AbsoluteZero
Banned
The thought hit me this morning...where was this movement when the original wall street bailouts took place?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
AbsoluteZero said:
Absolutely nowhere.
Again it's an entire pack-mentality.
What's unfortunate is that a movement that is justified in its core, is ruined by emotionally unstable individuals.
Most of which are anti-authority, cop-hating, anarchists who seemed to determined to just stir up trouble for the sake of...trouble.
More Fun To Compute
Member
AbsoluteZero said:
Many people were desperately trying to get their politicians to block the bailouts so much so that wall street had to turn the screws on them and talk about the apocalypse happening if they didn't get their way. I don't even know if the bailouts are the main issue but they are a strong symbol of how democratic processes are completely ignored when the financial industry applies pressure.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Cool, you demonstrate S Rank use of quote code.Timedog said:
Indeed there's a plethora of such videos on youtube - demonstrating said behavior.
Even after visiting "Occupy Orlando", it only confirmed my suspicions. The "protestors" there were quite volatile to say the least. In addition to having no clear agenda.
Lastly look no further than this thread. There's way too many temperamental posters who make their hatred of authority or the police well known. Here's a recent Scholar:
These are the type of people you want standing beside you?
Even after visiting "Occupy Orlando", it only confirmed my suspicions. The "protestors" there were quite volatile to say the least. In addition to having no clear agenda.
Lastly look no further than this thread. There's way too many temperamental posters who make their hatred of authority or the police well known. Here's a recent Scholar:
empty vessel said:
These are the type of people you want standing beside you?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Timedog said:
Cool, you demonstrate S Rank use of quote code.Timedog said:
I've been to these rallies in 3 cities (NYC, Seattle, Portland) and I have not seen all that many violent, volatile or cop hating people there.bjb said:
Now don't get me wrong, you got a few thousands people together, there bound to be some dickheads in the crowd, but all in all, these have to be the most peaceful political rallies I've ever been to.
I think your preconceived notions might be getting the best of you.
But more importantly, why do you focus on the messengers instead of the message?
I mean, if a group of people have an idea you believe in, would reject it only because some idiots support it as well?
And you disagree with them, why does their behavior matter?
empty vessel
Member
Chichikov said:
Indeed. The real work of getting one's way politically begins after elections, which for the last 30 years until now has been almost the exclusive province of corporate business (and especially financial) interests.
kame-sennin
Member
Matt Taibbi, "Why Rush Limbaugh Is Freaking Out About Occupy Wall Street":
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...reaking-out-about-occupy-wall-street-20111018
The narrative from those opposing OWS will/is shifting from ignoring the movement > mocking the movement > co-opting the movement. And if that doesn't work, they will try to cast the movement as a threat to national security. We shouldn't be dismayed when we see this happen. If anything, the growing opposition from the corporate right shows that OWS is working.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...reaking-out-about-occupy-wall-street-20111018
The narrative from those opposing OWS will/is shifting from ignoring the movement > mocking the movement > co-opting the movement. And if that doesn't work, they will try to cast the movement as a threat to national security. We shouldn't be dismayed when we see this happen. If anything, the growing opposition from the corporate right shows that OWS is working.
Alpha-Bromega
Member
bjb said:
oh give me a fucking break, we were in a collective state of shock still reeling from the initial blows. stop trying to delegitimate the movement because we were too fucking busy packing up our homes and watching the entire neighborhood empty as well.
We've been seriously, for the past few years, collective scratching our heads and just shouting in the dark.
now we've got our shit together, the data has come through to even the least politically active, and look, we are reacting. Organized, with intent, rather than blind rage aiming at whoever.
but nope, sorry we've gone beyond the terms of "acceptable" timeframe for protesting, render it null and void, pack up everyone.
kame-sennin
Member
Alpha-Bromega said:
I would imagine most people, myself included, weren't even aware of how corrupt our financial system was before the bailout (and for some time after). The education process for such a complicated issue, especially when it needs to be spread over a large enough population to start a movement, is going to be pretty slow. Americans were certainly late to the party when compared to Europe, but I would attribute that to a culture that casts the wealthy as heroes and 40 years of propaganda that said protests don't work (said propaganda was of course in reaction to protests that DID work).
