Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BloodBird]

An open letter to that 53 guy.
Definitely worth the read. One of the better explanations I've read of the 99% desires and motivations.

Good read, but the author lost all my faith on this;

"And is this really your idea of what life should be like in the greatest country on Earth?"

Emphasis mine. I'd disagree here and there could be many, many arguments for why. I won't bother with the flame-fest though and just say, it was an okay read.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Translation: "I want to make a jab but still feel like I'm above the debate."

It's clearly a discussion about an American problem between American citizens, and you take issue with someone making a clearly patriotic/nationalist sentiment? Are you really taking issue with someone for expressing positive sentiment for their respective country, or just taking the comment in a literal phrasing to 'take offense' rather than make a substantive commentary at the topic at large?

[Seriphyn]

An American problem tends to be a world one. Anyway, right now, this Occupy thing has spread to other cities in the world. Whether they have any coherence is up for debate.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

The post he quoted was on topic about the USA's financial crisis.  Whether it impacts the rest of the world is irrelevant to the point I made.

[BloodBird]

Translation: "I want to make a jab but still feel like I'm above the debate."

It's clearly a discussion about an American problem between American citizens, and you take issue with someone making a clearly patriotic/nationalist sentiment? Are you really taking issue with someone for expressing positive sentiment for their respective country, or just taking the comment in a literal phrasing to 'take offense' rather than make a substantive commentary at the topic at large?

The topic at large is irrelevant to me. I don't care to much to educate myself on the specifics and thus should not take part in the discussion at hand. However.

The link I followed and the work I read in there made sense to me in general and I agree with it's contents, minus one line, thus it was' well made' helping to make even this non-American care about his laid-out views. However commenting on it's quaity was clearly a mistake as I ended up commenting on my view on the line I'm in disagreement with, even when I did not want to de-rail the discussion with my views.

Ergo, I had to explain myself elsewhere, and did.
I did not intend to make a jab at the guy, I did however dislike his jab at all not-America nations out here and states so clearly. Foolish of me.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

Tonight's activity has been intense and at moments, moving so rapidly it is hard to keep up.

Live streams from all over the U.S. and several other global sites: http://occupystream.com/

2 examples of people being denied the right to enter a banking establishment they are customers of and denied the right to close their accounts:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/bank-of-america-refuses-to-allow-customers-to-close-their-accounts-at-occupy-santa-cruz-video/

The second example involves the bank manager locking the protesters IN the building, still denying them the right to close their accounts, and then claiming they were trespassing and had them arrested:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-protesters-reportedly-arrested-for-closing-their-accounts-call-the-ceo/

Video footage of police arresting a woman standing on the sidewalk outside the bank for seemingly inexplicable reasons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8&feature=player_embedded

Way to go fellas, takes 5 of you to "subdue" one woman not really putting up much of a struggle.

I believe in property rights, if the manager wished to bar them access, fine.  They should leave peacefully and file a lawsuit for being denied access to their accounts.  However, to lock them IN the building borders on unlawful detention, I'm not holding my breath on anything getting done about that.

Confrontations with police were piling up in American cities as police, under the guise of removal of "semi permanent structures" and other pretenses, moved in during early morning hours.  I'm postulating for just one moment, that this is typical intimidation and frustration tactics.  Protesters have tended to sleep in shifts during the times when this half of the world is dark and these moves came right in the middle of that period of time.  While the majority of protesters were released after being rounded up and told they must move to some other location, prompting a middle-of-the-night march of some distance with camping equipment.  This is meant to weaken morale and solidarity and is par for the course here in a country that purports to hold "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as among its most foundational principles.  With tensions running high, many protesters resist police pressure to be subdued, bound, or otherwise detained...which results in their actual arrest.

In many cases, and most hauntingly familiar in Chicago was the cry in unison, "The whole world is watching."  This line was famously chanted in 1968 during the riots that accompanied the Democratic National Convention.

Also, on a brief personal note, I used to live literally half a block and across a street from Grant Park, the idea that Grant Park is "closed" past 11pm on a Saturday night is ludicrous.  In fact, I would be willing to bet with protesters, police, and media attention there, LESS illegal activity is taking place in that park if a protest is happening than if not.

In New York, protestors swelled into Times Square, at times, often nose-to-nose with lines of police attempting to keep the streets open to traffic.  After repeated orders to back up or face arrests, the crowds roared back at them, "YOU back up."

Yesterday, Rome saw some of the most violence as "black hats" (professional or vacation rioters, not peaceful demonstrators) moved in among a massive march across the city, looting and causing mayhem.  Police unleashed tear gas into the crowds in quantities that at times seemed disproportionate to the actual number of trouble-makers and greatly disrupting the demonstrations.

Berlin, as well was a major flashpoint as a locked-arm sit-in style protest before the Reichstag building was broken up with tactics that bordered on disturbing and brutal.

