Printable View
At this point any and every issue can be part of OWS/99% protests. I think it was Wraith who noted that this movement, more than anything, is a Rorschach test for those both inside and outside of the movement itself. You want it to be about these things, so that's what you see.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Nessus, I've got less time than I'd like to properly answer your post, but I hope to get to it shortly.
If so, then what you see (or don't see) is your personal Rorschach test, too. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
A majority of Americans reportedly "support" something of the Occupy/99% movement, even if the polling only taps into vague anger and frustration with the State of Our Union. Some of those surveys include questions about our trajectory (are we on the right track?), but are just as vague about causes and solutions.
There's a Left/Right and Up/Down axis---that's why there are so many elements involved, and explain the lack of one clear complaint, one clear leader, one clear agenda. The overriding point, which no one can deny, is that the American landscape is chock-full of a dissatisfied populace, with plenty of social strife getting close to its boiling point. We don't have to compare ourselves to the Arab Spring for proof or legitimacy....not if we're to accept American Exceptionalism, with our high standards as leaders of the free world.
In the US, we all know that money can buy power and favors, political positions, elections, even preferential justice. And that wealth is concentrated more in the top 1% "elite" (that includes lobbyists and legislators, as well as ex-legislators) than is healthy for our society.
Guys like Newt Gingrich probably wouldn't agree that's a problem. Not with his decades-long revolving-door political career, having pushed the [unfunded] Medicare prescription bill or Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, received million dollar payments for being a "consultant" to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac....not since it got him a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's, paid speeches at conservative events, and a line of books/DVDs to sell.
While Newt runs for the GOP nomination, all he can see is a bunch of hippies who need to take a bath and get a job, and suggest we should eliminate child labor laws so 9 year olds can replace school janitors. Yeah, those Occupy and 99% people are crazy, huh. :rolleyes:
I really wish Alan and Denny could have their piece about OWS.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
That makes me miss that show even more. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I deny it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I think most Americans, like most Britons, simply don't care too much unless asked. There's a huge, huge difference between making a response when asked (and people who refuse to answer getting ignored from those figures) - and being "chock-full" of dissatisfaction. Similarly the notion that social strife is getting close to boiling point. The reality is right now people are concerned about their own lives, their families and friends lives, Christmas, Thanksgiving (in your side of the pond) etc
Politics? Most can't even be urged to vote in most elections.
These 'great unwashed' have nothing to do with 99% of the population.
Says the man with nationalized health care. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yeah? If I lived over the pond I'd get insurance, same as most Americans too. Big deal. Doesn't make the slightest difference though - you're just as much of a lefty as Geegee is, maybe even more extreme, but if "99%" of Americans voted for nationalised health care you'd have it too. If 99% of Americans voted it'd be an amazing shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
What the hell does that have to do with anything? He'd be more satisfied with the government if they forced him to get surgery from a doctor at the bottom of his class? :weird:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Says the man who, by his own choice, lives in a country with nationalized healthcare and nationalized oil industry. Me a lefty compared to you? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Clearly according to Being, your political orientation is determined by the situation of the country you live in. :rolleyes:
Spoiler:
I'm just letting him know how hypocritical his argument about US hobos is. If he really wants to rag on socialist tendencies, he'd get a lot more milage by ragging on his own country. The US is still filled with cowboys compared to socialist Britania. Clearly his vote doesn't do any more to change UK than mine does to change US.Quote:
Originally Posted by coinich
I live by choice in the nation of my birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Anyway: Nationalised oil industry? Wtf!?
As for my vote, at the last election I voted for a party that has been elected (with the Lib Dems in coalition) and last year introduced cuts in spending averaging 20% in all departments excluding Health and International Development. Your Congress can't agree cuts anywhere near that level.
Oh, I see your government sold off all their holdings by 1989. Sorry for the error.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Are you referring to BP plc? Because hint: If you are then PLC = Publicly Listed Corporation.
Yes Thatcher sold off all government stake in that well over 20 years ago. In any case I think people who have worked for the Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch Shell may be surprised to hear that the UK ever had a nationalised oil industry.
Another hint: the Royal Dutch doesn't mean it's owned by the Dutch, or the Dutch Royalty (though they could have shares, but less than 5%). I don't think it ever used to be nationalised, but I'm not too sure.
I think Enoch, and GGT are essentially interpreting the problem the same that perhaps teh Occupy Wall Street group has some relevant complaints but that they have not outlined any clear vision for reform/resolution.
Look under UK, 1974...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...United_KingdomQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"...made the UK Government directly or indirectly BP's majority shareholder..."
The point is that UK's list is much longer than that of the US for nationalizing business so why don't you bash away at that? I mean, you have no plans to live here so why is it such a concern to you that people here want change that you object to and yet you live with everyday?
There's also few true libertarian champions either. Those that promote truly free markets and a real limit on the role of government in the life of the individual make up a vanishingly small percentage of our Congress. In fact, I'd argue that a properly weighted ideological survey of our elected representatives would be disproportionately weighted towards Center-Left. I can think of two, maybe three members of Congress who would seriously support cutting entitlement benefits, even among those who campaigned under the Tea Party banner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The choice between Right and Left, as you've noted, presents a false dichotomy, and often the outcome of the interplay between the two, either a fallacious golden mean, or a stunted, haphazard legislative lurch towards the Platonic liberal or conservative ideal produces legislation that benefits few. Often the beneficiary, the net gain of this legislation isn't a positive shift, ideologically in the direction of its adherents, but rather the interest group who has been the most vocal.
In short, I guess it would entirely depend on how you defined Left, Right, Center, and Other. What might constitute Left Lite to you is, I suspect, on the fringe of what would be the accepted Left in this country. Whether or not that is the root of the structural issues in this country, I somehow doubt.
I believe, and would agree that today's young people want to be a part of something. To counter the real and perceived errors of their parents, their leaders, and the country. I can understand and even empathize with that. I'd also agree that their inspiration might be found in demonstrations from generations past.Quote:
Further, the OWS was heavily influenced by the Arab Spring (as silly as that might sound); young, maybe idealistic people saw something that resonated in themselves and attempted to emulate it to combat the wrongs they perceived around them. And then there's your history with the hippie movement, and yes even the civil rights movement. You see what I mean? I'm trying to say that these were motivators and things they're attempting to emulate, not (necessarily) that they're doing the same sort of God's work as the previous mass movements in the US.
You missed off part of the quotation; "though commercial independence was maintained. The shares were all sold during the 1980s."Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The oil industry was never nationalised. BP may have had government shares but BP is not the only company in the UK anyway.
Anyway I don't get what your point is because why would I bash away at the 1970s? Yes the UK used to have a lot of nationalised industries before I was born, yes they were privatised in the 80s when I was a child. What is your point? I think Thatcher was our greatest PM since Churchill. I don't get your point and think you're being a bit of an idiot and trying to play a distraction game here.
How can you deny the main point, that a "majority" of Americans are dissatisfied with the 'state of our union'?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That can mean reasons economic, social, political, judicial, legislative.... Congress has a pathetic 9% approval rating, our education and healthcare systems are routinely ranked low (especially when compared by dollar-cost-to-results, and to other developed nations), Big Banks and Big Business rate lower in trust than used car salesmen, many/most youth feel disenfranchised, overwhelmed by debt, and can't find a job, many seniors feel their only option is to work until they drop dead, 1/4 of American children are living in or near poverty, 1/6 of American adults are poor or working-poor, 50 million have no health(insurance)care, 46 million are relying of food assistance, home values continue to decline in most areas, and a massive number are 'underwater' and/or in some stage of foreclosure. While our economy has been stagnant or grown at stagflation levels.
Over-the-Pond folks may not read our daily news, but there is social strife which used to be suffered in private, now coming out into the public forum. Whether it's Ohio or Wisconsin or Florida, there are protests to recall Governors and overturn voter registration laws. Whether it's CA or WA, there are students protesting tuition hikes and cuts to education budgets.
The Occupy and 99% protests are mostly an expression of long pent-up frustration and anger, but all are related to our ethical or moral failure to thrive---as individuals or as institutions. They've accomplished highlighting awareness of these things, and making it part of the national conversation, in public. It's not a Hobo movement. That's a ridiculous moniker assigned by those who want to dismiss or de-legitimize their valid complaints.
Truly freee markets is a utopian dream, or at least something well before its time. Due to globalization, developed vs developing nations, variable standards of living and COL, and currency valuations. Perhaps our great-grand-children will have Freee Markets, after all nations have the same basic/base minimum requirements. And poorer nations aren't ruled by tribal-element 'economic terrorists' who control their nations' prosperity. [Or richer nations aren't selling them food aid or weapons in exchange for their oil reserves.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Then we agree---that R vs L is a false dichotomy, just as R vs D is a false "choice"? And that interest groups (aka lobbyists) with the loudest voice can be those with the most money....due to the Citizens United decision that equated money with speech.Quote:
The choice between Right and Left, as you've noted, presents a false dichotomy, and often the outcome of the interplay between the two, either a fallacious golden mean, or a stunted, haphazard legislative lurch towards the Platonic liberal or conservative ideal produces legislation that benefits few. Often the beneficiary, the net gain of this legislation isn't a positive shift, ideologically in the direction of its adherents, but rather the interest group who has been the most vocal.
Although your reply was to Nessie, I want to reply to (and agree with) what you've said. First, that our youth want to be part of something that moves us forward as a nation; second, that our "structural" issues can't be blamed on L or R, D or R---but previous generations in general; and, finally---that after X amount of time of silent or background social strife, past methods of protest are being used.Quote:
In short, I guess it would entirely depend on how you defined Left, Right, Center, and Other. What might constitute Left Lite to you is, I suspect, on the fringe of what would be the accepted Left in this country. Whether or not that is the root of the structural issues in this country, I somehow doubt.
I believe, and would agree that today's young people want to be a part of something. To counter the real and perceived errors of their parents, their leaders, and the country. I can understand and even empathize with that. I'd also agree that their inspiration might be found in demonstrations from generations past.
I welcome the protests. Voting hasn't done a damn thing to change our structural deficits for decades. How could it--when we have a two party dominant structure that benefits those with monied benefactors, and our "choices" are limited between those two? :confused:
No, we don't agree. I don't equate money and power. There are plenty of interest groups without substantial bankrolls that are both vocal and powerful in politics. You seem to think that money is necessary and sufficient, I do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I also disagree about the solution. As long as the government retains authority that extends beyond the simple necessities, it is not only susceptible to corruption, it invites it.
Okay, then give me some examples of valued "interest groups" that don't have big bucks behind them. Enough to gain legislators' or regulators' favor. Something like the entire Gulf coast fishing and tourist regions not having enough money or power to stand against oil companies, or the legislators and regulators that favor them ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Alternatively, cite just ONE group of poor people that holds power status in its own right [without needing a caucus, sub-committee, or lobbying group with enough money to influence legislators].
Yet, what other entity can fight corruption on a coordinated basis, other than our governmental agencies? Even when they don't work at optimal levels? That's not so much a "solution" to our problems, but trying to create an even playing field. The Freee Market is a fallacy, as is believing Freee Marketeers can "police" themselves. The last five years has proven that, with some very painful examples for the US.Quote:
I also disagree about the solution. As long as the government retains authority that extends beyond the simple necessities, it is not only susceptible to corruption, it invites it.
If you disagree, I'd like to know why. Give me some REAL examples.
When those with enough money can buy a different set of justice (eg well paid private lawyers getting their clients home arrest without any bail money paid up front, vs public lawyers whose clients spend a year in jail before trial because they can't post any bail--not even from a bailbondsman) it's pretty hard not to be cynical about our system of "justice". Or see justice--and law--can be bought by the highest bidder.
Nice way to shift the argument from "you must have money to matter" to "you must matter to matter". Of course any interest group with influence is going to need some mechanism for exerting that influence, but that influence need not be money. Church groups certainly have a lot of influence despite having no direct role over the funding of candidates. The NRA and the Sierra Club have substantial influence despite not having much money. Unions do provide funding, but their influence is much higher than those funding levels would indicate. The same is true of the AARP. The key criteria for being an influential interest groups are: being well-organized, having large membership, and having a permanent structure. It just so happens that each of those factors make it easier to raise money.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Poor people have a growing 'membership', and are a permanent structure in society. Just so happens that people without money aren't automatically "well organized", most likely due to their struggling economic status. Relying on a church or union affiliation, or the AARP doesn't mean the poor or working poor are well-represented, either.
There's no specific lobbying group for "poor people", the "unemployed" or "underemployed", comprised of just those people. They're too busy trying to put food on the table or find a job, so they have to rely on any influential and well-funded group to lobby for them, even in secondary or tertiary goals.
So yeah, in today's political climate, they have to hope people with money will take up their cause, to matter as people without means...in order to gain legislators' attention.
Today's political climate means a GOP with people like Gingrich proposing a legal second class of illegal immigrants with "work papers" and 9 year olds replacing janitors, Bachman saying those not working should not eat, Cain wanting to electrocute border fence climbers, Romney wanting to see more home foreclosures with families on the streets or declaring bankruptcy, but investors making money, and who the hell knows what Perry proposes--when he can't remember himself.
Using your logic, if money equals power, then the following gedankenexperiment experiment should hold true.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If a wealthy radical Islamist decided to run for office here, (let's stipulate stupendously wealthy, dropping a billion dollars on his campaign wouldn't be a problem, and further stipulate that he was running for president) he would easily be elected because he has the money, therefore he has the power, correct?
As Loki pointed out, the NRA's income amounts to 50 some odd dollars per member, per year. Is that big bucks? They clearly exert power because of the size of their constituency, not the amount of income they take it. PETA totals about seventeen dollars per member.
If your point is large groups of like minded people can advocate effectively in a democracy, I don't think many people will disagree with you. Maxims are strange like that.
Cite one group of poor people who can't organize or become a group?Quote:
Alternatively, cite just ONE group of poor people that holds power status in its own right [without needing a caucus, sub-committee, or lobbying group with enough money to influence legislators].
More importantly, you don't think politicians pander to the poor? Who do you think social welfare programs are for? The rich? Do you think the war on poverty was undertaken because, glosh darnit, Lindon B. Johnson just really liked them po folk?
The free market isn't a fallacy, believing that the free market is the cause of the problems we've been facing the last five years is, to wit, what we are currently operating under in no way approaches a free market.Quote:
Yet, what other entity can fight corruption on a coordinated basis, other than our governmental agencies? Even when they don't work at optimal levels? That's not so much a "solution" to our problems, but trying to create an even playing field. The Freee Market is a fallacy, as is believing Freee Marketeers can "police" themselves. The last five years has proven that, with some very painful examples for the US.
Changing the goal posts yet again? Your point wasn't about poor people; you asked for ONE example of any group without much money exerting significant influence on politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Poor children for one. Working poor for another. Sure, they could "organize", but what are the odds they could do that, and become effective non-union or non-lobbyist groups, without some seed money from like-minded activists....with money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Funny you mention that when 'Corporate Welfare' and 'Congressional Insider Trading' is in the news recently, with bipartisan criticism. Besides, when politicians advocate for social welfare programs, that means public money is involved. Many progressives consider that part of government's role---to represent minority groups and/or those without means to have an office on K street.Quote:
More importantly, you don't think politicians pander to the poor? Who do you think social welfare programs are for? The rich? Do you think the war on poverty was undertaken because, glosh darnit, Lindon B. Johnson just really liked them po folk?
The fallacy is believing we've ever really operated in that theoretical Freee Market people love to talk about.Quote:
The free market isn't a fallacy, believing that the free market is the cause of the problems we've been facing the last five years is, to wit, what we are currently operating under in no way approaches a free market.
Okay, then give an example of a group without much money that exerts significant influence on politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Erm, you mean the NRA doesn't? :confused: NAACP? Sierra Club? Evangelical churches?
Do you consider those to be groups without much money "backing" their cause? :confused: They're so strapped for funds, they can't afford slick TV commercials, or donate to political campaigns, huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You should consider a career in soccer. With your skill in moving goal posts, you'll never allow a goal in.
This is very funny:
More here.Quote:
Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters
It's almost as hilarious as when in the medieval times they drew out misfortunate people's guts for the glee of the crowd. Let's all clap our hands.
I know hey :p they sure knew how to deal with people in medieval times!
Bit cruel on McDonald's that. What has McDonald's ever done to deserve that? ;)
They also knew how to deal with fraudulent bankers, and it wasn't camping in front of their houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Modern society has put lots of fraudulent bankers in jail.
Name one in the UK who was thrown into prison in connection with the 2008 financial crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sill Hazir, that wasn't fraud. That was the Free Market being free.
Don't recall there being criminal activities in the UK, where there has been people have been convicted.
It was the free market at work like it is at work when people sell cocaine that consists mostly of baking powder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
A normal thinking person would have concluded there was no investigation for the simple reason the poodles in Whitehall didn't want to spook their buddies in the City. You know, the same people who persistantly threathen to leave London if London is not a nice doggy and plays dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade