Occupy Wall Street - a first hand assessment

246 posts / 0 new
Last post
sjdavis's picture
sjdavis
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 21 2008
Posts: 76
It's just money

rhare wrote:

sjdavis wrote:

Ah yes, rhare, perhpas our top resident idealogue.

...

Anytime you give an individual power over others it's problematic. When you give someone the ability to take resources from another and redistribute them it doesn't matter if they are the purest of heart, eventually you will get someone in power that will abuse that power.  The only way to stop the problem is to remove the power.  Use the nature of man to keep things in balance.  Distribute the power as widely as possible so that even when you get corruption the problems are smaller.  It's this ever larger centralized government that leads to the larger and larger problems.  It's the power to tax (steal) money from individuals for your chosen favorite cause that is the root of corruption.   

You can call me an ideologue if it makes you feel better about yourself, but at least I believe in trying something different and not trying out the same broken approach you seem bent to try.  I'm not sure I understand why you don't believe enough in yourself or others to deal with the issues.  You seem intent on finding saviors in government bureaucrats.

So you might be careful throwing those stones in glass houses.

rhare, come on now, you're doing it again.

rhare wrote:

Anytime you give an individual power over others it's problematic.

You're talking about "giving someone" power to take resources.  Are you talking "one" or many - government has many.  NOTE - I never said government is smart, right or good.  Just that it's many and not one.  Many people, three branches, a bunch of processes.

Government is not pretty.  Heck, I'm angry too.  Do not like that we went to 2 wars on a loan, not happy about Wall St. bailouts, not happy about lack of energy policy, not happy about farm subsides, not happy about money buying power, etc, etc.

But I can certainly see the value in getting money out of politics.  It seems a more reasonable task than totally changing everything we know about government.  If money is the root of evil, then how can we fairly judge government when 90% of the highest paid campaigns win? 

Sylq's picture
Sylq
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 3 2011
Posts: 18
Occupy Portland

I was at the demonstration today to get a first hand feel for what this movement is.  In our city there were alot of folks (media reports excess of 10,000)for the protest, and you had a real disparate number of groups at the event. I saw your classic hippy who talked marching in the 60's, a number of students dressed to impress with to much fondness for the guy fawkes mask, I spent an hour talking with a 65yr old woman who is a medical marijuana patient, I spoke with a number of people who said they were teapartiers and I spoke with a number of Vets.  I also ran into someone I haven't seen in 25 years so that helped start the day out right.

I am not so blind as to believe that this movement will not be corrupted, but all of us prepare for the end that is coming. What if this is our last chance before it does get ugly. I will join my voice with these people to voice our shared grivences until such time that I believe the movement has failed or been corrupted and then I will strap myself in and ride it out with the community I am building.

In other words experiance it before you write it off.

Sylq

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
sjdavis wrote: Earthwise,

sjdavis wrote:

Earthwise, it's obvious your opinion is driven by ideaology.

I couldn't have phased it better.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Rumblings in the Belly of the Beast

darbikrash wrote:

No telling of course how this is going to turn out, but it is refreshing to see a focus from the front lines that breaks through the left/right paradigm, at least in rhetoric. The “establishment” (read corporatists) are in full flank mode to try and recast this away from the main message, which is as stated by the protesters “the 99% against the 1%”.

This recasting must be avoided at all costs, so reflexively expect to hear the MSM and the general lot of corporatists invoking hot words like “Marxist’s”, “commies”, and “radical left”.

The worst possible outcome is a consolidation of liberals and libertarians, standing side by side, united against an oppressive structure of varying definition but with enough similarities to strike a nervous alliance in pursuit of some shared goals. This would be unthinkable for the mainstream establishment, including the current administration. So the large, slow moving inertia wheels of propaganda must spin up, slowly but inexorably, while gun turrets jerk and creak, rotating to range find the newly presented targets:

...

Don't we have enough common ground for an alliance:

"Look at the latitude," Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. "Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that's a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good."

...

"Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They're on our side against the military-industrial complex. They're on our side against Wall Street. They're on our side for investor rights. That's a foundational convergence," he exhorts. "It's not just itty-bitty stuff."

 "Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts," Nader says. "I mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a lot of these issues. Did you see the latest poll? He's like two points behind Obama."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha

darbikrash wrote:

This must be put back into it’s box, these protesters labeled as radical leftists, personified as “dangerous people” so that it won’t feel quite so bad when the tanks roll down the streets. Why, Hank Williams Jr., could sing the opening song.

I happened to see that Hitler comment by the beloved country singer on Fox News and was reminded why intelligence is not a prerequisite for wealth.

darbikrash wrote:

But overall, however it plays, or even if (this one) fizzles, I sense a sea change. The tired old tropes blaming the government for everything and banging on the table for personal responsibility have taken on the certain stench of expired shelf life. Dressing up in colonial garb replete with tri-corner hats and advocating destructive economic policies now has a definitive, and entirely defensive shrill ring to it. The budget battles went nowhere, the bailouts went nowhere, the bipartisan bickering went (and is going) nowhere despite noble speeches. No, the left vs. right paradigm has run it’s course, and now someone has gone and noticed that when everyone went to the boxing match to watch the bloodsport, that someone looted their homes when they were out.

And it’s time for something different.

The pie is shrinking and the voices of the malcontent and hungry will only grow louder at the greedy few stuffing themselves.

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
earthwise wrote:sjdavis

earthwise wrote:
sjdavis wrote:
Earthwise, it's obvious your opinion is driven by ideology.
I should note that nobody has as of yet addressed what I presented, instead focusing on me and my personal beliefs. (Isn't that sort of like ad hominem) How 'bout it guys? Any comment on what I presented?

We have been addressing what you are presenting just not every nitpick. It is not ad hominem to point out differences in opinion or ideology. There is nothing negative in having differences but discussion is fruitless when ideology rules. Now you could say the same thing about myself sjdavis or xyraymike and others that don't agree with you and in some cases you may or may not be correct.

This would be example of ad hominem

frobn's arguements are ridiculous because he associates with homosexuals.

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Sylq wrote:I was at the

Sylq wrote:

I was at the demonstration today to get a first hand feel for what this movement is.  In our city there were alot of folks (media reports excess of 10,000)for the protest, and you had a real disparate number of groups at the event. I saw your classic hippy who talked marching in the 60's, a number of students dressed to impress with to much fondness for the guy fawkes mask, I spent an hour talking with a 65yr old woman who is a medical marijuana patient, I spoke with a number of people who said they were teapartiers and I spoke with a number of Vets.  I also ran into someone I haven't seen in 25 years so that helped start the day out right.

I am not so blind as to believe that this movement will not be corrupted, but all of us prepare for the end that is coming. What if this is our last chance before it does get ugly. I will join my voice with these people to voice our shared grivences until such time that I believe the movement has failed or been corrupted and then I will strap myself in and ride it out with the community I am building.

In other words experiance it before you write it off.

Sylq

I joined in at OccupyTampa yesterday, had a similar experience as you did at OccupyPortland. I second your recommendation.

experience it before you write it off

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Marx' useful idiots: Do they

Marx' useful idiots: Do they now "Occupy Wall Street"

Good example of an ad hominum arguement. Now Marx had a brillant mind but was not correct in everything he said. The Russians say Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about much of capitalism. I guess it depends on your point of view.

I believe that Michael Hudson is the leading US scholar on Marx. He has a excellent blog which is obviously his scholarly opinion.
 

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Why #OccupyWallStreet

Why #OccupyWallStreet Doesn’t Support Obama: His “Nothing to See Here” Stance on Bank Looting

Despite the efforts of some liberal pundits and organizers (and by extension, the Democratic party hackocracy) to lay claim to OccupyWallStreet, the nascent movement is having none of it. Participants are critical of the President’s bank-coddling ways and Obama gave a remarkably bald-face confirmation of their dim views.

