What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[doomdragon6]

I keep seeing stuff talking about it, but I can't find anything talking about what it is or what they want.

It's like a bunch of kids talking about "Great Movie" but none of them will tell you what it's about, who's in it, or if it's any good.

 

[Biannoshufu]

"Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing series of demonstrations in New York City[5] based in Zuccotti Park, formerly "Liberty Plaza Park" encouraged by the Canadian activist group Adbusters. [6][7] Occupy Wall Street participants cite the Arab Spring movement (particularly the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo, and the Spanish Indignants as inspirations.[8][9]
The protesters have taken issue with social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money andlobbyists on government.[10][11][12] By October 9 similar demonstrations in the U.S. were either ongoing or held in 70 major cities and over 600 communities.[13] Internationally other "Occupy" protests have modeled themselves after Occupy Wall Street.[14][15"

Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

 

[Dave]

In essence, people are getting fed up with the growing disparity in the United States, where the citizens are being passed over and ignored while the super-rich and corporations are getting richer and richer through shady dealings, a system designed to benefit them, and a political climate of appeasement. While laws are being written and interpreted to allow corporations almost unfettered access and control over our political establishment, the other 99% of the country are being lied to, manipulated by a press that is beholden to the very business interests they should be investigating, and disregarded.

Still, while I think OWS is a good thing, I feel it will eventually end in futility as they are not protesting what they should be. While Wall Street has done a lot to deserve their ire, it will not change until the Congress pulls its head out of its collective ass and starts working for the people again, reigning in partisan idiocy and adding a constitutional amendment that makes corporations entities and not people. We need campaign reform, a tax on the corporations and top earners (like we used to when it was a government for the people). I don't see us as having the political will to get it done. Democrats = Republicans. They are two sides of the same corporate coin. I had high hopes for Obama but he's turned out to be the Destroyer of Hope and the Denier of Change.

 

[AshburnerX]

I'd like to add that it's not just in the United States anymore. There are protests in other countries now.

 

[Jay]

In essence, people are getting fed up with the growing disparity between social classes all over the world, where the citizens are being passed over and ignored while the super-rich and corporations are getting richer and richer through shady dealings, a system designed to benefit them, and a political climate of appeasement. While laws are being written and interpreted to allow corporations almost unfettered access and control over our political establishment, the other 99% of the country are being lied to, manipulated by a press that is beholden to the very business interests they should be investigating, and disregarded.

Still, while I think OWS is a good thing, I feel it will eventually end in futility as they are not protesting what they should be. While Wall Street has done a lot to deserve their ire, it will not change until people's respective governments pulls its head out of its collective ass and starts working for the people again. We need change such such as WHATEVER on WHOEVER.

Fixed for whoever isn't looking at this with Americana Tinted Rose Glasses.

 

[Shegokigo]

"What is occupy Wall-Street?"

As far as what wil come of it? A waste of time.

 

[Azurephoenix]

We had more people participate in the zombie walk than protesting in the "Occupy Calgary" thing.

 

[Dave]

Fixed for whoever isn't looking at this with Americana Tinted Rose Glasses.

Screw that. OWS started as a protest about this happening in the US. Yes, it's gone on in other places, but they are not OWS but offshoots. So while your point is valid that it is going global, the answer I gave is still the right one.

 

[doomdragon6]

Interesting. That's about what I was able to find out, I just figured there'd be... more.

I also very much get the feel of nothing being accomplished. ESPECIALLY if I can't google their goal and find one. I'm getting this impression:

"Stuff is unfair!"
"Alright, what do you want?"
"Stuff is unfair!"

 

[Dave]

Read through/look at this:

http://imgur.com/a/U4FR4

 

[Espy]

"Stuff is unfair!"
"Alright, what do you want?"
"Stuff is unfair!"

I think thats the biggest problem with it. I sympathize with many of the main things they seem to be trumpeting, but I'm still trying to figure out how camping out in the street/park until it becomes a breeding ground for typhoid fever is going to accomplish... uh.. whatever they want to accomplish.

Honestly I think they are in the wrong place. I think they need to be in DC and they need to be on Obama's doorstep. It's time to stop being a pet of Goldmann Sachs and start manning the fudge up and doing more than just asking the banks exactly how much more money they would like on a gold platter.

