Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[edward]

Please read through the http://occupywallst.org/ website - it seems a bit militant to me.

If the police keep up these kind of tactics expect it to get very militant.. Ironically the Tea Party members carry weapons to their meetings in Arizona.

Tea Party Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpzeI8sgIHU&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL7EF30B9133E98117

 

[mege]

Quite a contrast? That link was in response to the arrests made in Boston. You mixed oranges and apples and then posted a lemon.

The group that was arrested had no chance to get a permit due to the long holiday weekend. Had they had a chance to request a permit it could not have been refused. The police raid was at 1:20 Am Monday morning.

They had trash trucks standing by and through all personal possessions, tents cameras computers etc in the trash.

Can't the revolution wait until Monday when they could get a permit to use public property for a protest? The protesters were publicly warned about trespassing but went ahead anyhow to play martyr.

No sympathy for the disruptions and lawlessness that is being portrayed 'on behalf of the people' (which... I make under 50k/yr and don't consider myself to be part of this 99%).

 

[mege]

If the police keep up these kind of tacts expect it to get very militant.. Ironically the Tea Party members carry weapons to their meeting in Arizona.

Tea Party Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpzeI8sgIHU&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL7EF30B9133E98117

The TEA Party members were also following all applicable laws with respect to their firearms. Was anyone shot or arrested at a TEA Party rally?

 

[edward]

The TEA Party members were also following all applicable laws with respect to their firearms. Was anyone shot or arrested at a TEA Party rally?

Luckily not yet.

The topic was militancy at the Occupy wall Street groups. I just made a comparison.

Never the less I suppose you are fine with having the Boston police throw the American flag on the ground. That is simply not done by police anywhere anytime in America.

 

[edward]

Can't the revolution wait until Monday when they could get a permit to use public property for a protest? The protesters were publicly warned about trespassing but went ahead anyhow to play martyr.

No sympathy for the disruptions and lawlessness that is being portrayed 'on behalf of the people' (which... I make under 50k/yr and don't consider myself to be part of this 99%).

They were not teaspassing they had made an advance agreement with the Board of Directors of the Green Space garden in Boston to use the property.

As for your income, I hope that is secure. Jobs can disapear very quickly.

 

[mege]

Luckily not yet.

The topic was militancy at the Occupy wall Street groups. I just made a comparison.

Never the less I suppose you are fine with having the Boston police throw the American flag on the ground. That is simply not done by police anywhere anytime in America.

3+ Years of TEA Party protests (sidearms and all!) and no memorable arrests (quite a few liberal counter-protesters were arrested when they got out of hand). 3 weeks of OWS protests and hundreds of arrests.

The TEA Party protests, as WhoWee has quoted, specifically do not want to confront law enforcement. OWS, on the otherhand, appears to be using confrontations as a tool. There are rules for protesting on public property to prevent total anarchy (and to give a civil course of action for counter-protests), the OWS protesters are flat ignoring those rules.

I suppose, in the end, it depends on how you definine militancy. Trying to incite a revolution at the expense of law enforcement's safety seems pretty militant to me. The OWS protesters may not have guns at their side but they're threatening the safety of other Americans a lot more. The whole idea of 'occupying' an area for an extended period of time seems very militant as well. When did a TEA Party protest last for more than a few days in any single location? The term 'occupy' in and of itself has a militant connotation. (occupy definition - "to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion." )

 

[mege]

They were not teaspassing they had made an advance agreement with the Board of Directors of the Green Space garden in Boston to use the property.

As for your income, I hope that is secure. Jobs can disapear very quickly.

"Boston police say they had warned around 1,000 protesters to stay in Dewey Square and a small, nearby strip of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway a few hours after they occupied the main Greenway area."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-arrest-100-protesters-throw-tents-bins.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15262310 (above quote from here)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/11/national/main20118461.shtml

Nowhere do I read about some prior agreement for the new area of the greenway (which is where the arrests took place, they were allowed in the unrennovated part). In fact the CBS story notes: "The protesters, part of the national Occupy Wall Street movement, had tried to expand from their original site in Dewey Square to a second site across the street, along the Rose Kennedy Greenway. A local conservancy group recently planted $150,000 worth of shrubs along the greenway, and officials said they were concerned about damage." (bold mine)

Regarding jobs: I wonder how many of the 'under employed' have some non-demand degree (I generally use non-teaching 'English' as an example) and aren't reacting to the available jobs. There's plenty of jobs out there, it's just that the available jobs don't match up with the current national skillset. (source). Personally, I have worked in IT for over 10 years and have freely moved several times (most recently for my wife) and found a new job after quitting my old one within a month. I'm actually looking to hire two entry level techs (I'd take a competent high school grad and pay for some training even) and the candidates are slim pickings.

