Occupy Wall Street PROTESTERS Not Letting Up - Nationwide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

What policies? Which ones Alan? Quit the Rush Beck talking points and give us specifics!
You do realize NOTHING has changed in the tax policies since George Bush started us on this spiral down the rabbit hole with his tax breaks for the wealthy. Nothing. Obama hasn't changed a thing, and yet, where are the jobs? Where is all this business confidence and 'job creating' that the lower tax rates were supposed to give us? When did we start to decline? Well, I suppose you could go back to Saint Ronald and his trickle down bs...but recently the deficit started spiraling out of control because of Bush's tax breaks and unfunded wars. Directly related. And now we are supposed to believe only a Republican can ride in and save the day? Really? Do we have stupid tattooed on our foreheads!
And please stop with the incredibly ignorant republican line about how 'the threat of FUTURE taxes and, and, things will make business people stop doing business'. What a load of horse hocky! This is a consumer driven economy. If there is a market, REAL business people will satisfy that market. McDonald's isn't going to close down a successful store because they might have to pay a bit more in taxes. No business person is going to refuse $10,000 because he/she might have to pay $1000 in taxes.
It's this kind of talking point that really makes my blood boil because it assumes we are all just too stupid to figure this one out.
OK, show of hands among the business people here. Yesterday you made 10,000. Today you will make 9,000. Is that going to make you close shop?

---

Peggy, I mentioned three obstacles to growth, regulation, taxes and mandates.

For your edification, this administration has imposed, or has plans to impose, more regulations onto the free market than any other administration in history. So much so that even the President has admitted that it is necessary to slow down the implementation of some in order to help the market recover. There are currently nearly 2500 proposed regulations on businesses awaiting implementation at a potential cost of nearly a trillion dollars over 10 years.

While many people talk about tax rates being at their lowest point in years, the reality is that we have been promised that those rates are temporary. All businesses forecast their budgets out 3 to 5 years, a period in which it is extremely likely that tax rates on business and individuals will rise. The question is, to what level?

Throw on a few mandates such as the government dictating what levels of health insurance an employer must offer to each employee and the risk of fines for non-compliance and you've put together a perfect storm of job depression.

Oh, and if you look in the mirror and see "diputs" on your forehead, the answer is yes.:laff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/ny...pagewanted=all

Awesome what they are accomplishing!

Catwoman: all conjecture, no evidence.

Iris Lily: as i've said all along (or said several pages ago) the original Tea party (which was Ron Paul supporters and libertarians and anarchists before it got taken over or coopted by the theocon arm of the republican party) were making the SAME grievances as the OWS. You get props for at least giving a source for your conjectures without evidence.

I have no problem with people filtering information through a specific lens that would indicate to them that "this is a bad idea." but that is still their OPINION and not a fact.

Now, here are some facts/evidence:

According to several articles online (this one most succinct and written by Kimberly Amadeo), the cause of the current recession was the bursting of the housing market bubble in 2006.

Obama didn't become president until January 2009.

Amadeo asserts that three elements cause recessions: low interest rates, irrational exuberance on the part of investors (which in this aspect meant a great deal of lending on the part of banks with cheap mortgages), and high interest rates that pop the bubble.

All three of these factors happened on G W Bush's watch, btw, before Obama became president.

Also on G W Bush's watch, there was the bank bail out in October 2008. Obama hadn't even been elected yet.

This bail out established TARP/EESA (wiki, i haven't tracked down all of the information in the references yet to verify it, but it seems accurate thus far) which GWB signed into law.

---

I think it's fair to say -- leaving hte land of fact now for opinion -- that a lot of people in the US, regardless of party affiliation, are really upset by how this hasn't worked. Emotionally speaking, a lot of people see a lot of fraud, a lot of banks still foreclosing even though a large part of this is about trying to keep people in homes, and of course, there is a lot of foreclosure fraud (not necessarily related to or because of TARP).

---

Causes of the Automotive Industry Crisis is another area that I think is of interest, since the bail out was mentioned. According to wiki (again, i haven't run down all of the references), it asserts that the Automotive Industry crisis was part of the global automotive crisis that particularly impacted american automotive industry.

