Occupy Wall Street

[Vampire://Krimm]

I agree with the above poster in a way. I personally don't necessarily agree with the ideas of the movement, but the fact that people are actually standing up for something is kind of amazing in itself. So I wouldn't exactly be out there with the protesters, but I think it could be a catalyst for something more crucial.

 

[Bela]

Oh wow. A lot less support for OWS than I thought there'd be on PC.

I'm not a guy who's big on politics, or someone who knows the ins and outs of the U.S. economic system, but it is quite evident that something is wrong with the way our country is being run right now. I don't know how we should go about fixing it, but is it not admirable that so many people worldwide are calling up to arms against this system that seems to mainly benefit the top 1% of wage earners?

I agree with your observation, based upon the replies made here, that there seems to be very little support for this movement.

You will see members here cite isolated incidents, condemned by the overwhelming majority of occupiers and protesters themselves, of violence, vandalism, and even rape. To say that there exists a misunderstanding here of what this movement is about would be an understatement. There exists those who wish to vilify the movement, and it is they who you will commonly find on the news putting down and dismissing this movement. CNN's Erin Burnett, I'm looking at you--seriously!

You will see arguments made here which lend support to the wealthy, the powerful, the ruling classes of this country.

What you will not see, and what I hope changes, is a discussion about corporate personhood. This is what this is about. Corporations are NOT people. The Citizens United ruling is a travesty that must not be allowed to stand.

Corporations cannot be allowed to be given more and more control over our political discourse. They cannot be allowed to have a growing influence over our politicians. This is what the protesters are rallying for. The system is broken. It favors the rich, the wealthy, the powerful.

If you like your freedom to debate ideas as we do in our democratic society, then please support this movement, as it fights to save it.

 

[Livewire]

I agree with your observation, based upon the replies made here, that there seems to be very little support for this movement.

You will see members here cite isolated incidents, condemned by the overwhelming majority of occupiers and protesters themselves, of violence, vandalism, and even rape. To say that there exists a misunderstanding here of what this movement is about would be an understatement. There exists those who wish to vilify the movement, and it is they who you will commonly find on the news putting down and dismissing this movement. CNN's Erin Burnett, I'm looking at you--seriously!

You will see arguments made here which lend support to the wealthy, the powerful, the ruling classes of this country.

What you will not see, and what I hope changes, is a discussion about corporate personhood. This is what this is about. Corporations are NOT people. The Citizens United ruling is a travesty that must not be allowed to stand.

Corporations cannot be allowed to be given more and more control over our political discourse. They cannot be allowed to have a growing influence over our politicians. This is what the protesters are rallying for. The system is broken. It favors the rich, the wealthy, the powerful.

If you like your freedom to debate ideas as we do in our democratic society, then please support this movement, as it fights to save it.

I agree.

People complain how the mass media misinterprets and misinforms most of the American populace, why should this be any different? The stereotyping and generalizing of this movement is nothing more than a pathetic smear tactic and sensationalism on part of those who oppose it. Are there some bad eggs in this bunch? Yes. However, the results of a incident in Oakland cannot logically be applied to dozens of other protests across the country.

Then again, the same approach was used about the rioters and protesters of the 60s and 70's. Something to ponder. Maybe the 2011-2020 decade will be my version of what my grandparents had in the 1960's.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Oh wow. A lot less support for OWS than I thought there'd be on PC.

I'm not a guy who's big on politics, or someone who knows the ins and outs of the U.S. economic system, but it is quite evident that something is wrong with the way our country is being run right now. I don't know how we should go about fixing it, but is it not admirable that so many people worldwide are calling up to arms against this system that seems to mainly benefit the top 1% of wage earners?

This is what I though at first. I do still support Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Washington. I don't know if there's an Occupy Ottawa, but that'd be good. If Occupy Toronto was more concentrated and actually Occupy Bay Street, I'd be for that too.