kame-sennin
Member
Clevinger said:
Limbaugh is certainly a reactionary, but the article talks about others as well. But what's more important is the way the right's criticism has shifted. We can see it here on gaf. At first, this was a 'worthless movement that wouldn't even get off the ground'. Then, when it started to gain momentum, the protesters were 'lazy hippies that don't represent regular Americans'. Then the numbers swelled and the unions joined, and the goal posts were moved further, 'the protester's message isn't clear and they're not going to accomplish anything'. This shifting by pro-corporate pundits is in and of itself a sign of progress.
For the life of me I cannot understand people who are blind to the corrupting influence of corporate dollars in politics. How is it not totally obvious that this is the driving factor behind the protests? The interests of the monied have taken precedent over the interests of the many for too long; it is totally natural that when the dam of disillusionment and apathy finally broke, it was dominated by simple rage at the institutions built on economic and representative inequality.
That there are financiers who think their contributions to politicians should buy their allegiance epitomizes the problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/b...&sq=paulson taxes&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=all
If the will of the public is finally striking fear into the hearts of corrupting banksters and corrupted government officials, I say good, that is exactly what the protests should be doing -- balancing the scales of power back towards genuine democracy.
That is what this movement is about and all these squabbles about whether Han Protestor slapped first or if European countries have more or less regulations than us are distractions from the heart of the problem.
That there are financiers who think their contributions to politicians should buy their allegiance epitomizes the problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/b...&sq=paulson taxes&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=all
If the will of the public is finally striking fear into the hearts of corrupting banksters and corrupted government officials, I say good, that is exactly what the protests should be doing -- balancing the scales of power back towards genuine democracy.
That is what this movement is about and all these squabbles about whether Han Protestor slapped first or if European countries have more or less regulations than us are distractions from the heart of the problem.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Well GAF, I might get arrested tonight. Going down right now to take a stand against the city police from not letting us occupy a park. They said yesterday they would arrest anyone in the park we were occupying after the 11PM curfew tonight. The group changed parks but I don't know what's going to happen. Both parks have the same curfew. I don't plan on resisting if I am arrested.
teruterubozu
Member
kame-sennin said:
A progress towards what? More reactions? Rush Limbaugh FEEDS off of stuff like this. It gives him ratings. It gives him meat for his show - a topic du jour. Taibbi's idea that Rush is freaking out is ludicrous.
kame-sennin
Member
Another article on co-option from Glen Greenwald:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/singleton/
When I first wrote in defense of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple of weeks ago, I suggested that much of the scorn then being expressed by many progressives was grounded in the belief that the only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party candidates. Since then, even the most establishment Democrats have fundamentally changed how they talk about the protests from condescension and hostility to respect and even support and The New York Times today makes clear one significant factor accounting for this change:
Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the partys powerful House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare that I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obamas 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities.
Judd Legum, a spokesman for the center, said that its direct contacts with the protests have been limited, but that weve definitely been publicizing it and supporting it.
He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012.
Politico similarly noted today that the White House wants to make it clear that President Barack Obama is on the same side as the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
Can that scheme work? Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the Democratic Party? To determine if this is likely, lets review a few relevant facts.
In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline Democrats are darlings of Wall St, which reported that both Obama and Clinton are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions. In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled Wall Street puts its money behind Obama; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from the securities and investment industry and that Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout.
After Obamas election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Obamas favorite banker because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimons $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts as fair and reasonable.
The key Senate fundraiser for the Party is Chuck Schumer, whom the New York Times profiled in an article headlined Champion of Wall Street Reaps the Benefits as someone who repeatedly supported measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis and who took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules and thus became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup. That servitude to Wall Street is what consolidated Schumers power in the Party:
As a result, [Schumer] has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . . . In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his pro-business message and record of addressing their concerns.
