Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Breadburner]

LOL!!!!  Nice try, though!

I'm dressing up as Gene Simmons dressing up as Alice Cooper.

Or maybe just sit on the front porch sharpening a broad axe like I usually do....closest thing to a guillotine I can afford.  And wait for something tasty...  (heh, heh, heh,...he said broad!)

So I was right then....

[heironymouspasparagus]

So I was right then....

No.

That is neither.  Or none of the above.

[we vs us]

We vs us, you are not all that liberal.  When things begin to break down, you typically revert to logic (a very un-liberal characteristic).  That is why I think most of your/our discussions remain civil and productive. If you were a real liberal, you would just start calling people names and revert to childish ridicule.

I'll take that as a compliment, I guess.  Though don't be fooled: I regularly sneak away and cry enraged tears -- in the dark, in a corner -- when I think of all social injustices out there.  And the injustices to trees, as well.

Back on topic:  regarding OWS, the Tea Party, and being co-opted, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone makes my point far better than I could....

Take, for instance, the matter of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks . . . . these gigantic institutions have put millions of ordinary people out of their homes thanks to a massive fraud scheme for which they were not punished, owing to their enormous influence with government and their capture of the regulators.

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power -- but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast.

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago. 

The banks know this. They know they have no "natural" constituency among voters, which is why they spend such fantastic amounts of energy courting the mainstream press and such huge sums lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The only way the Goldmans and Citis and Bank of Americas can survive is if they can suck up popular political support indirectly, either by latching onto such vague right-populist concepts as "limited government" and "free-market capitalism" (ironic, because none of them would survive ten minutes without the federal government's bailouts and other protections) or, alternatively, by presenting themselves as society's bulwark against communism, lefty extremism, Noam Chomsky, etc.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying one thing: beware of provocateurs on both sides of the aisle. This movement is going to attract many Breitbarts, of both the left and right variety. They're going to try to identify fake leaders, draw phony battle lines, and then herd everybody back into the same left-right cage matches of old. Whenever that happens, we just have to remember not to fall for the trap. When someone says this or that person speaks for OWS, don't believe it. This thing is bigger than one or two or a few people, and it isn't part of the same old story.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-occupy-wall-street-is-bigger-than-left-vs-right-20111017

[Teatownclown]

Even the Financial Times is saying the protesters have a point:

October 16, 2011 10:35 pm


America wakes to the din of inequity

A month ago the disparate band of protesters who set up camp in downtown Manhattan's Zuccotti Park to decry the excesses of capitalism were seen as little more than idealistic youth, doing what youth tend to do. Today only the foolhardy would dismiss a movement reflecting the anger and frustration of ordinary citizens from all walks of life across the world.

So far the protests in the US have been largely peaceful. They may be diffuse and inchoate. But the fundamental call for a fairer distribution of wealth cannot be ignored. What is at stake is the future of the American dream. The bargain has always been that all who work hard should have an opportunity for prosperity. That dream has been shattered by a crisis brought about by financial excess and political cynicism. The consequence has been growing in­equality, rising poverty and sacrifice by those least able to bear it – all of which are failing to deliver economic growth.

The frustration of protesters railing against the global financial system, and of the 54 per cent of Americans who polls suggest support their calls, is legitimate. The wonder is why it has taken so long for citizens to come out in popular protest across political boundaries. For the last three years, the country has been paralysed by a political gridlock that has put its future on the line. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame – the Grand Old Party for its callous obstruction of all Democratic initiatives and President Barack Obama for his naïve neglect of the need for muscular leadership.

Politicians in both camps have failed to spot and channel the righteous anger of those who have seen government spend billions on bailing out banks, while bickering over how to create jobs or educate children. One opportunity after another has been squandered – most recently in the failure promptly to pass a proper jobs bill.

For a brief period in 2010, when the economy looked set for recovery, there was hope that the American dream would prevail. But the return of gloomy economic prospects has reinforced the impression that the political class is irrelevant or, worse, in hock to vested financial interests to the detriment of its service to the public. Re­forms to election campaign financing could be a first step to repairing this perception.

Whether or not the protests evolve into a more coherent set of demands, or even become a more lasting political force, remains to be seen. But the cry for change is one that must be heeded.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Here is an interesting piece about the Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Reagan's masterpiece.  And how far we have come in polarizing.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Tax-Reform-Act-of-1986-nytimes-1118143285.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

[nathanm]

The difference between those two pictures, TTC, is this: The people in the photo on the left do not (mostly, there are always a few freaks) want to dismantle all corporations. They want their government to act as an effective balance of their power, so that they cannot continue to co-opt the political system in this country. Many of the people on the right do, however, want to eliminate government entirely, or at least reduce it to contract enforcement and defense (and possibly police and fire departments, depending on the individual). The people on the right seem to be under the impression that there is no need to balance or check the power of corporations.

[dbacks fan]

Interesting commentary from Douglas Schoen of the WSJ

The movement, which has spread beyond New York City over the last month, "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," he wrote.

In the op-ed, Schoen presents "findings" collected by his polling firm — what he touts is probably "the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion." The numbers show that 52 percent of the Occupy protesters have "participated in a political movement before," 98 percent said they would "support civil disobedience to achieve their goals," while 31 percent said they would even "support violence to advance their agenda."

In addition, Schoen said "an overwhelming majority" of the protesters supported the president in 2008, but that now, only 44 percent of them approve of Obama and only 48 percent of them will vote for him again in 2012.

All in all, these numbers demonstrate the fact that the protesters represent "an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence," and that their common bond is "a deep commitment to left-wing policies," Schoen said.

He warned that the Occupiers are "a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation," — all reasons that could make the administration's support for the movement "catastrophic for their party."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66228.html

[we vs us]

Interesting commentary from Douglas Schoen of the WSJ
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66228.html

Here's how the Politico article ends:

"Schoen was a pollster for former President Bill Clinton, as his tagline on the Journal's op-ed piece notes, and identifies himself as a Democratic campaign consultant. But his clients have also included non-Democrats, such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a time when he was seeking office as a Republican.

Schoen has previously criticized Obama for dividing the country along partisan lines and said in an op-ed in POLITICO earlier this year that the president's health care law has been a "disaster" for the Democratic party. The consultant also has said the president should not seek reelection in 2012."

So, no axes to grind there or anything, right?

I'd also point out that both in the Politico article and the actual op-ed they're referring to (here) the only support that Schoen makes for his contention that "Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people . . ." and "The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies," is this:

"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%)."

It's not at all clear that these views are radical or dangerous, or even shared by a scant minority of Americans.  In some polls, raising taxes on millionaires gets a majority positive vote; the bank bailouts were always controversial; and polling during the Obamacare debates and the 2010 midterms showed that both secure retirement and affordable healthcare were top concerns (and priorities!) of a majority of Americans.  The only thing that might be out of the mainstream of opinion is the guarantee to a college education . . . and that might be understandable considering how OWS skews young. 

In other words, Schoen's making smile up. 

[guido911]

This is so freakin hilarious. Who are these people?

[dbacks fan]

My point was, this poll (take it for what it's worth) was showing that an increasing number of people that are "OWS" protestors are not part of the original collective, and that alot of them including ones in Portland OR believe that civil disobedience is their "right" (not by the definition of) and that an increasing number claim they will resort to violence to get their message across.

Another point, they claim to have received over $300k in cash donations, as well as clothing and food, in NY, do they have a 501c3? If not are they going to pay the taxes on the donations?

[Gaspar]

Here's how the Politico article ends:

"Schoen was a pollster for former President Bill Clinton, as his tagline on the Journal's op-ed piece notes, and identifies himself as a Democratic campaign consultant. But his clients have also included non-Democrats, such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a time when he was seeking office as a Republican.

Schoen has previously criticized Obama for dividing the country along partisan lines and said in an op-ed in POLITICO earlier this year that the president's health care law has been a "disaster" for the Democratic party. The consultant also has said the president should not seek reelection in 2012."

So, no axes to grind there or anything, right?

I'd also point out that both in the Politico article and the actual op-ed they're referring to (here) the only support that Schoen makes for his contention that "Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people . . ." and "The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies," is this:

It's not at all clear that these views are radical or dangerous, or even shared by a scant minority of Americans.  In some polls, raising taxes on millionaires gets a majority positive vote; the bank bailouts were always controversial; and polling during the Obamacare debates and the 2010 midterms showed that both secure retirement and affordable healthcare were top concerns (and priorities!) of a majority of Americans.  The only thing that might be out of the mainstream of opinion is the guarantee to a college education . . . and that might be understandable considering how OWS skews young. 

In other words, Schoen's making smile up. 

Aside from interpretation, here is the poll data.  Both sides attribute spin to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23835520/Occupy%20Wall%20Street%20Poll.docx

You need Word 2007 to open it.

[dbacks fan]

Aside from interpretation, here is the poll data.  Both sides attribute spin to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23835520/Occupy%20Wall%20Street%20Poll.docx

You need Word 2007 to open it.

JMO, the 44% that did not vote, quit whining and go home.

[Gaspar]

Basically, the poll shows a bunch of people who are angry, and too politically disengaged to have a true grasp on why they are angry.

Reading the survey, you realize that these are the answers of a child.

[we vs us]

Basically, the poll shows a bunch of people who are angry, and too politically disengaged to have a true grasp on why they are angry.

Reading the survey, you realize that these are the answers of a child.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? 

[dbacks fan]

Basically, the poll shows a bunch of people who are angry, and too politically disengaged to have a true grasp on why they are angry.

Reading the survey, you realize that these are the answers of a child.

They might as well have put the survey on the side of a barn and shot at it with a 12 gauge from 50 feet. Probably gotten the same results.