 

[Oltz]

Defending ones right to be wealthy Does not equal defending the wealthy

Being Anti Socialism does not equal Anti Poor

The "99%" does not ever have the right to take assests from the 1% no matter who is rich or who is poor.

Any lawfully gained property is protected period I don't care if it is a homeless man's shoes or a billionaires Jet.

That is the difference between the OWS crowd and poeple who actually defend the freedoms of this counrty. Freedom.
The freedom to amass and do whatever you want with your abilities and wealth as well as the freedom to not use abilities to your full potential.

Life Libety pursuit of happiness, Protection from unlawful seizure, Unjust Taking, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of speech and press

How many of those rights would you willingly give up? Why do you think you have the right to take them from somebody else just beacuse they have more money then you?

The only people who do not have those rights are those convicted of crimes with due process and sentenced to prison where there rights are restricted in response to the actions they Chose to take.

 

[MarcoD]

Regarding jobs: I wonder how many of the 'under employed' have some non-demand degree (I generally use non-teaching 'English' as an example) and aren't reacting to the available jobs. There's plenty of jobs out there, it's just that the available jobs don't match up with the current national skillset. (source). Personally, I have worked in IT for over 10 years and have freely moved several times (most recently for my wife) and found a new job after quitting my old one within a month. I'm actually looking to hire two entry level techs (I'd take a competent high school grad and pay for some training even) and the candidates are slim pickings.

Last time I looked, there were fifteen million highly trained US citizens either unemployed or working in jobs which hardly required their skill set. Wouldn't it be easy just to pick up someone with a technical degree in math or physics?

 

[JDoolin]

Defending ones right to be wealthy Does not equal defending the wealthy

Being Anti Socialism does not equal Anti Poor

The "99%" does not ever have the right to take assests from the 1% no matter who is rich or who is poor.

Any lawfully gained property is protected period I don't care if it is a homeless man's shoes or a billionaires Jet.

That is the difference between the OWS crowd and poeple who actually defend the freedoms of this counrty. Freedom.
The freedom to amass and do whatever you want with your abilities and wealth as well as the freedom to not use abilities to your full potential.

Life Libety pursuit of happiness, Protection from unlawful seizure, Unjust Taking, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of speech and press

How many of those rights would you willingly give up? Why do you think you have the right to take them from somebody else just beacuse they have more money then you?

The only people who do not have those rights are those convicted of crimes with due process and sentenced to prison where there rights are restricted in response to the actions they Chose to take.

Okay, I think the biggest fallacy of your argument is assuming there is a connection between "using abilities to their full potential" and "accumulating money and amassing wealth."

There's really not much of a connection there. There are a rare few individuals who, when they use their abilities to their full potential, they also happen to accumulate wealth. But in general those who accumulate wealth is just a matter of being in the right place at the right time, while using your abilities to full potential is a life of work and inspiration.

A second fallacy here is that those convicted of crimes are "choosing" to take the actions that they do. In their own minds, at least, they are put in situations where they "have no choice" Maybe they are mistaken, but there are certainly white collar crimes that do just as much, or more damage to society. And many of those white collar crimes are actually legal to commit.

A third fallacy here is that people who do "unjust taking" are prosecuted and go to jail. That is based on the level of the crime. With good enough lawyers, a congress in your pocket, and an environment where you can get the media to look the other way, you should be able to walk away without any punishment, or maybe a slap on the wrist.

A fourth fallacy here is that the 99% are interested in unlawful seizure, and unjust taking. I think they are more interested in changing the law so "unjust taking" becomes unlawful.

A fifth fallacy here is that "rights are restricted" when prisoners go to jail. No, they are stripped away entirely. Paid three cents an hour for labor, and when they get out, they no longer have access to welfare or food-stamps or jobs. The only place for them to go is back to prison.

A sixth fallacy is that "anti-socialist" and "anti-poor" are NOT synonyms. Unless you are actively pursuing or promoting some OTHER reasonable way to support and protect the poor, and bring them up to a level where they have the education and opportunities wealthier people do, then you are supporting an imbalanced field.

Finally, one more fallacy, when you say: "That is the difference between the OWS crowd and poeple who actually defend the freedoms of this counrty. Freedom. The freedom to amass and do whatever you want with your abilities and wealth as well as the freedom to not use abilities to your full potential."

The Occupy Wall Street crowd is not happy with this freedom to "not use abilities to your full potential." We do not WANT to be offered the freedom to NOT use our abilities. We want to work. We want to be productive.

I would almost guarantee that if somebody went out and started handing out jobs to those kids, (especially if they were jobs to help others) they would disperse. But right now, they are using their other freedom you mentioned, "the freedom to amass," in order to make their presence clear.

 

[WhoWee]

Luckily not yet.

The topic was militancy at the Occupy wall Street groups. I just made a comparison.

