View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 22nd, 2014, 7:32 pm



Reply to topic  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 22  Next
 Occupy Wall Street 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Here's a post from someone that actually went to NYC for OWS.
http://blog.joethepeacock.com/2011/10/i ... is-is.html

wjb21ndtown wrote:
What's sickening is the disparity in the media's coverage of the Tea-party, vs this movement. They acted like Occupy Wall St. was some overwhelming, highly popular movement spreading across the Nation, and that was when it was in its infancy, totally glossed over what they were doing, who they were assocaited with, who was funding it, etc., and all of the nasty crap that they were doing, while demonizing the Tea-party, calling them right-wing, racist, crazies that want to bring down the Nation.

Yay for Mainstream Media (controlled by corporate interests mind you)

/sarcasm

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
salon wrote:
Tuesday, Oct 11, 2011 8:40 AM US Mountain Standard Time
What caused the wealth gap?
Protesters are furious over America's growing income disparity. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains where it came from

By Alice Karekezi

If you are still scratching your head trying to figure out Occupy Wall Street’s aim, you are not alone; the three-week-old movement has remained stubbornly resistant to stating clear demands. But one thing has become increasingly clear: It has managed to tap into a growing national frustration with the state of the American economy. And protesters are especially angry about our country’s increasing, outrageous income disparity. The numbers are astounding: As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth.

For anybody interested in understanding the reasons behind this economic travesty, economist Jeffrey Sachs’ new book, “The Price of Civilization,” is required reading. In the book, Sachs, who has focused much of his career on the developing world and eradicating global poverty, turns his eye homeward to examine the current economic crisis, tracing its roots not to the housing or financial bubbles of the ’00s, but to a shift in Washington toward smaller government that began in the early ’80s and has yet to be reversed.

Sachs talked to Salon over the phone to discuss the ills of small government and Reagan’s trickle-down economics, the Republicans’ and the Democrats’ culpability, and the need for more compassionate talk in politics.

You went to speak with the Occupy Wall Street protesters. What’s your opinion of the movement?

I’m very sympathetic to their message, and I’m glad that they’re protesting. I think that their key point — which is that the top 1 percent of society has run away with the income, the wealth and the power in this country — is correct. The income distribution in this country has gotten out of whack to a historically unprecedented extent and it has come with a very serious derangement of our political processes. A majority of Americans are feeling very disgruntled about both the economic squeeze and their lack of political representation.

You try to dissect the current economic crisis in your book. What do you think caused it?

This story goes back a long ways. It’s important to understand this because if we take this crisis to be something that started with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, or whatever recent event one might pick, we’re going to miss the big picture. The U.S. is facing a structural crisis that goes beyond the bursting of the financial bubble. The remedies, therefore, must also go beyond what I regard as gimmickry of a stimulus package, or a temporary tax cut – or, for that matter, even less relevant permanent tax cuts. So I try to peel back the story actually into the 1970s – from then until today.

Why the 1970s?

Beginning in the 1970s – this is crucial – the U.S. began to globalize, as did every other economy in the world. We felt it first with the competition from Japanese automobiles. But the dramatic story, of course, was the rise of China as a major world economic power when it changed its politics in 1978 [by opening its doors to foreign investors]. In the U.S., we were so focused on the Cold War and competition with a fourth- or fifth-rate economic power, the Soviet Union, that we didn’t understand that something far more consequential was occurring in the world economy.

The main effect of globalization, which is known but somehow weirdly separated from our politics, has been that those who have products, or services, or celebrity, or other things that they can sell to world markets, have found a boon in globalization. But for most of American society, and certainly for the majority of Americans who don’t have a bachelor’s degree, globalization has meant facing much lower-wage workers abroad and increasingly powerful competitive pressures. So our society began to separate between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” really in the early 1980s. And while this crucial dynamic was underway, American politics was going in almost the opposite direction.

How so?

Reagan came to office with a diagnosis, most famously put in his inaugural speech, that government is not the solution, but the problem. This was put forward as the reason why the 1970s were so shaky, why we were experiencing more instability. Reagan made a big and wrong diagnosis, with extraordinary consequences, and a lot of the country bought it.

