Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution[/url]

 

You don't see the bias in this?

You don't see the bias in this?

 

Slightly implying that mainstream news sources are unbiased.

Slightly implying that mainstream news sources are unbiased.

 

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. But by linking to the home page of the movement and saying that's the source where you can "get the real scoop," there's clear bias.

Interesting... a couple got married in the middle of the Occupy Detroit protest.

 

 

/yet another excellent contribution to the thread

 

Smiling because OWS isn't calling for his impeachment.

Interesting... a couple got married in the middle of the Occupy Detroit protest.

 

 

/yet another excellent contribution to the thread

:laugh3: Why not, it's a moment to remember?;)

The 1%, who are the monsters, eat 99% of the cookies, leaving only crumbs for the rest of us..;)

Seriously, the average CEO in the US makes over 262X what the average worker does, isn't that a wee bit imbalanced?

Just take a look at this article from UC Santa Cruz -

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The wealth isn't just concentrated in the top 1%, it's concentrated in the top 0.1%! A quick excerpt:

"This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand."

Allowing plutocrats to run this country is absurd and undemocratic - the Plutocats all come from the planetoid Pluto, a very cold place where they're so far away from reality, all they see of earth is a tiny shimmering dot in space.

Keep the Plutocrats from plundering again - limit their alien powers over our government.

The real problem, spelled out in clarity, by an investment manager:

Who Rules America: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

 

One crucial quote states the problem concisely:

"I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit. It made huge profits in the build-up to the credit crisis and huge profits when it sold itself as "too big to fail" and received massive government and Federal Reserve bailouts. Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it."

Which presidential candidate will do anything about this? Why hasn't Obama acted?

^^ Because Obama owes the big banks for his election campaign, and the rest just wish they could tap further the deep pockets of Goldman and Bank of America, et. al. for theirs. In essence, systemic corruption.

Now if Obama wants to set things strait and stop taking the Wall Street campaign cash, good for him - then he would be free to act decisively for reform.

I have been reading what Matt Taibbi has to say about Occupy Wall Street in Rolling Stone Magazine: My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And his suggestions for reform demands are as follows:

1. Break Up Monopolies

2. Pay for your own Bailout

3. No Public Money for Private Lobbying

4. Tax Hedge Fund Gamblers

5. Change the way bankers get paid

 

Today's news on Occupy Wall Street through Rolling Stone: Today in Occupy Wall Street | Julian Brookes | Rolling Stone

So it's not Obama's fault personally, he's just a debtor and he's doing the honorable thing and repaying the people who loaned him money. I see. ;)

 

It's the "system's" fault, not Obama's.

 

Obama would be "free" from the shackles of the banks if he would stop taking Wall Street campaign cash.

 

Gosh, this really sounds like Obama is pretty powerless! Maybe we should have an emperor instead.

 

How about another presidential candidate currently running? Maybe one of them is a good alternative... who's not getting his money from big corporations, but from the people... who might that be, Chuck? ;)

 

http://www.thedailybell.com/3079/Top-Journo-Matt-Taibbi-Weighs-in-on-5-Demands-to-Fix-Wall-Street

 

Dominant Social Theme: Break up Wall Street corruption and things will start to get better.

 

Free-Market Analysis: Famous Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has weighed in on the Occupy Wall Street movement once more with a specific set of five demands that protestors could focus on. Business Insider does a good job of summarizing them. Here they are, verbatim from Business Insider:

 

1. Break up the monopolies. Taibbi is talking about the 20 or so "too big to fail" companies in our country that could single-handedly take down our economy.

 

2. Pay for your own bailouts. "A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about..."

 

3. No public money for private lobbying. Pretty self-explanatory.

 

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. Right now, because of the carried-interest tax break, they're only paying about 15%.

 

5. Change the way bankers get paid. Bonuses shouldn't be paid up-front. They should be contingent upon performance.

 

Taibbi's prescription has gained attention. DeGraw featured his article on Amped Status and he appeared on the well known "Imus in the Morning" program to speak about them. The "I-Man" suggested he take charge of the movement, but Taibbi declined.

 

Taibbi is positive about Occupy Wall Street and thinks it can make a difference. He's visited the protestors twice and is impressed, but he also believes they ought to be coming up with specific demands.

 

So let's take the ones he came up with one at a time – and analyze them from a free-market oriented point of view.

 

Monopolies. Taibbi wants to break up monopolies and presumably he would use the power of the federal government to do so. In fact, this is reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt's "trust-busting." Famously, John D. Rockefeller's great company, Standard Oil, was broken up a result.

 

However, Rockefeller was able to keep some kind of control behind the scenes, so the exercise wasn't ultimately very effective. He also ended up with stakes in each of the companies formed by the break-up, thus considerably expanding his wealth over time. Because of mercantilism – the behind-the-scenes influence of Money Power – trust-busting likely never works out exactly as planned.