Never the less I suppose you are fine with having the Boston police throw the American flag on the ground. That is simply not done by police anywhere anytime in America.

Are you certain it was a Boston Police Officer that threw the American Flag on the ground - is it possible the man dropped the flag? Personally, I've never seen anyone standing in a public garden amongst $150,000 worth of newly planted shrubs holding a large American Flag at 1:00 in the morning - have you? If I did see someone doing such a thing - my assumption wouldn't be that he was a patriot - I'd probably think he was very intoxicated or planning to do something he'd later regret.

 

[WhoWee]

A sixth fallacy is that "anti-socialist" and "anti-poor" are NOT synonyms. Unless you are actively pursuing or promoting some OTHER reasonable way to support and protect the poor, and bring them up to a level where they have the education and opportunities wealthier people do, then you are supporting an imbalanced field.

Finally, one more fallacy, when you say: "That is the difference between the OWS crowd and poeple who actually defend the freedoms of this counrty. Freedom. The freedom to amass and do whatever you want with your abilities and wealth as well as the freedom to not use abilities to your full potential."

The Occupy Wall Street crowd is not happy with this freedom to "not use abilities to your full potential." We do not WANT to be offered the freedom to NOT use our abilities. We want to work. We want to be productive.

I would almost guarantee that if somebody went out and started handing out jobs to those kids, (especially if they were jobs to help others) they would disperse. But right now, they are using their other freedom you mentioned, "the freedom to amass," in order to make their presence clear.

As per your "sixth fallacy is that "anti-socialist" and "anti-poor" are NOT synonyms" - do you know anyone that wants to be poor? Does it mean they want to be a socialist?

As per your last "fallacy" - they clearly have freedom not to use their abilities and a few people who were interviewed quit their jobs to participate in the "movement". As for equal opportunities for education - do poor kids not receive a free education K-12 along with a free lunch? Do poor kids not receive financial aid and Government backed loans for college? What is your actual complaint about equal access to education?

 

[daveb]

I would also argue that anti-socialist (against socialism) and anti-poor (against the poor) are not synonymous since you could be anti-socialist but apathetic about the poor as well. Not saying that anti-socialists are apathetic, just saying they aren't synonymous.

 

[ParticleGrl]

a few people who were interviewed quit their jobs to participate in the "movement".

Who? Where? Support this.

 

[WhoWee]

Who? Where? Support this.

Supported - Robert Daros, FL - my bold.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/repo...till-trying-to-figure-out-what-they’re-doing/

"At the top of the park, I found Robert Daros, from Florida, sitting in a chair behind a table with a sign that said, “info.” Originally from Florida, he saw a poster in a café and wanted to participate. So he quit his job and came to the park. He, like everyone else who is taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests, is still trying to figure out how to successfully organize."

I said a "few" - here's a second - Casey O'Neill, Oakland, CA.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/27/140854961/wall-street-protest-continues-this-week
"ARUN VENUGOPAL: Until a couple weeks ago, 34-year-old Casey O'Neill worked as a data manager in Oakland, California. Now, he lives in a park next to ground zero.

CASEY O'NEILL: I actually quit my job and got a one-way ticket out here for the protests. I just felt like it was really - in a lot ways, this was the last hope for some sort of real change."

 

[ParticleGrl]

Regarding jobs: I wonder how many of the 'under employed' have some non-demand degree (I generally use non-teaching 'English' as an example) and aren't reacting to the available jobs.

I have an ivy league physics degree and a top 10 phd in physics. I can program in fortran and have spent the last year boning up on c++, sql, etc. Anything employers might be looking for, I'm trying to learn. I have a strong statistics background. When people talk about high skilled jobs, they are generally talking about jobs requiring math, science and computing, and yet, I tend bar.

Yes, its an anecdote, but my point is, its not just the low-skilled people who are suffering. Recent graduates in ALL fields (even engineering) are suffering from record unemployment. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/the-college-majors-that-do-best-in-the-job-market/

There's plenty of jobs out there, it's just that the available jobs don't match up with the current national skillset.
(source).

Did you read your source? it makes the EXACT opposite point you are making.

The only problem is that this explanation is basically wrong. The weight of the evidence shows that it is not a mismatch of skills but a lack of demand that lies at the heart of today’s severe unemployment problem.

I'm actually looking to hire two entry level techs (I'd take a competent high school grad and pay for some training even) and the candidates are slim pickings.

Private message me the details.

 

[FlexGunship]

"At the top of the park, I found Robert Daros, from Florida, sitting in a chair behind a table with a sign that said, “info.” Originally from Florida, he saw a poster in a café and wanted to participate. So he quit his job and came to the park. He, like everyone else who is taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests, is still trying to figure out how to successfully organize."

This guy would be a fantastic archetype to understand. I mean that genuinely. He quit his job to go protest for a job? Or does this mean we can cross of the "jobs" thing from the Occupy Wall Street agenda? If a job isn't good enough, what else are they hoping for?

Don't jump down my throat, I get the "maybe he's an idealist" thing. But, let's face it, he probably isn't. I donate plenty to charity each year and I volunteer in soup kitchens around the holidays, but I'm not about to quit my job to do it. He could've taken some vacation time, or even a personal leave of absence... but he QUIT his job.

His mentality would be important to understand. It sounds like all they got form him are a few slogans, though.

"ARUN VENUGOPAL: Until a couple weeks ago, 34-year-old Casey O'Neill worked as a data manager in Oakland, California. Now, he lives in a park next to ground zero.

CASEY O'NEILL: I actually quit my job and got a one-way ticket out here for the protests. I just felt like it was really - in a lot ways, this was the last hope for some sort of real change."

Same with these guys. If only they could get some real information about their motives.

 

[WhoWee]

This guy would be a fantastic archetype to understand. I mean that genuinely. He quit his job to go protest for a job? Or does this mean we can cross of the "jobs" thing from the Occupy Wall Street agenda? If a job isn't good enough, what else are they hoping for?

Don't jump down my throat, I get the "maybe he's an idealist" thing. But, let's face it, he probably isn't. I donate plenty to charity each year and I volunteer in soup kitchens around the holidays, but I'm not about to quit my job to do it. He could've taken some vacation time, or even a personal leave of absence... but he QUIT his job.

His mentality would be important to understand. It sounds like all they got form him are a few slogans, though.

Same with these guys. If only they could get some real information about their motives.

It sounds as though they both made an emotional decision?

 

[FlexGunship]

I have an ivy league physics degree and a top 10 phd in physics. I can program in fortran and have spent the last year boning up on c++, sql, etc. Anything employers might be looking for, I'm trying to learn. I have a strong statistics background. When people talk about high skilled jobs, they are generally talking about jobs requiring math, science and computing, and yet, I tend bar.

I'm currently in a round of interviews. I'm a young engineer with about 5 years of real experience. I'm interviewing with a manufacturer of single-cup coffee makers, a company that makes their own automation controllers, and a Canadian-based company that does automation retrofits for older machinery.

My skill-set is in relatively high demand:

• Programming in x86 assembly, C, C++, and MatLab
• Embedded systems design, and control systems fabrication
• Test engineering; design for test; hazard reduction; system stability; data mining and analysis
• Comprehensive experience working with Siemens Simotion and Sinamics servo technology
• Extremely proficient with the Microsoft Office (including 2007) and Open Office suites
• Predictive performance modeling for complex systems
• Extensive experience developing real time motion control systems including pioneering work in open-loop/closed-loop hybrid systems on the Siemens Simotion motion control platform
• Extremely high level understanding of motion and motion control concepts from basic vector control to multi-axis real-time, high-speed positioning
• Advanced understanding of controls theory
• Superior pubic speaking skills and confidence
• Extremely high level understanding of mathematics​

That's a quick copy-and-paste from the "practical skills" section of my resume. I didn't have to apply for any of the jobs. I put my resume on Monster and sent it to 10 or 11 recruiters and just wait for calls.

It sounds as though they both made an emotional decision?

I agree. I think someone should hunt them down in a few weeks and see if they regret their decisions. Also... who is paying the mortgage, or school loans right now? Maybe they'll default? Maybe tax payers will end up paying for it in another bailout? Or maybe it'll just cause all lending rates to rise.

It's really quite an absurd mentality, you know, to just walk away from your responsibilities on a whim.

EDIT: Again, don't jump down my throat with the: "maybe they're just doing what they believe in!" I get it! It doesn't make it responsible behavior. And the idea that they would exercise IRRESPONSIBLE behavior to protest IRRESPONSIBLE behavior is ironic beyond expression.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm currently in a round of interviews. I'm a young engineer with about 5 years of real experience. I'm interviewing with a manufacturer of single-cup coffee makers, a company that makes their own automation controllers, and a Canadian-based company that does automation retrofits for older machinery.

My skill-set is in relatively high demand:

• Programming in x86 assembly, C, C++, and MatLab
• Embedded systems design, and control systems fabrication
• Test engineering; design for test; hazard reduction; system stability; data mining and analysis
• Comprehensive experience working with Siemens Simotion and Sinamics servo technology
• Extremely proficient with the Microsoft Office (including 2007) and Open Office suites
• Predictive performance modeling for complex systems
• Extensive experience developing real time motion control systems including pioneering work in open-loop/closed-loop hybrid systems on the Siemens Simotion motion control platform
• Extremely high level understanding of motion and motion control concepts from basic vector control to multi-axis real-time, high-speed positioning
• Advanced understanding of controls theory
• Superior pubic speaking skills and confidence
• Extremely high level understanding of mathematics​

That's a quick copy-and-paste from the "practical skills" section of my resume. I didn't have to apply for any of the jobs. I put my resume on Monster and sent it to 10 or 11 recruiters and just wait for calls.

Very good - if you want to be a little more aggressive - try using a site like this one http://www.thomasnet.com/ to search for local companies, visit their websites and find contact info to email resumes directly.

 

[edward]

Are you certain it was a Boston Police Officer that threw the American Flag on the ground - is it possible the man dropped the flag? Personally, I've never seen anyone standing in a public garden amongst $150,000 worth of newly planted shrubs holding a large American Flag at 1:00 in the morning - have you? If I did see someone doing such a thing - my assumption wouldn't be that he was a patriot - I'd probably think he was very intoxicated or planning to do something he'd later regret.

Now you are just speculating. Police threw the flag on the ground.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/11/340186/boston-police-throw-american-flag-to-ground-arrest-veterans-trash-property-to-protect-green-space-from-99-percent/

 

[FlexGunship]

Very good - if you want to be a little more aggressive - try using a site like this one http://www.thomasnet.com/ to search for local companies, visit their websites and find contact info to email resumes directly.

Thanks. My point (albeit anecdotal) was that people will skills ARE in demand. I'm not special. If you do exactly what I'm doing then you'll be fine. I don't have a magic potion, and I haven't made any deals with the devil (recently)... I just work hard, refine my in-demand skills, and go where the work is. I certainly don't look at a job and say "meh, doesn't interest me." I follow up on every lead, take an interview with every company, and put in 100% effort in building a solid career. If I had a wife and kids, I'd want them to feel financially safe and secure even in rough times like these.

I have a mortgage and I'm more than 30% underwater (market value to mortgage value) on it, so relocation isn't easy for me. But if I didn't have a job, you'd better believe I'd farking figure it out.

I can't help but think that spending all of my time protesting would cut into my skill-building and job-hunting time.

EDIT: It's funny. If someone were house hunting and the realtor showed him or her a house for $100,000 and said: "If you fill the pool in the back it'll be worth $200,000; if you mow the lawn it'll be $300,000; and if you give it a fresh coat of bright paint it'll be worth $400,000" presumably he or she would jump on that type of value!

But if someone told that same person: "you're only worth $100,000/yr job right now, but if you build a few new skills you'll be worth $200,000; if you clean up your appearance and get a nice haircut you'll be worth $300,000; and if you practice your public speaking you'll be worth $400,000" they'll argue that there are no jobs available.

Your best investment in a slow economy is in yourself.

 

[WhoWee]

Now you are just speculating. Police threw the flag on the ground.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/11/340186/boston-police-throw-american-flag-to-ground-arrest-veterans-trash-property-to-protect-green-space-from-99-percent/

Can you honestly say you see the police throwing the flag to the ground in that video - if I could - I'd be calling for their badges.

 

[Oltz]

Fallacy 1?

I do not know about you but Everyone I know Tries to accumulate wealth. They DECIDE how hard they want to work both on improving themselves and the situation they are in some peoples full potential is being a janitor and they have the right to be the best janitor they can be. They would be entitled to save and make and get the best possible income that somebody is willing to pay them for the skills they have. It is not the millionaire’s fault that some people need to be janitors.


Again I do not know anyone who uses their abilities to the full potential for free unless it’s at a hobby and they do something else to make a living. But is that really using your abilities to their full potential?

Fallacy 2?
Nobody has to do drugs nobody has to steal nobody has to rape or murder the perception of "no choice" is Bull they made choices to get to that situation.

You have a car with no brakes you know it cannot stop or turn.
The car is facing a cliff 10 miles away not moving.
You hit the gas pedal and hold it down.
The car goes off the cliff.
Yes at the end you did not have a choice but it all started with a choice.
Nobody made you hit the gas

Nobody is forced out of high school nobody is forced to do drugs nobody is forced to rape or steal or kill saying they have no choice is giving them a pass they do not deserve. I have family with addiction problems making it ok is the worst thing you can do for them.

Fallacy 3?
You obviously do not know what a Taking is. Taking is an action by the government not by an individual. This is not "theft" is taking by the authority of the government. This applies to taxes or to regulations that affect economic ability. The most common example is
You own land that your family has harvested lumber off of every 30 years for 5 generations.
The EPA passes a regulation restricting the number of trees and acres you are allowed to harvest.
They have to cut you a check for the lost production or you take them to court for an unjust Taking.

You want to unjustly Tax a minority simply because they have more then you the government cannot single out such a minority legally.

Would you support a tax that was aimed at say Philipino's?