As Dave Dayen recounts, Obama was cornered into explaining why his Administration has been soft of bank malfeasance. His defense amounted to “They’re savvy businessmen”: “Banks are in the business of making money, and they find loopholes.”

Is breaking IRS rules a “loophole”? How about making repeated false certifications in SEC filings? Or as Dayen points out, fabricating documents? Or making wrongful foreclosures, aka stealing houses?

A comment from the article

I was at the Occupy Portland (OR) today and, as I said in another comment earlier, the message that I kept getting from folks that I talked to about the seemingly wide ranging problems we face was the words from a Blues song from the 30′s I heard this past weekend…

You may call me crazy but at least I know right from wrong.

The Occupy everywhere folks just need to keep saying what they are saying and sooner or later some enlightened leadership will get the message.

You don’t know what is happening, do you, Mr Jones……….

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2763
Now Chris is going

Wow, Chris is going to Wall St.  His feedback should be very illuminating.

Doug

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Doug wrote:Wow, Chris is going to Wall Street

Doug wrote:

Wow, Chris is going to Wall St.  His feedback should be very illuminating.

Doug

Do you have a link to that bit of info?

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2763
Wall St

xraymike79 wrote:

Doug wrote:

Wow, Chris is going to Wall St.  His feedback should be very illuminating.

Doug

Do you have a link to that bit of info?

Today's Insider article.  I guess its alright to divulge that bit of info.  I assumed the paragraph or so that appears when I open the site was public.  I guess I'm wrong

Doug

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2763
video of OWS protester

This vid suggests that not all the protesters are left wing hippies:

#!

Doug

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Progressive / Libertarian alliance?

xraymike79 wrote:

Don't we have enough common ground for an alliance:

"Look at the latitude," Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. "Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that's a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good."

...

"Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They're on our side against the military-industrial complex. They're on our side against Wall Street. They're on our side for investor rights. That's a foundational convergence," he exhorts. "It's not just itty-bitty stuff."

 "Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts," Nader says. "I mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a lot of these issues. Did you see the latest poll? He's like two points behind Obama."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha

At one time I actually thought there might be enough but based upon the interactions we have had around here, I am not optimistic.  We seem to spend far more time concentrating on the issues where we differ than on those that we can find common ground.  Just read a few posts around here from those on each side of this divide.  Contempt seems to seep through these interactions in ways that can only be considered discouraging.

I hope that I am wrong but my guess is that the OWS will be captured by the left, much like the tea party has largely been captured by the right.  If that happens, there will be very little about OWS that would appeal to most libertarians, much less conservatives.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Will we ever grow up?

Realizing what's in store for civilization over the next 100 years has a tendency to sober you up and look past ideological differences. I would vote for a Ron Paul/Nader ticket.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Live locally - not just for farming - path to smaller government

Doug wrote:

This vid suggests that not all the protesters are left wing hippies:

Unfortunately I'm guessing that there are few people at the rallys that understand the role of the Fed in all this mess.  It was like that at the Tea parties as well (I attended several in DC and ABQ).  The one exception was the End the Fed rally in DC.

I look at it that we will have a smaller central government no matter what happens.  If we have more limited energy in the future (most of us here probably believe that), then we must have smaller government since large complex organizations need lots of energy.  We also know that we are broke and eventually that hen will come home to roost as well.  Once we can no longer effectively print money for things and have to start taxing that will also put pressure to reduce government and services dramatically.  If you believe this is correct then it's much better for us to begin dismantling the large centralized government now while we can still manage it.  Start weening people from the government/Fed teat.   My worst fear is that we continue to try to maintain this large bureaucracy (evidence so far say yes - and even to grow it) then it becomes brutal (witness TSA, FDA raids, war on drugs, ...) to try and maintain control.

I also have a hard time understand why when you suggest things like eliminate DOE (department of energy, department of education - take your pick) and people freak out.  Yet those same people talk about living locally.  How come living locally works well for farming, but not for education?

