toldailytopic: The "big" Occupy Wall Street anti-capitalist protests. Thoughts?

eameece

New member
Here are some things that people need to get.

The right-wing's constant refrain is, why should someone else pay for what you get. That is a tempting argument to swallow. It would be nice if the economy worked so that people would get what they pay for. But the problem is, most of the 99% of the people who get something like 1% of the income in the USA, are working all the time. They are not freeloaders. A college student who can't pay for education is studying to learn things that will benefit people when (s)he goes to work. This is not freeloading. Most rich people get their huge salaries for doing no work, but for gambling or extorting money from their workers because they are the boss and don't have a union to negotiate with.

Yet they claim they are earning their money, and that if they have to pay more in taxes "to help people trying to get my money through the government," the economy will suffer because they are the "job creaters." But guess what, we had 30 years of your job creating, and the result is several millions of unemployed and underemployed people, less economic mobility, and extreme inequality. They claim free trade creates jobs, while they send jobs overseas to get cheap labor and avoid regulations. Their way to create jobs is to automate their factories and fire workers, and then buy out competitors and monopolize the market, and fire more workers. If that's job creatin,' we don't need any more of it thank you very much.

It's time that the wealthy paid more in taxes, and contributed to our crumbling roads and bridges and schools and mass transit and health care that helps all of us. The more people have the money to buy things, the more the rising demand will create customers, and that's what creates jobs. The more people have a safety net, even one that does not encourage dependency, the more people can quickly recover and keep spending money that creates customers and jobs.

The big corporations and wealthy bankers and financiers on Wall Street and in other skyscapers and mansions across the USA have used their money to buy ads to convince voters and workers for 30 years that loosening regulations on them and letting them do whatever risky secret schemes they wish without any oversight would make them rich, and the benefits of this new wealth would trickle down from their skyscrapers to the average guys in the street. So regulations were loosened, allowing financiers to gamble with peoples' savings and mortgages, instead of protecting them and using them to make loans to local small businesses. The result was a huge housing bubble that burst, causing all the risky derivatives built from bundled mortgages to fail and bring down huge banks and insurance companies. To keep the economy from crashing as a result of this collapse, former bank CEOs in our government bailed out the big banks, from which the bankers took more huge bonuses and suffered no consequences for ruining the economy, destroying jobs and businesses and causing starvation and poverty.

Meanwhile those who lost their homes and their jobs from this mess got inadequate help at best. And when our president tried to pass some basic reforms so the mess wouldn't happen again, he was denounced as a socialist, his reforms were fiercely resisted by Wall St. lobbyists and by dopey Republican presidential candidates, and swarms of deceived Reagan worshipers gathered for TEA and terrorized Republican and some Democratic politicians and the voters fed up with the slow pace of recovery due to the vastness of the problem that the Reagan worshipers themselves created, resulting in total D.C. gridlock and political and economic hostage-taking. And the Bush-appointed Supreme Court made it legal for the wealthy corporations to buy as many politicians as they wish, and in secret, so they can try to buy and deceive the people indefinitely.

And meanwhile these wealthy corporations get subsidies for pumping more oil to cause more energy depletion, oil spills, pollution, and climate change, and they resist new green energy businesses. They arouse the people with slogans to oppose health care reform that would be good for business as well as the people, so that insurance and drug profits won't suffer and so sick people can die without getting the care that they don't want to provide. They dry up funds for government regulation of our food industry, so that our food is unsafe, unnutritious and genetically-modified. They demand, and get, their government to finance unfunded, deadly, endless wars overseas to protect their oil supplies, and to spend more money on the military than all other countries combined. They make sure that their taxes are so low that the nation piles up a huge, endless debt that is the perfect excuse for not spending any tax money on things the people really need, and that ensures higher taxes on interest payments for our children and grandchildren for generations to come. They attack entitlement programs that the people are entitled to because they paid for them, even though they are not only solvent but are robbed to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. The jack up prices for housing, education, health care, energy, banking, food and transportation so high, and keep wages so low, that most people (especially younger people) can't advance economically, get a good start in life, or even make ends meet. Those few who have lots of money are protecting themselves and getting more while those who have little are made to have even less through no fault of their own.

And so some people are protesting; many not exactly sure what needs to be done, but making their voices heard about a situation that is obviously wrong. Whether they get the political situation or not, there needs to be a political movement to change these policies and the system that perpetuates them. Muddled moderation and accommodation may be tolerable for a while. But in the end, it will not do. Real change needs to happen, and a truly democratic and fairer society needs to be built. The alternative is continued national decline. We can enter the 21st century, or be a banana republic. The choice is ours. And it seems to me that some people like me have to keep making these obvious points, because a lot of folks just don't get it.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Yay! Watch middle and working class people cheer on the people who flushed our economy.

You guys are priceless.

I'm telling you: battered wives. The right wing in this country is so awestruck and agog with the rich that they're willing to grovel and serve as sock puppets in tri-corner hats.