 

[strawman]

Income inequality --> Someone has more money than me, and since that's not right, according to my personal beliefs, they should be forced to not make so much money.

Corporate greed --> Some corporations have more money than me, and since that's not right, according to my personal beliefs, they should be forced to not make so much money.

Corporate influence on gov't --> This one I agree with. Corporations have an inordinate amount of power and influence in our government. There aren't any good solutions to this, but surely more can be done to limit their influence.

 

[MindDetective]

Corporate influence on gov't --> This one I agree with. Corporations have an inordinate amount of power and influence in our government. There aren't any good solutions to this, but surely more can be done to limit their influence.

My solution, which isn't very well thought out, is to ban lobbying and give corporations and special interests their own representation in government. Let's have fair representation of the people, the states, and the corporations/special interests.

 

[Espy]

My solution, which isn't very well thought out, is to ban lobbying and give corporations and special interests their own representation in government. Let's have fair representation of the people, the states, and the corporations/special interests.

What would that look like?

 

[strawman]

The root of the issue is that you can't really define lobbying. Would I no longer be able to write my representative and tell them what I think about a law? What if a few people I agree with got together and told them as a group? What if I got a thousand people who all agree with my statements, and we asked for a meeting with the lawmakers?

That is the essence of lobbying - those who are represented speak with their representative. Our government is built on the idea that we elect someone to represent us, and then as things change we communicate with our representative who, ideally, votes according to our desires.

If we got rid of the republic and turned every single decision into a one-person one-vote situation, perhaps that would end lobbying.

But I don't think you can say "ban lobbying" and expect anyone to be able to tell the difference between a concerned citizen communicating their needs with their representative, a neighborhood association doing so, and, for instance, the UAW doing so on behalf of their members. It becomes further muddied when a single corporation employs a significant number of the local population - if the corporation threatens to move unless certain decisions are made, the gov't has to decide whether the problem of increased unemployment is a greater burden than the desired decisions.

 

[AshburnerX]

Honestly, a good counter to lobbying would be to simply get rid of the PAC/Super PAC and to make all government officials that receive private donations identify who those donors are. In turn, said donors have to reveal where THEY got their funding from if they are not a private citizen. Put it all out in the open and let everyone know where the money comes from. It's the only way to hold people accountable to their own decisions.

It doesn't solve the problem, but it does make it much more transparent.

 

[MindDetective]

The root of the issue is that you can't really define lobbying. Would I no longer be able to write my representative and tell them what I think about a law? What if a few people I agree with got together and told them as a group? What if I got a thousand people who all agree with my statements, and we asked for a meeting with the lawmakers?

That is the essence of lobbying - those who are represented speak with their representative. Our government is built on the idea that we elect someone to represent us, and then as things change we communicate with our representative who, ideally, votes according to our desires.

If we got rid of the republic and turned every single decision into a one-person one-vote situation, perhaps that would end lobbying.

But I don't think you can say "ban lobbying" and expect anyone to be able to tell the difference between a concerned citizen communicating their needs with their representative, a neighborhood association doing so, and, for instance, the UAW doing so on behalf of their members. It becomes further muddied when a single corporation employs a significant number of the local population - if the corporation threatens to move unless certain decisions are made, the gov't has to decide whether the problem of increased unemployment is a greater burden than the desired decisions.

You could make a similar case for "ban narcotics", "ban bribery", "terrorism", and numerous other important terms. Lawyers are pretty good at defining things. You bring up important questions that need to be tackled but that are tackle-able.

What would that look like?

I don't rightly know. I think it would be a very interesting governmental structure to explore, though.

 

[Dave]

In your case, though, would the corporations be a member of the checks/balances system? Seems like a bad fucking idea to me. Besides, corporations would lobby hard against this. Right now they have all three branches in their pockets so why would they want to set up a fourth that might curtail some of their power and influence?

 

[strawman]

I was imagining that rather than having a republican party and a democrat party, we'd also add a corporation party. The gov't structure wouldn't change so much as the representatives that run it would. If the corporations can get the people to elect representatives that would serve the corporation's purposes, then it'd be fine - since the people would be making the decision to allow the corporations X percentage of the senate/house/white house/etc.

