgent exception.

What exactly are the SEEKING?

Could it be anything less amorphous than "let us eradicate 'greed?'"

Sadly, the answer appears to be "no." It is bound to remain JUST that amorphous.

Let's paint a sign. Let's march around in a circle. And when we aren't making a mess and in dire need of a bath, we can chant "DOWN with GREED!"

What a wonderful movement.

Oh crap. They musta misunderstood. That idiot musta thought it was a bowel movement they were seeking.

Next up: truthmangler can start a poll question thread: "Greed! For it or against it?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about,

No one has a clue what the movement is about; not her, not you, not the Shitters in the streets.

That's because the "Great Shitter Revolution of 2011" is about nothing. A gathering of morons demanding "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)

You Marxists might feel that way, but the SEIU goons sure the hell don't; they are Obama's Brown Shirts and are 100% loyal to the party.

IF you Marxists every had control over this, you lost it when the Unions marched in.

Here, this article may help.

Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com

The democrats would be wise to run from the Shitter Revolution as fast as they can - I hope they don't.

Think of the campaign ads; shot of Obama; cut to Shitter squatting in the street, back to Obama - this just WORKS!

 

[Si modo]

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much." ~ Gordon Gekko

 

[Dragon]

NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.

I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.

The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.

What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit, and as a result restore the middle class, narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.

That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.

This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.

Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.

 

[Valerie]

Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........

The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about, since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)

Here, this article may help.

Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com

I ask the question rhetorically to get people to think about the real dynamics behind this "movement"... Seems to me a generation of young, naive, idealistic voters who had yet to reach puberty by 9/11/01, are now being manipulated into demonizing white collar workers in the financial sector... And then those among them who are anti-authority, anti-America, anarchy loons think they really have a "movement" here and are demonizing the police for doing their blue collar jobs, etc... It's really a big clusterfuck of contradictions!


I haven't read your article yet, but I will...

 

[Liability]

NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.

I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.

The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.

What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit, and as a result restore the middle class, narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.

That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.

This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.

Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.

Nope. The "problem" is that you settle for mindless meaningless tripe in lieu of thoughtful political discourse.

You need to put a whole LOT of effort into understanding this silly "movement."

If you could manage that, you'd realize they are anti-"greed."

Bravo. Good for them. Jolly good. I am too. Greed sucks.

And their proposal for a solution consists of ---

Ah fuck. That's where they go all silent, squishy and silly.

Go shit on a car.

 

[Stephanie]

NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.

I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.

The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.

What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit, and as a result restore the middle class, narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.

That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.

This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.

Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.

You all want that lovely Socialism, MOVE to a country that has it...YOU people in this Occupying 1/2%ers are A MINORTIY. that is why you all need to ADVERTISE for rent a mobs and will more than likely soon turn to violence..The people see through you..must suck to be you.

 

[Dragon]

I ask the question rhetorically to get people to think about the real dynamics behind this "movement"... Seems to me a generation of young, naive, idealistic voters who had yet to reach puberty by 9/11/01, are now being manipulated into demonizing white collar workers in the financial sector...

Like I said, clueless. Not a single point above is even remotely true. Well, except for the word "idealistic," but even that's misleading.

The protesters were mostly born in the early 1980s, although many are older (up to in their 80s). Someone born in 1982 was 19 in 2001 -- definitely well past puberty.

Naive? They were naive in 2008. At this point they are the antithesis of naive.

Idealistic? To a point, but the loss of naivety tempers that nicely.

Manipulated? Nonsense.

Demonizing white collar workers in the financial sector? You're not paying attention at all.

I haven't read your article yet, but I will...

Please do. It's a good cure for seeing this as a Democratic Party shill or something in Obama's pocket, which it's definitely not.

 

[Valerie]

I haven't read your article yet, but I will...

Please do. It's a good cure for seeing this as a Democratic Party shill or something in Obama's pocket, which it's definitely not.

I never said it was. And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...

 

[Valerie]

I have a better idea, why don't you, Dragon, go parse that article yourself and show us right here in this thread exactly which part is SO compelling to your repeated point that I supposedly have no clue.



I'll wait.

 

[Dragon]

And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...

Would it be politer to say you don't know what you're talking about? In that case, I rephrase.

 

[Valerie]

And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...

Would it be politer to say you don't know what you're talking about? In that case, I rephrase.

Bullshit. Try to clue me in, big shot, I'm waiting...

 

[Liability]

And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...

Would it be politer to say you don't know what you're talking about? In that case, I rephrase.

It would be better if you knew what you were talking about.

But, clearly, you don't have the first fucking clue.