Upon being inaugurated, Obama empowered as his top economic adviser Larry Summers, who had collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the [prior] year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations, including a fee of $135,000 for a single day of speaking at Goldman, Sachs, and who also led the orgy of Wall Street deregulation in the 1990s. Obama installed as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whom the New York Times explained had forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Streets giant financial institutions.
When Obama chose him, Geithner had just participated in a secret meeting along with Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, at which it was decided that a bankrupt AIG would be saved and then with taxpayer money would pay Goldman every penny owed to it. Summers, in February, 2009, defended gaudy AIG bonuses as compelled by the rule of law even after the administration forced auto union workers to take sizable cuts in their contractually guaranteed pay.
As his Chief of Staff at Treasury, Geithner chose Mark Patterson, the former top lobbyist for Goldman, Sachs. Goldman replaced Patterson with Michael Paese, who at the time was the top staffer to Democratic Rep. Barney Frank in his capacity as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which regulates Wall Street. Obamas choice to oversee Americas futures markets was Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who, during the 1990s, was known for his shockingly lax enforcement of regulations governing derivative products. Obama re-appointed Bushs Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, and named CEO of GE Jeffery Immelt to head his panel of jobs advisers, along with several other job-cutting corporate executives.
When Rahm Emanuel who had made $16 million in three years as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House left as Obamas Chief of Staff to run for Mayor of Chicago, Obama chose as his replacement Bill Daley, who at the time was serving as JP Morgans Midwest Chairman and a director of Boeing. Shortly after Obamas star director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, left the administration, he became a top executive at Citigroup. The DCCC, recently headed by Emanuel and now feigning support for the protests, is characterized by little other than a strategy of supporting corporatist, Wall-Street-revering Blue Dog Democrats as a way of consolidating power.
One of the most significant aspects of the Obama administration is the lack of criminal prosecutions for leading Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial crisis. Obama recently opined even while there are supposedly ongoing DOJ investigations that Wall Streets corruption was, in general, not illegal. The New York Times recently reported that top Obama officials are heavily pressuring New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to join a woefully inadequate settlement agreement that would end all investigations and litigations against Wall Street firms for pervasive mortgage fraud.
Given these facts, does the Center for American Progress really believe that the protest movement named OccupyWallStreet was begun and that people are being arrested and pepper-sprayed and ready to endure harsh winters and marching to Jamie Dimons house in order to devote themselves to ensuring that these people remain in power? Does CAP and the DCCC really believe that most of the protesters are motivated or can be motivated to turn themselves into a get-out-the-vote machine for Obamas re-election and the empowerment of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party? Obviously, if when the GOP nominates some crony capitalist like Rick Perry or eager Wall Street servant like Mitt Romney, few if any of the protesters will or should support them, nor can it be denied that the GOP in its current incarnation is steadfastly devoted to a pro-Wall-Street, corporatist agenda. But it also seems to me quite delusional to think that youre going to exploit this protest as a way to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012″ on behalf of the Democratic Party that I just documented.
Presumably, people who are out protesting and getting arrested are politically astute enough to be aware of some, probably most, of these facts. A rejuvenated outburst of populist rhetoric from Obama a re-reading of the 2008 Change script just as election season is heating up and Obama again needs progressive enthusiasm to remain in power seems quite unlikely to make people forget all of this.
As Robert Reich recently pointed out, OWS and the Democratic Party are not exactly natural allies given that Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business and that a big share of both parties campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms. As Naomi Klein explained after speaking to the protesters, the reason they are out on the street rather than working for the DNC or OFA is precisely because they concluded that electoral politics or working for either party will not address the issues motivating them; part of what theyre protesting is the Democratic Party. For an FDL Book Salon discussion this weekend, I reviewed Lawrence Lessigs excellent new book on our corrupted political system, Republic: Lost, and he documents exactly why he transformed from an enthusiastic supporter of his long-time friend and colleague Barack Obama in 2008 into a harsh critic of both parties: because the political system itself has been subverted by oligarchical control. As he put it in his book: : Democracy on this account seems a show or a rule; power rests elsewhere. . . . the charade is a signal: spend your time elsewhere, because this game is not for real.
So best of luck to CAP and the DCCC in their efforts to exploit these protests into some re-branded Obama 2012 crusade and to convince the protesters to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested all to make themselves the 2012 street version of OFA. I think theyre going to need it.
UPDATE: Here are the top recipients of campaign donations from the securities and investment industry from 1989 through 2010 (h/t muddy thinking):
Would it not be a bit odd for a protest movement to Occupy Wall Street while simultaneously devoting itself to keeping Wall Streets most lavishly funded politician in power?
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/singleton/
Alpha-Bromega
Member
A Human Becoming said:
good luck and solidarity to you!
kame-sennin
Member
teruterubozu said:
The purpose of the protests is to put political pressure on the oligarchy. Obviously, Limbaugh is always going to act like a jackass. But his current reactions point to fear on his part that both Democrats and Republicans are beginning to acquiesce to OWS. It's going to be a long, slow process. But when the oligarchs and their pundits start to scramble, we know our message is getting out loud and clear.
Evlar said:
Indeed.
A Human Becoming said:
Good luck and be safe!
I couldn't honestly care less if you're getting money from wall street. The president took large amounts of money form WS, but believes that it's the middle class that should be helped directly.
I think it matters more what you do with that money rather where you're getting it from.
I think it matters more what you do with that money rather where you're getting it from.
PhoenixDark
Banned
kame-sennin said:
So who will OWS be voting for? I think it's fair to say a majority of them will wind up voting for Obama, if they vote at all.
Mortrialus
Banned
kame-sennin said:
Rush gets flustered about everything. What is really amusing about OWS is how quickly they've made Romney and Cantor change their tunes.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Obama, followed by not voting, Ron Paul, and bizarre write in's for a plethora of people that statistically equally nothingPhoenixDark said:
timetokill
Banned
Like I said before, it would be so fucking tragic if the OWS movements got co-opted by the Democrats, especially Obama.
So goddamn tragic.
So goddamn tragic.
PhoenixDark
Banned
kame-sennin said:
Bad article. How is Rush's freak out any different than the initial liberal response to the Tea Party?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
timetokill said:
I know it would be embarrassing to be associated with the OWS people.
my goal post of the movement has never changed, the movement still needs to find its message and drop off the co-opting libertarians and other 3rd parties trying to leech off itkame-sennin said:
as long as the movement's demands remain vague so will the promises made by politicians remain vague
timetokill
Banned
Jenga said:
:lol
I think the movement's vague demands are actually rather effective at this point. The idea is that there are so many things wrong that one simple thing is not going to fix it. And it's not one thing, or even a few things alone that are causing the 1% vs 99% dynamic in this country.
They do need to drop off the leeching Democrats and Republicans though.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
PhoenixDark said:
In the end I wouldn't be surprised if this were true, given Republicans' tendency the past few years to take up sword and shield in defense of the wealthy at the expense of just about everyone else. What I don't see, however, is a bunch of overly enthusiastic supporters out there. No "Yes, we can" or "Four more years" signs, just a bunch of (for now) moderately pissed off people finding their voices. So far both parties have been spared direct assault by the movement in favor of a more general anger toward the system at large.
Uncouth as it may be, "Shit is fucked up and bullshit" is a surprisingly apt way to describe the gist of OWS.
there's a big difference between having an idea for a solution and having a "detailed plan".Chichikov said:
again, as long as OWS's solutions remain all over the place the politicians in power will choose the easiest and less effective one
so are you a libertarian or what?timetokill said:
PhoenixDark said:
This is about holding government officials to account for their actions. Regardless of who is elected, the demand is that they not let corporate campaign contributions dictate policy over the desires of the public at large. This movement arose precisely because many politicians on both sides are being bought out instead of representing those who voted them into office.
Dude Abides
Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
So bitter.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
No, I think you still hold the record for the Walmart taser thread.Dude Abides said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked