Thread: Thousands to occupy Wall Street in protest

MAHER: And I think that's where we are now with the Occupy movement. They did a great job bringing the issue of income and equality to the fore, but now it's just a bunch of douchebags who think throwing a chair through the Starbucks window is going to bring on the revolution.

Remember, Maher is a comedian. His friend is Ann Coulter. They like each other because they are equals in being hateful to an extreme.

Originally Posted by misskit

MAHER: And I think that's where we are now with the Occupy movement. They did a great job bringing the issue of income and equality to the fore, but now it's just a bunch of douchebags who think throwing a chair through the Starbucks window is going to bring on the revolution.

Remember, Maher is a comedian. His friend is Ann Coulter. They like each other because they are equals in being hateful to an extreme.

But when Maher spouts far leftist rhetoric (sorry comedy) on his show, he is posted on TD as some kind of save the nation hero of the people...and taken seriously too. In this short clip, he is just saying what a few of us on here have been saying for months.

Nobody has suggested seriously that the OWS movement does not (did not) have a following of youthful, naive; wet behind the ears people who probably believed that they were doing something noble, but basically the "movement" was inspired by anarchist extremists who will pick up on any cause to promote their agenda. Their true colors always show up after a period of reason and "peaceful" protest......

...and why does anybody think they did such a great job of bringing attention to "income disparity"?? FFS.....that's like saying that the weather channel did a great job to telling us that bad weather is coming, when there's two feet of snow in the driveway already and 75MPH winds gusting to 100MPH.

Basically; the OWS is going to go the way of the "twist" "disco" and bell bottom pants......etc

Time to get on with the next "movement". I'm off to the bathroom now....caio..

So when Maher says something the reactionaries agree with, they are over it like flies on crap as though he is some kind of enlightened being.

Occupy has a following of other than the youth but the blind will not see. The movement is large and encompasses more than tent gatherings.

Several times it has been noted, since the first day of the protests, that the movement is useless and fading away. Yet, there is still news and protests going on all over the country.

One day it will fade as it outlives it's usefulness, but doesn't look to be so

Originally Posted by koman

...and why does anybody think they did such a great job of bringing attention to "income disparity"?? FFS.....that's like saying that the weather channel did a great job to telling us that bad weather is coming, when there's two feet of snow in the driveway already and 75MPH winds gusting to 100MPH.

When there is a huge storm, the weather channel makes a huge deal of it. That's when they have the most viewers.

Originally Posted by misskit

One day it will fade as it outlives it's usefulness, but doesn't look to be so

What is it's "usefulness"? I think just about everyone who cares already knows there is "income disparity"...."greedy banks".....and global warming is so bad that people all over Europe are freezing to death in the hundreds.

It's nice of these folks to "raise awareness" of all these things.....OK they made their point.....time to go home now and stop breaking things, making a mess and driving up overtime pay for the cops.... The world will change without you.

When there is more democracy and economic fairness, Occupy will stop. Promise.

Economic Fairness:

This is a system whereby my government conficates half (or more) of everything I earn, and distributes it to others, without any particular regard for merit.

The main problem with this otherwise noble socialist idea, is that after a while I will just decide that it's not worth the effort, so I will will begin to earn less and less; so their half will get progressively smaller and smaller along with my half.

The flaw as always is that it is only "fair" to the receipients, but is not fair to the providers. Another possibility would be for me to go earn my fortune somewhere else, beyond the reach of my government and all the outreached hands of the downtrodden masses.......so now they don't get half of anything.....oh dear.

There's a line in Tolstoy's "War and Peace" which says: " When corrupt people conspire together to from a force; innocent people must do the same. It's as simple as that"

At first glance this would appear to be a perfect slogan for the OWS movement, but it also applies to all those who are being slandered, victimized and targeted just because they happen to be successful or "rich"

Better to stop an economic system where corporations act in concert with the government to take all control from the people and put it all in control of corporations who's only aim is putting profits into the hands of stockholders and officers of the corporations.

People who are actually working or try to work for a living suffer while the wealthy are sitting on their cans, living like parasites, drawing dividend checks.

