freeman2 wrote:Well, Steve, there was a Time Magazine poll indicating 54% of Americans support the protests and other polling indicates over 80% of Democrats support them. Politically, it makes perfect sense for Obama to align hmself with the movement, particularly with liberals feeling very lukewarm towards reelecting him. I think the protests are in the mainstream in directing anger to a Wall Street that has appropriated too much of the wealth America creates. Right now, Obama is in trouble with little energy from his base and Romney looking to be the Republlican nominee.

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.

As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined...

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

Doug Schoen wrote: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.

Doug Schoen's survey wrote:17. What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP
4% Radical redistribution of wealth
5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax
7% Direct Democracy
9% Engage & mobilize Progressives
9% Promote a national conversation
11% Break the two-party duopoly
4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system
4% Single payer health care
4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately
8% Not sure

Doug Schoen wrote: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.

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.

OAKLAND -- City officials said Tuesday they may have to shut down the Occupy Oakland tent city in coming days because it is attracting rats, alcohol and illegal drug use.

A pre-existing rat problem around Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, which public works employees are normally able to keep under control, has been exacerbated by the demonstrators' presence, said city administrator spokeswoman Karen Boyd.

The problem "has gotten worse with all the food and people and couches," Boyd said. Because the protest has people cycling in and out, she added, the city is having to repeat the message about how to store food and keep the area safe.

Boyd said she wasn't sure how to describe the extent of the growing rat problem,
but that it's been reported in complaints by local businesses, workers and even the demonstrators themselves.

This comes on the heels of increasing reports of illegal drug and alcohol abuse, fighting, and sexual harassment in and around the camp of about 100 tents, Boyd said. The protest has destroyed the grass lawn and it's not clear yet how much the overall expense to the city will be.

Meanwhile, concerns about the city's legal liability should anyone get seriously hurt on city property are being evaluated by the city attorney, Boyd said.

"Basically, it's not legal for them to camp; we're accommodating it. And we've been telling them, we reserve the right to change our minds at any time," Boyd said. "Certainly, that kind
of behavior makes it more difficult to continue."

freeman2 wrote:Well, Steve, there was a Time Magazine poll indicating 54% of Americans support the protests and other polling indicates over 80% of Democrats support them. Politically, it makes perfect sense for Obama to align hmself with the movement, particularly with liberals feeling very lukewarm towards reelecting him. I think the protests are in the mainstream in directing anger to a Wall Street that has appropriated too much of the wealth America creates. Right now, Obama is in trouble with little energy from his base and Romney looking to be the Republlican nominee.

The ”Occupy Wall Street” movement desperately wants to be compared to the Tea Party, because such a comparison would give the fledgling, misguided movement unearned legitimacy. But there are three key characteristics that separate OWS from the Tea Party: First, the Occupy protesters pride themselves on provocative resistance to law enforcement and in some cases violence. Second, they disrespect public and private property. Third, and most important, the Occupy movement lacks a coherent guiding philosophy.

The Sept. 12, 2009 Tea Party demonstration in Washington, D.C., is a perfect example of the way Tea Partiers do business. Organizers planned for 100,000 Tea Party activists to show up on the National Mall, but more than one million turned out. In spite of the huge group of people, there was never an ”angry mob” mentality. Protestors said ”excuse me” and ”thank you.” No one was arrested and no property was damaged. No one told us to, but we picked up every bit of trash, even if it was not ours. In only a month of much smaller Occupy-related protests, hundreds of people have been arrested from New York City to San Diego and abroad, and in some cases protesters have resorted to physical violence. The property damage has been significant.

When the Tea Party demonstrates, we get permits. We cooperate with police. We fund porta-potties. We respect the rule of law and are responsible for meeting our own needs including food, water, shelter, medical care and bathrooms. The Occupy protestors just showed up and took over a busy part of Lower Manhattan, using local businesses’ bathrooms as their own personal washrooms – or worse – and even refusing to temporarily leave Zuccotti Park so it could be cleaned for their own safety and hygiene.

But the biggest difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is that the Tea Party is bound by a common set of values based on freedom, responsibility and property rights. While the Tea Party members hold a diverse set of views on many issues, they are united in a desire for less government, lower taxes and more freedom. Conversely, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are unified only by their hatred of the wealthy, and seem to take pride in the movement’s inability to present a coherent set of proactive initiatives. Their attacks are disturbingly similar to those levied against the rich in Ayn Rand’s ”Atlas Shrugged,” where punishing the most productive members of society was more important than fixing the nation’s problems.

The values that inform and shape Tea Party demonstrations also require the Tea Party to be consistent in applying its principles. We are willing to hold both Republicans and Democrats accountable, as well as bad actors and crony capitalists on Wall Street. We support capitalism based on hard work and wealth creation, not crony capitalism based on whom you know in Washington, D.C. That’s why we opposed the Wall Street bailout, handouts to GE and Solyndra, insurance companies writing individual mandates in ObamaCare, and Car Czars choosing winners and losers in the automobile industry.

Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, suffers from cognitive dissonance. They say they oppose special favors to Wall Street but their so-called ”progressive” leaders who are waging the same kind of class warfare in Washington, starting with Barack Obama, are the enablers of bad actors on Wall Street. Big banks and investment firms were among Obama’s top donors in 2008, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup, UBS AG and Morgan Stanley.

Tim Geithner, current Treasury Secretary and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, orchestrated the AIG bailout. Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law got a $737 million loan guarantee from the same Department of Energy that gave $535 million to Solyndra. Rep. Maxine Waters helped arrange a bailout for a bank that counts Waters’ husband among its board members. Rep. Barney Frank’s boyfriend was an executive at Fannie Mae as the government lender made it easier for unqualified homebuyers to get loans.