He was playing to a lot of powerful interests [the rising Sun Belt, conservative businessmen, etc.], and the dismantling of government began, all in the service of cutting top tax rates as a theory of how to make the economy function properly. It’s a weird idea because there is plenty of evidence that government and markets are complementary parts of a healthy society – it’s not one of the other. The interests at the top benefited from globalization through market forces, tax avoidance and tax havens — and they absolutely grabbed hold of the federal government.

Each of the parties is constantly feeding at the trough of major interest groups. The Democrats, basically, were sold to Wall Street by [Bill] Clinton, and they’ve remained in Wall Street’s hands up until now. And that is one of the greatest failings of the Obama administration: the fact that he couldn’t find his way clear of the major interest group that helped bring him to office, and therefore he really couldn’t undertake deeper changes in the country.

Part of being in this straitjacket of fiscal or tax policy that Obama got himself into is that everything on the spending side has been short-term gimmicks rather than a long-term program, and it is exactly coherent with our incoherent nonstop campaign cycle. We don’t really have longer-term thinking in this country about our economic challenges.

You point to this political shift in the ’80s as a pivotal moment. What was public perception of government prior to Reagan?

When I was growing up, it was a commonly thought that America needed a mixed economy, that there were spheres of life where the market economy should prevail, and there were spheres of life where the government would be crucial. [The mixed economy] has had great history in all of the high-end democracies and there is a lot of economic reasoning behind it.

Basically, government has to be operating where the profit motive won’t suffice. The profit motive works where you have good economic competition, but if you just need one highway between city A and city B, that’s not going to be a competitive highway, so you’d better involve the government. If you want scientific knowledge in a society, for example, you don’t patent basic theorems, because everybody needs to use them, so you have to find a different way other than the profit motive to get science to develop.

I think Ronald Reagan really had a devastating effect on this. The idea that one would elect a president on the premise of demonizing government rather than making it work properly is really a shocking idea – “I’m here to dismantle the role of government.” No president since then has deviated from that line. Bill Clinton declared the end of big government. Rick Perry has been quoted as saying that he wants to make the federal government as inconsequential as possible to the American people. Well, maybe he should look for another job. That’s a lousy platform for a president of the United States.

You, in fact, call for a renewed emphasis on compassion and social responsibility.

What are our deeper economic objectives? Among these is a sense of well-being, of life satisfaction. Income can play a role in that, but so do things like social trust and honest government – and compassion for other people. This kind of discussion is considered odd and I think that is part of our problem right now. We don’t have effective ways to discuss these things in our society.

Instead, we have people who represent a cult of selfishness, what I would consider Ayn Rand libertarianism. They are political figures who say that the goal of America is to leave [people] alone, and that ideas like compassion and so on are dangerous. What the Republicans have on offer – which is based on this 30-year misdiagnosis – is cruel and deeply wrong, because they express disdain for the idea that people are suffering and they need help.

We’ve arrived at a crossroads about the real meaning of our civilization. I think that we will need to reflect on how to achieve a higher level of happiness in this country — [and think about] issues of social trust, social connectedness, decency, compassion.

And this isn’t in conflict with the American work ethic of “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps,” and everyone doing their fair share?

This [crisis] isn’t really about hard work and effort. It is about a society in which the options for a lot of people seem to be closed off right now. One of the great visions of America has been that this is a society where if you work hard, you can make it. But today we have the lowest social mobility of any high-income democracy. One of the most pertinent measures of social mobility is the correlation between parents’ and children’s educational attainment. If you’re lucky to grow up in [a middle- or upper-middle-class] household where your parents have a college degree, you have a very good chance of getting a college degree and gaining a good position in the economy. But if you grow up in a household where your parents’ highest educational attainment is a high school diploma [or less], the chance of you getting a bachelor’s degree, which is now the tollgate for middle-class success, is very, very small. That brings us back to globalization. There really were middle-class paths with a high school diploma before. Those don’t exist now.

You lay out an extensive plan for climbing out of this crisis. What are some of the steps you propose?