This global crisis was caused by the increase in costs of automotive fuels, which was in turn caused by the "energy crisis of 2003-2008." This particularly affected the american industry as their primary sales were light trucks (SUVs, etc), which had low fuel efficiency.

Please note that I am not making any claim that GWB caused this crisis. But, the three factors in the increase of the price of crude oil were: 1. tensions in the middle east; 2. decline in petroleum reserves and concerns over peak oil; and 3. oil price speculation.

Now, the Automotive Bailout of 2 of the Big 3 American automakers occurred in January of 2009, after they asked for the bailout in Dec 2008, which they asked for and was managed under the EESA -- the law which passed in October of 2008.

---

back to opinion for a moment, I agree that this bailout might have been a bad move. Part of the equation here is that in 2006, when sales of those big vehicles declined, instead of regrouping and investing in more efficient cars that the market demanded (seeing as the increase in priuses on the road), they offered low interest rate loans on expensive cars with expensive fuel.

though, soemtimes, i think the american public is dumb about money -- houses bigger than you need and a mortgage higher than you can afford, needlessly large light trucks that cost a lot to fuel to drive to the starbucks to buy overpriced coffee. I mean, people can be stupid.

but, the automakers really weren't going well on this whole process. .. or really, managing their business properly. And it chafes me that they weren't AND that they got bailed out.

---

Cash for Clunkers can, effectively, be blamed on Obama, seeing as he was in office at that time. And, according to studies by the UNiv of Delaware among others, the program cost more than it created. So yeah, definitely a "bad idea" moment.

----

From here, the question is "what to do about recessions?"

Here is an article that describes what Canada, Japan, and Sweden did with their 1990s recessions -- and what those outcomes were.

Canada -- Massive cuts in government spending plus fiscal tightening by the public keeping taxes from going up, as well as consumers not consuming as much, and also a concerted decrease of interest rates.

Japan -- (commonly used as an example of what not to do) -- fear of inflation meant that the government tried to keep prices low, but banks were also not seen as safe. there was a sales tax increase in 1997, which was seen as a bad move. The whole thing caused a deflation cycle, that Japan still struggles with, even at the time of the article in Oct 2010.

Sweden -- higher taxes plus bank bailouts that guarateed creditors decreased consumer spending, but kept consumer confidence. This program is generally seen as a success. The high taxes and low deficit, though, also helped sweden weather then current recession without as much damage as it's neighbors. "But the Swedish model of economic management relies on a level of co-operation between state, workers and unions not seen here [UK]."

--

It turns out that there are potentially A LOT of ways (not the japanese way! lol) to "solve" the recession. THere is the canadian way -- cutting government, keeping taxes low, and consumers being savvy in spending until things start to recover. There is also the swedish way -- bailing banks, increasing taxes, and decreasing the deficit.

And i would bet, there are 100s of other creative, diverse ways that this process can be undertaken.

---

But the real if -- and this is for you Catwoman and Iris lily et al -- will you join us in a conversation? Rather than "blame obama" and "i hate hippies" language, how about a REAL dialogue about these issues?

We are in a recession. Our world is in a world of hurt. Our government -- whether run by republicans or democrats -- isn't working (I believe in part because corporate interests and money run the policies, and htat is government corruption).

What OWS is about is putting people back into the equation. It is not about republicans or democrates. it's about the people.

truly, it's about the people.

And btw, here is a cool video made at OWS by OWS showing how these dirty hippies are so disorganized. :)

and FWIW, i find the "go live in another country" language to be really really offensive.

it's essentially saying "if you disagree with me, then you don't belong in the US!" but the problem with this statement is that the US is built on dissent. The right of free speech, the right of freedom or religion, the right to assemble, the right to protest. . . all of these things are about our rights to have different ideas and opinions about everything and still speak out for what we feel is right, and coexist with each other.

telling people to leave if they don't agree with you is totalitarianism. it's the antithesis of the american ideal.

and it's ironic that i live in another country, i'm sure. I am an american, and i came here for opportunity, NOT to run away from america, and not because i didn't like the way it was going or what have you.

