We are the 53% and we are not occupy Wall Street

[MagickMan]

Protesting never changes anything directly. It changes things by affecting public opinion. You think John Boehner gives a damn that people are yelling at him? Of course not. He still won't pass a jobs bill or pass stronger regulations on banks. Because the people who vote for him don't want him to, but that is gradually changing. 36% of Republicans now believe wealth distribution needs to be more egalitarian.

Oh, please! You think the marches on Washington didn't change things decades ago? You get all these OWS people in D.C., unify them, organize them, and park them on the national mall and I guarantee you'll get a better response.

42% or Repubs classify themselves as moderates, and those moderates have probably always felt that way. 😵

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW, the Civil Rights movement also protested state governments and had sit ins at private businesses. They didn't go straight to DC and blame the government.

 

[Throckmorton]

Oh, please! You think the marches on Washington didn't change things decades ago? You get all these OWS people in D.C., unify them, organize them, and park them on the national mall and I guarantee you'll get a better response.

42% or Repubs classify themselves as moderates, and those moderates have probably always felt that way. 😵

This is a lot more complex than Civil Rights. The message that would reach the general public would be "liberals hate the government just like conservatives do".

 

[MagickMan]

That was then, this is now. And now, the media would spin it as PEOPLE HATE THE GUBBERMENT DOWN WITH GGUBBERMENT

Where's that emoticon with the guy bashing his head into a brick wall?

Of course it was then! That's what works! The government is our "business", the corporations aren't. We elect people to check and balance the corporations, but they're not doing their jobs. Why? Because they stopped working for us, working for the people, and sit with their hands out.

I'm not saying that we should hate the government, I'm saying that it's rotten and needs fresh blood and more desire to serve US.

 

[MagickMan]

BTW, the Civil Rights movement also protested state governments and had sit ins at private businesses. They didn't go straight to DC and blame the government.

Yes, and it didn't actually work until they finally did get to D.C. and a national stage. You know, the "I have a dream" moment? Very powerful.

 

[Throckmorton]

Where's that emoticon with the guy bashing his head into a brick wall?

Of course it was then! That's what works! The government is our "business", the corporations aren't. We elect people to check and balance the corporations, but they're not doing their jobs. Why? Because they stopped working for us, working for the people, and sit with their hands out.

I'm not saying that we should hate the government, I'm saying that it's rotten and needs fresh blood and more desire to serve US.

Occupying the capitol instead of Wall Street wouldn't work now because it would be just another "WE HATE THE GOVERNMENT" protest. Wall Street, and the 1%, and the uber rich would get lost and the message would never reach the public.

Occupying WS gets the message across to the public and to government that the people want something to be done ABOUT Wall Street.

 

[Throckmorton]

Look at it this way... Wall Street is as powerful and out of control as it is because it managed to convince the public that government was broken and inefficient, and that deregulation and free trade and free market capitalism and trickledown were the solutions.

 

[davmat787]

This is a lot more complex than Civil Rights. The message that would reach the general public would be "liberals hate the government just like conservatives do".

I don't think the media would spin it in the manner you describe. So far, OWS seems to be getting favorable, or fair, coverage in the media. Are you sure you aren't simply conflicted seeing the governments fault with this? You aren't cheating on any liberal/democrat tenets by placing blame with the government, at least I don't think so.

I'm with MagickMan on this.

 

[MagickMan]

Occupying the capitol instead of Wall Street wouldn't work now because it would be just another "WE HATE THE GOVERNMENT" protest. Wall Street, and the 1%, and the uber rich would get lost and the message would never reach the public.

Occupying WS gets the message across to the public and to government that the people want something to be done ABOUT Wall Street.

Now you're just trolling, I've already knocked that argument down twice now. It didn't work those other times either.

 

[bfdd]

BECAUSE A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT LET THEM. Jesus, dude. Businesses answer to their stockholders, they have to make money. The government is OUR BUSINESS, as citizens we own "stock" in it. It's a "check and balance" system, but the government stooges are just cashing checks and watching their personal bank balances.

See, businesses are doing what they should do, but our business (the US Gov't) isn't. Why? Because it's broken and corrupt. They place their desire for money and power over their desire to serve the people, so we need to tell them what we think about that. Turn the OWS crowd around and point them at Capitol Hill, because right now they aren't doing a damned bit of good.

he doesn't get it. I have explained the same thing tonhim when talkig about labor issues in the early 1900s and the early unions. if the government wasn't corrupt and did it's job of protecting our most basic of rights like freedom of assembly there would have been no issue to the formation of unions.

also stop blaming wall street, it is full of people and entities who have nothing to do with the corruption. like I said blame the money and the biggest players in wall street also happen to have direct ties to the controllers and printers if our currency, the Federal Reserve. wall street doesn't own the federal reserve, the federal reserve owns wall street. all of wall streets business is conducted in what currency again? yea I thought ao.

 

[ComradeBeck]

also stop blaming wall street

No way, the world economy was plundered, here we go, I will try wingnut lingo: imagine its 50 brazillion to the power of 2 Mexicans getting stitches in a public hospital. Imagine the horror of THAT bill. Now times that by the world and that's what wall street took out of our pockets.

 

[MagickMan]

No way, the world economy was plundered, here we go, I will try wingnut lingo: imagine its 50 brazillion to the power of 2 Mexicans getting stitches in a public hospital. Imagine the horror of THAT bill. Now times that by the world and that's what wall street took out of our pockets.

Seek help, you're nuts.

Go back and read our posts, there's truth there. You may not like it, it may be tough to accept because your mind is so closed, but if you don't you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Craig234]

Look at it this way... Wall Street is as powerful and out of control as it is because it managed to convince the public that government was broken and inefficient, and that deregulation and free trade and free market capitalism and trickledown were the solutions.

That's largely it. "How are we the 0.01% going to screw people when the democracy gives them government that protects them?" "Launch a marketing campaign to make them hate the government and think the private sector is on their side." Ronald Reagan, spokesman for General Electric: 'Government isn't the solution it's the problem. Trust me.'

 

[Craig234]

42% or Repubs classify themselves as moderates

Name me three 'moderate' Republicans in the House of Representatives.

 

[Exterous]

Says who? My dad went to a community college to learn to be a machinist, he didn't even go for two years and he has always been more than able to provide for us when we were young. My step mom has gone to school for more than 6 years and she was making 15k-20k a year more than my dad was. derp a der, who listened to who? There are tons and tons of great paying blue collar jobs out there, most of which you and many others have no fucking clue about because they were NEVER EVER brought up during your education. Ever heard of a millwright? Of course you hadn't, me the fuck neither, but sure as shit they exist and have been building things in this country for a long ass fucking time.

Yes educators hold a large majority of the blame and while they may not have chose the major for the kid, they definitely used their position to encourage kids in certain directions. How old are you? I'm 26, I remember going through middle school being told you have to get good grades and get into a good college or university so you could be something in life. Education education education, but only the kind they want to teach you. Most of which really isn't suitable for real life.

The cultural imperatives are there - plain to see. TV shows always make a big deal about the children of the TV show parents going to college. Its a big dramatic episode when OH NO! They dont want to go to college!!! Our society glorifies Doctors, Architects, people with MBAs. You don't see millwrights on TV.

You know the second biggest rating that parents choose schools on? How many students that graduated that HS went on to college (The first is graduation rate). Parents say 'I want my kid to work hard so they can go to college and have a better life than I did'. Parents how shown schools that this is very important to them. And - who votes in the school baord? Parents. So - the school board leans whatever way the vast majority of parents want. Furthermore - it is not the schools' responsibility to show the kid every possible job opportunity. School is not a job fair. Thats what the parents are there for.

I am not saying that schools don't push kids to continue on to college - only that 1) Its part of most of our culture to do so (they are - by far - not the only ones) and 2) placing most of the blame on them is unrealistic (Parents - take responsibility for your own damn kids! If a school has a bigger impact on your child's development and life than you did you are DOING IT WRONG!)

 

[kami333]

Name me three 'moderate' Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Charles Bass, NH
Jim Gerlach, PA
Charlie Dent, PA

 

[palehorse]

That was then, this is now. And now, the media would spin it as PEOPLE HATE THE GUBBERMENT DOWN WITH GGUBBERMENT

The only problem with your theory is that people DO hate (or, at the very least, disapprove of) the current Government... it's not spin.

If the solution to this mess lies in DC, then it would make a lot more sense to protest there. That just seems like common sense to me...

 

[BansheeX]

The Mises take on the tuition increases doesn't really hold water (shocker):
Increases in tuition is a globally observed phenomenon and has very little to do with government subsidies - even in countries that have historically subsidized higher education we see tuition increases.

You cannot be serious with that statement. The subsidies haven't always been the same amount. Schools can raise their prices every year knowing that the government will increase their loan and grant amounts to compensate. Because a government lender has no fear of loss like a private lender. What do they have to lose? Someone else's money, a future person no less.

This is just common sense. Every single industry that gets subsidized in the name of social progress sees this dynamic. Nobody goes around saying we need to loan everyone 10,000 for a computer, because computer manufacturers would suddenly charge 10,000 if you did. Free trade has caused prices on computers to DECLINE and grow in quality in spite of inflation. Because competition and people spending their own money tends to do that. Education is no different. There is nothing special about a teaching service over any other kind of service that makes it immune to the effects of free trade. Get the government out of it completely and you will see prices go down and students get more serious about their education.

General consensus on the topic is the technological progress over the last 40 years necessitates more education to be productive in the workplace, which in turns drives the demand for education. The opportunities for menial labor have obviously shrunk since the 60s - don't need that many welders if you can have a robot do the same work etc.

There wasn't technological progress between 1880 and 1920? Holy god you're dumb. Those people went from candlelight to lightbulbs, horses to cars. We had the industrial revolution, the most rapid increase in production the world has ever seen.

I would highly recommend using the empirical approach to these things, rather than the Austrian two step ("dogma therefore conclusion, data be damned").

Your stupid chart only proves my point, that you don't understand how necessary fear of loss is to keep greed in check. Politicians and educators are just as greedy as everyone else. How about you post a chart comparing the price history of education to the price history of something not subsidized by government. That would be fairly eye-opening for you.

 

[bfdd]

Exterous, I'd agree with you that parents would take more responsibility except kids spend more time at school than they do with their parents now a days. Ever since I was little it was pretty much the same way. Schools do most the raising now, you don't think this was due to parents being overly lazy do you? Has more to do with the State grabbing power, like forcing EVERYONE to go to school? Know the best way to indoctrinate a population? Ever read a little Marx and Engle?

 

[ComradeBeck]

Seek help, you're nuts.

Go back and read our posts, there's truth there. You may not like it, it may be tough to accept because your mind is so closed, but if you don't you have no one to blame but yourself.

None of you provided a real world or even somewhat realistic argument except "gubbumunt...BAAaaaAAAd!" We all heard this line in the 80s. It does not work and you all are too hung up on the corporations talk radio nutsack to learn from your mistakes, so you all if not adapting your plan you shall just be laughed at at irrelevant talk radio fanbois in la-la land.


Superficial talking points for talk radio fed small minds. This is why you guys get 0% respect, you have no attachment to reality you are so hopped up on smelling your own very stale farts.

Conservatism needs to come back to reality soon, lest they become even more irrelevant in taking part in real life governing.

 

[bfdd]

None of you provided a real world or even somewhat realistic argument except "gubbumunt...BAAaaaAAAd!" We all heard this line in the 80s. It does not work and you all are too hung up on the corporations talk radio nutsack to learn from your mistakes, so you all if not adapting your plan you shall just be laughed at at irrelevant talk radio fanbois in la-la land.


Superficial talking points for talk radio fed small minds. This is why you guys get 0% respect, you have no attachment to reality you are so hopped up on smelling your own very stale farts.

Conservatism needs to come back to reality soon, lest they become even more irrelevant in taking part in real life governing.

they used the govermmemt against us. if we expand governments role, it allows for them to control more throw government and hide their actions behind 'regulation". how do you not see this?

 

[Exterous]

Exterous, I'd agree with you that parents would take more responsibility except kids spend more time at school than they do with their parents now a days. Ever since I was little it was pretty much the same way. Schools do most the raising now, you don't think this was due to parents being overly lazy do you? Has more to do with the State grabbing power, like forcing EVERYONE to go to school? Know the best way to indoctrinate a population? Ever read a little Marx and Engle?

I am trying to understand your point. Are you saying the schools are more to blame because the parents are more absent? Thats not the schools fault. I also think its insane to consider the schools as 'raising' the kids because of the limitations placed on schools in terms of how the handle the students. (Doesn't necessarily mean I don't think that it happens)

To indoctrinate such a vast group of people as you suggest you'd need the collaboration of untold numbers of administrators and teachers in which case I'd say dumbing down standards, forced teaching methodologies and requirements from government mandated programs like NCLB has at least done as much damage in terms of indocrination than the educators (Don't even get me started on the 'my child is special' 'everyone wins' 'scared shitless of parental lawsuits' crap that pervades our schools)

 

[ComradeBeck]

they used the govermmemt against us. if we expand governments role, it allows for them to control more throw government and hide their actions behind 'regulation". how do you not see this?

It is quite simple, keep the corporations out of the government and the problem is solved. It has always worked fine mostly until Republican deregulation came about in the 1980s, this is where your blind spot is, your way here is a total fail in real life, so you guys double down.

Sorry, but people who do not learn from mistakes over and over and either stupid, or desperate. Probably both. Adapt or be left behind. No need to keep propping up failure lest the free market of ideas run your asses over.

Problem is you guys are so wrapped up in your fantasyworlds you have no bearings on reality, thus you repeat laughable superficial nonsense as this.

 

[Throckmorton]

Now you're just trolling, I've already knocked that argument down twice now. It didn't work those other times either.

The public opinion polls show that I'm right. The public is increasingly wanting government to fix the economic problems caused by Wall Street.


Why can't you understand this? Protesting IN WALL STREET is the only way to get the American people to focus on on the 1% and the power they wield.

 

[MovingTarget]

Exterous, I'd agree with you that parents would take more responsibility except kids spend more time at school than they do with their parents now a days. Ever since I was little it was pretty much the same way. Schools do most the raising now, you don't think this was due to parents being overly lazy do you? Has more to do with the State grabbing power, like forcing EVERYONE to go to school? Know the best way to indoctrinate a population? Ever read a little Marx and Engle?

Parents still had plenty of time with their children after K-12 became mandatory. Are you seriously arguing that we not require children to attend school or at least verify that they are homeschooled? That is a requirement for civilized advanced society nowadays. The school day is still ~8-3 now as it was decades ago. You may want to save your ire for the fact that two wage earners are now required for the most part to keep a family afloat financially.