Fallacy 4?
The 99% want other people’s money that they have no right or authority to for nothing other than the fact that they exist. Sounds unlawful to me.

Fallacy 5?

Personally prisoners should not be paid at all while in prison any work they do should go towards the cost of feeding them. They also should not have TV or any other Luxury Item. Jail should suck maybe if it did fewer would choose to break the law.

Fallacy 6?

Nobody has advocated closing public schools. Nobody has advocated letting children starve. Plenty of grants and scholarships exist opportunity abounds. A local tax for local schools is not socialism on the level that is opposed.

The field is not level it will never be level it can't be level unless you want everyone to just sit at home and we all starve to death together. Somebody has to pay.

You do not want a level field you want a field tilted so the rich go extinct and the entire system collapses.
The poor are protected from sudden hardship and short term problems. They should not be supported for eternity or a culture of dependence will/has developed and your system actually encourages "poverty"

Fallacy 7?

Then get your butt off the street and go be productive. Go to the Library read some books they are free learn a new skill they have tons of self taught books and access to computers at public libraries. Those of us who work are already paying for you to have access to those resources. Stop Choosing to do nothing and do something ANYTHING to better yourself and expand your abilities so that you have something somebody else is willing to pay you to do.

I am willing to bet if McDonalds came in and offered everyone at the protest a job only a couple would go.



Offer them all jobs cleaning bedpans at a nursing home see how many come running or the coal mine near here is always hiring? Or is that work to hard

 

[CAC1001]

Socialism means you provide a safety net; education, training, housing, food, basic medical care, so that those who are poor have some way of bettering themselves.

Socialism means you have the government run the economy. Social democracy means you provide a social welfare state. A basic safety net is not socialism, as Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were both okay with basic safety nets. Once a society becomes rich enough, it is fine to use taxes to create a set of basic safety nets. What you don't necessarilly want is an outright welfare state.

Anti-Socialism is Anti Poor.

No it isn't. Take a look at how prosperous all the socialist countries were/are.

To be more explicit, the Tea Party is against this safety net. They demonize public school teachers, they are against basic medical care for the poor, they are against giving housing or food to people who haven't "earned" it.

Again, if you can come up with a good argument against what I am saying, I would LOVE to be wrong about this. If I AM wrong about this, then show me that I am wrong. I would LOVE to find out that somehow the TEA party has been fighting for the same things that the Democratic party has been fighting for, and its just been a matter of miscommunication?

Yes, it is. The Tea Party are not against giving aid to the poor, their belief is that it can be done through things like churches and charity. They also understand that many of these poverty programs either do not fix the problem or only make it worse.

I don't think so, though. Democrats are the party for the people. Republicans are the party for the corporations against the poor.

What this tells me is that, like too many on the Left, you do not have the first clue about what Republicans stand for or what their policies are. There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin. What you said is exactly what the heads of the Democratic party would like you to think, though, even though it isn't true. I could say that the Democrats are the party for enlarging the government and making the people dependent and needy on the government as a result, that they are the party of the labor unions, the trial lawyers, the environmental lobby, and other various left-leaning special interest groups. That they are the party that loves to appeal to people's base emotions, by talking about things such as "fairness," "justice," "equality," pointing out how some are rich while the vast majority are not (appealing to the base emotions of envy and jealousy), etc...not all Democrats are like that, there are plenty of good ones, but too many are.

Your claim about Republicans being for corporations against the poor has to rank as one of the most prevalent myths that exist. Republicans are not for corporations. Republicans are for the free-market, something corporations are notorious for seeking to undermine and undercut. Republicans are also for limited government, low taxation, and light levels of regulation, things many large corporations are also against and historically have been against. The crux of your misconception is the belief that it is government that can fix all of society's problems. Need to fix education? More government. Fix poverty? More government programs. Get more housing to the poor? More government. A corrupt industry needs fixing? More government regulations. Making sure everyone has healthcare? More government. Republicans recognize that not only does government oftentimes not work at fixing these problems, but instead often has a tendency to make them even worse in its attempts at fixing them. Republicans very much care about the plight of the poor, the environment, education, healthcare, etc...but have a whole lot of limited-government to non-governmental solutions to these problems.

People such as yourself who do not have any understanding at all of these limited-govenrment and non-governmental solutions thus reason that since Republicans are against a whole slew of large government you are for, that they therefore must be evil and "don't care."

It's not like its just me that thinks this. I don't really need to support this argument.

Actually, yes you do. You make baseless accusations about Republicans that tell me you don't know anything about their beliefs or policies.

This is THE commonly held belief of Democrats, and Republicans alike.

It is the commonly-held belief among a great many Democrats. Have you ever heard the saying, "When you're young and dumb, if you're not a Democrat, you don't have a heart. When you're over thirty, if you're still a Democrat, you have no brain." Now I don't agree with that statement in terms of what it literally says, but the point of it is that when you are young and haven't a clue about how the world works, if you have a heart, you will likely be a hardcore Democrat. When you learn more about how the world works and thus about other policies (such as Republican policies), you may still be a Democrat, but you will be one that understands the opposition one heck a lot better and probably would be deemed a center-left person as opposed to left-wing.

Watch some Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr. You'll see over and over and over again, the same story. Democrats trying to defend the poor. Republicans trying to defend the rich.

First of all, all of those people are among the most leftwing commentators in the media. Your definition of Democrats "defending" the poor often comes out to their trying to appeal to the base emotions of the masses to engender jealousy and rage, to engage in class warfare. The basic strategy of the politician that promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul. Republicans, when they "defend" the rich, are usually just forced into pointing out where the Democrats are wrong on many issues, such as the notion that there's a fixed pie (the idea that for one guy to get rich, someone else has to become poorer), or that it's the fault of the wealthy that the economy came down, or arguing against wealth redistributionist policies, etc...

That's why I say, make your argument, and make it well. Because even if you can convince me that the Tea Party is not anti-poor, you need to make the argument for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and everybody that watches those shows.

I would say that every single one of those people is to a good deal clueless about the conservative and Republican positions on issues. Not all on the Left are, but a lot, and in particular those ones. As for the people that watch their shows, they IMO have no business even voting if they get all of their information on politics and policy off of those shows. That's like a right-leaning person getting all of their information from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

 

[MarcoD]

Republicans are for the free-market, something corporations are notorious for seeking to undermine and undercut. Republicans are also for limited government, low taxation, and light levels of regulation, things many large corporations are also against and historically have been against. The crux of your misconception is the belief that it is government that can fix all of society's problems. Need to fix education? More government. Fix poverty? More government programs. Get more housing to the poor? More government. A corrupt industry needs fixing? More government regulations. Making sure everyone has healthcare? More government. Republicans recognize that not only does government oftentimes not work at fixing these problems, but instead often has a tendency to make them even worse in its attempts at fixing them. Republicans very much care about the plight of the poor, the environment, education, healthcare, etc...but have a whole lot of limited-government to non-governmental solutions to these problems.

The problem is that in this moment in history, the facts prove you wrong. My social democracy needed to blow 15% GDP on fixing the holes your liberal economy left behind, another few procents on the PIIGS, and the northern european states are still running.

Not only don't you fail to provide what welfare states can give to your people under the assumption that 'it cannot work,' you are also provably wrong given the facts, and blowing holes into my economy.

 

[edward]

Can you honestly say you see the police throwing the flag to the ground in that video - if I could - I'd be calling for their badges.

There were many people there who did see it?? How do you tjhink the police would get the person's hands behind his back and put on the zip ties if they didn't take control of the flag??

If it fell out of the veterans hands they should have picked it up. I am done here.

 

[FlexGunship]

I would almost guarantee that if somebody went out and started handing out jobs to those kids, (especially if they were jobs to help others) they would disperse. But right now, they are using their other freedom you mentioned, "the freedom to amass," in order to make their presence clear.

Supported - Robert Daros, FL - my bold.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/repo...till-trying-to-figure-out-what-they’re-doing/

"At the top of the park, I found Robert Daros, from Florida, sitting in a chair behind a table with a sign that said, “info.” Originally from Florida, he saw a poster in a café and wanted to participate. So he quit his job and came to the park. He, like everyone else who is taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests, is still trying to figure out how to successfully organize."

I said a "few" - here's a second - Casey O'Neill, Oakland, CA.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/27/140854961/wall-street-protest-continues-this-week
"ARUN VENUGOPAL: Until a couple weeks ago, 34-year-old Casey O'Neill worked as a data manager in Oakland, California. Now, he lives in a park next to ground zero.

CASEY O'NEILL: I actually quit my job and got a one-way ticket out here for the protests. I just felt like it was really - in a lot ways, this was the last hope for some sort of real change."

Actually, it seems they're leaving their jobs to join this protest. Kids or not.

 

[CAC1001]

JDoolin, start with these (and not saying you will agree with them 100%, but just pointing out that there is a whole different universe of thinking on these issues)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related

 

[FlexGunship]

Republicans are not for corporations. Republicans are for the free-market, something corporations are notorious for seeking to undermine and undercut. Republicans are also for limited government, low taxation, and light levels of regulation, things many large corporations are also against and historically have been against. The crux of your misconception is the belief that it is government that can fix all of society's problems. Need to fix education? More government. Fix poverty? More government programs. Get more housing to the poor? More government. A corrupt industry needs fixing? More government regulations. Making sure everyone has healthcare? More government. Republicans recognize that not only does government oftentimes not work at fixing these problems, but instead often has a tendency to make them even worse in its attempts at fixing them. Republicans very much care about the plight of the poor, the environment, education, healthcare, etc...but have a whole lot of limited-government to non-governmental solutions to these problems.