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/319158_226479340745486_100001502658355_612761_854835470_n.jpg

I leave you with this thought:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
- Mahatma Gandhi

Edit: A quick perusal of our 4 major U.S. media outlets front pages shows that three of them have the typical "there's parts of the United States that isn't New York?" mentality and the last has nothing about protests "above the fold", their lead is a report on GOP candidates' fundraising efforts.  This is after nearly 4-5 hours of continuous confrontation and strife in dozens of cities across the country throughout the night and early morning.

GREAT WORK NEWS MEDIA, KEEP IT UP, WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU!!!!

[orange]

In New York, protestors swelled into Times Square, at times, often nose-to-nose with lines of police attempting to keep the streets open to traffic.  After repeated orders to back up or face arrests, the crowds roared back at them, "YOU back up."

Based on a Police Officers Training (which includes the Continuum of Force.

1. Persons become confrontational towards Police, beginning to endanger the lives of themselves or others (closing streets to traffic without proper planning can have this effect). Police mode changes from standing-by & monitoring to one of heightened awareness.

2. Persons begin to threaten the police themselves (by pushing against the line).  Pepper spray, tasers, and other non-lethal means used to gain compliance with police directions.

3.  Persons charge at officers.  Police draw firearms in self-defense and shoot charging individuals.  (Has not happened yet)

In the above scenario, based on their training, the police have likely done exactly what they were taught to do.

if the manager wished to bar them access, fine.  They should leave peacefully and file a lawsuit for being denied access to their accounts.  However, to lock them IN the building borders on unlawful detention.  I'm not holding my breath on anything getting done about that.

I would say it is unlawful detention and that can only be tested by someone pressing charges against the bank.  It would be excellent for the case if there was a group of individuals in the bank who were not there to close their accounts and had places to be (like work).  The case would test the justice system at this trying time.

That's nice, thats not the point, the point is Wall Street robbed the US of 100's of billions of dollars, and have power and influence in the White House. Corp's should not have any influence or authority within any Government. Think of this as the new church and state.

"Wall Street" - you mean all those publicly traded companies in which Americans (and the rest of the world) work?  Or are you talking about the traders, who bet the market would go down and were rewarded for their foresight?  Or the banks who received bailouts and who have largely paid the money back?

If the American people want to punish the connection between the corporations they work for and the representatives they elect, then they need to elect new representatives when the opportunity arises.

However, by the same measure, they must be willing to accept a government which is not going to guide its business dealings based on the desires of a particular district's representative/state's Senator.  The Congress would have to be willing to bar itself from intervening in authorized acquisitions/government spending projects in order to ensure the corporations within their districts get part of the contract and the associated jobs.

The government-corporate-people relationship is an interesting one.

An open letter to that 53 guy.
Definitely worth the read. One of the better explanations I've read of the 99% desires and motivations.

The point is that the Occupy movement does not actually represent viewpoints of the 99% of people they claim to represent.

Also, the author fails to recognize important conditions that separate the 1950s from the 2010s.  In 1950, a not insignificant portion of the world was finishing up rebuilding after World War II and others were just preparing to transform their countries (China).  The United States, especially between 1945 & 1950, was the world's industrial powerhouse as the rest of the world got back on its feet.  Workers were in demand and could not easily be replaced and thus had real bargaining power.

Fast-forward to the 2010s.  The United States is no longer the industrial powerhouse it was in 1950.  China has ascended and has had (1) a larger pool of workers willing to work for much less for almost 3 decades.   Major corporations are creating jobs elsewhere because they can not afford to expand at home.   It may not even be from the US to another country, but from Washington to South Caroline (Boeing is building an aircraft assembly plant in SC and it has the Washington based Union very concerned) or Colorado to Alabama (United Launch Alliance is consolidating).   Non-American companies have built plants in places like Montgomery, Alabama in the past 10 years because it made financial sense to them.  When an American has an idea they want to realize, they do not pay another American to do the work.  The interconnected world allows them to pay a fraction of the "Made-in-America" cost to have it "Made-in-Slovenia" or "Made-in-China."

Arguing for a return to the prosperity of the 1950s without thinking through what made the prosperity of the 1950s possible only sets us up for failure.

[Julianus Soter]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_destroys_ca.html

Zizi Elnagouri, a voluble native of Alexandria, Egypt, has spent five years selling pastries on the corner of Cedar and Broadway. She whirled her hands as she spoke, flapping her apron to make a point. “From the beginning of this, we lost all our business,” she lamented. Elnagouri took matters into her own hands, venturing out into the square to tell the occupiers “we are out of business.” Some were glad and others sympathetic. But Zizi was shocked. “I couldn’t believe they were American. Do you see how they look? What they are wearing? I don’t believe. This must be the Third World!” Zizi is accustomed to well-fed New Yorkers in suits, not people begging for free doughnuts. “Sometimes they buy coffee … it depends on who gives them money. I feel sad for them. It’s hard for Americans to start the day without coffee.” But although she said the destitution in the square reminded her of the Third World, the occupation didn’t strike her as another Tahrir. “We were fighting for a big, big thing: for life, to eat, against a giant snake that would kill us.” Unsurprisingly, she employs a smart breakfast metaphor: “Here, they’re not fighting to eat, say, regular bread, but … special bagels or something.”

