Quote :

"That's an exaggeration. In reality, businesses are just running leaner, but it doesn't always mean people are being overworked. It just means you only hire who you really need to. All the credit is being hogged up by the banks right now in the form of excess reserves, which means businesses can't grow."

I think this hits the nail right on the head. Companies are running extremely lean in part because we're in an economic environment that leaves no room for error. Businesses and banks are afraid to hire and invest capital because the situation is so uncertain, so fubared, that they would rather sit on their money in case things get worse rather than burn it investing in people and equipment only to have the economic rug pulled out from under them. After all, hiring people costs money, and if you're not sure demand will hold up to keep them employed for more than a couple months, why hire?

How you break that cycle, I don't know (tax cuts, stimulus or whatever), but having the political yahoos creating artificial crises while the global is already in a massive crisis certainly doesn't help. Contrary to what some protestors think, most businesses prefer to reinvest their profits and expand to make more of profits rather than horde their cash, but the current political and economic climate doesn't give them many options.

10/11/2011 12:17:11 AM

Quote :

"does 20% of the population even have a degree? in order for this to be true, wouldn't that mean something like 70% of the population have degrees (with 20% having shit degrees?) The numbers just don't make sense. Unemployment is too high for that to be possible."

Obviously that's not the only factor. It's one contributing factor.

Quote :

"There's just no proof to support that claim. None. Period."

Quote :

"20%+ of the population can't all have gotten shitty degrees. "

...but I hear a lot of bitching about "We have all this student loan debt and no jobs!" Well, first of all, how is that corporate America's fault? Second of all, regarding the education bubble I was talking about...you know all those people who went to college despite not being all that capable and/or not wanting to pursue a profession that should need a college degree in the first place? I mean, I think we're certainly in agreement that too many people are spending too much borrowed money on degrees that aren't worth that much--what do you think those people majored in? Engineering? Computer programming? Architecture? Design and ergonomics? Statistics?

I think not. It's not a stretch to assume that It would be a stretch to assume anything other than that we have a glut of college grads who paid way too much for degrees that are worth not a whole lot.

Quote :

"Gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that one. Working 80 hours a week for months on end because a company doesn't want to take on more people is not sustainable in the long run. I'm talking from personal experience. People working because their feet are close to the fire might have some short term benefits, but I can't see this lasting."

There is probably some degree of that. The pendulum will surely swing back some. That still leaves a significant number of jobs that can only be characterized as "fat that was trimmed."

Quote :

"You don't. But you do see leaders of the republican party saying, "get a job, hippies." That's pretty lame, if you ask me."

That is pretty lame (in many cases...not so much in some others). But, what do you want them to do? Force businesses to hire unneeded workers for the sake of charity? Go back in time and not let those people waste 4 potentially productive wage-earning years of their lives on the pursuit of an overpriced and undervalued degree that they should have had the good damned sense to avoid to begin with? Magically shit out unnecessary government jobs to be paid for by everyone just for the sake of boosting unemployment numbers?

We've already extended the hell out of unemployment benefits. If you aren't brand new to the workforce, you should have put yourself together an emergency stash of cash to last for a little while, too. If you didn't, too fucking bad--I would much rather have done all sorts of fun stuff rather than putting that money away, but I didn't, and if I end up unemployed, I'll be fine for a good while if I have to be.

I don't really know what the solution is, here. Beds were made for years, and now they will have to be slept in for a little while. Sure, some of the individuals are not themselves guilty, but I don't know what you want to do about this stuff.

Quote :

"They might add a few ron-paulian's and upset moderates, but I doubt they'll get any support from far-right leaning people. Just my opinion, but I don't see that happening. I don't think they're gonna add any tea-partiers, though. At least not the mainstream tea-partiers. the taxed enough already crowd is likely going to want to protect the interest of the so called "job creators" even if it goes against their own best interests."

I think that if they ditched all the leftist/populist/anti-business/anti-rich people/protectionist shit, and took on a somewhat more professional tone (i.e., didn't appear to be a primarily a bunch of chanting hippies fucking around with bongos), and correctly couched their anti-corporatist message that the problem is "political in nature", i.e., that it's primarily an issue of fucked up federal government, you'd be shocked at the support they could garner within the libertarian factions of both parties (the GOP wing being the larger of the two, obviously) as well as a sizable chunk of the Tea Party crowd.