I also have a hard time believing this will turn out well, because it is clearly aimed at class warfare and not at correcting the underlying problems.  From the occupy Albuquerque site:

a local resistance protesting the 1% that own 50% of everything.
We will not be intimidated and silent anymore with our civil resistance and street protests. We will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We represent people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. We have lost our jobs, houses, future, everything...while the fat cats on Wall Street get richer and drink their champagne.  

No mention of the Fed, no mention of government involvement.  Nope just anger about others who have more.  Lot's of hypocrisy about greed.  Most have no clue that even if you got rid of the few  "fat cats on Wall Street" it would make no difference.  If you haven't watch the "Eat the Rich" video, it's puts this into perspective. All will have to have a lower standard of living due to our past excess. 

Soon I'm sure we will see burning of businesses, riots, police and swat teams, etc.  All this leads to even more involvement by government to protect us.......  I wonder which group will become the scapegoat that gives rise to a dictator - Muslims, Jews, rich, banker, business owners, ????  Right now they are coming for the rich, who will be next when eliminating the rich doesn't solve the problem?

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2490
Doug wrote: This vid

Doug wrote:

This vid suggests that not all the protesters are left wing hippies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?=tFz1VVXsWRU&feature=player_embedded#!

Doug 

Thanks for sharing Doug, I really enjoyed it.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
And who has really been waging and winning the 'Class Warfare'?

rhare wrote:

...

I also have a hard time believing this will turn out well, because it is clearly aimed at class warfare and not at correcting the underlying problems.  From the occupy Albuquerque site:

a local resistance protesting the 1% that own 50% of everything.
We will not be intimidated and silent anymore with our civil resistance and street protests. We will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We represent people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. We have lost our jobs, houses, future, everything...while the fat cats on Wall Street get richer and drink their champagne.  

No mention of the Fed, no mention of government involvement.  Nope just anger about others who have more.  Lot's of hypocrisy about greed.  Most have no clue that even if you got rid of the few  "fat cats on Wall Street" it would make no difference.  If you haven't watch the "Eat the Rich" video, it's puts this into perspective. All will have to have a lower standard of living due to our past excess. 

Soon I'm sure we will see burning of businesses, riots, police and swat teams, etc.  All this leads to even more involvement by government to protect us.......  I wonder which group will become the scapegoat that gives rise to a dictator - Muslims, Jews, rich, banker, business owners, ????  Right now they are coming for the rich, who will be next when eliminating the rich doesn't solve the problem?

I buy bits of your argument, but then you lose me when you go off on this poor vs. rich mantra. It's not about "anger about others who have more." Rather, it's about anger at how these people at the top amassed their wealth('crony' capitalism) and how they continue to reap the windfalls of being able to buy the elections and control legislation, as was explained in Doug's video. So you need to understand that point to improve your argument.

Get the money out of politics. Decreasing the size of government without dealing with the concentrated corporate power over the political system is only solving half the problem.

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 193
doorwarrior's picture
doorwarrior
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2009
Posts: 166
xraymike wrote:Rather, it's

xraymike wrote:

Rather, it's about anger at how these people at the top amassed their wealth('crony' capitalism) and how they continue to reap the windfalls of being able to buy the elections and control legislation, as was explained in Doug's video.

This is exactly what OWS is about.

I really enjoed that excellant video from a OWS protestor that clearly know whats going on and what to do about it. If only all the protestors would speak so clearly.

Rich

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
I agree with a lot of what

I agree with a lot of what you said in your post but I do differ with your statement.

I also have a hard time believing this will turn out well, because it is clearly aimed at class warfare and not at correcting the underlying problems. 

It is true that many in the #occupy protests have a sense that there is a class warfare that is being waged by the 1% and this is the underlying problem that can not be fixed until it is recognized via democratic discourse.

Yesterday at OccupyTampa I had the opportunity to talk individually with several of the participants and to listen to many ordinary people, my neighbors, express their opinion, thoughts, feelings and hopes. What they said was broadcast by human mic for all to hear. As a person finished another took his place.

IMHO, what is happening at these events is that the veil is being lifted for regular ordianary people who express themselves while learning about the workings of our politicis and the FIRE economy. Obviously, some people hear only what they have made their minds up to hear others are more open.

I believe that both the Tea Party and OWS want better opportunities. A main difference between them is that the Tea Party believes in their agenda of limited government and less taxes while OWS believe the underlying problem is the failure of our government that represents the interests of a few over the interests of the majority when it puts Wall St. ahead of Main St. and until this is recognized the size or shape of the government doesn't matter. Framing what is going on as class warfare sets it up as a confrontation at the expense of understanding our neighbors who have similar interests and goals.

The other day Dylan Ratigan had Karl Denninger on his program to explore common ground.

You can watch the segment at Market-Ticker

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Kevin O'Leary is an A**wipe

Kevin O'Leary, a cut-throat businessman, and Chris Hedges, a philosopher and war correspondent, are from two completely different ideological worlds. Hedges is fully aware of the environmental collapse that is unfolding and O'Leary is just wondering how to make money off it. Sorry for the anti-capitalist sentiment there, but it's true. It appears that Kevin O'Leary has a "greed is good" mentality:

In a recent Globe and Mail interview given while doing his book tour for what is aptly titled: Cold Hard Truth, he had this to say about wealth:

“Money equals freedom…You may lose your wife, you may lose your dog, your mother may hate you…None of those things matter. What matters is that you achieve success and become free. Then you can do whatever you like.”

And Chris Hedges isn't the first person to be disgusted by O'Leary:

Review: Three complaints about Kevin O’Leary, co-host of The Lang & O’Leary Exchange

April 14, 2011

REVIEW

Three complaints have been lodged concerning Kevin O’Leary, the co-host of the CBC News

Network program, The Lang & O’Leary Exchange. They provide an opportunity to review his

involvement as a contracted employee on CBC news and information programming.

One complaint, from Kyle Mytruk, concerned a remark by O’Leary on the January 27, 2011

program. During a wider discussion about General Motors, O’Leary said labour unions were a

“parasite” on business. Mytruk asserted that the comments were unfair, were not even-

handed, and violated CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.

...

Another, from Carl Hunt, concerned remarks by O’Leary in CBC Television promotional spots

that “greed is good” and “I love money.” He said CBC had provided O’Leary a soapbox to

provide “American-style economics.” He said O’Leary’s values, fully applied, would deprive the

country of its ability to help the less fortunate. Hunt wanted to know the dollar value of the

commercials.

A third complaint, from Julian Lepinski, concerned O’Leary’s on-air disclosure of a conflict-of-

interest in a discussion on regulatory issues on usage-based billing of internet services with an

official from BCE Inc. O’Leary noted he was a shareholder but did not note his equity and

income fund held BCE shares.

“Listen, I love this policy because I’m a shareholder,” O’Leary said. “That’s all I care about. If you

could suck every last cent out of users, I’m happy for you.”

....

[PDF] 

Three complaints about Kevin O'Leary, co-host of The Lang & O'Leary

Kevin O'Leary has no problem eliciting the help of the government to intervene in the "free market" as well :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY3RvnHVMjo                                                                                                                                

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Facing reality - we are all living well beyond our means....

xraymike79 wrote:

I buy bits of your argument, but then you lose me when you go off on this poor vs. rich mantra. It's not about "anger about others who have more." Rather, it's about anger at how these people at the top amassed their wealth('crony' capitalism) and how they continue to reap the windfalls of being able to buy the elections and control legislation, as was explained in Doug's video. So you need to understand that point to improve your argument.