But all these local offshoots of the movement... They're just squatters now at this point. They've deviated from the message significantly. It's just a big camping slumber party. And it's costing money to police, monitor, and secure and will cost more money to cleanup and revitalize these areas afterwards. The local movements are just a platform for "the usual suspects" and have little to do with the economy, class divisions, jobs, etc. The Occupy Toronto folks are going on about native rights, seal fur, free tuition; they're just off-point and gotta go.

 

[Bela]

But all these local offshoots of the movement... They're just squatters now at this point. They've deviated from the message significantly. It's just a big camping slumber party. And it's costing money to police, monitor, and secure and will cost more money to cleanup and revitalize these areas afterwards.

This is a rather unusual thing for me to see coming from you, as I thought you to be generally a supporter of these occupy protests.

Indeed, you will find arguments of "it costs the police so much money to deal with these protesters," or "it costs so much money to clean up after these protesters" for more than just Occupy Toronto.

Need I remind you that it was Occupy Wall Street which was threatened by Mayor Bloomberg to be cleaned? That was just a ruse by the Mayor to evict the protesters from Zucotti park. It was demonstrably untrue that the park was unclean (in fact, the protesters had been, are, and continue to keep the park clean).

And as for the police incurring costs--look again toward Occupy Wall Street. Did JP Morgan Chase donate $4.6 million to the NYPD Foundation out of the kindness of their heart? It's all about the money! We pay you, you protect us!

The local movements are just a platform for "the usual suspects" and have little to do with the economy, class divisions, jobs, etc. The Occupy Toronto folks are going on about native rights, seal fur, free tuition; they're just off-point and gotta go.

The concerns of the people in one area will not be the same as the concerns of the people in another. Let's take tuition for example. The rising costs of tuition for students forces students to either take on more debt in loans, or to not get their degrees. Without the skills necessary to get a high-paying job, these college dropouts cannot find work, and you find unemployment rising. And even with low-paying jobs, they will struggle to pay off their student loans.

You think this has nothing to do with economic woes? You think that students shouldn't be given assistance from the government to help pay off their student debt, while at the same time the government gives billions to corporations and bails out large financial institutions for their incompetency? Surely not!

This is why people are protesting--they are fed up with a government they feel no longer represents their interests.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

This is a rather unusual thing for me to see coming from you, as I thought you to be generally a supporter of these occupy protests.

Indeed, you will find arguments of "it costs the police so much money to deal with these protesters," or "it costs so much money to clean up after these protesters" for more than just Occupy Toronto.

Need I remind you that it was Occupy Wall Street which was threatened by Mayor Bloomberg to be cleaned? That was just a ruse by the Mayor to evict the protesters from Zucotti park. It was demonstrably untrue that the park was unclean (in fact, the protesters had been, are, and continue to keep the park clean).

And as for the police incurring costs--look again toward Occupy Wall Street. Did Wells Fargo donate $4.6 million to the NYPD Foundation out of the kindness of their heart? It's all about the money! We pay you, you protect us!


The concerns of the people in one area will not be the same as the concerns of the people in another. Let's take tuition for example. The rising costs of tuition for students forces students to either take on more debt in loans, or to not get their degrees. Without the skills necessary to get a high-paying job, these college dropouts cannot find work, and you find unemployment rising. And even with low-paying jobs, they will struggle to pay off their student loans.

You think this has nothing to do with economic woes? You think that students shouldn't be given assistance from the government to help pay off their student debt, while at the same time the government gives billions to corporations and bails out large financial institutions for their incompetency? Surely not!

This is why people are protesting--they are fed up with a government they feel no longer represents their interests.

Our park isn't a pig sty or anything, but it's not what it was. Our's too were pretty darn tidy at the beginning, but now they're kind of in a groove and not picking up after themselves. And they're bringing in fire logs now for heat. Live fire in an area full of dry leaves and tents just doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me. So safety then, if you don't like the cleanliness argument.

Lower tuition is one thing. That's a sound argument. But "I want free tuition, just because" is not.

