Quote: Fair enough, but you don't you're sugarcoating one a little more than the other here?
It's possible... not intentional, but possible.
Quote: I mean, you lay out the Tea Party principles, and then leave them at that, so they sound logical and respectable. But then you leave out the action that makes it seem silly. Their path to these goals are to elect GOP candidates who have proven to be catalysts of the antithesis to their goals,
Is that less reasonable than the action of the OWS crowd which seems to be to give the people in Washington who caused the problems a boatload of new power to fix it? I don't like all of the people who have risen to power under the tea party flag, I do like some... at least they are searching for new people.
Quote: Now you can say that the Tea Party didn't like what business was up to either, or that the Wall Street folks don't trust government, either, but there's an ideological split that seems arbitrary to me.
Both entities - government and private business were in collusion together. Seems odd to blame one or the other, and suggest that either are the solution to our problems.
It's not arbitrary at all. Business exists to make money for it's owners, investors, shareholders, etc. Government exists to protect the interest of the people, all the people. So who failed me? Government. Whose fault is it that regulations were written to favor the banks and not the people? Government. Who wrote regulations to take all of the risk out of making money for the banks? Government. Who is responsible for controlling the money supply and how it is introduced into the economy? Government. Who is responsible for holding business accountable when it acts illegally? Government.
And I'm not, and I don't think anybody is, in favor of 100% deregulation of business... they need some level of regulation, just stop giving them money AND writing laws so they can use that money and their power to screw us with our own money. If people got up in arms about the seperation of business and state half as much as they do about some of the stupid trivial aspects of the seperation of church and state... we would all be better off. I guess if church's had billions of dollars to float election campaigns, churchs would probably get a better deal.
Quote: Is that less reasonable than the action of the OWS crowd which seems to be to give the people in Washington who caused the problems a boatload of new power to fix it?
No, it isn't at all.
My point was, maybe you're looking at one group with a little bias or leniency.
Quote:
And I'm not, and I don't think anybody is, in favor of 100% deregulation of business... they need some level of regulation, just stop giving them money AND writing laws so they can use that money and their power to screw us with our own money. If people got up in arms about the seperation of business and state half as much as they do about some of the stupid trivial aspects of the seperation of church and state... we would all be better off.
I agree 100%.
Though I will say I think people often advocate things that would lead to total deregulation without thinking it through. There's a penchant for sort of promoting whatever the ideals of a free market would be, based on the ideology that comes with adopting so-called conservatism.
For example, and I'm not trying to pick on him, YTown said earlier that if taxes were lowered on business, then consumer costs would go down as well, which simply isn't true. Hell, companies have decimated production costs by moving to countries where labor is dirt cheap, and there aren't regulations and they pay little for land ... and prices often rose.
And business has its own problems that aren't necessarily tied to government. Rising profits without satiation has become a huge problem, but most don't like that, because to point that out as a flaw is to somehow not be a capitalist. But rising profit margins aren't always the bottom line; sometimes bumping up profits a percentage or two has long term negatives. And, I'm not saying I want the government to regulate that, either. It's on businesses and the people who run and support them to realize that maybe profits rising from a 6% increase to a 12% increase isn't the best of ideas if it has negative impact on the basic integrity of the company and jeopardizes future earnings.
I actually had a long talk with a few OWS supporters last night, and asked some questions about the sort of world they were looking for - i.e. are you OK with only owning like three shirts that you paid $200 for? Are you ready to have the same couch for 20 years? Are you ready to have to walk five blocks every day for a bagel?
If you want to pay people a living wage, the lifestyle that we know in America is gone. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but a lot of the time - OWS and Tea Party - I don't know that these people know exactly what they're asking for.
Quote: My point was, maybe you're looking at one group with a little bias or leniency.
And I addressed that. I said it's possible... it's not intentional but it's possible.
Quote: Though I will say I think people often advocate things that would lead to total deregulation without thinking it through. There's a penchant for sort of promoting whatever the ideals of a free market would be, based on the ideology that comes with adopting so-called conservatism.