I am proud to be american and i love the US. I love so much more about it than I even realized while I was living there. I now see myself so much more clearly now that i am living over seas. I see our greatness so much more clearly, and even less our flaws.

But this language of "don't like it, leave" -- it needs to be eschewed. it's truly mean-spirited and unamerican.

Quote:

---

.......We are in a recession. Our world is in a world of hurt. Our government -- whether run by republicans or democrats -- isn't working (I believe in part because corporate interests and money run the policies, and htat is government corruption)......

---

Our government tells us that the recession ended in 2009. Now we're in that area of limited growth which pre-dates a double-dip recession.

i don't see how my quote and your statement go together.

They don't. We're either in a recession or we're not. You say we are, our government says that was so a year or so ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

They don't. We're either in a recession or we're not. You say we are, our government says that was so a year or so ago.

---

What do you say, Alan? In a recession or not. You can even make up your on definition of recession.>8)

I say we are in a funk - where profit for anything and everything is the "axis of evil". >:(

How do we get out of it - we simply nationalize the banking system that has not served us well at all.

My biggest fear is that we do nothing, or very little, to curb the problems that caused us to get into this situation. I think it is time to "take the fat cats to the woodshed". Working people, retirees, we are all paying for this mindless idea that deregulation is good for America.

If there is a GOD, convince the brainless that greed and profit are not good for America. "How long has this been going on"?

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

What do you say, Alan? In a recession or not. You can even make up your on definition of recession.>8)

---

I think we are. If a recession is a period of negative or stagnant growth, I'd say we're about as stagnant as we could possibly be.

Quote:

---

I say we are in a funk - where profit for anything and everything is the "axis of evil". >:(

---

I agree with the "funk" but profit is certainly not evil. Without profit we'd still be mired in the dark ages.

Quote:

---

How do we get out of it - we simply nationalize the banking system that has not served us well at all.

---

What makes you think the government could do a better job? As Milton Friedman said: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." I've seen no evidence that this sentiment is incorrect.

Quote:

---

My biggest fear is that we do nothing, or very little, to curb the problems that caused us to get into this situation. I think it is time to "take the fat cats to the woodshed". Working people, retirees, we are all paying for this mindless idea that deregulation is good for America.

---

There's a balance between deregulation and excessive regulation. Let's not over-react and completely destroy the economy. I believe we're seeing components of that now.

Quote:

---

If there is a GOD, convince the brainless that greed and profit are good for America.

---

There, I fixed that for ya. :D

and in reality, small business owners are *not* blaming regulation (or possible regulation, or threat of regulation, or any other regulation boogie-man) for the business slow-down:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ns-health-care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

and in reality, small business owners are *not* blaming regulation (or possible regulation, or threat of regulation, or any other regulation boogie-man) for the business slow-down:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ns-health-care

---

If that is directed at me, I never said that regulation, possible regulation, yada, yada, was a cause for business slow-down. I suggested it, along with the unknown nature of promised new taxation and government mandates, as a reason that businesses weren't hiring new employees.

If that wasn't clear, I apologize.

Lainey, do you actually know anyone who owns a small business? I do - am married to one and the reality is quite different than the article you linked. This is a firm that typically employs 35 to 40 people, they have significantly downsized...This is a direct result of the Obama economy and threat of Obama care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragline

"The system is broken. It needs to be reformed. People are tired of being used and lied to. They voted for change and were ignored when they expressed their views and quite strongly. And when they complain, they are ridiculed. And now they are getting really angry. And the powers-that-be are trying to figure out how to play them for their own ends."

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot...sters-and.html

---

Bravo! Good quote! :+1:

Here's what my favorite blogger had to say this morning:


Occupy Everything
By James Howard Kunstler
on October 10, 2011 9:17 AM


' "Recession Officially Over," The New York Times' lead headline declared around 7 o'clock this morning. (Watch: they'll change it.) That was Part A. Part B said, "US Incomes Kept Falling." Welcome to What-The-F*** Nation. I suppose if you include the cost of things like the number of auto accident victims transported by EMT squads as part of your Gross Domestic Product such contradictions to reality are possible...

I dropped in on the Occupy Wall Street crowd down in Zuccotti Park last Thursday. It was like 1968 all over again, except there was no weed wafting on the breeze (another WTF?). The Boomer-owned-and-operated media was complaining about them all week. They were "coddled trust-funders" (an odd accusation made by people whose college enrollment status got them a draft deferment, back when college cost $500 a year). Then there was the persistent nagging over the "lack of an agenda," as if the US Department of Energy, or the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was doing a whole lot better.

This is the funniest part to me: that leaders of a nation incapable of constructing a coherent consensus about reality can accuse its youth of not having a clear program.... '

(Emphasis mine. Link to complete article: http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/10/occupy-everything.html)

How does one respond to a government that is chaotic and irrational? Certainly not with logic and a clear agenda written up in neat outline form. That would be like trying to reason with a drunk - a total waste of time and energy.

Catwoman, probably a good idea to stop calling it the "obama economy" since I so clearly demonstrated that the situation of the economy wasn't caused by him, but rather by forces that were rolling well before he got into office. blaming the wrong source doesn't help.

the fact that PPACA has already had an impact on your family business, I assume is based on perceptions and forecasting -- something that my business is really quite in the throws of as well. Except that I'm not subject to PPACA here.

Instead, I'm subject to three levels of tax: Goods and Services Tax -- which is 15% of everything; Income tax -- I'm currently not earning enough to pay this; and ACC levy, which is our health care system here.

Our biggest issue is whether or not the minimum wage will go up. Why?

Because of budgeting and forecasting.

See, for us, we are in the position where we need to hire 3 or so part-time people. The kind of work is part-time work, so they have to be part timers. I can't pay someone to do 8 solid hours of non-stop massage per day, plus, I don't have the demand for that at this point anyway. Most people tap out at 5 massages per day, and they tend to be 1.5 hrs apart, and we are going to pay them an hourly rate, starting with the base of minimum wage and then a profit sharing/percentage.

So, the issues facing us is what changes to the ACC levy process will impact us when we take on 1.5 employees, whether or not minimum wages goes up, and from there, what the situation is on us for income/GST taxes when we are paying them. We also know that we have to budget for holiday pay, and something else that I can't name off the top of my head because I just finished my invoicing and I'm a bit brain-fuzzed.

I'd like to hire 3 people part time (1.5 people, according to employment numbers), but if the minimum wages goes up and the ACC levy goes up, then I am restricted by my budget back down to 1 employee (or two part time people, as it were).

So, I can understand how if you are foreseeing that PPACA will impact your business financially such that you would have to cut employees, I do get it.

But that being said, living in a place with universal health care (and no insurance companies -- i mean, you can buy health insurance, but most people don't because you really don't need it here), I have to say that I'd rather pay the levies and higher (GST) taxes. Income tax is rather funny, in that you pay about 10% on the first 14k, and then 17.5% on the next part up to $48k, and then after that, you pay 30%. Here is an example you can check out online. I can't quite figure out if this is higher or lower than in the US or what, but there you go. I just did finish my invoicing, after all.

Anyway, We pay 15% tax on everything. We pay income tax. And we pay ACC levy.

And while the economy is still in a recession (as far as I understand it), it is overall a low-corruption government, has a large middle class that seems to be doing ok (everyone is pretty frugal here really), and is overall pretty stable. People aren't worried about getting sick. . . they take their kids to doctors -- or themselves -- as needed. And, it's all covered. That's just how it is here.

People here also travel, a lot, and have a lot of good parties, and seem to have enough expendable income on average that my business is doing well. It's a holistic health center, and we offer yoga, acupuncture (which is part of ACC treatment plans), physiotherapy, and several kinds of energy healing and massage. Since our business is growing (hence I need to hire people), it seems to me that we are overall doing well.

Though, arguably, this is not in the US.

But it points to how looking at what you have to spend and making arrangements for it is part of the equation. The government's policies will always change -- sometimes to your benefit and sometimes not -- and your best bet is to plan the best you can with the information that you have and how you feel about what is coming.

We are heading into elections here, too, which could mean a complete flip in the tax situation here. The labour party has an interesting platform about increasing minimum wage and cutting GST on essentials like power, fruits and veggies, and so on. Green has another plan where GST is cut in some places, and minimum wage stays the same, but the income tax cuts -- which apparently only positively effected the wealthiest and negatively affected the poorest -- would be increased again.

even so, i'm doing my planning to budget in order to hire people, because i need people to do the jobs and meet the demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Lainey, do you actually know anyone who owns a small business? I do - am married to one and the reality is quite different than the article you linked. This is a firm that typically employs 35 to 40 people, they have significantly downsized...This is a direct result of the Obama economy and threat of Obama care.

---

Of course I know business owners. The article surveys many business owners, and because you differ with their conclusion puts you in the minority, not me.
and Zoebird is right - if you want to call this the "Obama economy" then you have to spell out what exactly happened after January 2009 that means he's responsible for job stagnation. "The threat of" and "what might happen" are non-starters.
No one in business has a crystal ball. Businesses hire when demand is there. If demand was there, any vague "what ifs" are irrelevant.

Last night police descended on one of the Occupy Boston camps. I saw some rather disturbing footage on Youtube where the cops were assaulting war veterans that were there with the protest. Cops throwing the American flag on the ground and trampling it. Seems fitting symbolism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

If you want to call this the "Obama economy" then you have to spell out what exactly happened after January 2009 that means he's responsible for job stagnation. "The threat of" and "what might happen" are non-starters.

---

The problem making this argument is most of Obamas policies are Bush 2.0. The exception: the healthcare plan. Really what else? Taxes? The Bush tax cuts were kept AND more tax cuts were passed (payroll tax cuts)! Obamas so called "jobs bill" is half tax cuts (and a trade bill is snuck into it as well). That more taxes should be expected given the kind of deficits we are running well yes, eventually, there is that.

Regulations? What specifically? Clean air regulations were stopped. The Obama administration failed to do the kind of adequate regulation that would have prevented the gulf oil spill (this is documented). And we're going to have a pipeline running over the major aquefier for the middle of the country. That can not end well. Financial regulation? Well there was the bank regulatory bill which may have caused some chaos for sure (I saw it first hand and was working for a company that was almost put out of business by it - ironically the company I was working for was NOT a big bank and not in ANY WAY part of that which contributed to the financial crisis!), but AT THE SAME time this same regulation almost certainly fails to regulate the big banks enough, so that the exact same banking crisis can and probably will happen again. Glass Stegal is certainly nowhere to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxamillion

Last night police descended on one of the Occupy Boston camps. I saw some rather disturbing footage on Youtube where the cops were assaulting war veterans that were there with the protest. Cops throwing the American flag on the ground and trampling it. Seems fitting symbolism.

---

If you have a link, could you share it? Thanks.

That's messed up. I went to see the local protestors. Very peaceful lot (and not a single one smelled bad). When they get cracked down on (and I think at the level to which the police state has progressed there is a chance they will be eventually), believe you are seeing tyrany. Still I hardly think the danger is great enough that a protest should be avoided if that's where you think you should be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxamillion

Last night police descended on one of the Occupy Boston camps. I saw some rather disturbing footage on Youtube where the cops were assaulting war veterans that were there with the protest. Cops throwing the American flag on the ground and trampling it. Seems fitting symbolism.

---

This seems a bit overblown to me. It's fairly apparent that the Occupy Boston group was trying to provoke the police into arresting them. They were warned for several hours that they would need to leave the area they had moved to and when the police finally came to move them back to their permitted area a veterans group, complete with American flags, stepped between the police and the squatters to prevent their being escorted away.

There may be times when civil disobedience is called for, I don't think this was one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

The problem making this argument is most of Obamas policies are Bush 2.0. The exception: the healthcare plan. Really what else? Taxes? The Bush tax cuts were kept AND more tax cuts were passed (payroll tax cuts)! Obamas so called "jobs bill" is half tax cuts (and a trade bill is snuck into it as well). That more taxes should be expected given the kind of deficits we are running well yes, eventually, there is that.

Regulations? What specifically? Clean air regulations were stopped. The Obama administration failed to do the kind of adequate regulation that would have prevented the gulf oil spill (this is documented). And we're going to have a pipeline running over the major aquefier for the middle of the country. That can not end well. Financial regulation? Well there was the bank regulatory bill which may have caused some chaos for sure (I saw it first hand and was working for a company that was almost put out of business by it - ironically the company I was working for was NOT a big bank and not in ANY WAY part of that which contributed to the financial crisis!), but AT THE SAME time this same regulation almost certainly fails to regulate the big banks enough, so that the exact same banking crisis can and probably will happen again. Glass Stegal is certainly nowhere to be seen.

---

Seriously, my husband and I marvel at this almost weekly now as Obama is demonized more and more and more by far right. We sit there and say -- 'hey, he's co-opted a vast majority of YOUR ideas!'
There is plenty of meat on the bone for Repub leaders sit at negotiating table and gnaw on. Yet, here they go again - walking away, throwing their hands up in disgust.
If there are any spoiled brats that Catwoman alluded to a few pages back in this whole scene - I would say it's the Repub leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtnlaurel

Seriously, my husband and I marvel at this almost weekly now as Obama is demonized more and more and more by far right. We sit there and say -- 'hey, he's co-opted a vast majority of YOUR ideas!'
There is plenty of meat on the bone for Repub leaders sit at negotiating table and gnaw on. Yet, here they go again - walking away, throwing their hands up in disgust.
If there are any spoiled brats that Catwoman alluded to a few pages back in this whole scene - I would say it's the Repub leadership.

---

If the strategy is trying to redefine what the "far left" is, and thereby shift the center to the right, I think they are being effective.

I would put Obama right of center (based on his actions, I'd put him to the right of Reagan)- but he's characterized over and over that he is too far left for any sensible person to ever agree with. And I think it sticks with a lot of people. Which effectively discards anything that may truly be leftist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

If the strategy is trying to redefine what the "far left" is, and thereby shift the center to the right, I think they are being effective.

I would put Obama right of center (based on his actions, I'd put him to the right of Reagan)- but he's characterized over and over that he is too far left for any sensible person to ever agree with. And I think it sticks with a lot of people. Which effectively discards anything that may truly be leftist.

---

Here's where I get very angered though - representatives are elected to GOVERN not just 'strategize'.
Of course, strategy is involved in keeping your party in power --- but at the expense of the future of the United States and the American people? -- when they could be putting their energies toward solving problems TODAY.
I really don't see how they can sleep at night taking that big of a gamble with the future of our country.

Re: Occupy Boston 100 protestor arrested last night.

First, it should be noted that OccupyBoston, due to size, had two camps. Both camps are in public parks -- as are all the occupy movements -- where public citizens have a right to be and a right to assemble.

Second, it is true that the city via the police told assembled protestors to disperse and return to the single camp (Dewey). But, they had no authority to do this, other than the city demanding it. The park is an open, public park where people may occupy and protest, just as they are in the other public park.

Thus, OccupyBoston made the decision to maintain the occupation as an act of civil disobedience against this demand, which has no legal force other than asking them to leave.

To support this occupation, Veterans for Peace came and encircled the camp, and all of the protestors remained nonviolent.

Police showed up in riot gear, with white batons (the long thin ones), at 2 am, gave the encampment a 5 minute warning, and then arrested anyone in the park. They also arrested several legal observers (which is illegal), as well as paramedics and others there to help with injuries.

Here's an article via occupywallst.org. OccupyBoston has a page of video and images here.

This act of civil disobedience is wholly justified. If the government just says tomorrow "all occupiers go home?" what -- everyone is supposed to just go home? The point of this assembly is to exercise democratic rights to assembly and speech. If the government illegaly and forceably removes people for not just going home when they say so -- for doing what is our right to do?

then what?

Here's a video showing the police giving the five minute warning and how the people are continuing to stand. It shows the first arrests of the Veterans for Peace.

the police claim it is "unlawful assembly" even though it is public land, managed by the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The protestors had been given the OK from RKG to utilize the park, so long as there was no destruction to art or flowers.

Just because they call it something, doesn't meant it IS something.

So, yes, this was an act of civil disobedience. Also, the boston globe reports here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

If the strategy is trying to redefine what the "far left" is, and thereby shift the center to the right, I think they are being effective.

---

If we define the center as a median point (half falling on either side) then I would probably agree that the center has shifted right in the past several years. I think its always been a pendulum swinging one way then back the other over the course of a generation or so. OTOH, the far extremes of either side seem to be even farther out and farther from the proverbial center than they were many years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

If the government illegaly and forceably removes people

---

Civil disobedience doesn't make you exempt from arrest, does it? Why were the arrests illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

If we define the center as a median point (half falling on either side) then I would probably agree that the center has shifted right in the past several years. I think its always been a pendulum swinging one way then back the other over the course of a generation or so. OTOH, the far extremes of either side seem to be even farther out and farther from the proverbial center than they were many years ago.

---

I agree the claims of further extremes are more active (although I think it's directed mostly at the left) - but in actual practice?

If Obama is the most extreme example of "socialist" they can come up with, we have shifted very far to the right indeed.

Civil disobedience doesn't make you exempt from arrest; usually it puts you right in the way of the arrest.

I suppose when I spoke, I was really speaking to the charge -- unlawful assembly -- for which there wasn't evidence.

The city simply demanded that they vacate the park, and gave them notice, BUT as the protestors has two rights to be there (1. it was a public space with no direct laws governing when it can be occupied, which usually have to be posted; and 2. permission from the management of the park so long as they didn't harm flowers, artworks, and related elements managed by the Rose Kennedy Greenway Trust), it wasn't an unlawful assembly.

It was civil disobedience that they didn't disperse, and it might also be noted that the individual protestors are deciding HOW they want to be arrested -- by either going forward and being arrested peacefully, or going limp or "resisting arrest." There's actually a really good wiki article on this topic.

Now, from here, it's a question of the charges. In this case, the 129 people were arrested for unlawful assembly, which is a pretty hefty charge, but most have been moved down to small misdemeanors with smaller fines. I think that only 9 or 10 people remain in custody at this time, just simply waiting to go through their court. The local DA mostly cut a massive deal for everyone, since that makes it go quickly.

----

Also, OccupySeattle has just been going through a form of "wearing down" or "annoyance" from the police. First, they were told no tents, and then no temporary or pop up structures, and then no umbrellas. They are allowed tarps over their sleeping bags/bodies.

Last night, several police cars parked near protestors with lights on (headlights and flashing) and every 10-15 minutes or so asked them to disperse, saying that it was trespass to camp there overnight. Likewise, in this park, there are no posted rules about when the park is open, and they have been there for two weeks now.

Since the protestors realized that this was simply a method to get them to avoid sleep, it was agreed that some would sleep, while the others blocked the lights from the police cars and sang a happy song. It is said that they will switch shifts after several hours of sleep.

Reports on the ground say that the police seem bored with having to do it, and the mayor is officially stating that he is sympathetic with the protestors. This means that the police were somehow acting independently of the mayor, but the whole situation is convoluted there, and I can't figure out what is rumor and what is fact from what is being reported (from inside and out).

---

Most of the Occupy movements across the world (many starting this weekend, such as OccupyWellington) are able to peacefully maintain themselves.

---

Occupy Wall St is doing a march today, so it's going to be interesting to see what comes of that -- because i'm sure they don't have permits for these marches. As it has the potential to cause a real problem for the city, I would expect arrests to be made in this one as well.

Again, as an act of civil disobedience, though it will probably get tossed as a misdemeanor charge.

---

there are rumors that occupyDallas and StLouis also had some stuff happen overnight, but no word yet on whether or what.

Here's another good compilation review from Elephant Journal regarding the movement as it is coalescing. There is video of veterans and why they are involved; there is the SNL skit too, and there are several statements by an economist, roosevelt, and a veteran in retirement. There's also a link off to ele-journal's "round up" of the best of OWS.

A great report on what OWS is about, how it got started, and how people are organizing it. . . on Democracy Now. (from sept 19, 2011)

this also speaks to debt cancellation as well -- how it's existed in the past, why, and how it is economically beneficial.

Here's the Cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

Here's the Cause.

---

Hmmm. Lot's of ranting, no solutions. Actually, not even a clear statement of the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

this also speaks to debt cancellation as well -- how it's existed in the past, why, and how it is economically beneficial.

---

You can't be serious. If you are, please loan me some money today!

You obviously haven't watched it. There's a long history of debt cancellation, and if you are completely ignorant about it, that's what the bank bailout WAS. so, if banks can do it, and governments can do it between each other, why not for the poor? And, it's been done in the past, so why not now? This was in the Democracy Now piece -- which apparently you didn't watch.

And right now, solutions aren't really the situation. It's coming together and identifying and speaking about the problem. Solutions -- real solutions -- will arise in due time. That's the way it works. This is also described in the Democracy Now piece.

People are coming together and talking. They are going to general assembly meetings, and talking about possible solutions.

The other thing that everyone in the movement is acknowledging is that we are all different. We have different opinions about HOW it should be done, what the solution will be. So, we are trying to figure that out together -- without saying this has to be the one solution, or that has to be the one solution.

It's part of the point. It's now about political parties, or who is right, or even HOW to do things.

But, hey, if you aren't angry about the current situation, or if you think everything is fine, then feel free.

And FWIW, i do "loan" people money all the time. And between us, we can cancel debt, renegotiate that debt, or pay it back or what have you. I often forgive debts of others, don't you? And if I can't, then I'll do what I can to work with them and make it happen for/with them.

This is what governments do, this is what corporations do, and this is what the bail out did for bank debts!

But for some reason, it's not possible for corporations and government to forgive the debts of the poor? it's only allowed if the government or rich banks do it between each other, or if government and banks do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

that's what the bank bailout WAS

---

Can you explain that? It seems nonsensical. The bank bailout was an injection of capital to allow banks to stay solvent and pay their debts.

I live simply. I borrowed money, paid it back, and now try to save and invest. Any debt forgiveness would have to come at my expense as a shareholder or depositor in a bank. People who borrowed the money should pay it back.

I also live simply, and i am paying back whatever I have borrowed. That being said, I have the income to do so, and for those who do not, and do nt have the ability to file for bankruptcy over them (eg, student loans).

If you look up some research on what TARP does with liquid assets that have no fixed value, and how they value them and buy/sell them back to banks (or not, as they simply, eventually, disappear if they are not purchased, or devalue out of existence), then you discover that it was, in fact, a form of debt forgiveness.

Debt forgiveness happens all the time without economic collapse -- when it happens between governments and banks. It's not just the debt itself (the easiest transaction you describe), but what they do with debt that matters. THAT is part of this situation, as debt is a "liquid asset" that doesn't have a defined value once it's been used as collateral itself.

So, i recommend doing some research on it.

An "injection of capital" is just free money by another name. Why should any business be bailed out for making bad business decisions? In banking, that's what bad loans are. When a business makes bad decisions, it gets restructured. Usually the equity is wiped out, the executives are fired and its creditors become the new equity. In the banking sector, there can be restructurings where the good assets are placed in a viable bank and the bad ones in a "bad bank". There are markets for each.

Sweden had no problem restructuring its banks in the early 1990s after its real estate bubble. Japan had the same problem and tried to bury it. Sweden had some quick pain and recovered. Japan still has essentially the same problem two decades later.

This time is NOT different. The world would not end if the banks were restructured and their bad debts written off. This is the BIG LIE told by Wall Street and the leaders of both our parties; and we all know from J. Goebbels that BIG LIES are easier to put over on a public than small ones. In fact, restructuring the banks and making them recognize their losses, and fail if necessary, is the only way out of this mess. No amount of stimulus, tax cuts or any other government action will have any chance of working until this is done. Just ask Japan -- they already tried all this stuff.

OWS has gone to the right place -- bypass the government, and go after the people who control the government.