At least here, the student loans are from the government. And here, the situation is different than it is in other countries. We didn't bail out any banks. We're not like the United States, Greece, or Italy. It's by no means rosy. Not at all. But the people just don't seem to watch the news a whole lot if they think we're in the same boat.

I do support the larger movement as a whole. There is a genuine anger out there that's growing and being manifested in different ways. But Occupy Toronto (and I'm assuming the other local spinoffs) consists of enough general off-topic protesters as to discredit the larger movement and disrupt its message. Honestly, what does protesting at the municipal level accomplish? The kinds of changes that are needed just are not handled by cities. It's falling on deaf ears.

It's not that I'm against the movement (I'm not) or that I don't respect their right to strike (they've been totally peaceful, so I have no issues there). It's just that they seem confused and misguided and that's a discredit to the Occupy movement as a whole.

 

[Bela]

Our park isn't a pig sty or anything, but it's not what it was. Our's too were pretty darn tidy at the beginning, but now they're kind of in a groove and not picking up after themselves. And they're bringing in fire logs now for heat. Live fire in an area full of dry leaves and tents just doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me. So safety then, if you don't like the cleanliness argument.

Lower tuition is one thing. That's a sound argument. But "I want free tuition, just because" is not.

At least here, the student loans are from the government. And here, the situation is different than it is in other countries. We didn't bail out any banks. We're not like the United States, Greece, or Italy. It's by no means rosy. Not at all. But the people just don't seem to watch the news a whole lot if they think we're in the same boat.

I do support the larger movement as a whole. There is a genuine anger out there that's growing and being manifested in different ways. But Occupy Toronto (and I'm assuming the other local spinoffs) consists of enough general off-topic protesters as to discredit the larger movement and disrupt its message. Honestly, what does protesting at the municipal level accomplish? The kinds of changes that are needed just are not handled by cities. It's falling on deaf ears.

It's not that I'm against the movement (I'm not) or that I don't respect their right to strike (they've been totally peaceful, so I have no issues there). It's just that they seem confused and misguided and that's a discredit to the Occupy movement as a whole.

No, I get ya--Canada doesn't really have the problems that the United States and other countries face. I could definitely cede the point to you that Canadians don't have much to get angry aboot =P

With that said, I would caution taking the populist, perhaps misinformed, outrage of one Occupy Toronto, and then extrapolating and saying that the circumstances are the same for all other movements outside of Occupy Wall Street/Washington.

I don't know what it's like in Canada, but there are a lot of places in the United States that have been hurting due to the economy--and I would definitely not say that their outcry is misguided, off-point, or misinformed. They know exactly what a struggling economy means to them, and they know that the root of their problems lie in a broken system which for decades has favored the rich, wealthy, and powerful of this country.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

No, I get ya--Canada doesn't really have the problems that the United States and other countries face. I could definitely cede the point to you that Canadians don't have much to get angry aboot =P

With that said, I would caution taking the populist, perhaps misinformed, outrage of one Occupy Toronto, and then extrapolating and saying that the circumstances are the same for all other movements outside of Occupy Wall Street/Washington.

Well, we have a problems - just not yet to the extent as other places. We are one bad quarter away from a recession and are having a problem selling our goods since all the other countries who were buying are now in trouble can't afford to do so or have activated "buy local" rules. International companies aren't expanding or hiring here like they were. We're getting the side effects and they're building up.

A lot of the points I put in my longish post on the front page do hold true here too. Pay rates are pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago and all that.

There are those in Occupy TO who stick to that message but there are lot of off-topic people. Like I said before, native rights, 9/11 truthers, anti-war, feed Africa, and some local groups who have just kind of hijacked the thing a bit. Opportunists. If not "a lot", then enough to bug me and make me thing it's time for Toronto's branch to close up shop as they're off point.

I would hope the other local movements aren't like this, yes. It's a discredit

 

[Ivysaur]

Yes, but the banks were able to influence the government, allowing them to dictate government decisions, including the decision to bail them out with billions of the taxpayers dollars when they eventually failed hard.