I think a lot of our problems stem from the two party system we have.

 

[Dave]

But we already HAVE two Corporation Parties.

 

[kaykordeath]

http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/

An interesting take...

 

[MindDetective]

In your case, though, would the corporations be a member of the checks/balances system? Seems like a bad fucking idea to me. Besides, corporations would lobby hard against this. Right now they have all three branches in their pockets so why would they want to set up a fourth that might curtail some of their power and influence?

Depends on their role in the checks and balances. Right now it is pretty unregulated. If they have a prescribed role, I think it limits their power rather than makes things worse.

Also, changing anything about the way the system works will be hard because there are a lot of people that do well by the current system. The same is true for term limits, for example.

I was imagining that rather than having a republican party and a democrat party, we'd also add a corporation party. The gov't structure wouldn't change so much as the representatives that run it would. If the corporations can get the people to elect representatives that would serve the corporation's purposes, then it'd be fine - since the people would be making the decision to allow the corporations X percentage of the senate/house/white house/etc.

I think a lot of our problems stem from the two party system we have.

Our system naturally gravitates toward a two-party system, I think. You need to implement either changes to voting rules or a parliamentary system to encourage/protect smaller parties.

 

[Dave]

If they have a prescribed role, I think it limits their power rather than makes things worse.

That's my point. It'll never happen because it would not be in their interest to let it happen. No matter what we say as citizens.

 

[MindDetective]

That's my point. It'll never happen because it would not be in their interest to let it happen. No matter what we say as citizens.

I agree, but my thoughts on this are prescriptive, not predictive.

 

[Dave]

I agree, but my thoughts on this are prescriptive, not predictive.

Hope and Change without a chance in hell of enacting any of it? Sounds...familiar.

 

[MindDetective]

We need a "Vote Them Out" party.

 

[AshburnerX]

We need a "Vote Them Out" party.

I'll do you one better.

 

[MindDetective]

"none of the Above" won't lead to any changes

 

[Dave]

At the risk of sounding like GasBandit...

I am to the point now where I feel it's going to take something like an OWS altercation or something like that to bring about any real change. The one thing OWS is missing is a martyr or leader. Until they get an MLK or Ghandi, they will just be noisy hippies.

Congress won't do anything until they fear the populace more than pissing off their corporate owners.

 

[GasBandit]

At the risk of sounding like GasBandit...

I am to the point now where I feel it's going to take something like an OWS altercation or something like that to bring about any real change. The one thing OWS is missing is a martyr or leader. Until they get an MLK or Ghandi, they will just be noisy hippies.

Congress won't do anything until they fear the populace more than pissing off their corporate owners.

The status quo, for a good long while, has been so entrenched that nothing short of bloodshed on a not-insignificant level will be sufficient to dislodge it. So far, it hasn't been worth the price. Is it to that point yet? I'm thinking not... but it will get there at some point.

*this does not mean I support/agree with the smelly hippiesters "occupying" any given location.

 

[Tress]

So by reading this thread I've learned that nothing will ever improve so it's best to just accept this miserable hellscape we call a life and never try to change anything. Got it. Good idea.

 

[doomdragon6]

Innnteresting... Based on the "we are the 1 with the 99" link posted, most of the people on there are rich because they inherited money, not because they worked for it. So while they can be rich and want to share that money, they still didn't "work" for it.

It seems to be an "easy come, easy give" sort of thing.

 

[GasBandit]

So by reading this thread I've learned that nothing will ever improve so it's best to just accept this miserable hellscape we call a life and never try to change anything. Got it. Good idea.

Not what was said.

What was said, is nothing will change until it gets to where the following is a feasible scenario:

 

[Dave]

Or someone gets killed/martyred during something like OWS. A rallying cry, if you will.

 

[GasBandit]

Or someone gets killed/martyred during something like OWS. A rallying cry, if you will.

I don't know if that will be enough. Whoever gets themselves killed in this "occupation," from what I have seen, would be very likely to die on camera and in a very stupid way... further marginalizing the OWS image. Of course, if there are multiple deaths, that might be enough. Especially if it's in the double digits and all at the same incident. But one OWS dingleberry dying, to me, sounds more likely an extreme and lethal case of "DON'T TAZE ME BRO! DON'T TAZE ME!"