There is no quick fix right now. A quick fix would occur if we had hit a bump in the road of a normally functioning economy, but my point is that we had growing rot that was disguised by financial bubbles. Rebuilding the infrastructure, strengthening the scientific base, having an energy system that moves to a sustainable renewables, low-carbon economy, improving educational outcome so that more kids make it all the way through – those are 10-year projects, more or less. When the [national highway system] started in the mid-1950s it was understood that this was going to take a long time to do but that we were going to make the investment to build a whole national system.

How do you propose paying for this?

Americans have a pretty accurate picture of a lot of this [crisis]. They sense, first of all, the huge inequality that we have. They know that something is really wrong, that the top has really run away with the prize. About 60 percent of Americans wanted to repeal the Bush-era tax cuts at the top, and yet Obama ended up siding with the Republicans. I think that epitomizes the break between normal, American public opinion and policy. It reflects this remarkable, unprecedented since the period before 1929 swing toward the super-rich.

I’ve been pretty impressed by the core trilogy of what opinion surveys say America wants: tax the top, end the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and protect social spending. We ought to be going after the corporations that have, basically, a deal with the IRS that keep abroad what they earn abroad and they don’t pay any taxes on it. We should be taxing worldwide income, not just U.S.-based income.

But what about the threat of job flight if we were to increase tax burdens on corporations?

There is a phenomenon called the race to the bottom. It says, what counts for me is whether my taxes are lower than your taxes so that I can attract capital from you. If everybody ends up racing to the bottom, so there’s a tax-cutting arms race, everyone ends up being a loser. We definitely have part of that happening right now.

Every country has an incentive not to have their tax base disappear into a Cayman Islands post office box. There has been talk of ways, through shared action, exchange of information, and so on, of possibly closing down these havens. But it has to do with the way the rules are written by our own governments. One of the arguments against the taxation is that if we tax the rich, they’ll move someplace else. It’s not so simple. We need to recognize that in a global, interconnected economy, with highly mobile capital, we need some cooperation to make sure that we don’t end up with all our governments in fiscal crisis simultaneously.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/what_ca ... singleton/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 1:51 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
As a refresher, check out what some of the initial interpretations of the Tea Party was:






And even as recently as Oct 9:


If you don't realize that the liberal lamestream media attacks anything or anyone that disagrees with them by now, I don't know what to tell you. Of course they're going to smear the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain etc. because they fear them. It's what they do.

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:04 pm
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Quote:
What caused the wealth gap?
Protesters are furious over America's growing income disparity. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains where it came from
By Alice Karekezi

If you are still scratching your head trying to figure out Occupy Wall Street’s aim, you are not alone; the three-week-old movement has remained stubbornly resistant to stating clear demands. But one thing has become increasingly clear: It has managed to tap into a growing national frustration with the state of the American economy. And protesters are especially angry about our country’s increasing, outrageous income disparity. The numbers are astounding: As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth.

For anybody interested in understanding the reasons behind this economic travesty, economist Jeffrey Sachs’ new book, “The Price of Civilization,” is required reading. In the book, Sachs, who has focused much of his career on the developing world and eradicating global poverty, turns his eye homeward to examine the current economic crisis, tracing its roots not to the housing or financial bubbles of the ’00s, but to a shift in Washington toward smaller government that began in the early ’80s and has yet to be reversed.



I think this is pretty ridiculous. The premise is that small govt. creates the wealth disparity, but what small govt. does is allows the economy to flourish. Of course when that happens the wealthy are going to get wealthier, and the poor are going to stay poor. If you have something to invest you'll see a return on your investment, if you have nothing a 100% gain isn't going to do you much good... 100% of nothing is still nothing... People CAN save and people CAN get "wealthy" with a strong economy and small govt. The problem is, people choose not to.

What's worse is, what a BIG government does has NOTHING to do with making the impovrished "wealthy," it just DESTROYS wealth making things more "equal." That's just silly.


October 18th, 2011, 2:05 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Wanna hear how "brilliant" these Occupy Wall Street folks are? WARNING: NSFW for a few f-bombs:

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:13 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
It's all Obama's fault:
Human Events wrote:
Obama and Occupy Wall Street Are One
by David Limbaugh 10/18/2011 0

President Obama acts as though he merely sympathizes with the Wall Street occupiers' "broad-based frustration" about how America's financial system works, but he's doing a lot more than sympathizing. He's fanning their flames.

Perhaps we should take a look at what, exactly, Obama is supporting and contrast it with the tea party movement he so roundly condemns.

In May 2010, when a White House dinner guest suggested to Obama that racism was a motivating force behind the tea party opposition to him, he raised nary a finger of objection and even affirmed that there was a racially biased "subterranean agenda" afoot in the anti-Obama movement. About that same time, the administration had lumped the tea party protesters into a group to be monitored as "domestic terrorists."

Ever since this authentic, grass-roots movement spontaneously erupted throughout the nation, Obama and the leftist establishment have engaged in a systematic effort to demonize and discredit tea party protesters as extremist, racist and violent. Nancy Pelosi​ predicted the protests would lead to a climate of violence. In a recent interview, Obama portrayed tea party ideas as extreme positions that are rejected by "a vast majority of Americans."

Those of us who identify with the movement and have attended some of the rallies know that in their false characterizations, Obama and his supporters are either lying or projecting. The protests have been remarkably peaceful, respectful and lawful. We are talking about Americana here, folks -- people who believe in American ideals and who object to the government's bankrupting us and destroying our liberties.

There has been no tea party-instigated violence at these rallies, and there has been no racism. Bearing false witness is egregious; doing so in exploitation of the race issue is worse.

Why do we believe that in defaming tea partyers, Obama is projecting? Simply because he is a community organizer at heart with an ends-justify-the-means ethic. He has been engaged in political street agitation his entire adult life, so it is natural for him to assume his political opponents would engage in the same tactics. But they don't.

We see in the Occupy Wall Street protests -- and some of the Service Employees International Union protests that have preceded it -- the attitudes and atmosphere that prevail among leftist activists, whose aimless angst is directed at everyone but those most responsible for causing the damage they are decrying: their fellow leftists.

For a bird's-eye view of the type of protest Obama and his fellow leftists pretended to fear in the tea party events, we need look no further than the Wall Street occupier dust-ups. Here hateful and violent rhetoric abound, just as the ugly specter of racism, particularly against Jews, is in full relief, all of which are as verifiable in the YouTube videos of these protests as their absence has been in the tea party videos.

On her blog, Michelle Malkin​ cites a Denver protester saying, "There's a lot of stuff that needs to change, and it if doesn't, violent revolution will come."

He continues, "If you get the thirteen families that own the world, including George Bush and his administration, get them in front of the White House and hang them and shoot them, because they deserve that." And if that doesn't impress you, how about the protesters "calling for the beheading of 'white kids,' the 'hanging' of capitalists, and the murder of parents," as reported by the blog "Pundit Press"?

This, my friends, is representative of the type of protest our community organizer in chief claims to be "monitoring" and nevertheless supports -- the type that has led to more than 750 arrests throughout the country, compared with only one arrest in all the tea party protests.

Hindsight vindicates our early assurances that the tea party protests were not going to lead to violence because they were populated by people who honor the rule of law. Indeed, the tea partyers' lawful behavior is an outworking of their substantive ideals, just as the occupiers' lawlessness is reflective of their underlying anarchy. The former respect proper constitutional restraints; the latter more closely resemble a mob.

With Obama, it's all smoke and mirrors; nothing is as he would have you believe. Every negative thing he says about the tea partyers is false, including that they don't represent the sentiment of the American majority, which is bursting with outrage at Obama's reckless agenda.

And whereas he pretended to fear violence from the tea partyers, he is actually trying to foment unrest among the occupiers. Their lifeblood is class warfare, and he is stoking its flames every single day.

With no ideas left on his plate that a long suffering American public is willing to further indulge, much less embrace, Obama is reduced to what he knows best: stirring public discontentment and unrest, hoping that this will somehow serve his political interests.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46936

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:16 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Quote:
What caused the wealth gap?
Protesters are furious over America's growing income disparity. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains where it came from
By Alice Karekezi

If you are still scratching your head trying to figure out Occupy Wall Street’s aim, you are not alone; the three-week-old movement has remained stubbornly resistant to stating clear demands. But one thing has become increasingly clear: It has managed to tap into a growing national frustration with the state of the American economy. And protesters are especially angry about our country’s increasing, outrageous income disparity. The numbers are astounding: As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth.

