An Interesting Discussion

So,  I've been involved in a very interesting discussion over the past few days, I'm gonna post it here for you folks to take a gander at and see what you think, I'd love for anyone interested in doing so to chime in here. I hope to here your opinions on the matter(s)

• Occupy Wallstreet is gaining some momentum. "Anonymous" is starting to show up at protests

   and occupations. I'm waiting to see where my services are needed before I pledge my allegiance to

   any one cause or another. If life has taught me anything, it's that one should always be weary of

   becoming a part of any sort of hive mind mentality - especially when that mentality correlates

   with your own beliefs. It's easy to lose yourself in a crowd, and I don't want to do anything that

   will come back to haunt me. My soul, my salvation, is my own.

  
  

  • • 
      

      Jay  Bide, we've been discussing "Occupy" in American Problems. What we've hade trouble with is determining what exactly is the movement about. What are your views? I can't seem to pin it down. The Tea Party basically stands for lower taxes and less government (IMO). What's the talk around where you are about "Occupy"? Thanks.
      

      October 28 at 7:23am · 
    • 
      

      Dane Not to intrude on Mr. Akande's answer, I saw this little comic a while back: http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/10/21/sig99-_custom.jpg?t=1319212498&s=4
      

      October 28 at 10:28am · 
    • 
      

      Bide  
      
      

      Occupy Wallstreet, from my understanding, is about placing more regulations on corporations and lowering the income inequality gap between the rich and the middle class/poor in America. It's also about "cleaning house" in Washington and electing politicians who will have the interest of the people in the mind rather than fold under the pressure of the lobbying groups from the corporations. I don't know much about the specific demands of the movement - for example, what amendments they would want to add or what revisions they want to see done- but it's basically a pro-middle class, anti-establishment, anti-coporate movement.

      
      

      Monday at 2:03am ·  ·  1
    • 
      

      Michael Coulter 
      
      

      I've attempted to speak to some of the OWS folks on their IRC channel, it seemed to me no one could give a definitive answer as to what they wanted. The protest, at the moment is far to broad and vague for me to make a determination on, everyoneis entitled to their opinion of course but if they are actually the supporting the unofficial demand list in it's entirety I am forced to disgree. I'd love to hear some other points of view however!

      
      

      Monday at 2:19am · 
    • 
      

      Michael Coulter 
      
      

      as to what Mr. Jared was saying, from the limited information I have been able to get about the movement and it's goals I have also started to see distinct similarities between OWS and the teap party movement, after some discussion with some friends, all of which have, in many ways, conflicting political views, we thought the possibility of the two movements merging would be a step forward for both, and positive move toward the middle. I speak of course, of the core of the tea party movement, before it was adopted by the GOP and perverted.

      
      

      Monday at 2:23am · 
    • 
      

      Steven What the Occupy movement dislikes about how our country is run has been up and available online for about a month now. The fact that the media can't do a freaking google search is astounding and shows that they have no interest in reporting the truths behind this movement. http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/
      

      Monday at 2:35am · 
    • 
      

      John Also, I don't like that people keep drawing similarities between the Tea Baggers and Occupiers. Tea Baggers are hateful and vindictive, largely misinformed, and are led by even more hateful and ignorant politicians (Michele Bachmann).
      
      http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/123/Tea_party_vs_occupy.jpg
      

      Monday at 2:39am · 
    • 
      

      Steven  
      
      

      Most importantly, the Occupy Wall Street movement doesn't claim to have a plan laid out in advance. The end of their list of grievances they say, "Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone." The point of Occupy is to start dialog to find solutions to the oppressions facing the 99%, which includes racial, sexual, orientation, environmental, legal status, and all other kinds of oppression the 99% faces and seeing those as being systemic from our financial system.

      
      

      Monday at 2:39am ·  ·  1
    • 
      

      
      

      Mark as Spam

      Steven  
      
      

      I agree with Jaeger. The comic posted above by Dane Ecton is despicable. The "big government" that the Tea Partiers are afraid of is not the same "big government" that Occupiers are talking about.
      
