View topic - #OccupyWallStreet • Redscape

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

17 Oct 2011, 2:26 pm

Of course historically, when you look at these kinds of protests in U.S. history, they tend to lead to Republican Presidents

The last time wealth/income inequality was as great as it is, and resulted in social unrest - the election of 1932 culminated in Democrats in the White House. And 36, 40, 44, 48.

The other period most simlilar might be the crisis of 1893 which ended Clevelands second term. But republicans were protectionists then and didn't resemble the current party ideologically...

: Guapo; Dignitary; Posts: 2552; Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

18 Oct 2011, 6:02 am

I went to occupy Phoenix. The Tea Party smells better.

: Archduke Russell John; Dignitary; Posts: 3239; Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

18 Oct 2011, 9:42 am

rickyp wrote:The last time wealth/income inequality was as great as it is, and resulted in social unrest - the election of 1932 culminated in Democrats in the White House. And 36, 40, 44, 48.

Except that there wasn't the large scale protesting. So that doesn't really compare.

rickyp wrote:The other period most simlilar might be the crisis of 1893 which ended Clevelands second term. But republicans were protectionists then and didn't resemble the current party ideologically...

While they were protectionist, they were squarely supportive of business at the expense of labor. You know doing things like sending Pinkerton in to break up striking workers. Therefore, it still resembles the same situations.

I was also thinking of 1968. The summer of 68 protests are more similar to the OWS in tone, style and ideology. Those protests led to the election of RIchard Nixon.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

18 Oct 2011, 10:50 am

Archduke Russell John wrote:
rickyp wrote:The last time wealth/income inequality was as great as it is, and resulted in social unrest - the election of 1932 culminated in Democrats in the White House. And 36, 40, 44, 48.

Except that there wasn't the large scale protesting. So that doesn't really compare.

Are you sure there weren't many large scale protests between 1929 and 1932?

I repeat my earlier question (which you may have missed due to the new page throw) - do you have data to back up your assertion? I get 1968, but so far that's one data point.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

18 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm

68 were protests mostly about the Viet Nam war. The economy was fine, for most people. Although there was an anti-establishment tone to some of the demonstrators, it was opposition to Viet Nam that was the central theme. (And electing Nixon as the guy who was going to end the war didn't work out so well..) The countrie was in an era of an expanding economy, with trade surpluses, budget surpluses, high employment levels, and taxes had recently been cut. (Still more than twice current taxation levels). The unrest was the war and civil rights...

The central theme now, is based almost entirely on the fact that the economy for the last 30 years has not benefitted the bottom 90% ... There are two specific points in US history that had comparable income inequality. The late 20's and the early 30's and the period from 1870 to 1895...

By the way, there were countless riots and demonstrations in the early 30's . Most focussed on something specific. Like Union busting or The Milk Strikes in Omaha... That they weren't organized as a common demnonstration like OWS doesn't mean that they weren't equally expressions of anger at the circumstance most people found themselves within. Perhaps the media world and the Internet of today, supplanted to 1930, would have engendered a similar kind of "organized" response?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

18 Oct 2011, 2:54 pm

rickyp wrote:The central theme now, is based almost entirely on the fact that the economy for the last 30 years has not benefitted the bottom 90% ...

Is that true? Or, is it true that most poor people in the US would be wealthy in most other parts of the world?

In any event, it doesn't take much to see that the "99%" is nothing like 99%. They held an event in Springfield, MA yesterday. Thirty cops. 6 Demonstrators. Oooh, impressive!

There are two specific points in US history that had comparable income inequality. The late 20's and the early 30's and the period from 1870 to 1895...

But, really, are those valid comparisons? Was the government bailing out fat cats during those time periods? Was the government borrowing money to the tune of 40 cents on every dollar spent? Were there protests like these? With rich college kids being supplied food, tents, etc. by unions?

The two central issues:

1. The President and other Democrats have embraced this movement. They are tied to it for better or worse. Of course, the President is completely clueless:

In an interview that will be aired tonight on ABC News, President Obama continues to express his commitment to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama tells ABC News. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

Why do I think he's clueless? Because he's speaking as if these people actually want jobs. They don't. He's speaking as if they are pursuing the American dream and being thwarted. They're not.

That leads into my second observation:

2. These demonstrators are far outside the mainstream. Don't take my word for it; take Doug Schoen's:

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

I am delighted the President is embracing them. Frankly, I'd love to see him go pitch a tent, not bathe for a week, and take a dump on a police car so he could fit right in.

This movement is nothing like the Tea Party. TP'ers don't violate laws by camping in no camping zones, demonstrating without permits, etc. They're not trying to overthrow the government--as evidenced by the number of TP'ers they elected to Congress. Will the Occupiers have the same impact?

No.

Why not? Because they represent the lunatic fringe of the far left. Many of them are socialists and communists. They are looking for the moment to destroy this country. That is precisely the opposite of the goal of the Tea Party.

The longer this runs and the more Democrats embrace it, the bigger problem it will be for them.

: Neal Anderth; Truck Series Driver (Pro II); Posts: 897; Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

18 Oct 2011, 4:27 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:They are looking for the moment to destroy this country.

At the beginning you mock their numbers. Then at the end you seem to think they are in some position to destroy the country. How do a tiny number of unarmed people do this? Would I be wrong in assuming you aren't outraged about the local police expenditure to watch a half dozen people that look like they came from Denny's?

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

19 Oct 2011, 7:22 am

Is that true?

Yes. Objectively.
And, more importantly, subjectively. Middle Class and working poor feel like they are treading water...at best.The OSW is amplifying this feeling and giving it voice.
An interesting Objective study:

In his 2008 book Unequal Democracy, Larry Bartels, a Princeton political scientist, writes:

[T]he narrowly economic focus of most previous studies of inequality has caused them to miss what may be the most important single influence on the changing U.S. income distribution over the past half-century—the contrasting policy choices of Democratic and Republican presidents. Under Republican administrations, real income growth for the lower- and middle-classes has consistently lagged well behind the income growth rate for the rich—and well behind the income growth rate for the lower and middle classes themselves under Democratic administrations.

source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... icans.html

I can find dozens of other examples of objective analysis Steve. Do you have any evidence that the income inequality hasn't increased?

Or, is it true that most poor people in the US would be wealthy in most other parts of the world?

I suppose this would be important if people could pick up and leave to Zimbabwe and make the same kind of money doing what they are doing in Zimbabwe...And take their neighborhoods and amenities with them...
The point is that people look at their neighbors, and other citizens. And at the glaring examples of great wealth on Wall Street.
By the way, one of the great myths of the US is that there is an ability to pick up and move. It doesn't happen a lot, compared to other nations. Partly due to the employer based health insurance system.
And another myth is the ability to rise from one's modest birth circumstances to wealth. It happens less in the US than in most socialist nations (by your definition Steve) ..
It may be right that the demonstrators on Wall Street are a little left or are disproportionally "extreme" in their views. But isn't that the case in most matters? The committed, get up and go demosntrate. But that doesn't mean that they are getting general sympathy from the populace. Which they certainly are...
Taking one of Schoens' suppossedly damning characteristics of the OSW's...
"The overwhelming jmajority feel that the govenrment has a moral responsibility to provide all citizens with access to affordable health care".
Seems to be right on par with the attitude of the general populace who have repeatedly, when polled, favoured a single payer health care insurance system. And who support Medicare and Medicaid in large numbers... (even Tea Party members are dedicated to their Medicare)
Steve, most of the polling numbers Schoen refers to are similar to the US numbers. (Tax increases on the wealthy is supported by 73% of Americans ).
That he doesn't like the attitudes and feels that theri expression in these protests therefore disqualifies them from consideration indicates that maybe he's out of touch?
I can't link you to comedy central (geoblocked) but John Stewart had an interesting piece on the OSW last night. Mocking the inanities of many of the particiants, but revealing the sympathy for their underlying message amongst ordinary New Yorkers (who admittedly weren't going to go demonstrate due to other important stuff happening like the Jets game on tv.)

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

19 Oct 2011, 7:41 am

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart ... ca-2010-4#

And Steve, this is froma couple years ago but I doubt anything has happened since 2008 to change this...
Slide 15 directly answers your "is this true ?"...(YES) and the others paint a picture of how this happened, and how it fits into the world at large...

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

19 Oct 2011, 2:00 pm

Neal Anderth wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:They are looking for the moment to destroy this country.

At the beginning you mock their numbers. Then at the end you seem to think they are in some position to destroy the country. How do a tiny number of unarmed people do this? Would I be wrong in assuming you aren't outraged about the local police expenditure to watch a half dozen people that look like they came from Denny's?

You are just out to test me, aren't you? That is as impotent and invalid a post as I have read in all the years of Redscape.

Their numbers are not relevant to their goals. Yes, I mock their numbers. Why?

1. They claim to be the 99%, yet their views relegate them to the periphery and they cannot draw and sustain serious numbers.

2. As Schoen's poll demonstrates, many of them are willing to use violence to achieve their ends. Whether or not they have the numbers, the willingness to use violence is indicative of how nutty they are. (And, also strengthens my desire to see Obama tie himself to this group. He is going to wind up regretting this).

3. Yes, I am appalled by the expenditure of money to supervise 6 disgruntled Denny's customers, or whatever they were.

4. If they could, many in the OWS movement would radically change this country. They are no different than the Bolsheviks or the fascists of yesteryear in that sense. They seek to disrupt order so in the ensuing chaos their ideal structure of government will replace the (perceived) rotting corpse of capitalistic republicanism.

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. You still refuse to stay on a topic. I did not argue there is no income inequality gap. In fact, if I were guessing, I'd say said gap always grows during an economic downturn.

To refresh your memory, I'll re-paste what you wrote and my response:

rickyp wrote:The central theme now, is based almost entirely on the fact that the economy for the last 30 years has not benefitted the bottom 90% ...

Is that true? Or, is it true that most poor people in the US would be wealthy in most other parts of the world?

Income inequality, or the lack thereof, was not what I was addressing. And, I don't believe you can cite a study or two from 2008 and have that meaningfully buttress your argument for the last 30 years.

Here's what I know: the poor in the US are vastly better off than the poor in most of the rest of the world.

Ricky, ricky, ricky, ricky, ricky, ricky . . . I like to use your name to support my contentions.

It doesn't work for me; I don't know why you think it works for you.

Schoen's polling has nothing to do with other polls--it was a direct sampling of OWS. Now, if you know other polls that show 31% who would support violence to advance their agenda, please cite it. If you know other groups who seem to embrace Marxism and anti-Semitism so openly, please cite them. If you know another group which has 52% who have participated in political movements, please cite them. If you know another group with 98% of its membership/participants willing to go to jail to prove a point, please cite the group.

These people are the fringe of the fringe. That's just who they are.

They carry signs saying "Eat the Rich" and they're so smart they think the US spends more on the military than on healthcare and pensions.

In other words, these people are the kind of useful idiots that are the sort of fuel that revolutions burn. I'm not saying there will be one, but that's because they don't carry much weight with the populace at large.

: Neal Anderth; Truck Series Driver (Pro II); Posts: 897; Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

19 Oct 2011, 10:43 pm

First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Second Amendment – "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

20 Oct 2011, 5:03 am

Isn't there the obvious difference that the Tea Party was going to meetings and then going home whereas OWS is pitching tents and camping out on public and sometimes private property?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

20 Oct 2011, 9:14 am

Ahh, Anti-Semitism. Must trump everything, because we know that there are no anti-semites in 'normal' US society, and there will never bey any evidence from signs of any anti-semitic or racist sentiment amongst (to choose an example at random...) the Tea Party. And of course, the presence of any anti-semitism must prove the whole movement to be anti-semitic, even if organisers and others oppose it openly

I mean, the OWS protesters are so anti-semitic that there are people commemorating Yom Kippur down there.

You'd almost think that perhaps large demonstrations attract odd people.Including racists and anti-semites.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

20 Oct 2011, 9:19 am

Ray Jay wrote:Isn't there the obvious difference that the Tea Party was going to meetings and then going home whereas OWS is pitching tents and camping out on public and sometimes private property?

That is a pretty major difference.

Neal - are you suggesting that the OWS protesters should go armed (very few TP people were armed, as far as I'm aware, and there would likely have been police around, even if not in full riot gear)?

Only I'm not sure that this would make it less likely that they'd be seen as a danger to law and order.

: Neal Anderth; Truck Series Driver (Pro II); Posts: 897; Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

20 Oct 2011, 11:39 am

I'm not suggesting that #OWS should arm themselves. They are allowed Constitutionally, as they are allowed peaceable assembly without government infringement. As a side note guns are viewed very differently depending on the region in the US. If you showed up with your shotgun to #OWS you'd get boo'd and hissed by the crowds. However, in other parts of the country it would be viewed quite differently.

In any society you are allowed to wallow in the freedoms of the status quo.

266 posts • Page 2 of 18 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

#OccupyWallStreet