For anybody interested in understanding the reasons behind this economic travesty, economist Jeffrey Sachs’ new book, “The Price of Civilization,” is required reading. In the book, Sachs, who has focused much of his career on the developing world and eradicating global poverty, turns his eye homeward to examine the current economic crisis, tracing its roots not to the housing or financial bubbles of the ’00s, but to a shift in Washington toward smaller government that began in the early ’80s and has yet to be reversed.



I think this is pretty ridiculous. The premise is that small govt. creates the wealth disparity, but what small govt. does is allows the economy to flourish. Of course when that happens the wealthy are going to get wealthier, and the poor are going to stay poor. If you have something to invest you'll see a return on your investment, if you have nothing a 100% gain isn't going to do you much good... 100% of nothing is still nothing... People CAN save and people CAN get "wealthy" with a strong economy and small govt. The problem is, people choose not to.

What's worse is, what a BIG government does has NOTHING to do with making the impovrished "wealthy," it just DESTROYS wealth making things more "equal." That's just silly.

Did you read the entire article, or did you allow yourself to be stopped by that part? I almost did myself, but I continued on with the rest of the article. Although it doesn't go into detail on this, it is my impression that the 'small govt' they're referring to is in reference to regulations. With that said, the idea seems to be that more regulation is good; personally I would've said 'correct regulation' can be good, you just have to make sure you're regulating the correct/right things.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 2:17 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
slybri19 wrote:

Of course it is.

Do you realize you now sound exactly like the ABB (anybody but Bush) crowd from a few years ago? Wow.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 2:19 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
slybri19 wrote:
Wanna hear how "brilliant" these Occupy Wall Street folks are? WARNING: NSFW for a few f-bombs:

Yup, because 1 random person in a crowd represents the entire movement. Kind of like how the southern racists represent the entire Tea Party, eh?

C'mon Sly, I expect more from you.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 2:23 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
When this gets ugly, the Dems will have no one to blame but themselves:
WSJ wrote:
Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.
By DOUGLAS SCHOEN

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images

'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrators in the financial district of New York
.Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions. While that 1970 election should have been a sweep against the first-term Nixon administration, it was instead one of only four midterm elections since 1938 when the president's party didn't lose seats.


With the Democratic Party on the defensive throughout the 1970 campaign, liberal Democrats were only able to win on Election Day by distancing themselves from the student protest movement. So Adlai Stevenson III pinned an American flag to his lapel, appointed Chicago Seven prosecutor Thomas Foran chairman of his Citizen's Committee, and emphasized "law and order"—a tactic then employed by Ted Kennedy, who denounced the student protesters as "campus commandos" who must be repudiated, "especially by those who may share their goals."

Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases.

Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:24 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
Yup, because 1 random person in a crowd represents the entire movement. Kind of like how the southern racists represent the entire Tea Party, eh?

C'mon Sly, I expect more from you.

You obviously didn't listen to it. Stern's guy at the protest interviewed several of them. With that said, I know that all of them aren't complete idiots, but I've seen plenty of videos that show that many of them are.

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:30 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
slybri19 wrote:

Of course it is.

Do you realize you now sound exactly like the ABB (anybody but Bush) crowd from a few years ago? Wow.

Did you even read the article? It's not blaming Obama for the financial crisis. It's blaming him for inciting class warfare.

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:32 pm
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Quote:
What caused the wealth gap?
Protesters are furious over America's growing income disparity. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains where it came from
By Alice Karekezi

If you are still scratching your head trying to figure out Occupy Wall Street’s aim, you are not alone; the three-week-old movement has remained stubbornly resistant to stating clear demands. But one thing has become increasingly clear: It has managed to tap into a growing national frustration with the state of the American economy. And protesters are especially angry about our country’s increasing, outrageous income disparity. The numbers are astounding: As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth.

For anybody interested in understanding the reasons behind this economic travesty, economist Jeffrey Sachs’ new book, “The Price of Civilization,” is required reading. In the book, Sachs, who has focused much of his career on the developing world and eradicating global poverty, turns his eye homeward to examine the current economic crisis, tracing its roots not to the housing or financial bubbles of the ’00s, but to a shift in Washington toward smaller government that began in the early ’80s and has yet to be reversed.