The Tea Party has long-since been hijacked by the decidedly non-libertarian factions of the GOP, but they still carry a lot of vitriol for fucked-up federal government. At the moment, they are rightfully spring-loaded to oppose these protesters, though, because the protesters are largely approaching it from an anti-corporation rather than an anti-corporatist standpoint.

Quote :

"anyone that supports Occupy Wall Street and/or the Tea Party but isn't voting for Ron Paul is a certified retard. You can't say you stand for one thing and then vote against the only candidate who supports what you claim to want."

Minor point of contention:

Gary Johnson

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2011 12:39:31 AM

Quote :

"...but I hear a lot of bitching about "We have all this student loan debt and no jobs!" Well, first of all, how is that corporate America's fault? Second of all, regarding the education bubble I was talking about...you know all those people who went to college despite not being all that capable and/or not wanting to pursue a profession that should need a college degree in the first place? I mean, I think we're certainly in agreement that too many people are spending too much borrowed money on degrees that aren't worth that much--what do you think those people majored in? Engineering? Computer programming? Architecture? Design and ergonomics? Statistics? I think not. It's not a stretch to assume that It would be a stretch to assume anything other than that we have a glut of college grads who paid way too much for degrees that are worth not a whole lot."

I think this is part of the frustration the protesters have.

Because of the pervasive corporate influence on our culture, people think it's okay to believe that just because someone doesn't have a desire to work in a technical field, then it's their own fault if they are poor.

Corporations have been very successful and tricking people into thinking that rote profit motive is the most noble pursuit, and this flawed ideology has lead to the suppression of more independent small businesses and creative careers. This type of thinking was largely responsible for the debt crisis.

If I were these protesters, i'd have their benchmark be the repeal of laws that would make publicly traded companies liable for putting people over profits.

10/11/2011 1:21:32 AM

Japan must be running real lean and efficiently since they've kept the fat off the payroll for 20 years.

One might say that the vast majority of the military is made up of fat since the military is a jobs program for people who would not be that competitive in the private market. Is there really any difference between someone with an english degree on unemployment and someone with an english degree in the military? In both cases, we are spending money to get negative returns. Luckily, we are about to slash defense spending.

Productivity doesn't grow by cutting jobs. Productivity grows by developing technology that produces more output per unit of input. The technology develops through investment. In fact, you are more likely to develop a technology when you hire more people, not fewer.

The cutting back that is going on is simply to clean up balance sheets. It is not to free up money for future investment. Money is not a problem. Credit is freely available at low rates to anyone who wants to invest, but companies don't make investment decisions based on credit availability. They make investment decisions based on expected revenue. Since no one expects to sell anything, no one is investing in anything (other than the stock market, which has gone up while income has remained flat).

10/11/2011 1:34:41 AM

^^That's the kind of silly shit that will rightfully doom this movement to comical footnote status.

You want to demand that businesses primarily not primarily be in the business of making money?


Also, if someone wants to get a history degree or an English degree, then that's great. We need that. Just recognize that highschool teacher and editor are not jobs that, on average, pay as much as engineer or chemist.

Hard science and engineering are fucking hard, for one thing--the supply is lower because there are fewer people that can do it. Also, it's a little more important that the bridge doesn't collapse than it is for the sentence structure to flow well. Finally, corporations haven't "tricked" anyone--nobody's laying claim to the most noble pursuit, the most valuable ones (in terms of dollars) are pretty well established and not a secret.

Quote :

"One might say that the vast majority of the military is made up of fat since the military is a jobs program for people who would not be that competitive in the private market. Is there really any difference between someone with an english degree on unemployment and someone with an english degree in the military?"

There is a shitload of fat in the military. There are people who are talented and work hard, and there are those who are little, no, or even negative value added but are retained anyway. That's a whole other subject.

At any rate, yeah, there is a fucking big difference between someone in the military with an English degree (assuming they aren't in that latter aforementioned category) and someone unemployed with an English degree. Not in terms of GDP, but then there's no difference in productivity terms between a habitual felon rotting away in prison and, say, a Congressman, teacher, police officer, doctor, etc.

Quote :

"Productivity doesn't grow by cutting jobs. Productivity grows by developing technology that produces more output per unit of input. "

1. That's exactly what I said. Productivity is up; jobs are flat (roughly speaking).
2. It's been a while since I took the calculus series at NCSU, but if you cut job while holding output constant (or in this case, increasing it), you would then, by your definition, increase productivity.

Of course, to fully realize the benefit, you need to then increase input, which we haven't done due to lack of demand, because we aren't there yet...but the simplified answer is not to just hire back nonprofitable positions. There will come a time when they are profitable.
[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 1:40 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 1:45 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2011 1:35:05 AM

Quote :

"i'd have their benchmark be the repeal of laws that would make publicly traded companies liable for putting people over profits."

Could you elaborate on this?

Quote :

"Because of the pervasive corporate influence on our culture, people think it's okay to believe that just because someone doesn't have a desire to work in a technical field, then it's their own fault if they are poor."

You don't have a right to choose your own salary in the field of your choice. This is merely accepting the reality of supply&demand, not corporate influence. If people choose to enter fields that happen to be low paid and difficult to find employment just because engaging in that field makes them happy. One persons priorities are not an emergency on the part of society.

Do the wanna-be actors waiting tables in Hollywood not deserve to be poor? If not, what are we as a society going to do with all the surplus waiters that higher pay would engender? Why do the rest of us deserve to be poorer as perfectly productive accountants, dentists, and engineers quit school to pursue their dream of acting or liberal arts? Especially now that the government has corrected "the pervasic corporate influence on our culture" by equalizing pay at gunpoint.

10/11/2011 1:47:43 AM

^^ Productivity isn't up. Where are you getting that impression from?

10/11/2011 1:56:10 AM

Quote :

"...but I hear a lot of bitching about "We have all this student loan debt and no jobs!" Well, first of all, how is that corporate America's fault? Second of all, regarding the education bubble I was talking about...you know all those people who went to college despite not being all that capable and/or not wanting to pursue a profession that should need a college degree in the first place? I mean, I think we're certainly in agreement that too many people are spending too much borrowed money on degrees that aren't worth that much--what do you think those people majored in? Engineering? Computer programming? Architecture? Design and ergonomics? Statistics? "

I'm not gonna sit here and defend every degree. You can check the PM for specific details if you want. Some will find a way to use theirs, and some will not. But when unemployment/underemployment is at 20% or higher, it's really hard to believe that this is even a relevant counter-argument. Unless you are of the opinion that 1 out of 5 Americans are redundant in the workforce (and have been for quite some time before the recession), I don't see how you can seriously see this as an argument even worth hanging your hat on. The mere fact that unemployment in this country has been below 5% or so in our past should serve as a good example that we as a country can, AND HAVE, found a way to get people to work.

If unemployment was at 5%, then I could understand the "get it together Grouch! Get a job, Grouch" argument. It would still be callous, but at least it would be somewhat substantiated. But when almost a quarter of the population is suffering, it's hard to look at it from any other viewpoint of a systemic issue that needs to be addressed.

So whatever bitching you're hearing, I'd chalk it up to selective hearing as well as selective representation. There's just no way that 20% of the country became worthless when the unemployment rate was one at a record low of 5% the decade before.

Quote :

"We've already extended the hell out of unemployment benefits. If you aren't brand new to the workforce, you should have put yourself together an emergency stash of cash to last for a little while, too. If you didn't, too fucking bad--I would much rather have done all sorts of fun stuff rather than putting that money away, but I didn't, and if I end up unemployed, I'll be fine for a good while if I have to be."

I don't think these people are protesting for entitlements. I haven't heard that, so I don't think it's fair to project that desire on to them. Not just yet, anyway. But, for you're argument about personal responsibility. Guess what, this has been going on since at least 2008. That's three, going on four years of recent graduates not being able to enter the workforce. I don't think these people are protesting to bring down the establishment, I think they are protesting that they aren't being given access to the establishment. 3 years of college grads who come out mostly, on average, of $20,000 in debt (regardless of degree) with no job prospects in sight IS GOING TO DISRUPT THINGS. How can it not? And there's no end in sight. A few more years of this, and we'll effectively have a generation of college educated kids who can't break into the workforce, and that's no good for anyone. I'm willing to bet we are going to hear a lot more about the fresh graduates who haven't been in the workforce long enough to establish a safety net, or graduates who can't break into the workforce in the next coming days/weeks.

The protests across the globe that have really sparked change (for better or worse) have all been from the youth who are frustrated about their inability to get into the workforce. I have no idea where this is headed, but I imagine the frustrations will be similar.

Quote :

"There is a shitload of fat in the military. There are people who are talented and work hard, and there are those who are little, no, or even negative value added but are retained anyway. That's a whole other subject."

I'm not trying to demonizing your contribution. BUT, you gotta admit, the military can afford to have fat because the military is in the killing people business. And right now, brother, business is a boomin'.


[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 2:07 AM. Reason : lt. aldo raine]

10/11/2011 1:56:30 AM

Quote :

"I'm not gonna sit here and defend every degree. You can check the PM for specific details if you want."

That's fine, it's not all that relevant to the next thing I said, anyway.

I mean, I understand the frustration of a lot of people...but again, what's your solution? Like I said, I don't really know what the solution is, here. Beds were made for years, and now they will have to be slept in for a little while. Sure, some of the individuals are not themselves guilty, but I don't know what you want to do about this stuff.

Quote :

"There's just no way that 20% of the country became worthless when the unemployment rate was one at a record low of 5% the decade before."

Obviously that's not the only factor. It's one contributing factor.


and

There is probably some degree of that. The pendulum will surely swing back some. That still leaves a significant number of jobs that can only be characterized as "fat that was trimmed."

Quote :

"I'm not trying to demonizing your contribution. BUT, you gotta admit, the military can afford to have fat because the military is in the killing people business. And right now, brother, business is a boomin'. "

I'd say it's more because of a stupid promotion and retention process, to make a long story very short. That, coupled with the fact that it isn't profit driven.

With all those people out there to be killed, we actually CAN'T afford all the fat. I take a lot of issue with the way a lot of stuff works (or doesn't) in the military. That's another thread or three for another day, though.

10/11/2011 2:18:54 AM

The solution, I imagine, would be to analyze what factors were in play during the mid 90's when unemployment was at a record low of 5%.

That's to put it bluntly. We've done it before. I don't know the specifics that led to that, but the case-study is already out there somewhere.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the O-man growing a pair and saying "fuck the haters"

Quote :

"That still leaves a significant number of jobs that can only be characterized as "fat that was trimmed.""

Some fat was most definitely trimmed. I won't try to argue that. But, it really comes down to what our "accepted unemployment rate" numbers are agreed at. I'd shoot for 5% or lower, but historically I think the number is around 8%? Sooooo, at some point more than just fat was trimmed. Like, a lot more. Whatever 20%-8% equals in actual numbers.

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 2:28 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2011 2:25:25 AM

Quote :

"The solution, I imagine, would be to analyze what factors were in play during the mid 90's when unemployment was at a record low of 5%."

It is a recession. Recessions happen. The difference between today and the late 90s was businesses knew their tax burden, knew their healthcare costs, knew the trade situation, knew the regulatory environment, knew the inflation rate, knew how the bankruptcy courts operated, and knew debt levels were low and manageable well into the future thanks to constrained federal and state spending. All these things were settled by the political system of the time. More settled than they have ever been in American history I would suspect, with a "New Democrat" in the white house and Gingrich Republicans in Congress. It just so happens none of these things can be considered "settled" anymore. The only thing that can be considered "settled" today is that the political crisis are going to continue well into the future.

10/11/2011 9:13:15 AM

I'd say spending levels became out of hand once immigration went out of control and we funded a few wars.

10/11/2011 9:51:33 AM

Quote :

""

Heh.

10/11/2011 1:56:17 PM

^ Not a terrible metaphor, although clearly not perfect. Rebelling against slave owners will (and did) get no where. Given that slavery was not possible with the help of the police, what was needed was to rebel against the legislature which wrote unjust laws on the slave-owners behalf.

Similarly, rebelling against wall street is not going to accomplish anything. What is needed is to rebel against the legislature which has written unjust laws, such as corporate welfare and wall street bailouts.

10/11/2011 3:24:03 PM

The point of that picture wasn't to compare OWS to slavery (that's absurd), it was just meant to point out the stupidity of the argument in the original picture. Being able to afford cheap Chinese crap doesn't void anyone's complaints about corporations. It's like when a member of the right argues that the poor don't need any help because most of them have a refrigerator.

10/11/2011 3:41:59 PM

And I told you your complaint was not with corporations, but with congress.

10/11/2011 5:17:56 PM

Yeah, but the dirty little secret that some in this thread seem to be ignoring is that the current incarnation of the Republican party would cease to exist without corporate money. It doesn't take much polling research to conclude that the quickest way to get elected in this country is to at least pretend to be progressive.

A majority of Americans want things like universal healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, more stimulus spending, less war, and even to legalize pot. The only thing keeping this from happening are the "true believers" in Washington who still cling to the belief that prosperity can only be achieved by allowing the top 1% to accumulate unlimited wealth. So they oppose everything contrary to that goal, which includes progressive taxation, entitlements of any kind, and regulations on private business.

The only thing keeping these people from being completely run out of Washington is the millions of dollars that continue getting thrown their way by corporations (namely financial services and health care), who want to keep the status quo. Granted, they also throw their money behind some Democrats, the so called "Blue Dogs" who are really just Republican doppelgangers. So yeah, my complaint is with congress, but it's with the part of congress that wouldn't be there if not for corporations essentially bank rolling their campaigns to ensure nothing ever changes.

10/11/2011 5:43:30 PM

And you'd still vote for Obama over Ron Paul? Holy shit, man. Corporations don't donate shit to Ron Paul because they know they won't get kickbacks. They'd rather send it over to Perry, Romney, or Obama, because they'll get a return on their investment.

I get that you think Ron Paul would turn the country into a theocracy, but you can bet your ass that his supporters would turn on him in a heartbeat if he made abortion/same sex marriage his priority. I know I would.

10/11/2011 5:58:50 PM

In case anyone is unclear as to why people are protesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X9tkKVDQdw

And a word from your friendly neighborhood Marines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aaTGsGdp4c

10/11/2011 6:04:39 PM

^2nd video..

FORCED into student loan debt?
2 degrees?
Full time job?
Can't pay bills?

PROTEST YOURSELF YOU FUCKING IDIOT

10/11/2011 6:46:39 PM

Quote :

"I get that you think Ron Paul would turn the country into a theocracy"

What? Anyone who even entertains that idea has gone full retard. The only thing dumber than that is the idea that Ron Paul should choose Dennis Kucinich as his running mate.

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 7:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/11/2011 7:01:31 PM

From page five:

Quote :

"What a bunch of assholes. You're publicly protesting... that implies consent to be filmed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoPwo3STiXo&feature=youtu.be

I thought both sides had rather fair arguments.

I haven't watched reality television in a while, but I recall seeing blurred images of individuals who had not given their consent to be filmed. I don't know if that has changed since then.

On the other hand, I've never seen that required for youtube videos and don't recall news stories blurring images of individuals unless they were interviewing someone who wished to remain incognito.

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ^ Clearly, his running mate should be Ralph Nader.]

10/11/2011 7:20:13 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, but the dirty little secret that some in this thread seem to be ignoring is that the current incarnation of the Republican party would cease to exist without corporate money."

+

Yeah, but the dirty little secret that some in this thread seem to be ignoring is that the current incarnation of the Republican Democratic party would cease to exist without corporate money.

10/11/2011 7:23:13 PM

well obama's job bill wont be helping them in the near future!

10/11/2011 7:29:03 PM

^^^There's a significant difference (both legally and logically) between journalistic reporting, whether via citizen journalism like youtube or CNN and edited, scripted, and staged programming like Jersey Shore.

The first amendment sets a pretty clear precedent for the right to a free press, and only a very few states still have both party consent laws for recording and those laws are being constantly eroded when it comes to interactions in public spaces or between private citizens and public officials in the course of their functions as public servants.

I can appreciate not wanting to be filmed, but when you explicitly put yourself in the center of a very public event that is newsworthy you should expect that there is a possibility you will be filmed or recorded. If you don't want your identity to be public then obscure your face/voice.

10/12/2011 3:18:58 AM

I'm very curious at the Marine's credibility, had to fight for his GI bill? Barely covered his expenses? Does not compute. If he served at least 36 months or was medically discharged, he would have gotten full compensation under Chapter 33 of the GI bill

10/12/2011 6:04:05 AM

posted this in the chit chat thread, but it probably makes more sense to put it in here. this thing is gonna come to a head soon, methinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR3TvDZA2kE

http://youtu.be/bgtFFQNddwI

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/boston-mayor-says-sympathizes-with-protesters-but-they-can-tie-the-city/GFmOU1qwApiGhBNsNSzMIL/index.html

http://rt.com/news/usa-protests-revolution-reform-063/

http://rt.com/usa/news/occupy-boston-pramas-immortal-629

and yeah, the last one is a russian news station. interesting to see their take on the whole thing though, those shifty commies.

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 7:24 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2011 7:16:36 AM

Al Jazeera's take on the top 1%, deficit plan, party politics:

http://youtu.be/XdVODFombco

10/12/2011 5:02:26 PM

Al Jazeera got some great cinematorgaphers on board, apparently! Very nice

10/12/2011 5:57:32 PM

It's sad that i'm getting more quality news out of the state-run media of Russia and from Al Jazeera.

If this shit was going on in the middle east, Anderson Cooper would have already put on his smallest shirt and headed out to the streets with his hand-held camera. Only in America could an 80s pop-icon/baby rapist be headlining the news a full year after he died.

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2011 6:18:19 PM

So do conservatives railing against this movement support the corrupt banksters who tanked the economy without consequence?

10/12/2011 10:10:03 PM

No.

10/12/2011 10:30:31 PM

No. I hate all the hippies/hipsters and others that have leached onto this movement and further convoluted an already unclear message.

10/12/2011 10:35:35 PM

I really don't think the message is all that unclear when you look at the basics of it.

10/12/2011 10:46:39 PM

It's not, but the current media narrative is that there isn't an overriding message and that the Occupy movement is just an assortment of complainers with completely different agendas (if any agenda at all).

Its the sort of rhetoric that helps the "STFU and GBTW" shouts sound better.

10/12/2011 11:02:23 PM

Umm, it's the "media narrative" in the same sense that the date at the top of today's paper is the "media narrative" of today's date.

10/12/2011 11:49:39 PM

Basically, their demands are retarded.


If they got their way, no one would lend any money, and there would be no incentive to invest. So there would literally be no economic growth.


kind of like Cuba, lol

10/12/2011 11:51:47 PM

The basics as I see it are:

The current system has failed. Both parties and bought and paid for by the special interest and in the end we are handed illusions of change when nothing of consequence actually gets done.

Corporate personhood and decisions like Citizens United will only make the above far worse.

The endless and useless wars continue. The money spent on these ventures has cost us a great deal at home. (For example this kind of money could have been spent on modernizing our infrastructure or movement toward more sustainable/renewable energy).

There has been no real accountability for the banksters who tanked the economy in the first place. Not a single indictment has come out of the 2008 crash, or from contributing factors to it.

Income disparity between the top few and the rest of us is worse than ever with middle and working class wages in relative decline (the lost decade). The top 1% has seen their incomes rise at record rates during this time.

I fully realize there are some demands on the list that are just outright idiotic and unrealistic but these basics are where a lot of the anger is coming from. Hopefully some of that crap can be weeded out in the end. We can worry about working conditions in the organic cat food factory later.

10/13/2011 8:43:43 AM

^ So, other than ending the wars, which I suspect everyone here would agree with, what would you have us do, policy wise? Its too late to not bail out the banks. But we sure do keep bailing them out. We just bailed out the Federal Financing Bank over Solyndra.

10/13/2011 10:24:10 AM

^^This

10/13/2011 10:26:56 AM

cnn

10/13/2011 10:37:24 AM

So why rally in New York?

10/13/2011 11:32:31 AM

Convenient. A lot of those types of people live in New York. And a bus ride to Washington would be too expensive.

10/13/2011 11:40:50 AM

How to fake an Egyptian Riot inside the United States
By: George Soros


1. George Soros

Soros was actually convicted of insider trading in France. His opinion moves markets. He is one of the most powerful people in the world entirely due to his ability to get other people to part with their money. His tentacles are everywhere. He uses numerous foundations and associations to keep money flowing and spread around. It’s no secret that George Soros is fond of deceit and subterfuge. He is a radical in the mold of Saul Alinsky. For all of the nonsensical blathering he does about how he can make the world a better place, he has no real plan to do any such thing. Soros loses interest in a project after the demo phase is over. According to Horowitz and Poe, Soros candidly admits he finds destruction easier than creation.


2. Soros invests 3.5 million in the Tides Center

Soros' Open Society gave grants of $3.5 million to the Tides Center, a San Francisco-based group that acts almost like a clearing house for other donors, directing their contributions to liberal non-profit groups.


3. Tides Center sends money to Adbusters to fund the planning of Occupation

Disclosure documents also show Tides, which declined comment, gave Adbusters grants of $185,000 from 2001-2010, including nearly $26,000 between 2007-2009.


4. Adbusters organizes occupation protests

"It came out of these brainstorming sessions we have at Adbusters," Lasn told Reuters, adding they began promoting it online on July 13. "We were inspired by what happened in Tunisia and Egypt and we had this feeling that America was ripe for a Tahrir moment."

"We felt there was a real rage building up in America, and we thought that we would like to create a spark which would give expression for this rage."


5. Who will 'occupy' our protests in the streets? Of course, hipsters with very little real world experience

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html
by adbusters themselves

10/13/2011 11:49:35 AM

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

I have no idea about the source, having never looked at Business Insider's website before. Also, they quote the 350x salary difference that I thought had been discredited so of course take this with a grain of salt.

Quote :

"So why rally in New York?"

Major city hosting the businesses at the center of the recent economic downturn + large population making it easy to gather people together + generally liberal swing in he populace + lots of media presence = a good place to start a movement like this. If they'd started this in Charlotte or Delaware it would have been much easier to ignore.

And they have moved on to other cities, so they aren't limiting themselves to one area.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2011 1:11:00 PM

voter turnout was 40.9% in 2010.....couldn't the 99% just actually vote for candidates who support their agenda. As horrible as the TEA party is/was they voted in candidates who shared their absurd views.

so if OWS views are right, surely they can find candidates who support their views. Instead of sleeping in tents like jackasses, why not have voter registration/turnout drives?

10/13/2011 1:21:05 PM

Rally in New York because Wall St. is the hub of the corporate interests that actually run our government. If you haven't noticed there is an Occupy DC as well and I believe there is a major event scheduled for Saturday there as well as cities all over.

10/13/2011 1:35:10 PM

LOLd hard at the OWS demands...

10/13/2011 2:10:28 PM

http://www.economist.com/node/21531481?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/theinkblotprotests

Quote :