I fully understand that.  I'm angry as well, and those that did illegal acts need to go to prision.  The problem is many just worked the system - ie. it's the system that needs to change.  Corporations are only interested in controlling government because it's profitable to do so.  For many it's because the government has the power to take money from citizens at large and give it directly to business interests (bail outs) or to force/induce people to buy their products (mortgages & housing though the CRA/loan guarantees/etc., big agriculture via farm regulations that disproportionately hurt small farms, education - via student loan guarantees/grants, energy companies via subsidies, health care - via mandates/insurance regulations). 

A small subsidy can make a huge difference in a companies profitability.  Say you subsidize a business 3%, that 3% they don't have to work to compete on price or product improvement.  It's worth it for many companies to spend large amounts lobbying government to get that 3% since it may be cheaper than other routes to profit.  As long as government is picking the winners and losers it doesn't matter what campaign finance laws are passed, we will have the same problem.  We need to get the power to choose winners and losers back into the consumers of a companies products.  We also need to eliminate the Fed, because it's distortion of the price of capital is the biggest benefit for larger well connected companies and financial institutions.  It's also the only way the federal government could exist in it's current state (including the hand outs to corporate interests) because if we had to directly tax the citizens such largess would not occur.

However, I believe you are wrong on your: It's not about "anger about others who have more."  I suspect for many (most?) of the people at the protest that is what it's about.  Only a few  understand the monetary issues or the root causes of what has occurred.  Most have no idea that living in the US they have been huge benefactors of having the worlds reserve currency for most of their lives. It's only now as the system begins to fall apart are we looking for scapegoats (the rich) - when we really need to be looking at ourselves and our past behavior.

The federal government is spending $3.5T/year. That's about 5 times the profit of the fortune 500 where many of those eeevilll rich people are making their money.  Something has too give, and complaining and going after the top 1% is not going to resolve the issue. It may make people feel better, but it certainly is not facing reality.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
End Corporatism and Militarism

rhare wrote:

...A small subsidy can make a huge difference in a companies profitability.  Say you subsidize a business 3%, that 3% they don't have to work to compete on price or product improvement. It's worth it for many companies to spend large amounts lobbying government to get that 3% since it may be cheaper than other routes to profit.  As long as government is picking the winners and losers it doesn't matter what campaign finance laws are passed, we will have the same problem.  We need to get the power to choose winners and losers back into the consumers of a companies products. ..

The government picks the winners and losers according to the political contributions and favors they receive from the concentrated wealth and influence of multinational corporations. Thus, effective campaign finance reform would be a good idea:

In early 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech.

rhare wrote:

However, I believe you are wrong on your: It's not about "anger about others who have more."  I suspect for many (most?) of the people at the protest that is what it's about.  Only a few  understand the monetary issues or the root causes of what has occurred.  Most have no idea that living in the US they have been huge benefactors of having the worlds reserve currency for most of their lives. It's only now as the system begins to fall apart are we looking for scapegoats (the rich) - when we really need to be looking at ourselves and our past behavior.

You have to look at corporatism and Wall Street and not shift the blame on the other 99% of the population. End corporatism and militarism, in all its facets, and you will have much more resources freed-up and available to the able-bodied and hard-working citizens of this country who want to be productive.

rhare wrote:

The federal government is spending $3.5T/year. That's about 5 times the profit of the fortune 500 where many of those eeevilll rich people are making their money.  Something has too give, and complaining and going after the top 1% is not going to resolve the issue. It may make people feel better, but it certainly is not facing reality.

How much of that $ goes to the military industrial complex? 53% of Your Tax Bill goes to the U.S. military industrial complex. And it's militarism, not a military, that the U.S. upholds:

The distinction between the military and militarism is crucial. By military I mean all the activities, qualities, and institutions required by a nation to fight a war in its defense. A military should be concerned with ensuring national independence, a sine qua non for the maintenance of personal freedom. But having a military by no means has to lead to militarism, the phenomenon by which a nation's armed services come to put their institutional preservation ahead of achieving national security or even a commitment to the integrity of the governmental structure of which they are a part. ... when a military is transformed into an institution of militarism, it naturally begins to displace all other institutions within a government devoted to conducting relations with other nations. One sign of the advent of militarism is the assumption by a nation's armed forces of numerous tasks that should be reserved for civilians. - Chalmers Johnson

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Money equals

“Money equals freedom…You may lose your wife, you may lose your dog, your mother may hate you…None of those things matter. What matters is that you achieve success and become free. Then you can do whatever you like.”