The other option was an uncontrolled collapse of major companies that held most of the money own by the citizens. Again, look at Lehman Brothers. The Government didn't bail it out, and it single-handledly started the crisis. Hmm. Maybe bailing companies out IS good under certain circumstances.

No, democracy is a tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the population want something, then despite the opposition of the 49% remaining, the 51% get what they want.

Not that the US is a democracy - it's a republic.

Now what's the difference? I mean, I just checked the Merriam-Webster dictionary and they don't know either- they list "Democracy" and "Republic" as synonims.

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Also I'm just going to quote a random guy down the street:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except, of course, for all the others that have been tried."

Why fight for something if you don't believe it to be the absolute truth? If you're so willing to compromise on your beliefs then you must not hold them very strongly.

Seriously, it's the principle of it. Stand by what you believe in if you think it is the truth.

Sometimes you need to set out priorities. Fact is nobody is going to 100% agree with you, so if you believe something is good for people, you'd rather talk to the people who think that is not the best, find things you do agree about, and put them in motion. If more people agree with you, you can go ahead with your plan. But you can ask for everything all the time. It's called negotiation. Sometimes, to get what you think it's truly important, you have to concede some things you don't think are so good- but someone else thinks they are important.

You can do that or punch them into submission, of course.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A democracy is where the citizens of a nation vote directly on legislation. A republic is where said citizens elect representatives to enact legislation.

 

[jpp8]

OK we all know definitions. That's real charming. Let's not dance around the point and instead discuss government's role and banks/big business which seem to be the main points of this movement.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

OK we all know definitions. That's real charming. Let's not dance around the point and instead discuss government's role and banks/big business which seem to be the main points of this movement.

Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

 

[Guest123_x1]

Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

While I agree that banks and businesses have no authority to interfere with government, Government is supposed to regulate business, in order to prevent fraud. However, they've gone overboard to the point where it's impossible to run any kind of business efficiently without having to follow complex local, state, federal, and international laws to the letter.
Today's business regulations are written by and for mega-corporations such as Citigroup, BofA, General Electric (which Peter Schiff has called a "hedge fund masquerading as a company"), Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, and Walmart.
In the current status of governmental affairs, the United States government is the best government money can buy. Many regulatory agencies and departments such as the FDA (subject to extensive bribery by the drug companies), Department of Education (bought and paid for by the National Education Association, who has effectively proclaimed that union dues, not education, are its top priority), Department of Energy and the EPA (bought and paid for by radical environmentalists who want to wring our energy industry's neck through schemes such as Cap and Tax), the SEC and CFTC (both bought and paid for by institutional Wall Street investors and companies), and the Department of Labor (bought and paid for by major unions, who would like to outlaw Right To Work, effectively forcing every worker in America to join a union and pay dues to socialist causes against their will) have been corrupted by the very interests they are supposed to regulate.

 

[Mr. X]

Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

Tell that to all the companies that donate lots of money to candidates in hopes of their person being elected. And also tell that to the elected candidate that helps pass laws that are tipped in a companies favor.

This goes both ways. If we can't pass laws regulate businesses then we shouldn't be able to pass laws that favor them either.

If we get rid of all laws regulating them, then just to keep things fair, we have to get rid of all laws that support them as well.

 

[lx_theo]

I always laugh when folk call me ignorant. It's usually all you can say when someone disagrees with you - rather than something logical.

Ignorance to compromise is still ignorance, no matter how small minded you wish to be.


People are arguing like we are at war against each other because there is two sides and if one gets the upperhand, it would somehow mean that the other side loses everything. People are fighting for no good reason, and you are proving yourself to be the perfect example of why the people are tearing the country apart. Bravo, you're setting America on its path on downfall.

And guess what? This has nothing to do with what side you agree with, its because you are promoting the infighting. Again, Brav-freaking-o.

Believe it or not, the government does not care about you. In any case, you still would have a problem with the Federal Reserve, as they are not a government monopoly - they are a private monopoly SUPPORTED by the government (and here you thought they government was looking out for you, lol).

Just to make it clear: the government is not your friend. They only ever pander to you to secure power and your money. Just because they aren't shooting you in the street (yet) doesn't mean they are "looking out for you".

The gov. is more my friend that capitalism. Tell me this, why would I put more trust in corrupt corporations with the sole purpose of gaining more profit and getting more money from us over government (even if corrupt)?

Because even if they're out for getting more power, they still have to serve the people (outside of when corporation get their foot in the door) in order to get it. We also have systems set up so they can't bypass the fact that they serve us.

And thats the difference with corporations. They serve the stockholders, they serve themselves, they serve profit. When they grab up power, it hurts the people for the most part. Its not like stuff like the trickle down effect work in any real life situation. Companies don't let the money trickle down. Why do you think competition is good? Its like checks and balances in capitalism. It forces them to help the people in order to get more power. But as it always inevitably does, markets without enough regulation grab enough power to crush the competition below them, creating monopolies. Which, if regulated, are okay because they can't simply screw everyone over for another grab of power.

And this is the biggest difference between gov. and captialism. The gov. grabs power through helping the people. Capitalism does not.

Capitalism is just as evil as Socialism. If you are too delved and blind to the downsides of your own side, then you should not be taken seriously.

Pot calling kettle black, but I feel the same way about your posts.

And here my posts are being edited because I'm "rude".

Oh and for everybody's information, generalising isn't inherently bad. Don't be afraid to do it.

You do realize I'm the one PREACHING COMPROMISE? I may believe in more liberal beliefs, but at least I can acknowledge its failings enough to see what really needs to be done. Where's the facepalm smiley when I need it?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Tell that to all the companies that donate lots of money to candidates in hopes of their person being elected. And also tell that to the elected candidate that helps pass laws that are tipped in a companies favor.

This goes both ways. If we can't pass laws regulate businesses then we shouldn't be able to pass laws that favor them either.

If we get rid of all laws regulating them, then just to keep things fair, we have to get rid of all laws that support them as well.

Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

 

[Netto Azure]

Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

Oh jeez, Citizens United. The Plaintiffs for that case didn't even argue for outright declaration of unconstitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81)

But yeah until the balance of the Supreme Court is changed this 5-4 decision will still be quite controversial. >_>
Also you do have to realize that overturning this decision is totally possible as Most provisions of McCain-Feingold (And therefore much of the Political Donations restricions in this country) was upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) until that is it was overturned by this very politicized Supreme Court.

And no, to me the concept of corporate personhood ends at the economic expediencies it is designed to promote. It has no place in trying to influence the political process in such difference of scale.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Oh jeez, Citizens United. The Plaintiffs for that case didn't even argue for outright declaration of unconstitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81)

But yeah until the balance of the Supreme Court is changed this 5-4 decision will still be quite controversial. >_>
Also you do have to realize that overturning this decision is totally possible as Most provisions of McCain-Feingold (And therefore much of the Political Donations restricions in this country) was upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) until that is it was overturned by this very politicized Supreme Court.

And no, to me the concept of corporate personhood ends at the economic expediencies it is designed to promote. It has no place in trying to influence the political process in such difference of scale.

I don't think that corporations are people, but the right to participate in the political process is not limited to individuals. The freedom to assemble is intended for like-minded individuals to form groups of people with common goals so that they can petition their government more effectively as a whole.

 

[Mr. X]

Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

Never said people can be limited. If you want to donate, donate in your own name and not in the name of a corporation.

But still, I consider it more dangerous to allow massive corporations to decide who gets elected. While a election is more then money, money is always a major factor in who gets elected.

 

[jpp8]

Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

I read this as: "Banks and business shouldn't interfere with government... But it's constitutional, so if they want to, they can because of free speech and all."

Isn't this is just basically allowing banks and businesses to project their interests in government over the interests of the whole? Why should their voices be louder than others? We did not elect the banks and businesses to represent us, we elected politicians. Why does government not have the interests of the whole at heart but instead that of the top 1% of wage owners?