I waited to respond to your post, Iggy, because you make serious points and aren't just engaging in Prometheus' brand of NYA NYA NYA and infantile name-calling and gloating.
I used up my available time posting those polls, and I still feel they are accurate. The thrust of the movement are Pro-Obama lefties and front groups of the George Soros variety. And many others who are even further Left and openly talk about how we need to "abolish capitalism". That's a quantifiable fact established by several polls of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. It's not just a few selective interviews of the craziest ones in the crowd.
That said, I think there a handful, maybe 10% at most, of the crowd who are what you describe: serious people who are informed about the issues and advocate the kind of changes to the system necessary to take us back from the edge and restore our economic and democratic freedoms.
Most of these OWS people are so far off the deep end that enlightening them and pulling them into a seroius reform movement could only hurt the credibility of that serious movement.
Will it fit in one post?
Okay, Wondy wants a response to my siding with hippies so here it goes...this may not all post at once so be prepared to read it in parts...
I share much of the same anger about the state of things that the Occupy (Insert Name Here) people do. I don't share the same solutions.
I'm glad to hear you say that. Because a lot of these people, in their dramatic rhetoric, if not their intent, are talking about something akin to the French Revolution.
But, I do agree with them about the problem. Contrary to what you seem to believe, we do not have a free market system. We have a crony capitalist system that benefits the few and is detrimental to the many. It's a plutocratic kleptocracy that is being abetted by both sides of our supposed two party system. It isn't. It hasn't been for, at least, the past twenty years.
I agree that we
are headed in that direction.
We still have a well-monied middle class, and have a material quality of life that most of the world envies, and would gladly immigrate here to have too. The middle class still shares the benefits of what unquestionably most benefits the corporate lobbyist class.
In the plutocracy you describe (as exists in places like Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico) the wealthy live in mansions behind gates and barbed wire, and everyone else lives in shantytowns and cardboard boxes. It's an exaggeration to say we're there.
But I'll grant you: the lobbying-donations-to-play structure that has been in place for 20-plus years is taking us in that direction.
Wages relative to inflation are down, and inflationary prices are rising to move us in that direction. Yes.
What we have now is akin to Soviet Russia but with the illusion of choice: Wall Street Red or Wall Street Blue. It's a sham. Look at the donations! The biggest change from one election year to the next is the way corporate money moves. The CEO's might have their political preferences, but most--if not all of them--don't take those into account when they start passing out the cash. It is a simple matter of reading the political headwinds and donating to the person they believe will give them the best bang for their buck. And, hey, you read the headwinds wrong and throw a fundraiser for the wrong guy? No problem, just send a few lobbyists.
I both agree and disagree. Some who donated to Obama were cynically just picking the foreseeable winner in 2008. Others are zealots for liberal ideology. Obama still has ardent support of the zealots.
And the same for Romney, or whoever. Some are just hedging their bets and picking the winner. Others passionately believe that Obama/Reid/Pelosi's radical socialism has to be stopped before it permanently cripples the economy.
I already posted the article that pointed out the myth of TARP being paid off, but that is really just the tip of the iceberg. The stimulus and all its 800 something billion dollars is nothing. Look at the part of the iceberg that is underwater and one number screams at you: SIXTEEN TRILLION! What's that number? It's the number of dollars that we handed out like bailout candy in three years (2007-2010). According the the debt clock, sixteen trillion is enough to pay off our entire debt, the stimulus, and still have about 150 billion with which to do...whatever. Why are we arguing over the debt ceiling and cuts when the Fed could've paid off the entire debt in three years?!? Because, I'm sure they'd say, it is none of our business, wasn't meant to be our business, and was meant to do anything for you, me, or main street. We'd have never known about it had it not been for Ron Paul. I'll get back to him later.
I've harped quite a bit on TARP, the auto bailout, AIG, Bear-Stearns, Stimulus (847 billion), Omnibus (550 billion), Cap-and-Trade, Obamacare and so forth. And was only receptive to TARP when it seemed to be paid off, as you showed the slight-of-hand trickery for in the article you posted.
The total debt is much higher when you consider entitlements going forward over the next 10 or 20 years, in the range of 50 or 60 trillion.
But I agree with you, that we the taxpayers are excluded from the decisionmaking in how our dollars are spent --or printed!
And the days when the Fed is able to just print another 2 trillion as Obama/Bernanke have, are fast coming to a close. When the dollar collapses and is no longer the global currency.
My whole point here is that all of those people on Wall Street and around the country have valid reasons to be pissed off.
Not really. The overwhelming majority either have no clue, or are talking about abolishing capitalism. I think those who are serious should distance themselves from the OWS crowd, and form a separate group that can have credibility. Standing in front of that OWS mob can only hurt the credibility of serious people.
Do I agree with all of their solutions? Not really. Do I think large numbers of them have no fucking clue what they are talking about? Yes.
Again, I'm glad to hear you say that.
Does that mean I should just dismiss them as a bunch of bongo bashers? No.
I dismiss the 90% for exactly what they are.
Geraldo Rivera was sympathetic to their cause, and even took a lot of their antics in stride as he tried to give their views serious consideration and coverage. His reward was hundred of them chanting over and over "FOX NEWS LIES! FOX NEWS LIES!" to try and drown out his interviews.
Incredibly, he still remains sympathetic, and still, like you, gives their rhetoric serious consideration.
But again, to me this movement is like a Rorschach test, and it has so many contradictory ideas being voiced, that to take it seriously, one has to set aside what they chooose to disagree with, to focus on the portion they choose to take seriously.
It means that I should engage them on the issues. We should be doing all we can to teach them that this isn't a free market economy. But, they shouldn't be belittled for not understanding that because it is the propagators of this system on both sides that have taught them that this is capitalism. Simply put, we should engage and enlighten rather than belittle and dismiss.
Again, we do have a free market economy. I have multiple friends who started small businesses and have built themselves a very comfortable life within our existing free market system.
Within the last 20 years. But again, I do agree with you that the system is eroding and in danger, due to the expanding lobbyist system.
[quoteIggy]The best person, IMO, for this job is Ron Paul. Over the past thirty years, he has been the most consistent in his beliefs and the most vocal on the issues of liberty, economy, and social mobility. Most of the other candidates don't really want or look towards doing the need changes to the foundation of our economy that need to be done. They'd all be more than happy to just ride the next bubble like Dubya did with the housing market. [/quote]
Well, I like Ron Paul, and gave him serious consideration in 2008.
As, I think, did much of the media in 2008. He was given great praise for his remarkable fundraising over the internet, and likewise getting his message out over the internet, when he didn't have the dollars to compete with the other contenders on the more conventional mainstream campaign venues.
At least, unlike Ralph Nader, he was not excluded from the debates, and that alone is giving Ron Paul national visibility.
My problem with Ron Paul is that while his ideas are not the status quo and he is serious about making decisive and needed reforms, I think it's easier to talk about doing those reforms than to actually do them. I'm not sure they would work in practice.
Put us back on the gold standard? It was fiat currency that allowed our economy to expand so vastly over the last 100 years. And now we have about 300 billion left in gold reserves, to service a debt of 15 trillion?
Abolish the education department?
Abolish the IRS?
While they need reformed, any one of those things could severely damage the country even further, it reformed the wrong way.
In fact, save Sarbanes-Oxley, most of their economic agendas are just to undo the past three years and talk about how the glory days of the Bush administration are here again. And, hey, anything they say now that might be more extreme than that doesn't count because they'll shift more to the center after getting the nomination...right? Despite their rhetoric, they all come across as rehashed Keynesians (just, maybe, with a little k).
I agree that there is an attempt by Republicans to say that things were better under Bush.
I saw someone, I believe Mitch McConnell, interviewed 2 nights ago by Greta Van Susteren, and he was saying that under Bush in 2007 the deficit --even with the 2 wars we were fighting-- was 170 billion for that year. And every year since Obama has been in office, it's been more than 1.5 trillion, roughly tenfold.
I do agree that there's a tendency --both Democrats and Republicans-- to just slap a band-aid on a limping system that needs much greater reform, and that their greatest consideration is only what looks good enough to get them re-elected in the short-term.
And that the status-quo that is their life's-blood politically will not keep the nation from going over the cliff.
One of my few exceptions to this, oddly, is Newt. The problem is that I don't think Newt holds serious aspirations for being the GOP nominee or president. He's just looking for a seat at the table and doing what he can to instill a little more substance into a field that--generally--sound like they all received the same list of Luntz talking points. Some may be able to do it a little more smoothly to the point of sounding to smooth by half (Romney) while others do it so badly that vapid isn't even a strong enough word to describe it (Bachmann).
As you know, I like Newt. Romney is the guy who has the conventional structure to win. But I think Newt is the most capable. Newt is the guy who drafted the legislation as speaker to balance the budget from 1996-2000.
I don't think Newt would take the time and enormous effort it takes to run if he didn't seriously want the job. And if Romney implodes, I see Newt as the one Republican contender with the ability to rise and be the front-runner.
I like all the other contenders (except Perry), but I just don't see them as having the same knowledge of the system, and proven ability to get things done that Gingrich has.
Paul, along with other Austrian School economists, have called the bubbles and the bursts again and again. And, they have pointed out continuously the irrationality of trying to prop up the roof when the floor is caving in. You can't just say cut taxes and regulations then everything will be okay. And, none of the other GOP candidates really want or are up to the challenge of instituting the reforms that this country really needs. They are just up to not being as bad as Obama.
I'll say this for Paul: he is the one guy who is committed to transforming the system and doing the needed reforms that have needed done for decades, reforms that have been prevented by the lobbyist-controlled status quo.
My only concern with Ron Paul is that while he understands the problem, I'm not sure his proposed solutions would work. But given how the status quo has not worked, maybe it is time to give Paul's ideas a try.
Let's face it, the only reason the media covers Paul when they do is because they can't just ignore him this time. This isn't to say they won't try just that it can't be done so easily this time. They can't ignore that he called the housing bubble in '01. They can't ignore that he has breathed new life into the, supposedly, eviscerated and dead Libertarian/Goldwater wing of the Republican party. He's here. We're here. And, we're Austrians!
I don't think they ignored Ron Paul in 2008, but let's face it, he wasn't the frontrunner.
That said, the media clearly has their favorites, and that is reflected in coverage. And in 2008, they were deeply in love with Obama, and will likewise be acting as part of the Obama campaign in 2012 as well.
It's clear watching Fox that they don't favor Paul either. They currently give the most coverage to Romney and Cain. They are dismissive of Gingrich getting the nomination as well. But it's still very early in the campaign. This was about the point where Bill Clinton even announced his candidacy, in 1991.
As for my dismissal of the Tea Party as of late, I feel a large portion has been duped and co-opted (much like a lot of the pinheads that, admittedly, do reside in Zucotti Park right now). They've been so blinded by anti-Obama zealotry that they run like madmen to whomever they can convince themselves is the Tea Party messiah at the time (see; Bachmann, Perry and Cain). I'd almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't so pathetically laughable.
I think there is a tendency to --myself included-- try and side with whoever can "realistically" (perception) beat Obama, rather than get all ideologically pure and end up picking a Ross Perot that just succeeds in handing the election to a liberal socialist again. For me the "realistic" choice is Romney. My best-candidate choice is Gingrich.
Again: it's early in the election process. I think all but the most news-conscious are oblivious to the campaign, and a surge in popularity for a week or two by Bachmann, Perry or Cain is utterly insignificant. They're just the flavor of the week. And that's why I think Gingrich has a shot. Because when people have time to think who is really capable, Gingrich will get serious consideration.
And, honestly, I can see some similarities between them [the Tea Party] and what is happening in the OWC movement. Those that talk of Obama standing up and, apparently unbeknownst to them, bite the hand that feeds him is fucking hilarious. Still, for every knucklehead out there screaming about death to capitalism or whatever, there are still a lot of people in the movement that don't ascribe to that philosophy (or, any philosophy other than rightful anger) that can be engaged and enlightened.
I'd say the overwhelming majority of the Occupy Wall Street crowd are radical left, and the few serious voices among are rendered ridiculous by who they stand with.
What made the Tea Party so striking to me was that they were so clearly regular people who had never participated in a demonstration before. They weren't wild-eyed activists, they weren't wearing ourtrageous costumes, they weren't carrying around severed heads or people killed in effigy. They were sincere, respectful people who had for the first time come out of their homes to stand in a town hall or demonstration, because they were genuinely alarmed at what Obama/Reid/Pelosi were doing. And many of them had voted for Obama.
I think it's fair to say that many of these Tea Party-goers didn't gully undertand the issues either.
But THESE were people who wouldn't continue to stand with people who were defacating on police cars or advocating death to capitalism!Huge difference.
And again: I'm not saying that a few of the Occupy Wall Street group don't raise some valid points. But they are rendered completely rediculous by who they stand next to.
If these few in the crowd with serious views had a Youtube video or a C-Span panel where they voiced their legitimate concerns in a respectful format that didn't endorse the antics of their Promodian brethren just by standing with them, they would be taken seriously. But where they stand, who they stand with, renders it imposssible to take them seriously. Their advocacy of chaos is implied in who they allow to be included with them.
But, hey, you want it to be nothing more than "leftist rabble" and Soros goons then feel free to belittle, denigrate, and dismiss. But, bear in mind, you are taking the risk of alienating an entire generation and losing them to those same communazis you rant and rave about every day.
I'd love it if they would shun these jackasses crapping on police cars and pin them to the ground until the police arrest them.
I'd love it if they'd tear up the banner of the "death to capitalism" crowd and tell them to get out of here, this is not what our movement is about and we don't want you here.
But they don't.
They stand withg them.
And are forever rendered ridiculous by who they stand with.
The participation of George Soros, SEIU, UAW, and MoveOn is also likewise not my choice.
If this crowd were more respectful in the way they protest, not engaging in "death to capitalism", not defacating on police cars, not trying to silence a network shouting "Fox News Lies" over and over during broadcasts, not having sex and running around naked in public, I would think: "Hey, maybe these folks and the more serious members of the Tea Party and other like-minded dissenters could collaborate and leverage for real reform."
But the Occupy Wall Street crowd is doing all these vile thing, and are connected to George Soros and the corrupt machine of the Left.
They are.
And are rendered ridiculous by it.
The demographics are clear. The GOP is getting a lot greyer than the Dems are. And, by an unwillingness to engage the youth of this country in a meaningful way in this time of crisis, you and others like you are setting yourselves up for political extinction. Good luck with that.
Read DEATH OF THE WEST by Pat Buchanan.
Conservatives are becoming a diminished minority becaause of unprecedented waves of immigration.
It is partly the liberal media's dominance over 4 decades that is converting the children of former conservatives.
And it is largely the massive waves of immigration, where our elites are importing a third-world population that are natural-born Democrats, and unlike past waves of immigrants, will stay at the economic bottom and constantly demand more social spending because they won't make an effort to pull themselves out of poverty. 45 million immigrants since 1965. And overwhelmingly hispanic.
There are plenty of young Tea Party members, roughly equal as a ratio of the Tea party as they are a ratio of the total population. But with 1.2 million immigrants added every year, native-born conservatives are being overwhelmed in numbers by the annual addition of foreign-born Democrats.
Immigrants overwhelmingly enter to country poor and wanting government welfare, education, and other subsidy benefits. From 2000-2008, George W. Bush reached out to hispanics with "compassionate conservatism" (i.e., big-government Republican spending) and a flaccid and non-existent border enforcement. While it gained
some up-tick in hispanic support, it ultimately compromised conservative values and hurt the party at its base.
Democrats offer free stuff for immigrants. I don't know if there's a way Republicans can compete with that. Only the Democrats are willing to treat recent immigrants and illegal immigrants better than they treat U.S. taxpaying citizens.
