Support NeoGAF

[Giant Panda]

The worst part is how people subscribe to it like gospel. Its the magazine that every economics major buy who thinks that they know everything about economics. Everything apparently causes inflation to them.

What do you mean by that? They've been critical of excessive deficit reduction and have been supportive of keeping QE going.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Here are more examples of why the Economist can really really suck sometime.

This one excerpt that actually made the magazine about Occupy.

Here is them talking about how Occupy is violent, at least with the video they posted.



The worst part is how people subscribe to it like gospel. Its the magazine that every economics major buy who thinks that they know everything about economics. Everything apparently causes inflation to them.

They don't have the same opinion of you regarding OWS (same with a BBC reporter and Greenwald)... Ok, that doesn't make them bad. There are outlets like the nation, democracy now and in these times that will always make any left-leaning organization saintly.

Your latter paragraph I agree with and its quite annoying. And I don't understand why someone doesn't try to vary their readings to different ideological outlets plus maybe a few dry sources like the nightly news, CNN, BBC, etc.

 

[Black Mamba]

"There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of any of my campaign staff that the shutdown cost me the election," Lonegan said in an interview with the New Jersey Star-Ledger on Monday. "If I had known it was going to happen and that it was going to be handled so badly in Washington, I wouldn't have run for Senate."

IF NOT FOR SANDY, MITT WOULD HAVE WON TOO!!!!!!!!

 

[TacticalFox88]

I hate liberals so much. Reading the comments on huffpost in response to Richard Trumka's threat to dems makes my head want to burst. They are spewing tons of false equivalency about how unions are now being just as radical as the tea party, that we should all stop the threats and work together to achieve things so on and so on. Insufferable.

It gets to me because I know these are the people responsible for preventing progress, and so many of them exist and will defend the center-right Obama cult of personality to the end. The thought of people being anti-union or anti-worker (what!? YOU ARE A WORKER) makes so little sense it's intolerable.

Then they were going on about the type of shit I'd hear people in here say during election time. "WELL DO YOU THINK REPUBS WOULD BE ANY BETTER!? HUH!?!?!?!? why don't you try electing them and they'll privatize social security all together ! so ha! you better support Obama!!!"

But to be fair most of the comments I've seen have supported him, so it's not all bad. Just those runts that keep the current pro-business dem coalition in power.

You think there is an Obama cult-of-personality on large scale?

:lol :lol :lol

That ship sailed YEARS ago.

 

[Fox318]

IF NOT FOR SANDY, MITT WOULD HAVE WON TOO!!!!!!!!

I hate to say it but wouldn't you agree that the stage was set for a logan upset?

Special election on a Wednesday and shitty weather on the day of the vote. If it wasn't for the fact that the GOP was in the headlines for the shutdown it could have been an upset.

 

[zero shift]

They don't have the same opinion of you regarding OWS (same with a BBC reporter and Greenwald)... Ok, that doesn't make them bad. There are outlets like the nation, democracy now and in these times that will always make any left-leaning organization saintly.

Because their criticisms are ridiculous. Occupy Wallstreet can't happen because people can already vote? What?

 

[Black Mamba]

I hate to say it but wouldn't you agree that the stage was set for a logan upset?

Special election on a Wednesday and shitty weather on the day of the vote. If it wasn't for the fact that the GOP was in the headlines for the shutdown it could have been an upset.

He was down like double digits or near it the entire cycle, so no, no it wasn't in the cards.

 

[Fox318]

He was down like double digits or near it the entire cycle, so no, no it wasn't in the cards.

If the GOP just took a step back and let the Obamacare website failings cover the news instead of the shutdown it would have been at least a closer fight.

 

[TacticalFox88]

If the GOP just took a step back and let the Obamacare website failings cover the news instead of the shutdown it would have been at least a closer fight.

The GOP are a bunch of short sighted idiots that can't think long term. Just like the corporations they back and work for.

 

[Jooney]

I hate to say it but wouldn't you agree that the stage was set for a logan upset?

Special election on a Wednesday and shitty weather on the day of the vote. If it wasn't for the fact that the GOP was in the headlines for the shutdown it could have been an upset.

One could argue that the factors you listed prevented Corey Booker from having an even bigger margin of victory.

Lonegan complaining that the shutdown cost him the election is nonsensical - as Black Mumba pointed out polling consistently showed him to be lagging in the race for a sustained period.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Because their criticisms are ridiculous. Occupy Wallstreet can't happen because people can already vote? What?

My understanding is they don't view them as a revolutionary force, just an average protest group. They inflate their self-importance, it says they should work with in the system. Its an opinion.

 

[Fox318]

The GOP are a bunch of short sighted idiots that can't think long term. Just like the corporations they back and work for.

Corps that back them didn't back the shutdown. Fringe right is what dragged them down.

I'm surprised Steve King didn't demand that English be named as the official language or that don't ask don't tell as part of the shutdown demands.

 

[gcubed]

If the GOP just took a step back and let the Obamacare website failings cover the news instead of the shutdown it would have been at least a closer fight.

it wouldn't have been. There was no chance in hell that lonegan was winning that election, it wasn't close before the shutdown and it wasn't close during it.

He could have shit rainbows on stage that dropped dollar bills on people... maybe then it would have been closer.

 

[Black Mamba]

If the GOP just took a step back and let the Obamacare website failings cover the news instead of the shutdown it would have been at least a closer fight.

Consider that recent polling shows that most people believe the ACA, despite website issues, still needs to let it be played out, I highly doubt this.

Booker was going to win so long as he didn't do/say something awful.

 

[Karakand]

No it won't. Its a pretty good magazine, full of editorials that tend to have a certain bent which they admit and sometimes contradict each other (the articles are written by different authors so this isn't surprising, do people not disagree?). Its not a factual disinterested reporting outlet. I enjoy reading it even when disagree. Reading more can never make someone less knowledgeable people aren't robots without thinking skills.

Contradiction is problematic when the authors of your articles are generally anonymous. No one can be held accountable for, say, The Economist endorsing the Invasion of Iraq.

Do you have a source on their claims of being a partisan item? I know they're are a thoroughly contradictory periodical, but they published this recently:

The Economist, moreover, still considers itself more of a newspaper than a magazine in spirit. Its aim is to be a comprehensive weekly newspaper for the world. If you are stranded on a desert island and can have only one periodical air-dropped to you to keep up with world news, our hope is that you would choose The Economist.

Sounds like a claim of disinterested, factual reporting to me.

 

[thepotatoman]

If the GOP just took a step back and let the Obamacare website failings cover the news instead of the shutdown it would have been at least a closer fight.

That would have been them risking their political careers on something that could have ended up being no big deal. I can see how they might not have wanted to take the hands off approach for that.

The only problem is their hands on approach was doomed to fail from the start.

 

[Fox318]

it wouldn't have been. There was no chance in hell that lonegan was winning that election, it wasn't close before the shutdown and it wasn't close during it.

He could have shit rainbows on stage that dropped dollar bills on people... maybe then it would have been closer.

I wouldn't be comfortable voting for a candidate with exotic fecal matter. Its time to release the tests to make sure that no Unicorn or My Little Pony fan is ever elected into office.

WHERE IS THE CERTIFICATE??

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Contradiction is problematic when the authors of your articles are generally anonymous. No one can be held accountable for, say, The Economist endorsing the Invasion of Iraq.

Do you have a source on their claims of being a partisan item? I know they're are a thoroughly contradictory periodical, but they published this recently:



Sounds like a claim of disinterested, factual reporting to me.

I don't think contradictions are not problematic especially with their anonymity but its not a reason to not read something. Its something to be aware of.

They provide 'analysis' of the worlds news. I see nothing in there that claims disinterest, especially when in that same article it talks about how much it uses "this newspaper" and "we" in its pages. In fact, they even posted this talking about their political positions http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

SOME readers, particularly those used to the left-right split in most democratic legislatures, are bamboozled by The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing?

Neither, is the answer. The Economist was founded in 1843 by James Wilson, a British businessman who objected to heavy import duties on foreign corn. Mr Wilson and his friends in the Anti-Corn Law League were classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith and, later, the likes of John Stuart Mill and William Ewart Gladstone. This intellectual ancestry has guided the newspaper's instincts ever since: it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so.

The concepts of right- and left-wing predate The Economist's foundation by half a century. They first referred to seating arrangements in the National Assembly in Paris during the French Revolution. Monarchists sat on the right, revolutionaries on the left. To this day, the phrases distinguish conservatives from egalitarians. But they do a poor job of explaining The Economist’s liberalism, which reconciles the left’s impatience at an unsatisfactory status quo with the right’s scepticism about grandiose redistributive schemes. So although its credo and its history are as rich as that of any reactionary or revolutionary, The Economist has no permanent address on the left-right scale. In most countries, the political divide is conservative-egalitarian, not liberal-illiberal. So it has no party allegiance, either. When it covers elections, it gives its endorsement to the candidate or party most likely to pursue classically liberal policies. It has thrown its weight behind politicians on the right, like Margaret Thatcher, and on the left, like Barack Obama. It is often drawn to centrist politicians and parties who appear to combine the best of both sides, such as Tony Blair, whose combination of social and economic liberalism persuaded it to endorse him at the 2001 and the 2005 elections (though it criticised his government’s infringements of civil liberties).

When The Economist opines on new ideas and policies, it does so on the basis of their merits, not of who supports or opposes them. Last October, for example, it outlined a programme of reforms to combat inequality. Some, like attacking monopolies and targeting public spending on the poor and the young, had a leftish hue. Others, like raising retirement ages and introducing more choice in education, were more rightish. The result, "True Progressivism", was a blend of the two: neither right nor left, but all the better for it, and coming instead from what we like to call the radical centre.

 

[zero shift]

They provide 'analysis' of the worlds news. I see nothing in there that claims disinterest, especially when in that same article it talks about how much it uses "this newspaper" and "we" in its pages. In fact, they even posted this talking about their political positions http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

 

[Giant Panda]

Are you seriously trying to compare them in their messaging? That is the dumbest comparison I've seen in a while.

 

[ridethepiggy]

Here are more examples of why the Economist can really really suck sometime.

This one excerpt that actually made the magazine about Occupy.

Here is them talking about how Occupy is violent, at least with the video they posted.



The worst part is how people subscribe to it like gospel. Its the magazine that every economics major buy who thinks that they know everything about economics. Everything apparently causes inflation to them.

I idon't have a problem with media calling out the OWS crowd. It started off good and then went to utter shit. Bunch of babies who refused to organize correctly and took extremists platforms as well as refused to nominate leadership that would actually be able to help contribute something meaningful. As is they're a blip on the historical path of political significance that will not be remember in a few years.

 

[RustyNails]

I idon't have a problem with media calling out the OWS crowd. It started off good and then went to utter shit. Bunch of babies who refused to organize correctly and took extremists platforms as well as refused to nominate leadership that would actually be able to help contribute something meaningful. As is they're a blip on the historical path of political significance that will not be remember in a few years.

The Newsroom captured their infantile nonsense perfectly imo.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

The Newsroom captured their infantile nonsense perfectly imo.

As much as the show gets shit on (and somewhat rightfully so) it did indeed go a great job with OWS.

 

[speculawyer]

Arkansas Republican Griffin drops U.S. House re-election run
By Suzi Parker

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (Reuters) - Arkansas Republican U.S. Representative Tim Griffin said on Monday he will not seek a third term in Congress, a surprise announcement made just days after the end of a government shutdown that polls show damaged the Republican Party.

Griffin, 45, had no announced opponent and had raised more than $500,000 for his re-election bid to the U.S. House of Representatives. In a statement, Griffin cited family as the main reason for his decision.

Possible pick-up? It would be tough, it is a pretty red state.

 

[theprodigy]

Possible pick-up? It would be tough, it is a pretty red state.

I would just like to hold the senate seat there

 

[Jooney]

The Newsroom captured their infantile nonsense perfectly imo.

For those looking for the reference

 

[ridethepiggy]

The Newsroom captured their infantile nonsense perfectly imo.

Don't watch the show but I'd enjoy anything that makes fun of the OWS. It was a movement that had true potential that was wasted. While I don't agree with the conservative talking point that liberals are lazy and believe they deserve free shit, I can see it ringing true with many of the occupy members. Yea, let's block people from going to work to make a statement about how terrible employment is. Let's shit up private businesses property while making a statement for the environment. Bunch of numbskull spoiled brats.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Possible pick-up? It would be tough, it is a pretty red state.

It's the "bluest" district in the state, but that's only like 45% Obama.

Still, as recently as 2010 Dems held 3 of the 4 congressional districts, so maybe. Obama's unusually unpopular as a Democrat in the South (gee i wonder why)

 

[zero shift]

Are you seriously trying to compare them in their messaging? That is the dumbest comparison I've seen in a while.

I'm stating that just because a news source says it doesn't subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that they don't subscribe to and ideology.

For those looking for the reference

This seems to be on the same quality of the other shows rants.

I agree that OWS was ineffective however the Economist tends to portray it incorrectly as a pointless violent movement.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Are you seriously trying to compare them in their messaging? That is the dumbest comparison I've seen in a while.

Eh, on economics, the only real difference between the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP and the Economist is that the Economist would like the Invisible Hand to lube up before in fists the workers in the ass.

As for Booker versus Lonegan, the only reason it was as close a race as it was is because Booker didn't campaign at all the last few weeks, it was held in an off year, on a Wednesday in October, and Lonegan basically hit his ceiling.

If a saner candidate had run, you would've had Booker actually campaigning. If it had been Booker vs. Lonegan even on Election Day of 2013, Booker would've won big.

 

[empty vessel]

SOME readers, particularly those used to the left-right split in most democratic legislatures, are bamboozled by The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing?

The Economist is only confusing to politically unconscious Americans. This is all standard neoliberal right-wing fare. I don't think anybody can learn anything useful from the Economist, and I don't see the value in reading things that do depict the world accurately. Nothing was more depressing than seeing American liberal after American liberal citing the Economist as among their preferred reads a few years ago. I think they thought it was sophisticated and liberal (in the American sense) just because it is British. God only knows how much damage it did to the American "left."

I idon't have a problem with media calling out the OWS crowd. It started off good and then went to utter shit. Bunch of babies who refused to organize correctly and took extremists platforms as well as refused to nominate leadership that would actually be able to help contribute something meaningful. As is they're a blip on the historical path of political significance that will not be remember in a few years.

None of those things contributed to OWS's demise. OWS was violently repressed by the State. They are indeed a blip on the historical path of political significance but a very important one laying groundwork for the next movement, and one that might be covered in a hundred years by the next historian in Howard Zinn's mold. Successful movements do not spring from nothing. They evolve out of previous failed ones.

 

[Manmademan]

The Economist is only confusing to politically unconscious Americans. This is all standard neoliberal right-wing fare. I don't think anybody can learn anything useful from the Economist, and I don't see the value in reading things that do depict the world accurately. Nothing was more depressing than seeing American liberal after American liberal citing the Economist as among their preferred reads a few years ago. I think they thought it was sophisticated and liberal (in the American sense) just because it is British. God only knows how much damage it did to the American "left."
.

no, Americans think its sophisticated because the state of american journalism is SO BAD at the moment that it pretty much is, in comparison to anything else you could name.

What else would you compare it with? newsweek? US news? A CABLE news channel?

 

[ridethepiggy]

The Economist is only confusing to politically unconscious Americans. This is all standard neoliberal right-wing fare. I don't think anybody can learn anything useful from the Economist, and I don't see the value in reading things that do depict the world accurately. Nothing was more depressing than seeing American liberal after American liberal citing the Economist as among their preferred reads a few years ago. I think they thought it was sophisticated and liberal (in the American sense) just because it is British. God only knows how much damage it did to the American "left."



None of those things contributed to OWS's demise. OWS was violently repressed by the State. They are indeed a blip on the historical path of political significance but a very important one laying groundwork for the next movement, and one that might be covered in a hundred years by the next historian in Howard Zinn's mold. Successful movements do not spring from nothing. They evolve out of previous failed ones.

I agree with you on many things Empty but this one I will disagree. OWS deserves the blame of it's demise, not the State. It refused to organize. It refused to elect actual leaders that could help differentiate the loser spoiled brats from the flock. It refused to actually help elect officials into office that would push for progress. OWS was the reason of it's failure to truly launch.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm stating that just because a news source says it doesn't subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that they don't subscribe to and ideology.

They claim to subscribe to an ideology. That's my point

The Economist is only confusing to politically unconscious Americans. This is all standard neoliberal right-wing fare. I don't think anybody can learn anything useful from the Economist, and I don't see the value in reading things that do depict the world accurately. Nothing was more depressing than seeing American liberal after American liberal citing the Economist as among their preferred reads a few years ago. I think they thought it was sophisticated and liberal (in the American sense) just because it is British. God only knows how much damage it did to the American "left."

I'm glad you're hear to tell us whats accurate or what our preferred reads should be. You also use neoliberal like Republicans use liberal or socialist. Something that inherently evil and dismissive.

 

[Giant Panda]

I'm stating that just because a news source says it doesn't subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that they don't subscribe to and ideology.

Except the economist makes it abundantly clear what they subscribe to. They don't try to fool anyone or pass themselves off as something they're not.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Except the economist makes it abundantly clear what they subscribe to. They don't try to fool anyone or pass themselves off as something they're not.

Except, as empty vessel pointed out, a lot of people think they don't have an ideology because they're British and don't sound as crazy as the Heritage Foundation or National Review. I don't think The Economist are trying to fool people, but I do think a lot of liberal do fool themselves about the Economist and neoliberals happily let liberals do that to themselves.

 

[Jooney]

None of those things contributed to OWS's demise. OWS was violently repressed by the State. They are indeed a blip on the historical path of political significance but a very important one laying groundwork for the next movement, and one that might be covered in a hundred years by the next historian in Howard Zinn's mold. Successful movements do not spring from nothing. They evolve out of previous failed ones.

I agree that OWS was treated badly by the authorities. However that wasn't the sole reason for its demise. They had the nation's attention and they squandered it. They had a burning platform of income inequality that resonated with a majority of American's, but then did nothing meaningful with it. They couldn't transform attention into political action. They purposefully chose not to work within the system and it failed. I agree that future movements will build upon OWS but hopefully those movements will learn from its failure and not repeat the same mistakes.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm glad you're hear to tell us whats accurate or what our preferred reads should be. You also use neoliberal like Republicans use liberal or socialist. Something that inherently evil and dismissive.

I'm telling you my opinion. Your opinion that one should value reading everything, though, is not even one you believe. I can promise you that you do discriminate. And what's your preferred Marxist periodical?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Except, as empty vessel pointed out, a lot of people think they don't have an ideology because they're British and don't sound as crazy as the Heritage Foundation or National Review. I don't think The Economist are trying to fool people, but I do think a lot of liberal do fool themselves about the Economist and neoliberals happily let liberals do that to themselves.

I think your assuming far too ignorance. People aren't stupid.
You can be an Liberal and like the Economist. You can disagree with things too!

Lots of people in this thread demand this ideological purity that is reminiscent of the tea party.

I'm telling you my opinion. Your opinion that one should value reading everything, though, is not even one you believe. I can promise you that you do discriminate.

My opinion is that reading more can't make someone less informed. People can think critically. That immediate dismissal is because of perceived bias is wrong. There is no empathy in news consumption under your guidelines. Its silly to not even attempt to understand why the otherside thinks the way they do about certain issues. It helps move conversations and opinions. You can, in the end, read and disagree but wholesale dismissal looks bad and is ignorant.

 

[thepotatoman]

Man, OWS gets shit on way too hard by nearly everyone. You criticize them for not having a plan? Well then what the hell is your plan to make things right, and how far have you gotten in enacting that plan?

I don't understand why everyone acts like it was a terrible thing to bring more attention to a problem. And they really succeeded in doing that. Just look at how 99% and 1% has entered our vernacular to this day.

What should have happened is for that outrage to continue to the point that politicians have to start changing their tunes to get elected. And in the end it did work for one person, Elizabeth Warren, who is basically as much a member of the OWS party as Paul is a member of the Tea Party.

And that probably would have happened if everyone didn't get so high and mighty about how their way of sitting at home and doing nothing is such a smarter solution than the one OWS is actually acting on.

If we're going to hold every protest to those standards, then the Tea Party is the only type of grass roots movement we're ever going to see, because, guess what, creating more government requires a lot more nuance in saying exactly what that means, and a lot more potential ways that problem can be solved. Meanwhile the tear the government down crowd will have a simple one line solution to every single issue possible, because you don't need nuance in breaking everything.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I think your assuming far too ignorance. People aren't stupid.
You can be an Liberal and like the Economist. You can disagree with things too.

Lots of people in this thread demand this ideological purity that is reminiscent of the tea party.

I think a lot of people in this thread get frustrated that moderate center-left economics (ala Krugman) is considered "ideological purity" by many neoliberals and centrists who benefit from that thought.

When there's a core 40-50 members of the Progressive Caucus who believe in a NHS-style health care system, a maximum income, a total repeal of Taft-Hartley, taxpayer funded abortion, mandatory gay marriages in Catholic churches, and a 100% carbon tax, and will shutdown the government to do so, then the DNC will be close to the modern GOP.

 

[Jooney]

Man, OWS gets shit on way too hard by nearly everyone. You criticize them for not having a plan? Well then what the hell is your plan to make things right, and how far have you gotten in enacting that plan?

I don't understand why everyone acts like it was a terrible thing to bring more attention to a problem. And they really succeeded in doing that. Just look at how 99% and 1% has entered our vernacular to this day.

What should have happened is for that outrage to continue to the point that politicians have to start changing their tunes to get elected. And in the end it did work for one person, Elizabeth Warren, who is basically as much a member of the OWS party as Paul is a member of the Tea Party.

And that probably would have happened if everyone didn't get so high and mighty about how their way of sitting at home and doing nothing is such a smarter solution than the one OWS is actually acting on.

If we're going to hold every protest to those standards, then the Tea Party is the only type of grass roots movement we're ever going to see, because, guess what, creating more government requires a lot more nuance in saying exactly what that means, and a lot more potential ways that problem can be solved. Meanwhile the tear the government down crowd will have a simple one line solution to every single issue possible, because you don't need nuance in breaking everything.

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that I think OWS did create some value by changing the discussion to income inequality and highlighting the injustices taking place on Wall St. However they didn't convert that message into political action. Protesting is a fantastic way of getting attention, but you need a plan to follow through, and they didn't have one.

I think one can be appreciative of what OWS was trying to accomplish but still be critical of the way they went about it. Ultimately it failed, and it doesn't hurt to find out why it failed.

 

[Jooney]

I don't think anybody can learn anything useful from the Economist, and I don't see the value in reading things that do depict the world accurately.

Wait, is this a typo?

 

[ridethepiggy]

Man, OWS gets shit on way too hard by nearly everyone. You criticize them for not having a plan? Well then what the hell is your plan to make things right, and how far have you gotten in enacting that plan?

I don't understand why everyone acts like it was a terrible thing to bring more attention to a problem. And they really succeeded in doing that. Just look at how 99% and 1% has entered our vernacular to this day.

What should have happened is for that outrage to continue to the point that politicians have to start changing their tunes to get elected. And in the end it did work for one person, Elizabeth Warren, who is basically as much a member of the OWS party as Paul is a member of the Tea Party.

And that probably would have happened if everyone didn't get so high and mighty about how their way of sitting at home and doing nothing is such a smarter solution than the one OWS is actually acting on.

If we're going to hold every protest to those standards, then the Tea Party is the only type of grass roots movement we're ever going to see, because, guess what, creating more government requires a lot more nuance in saying exactly what that means, and a lot more potential ways that problem can be solved. Meanwhile the tear the government down crowd will have a simple one line solution to every single issue possible, because you don't need nuance in breaking everything.

I guess I shouldn't criticize any Senator since I haven't run for office, too? I suppose I shouldn't critize Obama for anything since well, I never tried being President. Just because I haven't started my own little movement doesn't mean I can't critize OWS for the many areas they failed at. Areas which were common sense and obvious to everyone which they didn't have to let take them down.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Man, OWS gets shit on way too hard by nearly everyone. You criticize them for not having a plan? Well then what the hell is your plan to make things right, and how far have you gotten in enacting that plan?

I don't understand why everyone acts like it was a terrible thing to bring more attention to a problem. And they really succeeded in doing that. Just look at how 99% and 1% has entered our vernacular to this day.

What should have happened is for that outrage to continue to the point that politicians have to start changing their tunes to get elected. And in the end it did work for one person, Elizabeth Warren, who is basically as much a member of the OWS party as Paul is a member of the Tea Party.

And that probably would have happened if everyone didn't get so high and mighty about how their way of sitting at home and doing nothing is such a smarter solution than the one OWS is actually acting on.

If we're going to hold every protest to those standards, then the Tea Party is the only type of grass roots movement we're ever going to see, because, guess what, creating more government requires a lot more nuance in saying exactly what that means, and a lot more potential ways that problem can be solved. Meanwhile the tear the government down crowd will have a simple one line solution to every single issue possible, because you don't need nuance in breaking everything.

The Tea Party sets goals. OWS never did, they just liked hearing themselves talk

OWS opposed citizens united, why not organize a challenge or a constitutional amendment?

OWS opposes income inequality, why not support an increase in minimum wage? opposed continuing the Bush tax cuts?

OWS opposes big banks? Propose trust busting, Stronger regulation

There are a lot more and no, not all of them would have been accomplished but what did they actually do besides coining a useful description for income inequality? How does a future movement build on this? I don't see it. People are frustrated because they went out of their way to NOT propose changes.

The civil rights movement proposed concert steps. The tea party does too (defund Obamacare). Lawmakers knew what the voters wanted and saw pressure to DO something. With OWS they can ignore them because the group itself says it won't do anything. That's not how things change.

I think a lot of people in this thread get frustrated that moderate center-left economics (ala Krugman) is considered "ideological purity" by many neoliberals and centrists who benefit from that thought.

When there's a core 40-50 members of the Progressive Caucus who believe in a NHS-style health care system, a maximum income, a total repeal of Taft-Hartley, taxpayer funded abortion, mandatory gay marriages in Catholic churches, and a 100% carbon tax, and will shutdown the government to do so, then the DNC will be close to the modern GOP.

I'm critical of the VSP brigade but it's not an excuse to dismiss people and their ideas if they fall out of your ideological corner.

 

[thepotatoman]

I think a lot of people in this thread get frustrated that moderate center-left economics (ala Krugman) is considered "ideological purity" by many neoliberals and centrists who benefit from that thought.

When there's a core 40-50 members of the Progressive Caucus who believe in a NHS-style health care system, a maximum income, a total repeal of Taft-Hartley, taxpayer funded abortion, mandatory gay marriages in Catholic churches, and a 100% carbon tax, and will shutdown the government to do so, then the DNC will be close to the modern GOP.

Well they have continued, and they have taken such criticisms to heart. Last I heard they were actively protesting Larry Summers' potential nomination. Continuing the Tea Party comparison, imagine if the media covered those protests, and cited 19 "Occupy" senate democrats signing a letter against that nomination.

 

[bonercop]

The Tea Party sets goals. OWS never did, they just liked hearing themselves talk

OWS opposed citizens united, why not organize a challenge or a constitutional amendment?

OWS opposes income inequality, why not support an increase in minimum wage? opposed continuing the Bush tax cuts?

OWS opposes big banks? Propose trust busting, Stronger regulation

There are a lot more and no, not all of them would have been accomplished but what did they actually do besides coining a useful description for income inequality? How does a future movement build on this? I don't see it. People are frustrated because they went out of their way to NOT propose changes.

They're actually doing this now. Too bad they've lost the incredible momentum they had in 2011.

 

[Tamanon]

To be fair, comparing the Tea Party to OWS is silly, as only one of them is a legitimate grass-roots movement. Tea Party was created with a purpose and financed for that purpose. I loathe most of OWS personally, just because they didn't actually have any plans or actual ideas, but at least they were authentic.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well they have continued, and they have taken such criticisms to heart. Last I heard they were actively protesting Larry Summers' potential nomination. Continuing the Tea Party comparison, imagine if the media covered those protests, and cited 19 "Occupy" senate democrats signing a letter against that nomination.

Your ascribing all that to OWS? Talking about income inequality and criticising clinton era officals isn't their exclusive domain. The fact that they don't ever come out for anything prevents them from getting any credit for that. Show me that OWS prevented larry summers from getting nominated. There were many many others opposing that he also had opposition from the right and womens groups?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Kasich did the right thing, and will save his state a lot of money. He's one of the few 2010 GOP governors who realizes that tea party shit isn't going to work again. Luckily his approval ratings are still pretty bad.