'Occupy' Protests

[hitchcockgreen]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/09/g ... ll-street/



So by the "protests 50 years ago" he's referring to the civil rights protests at Kent State?
Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[Ded10c]

The UK now has its own Occupy protest in an attempt to block a bill that will begin the privatisation of our healthcare system.

[hitchcockgreen]

The UK now has its own Occupy protest in an attempt to block a bill that will begin the privatisation of our healthcare system.

I know the healthcare system isn't perfect, but I'm glad to hear people wanting to protect it.

I had thought there were a few Occupy protests there. I know that there is one in Ireland.

[FirBirGir]

I'm reading through a couple of articles on the big three networks about the protests. The one common thread that they all pointed out - OWS hasn't yet decided what they want, they seem content to protest for the sake of protesting. I don't intend that statement to be demeaning to the protestors, they admit it themselves. Since there's no real structure or organization among the protestors, they haven't defined any demands or exactly who to direct them to.

Several articles pointed out the different income growth rates of the middle incomers and the mega rich. There's no doubt that what the chart shows is true, the big question is how do you fix it without making things worse? Government managed redistribution of wealth is a very slippery slope. Regulation can choke an economy to death. Politicians only want to be reelected. Seems to me to be dangerous to fix this using our current system that created it in the first place.

Assuming that the 1% prospered without blatantly breaking the law, is the problem the system itself? Let's say the protests are successful and the government puts a 50% OWS tax on any corporation earning more than $10B annually (I know, not realistic but go with it for now). Do the protestors believe that money would somehow make it back to them? No, it would end up in the general fund and continue to be spent by politicians the same way they've been spending for the last 5 decades. We're living so far beyond our means now, a large windfall of tax revenue would be swallowed up with no real discernible impact.

I'm not a believer in the concept that the pie is fixed in size and if one person gets a bigger slice, it's because someone else got a smaller slice. If that's true, then Apple is the evil company that put Pop's Deli out of business. I believe the pie grows and shrinks and some people are affected more than others by the change.

So maybe what the protestors should be considering what's broke today:

• National Debt - Uncontrolled spending will doom the country, it's just a matter of time
  Government Inefficiency - Government have higher waste than any other type of organization, removing waste is a quick win though it would meet with extreme resistance
  Current Political System - Can you say "Term Limits for All"?
  Government Role in Society - The government exists for a reason and it does some things well, others not so well. Narrowing government focus to those critical systems that can't be done by anyone else could go a long way towards making government less hated by all

The list is pretty large but that's enough to make the point. The difference I see between OWS and major protests of the past is lack of focus and lack of clarity.

Eddy

[hitchcockgreen]

I wouldn't say so much as there is a lack of clarity or wants of the protesters, but there is definitely a lack of that angle in coverage from most mainstream media.
Typically, mainstream media seem to be interviewing and talking to kids who are along for the ride.
There is indeed a set list of demands, as such.

Then there are things to consider like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/1 ... urnalists/

[Sno]

I think the message has been lost with the Occupy protests. They really have no demands other than saying they're the 99% while they wear/use the same products built by the "greedy corporations" they're protesting. What they should be protesting is corporate America getting involved in political legislation and supporting certain candidates, which blankets the integrity of voters. They should not protest the success of a corporation that gives people jobs. A lot of those nitwits doing the protests don't realize that many corporations were started by few entrepreneurs that had a few bucks, a good idea, and executed it properly -- resulting in their success. That's the American dream, right?

Greed may exist, but then again it is a tremendous risk starting a business.

[hitchcockgreen]

It's not about corporations per se, but about the corporate culture of bribing government, skirting laws, and otherwise being corrupt/corrupting things they are involved in.

Its also about deregulation of the banking industry which has lead to the creation of an imaginary economy in which there is wealth without currency or an equivalent amount of money. They are trading with more money than there actually is.

Here's something I came across the other day:
Take a look at the number of presidents that were against deregulating banks and/or the federal reserve and compare against presidents who were either assassinated or had attempts made on them.
Coincidence? I'd surely like to hope so.

Of course Anonymous doesn't necessarily want to give mainstream media the real dirt because they don't trust them.
look who they (jokingly) endorsed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuumGX- ... ata_player

[FirBirGir]

Hey, it takes two to bribe someone Like I said, it's hard to imagine fixing the problem by asking the bribee to do it.

Sno, I agree, there should be more separation of politics from the rest of society including business. Today, being a politician is a mix of being a celebrity, lobbyist, preacher and criminal. Why not make it a plain ol' job again like it was centuries ago. And disqualify anyone who makes over $1M a year from running for office. That would change things considerably.

Hitch, just as there are stories saying media is undermining the protests, there are others who are putting out the so-called demands of the OWS protestors but in reality are their own agenda items and trying to use OWS to push it forward. Right now, it's hard to accept anything you read about OWS as truly fact since each person you talk to says something different.

Eddy

[hitchcockgreen]

I'll give you that, Eddy. It's certainly true. But only because the protests have brought together such a large number of groups. However, it will also depend on your source of information.
More or less I'm getting a sense of unified goals when I'm watching interviews (multiple, unrelated sources) or videos uploaded by numerous protesters from different protest sites.

Initially, AdBusters proposed the idea but nothing came of it.

Then Anonymous took up the idea and got people on the streets.

As time went on, more and more groups joined in and yes there is a degree of co-opting going on.

Some people seem hellbent to just mudsling and write the protesters off as "college hippies" or something like that, but that's disingenuous. MSNBC and Fox have done their fair share of undermining and belittling the protests (I can't speak for any of the other "Big Ones" as I don't usually watch any of them) as have some notable politicians.

Ron Paul is backing the protesters, but likely because "ending the Fed" is one of his big political goals. If they were protesting something opposite of his goals, I don't know what his response would be like.

He makes a lot of sense on a lot of things, but on some issues I just have to back away (note to Ron Paul: don't touch abortion in politics - it's political suicide)

[FirBirGir]

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.wbez.org/blog/city-room-blog ... ized-93021

Quote from the article:

"But not everyone joined Take Back Chicago under the auspices of an organized endeavor. Barbara Jill Bates, a teacher at Yates Elementary School for 33 years, said she came out with the Chicago Teachers Union to protest against a very Chicago-specific cause.

"I'm out here to protest and to demonstrate our unhappiness with what the board of education is doing to the teachers union," said Bates, referring to the ongoing dispute between the CTU and the CPS Board of Education over whether or not to extend the school day."

That's pretty far from the "Corporate Greed" mantra. Occupy is being consumed by organized labor. Before too long, their original purpose will disappear and it will turn into a Union rally if they're not careful and limit the special interests groups wanting to hijack the movement.

Eddy

[hitchcockgreen]

Oh I know what you're saying and agree. The NY protesters even said to Obama that they appreciate the support but do not want to be co-opted.
this happened in new York, as well, with unions joining in.

Its become a protest of general grievances to some degree and unfortunately some of these late-comers are going to draw more press-attention to themselves.

[Sno]

Ron Paul is backing the protesters, but likely because "ending the Fed" is one of his big political goals. If they were protesting something opposite of his goals, I don't know what his response would be like.

He makes a lot of sense on a lot of things, but on some issues I just have to back away (note to Ron Paul: don't touch abortion in politics - it's political suicide)

I think if Anonymous had a choice, they'd choose Ron Paul. It's pretty bad down here in the states with the corporate elite's having pull on many political decisions, it's one reason why a lot of private businesses have shut down. FOX is playing this off as a pure liberal riot, but in reality the protests involve liberals and conservatives...and well, anyone else without a job

Unfortunately, abortion is a huge topic down here, especially along the bible belt. He really has no choice but to give an opinion on it. Being a OBYGN, he does have a bit more weight with it, IMO. It's more of a damn if you do, damn if you don't ordeal.

[hitchcockgreen]

Unfortunately, abortion is a huge topic down here, especially along the bible belt. He really has no choice but to give an opinion on it. Being a OBYGN, he does have a bit more weight with it, IMO. It's more of a damn if you do, damn if you don't ordeal.

Yeah, exactly, which is why he should avoid it.

It's a hot topic everywhere, but I'd suspect moreso in the U.S. than any other Western country.

Oh, and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... aaTGsGdp4c

[Blunt Force Trauma]

I don't care who protests or what they are protesting about as long as its kept non-violent and more or less non-destructive with little local economic disruption.

But one point that struck me about one of those guys in the video is his complaints about his student loans. For some reason many people here in the US think racking up massive loans for an education is somehow acceptable. No one forced him to do so, and no one pushed him into a larger 4 year school. He also had access to fed assistance since it appears he's former military. WTF. . I would certainly like to question him on his school choices. I am quite sure he would not be whining if he had done the bulk of his studies in a 2 year institution.

I would recommend NIA's video on the coming college bubble. It clearly shows what has been obvious, at least to me, for several years now. However now, it appears the majority of the more "prestigious" establishments of brick and mortar education cannot continue for more than another 4-6 years.

To me, as I've said before, the college bubble could be just another of the precursor waves before the economic tsunami hits, but it appears the bubble may burst about the time of the "big one".

[Sno]

That young Marine vet sounds fishy, that's not how the GI Bill works. Since he had to "write" his Senator to get his GI Bill, that indicates he was not honorably discharged. In which case, would limit his benefits -- but not to an extreme point unless he had a dishonorable. That would be his own fault for choosing the institution(s) he chose for 2 degrees, there are programs everywhere for veterans to meet the cost of schools that are not public. I'm not paying anything for my degree, I want to know how he racked up student loans and what his 2 majors are.

[hitchcockgreen]

That young Marine vet sounds fishy, that's not how the GI Bill works. Since he had to "write" his Senator to get his GI Bill, that indicates he was not honorably discharged. In which case, would limit his benefits -- but not to an extreme point unless he had a dishonorable. That would be his own fault for choosing the institution(s) he chose for 2 degrees, there are programs everywhere for veterans to meet the cost of schools that are not public. I'm not paying anything for my degree, I want to know how he racked up student loans and what his 2 majors are.

That's what I was wondering as well. I wasn't entirely sure about the U.S. but I had thought that enlisting meant you got an education out of it. I realize that's why so many young people join - simply because they would never have the means to afford said education on their own.

So whether he was in school before enlisting, or after, or picked a more pricey school during, i have no idea. The student loan thing is whiny, although I can understand why some have the complaint; it's shoveled down their throat that they can't get a good job without a good education, only to find after acquiring said education that it didn't really help at all.
Still, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't mean you should get bailed out for it.

The first vet is the one who's opinion I appreciated - the one who countered the claims that protesting was "un-american" or "un-patriotic" which indeed are opinions being touted at the moment, which is patently ridiculous.

[Blunt Force Trauma]

That's what I was wondering as well. I wasn't entirely sure about the U.S. but I had thought that enlisting meant you got an education out of it.

When I got out of the Navy a 'few' years ago, I was paid $410/month straight up, and was eligible for 48 months continuous or broken up. If I went to a cheap in-state school, which I did, I got to keep whatever was left over. It was quite nice since I got zero financial support from my parents. Back then, my meager savings and the surplus, allowed me to not have to work while in school. If I had gone out of state, or to an expensive school, I would have had to find a part-time job.

From my understanding, it's now more of a matching fund system.

[hitchcockgreen]

RE: demands

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/pr ... ia-whining

[FirBirGir]

That young Marine vet sounds fishy, that's not how the GI Bill works. Since he had to "write" his Senator to get his GI Bill, that indicates he was not honorably discharged. In which case, would limit his benefits -- but not to an extreme point unless he had a dishonorable. That would be his own fault for choosing the institution(s) he chose for 2 degrees, there are programs everywhere for veterans to meet the cost of schools that are not public. I'm not paying anything for my degree, I want to know how he racked up student loans and what his 2 majors are.

That struck me too - he borrowed money for 2 degrees? 2 degrees!?! It's bad enough to borrow money for 1 degree but why 2? Couldn't he have stopped at 1 degree, got a job then continued his education while earning some money? How many recruiters are looking at graduates saying, "Hmm, only one degree. You some kind of slacker?" If he had the money, he could do whatever he wants but to borrow money for 2 degrees then bitch about the debt now is ridiculous.

The first guy sounded legit and was expressing his opinion. I think the second guy was full of BS.

Eddy

[Blunt Force Trauma]

That struck me too - he borrowed money for 2 degrees? 2 degrees!?! It's bad enough to borrow money for 1 degree but why 2? Couldn't he have stopped at 1 degree, got a job then continued his education while earning some money? How many recruiters are looking at graduates saying, "Hmm, only one degree. You some kind of slacker?" If he had the money, he could do whatever he wants but to borrow money for 2 degrees then bitch about the debt now is ridiculous.
Eddy

If it's true, I put my money he means some easy minor that he went ahead and finished.