[Z.Sinraali]

The point is that the Occupy movement does not actually represent viewpoints of the 99% of people they claim to represent.

With a 54% favorable rating and no less than 68% agreement with any of the general complaints they're making, I'd say they're doing pretty well on that representativeness thing.

[Julianus Soter]

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/#ixzz1ay7PPVhu


Who on earth could disagree with this question, in the way it is phrased here?

Answer: people who actually know what the protests are like, are about, etc.

[Z.Sinraali]

Have you ever actually made an argument for something you believe, Soter? All I ever hear from you is how self-evident your position is.

[orange]

The point is that the Occupy movement does not actually represent viewpoints of the 99% of people they claim to represent.

With a 54% favorable rating and no less than 68% agreement with any of the general complaints they're making, I'd say they're doing pretty well on that representativeness thing.

68% of 787, not 1001.  No less than 535/1001 or 53.5% of the individuals polled agrees with the general complaints.  It appears we are just as divided on the Occupy Movement as we are in Congress.

But my issue is not with the complaints; I accept and agree with some of their complaints.

I disagree with their preferred solutions.

I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire).  I think it will reduce the drive of many individuals and start-ups.  10.5 million US households (2.59 people) are millionaires or ~8.9% of Americans.

I think it is a bad idea to prosecute corporate executives if they did not actually break any laws.   They may have built a house of cards, but I am unsure if any actual laws were broken.  The precedent set is scary.

I think it is a bad idea for the US government to manage the economy.  I am ok with the government regulating activities between member states (interstate commerce) and with other country-states (export/import).  Managing and regulating are different things in my opinion.

[Mizhara]

'Punish success', yeah that particular load has been bandied about here too. It's nothing of the sort. It's quite simply that once you get a personal income that allows you to 'pop by Dubai in the Learjet for a cup of coffee with gold in it' you can also afford to pay a few percent more in taxes without losing your lifestyle or capacity for expansion/more investment/further success. It's a sad fact that the richer you get the less you have to actually pay in taxes, percentage wise, once you can afford to start messing around with the legal loopholes, 'invest' in political campaigns conducive to further tax cuts and so on. Especially since the average guy (like myself with a paycheck I can live slightly normally with as long as I forgo certain 'luxuries') often pays more percentage wise.

This is insane. Less money to begin with and then MORE is taken from you?

If you'll excuse me, I have to find the local equivalent of Wall Street and pitch a tent.

[orange]

I did not say keep the tax system as is.  I said "I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire)."

This does not mean, "do not close the loop-holes that exist" or "do not institute a luxury tax."

Choices like  "pop(ping) by Dubai in the Learjet for a cup of coffee with gold in it" could carry with them some high taxes outside of taxing the actual income of the person.  Owning a Ferrari or Learjet can have taxes in it that the majority never see because they are buying VWs, Fords, and Toyotas or a plane ticket on United or British Airways.

Taxing the person who chooses to maintain a used-Toyota for decades, literally wears out the products they buy, works to allow their children to do whatever they want to do and makes it into the "millionaire" club because they worked at it seems like a bad idea to me.  Are they successful?  Yes!  Could a tax system based on just net-wealth/savings punish them for their hard work?  Yes!

I am suggesting the solution is not "Your net-worth is in excess of 1-million USD, therefore you should be taxed more than the guy whose net worth is only 10K USD."

I am suggesting that perhaps activities, like maintaining a license on a twin-engine aircraft and buying the fuel for the jet, could carry taxes that unless you take part in them, you do not have to worry about.

You can go pitch a tent if you like.  I agree the discussion needs to happen, but I am also very worried about where it will lead and if, in the US, it will be a place I want to live.

[Dex_Kivuli]

It's a sad fact that the richer you get the less you have to actually pay in taxes, percentage wise, once you can afford to start messing around with the legal loopholes

I find these types of sentiment quite interesting. The argument that's usually made in favour of having low taxes for the wealthy is that taxes act as a disincentive to work, and people earning a lot of money often have the greatest ability to work a bit more to earn more. That often translates to more economic expansion, and more tax revenue in the end.

The double edged blade of providing poor people with welfare (in all of its forms), is that it creates what are called 'welfare traps': a poor person knows that if they work more, they'll stop getting benefits/food stamps/whatever, and that when you factor this in they only get paid a miniscule amount for an extra hour of work. Therefore, the poor person faces an effective tax rate that's often monstrous.

But the other thing is that the richer you are, the more you can pay accountants etc to search for the loopholes for you. The best solution to this is to simplify the whole bloody system. Remove all these specific taxes, and benefits, and deferrals, and exceptions, and charge everyone the same amount of tax. Ultimately, if everyone pays the same percentage, rich people are paying a LOT more tax anyway: the same percentage of a larger base is more dollars.*

Unfortunately, governments don't like it. And, as a result, you see a large part of government tax revenues provided by middle-income earners.

*and, from an economic perspective, this is more efficient too.