I swiped this from Sabang on another thread. (Thank you!)

-Corporations are sitting on record levels of cash ever
-Corporate Profitability is at or near a record
- They are paying a record low 12% rate of tax (since 1972)
-The Rich paying a record low rate of tax in living memory.
-Both Corp's and the Rich pay less tax than the US middle class
-Yet real wages went down last year in the USA for the average person.
-Wealth inequality is the highest ever, at Third rather than Developed world levels
-US executive and CEO pay is stratospheric compared to the rest of the world
-Minimum wages are appallingly low compared to Europe etc, and unemployment remains high

Originally Posted by koman

Economic Fairness: This is a system whereby my government conficates half (or more) of everything I earn, and distributes it to others, without any particular regard for merit.

But it's ok for banks and other financial "wizards" to take a boatload of taxpayer money as a reward for destroying an economy, just for shits and giggles?

Anyway, no one is seriously talking about a 50% tax rate for any sector of society so don't be such a "the sky is falling" alarmist.

And for the record, I support a (low) flat tax on all income and the abolishment of corporate personhood. Political campaigns should be disallowed private funding, as well. That's the OWS message, not some socialist nightmare you've concocted from your ass.

Yes for flat tax! No loopholes.

I just love how conservatives talk about EARNING money. People who are paramedics, nurses, shop clerks, managers, factory works and the like EARN money, not people who collect money from investments. Yet the working people pay more tax than the lazy ones.

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Originally Posted by koman

Economic Fairness: This is a system whereby my government conficates half (or more) of everything I earn, and distributes it to others, without any particular regard for merit.

But it's ok for banks and other financial "wizards" to take a boatload of taxpayer money as a reward for destroying an economy, just for shits and giggles?

Anyway, no one is seriously talking about a 50% tax rate for any sector of society so don't be such a "the sky is falling" alarmist.

And for the record, I support a (low) flat tax on all income and the abolishment of corporate personhood. Political campaigns should be disallowed private funding, as well. That's the OWS message, not some socialist nightmare you've concocted from your ass.

The 59%+ was not a projection of anything to come. It was a historical fact. One of the main reasons I fled the UK was taxes. I was paying 50%+ and others were paying more.....some of them much more on their highest earnings.

I too argee with a flat tax but It seems very unlikely to happen any time soon.
The left would still complain that the "rich" should be paying much more than them so it would still be deemed to be unfair by some.

Corporate "personhood" is a bit of a red herring and seems to be greatly misunderstood. A corporation is a "legal entity" and in that sense acts much in the same way as any legal person with respect to being able to enter into legal contracts. They have liabilities, responsibilities and rights much the same as a person, but for good reason. How would a corporaton function without this framework? This is not something peculiar to the US, It works like that just about everywhere.

Corporations can be sued (successfully in many cases) and they have to pay fines and compensation just like any legal person who is found to have done a legal wrong. The uS just happens to have a large number of big and successful corporations.....for which you should be thankful...because without them ya'all would be still hewing wood and drawing water from the well; ploughing yer 40 acres with a mule, and maybe whittlin and fiddlin on the front porch watching the sun going down... Jeez I can almost hear duelling bango's .... Instead you get to enjoy your oversized kidney shaped pool and watch FOX on your personal Jumbotron.....which the big bad banker let you have with no money down....

I don't think the sky is falling at all....quite the opposite in fact. Things are slowly starting to turn around......and I may have to revise my five year prediction for when all the hysteria, camping out, pepper spraying, and banker bashing is a foggy memory....... All this will come about despite the OWS....,not because of them...

Citizens United vs. The Supreme Court made it legal for corporations to make unlimited contributions for political campaigns. There had been limits before but CU fought it on the grounds of 'corporate personhood.'

It is the most unpopular Supreme Court ruling, with the right and the left, since Dred-Scott. Regular citizens don't have the money to mount huge campaigns but corporations do. Voters don't like it.

One of the things OWS has done is to bring attention to this and push to have this decision overturned.

I would be willing to bet no other civilized democracy would allow corporations to control their election process.

Originally Posted by misskit

Citizens United vs. The Supreme Court made it legal for corporations to make unlimited contributions for political campaigns. There had been limits before but CU fought it on the grounds of 'corporate personhood.'

It is the most unpopular Supreme Court ruling, with the right and the left, since Dred-Scott. Regular citizens don't have the money to mount huge campaigns but corporations do. Voters don't like it.

One of the things OWS has done is to bring attention to this and push to have this decision overturned.

I would be willing to bet no other civilized democracy would allow corporations to control their election process.

Yes, I agree that corporations should not be able to make "unlimited" contributions to political parties or candidates. Nor should Unions or individuals for that matter. This does seem to be something peculiar to the US and it should never have been allowed.

I don't know to what extent OWS can be credited with bringing attention to this situation however? Most people seem to have been well aware of it long before OWS appeared. The amount of money spend on electioneering (by all sides) in the US is staggering to most non-Americans.

Using Canada as a example and a geographically close neighbor.....far more money has been spent on the GOP primaries already than all the parties combined spent in the last Canadian Federal election. When you then look at the time spent on these elections you have to wonder how anybody ever gets anything done. Obama has been in election mode almost since the day he was sworn in and alledgely has over a billion dollars in his "war chest" for the final surge leading up to next November. They seem to be in more or less permanent "election" mode.

The Canadian system allows them to call an election; have a few TV debates; do a bit of TV advertising and drive/fly around making a few speeches......in 30 days it's done.....and nobody is allowed to contribute more than $5K (I think) so the corporations really don't have much of an edge......well except for the lobbyists...who are there to fend off the lobbyists from the Unions, Environmental groups etc. Everybody has their lobby these days.

Originally Posted by misskit

You know that bringing up Canada as a model for elections (or health care) brings howls of Socialist from the right wing. Boon Mee will disown you when he reads that.

Have to let Booners deal with that in his own way........ I've made no secret of being a total supporter of national heathcare programs.....and good election practices. Conservatives are not all the same, and as a general rule we don't have to hunt in packs to defend our respective opinions on things like this. It's fine to disagree....it's all about how you do it.

Again I think you fail to recognize that being critical of the OWS movement does not mean that we are supporting the status-quo or fighting down necessary changes. Protest comes in many forms; some positive and productive and others destructive and non-productive. Successful protest always seems to have certain characteristics....such as intelligent and charismatic leadership; focus on very specific issues, widespread acceptance/support throughtout the mainstream population and things like that. From what I can see, the OWS lacks these characteristics in abundance. The Tea Party (which I was not a particular fan of) was much more focused, more diciplined, and exhibited much more civilized behavior all round. They had their particular political house in order and knew how to get their message through to the politicians....or at least a reasonable number of them...and they clearly had influence in the mid term elections...although how much is difficult to measure.

The sheer numbers of OWS supporters just has not been there. I know it looks quite impressive on some of the TV clips and the fringe press puts the best spin on it that they can, but the fact is that they have not resonated with the vast majority. Sure the winter weather would slow down any protest group, but they have lost whatever momentum they had and although it may pick up again in the spring/summer there is just too many other things for most people to deal with; so it is likely that only the usual full time protest types will show up in any numbers. They have little to no credibility with most people, but may draw some interest from the hoards of young people who have nothing else to do.

More importanty, changes are being planned, discussed and in implemented without much fanfare by those who can actually make changes. As an example; most people outside of the banking world don't realize just how much resistance existed within the financial services industry to the almost fanatical surge of deregulation 20+ years ago. Many of those "resisters" are now in senior management positions and have made no bones about saying "we told you so".

Even the God like Alan Greenspan has admitted that he was wrong about the long term effects of the decisions that were taken and steadfastly defended against all warnings and pleadings. The Senate has just passed legislation against "insider trading" by members.......very decent of them don't you think....

Much more will need to be done, but it's like turning a fast moving oil tanker around....it has to be done carefully and it takes time.

I have explained all this to my own cat....and she seems to understand very well. I may upgrade her food to "gourmet" Whiskas in recognition......

An editorial from the Financial Times about adapting our capitalist system to the changing times and the renewed debate brought by OWS. It is all about being able to change and not holding on to an old model that is not working for people. (Biggest problem when dealing with conservatives: cannot change!)


Capitalism is dead; long live capitalism

The market economy is the most successful mechanism for creating prosperity humanity knows. Allied to modern science, it has done more than transform the world economy; it has transformed the world. For the first time in history, the world’s principal states rely on the market economy to develop their economies. Almost as important, they rely on a global market economy. Contemporary states are destined to co-operate with one another if they are to prosper.

Yet the market economy is not as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians in the book of Daniel. It is successful not because it stays the same, but because it does not. The driving force is the desire of all human beings to work for the betterment of themselves and their families. The mechanism is the equally natural search for a better deal. But institutional settings and relationships with political institutions have always been open to change. This very adaptability has ensured the survival of market economies.

Two centuries ago there was no limited liability, no personal bankruptcy, little central banking, no environmental regulation and no unemployment insurance. All these changes occurred in response to economic or political pressures. All brought with them new solutions and new challenges. At a time of ongoing financial shocks, this need for adaptation has not ended. On the contrary, it is as important as ever.

What, then, are the challenges that matter today? The libertarian movement in the US, whose standard-bearer is Ron Paul, is clear about the answer: abolish nearly all of these policy innovations and go back, as far as possible, to the capitalism of the late 19th century. Outside the US this current of opinion holds little sway. Even inside the US, it is merely a component of the Republican coalition. It is more than a mere curiosity – but it is not going to shape the future.

More relevant is asking how far the resurgent capitalism that emerged in the 1980s, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK, now needs to be reformed. The answer is that it must be, for it has proved not just unstable, but, in important respects, unjust. The result has not only been a devastating crisis, but also a sense that the achievement of extraordinary wealth may not reflect exceptional merit. In societies that rely on consent, this is politically corrosive.

At the heart of the renewed debate are three issues: finance, corporate governance, and taxation. These are the questions raised by the “occupy” movements, which, for all their intellectual incoherence, have altered the terms of the political debate.

The financial sector grew too big, partly because risks were misunderstood and partly because it was encouraged by policymakers to expand. It will need to be better constrained in future, partly by ensuring the risks it creates are internalised. Again, corporate management has too often rigged executive compensation in its own interests, rather than that of shareholders.

Finally, a plethora of incentives have allowed many of the most successful people to escape taxation. In all these respects, the modern economy needs reform, to become both fairer and more efficient.

Beyond such reforms, the debate over macroeconomic stabilisation that goes back to the 1930s has been renewed. In the years up to the crisis, the broad consensus was that a monetary policy targeted at inflation was enough. This view has been exploded. After the extended period of desperate improvisation now under way, a new synthesis will be required, one that takes proper account of asset prices, leverage and the role of central banks as lenders of last resort.

Capitalism will endure, by changing. That is the lesson of the past. It is just as relevant today.

FT.com / Registration / Sign-up
00144feabdc0.html#axzz1laEMXEOn

Originally Posted by misskit

(Biggest problem when dealing with conservatives: cannot change!)

Sorry Kitty, but that is an absurd notion. Of course "conservatives" can and do change. It's just that they tend to be more "conservative" about it..... that is to say, they don't take the position that you have to burn down the village to save it. I hear so called "socialists" still recycling some of the same old stuff I read in Harold Wilson's Labor party manefesto (1964)...which must have been copied page by page out of Marx and Engles.... so I guess we can say that "socialists" can't change either. I thought it was great stuff at the time.....but over the years that followed I grew up.....

Good article BTW....agree with about 99% of it.... ....but attributing any of this to the OWS movement is just a bit over the top. I read a paper produced by the Frazier Institute (Right wing think tank) ten years ago (or more) which said pretty much exactly the same kind of things..... Capitalists/conservatives have re-invented themselves many times in the past....including the adoption of a few good ideas from "socialists"..... A good idea is a good idea regardless of the source....now; if only we could get "socialists" to agree with some good "conservative" principles...we might start to get somewhere....

Originally Posted by koman

.but over the years that followed I grew up

Meaning anyone who doesn't agree with you didn't grow up?

Originally Posted by koman

A good idea is a good idea regardless of the source....now; if only we could get "socialists" to agree with some good "conservative" principles...we might start to get somewhere

How about some of those good "conservatives" in the USA taking on some of those "socialist" principles to solve some of our biggest problems, healthcare and election reform? Sound like a good start?

By the way, I think it would be nice if you could point out just where some progress is being made in the States as far as taxation, finance and corporate governance goes. I will be sure to bring it to the protester's attention so they can stop wasting their time.

Originally Posted by misskit

I mean something concrete. Like legislation. (Not your notion that things are gonna change all natural and airy-fairy like.)

Jesus H. Christ.....I never said there was any legislation...and your question was so general and broad in scope, how could anyone give an adequate response without writing a book. I posted way back about the moves in the international banking sector to introduce all kinds of new regulations concerning liquidity requirements, leverage, and a whole range of other issues. The whole financial industry is under scrutiny FFS. Proposals to segregate investment banking from retail banking. Seperation of equities trading units from banks and insurance operations and on and on. This is driven out of necessity and it is being driven from within the industry itself and has nothing to do with OWS or anybody else. Actual legislation could be years away, but it will come. It's complex and time consuming because of the international nature of the industry and the difficulty of reaching concensus. Sorry but not everything is conveniently found on Google .... and as you know, I don't Google that much and I don't rely on cut/paste. This is a casual discussion....not a trial.....

How do YOU think camping out in city parks, disrupting the odd port gate and generally making a nuisance of yourself is going to change any of this? You can claim to raise awareness all you like....but I think most people are aware already...or at least those who will ever be aware of anything other than Lindsay Lohan's latest trip to re-hab. If, as you have suggested, there is no progress or nothing is being discussed with respect to these changes....then OWS has not achieved anything either. Things are happening however.....you can attribute it to OWS if it makes you feel better, but some of us see it from a different standpoint.... Thats all...

OK.

Let us go back to posting OWS NEWS then, which is what this thread WAS supposed to be about.

Oh, forgot the smiley!

^
Just had this little item pop up on my homepage......one small example of what's going on in the world of finance and banking......I'll make an exception to my no cut-paste rule....just cause Misskitt asked......

Swiss banks to outline steps in US tax evasion row
05/02/2012 11:45:00 AM
The Associated Press
GENEVA - Two Swiss banks will this week outline their response to growing pressure from the U.S. to give up tax-evading American customers and the bankers who helped them.


Julius Baer Group and Zuercher Kantonalbank are among at least 11 Swiss banks targeted by U.S. authorities following a successful case against UBS AG that forced Switzerland's biggest bank to hand over 4,450 clients' files to Washington in 2010. Since then, an amnesty program and the arrest of several Swiss bankers have given U.S. authorities ample ammunition to pursue other banks in the Alpine nation.
Zurich-listed Julius Baer, founded in 1890, will detail its position when the bank's full-year results are released Monday, spokesman Jan Vonder Muehll told The Associated Press in an email Sunday.








Zuercher Kantonalbank, founded in 1870 and owned by the canton (state) of Zurich where many of Switzerland's biggest banks are based, is expected to follow suit when its annual results are presented Friday.
Swiss banks have been shaken into action by the unexpected closure last month of the nation's oldest bank. St. Gallen-based Wegelin & Co., whose history dates back to 1741, announced Jan. 27 that it was selling most of its business after U.S. authorities indicted the bank with conspiring to help American clients hide more than $1.2 billion from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The move by U.S. prosecutors undermined Swiss President and Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf's assertion last month that Washington and Bern were making progress toward resolving all U.S. tax evasion cases against Swiss banks.
The Swiss government said last week it had agreed to provide the U.S. with documents outlining the U.S. business activities of Swiss banks. The Finance Ministry said the names of individual bankers in the documents would be encrypted until a deal with Washington is struck.

Yes, going after tax-evaders is always good. This is enforcement of existing law. Surely the tip of the iceberg.

I know you really want to focus on banking but this really doesn't have much to do with larger issue of corporate control over the US government.


By the way. This WAS a news thread. Cut and paste was allowed because it was NEWS. It was changed later to issues after it obviously became one.