Some people may think they want no regulation but then when you tell them what that means, they will likely back off.. just like when people claim they want a bunch of regulation and you start telling them how easily that could morph into things THEY LIKE being regulated, they back off..... Most people want a result and haven't put 100% thought into how to achieve it and the possible side effects of that. Ytown has stated, as have I, that we both want LESS regulation and SMARTER regulation... Whatever regulation is in place should be to protect us and the regulation that is currently in place largely protects THEM...
Quote: For example, and I'm not trying to pick on him, YTown said earlier that if taxes were lowered on business, then consumer costs would go down as well, which simply isn't true. Hell, companies have decimated production costs by moving to countries where labor is dirt cheap, and there aren't regulations and they pay little for land ... and prices often rose.
What something costs to make is only part of the equation that goes into how much it costs you or I to buy... in the end, they will sell it for the highest price we are willing to pay.... If something costs them $4 to make and they can sell it for $6 then that is what they will do, if they can make it for $3 and still sell it for $6 then THAT is what they will do. Making it for $3 and selling it for $6 gives them more short term profit and greater flexibility to adapt to a changing market in case they DO have to drop the price, but they won't drop the price until the market dictates that they have to in order to keep selling the product. Ytowns premise is true if applied evenly and given enough time to take effect. If everybody in the market sees the price of production of a product fall, over time, if allowed to move by market principles, they should compete with each other and the price of that product should drop to find a new equilibrium..... Your premise that we have seen companies move overseas and make things cheaper and we have not seen the price drop does not account for the other market forces, for example, a company out of China may have been making a product for $7 and selling it on our market for $10, an American company might have been selling the same product for $10 even though it cost them $9.80 to make... so if they move manufacturing to India and can now make it for $7.50, they will still sell it for $10..
So there are two ways to make American products more competitive in our market (that government has some control over).. either put tariffs on imports, thus giving our companies a competitive advantage or reduce taxes and regulation to make American manufacturing cheaper... there are good and bad associated with both approaches, neither is ideal or without consequences.
Quote: I actually had a long talk with a few OWS supporters last night, and asked some questions about the sort of world they were looking for - i.e. are you OK with only owning like three shirts that you paid $200 for? Are you ready to have the same couch for 20 years? Are you ready to have to walk five blocks every day for a bagel?
If you want to pay people a living wage, the lifestyle that we know in America is gone. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but a lot of the time - OWS and Tea Party - I don't know that these people know exactly what they're asking for.
I have made the same argument myself many times. If you want to pay every manual worker, janitor, unemployed person $20/hour then eventually inflation will catch up, a loaf of bread will be $15, a cotton t-shirt will be $40, a modest home will be $600,000... and guess what happens to people who went from making $7/hour to making $20/hour? They STILL can't afford to live.
We could have an interesting side conversation on what constitutes a "living wage".. next time you see your OWS folks ask them that. What should a living wage cover? A house? How big? How many cars? How many vacations and where? What level of cable for DirecTV is one entitled to? How many electronic toys should somebody on a "living wage" have? My instinct tells me that they believe that everybody from the janitor to the unemployed should not just have a "living wage" as defined by meeting your necessities, but rather a middle to upper middle class lifestyle....
- Shelter with electricity, heat and cooling (yes, cooling)
- Food.
- Necessary clothing (a living wage should enable one to purchase a suit with moderate savings effort)
- Phone bill. That's where we're at now. If someone applies for a job and doesn't have a phone ... they're probably not going to get the job
- Enough to provide decent medical coverage. No one should avoid a check-up because they can't afford it.
- a little spending cash. Enough to buy some books, or go out a few nights a month, or get an internet connection, etc. Just because someone has a low-end job doesn't mean they shouldn't be entitled to a little entertainment, and in America that costs money.
I know some may take issue with some of that, and that's OK ... I remember the last time I mentioned that a living wage should provide for some A/C, a friend ranted that he'd lived in hundred degree heat when he was first out of college, and it was miserable, but he simply couldn't afford air conditioning and so on ... and I asked 'And you think it should be that way?'