I think this is pretty ridiculous. The premise is that small govt. creates the wealth disparity, but what small govt. does is allows the economy to flourish. Of course when that happens the wealthy are going to get wealthier, and the poor are going to stay poor. If you have something to invest you'll see a return on your investment, if you have nothing a 100% gain isn't going to do you much good... 100% of nothing is still nothing... People CAN save and people CAN get "wealthy" with a strong economy and small govt. The problem is, people choose not to.

What's worse is, what a BIG government does has NOTHING to do with making the impovrished "wealthy," it just DESTROYS wealth making things more "equal." That's just silly.

Did you read the entire article, or did you allow yourself to be stopped by that part? I almost did myself, but I continued on with the rest of the article. Although it doesn't go into detail on this, it is my impression that the 'small govt' they're referring to is in reference to regulations. With that said, the idea seems to be that more regulation is good; personally I would've said 'correct regulation' can be good, you just have to make sure you're regulating the correct/right things.


Part of the problem is that Liberals fail to realize that the "evil corporations" can pack up and leave, go to China, Brazil, Germany, the UK, Mexico, Canada, etc. now with little to no consequence. They fail to see that we're in a global market with multiple countries pandering to get "evil corporations" to invest in their area. That's all thanks to Slick Willy, and has been the biggest destriction to the US economy since things tanked in the 70's. We could rebuke our "free trade" policies, but there would be consequences that I don't know if we could over-come given our energy needs and state of energy production (i.e. our ability to extract our own oil).

(BTW - Read the whole thing, attacked the initial premise)


October 18th, 2011, 2:34 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
It's not all unicorns and rainbows at Occupy Wall Street"
New York Post wrote:
Thieves preying on fellow protesters
By LARRY CELONA, LAURA ITALIANO REBECCA HARSHBARGER, FRANK ROSARIO and JAMIE SCHRAM

Last Updated: 9:35 AM, October 18, 2011

It’s a den of thieves!

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”


MONEY DOESN’T TALK:An Occupy Wall Street demonstrator with a dollar-bill gag gives voice to his frustrations with a cardboard sign yesterday in Zuccotti Park, where some protesters have proven to be crooks
see more videos Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said.

“The worst thing is there’s people sleeping in the kitchen when they come, and they don’t even know about it! There are some really smart and sneaky thieves here,” Terrie said.

“I had umbrellas stolen, a fold-up bed I brought because my back is bad -- they took that, too!”

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, of Brooklyn was furious about the thievery -- and vowed to get tough with the predatory perps.

“I’m not getting paid, but I’m not gonna stand for it. Why people got to come here and do stupid stuff? All it does is make people not wanna come here anymore,” Wyman fumed.

At one point yesterday, Wyman and other volunteers briefly scuffled with a man who was standing near a park entrance with a pail calling out: “Donations! Donations!” -- and pocketing the cash people tossed in the bucket.

Meanwhile, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was at Zuccotti late last night as he and about 50 protesters formed a human chain in front of a medical tent after police officers came over to ask about the tent, cops and protesters said.

“Jesse dropped in like a ninja,” said Stephanie Perricone, 21. “He came out of nowhere and helped us all out.”

The officers were asking about the size of the tent when the crowd of demonstrators -- including Jackson -- stood en masse in front of it.

The cops said didn’t ask for it to be taken down and the issue was quickly resolved.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... z1bA1oclj5

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 2:52 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
slybri19 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Yup, because 1 random person in a crowd represents the entire movement. Kind of like how the southern racists represent the entire Tea Party, eh?

C'mon Sly, I expect more from you.

You obviously didn't listen to it. Stern's guy at the protest interviewed several of them. With that said, I know that all of them aren't complete idiots, but I've seen plenty of videos that show that many of them are.

Listened to a couple minutes, only heard an attempted interview with 1 person (I'm tired man, haven't slept in 2 days LOL). I've also heard other 'street reporter interviews' on Stern and admittedly lumped this in with those. Stern obviously has an agenda (as does all media) and we heard what he wanted us to hear IMO.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 2:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 22  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.