 

Transaction taxes. Tabbi wants to install a tax on financial trading, which is actually a fairly radical idea. This might end up forcing everyone to reveal their trading activities, thus giving the government – actually the behind-the-scenes power elite – access to everybody else's financial activities.

 

It would surely be an intrusive and anti-freedom activity, targeting large and small shops alike, and probably ending up putting some small shops out of business because of the onerousness of what was demanded. This would ironically further centralize the clout of certain big trading shops, which is presumably NOT what Occupy Wall Street wants to happen.

 

What is this obsession with taxes? Doesn't the US federal government ALREADY take in enough taxes – some US$3 trillion, much of which goes to overseas wars and to the military industrial complex in general? Is the rest so well distributed? Why not try to fund the private sector instead of the public?

 

Lobbying. Taibbi doesn't want industry lobbyists paying for the activities with public money. Actually, we're all for this one. Any kind of privatization is probably a good thing. However, we are puzzled by why Taibbi doesn't call for the downsizing of the federal government itself. Take away its power and influence and lobbyists would automatically detach.

 

Tax hedge fund gamblers. Another tax! Why is Mr. Taibbi so positive that DC would handle these taxes any better than Washington already handles the vast sums that converge on it now? We haven't noticed the infrastructure of the US is notably better since Barack Obama and the Democrats took over.

 

Bonuses. Finally, Taibbi wants changes in the ways that bankers get paid. This is another suggestion that implies considerable additional intrusion on the private sector. Presumably – logically – Wall Street would have to keep records of who was being paid what and provide them on demand.

 

Maybe that's OK and fits in with broader goals of Occupy Wall Street. But who's to say this practice wouldn't spread to the rest of the private sector over time? And eventually, wouldn't government establish courts and other forums to debate and regulate the merits of private sector compensation? FDR wanted this sort of power for the government but didn't get it back in the 1930s. Now Taibbi's put it back on the table.

 

These suggestions in aggregate actually demand a considerable EXPANSION of fedgov power – presumably something that Occupy Wall Street is not entirely in favor of. It's also the kind of populist signature that we've worried about it when it comes to these protests.

 

From our humble point of view, this is exactly what mercantilist Money Power wants to happen. The protestors are to be engaged on class warfare grounds and the demands are to be moderated by Washington, DC, thus giving additional credibility to the current government as the intermediary between "common folk" and those who are exploiting them.

 

Let's add this up ... Instead of marching on the New York Federal Reserve, Occupy Wall Street folk yesterday had a "millionaire's march." There were calls for Hank Paulson to face justice for the crimes associated with TARP.

 

Meanwhile, top counterculture journo Taibbi issued demands that amounted to more federal taxes and more government intrusion; these ideas were featured on Imus's radio program and DeGraw's AmpedStatus website as well.

 

In another article today we pointed out positives about Occupy Wall Street. But in this summary, we give the edge to increased government power. Recent activities implicitly, if not explicitly, endorsed increased DC taxing power, increased fedgov oversight, the shutting down of small companies that would not be able to withstand the additional costs of such regulation and, finally, the aiming of the current corrupt and brutally incompetent US justice network at "plutocrats."

 

Conclusion: This last is especially important as it implicitly endorses a system that has jailed up to four million or more people for (in many cases) fanciful offenses, in a quasi-corporatist justice system where they are often put to work in conditions that must inevitably resemble – there is no other word for it – slavery. Not necessarily such a good outcome for Occupy Wall Street from this point of view. Maybe today will be better.

A good news program tonight on Democracy Now! Amy Goodman interviewing Cornel West & Michael Moore on Occupy Wall Street: A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 900 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the United States.

 

Check out this video I made from Occupy Miami.

(With Speed of Sound ).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcFnGtM-CA8&hd=1]Occupy Miami October 15, 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Check out this video I made from Occupy Miami.

(With Speed of Sound ).

So it's not Obama's fault personally, he's just a debtor and he's doing the honorable thing and repaying the people who loaned him money. I see. ;)

 

It's the "system's" fault, not Obama's.

 

Obama would be "free" from the shackles of the banks if he would stop taking Wall Street campaign cash.

 

Gosh, this really sounds like Obama is pretty powerless! Maybe we should have an emperor instead.

 

How about another presidential candidate currently running? Maybe one of them is a good alternative... who's not getting his money from big corporations, but from the people... who might that be, Chuck? ;)

>> President Obama is a pragmatic politician, and taking the money was the east route, and I have to say that I am very upset with his choice of taking Wall Street money vs. standing up to Wall Street and standing against these powerful interests, I think he would have gotten more support then from the public to counterbalance these powerful interests. He could redeem himself by doing the right thing, there still is time.

But the basic problem is the process which rewards those who play along; anyone not in the game has the odds stacked against them, so the game has to get some rules and more refs.

And along with that goes the rest of our government - one man alone cannot change the policy outcomes when the rest are all bought off by the gamblers on the street.

Maybe none of them can defeat the greed machine without the issue & the citizens becoming more powerful than the moneyed interests, and the will of the people expressed as an amendment or two?;)

It's us against the Wall

I can think of a few amendments that are regularly ignored, Chuck. :) Paper does nothing.

 

Funny how you're afraid to talk about Ron Paul... the candidate who has the most individual-donations, and zero corporate money.

 

I guess that's not pragmatic enough for you.

Do you honestly think that Ron Paul has a chance at all to win?

Sure he does.

 

It's not a physical challenge like climbing a wall the fastest. He just needs to get enough votes. If we can convince people that voting for Ron Paul would be good for the country, then he could easily win. He wins almost all the straw polls!

 

Saying that someone can't win an election is funny to me, because it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If everyone believes someone can't win, nobody will vote for that person. If people actually believe he can win, then people might vote for him.

 

Anyway, Ron Paul should be Chuck's candidate of choice. Because there's a greater chance that he'll be elected, than Obama suddenly changing his tune on Wall Street. ;)

I actually think I'm going to change my party to Republican (currently not-offiliated) just to vote for him in the primaries. I've even have tried to get my parents and one of my siblings to vote for him.

 

 

To be honest I feel that he's one of the most genuine politicians I've seen. Of course there are things I don't agree with him on, but I feel with the current state of affairs with the economy and debt that he is the kind of person we need.

 

 

edit: I don't know or think he'll win because the media is too biased and too many americans are too dumb to vote for him... but I hope he wins.

Well that's very objective of you to recognize that.

 

People have a tendency to believe that life will continue in the same way for many years to come... that we live in boring times, and sometimes the stock market falls... but it always comes back up again. Sometimes the price of gas rises $1. But it always falls back down again. Sometimes we are disappointed with a president. But there's always next election.

 

What Americans don't realize is, that's over. On Halloween, our Debt:GDP ratio will finally pass 100%. This marks the beginning of the end of "normal".

 

Yesterday we presented the complete must watch Ray Dalio interview and transcript from his Charlie Rose appearance in which he explained how, in his increasingly skeptical view, we are now "out of ammunition" as there are "no more tools in the toolkit." Today, he layers on top of this rather bleak macroeconomic perspective some very disturbing observations, specifically, what the realization of the dead end situation facing monetary and discal authorities means when confronted with a violent (metaphorically) deleveraging, and a violent (quite literal) social mood. In an FT op-ed he writes; "We are in the midst of a deleveraging, we are nearly out of ammunition and we are at each other’s throats. Being in a deleveraging and nearly out of ammunition is a very difficult position to be in. But, being at each other’s throats is our biggest problem." Needless to say this won't be the first time we have found ourselves in such a predicament: one very vivid example from history beckons: "Frustrations increase, the established ways of doing things come under attack and frustrations over the ineffectiveness of government creates the perceived need for someone to gain control of the mess. Plato spoke of this dynamic. It was the reason Hitler was elected in 1933."

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ray-dalio-whether-current-hopeless-mob-rule-deleveraging-can-lead-ascent-another-hitler

 

Ray Dalio is a hedge fund manager of one of the biggest funds in the world. When he starts talking about the rise of a new Hitler, it's time to take this stuff seriously.

I can think of a few amendments that are regularly ignored, Chuck. :) Paper does nothing.

> I believe you are correct that a few (and I believe many) amendments are regularly ignored, but those things we hold dear, when put to paper as the highest law of the land, are only temporarily ignored, but provide fundamental rock-solid ideas that resonate within each and every one of us in times of repression or awareness. Their timeless truth never fades, they are concise statements of our basic rights, they will always be honored in the court of public opinion.

Funny how you're afraid to talk about Ron Paul... the candidate who has the most individual-donations, and zero corporate money.

 

I guess that's not pragmatic enough for you.

> I'm not afraid to talk about Ron Paul, just too many endless conversations with one of my cousins about Ron Paul makes me a little weary of subject matter relating to Ron Paul.:laugh3: Nothing personal, I think he has some great points, love the fact that he has the most individual donations, but I prefer to have a government that's not quite so lean. But candidates in general are constrained by the fact that so many take the corporate money - one can't get far when all the avenues to progress are blocked by greed. Hence, I seek something higher, and when a vast majority are galvanized by clear demands for reform and justice, any candidate who does not do what is right will be swiftly voted out of office. Having an amendment makes it a matter of permanent concise record, and a bell of justice for all to see, to ring, to rally around.

 

> Thinking about basic human rights and the constitution brought this to mind:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xevGz8_MBKk]Price of Silence - YouTube[/ame] " Listen. These are not just words tattooed on paper. No prison cell, no border fence, no torture well will stop our plea. No stone, no stain will mar the river of our dignity. My child for you today our voice befriends the winds. Listen."

>> Raise your voices to the sky; the price of silence is much to high. <<

On the topic of Hitler I've thought and been afraid something similar will happen. I mean you see people being arrested for talking bad about the government, when they are completely peaceful. When times get desperate and tough people will flock to anyone they think might solve the problems even though it's for the wrong reasons, and that's not a reason to be misguided. Hopefully this won't happen, but with the overall current state of affairs it seems the world is just spiraling out of control.

 

 

On what Chuck posted I think that Ron Paul is a good person in politics. Regardless of what you think of how he wants to really cut government down so much I feel with how things are going he is the kind of person this country needs. Too long we've been driven by greed where people get bailed out and still earn millions in bonuses. People need to be accountable for their actions. And I feel he is an overall true and honest politician wanting to do good. I know that may sound naiive, but his track record has been consistant and also often talks about topics that bring confrontation even though it's not the popular thing to do (for example how he said we brought on 9/11 to ourselves)

On the topic of Hitler I've thought and been afraid something similar will happen. I mean you see people being arrested for talking bad about the government, when they are completely peaceful. When times get desperate and tough people will flock to anyone they think might solve the problems even though it's for the wrong reasons, and that's not a reason to be misguided. Hopefully this won't happen, but with the overall current state of affairs it seems the world is just spiraling out of control.

> I've thought about that danger as well, and there was the McCarthy era more recently, such backslides and power grabs do happen in times of crisis. But generally after a crisis and a war, the fear mongering wears thin, cracks in the ice begin to appear, and rapidly thaws can melt away the madness and the madmen. Yes, there is this police state feel to things today, I agree; but when there is no clear justification for the use of violence against protesters, the police who are cogs in the machine who use violence against non-violent individuals look pretty bad when all the world is watching, and the scrutiny then begins to shift onto the excessive restrictions of basic rights. Police in Louisville seemed to remain neutral, a hopeful sign. Fortunately the history in tough times is the route of reform, towards a more just economic system that promotes the well being of all. So I think the few are misguided, but the many are self-guided towards solutions to the problems.

On what Chuck posted I think that Ron Paul is a good person in politics. Regardless of what you think of how he wants to really cut government down so much I feel with how things are going he is the kind of person this country needs. Too long we've been driven by greed where people get bailed out and still earn millions in bonuses. People need to be accountable for their actions. And I feel he is an overall true and honest politician wanting to do good. I know that may sound naiive, but his track record has been consistant and also often talks about topics that bring confrontation even though it's not the popular thing to do (for example how he said we brought on 9/11 to ourselves)

> Well, in hard economic times, government I believe has a role to play as the purchaser of last resort, and the super wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, in the end it's good for them too (they can profit when the economy rises again). I'd rather the government spend our dollars on the needed infrastructure improvements, on education and reducing costs of getting an education, on peace corps and shifting the military industrial base towards peace supplies (water pumps and desalination equipment, jobs for Americans and jobs in places where the equipment and improvements will boost people out of poverty), on secure retirement and affordable health care for all citizens. So I see things differently than Ron Paul does, I believe President Obama will do the right thing if the pressure for change is immense enough to trump the greed. I would hope a more progressive candidate will run against Obama, if for no other reason than to move the agenda in the right direction.

 

Q"Too long we've been driven by greed where people get bailed out and still earn millions in bonuses. People need to be accountable for their actions. And I feel he is an overall true and honest politician wanting to do good. I know that may sound naiive, but his track record has been consistant and also often talks about topics that bring confrontation even though it's not the popular thing to do (for example how he said we brought on 9/11 to ourselves)"

> I agree, and yes, the top executives have often not only gotten the bailout money, but given themselves millions in bonuses on top of it! It is an outrage what has happened, that's for sure. Laws well & fairly written and agencies with the power, funding, and staff to carry out their duties and hold those criminals accountable. As William Black points out, his agency is severely underfunded, so white collar crimes often go unchecked. That must change.

I haven't studied fully Ron Paul's funding or record, so I haven't much to go by on that account, just what he says and where he stands on issues. I shall look and see. But I am glad to see his bravery and honesty when it comes to speaking the truth about things like the causes for 9/11, that is a refreshing thing to see!

> Above all else, I know from experience that when a matter becomes so clear and the demand for reform so great from the vast majority of we citizens, any sane politician will choose to do the right thing over the greed thing to get elected, and we will reach that point. To make it resoundingly clear, a rallying point for liberty and justice, I believe it is worthy of being written as amendments to the constitution.