"You just don't understand! You don't know him the way I do. He'll change. Honest."

I don't think that is what is happening here Granite.
 

eameece

New member
After 30 years of Reaganomics, the people have been indoctrinated to love the rich, and to think that taxing them more is robbing them of what they earned. They have learned to blame the poor for being lazy and dependent, instead of the rich who are greedy extortionists, for our economic problems. They have therefore allowed the rich to take over our government with lobbyists and money, and to extract policy and tax favors with the claim that they are the job creaters, although they actually take that money and use it for buyouts, automation and setting up factories overseas, thus costing Americans their jobs. The protests are our potential wake-up call. We will no longer love the 1%, but transfer our affections and attentions to the 99% instead. If the Occupy Movement succeeds, then the people will no longer regard the rich as sacred cows, and taxing and regulating them more than others will be desirable and acceptable again.

That means we will create a society where there is more opportunity for everyone, because we won't believe the myth that we have to defer to the wealthy 1% to create these things for us in the name of "freedom" for businessmen and "benefits trickling down to lift all boats." We will no longer enable get-rich-quick schemes and gambling with other peoples money and houses, but instead realize that wealth is something that is created through long-term dedication by the people and the investment of our nation's resources of infrastructure, education, health care and climate protection, including investments from money received by the government from those who have received the most blessings from those resources. This will be a shift from right-wing economic philosophy back to a center-left one. Let us hope we finally learn our lesson and place trickle-down economics into the ashcan of history once and for all, where it has already belonged for decades. :wave:

This, along with the new 1960s greenpeace ideals, and a new sensitivity to human, personal and cultural ecology as well as physical ecology, with communities structured for quality of life instead of mere quantity of production, will be our way forward into a renewal instead of decline for the United States, and is already renewing the other nations of The West.
 
Last edited:

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
After 30 years of Reaganomics, the people have been indoctrinated to love the rich, and to think that taxing them more is robbing them of what they earned. They have learned to blame the poor for being lazy and dependent, instead of the rich who are greedy extortionists, for our economic problems. They have therefore allowed the rich to take over our government with lobbyists and money, and to extract policy and tax favors with the claim that they are the job creaters, although they actually take that money and use it for buyouts, automation and setting up factories overseas, thus costing Americans their jobs. The protests are our potential wake-up call. We will no longer love the 1%, but transfer our affections and attentions to the 99% instead. If the Occupy Movement succeeds, then the people will no longer regard the rich as sacred cows, and taxing and regulating them more than others will be desirable and acceptable again.

That means we will create a society where there is more opportunity for everyone, because we won't believe the myth that we have to defer to the wealthy 1% to create these things for us in the name of "freedom" for businessmen and "benefits trickling down to lift all boats." We will no longer enable get-rich-quick schemes and gambling with other peoples money and houses, but instead realize that wealth is something that is created through long-term dedication by the people and the investment of our nation's resources of infrastructure, education, health care and climate protection, including investments from money received by the government from those who have received the most blessings from those resources. This will be a shift from right-wing economic philosophy back to a center-left one. Let us hope we finally learn our lesson and place trickle-down economics into the ashcan of history once and for all, where it has already belonged for decades. :wave:

This, along with the new 1960s greenpeace ideals, and a new sensitivity to human, personal and cultural ecology as well as physical ecology, with communities structured for quality of life instead of mere quantity of production, will be our way forward into a renewal instead of decline for the United States, and is already renewing the other nations of The West.
:darwinsm: Good recipe for tyranny.
 

bybee

New member
After 30 years of Reaganomics, the people have been indoctrinated to love the rich, and to think that taxing them more is robbing them of what they earned. They have learned to blame the poor for being lazy and dependent, instead of the rich who are greedy extortionists, for our economic problems. They have therefore allowed the rich to take over our government with lobbyists and money, and to extract policy and tax favors with the claim that they are the job creaters, although they actually take that money and use it for buyouts, automation and setting up factories overseas, thus costing Americans their jobs. The protests are our potential wake-up call. We will no longer love the 1%, but transfer our affections and attentions to the 99% instead. If the Occupy Movement succeeds, then the people will no longer regard the rich as sacred cows, and taxing and regulating them more than others will be desirable and acceptable again.

That means we will create a society where there is more opportunity for everyone, because we won't believe the myth that we have to defer to the wealthy 1% to create these things for us in the name of "freedom" for businessmen and "benefits trickling down to lift all boats." We will no longer enable get-rich-quick schemes and gambling with other peoples money and houses, but instead realize that wealth is something that is created through long-term dedication by the people and the investment of our nation's resources of infrastructure, education, health care and climate protection, including investments from money received by the government from those who have received the most blessings from those resources. This will be a shift from right-wing economic philosophy back to a center-left one. Let us hope we finally learn our lesson and place trickle-down economics into the ashcan of history once and for all, where it has already belonged for decades. :wave:

This, along with the new 1960s greenpeace ideals, and a new sensitivity to human, personal and cultural ecology as well as physical ecology, with communities structured for quality of life instead of mere quantity of production, will be our way forward into a renewal instead of decline for the United States, and is already renewing the other nations of The West.

In the mean time intelligent, talented people will go elsewhere.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I don't think that is what is happening here Granite.

Well, then we disagree. The right wing is so star-struck when it comes to the rich that even people who've been screwed and who should be angry are insisting that we "not blame Wall Street." This is just pathetic. It's as if some folks who've been robbed are completely uncapable of bringing themselves to see the truth.
 

MrRadish

New member
I think it's good that people are beginning to object to corporate exploitation, investors gambling on other people's livelihoods, and the fact that when the rich mess up it's the poor who suffer.

What I don't think is so good is the fact that many of the people participating in the protests don't seem to fully understand or be able to articulate the socioeconomic arguments behind them - which I should say there certainly are, and indeed several well-informed academics have put them very strongly on the news. It just undermines the cause a bit when some of the people out on the street don't seem to really grasp what they're objecting to or what they're aiming for.

That's the nature of popular movements, though, particularly in societies that aren't socialist enough. The majority of people aren't particularly well-informed (owing to a range of factors including partisan media outlets, a lack of political education, and consumerist social pressure to ignore non-tangible goals) and therefore end up being steered by a small, educated elite using emotive and populist techniques instead of logical arguments. It's true of OWS, it's true of the Tea Party, it's true of most popular political movements, really. Ultimately, it's the only way of getting anything done until we have a society in which everybody has the same means and encouragement of fully participating in society.

The Left also has the disadvantage of typically being more favourable toward diversity, which frequently leads to its fragmentation and defeat at the hands of the united Right, whose identity seems frequently to be based on some form of unity and homogenity (with the possible exception of the right-libertarians, although even they like to all unite under the banner of 'Absolute Freedom'). This can be seen on TOL, where among the RWZs anybody not conforming to an extremely specific set of conditions is branded a 'liberal', whereas among the Left there tends to be a lot of subdivision between, say, socialists, social democrats, communists, liberals, general left-wingers and neoliberals. Likewise, in OWS, one of the big reasons for a lack of a unified agenda is that they're trying to be inclusive, whereas the Tea Party could be a lot more specific because it was built on the feeling of security stemming from shared values.

Of course I might be making an unfair comparison here, using the extremists of one side and the moderates of the other, and others may very well disagree. What do people think?
 

eameece

New member
I think it's good that people are beginning to object to corporate exploitation, investors gambling on other people's livelihoods, and the fact that when the rich mess up it's the poor who suffer.

What I don't think is so good is the fact that many of the people participating in the protests don't seem to fully understand or be able to articulate the socioeconomic arguments behind them - which I should say there certainly are, and indeed several well-informed academics have put them very strongly on the news. It just undermines the cause a bit when some of the people out on the street don't seem to really grasp what they're objecting to or what they're aiming for.

That's the nature of popular movements, though, particularly in societies that aren't socialist enough. The majority of people aren't particularly well-informed (owing to a range of factors including partisan media outlets, a lack of political education, and consumerist social pressure to ignore non-tangible goals) and therefore end up being steered by a small, educated elite using emotive and populist techniques instead of logical arguments. It's true of OWS, it's true of the Tea Party, it's true of most popular political movements, really. Ultimately, it's the only way of getting anything done until we have a society in which everybody has the same means and encouragement of fully participating in society.

The Left also has the disadvantage of typically being more favourable toward diversity, which frequently leads to its fragmentation and defeat at the hands of the united Right, whose identity seems frequently to be based on some form of unity and homogenity (with the possible exception of the right-libertarians, although even they like to all unite under the banner of 'Absolute Freedom'). This can be seen on TOL, where among the RWZs anybody not conforming to an extremely specific set of conditions is branded a 'liberal', whereas among the Left there tends to be a lot of subdivision between, say, socialists, social democrats, communists, liberals, general left-wingers and neoliberals. Likewise, in OWS, one of the big reasons for a lack of a unified agenda is that they're trying to be inclusive, whereas the Tea Party could be a lot more specific because it was built on the feeling of security stemming from shared values.

Of course I might be making an unfair comparison here, using the extremists of one side and the moderates of the other, and others may very well disagree. What do people think?

I agree. The OWS shares characteristics with the Democrats in general of being more splintered and accommodating. Their aim to be non-partisan and not put forward specific aims or policies has the unintended consequence that they are just like the Democrats they shy away from in that respect. They don't want to offend people for fear of losing supporters, but the danger there is, just like Democrats, they frequently stand for nothing.

I think the Occupy Movement has great potential to reshape the country's politics if and when it can channel the protest into programs and strategies without being coopted by some party or institution. I think moveon.org has already done that pretty effectively. Although they are considered mostly liberal Democrats, their policies and actions are given direction by their members and not the Democratic Party.

The best summary of American parties, and of Occupy to the extent they are really behaving like Democrats, is the cartoon.

attachment.php
 
Top