The problem is that in this moment in history, the facts prove you wrong. My social democracy needed to blow 15% GDP on fixing the holes your liberal economy left behind, another few procents on the PIIGS, and the northern european states are still running.

Not only don't you fail to provide what welfare states can give to your people under the assumption that 'it cannot work,' you are also provably wrong given the facts, and blowing holes into my economy.

MarcoD, I'm not sure if this was meant as a satirical response, or not; sometimes those things don't come through on the internet. A social democracy usually leads to a liberal economy.

Either way, you're still confusing extremes. A welfare state CAN'T work, by definition, because there's no work being done. Welfare provided by the state, is a good bridge that helps folks experiencing a maelstrom of financial problems recover and rejoin the economy. You certainly wouldn't want to make it so that someone could survive without contributing to society otherwise you'd have no society to pay for the non-contributors!

Either way, what facts are you constantly referring to?

EDIT: There seem to be a lot of straw-men belonging to the Republican party here. I don't know any "anti-poor" Republicans, but I know plenty that prefer non-governmental ways of aiding the poor. On the flip side, it seems that every Democrat I know does fall into the stereotype of wanting the government to fix society's ills.

 

[WhoWee]

JDoolin, start with these (and not saying you will agree with them 100%, but just pointing out that there is a whole different universe of thinking on these issues)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related

Friedman's analysis of minimum wage has never been more applicable than today - unskilled and uneducated people have been priced out of the market - IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

Friedman's analysis of minimum wage has never been more applicable than today - unskilled and uneducated people have been priced out of the market - IMO.

It's SO true. And everyone thinks the repsonse is to raise the minimum wage. Every time I hear someone talk about raising the minimum wage, I cringe. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how an economy actually functions.

You'd think people would listen to him considering he's a danged Nobel Laureate.

 

[CAC1001]

The problem is that in this moment in history, the facts prove you wrong. My social democracy needed to blow 15% GDP on fixing the holes your liberal economy left behind, another few procents on the PIIGS, and the northern european states are still running.

When you say liberal, I am assuming you mean the classical definition of it...? Because here in America, a person would interpret that as meaning a left-leaning economy. I would disagree with you. Part of what engendered this whole problem in the first place was the government trying to get everyone a home, something the other countries did not try to do. It ended up blowing up in our faces. As the economist Raghuram Rajan has said, "The problem, as often is the case with government policies, was not intent. It rarely is. But when lots of easy money pushed by a deep-pocketed government comes into contact with the profit motive of a sophisticated, competitive, and amoral financial sector, matters get taken far beyond the government's intent" (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rajan7/English).

Not only don't you fail to provide what welfare states can give to your people under the assumption that 'it cannot work,' you are also provably wrong given the facts, and blowing holes into my economy.

There are a variety of books on the problems caused by a welfare state. One simple aspect though is that if you pay people not to work, they won't. You thus end up with generations on welfare. That's a bad thing if it is structured like that. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all government programs to help people are bad, but that a great many of them will do the opposite of what they were meant to do.

 

[CAC1001]

You'd think people would listen to him considering he's a danged Nobel Laureate.

Well in fairness, being a Nobel Laureate as an economist doesn't make one right on the issues. Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate, so is Joseph Stiglitz, and I disagree with them almost all the time (although Krugman's Nobel is for his work in trade economics, not macroeconomics). One thing that makes the unemployment rate in large cities even worse is that in addition to a lot of states having their own minimum wage laws that are higher than the national minimum wage, some big cities have their own "living wage" laws, which are even higher! Friedman was probably the greatest research economist of the 20th century though and made some major contributions (his biggest I think being to recognize that socialism wasn't the way to go, a view that made many view him as radical at the time).

A wealthy economy can withstand a minimum wage in good times and still maintain full employment, but after a point, the laws of economics kick in, and the unemployment rate will go up. Same as you can increase the tax on gasoline and people will continue to use the same, but raise the tax too much and demand changes; what is interesting is most on the left understand the economics perfectly regarding something like gasoline but so many misunderstand it completely when it comes to employment. Ironically, one of the first things Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did upon taking control of the Congress in 2006, was to raise the national minimum wage.

MarcoD, I'm not sure if this was meant as a satirical response, or not; sometimes those things don't come through on the internet. A social democracy usually leads to a liberal economy.

The impression I got was MarcoD is from a European country, and in Europe, if you announce, "I'm a liberal!" people interpret that as what in America would be thought of as a right-winger.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well in fairness, being a Nobel Laureate as an economist doesn't make one right on the issues.

Nope, but it makes one worth listening to. More people know who "Snooki" is than Milton Friedman.