Good answer Phil, I can get behind most of that... now let's talk about degrees because that is where the devil lies... in the details.
First off, for how many people should this apply? And by that I mean should a "living wage" be enough to provide yourself with those things? You and a spouse that doesn't work? You and a spouse that doesn't work and a kid? 2 kids? 3 kids? 4 kids?
As far as the other things, A/C, a little spending money, I have no qualms with that as long as people understand that the spending money is the first to go if there is a problem, if you need additional medication for some reason or if your A/C breaks and you have to get it fixed, I'm sorry, maybe you don't get to go out that month.
I also think some things are regional. You didn't list transportation, should the person own a car? In NYC probably not but in some places it is almost a necessity if you are going to hold down a job. I agree that a phone (I would think a cheap cell is better than a home phone if you have to make a choice.. note cheap, not an iPhone with a $150/month data package. )
The other things are about degree.. what constitutes "shelter"? A roof, a bathroom, a small kitchenette, HVAC and a door that locks?
I do think that the "spending cash" is where some people get hung up, myself included.. what about a tv? cable? should they have a tv, cable AND an internet connection, AND books AND a few nights out a month? You are now up into several hundred bucks a month....
You also didn't mention some of the other things people have a problem with... like spending $250/month on smokes because they have a right to smoke... or $8/day on beer because they just need it to unwind... and then of course there are the other illegal things people spend their money on...
How much money per month do you think it takes to provide the things you listed? You can either do it in NYC or give me a range because here in Raleigh, I'll bet it takes less than half of what it would take in NYC... with the biggest difference being shelter and recreation...
Occupy Wall Street campground becoming spot for vagrants, ex-cons & 'takers' to call home BY Christina Boyle DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, October 23rd 2011, 4:00 AM
Enticed by the allure of free food and a community of open-minded people, increasing numbers are leaving New York's shelters to join the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
"I think this is a better situation to be involved with," said Matthew Maloney, 49, who was released from prison on Sept. 30 after serving time for a probation violation.
Maloney moved into a shelter in Staten Island and learned about Occupy Wall Street while watching television. Then the ex-con headed to Zuccotti Park on Oct. 13 and never left.
"I am around a good cause and around positive people, rather than in that other environment," he said.
Maloney has drifted in and out of the state prison system for more than three decades for a variety of crimes, including robbery and possession of stolen property.
"Everybody is being real with each other here," he said. "This is like a 'Twilight Zone.'"
Bronx couple Yvette Vigo and Orlando Nieves say they were forced into a shelter a year ago when they could not afford their rent.
They are in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which decries corporate greed and social inequality. The couple intends to stay at the park as long as possible.
"I feel safer out here than I did in a shelter," Vigo, 45, said. "It's a big area with a lot of kind people."
Nieves volunteers on Occupy Wall Street's security team, but says many new arrivals do not pull their weight.
"We have compassion toward everyone. However, we have certain rules and guidelines," said Lauren Digioia, 26, a member of the sanitation committee.
"If you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back," Digioia said. "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled."
Quote: "Everybody is being real with each other here," he said. "This is like a 'Twilight Zone.'"
So the Occupy Wall Street Movement is real ........ like the Twilight Zone?
That explains a lot.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: ...and they don't see the irony in their dislike for the behaviour of their new "members". Too funny.
Kinda sucks to be hoisted on their own petard, huh?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
As for the takers, and the rules... lol. You guys keep looking for reasons to hate this movement instead of trying to understand it. I'm trying to understand and watch what's going on here.
This thing keeps growing. There are no leaders to target and that scares the hell out of the 1%. I think this is the start of serious changes... problem is, what kind of changes?
I saw a story the other day, looking for it but can't seem to find it. Basically said the OWS is growing and the things they stand for are slowly being defined. It started because average Americans know something is wrong in this economy, they're suffering while those who caused the recession thrive. They're losing homes, pensions, benefits while do nothing to deserve it.
The average OWS protester may not be able to vocalize their feelings in an economic or political basis but they know they've been screwed.
