Who are the protesters behind Occupy Wall Street–and what do they want?

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tvdxer said:
The replies in this thread are the replies I’d expect from this forum, which is strongly tainted with a U.S. right-wing point of view (after all, because the Republicans are the pro-life party, shouldn’t all of you take on the rest of their views?) Recent college graduates (in the past 1-3 years) DO have good reason to be disenchanted. I am one myself (graduated with a B.A. in 2010), so let me explain:

Most kids of the 1990’s - in other words, the protestors now - were constantly pushed by adult authority figures (teachers, parents, etc.) to go to college when they were children and teens. They were promised that college was the sure path to financial success. And it appeared to be - college graduates had a much greater income, on average, than people who only graduated high school.

So the greater part of my generation went to college right after graduating high school. They took out student loans not so they could party non-stop, even though some of them did. They took them out because TUITION IS EXPENSIVE. It has increased at a rate twice that of general inflation over the past two decades. Those who graduated in 1980 or 1990 have little right to compare their experience paying off college debts with those of recent graduates.

Now they find themselves 1) graduated, 2) out of work, and 3) with little hope of well-paying (as in enough to raise a birth-controlled family) jobs in their field. This is mostly due to the economic downturn, which many believe the rich are culpable for. I don’t completely agree with the “blame the rich” sentiment - the middle- and working-classes are much to blame for it too (after all, they were who the sub-prime loans were often made out to!). But when the federal government bails out banks and corporations (who, as it turns out, have their executives fly in private jets for negotiations), when the financial sector is rife with greed and corruption (or at least appears to be), when certain companies have billions upon billions of dollars in the bank but are not hiring, and when the wealthiest Americans have seen a much larger increase in their income than any other group in our society provide some of the basis for their targeting of the rich.

About the health care issue: Although most people my age are healthy, they still often struggle not only with student debt but also with medical debt accrued from a hospital stay or even visit to the ER. Even routine medical care carries with it tremendous expenses - again, due to inflation at rates much above general inflation. And those lucky enough to be insured through their work still often have to bear the cost of deductibles and co-pays. You’ll still end up paying $4,000 for a $4,000 visit to the hospital on a plan with a $5,000 deductible - and expenses like these are extremely difficult for a person making $20 or $25,000 a year with car, rent, and student loan payments to bear.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of Republicans and conservatives in this forum.
I don’t often seen the argument being put forth thought that conservative fiscal policy is the Catholic poing of view. For sure on life issues and the sanctity of marriage, Democrat is demonstrably the Party of Death and is anti-Catholic to its core on the issues that Catholic teaching stresses as the most politically imprtant.

As far as economic policy goes, the right wing argument tends to be that this is the rational and smart thing to do, but it is no more dogmatically Catholic than a liberal viewpoint.

Jobs of all kinds require a strong and vibrant and confident economy. The left has alwasy stressed the environment and going greens over economic factors, and indeed that is the message of OWS Like money, jobs do not grow on trees.

Education and the products of an education are not outside of market forces of supply and demand either, There have been enough people with phds in philosophy driving taxis even that creates jobs, in the weventies and eighties, and how much more so now that a tepid economy and a glut of educated people gave arrived on the scene.

It is ah arsh reality. Wall Street is hardly to blame though, Wall Street merely makes rational decisions on winners and losers in the market. Free up as much money as you like, if there are no confidence in economic winners, the money will be invested in safer venues rather than the ventures that actually create jobs.

To free up capital,Wall Strees needs to see some kind of evidence that this economy is worth investin in, With the middle finger firmly plantedin Wall Streets face, suffice it to saythat the labour pool of the future is hardly inspiring any confidence for Wall Street to invest in any business that might hire them.
 
Darryl1958 said:
There are a lot of Republicans and conservatives in this forum.
I don’t often seen the argument being put forth thought that conservative fiscal policy is the Catholic poing of view. For sure on life issues and the sanctity of marriage, Democrat is demonstrably the Party of Death and is anti-Catholic to its core on the issues that Catholic teaching stresses as the most politically imprtant.

As far as economic policy goes, the right wing argument tends to be that this is the rational and smart thing to do, but it is no more dogmatically Catholic than a liberal viewpoint.

Jobs of all kinds require a strong and vibrant and confident economy. The left has alwasy stressed the environment and going greens over economic factors, and indeed that is the message of OWS Like money, jobs do not grow on trees.

Education and the products of an education are not outside of market forces of supply and demand either, There have been enough people with phds in philosophy driving taxis even that creates jobs, in the weventies and eighties, and how much more so now that a tepid economy and a glut of educated people gave arrived on the scene.

It is ah arsh reality. Wall Street is hardly to blame though, Wall Street merely makes rational decisions on winners and losers in the market. Free up as much money as you like, if there are no confidence in economic winners, the money will be invested in safer venues rather than the ventures that actually create jobs.

To free up capital,Wall Strees needs to see some kind of evidence that this economy is worth investin in, With the middle finger firmly plantedin Wall Streets face, suffice it to saythat the labour pool of the future is hardly inspiring any confidence for Wall Street to invest in any business that might hire them.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for sharing your thoughts with us and anyone else who may be checking out this site.
 
Raskolnikov said:
More likely they’re protesting Wall St. because it symbolizes a segment of the population that makes its living doing speculative trading of pieces of paper and produces nothing of any value to society. Not saying protesting that makes a whole lot of sense, it won’t make any difference, but you’re little narrative seems quite inaccurate. I doesn’t seem to have a whole lot to do with free trade at all. Who’s asking for tarrifs anyway?

Funny, you were just complaining about protectionism, and yet now you supprt state intervention in the economy to deter outsourcing (that is, the purchasing of foreign labor; how very anti-free trade of you).
Click to expand...
No, what I’m proposing is nothing like protectionism. There is a huge difference between:
A) controlling the markets with tariffs through artificial gov. controlled pricing.
-and-
B) Adjusting corporate taxes upon American corporations -which still allows for the market to naturally determine pricing through supply and demand.

States are already increasing and decreasing taxes on items such as cigarettes where a pack in California costs about $5.50 and in New York you can expect to pay over $10.00 a pack. It’s known as a “sin tax”. Why not expand it on a national level to help boost the economy by dropping corporate taxes on all american based companies, except those who outsource to the East… The latter would be taxed by a percentage of how much of their workforce are foreigners by their total gross income. The taxes could be dispersed to the States for roads or they could be sent back to the taxpayer as rebate checks. This would help encourage American based companys to hire American citizens without ruining them or the market entirely. It would be good for business and employment… How could this possibly be bad…? 🤷
Raskolnikov said:
Also, if you were familiar with conservative economic theory Milton Friedman’s ideas, you would know that the standard attitude (the one supported by Friedman) is that corporations are not supposed to be patriotic, they aren’t even supposed to be moral; they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit no matter what the expense; pollution, economic slavery, manipulative advertising, whatever the means. The behavior of the typical major public corporation certainly reflects this kind of attitude. Is this the type of structure in which we are to put our faith?

“Business elites” are not in the business of doing what’s good for America. They’re in the business of doing what’s good for themselves and their shareholders. Once they start taking the public good into consideration before profit, they quickly befcome ex-business elites.
Click to expand...
Corporations are not good or bad. They’re like machines. It’s up to the Citizens of the U.S. to both help our companies grow through investing while at the same time keep them confined within the laws we lay out. Right now we’re all in gridlock. They want lower taxes and regulations - we want employment… Lets cut a deal that works for everyone.
 
If the only reason the protesters are protesting wall street is because “it symbolizes a segment of the population that makes its living doing speculative trading of pieces of paper and produces nothing of any value to society.” Then the protesters are completely ignorant and should be ignored.
 
TEPO said:
If the only reason the protesters are protesting wall street is because “it symbolizes a segment of the population that makes its living doing speculative trading of pieces of paper and produces nothing of any value to society.” Then the protesters are completely ignorant and should be ignored.
Click to expand...
They will be soon enough. When they get bored, they’ll leave.
Vancouver has seen a few of these ‘occupations’ over the years that I’ve lived here. Instead of trying to force them out, the government has found the wisdom of just being patronizing. Once it is recognized that it is really a childish mindset that is being dealt with, indulging them until there is nothing left to protest against seems to be the best way of getting them to go back home to mommy and daddy.
I think that Bloomberg has figured that out too.
 
Bill1940 said:
Not a tea party, more a pity party. I also suspect the occupations are orchestrated by surrogates of the Obama Administration for the purpose of reviving the enthusiasm of the left-wing base. Could Soros and Van Jones be involved? If so, the Administration is taking a great risk. Left-wing crowds seem uninhibited and prone to obstreperous behavior. On the other hand, the protestors are quite candid about being sympathetic towards Marxism and antipathetic towards free enterprise. They are open, about an attitude the Administration seems to share but hides. All things work together for the good of those who love God. Let us watch these events with good-natured detachment.
Click to expand...
Could Soros and Jones be involved? Its already been proven that this thing has been organized by Soros funded groups back in June. OWS is total astroturf.
 
scipio337 said:
I posted this earlier, no one in support of OWS gave an anwer.

The most recent CBO estimate on the cost of TARP to taxpayers:

$25 Billion.

cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11980&zzz=41404

CBO estimate of the cost of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, a bailout for public service unions, and bankrupt states:

$718 Billion by the end of 2011.

cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9…conference.pdf

Why is OWS protesting one, and not the other?
Click to expand...
Because unions are a force for good and banks are a force for evil. 🤷
 
scipio337 said:
I posted this earlier, no one in support of OWS gave an anwer.

The most recent CBO estimate on the cost of TARP to taxpayers:

$25 Billion.

cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11980&zzz=41404

CBO estimate of the cost of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, a bailout for public service unions, and bankrupt states:

$718 Billion by the end of 2011.

cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9…conference.pdf

Why is OWS protesting one, and not the other?
Click to expand...
Hasn’t the TARP money (as opposed t the later Stimulus packages) all been recovered now?
 
Darryl1958 said:
Hasn’t the TARP money (as opposed t the later Stimulus packages) all been recovered now?
Click to expand...
Most of it. Based on that CBO report, close to $1 trillion went out the door, $25 Billion is the remainder after the paybacks (with interest).
 
estesbob said:
OWS Protester Proclaims ‘The Jews Control Wall St.’ In Zuccotti Park Rant

That’s the message one Wall Street protester was trying to spread in Lower Manhattan to anyone that would listen.

A new video posted to YouTube shows the protester loudly and aggressively proclaiming “the Jews control Wall Street.”

newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/12/wall-street-protester-proclaims-the-jews-control-wall-st-in-zuccotti-park-rant/
Click to expand...
It was only a matter of time before the rabid anti-Semetism of the left reared its ugly head.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
It was only a matter of time before the rabid anti-Semetism of the left reared its ugly head.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the left is anti-Semitic. I think it’s a little anti-religious though, but to sterotype everyone at this protest as anti-Semitic is a stretch.
 
SpeakInSilence said:
I don’t think the left is anti-Semitic. I think it’s a little anti-religious though, but to sterotype everyone at this protest as anti-Semitic is a stretch.
Click to expand...
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Soros, most of Hollywood. Anti-semitism is a striking characteristic of statist left-wing politics. They are a convenient group to demonize as an obstacle to implementing their totalitarian schemes.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Soros, most of Hollywood. Anti-semitism is a striking characteristic of statist left-wing politics. They are a convenient group to demonize as an obstacle to implementing their totalitarian schemes.
Click to expand...
I’ve known a lot of liberals, all my life. Not an anti-semite in the lot.
 
agnes_therese said:
I’ve known a lot of liberals, all my life. Not an anti-semite in the lot.
Click to expand...
I didn’t make the case that individual liberals were anti-semitic. However, the political ideology of left wing statism has always been anti-semitic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top