      
      When Tea Partiers talk about big government, they are afraid of raising taxes on the "middle class," which to them is defined as "small business owners," but in practice works out to benefit the 1%. They are against "socialist" programs like welfare. Whereas Occupiers want to protect welfare, social security, create a national healthcare plan, stop foreclosures, end student debt (affordable education), stop needless spending on the war, etc. The solutions that Occupy come up with are the exact OPPOSITE of the Tea Party movement. Yes, our government and corporations are completely intertwined, and Occupy recognizes that and is therefore opposing them both. Whereas Tea Partiers seem to worship the free-market and call for no government involvement or regulation in the economy.

      
      

      Monday at 2:44am · 
    • 
      

      Michael Coulter 
      
      

      ‎@john, this is what I was saying about the tea party movement being enveloped by the GOP and perverted, at it's core and in it's truest form it is merely calling for smaller government and lower taxes. I do not consider myself a member of wither movement but one MUST look at how BOTH are being portrayed by the media. If you do no more research than simply watching the news and listening to the propaganda being spouted of by BOTH sides you would see the tea party as hateful, this is however, an uniformed and ignorant assumption. there will ALWAYS be extremists in any movement, there are racist and hateful people who call themselves tea partiers, there are also OWS folks who are calling for revolution by any means necessary, violence not excluded. The problem is that too many peiple buy into the hype.
      
      @steven, I have read through this list multiple times, my issue with it is not in pointing out, what I agree, are issues facing our country. My issue is that any well informed individual could just as easily write pages upon pages as to why it's a problem, it's symptoms and their thoughts on the cause as they could the opposite, take, for example, the issue with outsourcing jobs. we all agree its an issue, but before ANYONE makes a judgement about it they must trace it down to it's root. the simplest way of accomplishing this is the use of the question, why?
      
      why are major corporations sending their buisness and manufacturing overseas? the answer here is simple, it's cheaper, so we trace it down further
      
      why is is cheaper to send these jobs overseas? there are several answers here, and here is where peoples views diverge. Some, generally on the conservative side of the fence, would say that it's cheaper because the overseas workers dont have unions demanding higher and higher pay and better and better benefits. Others, however, might say that it's cheaper because of the outrageous tax rates these companies are subject to in the US. While there is no simple answer to this question the only conclusion that can reasonably be reached is that they are both correct. People need to remember that this country is now, and has always been based on a free market. what does this mean? this means that while we can head to the polls every chance we get and vote in new people to take care of our problems for us things dont actually get changed, especially where our economy is concerned. The best way any of us can affect change in our economy is with a vote, but not in the sense we have all come to know, Every day you work for a given company is a vote, as is every dollar you spend. if we take the bureaucratic regulations and red tape out of the market these votes are worth even more. it promotes an environment of competition, which, while not fun for all, is the healthiest environment possible for our economy. Lets say for the sake of argument that Joe Everyman (a fictitious character) works for Company X. Company X is the leader in manufacturing doodads, as the leader in the field they have the best minds and most talented individual in their employ, Joe Everyman being among them. now lets say that company X pays Joe a handsome salary of $120,000 per year plus bonuses based on how well he's done. He also recieves a decent Insurance plan as well as retirement benefits, 3 weeks vacation a year and is all in all treated very well. But then the market for Company Xs' Doodads takes a fall for whatever reason, so the company suspends the bonus program, they also cut their contribution to the retirement plan to the bare minimum and switch to a cheaper, but less comprehensive Health plan. This is where the competition begins, because Company Y now takes advantage of the drop in COmpany Xs' business, and they can offer Joe Everyman all the benefits he used to receive along with a higher yearly base salary. Like any reasonable person, joe will weigh his options, he will then make the decision that is bet for him and his family, which way he decides to go isnt the point of the story it's that he has a choice and is responsible for the choice he makes, no one knows whether the drop in demand for Company Xs' product is permanent, they may also release a new line of products that is more profitable than any before it. then again, Company Y could do so well they take the #1 position away from Company X, it doesnt matter, Joe made a choice, no one forced him, no one put a gun to his head, he alone is responsible for it.
      
      as I said, the same goes for every dollar you spend, you dont like they way Macdonalds goes about getting their ingredients? thats fine, dont eat there, it's the same with this stuff about bank of america and the proposed $5 a month fee for debit cards, you dont like it, switch banks. It is not the Governments job to relieve us of personal responisbility and take care of us, It's job is to ensure an environment where we can take care of ourselves

      
      

      Monday at 3:13am · 
    • 
      

      Dane
      
      

      Mr. Wyatt, my comic is simply pointing out that both movements are focusing on individual aspects of the overarching problem. It is the entanglement between government and big banks that is the problem. I'm not even talking about taxes or all of the other symptoms. Banks and governments can have relations, but they cannot become one and the same. It cannot turn into a "too big to fail" relationship. That is why we need to trip back the branches of both in order to create a more stable future for us all.

      
      

      Monday at 10:21am · 
    • 
      

      
      

      Mark as Spam

      Bide @ 
      
      

      ‎Steven, I respect your opinion and your passionate stance on this issue; however I see no point in your use of harsh words in response to Dane's post. After all, as the Occupy Wall Street movement attempts to facilitate a discussion safe for all people from all walks of life, so to must we do our best on this social networking site to create a safe forum for discussion.
      
      That being said, I fear that this issue may be more complicated than I originally thought it to be, but let me try to summarize what it is that I'm hearing from both sides.
      
      According to my understanding of Jaeger and Steven, the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not so much about finding a specific solution to the various problems with our capitalist society as they are about pointing out said problems to the public. It is no secret that many corporations have acted quite inhumanely in order to maximize profits - one only need to look so far as Enron for an example. BP's handling of the oil spill was also quite despicable. It is also fair to say, in my opinion, that corporations have amassed an amount of power that allows them to lobby and manipulate the politics of this country to favor them - we've seen the results of this manipulation in the court decisions and bills passed by congress which pharmaceutical companies to withhold affordable medications to the sick and the removal of limitations on campaign contribution for corporations. To make a long story short, the amount of power held by these corporations has gotten out of hand and OWS is aiming to reevaluate this situation in hopes of putting big businesses back into check.
      
      Now, Michael is saying that we can't just dismiss the demands of the Tea Party either. He claims that the imagery of the Tea Party has been twisted and distorted by (guess who) corporations for their own benefit. He also makes the very reasonable and true claim that extremists exist in BOTH movements, Tea Party and OWS. Although I believe Jaegar and Steven have a solid point in stating that the Tea Party Movement membership is, generally speaking, very uninformed -specifically about the potential implications of the reforms that they stand behind.
      
      I think Michael's strongest point is about choice. If we are to stay as a capitalist society, than we must use our powers as consumers to not buy the services of corporations that are guilty of the crimes listed by the OWS movement. There is no denying that reformations are certainly needed in order to reverse some of the damage currently being caused by big business, but we must provide substantial pressure not only to our government to enact these reformations, but directly to the businesses themselves. We can't buy their products or participate in their services for as long as they keep manipulating our government. I do not believe it plausible to convert to socialism at this time- our place in the world's economy is so dependent on consumption that if we switched to a socialist state, I doubt the world's economy would be able to function. I also believe that people should be able to work hard start their own businesses and create their own livelihood through their efforts. Socialism, I feel, would bind certain people's ability to control their own monetary destinies.
      
      If we are to make capitalism work, we cannot sacrifice human decency and basic morality for the sake of profit. Whoever does so is doomed to face the wrath of a disgruntled people, and the OWS movement is out to show big businesses what happens when they sacrifice their humanity in favor of currency.

      
      

      Monday at 8:10pm · 
    • 
      

      Steven 
      
      

      Woah, I apologize if it came across that I was trying to be harsh towards Dan Ecton. I was talking about the comic itself, and the implications of it. I do not see the Tea Party and Occupy as having anything in common. Their political frustrations seem to be coming from opposite places in my opinion. And conflating the two has been an annoyance to me. Yes, they both hate the bail-outs, but for very different reasons.... and their solutions are also very different. Personally, I do not think that Occupy is overlooking the fact that government and corporations are intertwined. That was my point. Sorry if it come across differently.

      
      

      Tuesday at 12:15am ·  ·  1
    • 
      

      Jay  
      
      

      I wonder if we need to step back a minute and review what seems to be this push to demonize corporate America. We seem to revel in small business and view corporations as evil. Has there been corruption? Cheating, etc? Of course. But does this also happen in small businesses? Government? People in the middle class cheating on their taxes? None receiving welfare are taking advantage of the system? After all, corporations settled this continent. King James I charted the Virginia Company. And our founders attacked government, not business. During the Gilded Age an era of rampant capitalist power saw the emergence of giant corportations that touched the lives of every American with the most dynamic and dazzling achievements in our history. And due, in large part, to giant corporations, poor people today enjoy options and privileges that even the wealthiest couldn't claim a hundred years ago. And every big business started out as a small operation before success brought growth, anad virtually every small business dreams of getting bigger some day. There is horrible corruption in every endeavor of humanity - we are flawed. But efforts to "clean up" the business world with increases in regulation, supervision, or investigation often lead to more mess and less efficiency as business leaders try to balance the sometime contradictory demand of meddling government and the market. The idea that every government official is wise and incorrutible makes no more sense than the assumption that each corporate leader displays flawless judgment and perfect ethics. But the market system allows the public greater and swifter recourse against a corrupt corportion than it does against an abusive or inefficient government since you're stuck until the next election - or long after that in an era of entrenched bureaucratic power. I love the fact that citizens are upset enough to protest. But be careful what you wish for.

      
      

      15 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      Bide
      
      

      Mr Jared, we need to look at the implications of this corruption. Sure, dishonesty is not a trait exclusive to the leaders of big businesses, but when an individual holds enough power to have a direct input in the laws and policies being made in this country, when an individual's business decisions effect the well being of millions of working people in this country, and when an individual is responsible for the production of the goods and services in this country, then that individual must be held more accountable when he or she acts irresponsibly then say, a poor person who steals a bike.
      
      When one accepts a position of power and responsibility over others, that individual must make greater sacrifices in order to ensure the safety and well-being of those that he or she cares for. Mr. Jared, you and I have a certain southern soul within us due to our time in rural Illinois. You know that my father was the undisputed head of the Akande household while I was growing up. What you may not know is that my father sacrificed his career aspirations, many of his life dreams, and much of his time to make sure that his children were provided for. My mother also made countless sacrifices for the good of the family. The same was true for your parents, and I am sure it was also true for you.
      
      I don't mean to sound cliche', but "with great power comes great responsibility." As a citizen of this great nation, I understand that the opportunities that I have been given in this country are matched by no other - I live in the greatest country in the world. However, we the people cannot sit idley by and allow our politicians, those people who are elected to protect US, those people who we TRUST to do the right thing for us... to run this country into the ground because of their own greed. Those corrupt businessmen, politicians, and other so called leaders can kiss my damn ass, because there's no way in Hell that I'm going to watch this nation go down because of their actions.

      
      

      6 hours ago · 
    • 
      

      Jay  
      
      

      Bide, I'm in basic agreement with you. The whole point of my post was that there is plenty of blame to go around. It's sad that politicians, business leaders AND the common Joe only look at what's best for them. (I'm generalizing here) Our self-interest is not all bad if it's not at the expense of others. I just have a tendency to trust the private sector, even with its admitted flaws, more than I trust government. I also believe that if a stated remedy is not clear, then it's just whining. Sure we have corrupt government and corrupt business leaders. What is the solution? Simply holding signs in protest does little to nothing. The Tea Party and Occupy movements are clear signs that "we" are unhappy in the current climate. My fear is that I see no leader at this time that can rally us to solve the various problems. I was not a supporter of Obama to begin with but I would think even those that were have to be disappointed. And I see no one on the Republican side that I can get behind with unfettered support. There are no simple solutions but the public needs to be cohesive in their frustrations to achieve change. And change is certainly what we need.

      
      

      5 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • 
      

      Michael Coulter 
      
      

      I, as well, am in basic agreement with both of you on this, the only place where I differentiate is (and please correct me if I've misunderstood) in the way I believe you both are discussing governing morality. SHOULD great power come with great responsibility? yes, absolutely, but that is not a decision for the government in any form to make for a citizen, this goes back to my previous point about self responsibility.
      
      as far as the current political field, I can assure you that some, and quite a few of the, once obama supporters I know have told me that without question that they feel let down and would not vote for him again.
      
      Unfortunately the republican side isn't much better, there are too many "candidates" with too many blind and reverent followers. and from watching the debates I have lost my respect for most of them. It seems the whole thing has turned into a giant pissing contest in which they are all too busy shooting the messenger to actually worry about the message
      
      there is no one in the field I am in 100% agreement with, so far the closest for me personally is Ron Paul, but my disagreements with some of his more right leaning policies leaves me a far cry from having decided that he's get my vote.
      
      any feeling on any of the particular candidates? I'd love to hear some other points of view.

      
      

      8 minutes ago · 
  •