By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - TED Talk - Nick Hanauer on Job Creation

richardhutnik on 25 May 2012
easyrider said:
richardhutnik said:

It may be worth watching, but reality is, Occupy doesn't even know why it Occupys.  Heck, it doesn't even know anything.  In Poughkeepsie, Occupy ended with them putting flowers an dirt on the sidewalk, with "More to come" as a sign.  Losing the park, and having permission to be there until 11 pm, no one would bother to show up even holding signs (oh there was the guy banging drums yelling out "Freedom").  Poughkeepsie is common for a lot of places.  Flat out, they don't know why they Occupy.  They just went with a camping in park fad and went away.  What it should be about is issues regarding income inequality, corruption in Wall Street (FUBAR like Facebook fiasco), and also money in politics.  It became anything but that, right down to people feeling the issue was the right to do drugs in parks.  And I know one person, who on principle, felt that there shouldn't be any traffic lights, because he would drive through every single red light he could, so long as the cops didn't show up.  Oh, and those who cried out for leadership, are the ones who generally were bullies.  One guy I know of said Occupy didn't have volunteers, it had employees.  This individual ended up persona non-gratis in a nearby county so he would come to Poughkeepsie and try to organize stuff.  Pretty much he drained all morale out, and then got frustrated and left.

Oh well, so much for me thinking Occupy would of been Operation Empire State Rebellion where they were going to siege the Fed (Guess what, Zuccotti Park is right near the NYC branch of the Fed).  Live and learn.  Issues get missed totally here.

Now this will be why I stop talking to you. Non like the others I know when someone is not informed. One of the major starting points for the occupy movement was Citizens United Ruling, plus glass steagal as in the video and tax fairness. You are the lost one my friend. You never been to a occupy. you choose what you wanted to see and ran with it. Metaphor = Just like racist do when they see a person of other color or sexual preference. Funny you want to see something.   Chicago nato - occupy  just this past week. 10's of thousands. So what where you saying? The corporately owned news stations you watch told you what??? LMFAO!!!   this just proves that the movement you thought was gone is way bigger then you ever expected. This movement is about people being sick of the corruption. There are so many problems thats why no Occupier will give you a single answer. There sick of it all, not just your right wing agenda. To the corporate democrates to the corporately owned republicans and whats funny is you don't see this at all. Occupiers do.                                                                                                                                               

Seriously dude?  You rip into me dude about this?  You actually say that I don't know squat?  I have never been to an Occupy?  REALLY?

You are the one who doesn't know.  I had been involved with Occupy in Poughkeepsie starting at its launch in October 15 of last year.  I supported it.  I was involved with it, when it launched.  I was also involved with working on trying to get Occupy Hudson Valley going, that was agreed to at a GA meeting, that was there to spin off things.  I also helped to get Occupy Wall Street come together and organize a meeting with  Occupy Hudson Valley, even acting as admin on Occupy Wall Street Hudson Valley page on Facebook.

Unless you have actually done what I had done, you happened to end up following it merely from a distance.  And you don't know, and don't see why other groups have issues dealing with them.  You also fail to read what I said it being successful, and you are merely engaging in wishful thinking, such I don't have time for.  In short, YOU are the one who doesn't know.  As for myself, I am aware of some of the issues, but the reality is that, by its nature, Occupy doesn't have any demands it can make, because it is an Anarchist driven, consensus focused, make sure everyone's view gets covered and we all agree, approach to things.  In the case of Poughkeepsie, it got reduced to nothing but some flowers on a sidewalk, and no one even holding signs any more.  And if you don't see this, then you aren't close.

You are seeing what you want to see.  It is needed to happen, but isn't.  

By the way, I did get down to Zuccotti a few days before they shut the camp down, because I had a feeling it was going to happen.  I picked up a number of buttons and information by anarchists on how they organize themselves and run things, that was very informative.  I had Occupy Poughkeepsie tell me to wait for them to go down, but I went ahead of time.  So, not only was I involved with Occupy in my area, I also attended the original Occupy camp down near Wall Street.  And looking at what you wrote more, you seriously confuse support for issues Occupy did with criticisms and disappointment over Occupy as a movement itself, which started as a global flash mob in response to what Ad Busters put up.  As a flashmob protest, it was very successful.  As an ongoing thing, the impact is about nil at this point. 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 25 May 2012

Just to further explain the above.

NAFTA passed with 234-200 in the House of representatives.

132 Republicans voted for it along with 102 Democrats.

102 Democrats voted against it and 98 Republicans voted against it.

The "Middle" was for it. While both "Extreme wings" of the parties were against.

This is partially why Ross Perot got the crazy mix of voters he did.


Also worth noting, George W Bush actually implemented a universal Steel Tariffs.  While Obama has also increased Tariffs, to my knoweldge it's only been specific tarriffs aimed at china as a pushback on their government keeping the Yuan artificially low.  Which argueably could be seen as an act in favor of free trade.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley (which is the repealing of glass stegal) passed 362-57

People treat it like some HUGE controversial thing Republcians pushed through.  When the reality was.... it had RIDICULIOUSLY huge bipartisian support of which is usually reserved only for fluff pieces of legislation.

207 Republicans voted for it along with 155 Democrats.

51 Democrats voted against it, vs only 5 Republicans....

however I find it hard to claim it's a "Right wing move" when 75% of the left wing party signed up for it.

 

When you call an action by 87% of Congress "Right wing"... I'm going to suggest that perhaps you are a bit more leftwing then you think you are... and that your opinion on what is right or left wing is a bit skewed.



richardhutnik on 25 May 2012
Kasz216 said:
easyrider said:
Kasz216 said:
bannedagain said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

An interesting thing about Walmart is that is adopted a strategy of the lowest costs irregardless of everything else.  Sam Walton, when he was around, had low prices factored in with everything else.  Now Walmart decides to do low costs as its only factor.  Usually what happens in retail is that businesses start out on the low end and work their way up the food chain.  

I think the default to "let the government do it" comes from the government ending up is the solver of last resort, trying to manage the collective wishes of the public, because politicians get elected by getting votes.  End result, because of the relative insignificance of one person on all levels, is the problems end up in a collective pool, away from everyone.  You get more and more negative externalities built up, that no one can pinpoint anywhere.  It ends up systemic, and everyone seems powerless.  They expect that the government will make fair rules and enforce.  The thing is that the money on top lobbies to tip it in their favor.

A way to connect what I shared with the original post is that income inequality comes about from systemic issues that no one person is responsible for.  Yes, income goes up, but the system, as a byproduct of what happens in a country, results in the top knowing how the system works and also tweaking it in their favor.  The guy on the bottom gets subject to the whims of the fallout of globalization and ends on the short end of the stick.  And things get more and more out of hand.  Of course, in this, a few bucks will be thrown in by the powers that be to end up making people think it is fair, or chase after this rabbit or that, with issues that have some impact (like illegal immigration) ending up getting blown WAY out of proportions to distract.

I believe exploiting moral outrage is how politicians get elected, but they don't want to do anything about it really, just get reelected.

Rubio's comment here on immigration actually goes into how the game seems to work:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/05/24/lopez-marco-rubio-immigration.cnn

If that is true, but what you see on the GOP side is railing against abortion and gay marriage.  Idea isn't to affect change but "feel their pain".  I doubt the GOP really wants to get rid of abortion, because it gets votes.


I don't see Republicans as that smart.   I think they would get rid of abortion if they could.  I think the Democrats work that game on social issues, while the republicans do on economic issues.  Afterall republcians seem to only push abortion measures when they know they can win.  Democrats only push gay rights or women's rights issues when they know they will lose. (Or republicans will beat them to the punch in overturning a law.)

Democrats will however go along with dumb economic plans that are an issue (see healthcare "reform") and republicans will change the social issues.  (See all the ways they go out of there way to make abortion harder.)

Well some economic issues i should say.

Also, i'd disagree that income inequality is caused by the top knowing how the economy works and tweaking it to it's favor.  Actually, the group of people know as "The top" is VERY dynamic.  People make great forutnes and lose great fortunes.

 

What causes income inequality is simpler then that.  Expendable income.   The more money you have that you don't need, the more that can be invested in risky but likely to pay off ventures that are likely to pay off big.

 

Your average investor is saving up for their retirement so they invest in safe bets, something that's 85-90% to succeed and pay a sigle digit % per year.

 

Someone with expendable income?  They can bet on something with 40-70% to succeed but he chance to pay 20% or more.  If they lose, it was just expendable money anyway.  The error is that society only focuses on those who succeed and sees it as unfair... not focusing on those who fail.

Said group gets bigger and gets a "bigger share of the pie" because they're the ones who invested in the programs that created the extra wealth.   Not really a way to change that.  Not really sure such a thing should be changed.  Investors and those who ran the buisness naturally should be the ones to profit for creating the wealth.


Seems funny any proof someone throughs out, you make up non factual nonsense. Dude it's very clear your right wing. You don't have to agree with every single thing conservatives do but you do, over and over. I can say dude there going to kill someone for crackers and you would say, will in europe crackers caused aids, so that seems to be fine with me, O' wait a min, it's the  Dem said that. I mean the europeans are socialist arse's. C'mon brO! !!  It's clear you are biased.  you just breezed through acting if banks and wall st. had nothing to do with it. WOW!!!!!!!!! You know Citi Group the ones that got billions. I will reframe from banging my head against a wall. glass steagal had everything to do with it and on top of that, saying clinton doesn't make me feel any better. I don't praise a side as you do. I see the truth. I have studied the crash of 1929 and it was low tax's and banks that crashed us. Unregulated banks. Say it with me. The banks crashed us. GOOD!!!!!  Everyone is progressive/conservative/liberal etc, just depends on what. Stop seeing so black and white." Op! started banging my head."

 

SO why did we need to compete with erurope when we where are the top of the world when clinton was in office. Oh yea clinton is a corporatist and the money was to good. It was predicted ten years time on the house floor that we where going to crash from removing glass steagal, DURING THE REPEAL. thank god most republicans are old, not long until there gone. lol


1) You seem to think CNN is a rightwing leaning source... and for that matter Bill Clinton.  I'd suggest that would make you biased.

Ask Bill Clinton if Glass Steagal caused the current financial crisis... he'd say no.  In fact... he has said no.

"They're wrong in saying that the elimination of the Glass-Steagall division between banks and investment banks contributed to this. Investment banks were already...banks were already doing investment business and investment companies were already in the banking business."

Bill Clinton is not right wing... yet he agrees with me.  Go figure.

If Glass-Stegal's repeal is what caused the financial crisis, again, why didn't this happen in europe sooner?  Which never had such regualtions?  What has kept them free of super depressions?  Furthermore, why were the banks that crashed us into this mess pretty much all exclusivily investment banks who had nothing to do with consumer banks anyway?  Banks whose actions were completely unaffected by Glass Steagal.

Why did we need to compete with europe?  Because they are the leaders in international lending.  As much as we like to think of New York as the financial capital of the world, it's really London.

 

2) As for the Great depression.   You didn't actually give any reasons... you just said random catchphrase words.

Low Taxes?  That's just... silly.  How did low taxes create the great depression?  I'd like to see the explination behind that.  I mean, I'm not sure what economic theory lead you to that conclusion.  It sure wasn't anything Keynes or any other economist wrote....

Banks failed, that was a part of the great depression and why the FDIC was created.  Which still exists.

Bank failed because of the stockmarket crash and that they gave out around $10 in loans for every $1 in deposists. 

Suddenly nobody had any money to pay there loans.  Bankers called in loans, loans failed.  Banks failed.

The great depression was caused by the Stockmarket crash and people not being able to pay back there loans.

Pretty much all depressions and recessions are caused by banks giving out too many bad loans.

The removal of glass steagal was a right wing move, also NAFTA. Deregulation was a major reason for the crash. Amoung all the dumb things bush did.  Clinton did move to the middle and to the right in his last years.


No.  They were moderate moves.  Done by moderates.

You say regulation was a major reason for the crash... but don't even attempt to articulate WHY you think that way.  Unfair or not it gives teh apperance that you can't articulate why you think that way and that you have no reasoning for doing so.

Ask most liberal leaning economists and they'll tell you the crash was caused by bad loans and derivatives that packaged them.

Glass-Stegal had NOTHING to do with derivatives.

Glass-Stegal opened up the housing market to that area.  The combination of cheap money pouring into an unregulated environment, combined with the pricing model going bad because of a giant group think powered by greed, led to nasty overleveraging.  If Glass-Stegal was still in effect, the bubble wouldn't of happened there.

One can point out this and that and say it is the problem.  There is enough for a pro-Republican, or conservative, side to end up arguing it was all the government.   And there is enough for the liberal side to argue it wasn't enough government.  The reality is that was a perfect storm of all of the above.



Kasz216 on 25 May 2012
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
easyrider said:
d
 
 
 

.

 


No.  They were moderate moves.  Done by moderates.

You say regulation was a major reason for the crash... but don't even attempt to articulate WHY you think that way.  Unfair or not it gives teh apperance that you can't articulate why you think that way and that you have no reasoning for doing so.

Ask most liberal leaning economists and they'll tell you the crash was caused by bad loans and derivatives that packaged them.

Glass-Stegal had NOTHING to do with derivatives.

Glass-Stegal opened up the housing market to that area.  The combination of cheap money pouring into an unregulated environment, combined with the pricing model going bad because of a giant group think powered by greed, led to nasty overleveraging.  If Glass-Stegal was still in effect, the bubble wouldn't of happened there.

One can point out this and that and say it is the problem.  There is enough for a pro-Republican, or conservative, side to end up arguing it was all the government.   And there is enough for the liberal side to argue it wasn't enough government.  The reality is that was a perfect storm of all of the above.

Glass-Stegal, by which i'm assuming you mean it's repeal opneed up the housing market to... what area?

It allowed financial and commercial banks to merge... however, it's worth noting that commercial banks could already offer financial services before Glass-Stegal was passed.

The only things Gramm-Leach-Bliley changed was it allowed the merging of big already established banks, and insurance underwriting... which the big banks rarely do themselves anwyay.



easyrider on 25 May 2012
richardhutnik said:
easyrider said:
richardhutnik said:

It may be worth watching, but reality is, Occupy doesn't even know why it Occupys.  Heck, it doesn't even know anything.  In Poughkeepsie, Occupy ended with them putting flowers an dirt on the sidewalk, with "More to come" as a sign.  Losing the park, and having permission to be there until 11 pm, no one would bother to show up even holding signs (oh there was the guy banging drums yelling out "Freedom").  Poughkeepsie is common for a lot of places.  Flat out, they don't know why they Occupy.  They just went with a camping in park fad and went away.  What it should be about is issues regarding income inequality, corruption in Wall Street (FUBAR like Facebook fiasco), and also money in politics.  It became anything but that, right down to people feeling the issue was the right to do drugs in parks.  And I know one person, who on principle, felt that there shouldn't be any traffic lights, because he would drive through every single red light he could, so long as the cops didn't show up.  Oh, and those who cried out for leadership, are the ones who generally were bullies.  One guy I know of said Occupy didn't have volunteers, it had employees.  This individual ended up persona non-gratis in a nearby county so he would come to Poughkeepsie and try to organize stuff.  Pretty much he drained all morale out, and then got frustrated and left.

Oh well, so much for me thinking Occupy would of been Operation Empire State Rebellion where they were going to siege the Fed (Guess what, Zuccotti Park is right near the NYC branch of the Fed).  Live and learn.  Issues get missed totally here.

Now this will be why I stop talking to you. Non like the others I know when someone is not informed. One of the major starting points for the occupy movement was Citizens United Ruling, plus glass steagal as in the video and tax fairness. You are the lost one my friend. You never been to a occupy. you choose what you wanted to see and ran with it. Metaphor = Just like racist do when they see a person of other color or sexual preference. Funny you want to see something.   Chicago nato - occupy  just this past week. 10's of thousands. So what where you saying? The corporately owned news stations you watch told you what??? LMFAO!!!   this just proves that the movement you thought was gone is way bigger then you ever expected. This movement is about people being sick of the corruption. There are so many problems thats why no Occupier will give you a single answer. There sick of it all, not just your right wing agenda. To the corporate democrates to the corporately owned republicans and whats funny is you don't see this at all. Occupiers do.                                                                                                                                               

Seriously dude?  You rip into me dude about this?  You actually say that I don't know squat?  I have never been to an Occupy?  REALLY?

You are the one who doesn't know.  I had been involved with Occupy in Poughkeepsie starting at its launch in October 15 of last year.  I supported it.  I was involved with it, when it launched.  I was also involved with working on trying to get Occupy Hudson Valley going, that was agreed to at a GA meeting, that was there to spin off things.  I also helped to get Occupy Wall Street come together and organize a meeting with  Occupy Hudson Valley, even acting as admin on Occupy Wall Street Hudson Valley page on Facebook.

Unless you have actually done what I had done, you happened to end up following it merely from a distance.  And you don't know, and don't see why other groups have issues dealing with them.  You also fail to read what I said it being successful, and you are merely engaging in wishful thinking, such I don't have time for.  In short, YOU are the one who doesn't know.  As for myself, I am aware of some of the issues, but the reality is that, by its nature, Occupy doesn't have any demands it can make, because it is an Anarchist driven, consensus focused, make sure everyone's view gets covered and we all agree, approach to things.  In the case of Poughkeepsie, it got reduced to nothing but some flowers on a sidewalk, and no one even holding signs any more.  And if you don't see this, then you aren't close.

You are seeing what you want to see.  It is needed to happen, but isn't.  

By the way, I did get down to Zuccotti a few days before they shut the camp down, because I had a feeling it was going to happen.  I picked up a number of buttons and information by anarchists on how they organize themselves and run things, that was very informative.  I had Occupy Poughkeepsie tell me to wait for them to go down, but I went ahead of time.  So, not only was I involved with Occupy in my area, I also attended the original Occupy camp down near Wall Street.  And looking at what you wrote more, you seriously confuse support for issues Occupy did with criticisms and disappointment over Occupy as a movement itself, which started as a global flash mob in response to what Ad Busters put up.  As a flashmob protest, it was very successful.  As an ongoing thing, the impact is about nil at this point.

it changed the converstation and even the policies being presented. It also has pushed many into alderman, school boards etc. positions of the dems to push out the corporatist. It did alot to start a change. Things take time. Not right away like how all the Republicans act about the ecconmy. "bush F'ed it up for 8 years but obama hasn't fixed it yet." Not a fan of obama but give him a break. with all the filabustering going on. He is to moderate for my likes but never would I vote for joke like Romney, So Obama it is. We will see a big shift in the next 8 years to  push progressive values. I hate using those words to explain because it confuse's people.

this will all because the occupy movement. It push up all the right issue's.  Maybe you dance but some of us actually went out and pushed into our local political organization. You have to push chanbe. 3rd party is a joke and republicans are nonsense. We needed a infrastructure to start with, what better then the democratic party. Get the corporate  and blue dog democrates out.



Around the Network
easyrider on 25 May 2012
easyrider said:
richardhutnik said:
easyrider said:
richardhutnik said:

It may be worth watching, but reality is, Occupy doesn't even know why it Occupys.  Heck, it doesn't even know anything.  In Poughkeepsie, Occupy ended with them putting flowers an dirt on the sidewalk, with "More to come" as a sign.  Losing the park, and having permission to be there until 11 pm, no one would bother to show up even holding signs (oh there was the guy banging drums yelling out "Freedom").  Poughkeepsie is common for a lot of places.  Flat out, they don't know why they Occupy.  They just went with a camping in park fad and went away.  What it should be about is issues regarding income inequality, corruption in Wall Street (FUBAR like Facebook fiasco), and also money in politics.  It became anything but that, right down to people feeling the issue was the right to do drugs in parks.  And I know one person, who on principle, felt that there shouldn't be any traffic lights, because he would drive through every single red light he could, so long as the cops didn't show up.  Oh, and those who cried out for leadership, are the ones who generally were bullies.  One guy I know of said Occupy didn't have volunteers, it had employees.  This individual ended up persona non-gratis in a nearby county so he would come to Poughkeepsie and try to organize stuff.  Pretty much he drained all morale out, and then got frustrated and left.

Oh well, so much for me thinking Occupy would of been Operation Empire State Rebellion where they were going to siege the Fed (Guess what, Zuccotti Park is right near the NYC branch of the Fed).  Live and learn.  Issues get missed totally here.

Now this will be why I stop talking to you. Non like the others I know when someone is not informed. One of the major starting points for the occupy movement was Citizens United Ruling, plus glass steagal as in the video and tax fairness. You are the lost one my friend. You never been to a occupy. you choose what you wanted to see and ran with it. Metaphor = Just like racist do when they see a person of other color or sexual preference. Funny you want to see something.   Chicago nato - occupy  just this past week. 10's of thousands. So what where you saying? The corporately owned news stations you watch told you what??? LMFAO!!!   this just proves that the movement you thought was gone is way bigger then you ever expected. This movement is about people being sick of the corruption. There are so many problems thats why no Occupier will give you a single answer. There sick of it all, not just your right wing agenda. To the corporate democrates to the corporately owned republicans and whats funny is you don't see this at all. Occupiers do.                                                                                                                                               

Seriously dude?  You rip into me dude about this?  You actually say that I don't know squat?  I have never been to an Occupy?  REALLY?

You are the one who doesn't know.  I had been involved with Occupy in Poughkeepsie starting at its launch in October 15 of last year.  I supported it.  I was involved with it, when it launched.  I was also involved with working on trying to get Occupy Hudson Valley going, that was agreed to at a GA meeting, that was there to spin off things.  I also helped to get Occupy Wall Street come together and organize a meeting with  Occupy Hudson Valley, even acting as admin on Occupy Wall Street Hudson Valley page on Facebook.

Unless you have actually done what I had done, you happened to end up following it merely from a distance.  And you don't know, and don't see why other groups have issues dealing with them.  You also fail to read what I said it being successful, and you are merely engaging in wishful thinking, such I don't have time for.  In short, YOU are the one who doesn't know.  As for myself, I am aware of some of the issues, but the reality is that, by its nature, Occupy doesn't have any demands it can make, because it is an Anarchist driven, consensus focused, make sure everyone's view gets covered and we all agree, approach to things.  In the case of Poughkeepsie, it got reduced to nothing but some flowers on a sidewalk, and no one even holding signs any more.  And if you don't see this, then you aren't close.

You are seeing what you want to see.  It is needed to happen, but isn't.  

By the way, I did get down to Zuccotti a few days before they shut the camp down, because I had a feeling it was going to happen.  I picked up a number of buttons and information by anarchists on how they organize themselves and run things, that was very informative.  I had Occupy Poughkeepsie tell me to wait for them to go down, but I went ahead of time.  So, not only was I involved with Occupy in my area, I also attended the original Occupy camp down near Wall Street.  And looking at what you wrote more, you seriously confuse support for issues Occupy did with criticisms and disappointment over Occupy as a movement itself, which started as a global flash mob in response to what Ad Busters put up.  As a flashmob protest, it was very successful.  As an ongoing thing, the impact is about nil at this point.

it changed the converstation and even the policies being presented. It also has pushed many into alderman, school boards etc. positions of the dems to push out the corporatist. It did alot to start a change. Things take time. Not right away like how all the Republicans act about the ecconmy. "bush F'ed it up for 8 years but obama hasn't fixed it yet." Not a fan of obama but give him a break. with all the filabustering going on. He is to moderate for my likes but never would I vote for joke like Romney, So Obama it is. We will see a big shift in the next 8 years to  push progressive values. I hate using those words to explain because it confuse's people.

this will all because the occupy movement. It push up all the right issue's.  Maybe you dance but some of us actually went out and pushed into our local political organization. You have to push chanbe. 3rd party is a joke and republicans are nonsense. We needed a infrastructure to start with, what better then the democratic party. Get the corporate  and blue dog democrates





richardhutnik on 25 May 2012
easyrider said:

it changed the converstation and even the policies being presented. It also has pushed many into alderman, school boards etc. positions of the dems to push out the corporatist. It did alot to start a change. Things take time. Not right away like how all the Republicans act about the ecconmy. "bush F'ed it up for 8 years but obama hasn't fixed it yet." Not a fan of obama but give him a break. with all the filabustering going on. He is to moderate for my likes but never would I vote for joke like Romney, So Obama it is. We will see a big shift in the next 8 years to  push progressive values. I hate using those words to explain because it confuse's people.

this will all because the occupy movement. It push up all the right issue's.  Maybe you dance but some of us actually went out and pushed into our local political organization. You have to push chanbe. 3rd party is a joke and republicans are nonsense. We needed a infrastructure to start with, what better then the democratic party. Get the corporate  and blue dog democrates out.

Occupy became the vessel for discussions regarding the issues I described: Wall Street corruption, income inequality, Citizens United and a bunch of things between.  As far as shifting the debate, it worked.

The issue is NOW what is going on.  Without the parks, Occupy doesn't even know what to occupy and internal disagreements on things, and outside political interests have eroded things.   As a current movement, Occupy is now dissolving and not being functional.  There are some things, but it isn't breaking into the news, nor is it winning over popular support.  Issues it raised in 2011, are now part of the landscape.  Beyond this, there isn't much going out, outside of the usual political protesting folks.  It didn't go the Tea Party route and decide to coopt the Democratic party the way the GOP did (the Democrats were seriously wanting their version of the Tea Party and Occupy didn't become it).

The pieces are still there though, just nothing is about to tap into it, and most people can't connect with the anarchist structure of doing anything.  It is also debatable where there will be a big shift towards progressivism.   There is possibly more of a shift to the center, but swinging way left?  Not likely to happen.  The Federal debt ends up putting a kabosh on wanting to get more and more programs.  On top of that, no one knows what really to spend on.  Money is being thrown at green energy, but that is a crapshoot, and not guaranteed.  What you will likely see is the Bush tax cuts expire, and the mandatory across the board budget cuts happen.  You will have pockets that will block any sort of shift progressive, but the Tea Party side is likely to be more marginalized. 



Kasz216 on 26 May 2012
richardhutnik said:
easyrider said:

it changed the converstation and even the policies being presented. It also has pushed many into alderman, school boards etc. positions of the dems to push out the corporatist. It did alot to start a change. Things take time. Not right away like how all the Republicans act about the ecconmy. "bush F'ed it up for 8 years but obama hasn't fixed it yet." Not a fan of obama but give him a break. with all the filabustering going on. He is to moderate for my likes but never would I vote for joke like Romney, So Obama it is. We will see a big shift in the next 8 years to  push progressive values. I hate using those words to explain because it confuse's people.

this will all because the occupy movement. It push up all the right issue's.  Maybe you dance but some of us actually went out and pushed into our local political organization. You have to push chanbe. 3rd party is a joke and republicans are nonsense. We needed a infrastructure to start with, what better then the democratic party. Get the corporate  and blue dog democrates out.

Occupy became the vessel for discussions regarding the issues I described: Wall Street corruption, income inequality, Citizens United and a bunch of things between.  As far as shifting the debate, it worked.

The issue is NOW what is going on.  Without the parks, Occupy doesn't even know what to occupy and internal disagreements on things, and outside political interests have eroded things.   As a current movement, Occupy is now dissolving and not being functional.  There are some things, but it isn't breaking into the news, nor is it winning over popular support.  Issues it raised in 2011, are now part of the landscape.  Beyond this, there isn't much going out, outside of the usual political protesting folks.  It didn't go the Tea Party route and decide to coopt the Democratic party the way the GOP did (the Democrats were seriously wanting their version of the Tea Party and Occupy didn't become it).

The pieces are still there though, just nothing is about to tap into it, and most people can't connect with the anarchist structure of doing anything.  It is also debatable where there will be a big shift towards progressivism.   There is possibly more of a shift to the center, but swinging way left?  Not likely to happen.  The Federal debt ends up putting a kabosh on wanting to get more and more programs.  On top of that, no one knows what really to spend on.  Money is being thrown at green energy, but that is a crapshoot, and not guaranteed.  What you will likely see is the Bush tax cuts expire, and the mandatory across the board budget cuts happen.  You will have pockets that will block any sort of shift progressive, but the Tea Party side is likely to be more marginalized. 


Well, you can argue that Obama has gotten a lot more populist in his Presidential Camapign.  See his recent following New Gingrich in attacking private equity firms... he sorta mindlessly released an attack about a Steel Mill Bain Capital bought... not really paying attention to the fact that it went bankrupt only after Bain Capital infused 100 million into the dieing company.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4724d5c0-a368-11e1-988e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vxDo3vZ4


Though again, that might be more a cause of the same symptom rather then a result of Occupy.



SamuelRSmith on 26 May 2012

It would be nice to see the Dems becoming a party full of OWS, and the GOP becoming a party full of Tea Partiers/Ron Paulians (legitimately... not the Rubios of the world).

The TP/Paulian takeover of the GOP is real and happening. The question is whether it will continue past this November... if it does, the GOP will be in completely different shape by 2016.

For the Dems, it's still up in the air as to whether it takes off. This is partly because the OWS movement is newer, it's partly because the TP/Paulians are more organized (which comes with being around for longer), partly because there hasn't been a major primary season for the Dems. Most importantly, though, there hasn't been a "leader" that has emerged like Ron Paul



Kasz216 on 26 May 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
It would be nice to see the Dems becoming a party full of OWS, and the GOP becoming a party full of Tea Partiers/Ron Paulians (legitimately... not the Rubios of the world).

The TP/Paulian takeover of the GOP is real and happening. The question is whether it will continue past this November... if it does, the GOP will be in completely different shape by 2016.

For the Dems, it's still up in the air as to whether it takes off. This is partly because the OWS movement is newer, it's partly because the TP/Paulians are more organized (which comes with being around for longer), partly because there hasn't been a major primary season for the Dems. Most importantly, though, there hasn't been a "leader" that has emerged like Ron Paul


I don't know if I'd want a party that thinks because one group bribes the government that we need to give the government more power to control said groups fate.

Common sense simply tells us that means the bribes would only get bigger.