"IN TAHRIR SQUARE and Homs, Egyptians and Syrians have risked their lives to demand basic democratic freedoms. In Britain, that nation of shopkeepers, the young take to the streets to smash windows and steal trainers and television sets. Greeks are rioting because they can see their economic future being washed down the drain of the euro. And for the past few weeks in New York City many hundreds and sometimes thousands of young Americans have been marching, or camping out in Zuccotti Park in the financial district, to “Occupy Wall Street”, because they are demanding—well, what exactly? To judge by the diversity of their slogans, placards and websites, you pays your money (metaphorically) and you takes your choice. But there is no mistaking the gist. These people do not believe that the business of America should be business. A “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City” summons all those who feel “wronged by the corporate forces of the world”. Corporations “place profit over people”, “run our governments”, take bail-outs “with impunity”, poison the food supply, block green energy, “perpetuate colonialism at home and abroad”, muzzle the media and use student loans to “hold students hostage”. The protests have already spread to Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago, and were this week heading towards the nation’s capital. Explicitly invoking the spirit of Tahrir Square, the organisers of a rally planned for Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC, are demanding “just solutions to the crises we face”. In “creative acts of civil resistance” demonstrators will demand peace, freedom and “inherent rights”, including the inherent right “to grow edible natural food”. It is easy to demand “just solutions”. But this is so far a movement without detailed policies. You might call them the Rorschach protests. Politicians and newspaper commentators stare at the inkblots and see what they want to see. If they see nothing very coherent, they offer suggestions of their own. For example, Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, moving from the sublimely vague to the ridiculously precise, advises the Wall Street demonstrators to demand a financial-transactions tax, the closing of the “carried interest” loophole and stricter capital requirements (he suggests the Basel 3 standards) for big banks. Good luck with those catchy slogans, Comrade Kristof. What the broader American left would love to see in the protests is a progressive counterpart to the conservatives’ tea-party movement. And why should that be so impossible? The tea parties, remember, also started with little more than a (strikingly ungrammatical) cry of pain. “This is America,” yelled Rick Santelli, a financial reporter, from the Chicago futures exchange in 2009. “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbour’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” Mr Santelli’s televised rant against bail-outs has gone down in history as the birth harangue of the tea-party movement, which went on in double-quick time to capture the Republican Party and yank the whole of American politics sharply to the right. Like the Occupy Wall Street crowd, the tea-partiers did not have much by way of detailed policy when they started. That lot wanted to bash big government and restore individual liberty. This lot wants to bash big business and restore social justice. So why can’t Occupy Wall Street become a tea-party movement for the other side, one that might jolt the Democrats out of their torpor, tug them left, and switch back on some of the electricity that Barack Obama generated when he was running for president? One reason is that nothing sucks the energy out of a protest movement faster than winning power. And although Mr Obama still has his tax-the-rich moments, he knows he will not be re-elected by lurching too far left. The man who could use a fresh wad of donations from Wall Street as 2012 approaches is not going to align himself with those who would tear it down. Nor they with him: to many of the demonstrators, all politicians, including Mr Obama, are “Republicrats”, each as rotten as the other. You’ve had your revolution already The other reason to doubt whether Occupy Wall Street will become a tea-party movement of the left is its fixation on protest. But Zuccotti Park is not Tahrir Square and America is not Egypt. It is not even France. In France street demos are tolerated, sometimes glorified, as a way to blow off steam and win the attention of deputies who neglect voters or forget their election promises. America is different. It is, indeed, the sort of democracy that some people in Tahrir Square lost their lives asking for. With endless elections and permanent campaigns, it is exquisitely sensitive to voters’ wants. Its parties are bitterly polarised, so it is wrong to say that its politicians are all the same. It has its party machines, but groups that organise hard can use the primaries to prise them open. True, elections cost money; but Mr Obama proved that money soon flows to unknowns with momentum. The tea-partiers grasped all this. They, too, took to the streets. Some strutted about in tricorn hats. But at the same time they learned their way around the machinery of elections and how to scare the bejesus out of any candidate they did not like. The people behind Occupy Wall Street could follow suit if they wanted. Yes, they have every right to protest. Marches and sit-ins have played an honourable part in American history. The right of the people peaceably to assemble is enshrined in the first amendment. Nothing in the constitution says that you have to have a 12-point policy plan from McKinsey, or the permission of the New York police. If nothing else, these protests highlight the misery of millions during the present slump. But to bring about real change in a real democracy you also have to do real politics. It just takes work—and enough people who think like you."

10/13/2011 2:13:48 PM

Quote :

"2. Soros invests 3.5 million in the Tides Center Soros' Open Society gave grants of $3.5 million to the Tides Center, a San Francisco-based group that acts almost like a clearing house for other donors, directing their contributions to liberal non-profit groups. 3. Tides Center sends money to Adbusters to fund the planning of Occupation Disclosure documents also show Tides, which declined comment, gave Adbusters grants of $185,000 from 2001-2010, including nearly $26,000 between 2007-2009."

In 2010 alone, Tides received $123 million in donations and made $143.4 million in grants. The idea that George Soros is secretly funding OWS through Tides is ridiculous.

As for Tides being "a clearing house for other donors, directing their contributions to liberal non-profit groups", here is a list of grantees from 2010. Some of the 2010 grantees:

Various YMCA/YWCAs: $135,600
Various universities: ~$2.7 million
Various cancer charities: $133,611
Red Cross: $80,000
United Way: $45,000
Churches: $72,000
Girl Scouts: $12,500
Habitat for Humanity: $6,000
Symphonies: $7,250
Theaters: ~$368,000
AARP: $5,000
Adbusters: $8,000

AARP and the YMCA. Now, those are some serious liberal non-profits.

10/13/2011 2:24:59 PM