So tell me - you seem to understand this "movement". Exactly what do they want?
Also, since I am DECIDEDLY in this 99% - what's the whole goal? Why are they speaking for me?
I've heard snippets from these protesters that they can't pay their student loans - or they lost their house, etc..
They do know our economy is in a recession, right? They do know they are partially responsible, right. (in fact, I wouldn't be wrong if I said they were majoritally responsible - since they claim to be 99%.)
They do understand, don't they, that almost every country is in a similar position, right?
Fill me in on what the scoop is. The way it is, I see this "movement" as whiners thinking they are entitled to what others have. Perhaps I'm wrong?
Do they have a point other than "we want what the rich have?"
Not everyone hurting is at fault. Many were working and leading productive lives before the housing bubble burst. Is it the construction workers fault that corporate America, the Banks, Wall Street and the Federal Government set the rules to allow the biggest fraud of all time to be committed against the American People? People feel like they stole our future. They STOLE it. People are mad as heel about that.
The 1%, those that profited are the current object of that fury.
That's a neat letter. But, it doesn't answer my question: What do these occupiers want???
What's going to "fix" it for them?
Everything he wrote about is true, and has been since forever. If I lose my job, it's only understandable that I get a new one, or lose what I worked for, is it not?
I understand about student loans. (trust me, I understand)
He lists all these problems - but he doesn't say what he wants to "fix" them.
I can only go with what I feel I guess. He lists no answers - just problems. Life is full of problems, and it has been forever - since the beginning of man.
My feel is that he wants more guarantees for this supposed 99%. (and honestly, if he, or they, want to include me in their tripe - at least let me have a say. Let me have a vote. Something. Perhaps they should say "we are the 98.99999% - because they don't speak for me.)
My feel is they see the "rich" and are envious.
Plus, while college profs are legit, they lean so far to one side it's ridiculous.
Sadly, I think that does say it all. It is a long list of grievances and complaints and sob stories with absolutely no thoughts or recommendations on how to fix it. Which is how I view OWS...
I lost everything (or somebody I know did) and other people didn't, therefore somebody owes them.... The last time people felt like this was the great depression and we ended up with a bunch of unsustainable social programs designed to not let people fail which are crushing our budget today and have created a dependent state among large groups of people... and from what I can tell, OWS's best idea is to double down on that strategy again.
I'm not a big fan of large corporate banks, I'm not a big fan of our governments spending, I'm not a big fan of our fed policy and I'm CERTAINLY not a fan of what the 3 of them can do when all working together... but they have to come up with a better message than "My life sucks, somebody needs to make it better" if they want more people (especially me) to take them seriously.
99% of the 99% have no idea what they want other than they want things "fixed"... I firmly believe that if you get to the root of it, most of them want to make enough noise to be taken seriously so that government will intervene and "fix" their problems by taking from these evil rich people and and providing people with a very nice safety net so nobody ever fails again no matter how hard they may try.
I'm tired of hearing how some people have to struggle "in the richest country in the world"... we didn't become the richest country in the world through government hand outs, we became that way through innovation, risk, hard work and a genuine set of commonly held values... and one of those values was that people need to be personally accountable...
It's sad they this supposed "99%", are reduced to envying the top 1%. Sad commentary on our society. They've been reduced to going after the 1%.
Should they succeed - then what next year? There's no more money to go after.
Reminds me of Biden griping about how this jobs bill will put more police in the field. What about next year, when the money for them isn't there?
Ah, they get laid off. And, back to square 1 again. Thanks China, we'll borrow money from you, pay you interest, take 30% or so for the red tape gov't. jobs, AND we'll give you aid money with our loan from you.
That's one heck of a circle to be in. Just a midwestern boy here - but that sounds like a tornado to me.
You asked "Exactly what do they want?" I think the answer is opportunity. Opportunity to live free, productive lives without all the influences of corporate greed.
What solutions are they offering? Your guess is as good as mine. Right now I think they are just letting those in charge, those that make the rules, those that control the world know they have had enough of the status quo. They are demanding change, undefined change at the moment but change non-the-less.
I'm watching, I like what I see happening, I'm not involved.
I think the "what do they want, specifically" will be defined as time goes by and they continue to grow. This thing will continue to grow.
There is no one, or nothing, holding back people from "making it". Now, it's important to realize that not everyone "makes it". That's just life.
If I had a great idea, I guarantee I could get the loans to bring it to fruition - just as you could, or anyone could. (and get this - those loans would have to be paid back.)
No, I see this as more about people that are envious. Opportunity is looking them in the face (with the understanding that not everyone will be making a million a year, or a hundred grand a year). Opportunity means taking advantage of what you have to offer, and getting lucky. The "lucky" part means you become wealthy with dollars. Taking advantage of what you have to offer means getting a job and living within your means.
Quote: You asked "Exactly what do they want?" I think the answer is opportunity. Opportunity to live free, productive lives without all the influences of corporate greed.
This same group of people, at least those old enough, had absolutely ZERO problem with corporate greed 12 or 13 years ago when this country was making a new millionaire every 35 seconds because any grunge punk with a computer was coming up with an idea and selling it to some greedy corporate ... for millions of dollars.
20 years before that interest rates for a new home were 17%, gas was being rationed, and our economy was in the crapper...
Many of the greatest success stories in the this nations history started with humble beginnings during the worst of times... and none of them became success stories because the government deemed it so.
Quote: They are demanding change, undefined change at the moment but change non-the-less.
Anybody who has observed our government for more than... oh say 20 minutes... who isn't scared by that is a moron. There is a 99% chance that whatever change they get will be detrimental in the long run if they don't really know what they want.... they will latch on to the first politician that stands before them and spews the right talking points, then do you know what you will have? the liberal equivalent to the tea party... a well intentioned group being led right back to barn...
Quote: they will latch on to the first politician that stands before them and spews the right talking points, then do you know what you will have? the liberal equivalent to the tea party... a well intentioned group being led right back to barn...
Pretty much.
OWS and the Tea Party would both do themselves a favor if they came together to form a party and rallied around a candidate ... doesn't matter who, because they're not going to win. Ideology isn't even the main concern - the point would be to try and get the 5% necessary to get public funding and debate inclusion.
I don't know that either side could do it on their own, and the alternative is what you see with the Tea Party right now - a neutered co-op of the GOP.
In the end, the Tea Party folks will vote overwhelmingly Republican, the OWS people will vote Democrat, and there we'll be once again.
Quote: OWS and the Tea Party would both do themselves a favor if they came together to form a party and rallied around a candidate ... doesn't matter who, because they're not going to win. Ideology isn't even the main concern - the point would be to try and get the 5% necessary to get public funding and debate inclusion.
I understand the reasoning to get debate inclusion, but they are significantly different ideologies, so that would be a very interesting debate (how could they answer questions when the 2 factions believe so differently?)
if the Tea Party wants to truly be taken seriously, then they need to throw their support behind Rand Paul instead of Bachmann/Palin. honestly, I think the reason it has not gone that way is they believe Obama is going to win his 2nd term and it's more poignent to target the 2016 election (or at least that is what I am hoping since they sure don't seem like they are targeting 2012 with their actions)
i am not sure which candidate from the OWS side would be best suited for their role.
You guys are looking to argue your points, and you have good points, but all I'm doing in this thread is watching this movement. I don't have all those answers. A lot of this I don't understand either.
I agree with you that work is the answer to being broke, and a man should only get what he earns (with exception to basics; food, shelter; clothing; medical care.). BUT unlike you I'm fascinated by what and how they're doing it. No leadership, they rotate leaders. No media support, social media driven. You don't even see coverage of the police beating and arresting them. If this was a black thing or a 60's equal rights/anti war protest it would be news.
Yet they are growing at a tremendous rate. While you (or I should say people who see this the way you do) talk about how pointless it is, misguided it is... it just keeps growing. Stop and ask yourself why?
You say all it is is whining. I say look at how many people around the world are responding to that 'whining'.
I don't have a clue if this will fizzle out at some point, but right now it's not showing an signs of that. And I think they are making the powers that be nervous. Why so little media coverage? Why so much police and legal resistance? They just keep coming...
I said this not long ago in another thread but it's worth repeating here. Power comes from those who allow you to have it.
Money, politics, laws, governments, philosophies, institutions... they are all just tools used to maintain structural hierarchy for power. When those that give you this power over them or allow you to have power over them decide to take it back, your tools become meaningless.
The OWS seems to be attacking the tools. They're calling for people to take their money out of the banks on 11-11-11. What's next? Politicians? Laws?
Quote: I understand the reasoning to get debate inclusion, but they are significantly different ideologies, so that would be a very interesting debate (how could they answer questions when the 2 factions believe so differently?)
I don't think either groups truly know what they want, and I think that they have quite a bit of common ground.
Both movements were formed due to the failures of government/corporate collusion.
Governments and corporations are playing with taxpayer funds like it's Monopoly money and burning down the house. There's you common ground. Both sides should be all-in on that point, based on their expressed ideologies.
And like I said, the point isn't to have a candidate everyone agrees on. This candidate will not win.
Quote: if the Tea Party wants to truly be taken seriously, then they need to throw their support behind Rand Paul instead of Bachmann/Palin.
I think Rand Paul killed his electability in the presidential sphere when he made those comments about the Civil Rights Act.
Quote: honestly, I think the reason it has not gone that way is they believe Obama is going to win his 2nd term and it's more poignent to target the 2016 election (or at least that is what I am hoping since they sure don't seem like they are targeting 2012 with their actions)
I think they think they're going to beat Obama in 2012.
But, man, they're just emptying clips into their feet. If they were smart they'd nix all of these debates ... they're killing themselves out there.
As it stands, Romney is their only chance, and I don't know that he can pull it off as of now.
I don't think (at least I v'e seen no evidence of political affiliation) the OWS have a "party", as a matter of fact I think they have stated that they don't back a party.
I think their only agenda is to level the economic playing field. Redistribution? Regulation? Hand-outs (bail-outs)? Protests? Riots? Revolt? I can't say what method(s) they would accept or use to accomplish this but they seem determined to be heard.
Let's get one thing straight, okay? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this.
I just don't understand what it is they want. And, since you follow it more closely than I do, I'm asking. It seems like you don't have an answer either - at least to the "what do they want" question.
You say they have no media support. Honest question: Shouldn't the media just report, and not take a side?
As for not seeing the cops beating and arresting them............I haven't seen any, although I read today about people in Oakland being arrested. Not for protesting though - for protesting where they shouldn't be.
If I were to set up in your yard, with 1 other person, or 150 other people - would you call the cops and have us removed and/or arrested? Let me put it this way - if you were on my property, I would call the cops.
The people in new york? I've not heard that they were arrested. Have they been?
You continually say you don't know what they want, they don't know what they want - but we'll find out at some point in time.
I'm saying what they want is guarantees of things that no person is guaranteed. If they don't know what they want - how is anyone else to know?
I didn't know about this "take your money out of the bank on 11-11-11 thing." If they want to, that's their right, and their ability to do so. What will that prove? IF they do it, one of 2 things will happen: 1 they'll get robbed, or 2, they'll put it in another bank.
If they want to protest - why not do it in DC? After all - congress makes the rules/laws.
Quote: They're calling for people to take their money out of the banks on 11-11-11.
This will be a big test of their power.
Wanna bet that almost no one shows up to withdraw their life savings on that particular day?
I mean, seriously ....how many people are involved at all of these "events" combined? Let's give them the benefit of every single doubt there is and say that each protester is really 5 or 6 protesters .... then let's go high side ..... then let's double that .... and let's call it 100,000 protesters.
We already know that many are being paid by unions to be at the rallies. We know that others are there to score drugs. We know that others still are there to freeload off of their fellow protesters. (irony of ironies)
But anyway ... let's give them 100,000.
The Greatful Dead used to have 40,000 or so "Deadheads" follow them all over the country on tour.
Let's keep this thing in perspective. If they somehow organize into a movement with political might behind it .... them who knows? I think that's unlikely though. What are they going to do .... pull Democrats further left? They already did that in 2008-2010.
I'll be curious to see if there are any OWS candidates popping up around the country. Somehow, unless it's already an incredible liberal district, I doubt it.
I just see this as a false movement, without a message at its core. They have no guiding principles, other than "It's not fair that those people have stuff we don't!". That's a failed message, because most of the country is busy working to try and get the stuff they want, or out looking for work so they can support their families. I honestly do not believe that anywhere near a majority of people in this country want to take from people to give to others ..... and many don;t even realize just how much some give in taxes already. Polls show that the "rich" don't pay enough .... yet the rich already pay more than what polls often show as the most that anyone, rich included, should have to pay in taxes.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Let's get one thing straight, okay? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this.
I just don't understand what it is they want. And, since you follow it more closely than I do, I'm asking. It seems like you don't have an answer either - at least to the "what do they want" question.
You say they have no media support. Honest question: Shouldn't the media just report, and not take a side?
As for not seeing the cops beating and arresting them............I haven't seen any, although I read today about people in Oakland being arrested. Not for protesting though - for protesting where they shouldn't be.
If I were to set up in your yard, with 1 other person, or 150 other people - would you call the cops and have us removed and/or arrested? Let me put it this way - if you were on my property, I would call the cops.
The people in new york? I've not heard that they were arrested. Have they been?
You continually say you don't know what they want, they don't know what they want - but we'll find out at some point in time.
I'm saying what they want is guarantees of things that no person is guaranteed. If they don't know what they want - how is anyone else to know?
I didn't know about this "take your money out of the bank on 11-11-11 thing." If they want to, that's their right, and their ability to do so. What will that prove? IF they do it, one of 2 things will happen: 1 they'll get robbed, or 2, they'll put it in another bank.
If they want to protest - why not do it in DC? After all - congress makes the rules/laws.
I don't think you're being a jerk.
I don't have the answer to the question 'what do they want'? I don't think anyone does, that's what I'm trying to tell you. BUT history is full of small events like this that eventually take form and turn into change.
I did not say they have no media support. I said little to no media coverage. If I did say support, that's not what I meant. And yes, they should only report. Just go to youtube and facebook then search for "occupy wall street", you will see all the news not being covered. Hundreds are being arrested. Cops are beating and macing 'non-violent' protesters.
If you tried to set up in my yard, first I'd find out WTF? Then if I thought you were wrong I'd sick my dogs on you. Or run you off at the point of a gun. But my yard is not publicly owned, like the streets they are protesting on. And I didn't steal millions of peoples future, so I can sleep well at night knowing you won't come for a reckoning.
Again, I don't think they are looking for handouts as much as opportunities. Many can't find jobs, many are in trouble through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. The world is not black and white on this one.
They are in DC, they're in Chicago, Seattle and many more cities. They are in many countries. You need to go look on Youtube. Spend some time watching the reports, this thing is huge. We're not talking about a few thousand people, I'd say 100's of thousands are protesting if not well into the millions world wide. And yet they don't make the evening news...?
And the bank thing, they want people to take their money out of Citi, BOA and other large banks then deposit in small local banks or credit unions. The ones that did not need bailed out.
I'm not trying to avoid your questions but a half hour on youtube and facebook would put a little perspective on this for you.
Quote: They're calling for people to take their money out of the banks on 11-11-11.
This will be a big test of their power.
Wanna bet that almost no one shows up to withdraw their life savings on that particular day?
I mean, seriously ....how many people are involved at all of these "events" combined? Let's give them the benefit of every single doubt there is and say that each protester is really 5 or 6 protesters .... then let's go high side ..... then let's double that .... and let's call it 100,000 protesters.
We already know that many are being paid by unions to be at the rallies. We know that others are there to score drugs. We know that others still are there to freeload off of their fellow protesters. (irony of ironies)
But anyway ... let's give them 100,000.
The Greatful Dead used to have 40,000 or so "Deadheads" follow them all over the country on tour.
Let's keep this thing in perspective. If they somehow organize into a movement with political might behind it .... them who knows? I think that's unlikely though. What are they going to do .... pull Democrats further left? They already did that in 2008-2010.
I'll be curious to see if there are any OWS candidates popping up around the country. Somehow, unless it's already an incredible liberal district, I doubt it.
I just see this as a false movement, without a message at its core. They have no guiding principles, other than "It's not fair that those people have stuff we don't!". That's a failed message, because most of the country is busy working to try and get the stuff they want, or out looking for work so they can support their families. I honestly do not believe that anywhere near a majority of people in this country want to take from people to give to others ..... and many don;t even realize just how much some give in taxes already. Polls show that the "rich" don't pay enough .... yet the rich already pay more than what polls often show as the most that anyone, rich included, should have to pay in taxes.
Ytown, I think a lot more are involved. I'm not sure that the 11-11-11 will do anything, but this is the second time they called for it. The first time, demonstrators showed up at banks all around the country. Go to Youtube for evidence.
I've seen a lot of ... in my years, but I've never seen anything grow like this, including the Tea Party. They are one month or so old and have 100,000's of followers world wide. Just google it and dig a little. You'll see what I'm saying.
Quote: They're calling for people to take their money out of the banks on 11-11-11.
they do realize that banks go by what is called 'soft money' and if they were actually successful doing this then they would cause a 'run on the banks' akin to the 1920's.
Quote: You guys are looking to argue your points, and you have good points,
I'm not looking to argue.. I'm looking for something from this group that I can either agree with or argue with... honestly they remind me of some of the middle east protests lately who all want to get rid of the dictator and have no idea what will fill the void when it's gone...
Quote: You don't even see coverage of the police beating and arresting them.
I've seen quite a few of the "beating videos" and I can honestly say that you could change the name of the video from "Police beat non-threating OWS crowd" to "OWS crowd gets out of control and has to be restrained" and the title would fit just as well.
Quote: Yet they are growing at a tremendous rate. While you (or I should say people who see this the way you do) talk about how pointless it is, misguided it is... it just keeps growing. Stop and ask yourself why?
Because it always happens this way? Because there are a lot of people who are fed up with the economy and the government and are looking for someone to blame? Because it looks like a cool thing to be a part of?
Quote: Why so little media coverage?
It's on the news almost every night, what do you want?
Quote: Why so much police and legal resistance?
Because they don't want it turn into full blown anarchy and rioting with death and destruction of property? Which it would.
Quote: Power comes from those who allow you to have it.
Money, politics, laws, governments, philosophies, institutions... they are all just tools used to maintain structural hierarchy for power. When those that give you this power over them or allow you to have power over them decide to take it back, your tools become meaningless.
Power is given to those you allow to have it over you, not the other way around. And people generally don't give up power easily once they have it... It takes a lot more than a bunch of people sleeping in the park or chanting about the evils of corporations to coerce those with the power to give it up..... and this group, while it looks big in the videos, is really not all that big on a national scale... and I bet that if every one of them walked into their big bank tomorrow and withdrew all of their money, the big banks wouldn't feel a blip.... and they can throw their support behind a political candidate but there are a lot of people who do NOT like this group who would just work harder for other political candidates....
But in all honesty, about what you say above..... This is one of my problems.. there is a reason that the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--" .... as soon as you decide that your rights come from the government, which many Americans did long ago... then you get your rights at the governments discretion... but when you live by the rule that your rights come from God, then you realize that government is not the answer to your problems. Over many decades we, as a nation, went from believing that our rights come from God to believing that they come from the government... and now we are all upset because we think that the government applies them unevenly or unfairly... gee, who saw that coming?
And my biggest skepticism with this whole movement remains that they want government, who is a big part of the problem... to fix the problem... and that can't happen UNTIL SOMEBODY FIXES GOVERNMENT.