You could buy a lot of dogs if you were wealthy though. Maybe your mother hates you because you don't have any dogs. So then you could buy some dogs and everything would be okay.

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
liked this quote.

It's not that I don't trust the media to accurately portray the concerns of the attendees...

Okay, yes it is, that's exactly my concern.  - CM

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
The military numbers you quoted are a bit inflated...

xraymike79 wrote:

How much of that $ goes to the military industrial complex? 53% of Your Tax Bill goes to the U.S. military industrial complex. And it's militarism, not a military, that the U.S. upholds:

While I agree that the military needs to be cut way back, that article is inflating the numbers a bit.  The 53% includes $123B for veterans healthcare.  Much of that is carry over from many past wars - and unless we are going to cut that - it's a cost we can at best begin to minimize.  They also include the entire interest $400B as though only the military accrued it.  We could have just as well allocated it to everything else and said only the military counted (it would be closer to the constitution at least).

As I said, yes, it needs to be cut - drastically, but right now and in the near future with SSN, Medicare, Medicaid and pensions having to be bailed out by GPRC, banks by FDIC, means the military will be even a smaller portion in the future.  We are going to be forced to cut everything, not just military.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Maybe it's not hopeless...

frobn wrote:

The other day Dylan Ratigan had Karl Denninger on his program to explore common ground.

You can watch the segment at Market-Ticker

That was great stuff.  I liked when Ratigan said we need to keep from having a war of ideas and instead be an Army of principle.  That has proven to be very difficult around here.  I look forward to hearing with Chris' opinion of the protest is.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
I wonder.......

Doug wrote:

This vid suggests that not all the protesters are left wing hippies:

#!

Doug

I wonder if Ron Paul was elected would "someone" lead him by the wrist, sit him down on a chair and tell him that if he doesn't toe the line he'd meet JFK too....

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
A political view from
A political view from the Market-Ticker
 
You know what the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is?

It is all the things that were in the original Tea Party, but were steadily ignored as the TP became a Republican booster club.

The Tea Party is a contradiction. They want a balanced budget, but they also want the US military to intervene everywhere. Obamacare is a dirty word, but don’t dare touch social security or medicare. Individual rights are important too, but don't push it too far. After all, republicans came up with today's policies.

There are a few nuts in the OWS crowd, but from what I hear "Occupy Wall Street" is about bringing the fraudsters to justice. Its about changing the banker/government dynamic that runs this country. It's about free markets. It's about ending endless debt. It's about stopping the wars. It's about the rule of law. It's about the libertarian soul of America.

Since the TP lost the focus of addressing the root problems of America, they remain unresolved.

It’s sad, really. The TP talks about sewer legislation, redistricting, and supporting House Speaker Boehner's plan to add $2 trillion in debt, while the real issue is Congress has spent more than it takes in, and the costs of the promises outweigh the means to pay them. In the process, you and I are less free than we used to be.

There was no place left for folks to go.

It's up to the Libertarians to let them know there is a place for them with us.

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 193
Chris Hedges

xraymike79 wrote:

Kevin O'Leary, a cut-throat businessman, and Chris Hedges, a philosopher and war correspondent, are from two completely different ideological worlds. Hedges is fully aware of the environmental collapse that is unfolding and O'Leary is just wondering how to make money off it. Sorry for the anti-capitalist sentiment there, but it's true. It appears that Kevin O'Leary has a "greed is good" mentality:                                                            

I was surprised at how completely Chris Hedges held his ground and undermined Kevin O'Leary.  Made him appear flat footed and ignorant. 

I havent seen something like that happen before, it set the interviewer back on his heals in a big way. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments