Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Ziggurat]

There are signs that the government has not been attending to the needs of the entire population. Here are but a few of the hundreds of examples:

Our schools which were once the best in the world have fallen far short of that in a mere 30 years.

But not for a lack of money. So what's the solution? I don't know, but vague protests won't fix whatever it is.

Serving in the military puts you at greater risk for unemployment, mental health issues and homelessness.

Given that unemployment is higher among young adults than the population as a whole, and that post-9/11 veterans will tend to be on the younger side, their unemployment numbers show nothing of the sort. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. I don't trust any other statistics from that source to not be similarly skewed. Nor is it credible that the OWS movement is somehow going to produce better veterans' benefits.

15% of the US population lives in poverty.

That means essentially nothing, since we use a relative (not absolute) measure of poverty. If everyone in the US became 10 times as wealthy as they are now, the poverty rate would remain unchanged.

Medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. 75% of those who claim bankruptcy from medical cost had insurance.

You're wrong. I've looked into this before (there are in fact threads dedicated to the issue buried around here somewhere), and the statistics to back up such claims are complete and utter crap.

Budget cuts have forced the police in many cities to focus on only violent crime.

Because many cities have spent their money very unwisely. You've got common cause with the Tea Party on this one. Yet they're not squatting in filth, giving each other lice and tuberculosis.

The US currently has the highest prison rate in the world.

No, it doesn't. It's very high, for which we can thank the drug war. The OWS movement isn't likely to help with that, though.

The cost of higher education has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. (for example, the UC system is 4 times higher then 10 years ago.)

Yes, it has. That's a real problem. Do the OWS folks have any idea for how to fix that? Because all I've seen from them are ideas (like student debt forgiveness) that would make it worse.

It's not about what I want, it's not even about what's "fair." A civilized society relies on a certain degree of cooperation.

Funny, then, that the OWS movement thinks it can fix what ails us by basically not cooperating with the rest of society.

 

[bookitty]

Then it sounds like you need to get like minded and sympathetic politicians elected to office. Camping out isn't going to do that.

This is a small social movement. Expecting dramatic change after two months would be incredibly naive. OWS has started the dialog, and we are already seeing a slight shift in tone.

I would love to get like-minded politicians in office but, as I may have mentioned, in our current climate of multimillion dollar campaigns with special interest footing the bill, that is very unlikely. Part of the OWs dialog will address this. Other movements will expound on it. Perhaps by the 2016 elections, we will see some results.

 

[Virus]

There are signs that the government has not been attending to the needs of the entire population. Here are but a few of the hundreds of examples:

Our schools which were once the best in the world have fallen far short of that in a mere 30 years.

South Koreans outperform American students because they work harder and avoid drugs.

15% of the US population lives in poverty.

How are you defining poverty? Absolute or relative poverty? Real poverty like people in Sierra Leone or Haiti experience doesn't exist in the West.

Budget cuts have forced the police in many cities to focus on only violent crime. In Los Angeles, for example, there is no more overtime pay and cases are being backlogged.

Yet you're sitting around in parks wasting their time.

The US currently has the highest prison rate in the world.

So? People in prison deserve to be there.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a small social movement. Expecting dramatic change after two months would be incredibly naive. OWS has started the dialog, and we are already seeing a slight shift in tone.

I would love to get like-minded politicians in office but, as I may have mentioned, in our current climate of multimillion dollar campaigns with special interest footing the bill, that is very unlikely. Part of the OWs dialog will address this. Other movements will expound on it. Perhaps by the 2016 elections, we will see some results.

Perhaps. I wish you well!

You realize there are numerous special interest groups who represent you, right? Do you want them to stop trying to influence elections?

 

[bookitty]

Perhaps. I wish you well!

You realize there are numerous special interest groups who represent you, right? Do you want them to stop trying to influence elections?

Not really. There are some non-profits. For example, Planned Parenthood lobbies for women's issues and are one of the best funded. There are groups that work to beef up the consumer protection agencies, others that promote voters rights, some unions who step up for police, firemen or cops. These people exist and some are doing a good job.

But they can't compete with billions of dollars and multi-generational cronyism.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not really. There are some non-profits. For example, Planned Parenthood lobbies for women's issues and are one of the best funded. There are groups that work to beef up the consumer protection agencies, others that promote voters rights, some unions who step up for police, firemen or cops. These people exist and some are doing a good job.

But they can't compete with billions of dollars and multi-generational cronyism.

I recall a time, maybe about 20 years ago, when Common Cause was decrying the influence of lobbyist groups in Washington. Then some smart-aleck had to point out that they were the 3rd largest (at the time) lobbying group.

If I own stock in Coca-Cola or IBM or GE, you better believe I want them lobbying Washington for favorable legislation.

 

[bookitty]

South Koreans outperform American students because they work harder and avoid drugs.



How are you defining poverty? Absolute or relative poverty? Real poverty like people in Sierra Leone or Haiti experience doesn't exist in the West.



Yet you're sitting around in parks wasting their time.



So? People in prison deserve to be there.

And Finland performs better because they have been investing in education for the last 30 years.

Occupy LA was (initially) welcomed by the city council. The LAPD presence has been regular but small. OLA is not a budget crisis for the city. Unlike Oakland which has spent $2.4 million on police action and will soon be facing lawsuits from that action.

Our for profit prison system has many flaws but that is an entire thread by itself. I highly recommend that you do a bit of research. Comparing different styles of punishment, rehabilitation & incarceration is a fascinating topic.

 

[bookitty]

I recall a time, maybe about 20 years ago, when Common Cause was decrying the influence of lobbyist groups in Washington. Then some smart-aleck had to point out that they were the 3rd largest (at the time) lobbying group.

If I own stock in Coca-Cola or IBM or GE, you better believe I want them lobbying Washington for favorable legislation.

Speaking of Coca-cola:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-coke-20111114,0,226560.story

 

[stokes234]

The problem is that somebody convinced you that sleeping in a tent was any kind of possible solution, last resort or not.

I think the country could very certainly do with less corporate influence in government. I just never believed for a moment that the "OWS" culture - standing around wearing goofy masks, using bizarre pseudonyms, and something to do with drums, is the way to go about it.

Well, my counter-argument to that would be that nobody else was going about it at all. You say you're in favour of less corporate influence on government, but you live in a country where neither of the only two viable political parties seems to have any desire to do anything about it, so democracy isn't giving you many options. You can argue that OWS hasn't been very effective, but at least they tried to bring the issue forward - who else can claim that?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Speaking of Coca-cola:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-coke-20111114,0,226560.story

And?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, my counter-argument to that would be that nobody else was going about it at all. You say you're in favour of less corporate influence on government, but you live in a country where neither of the only two viable political parties seems to have any desire to do anything about it, so democracy isn't giving you many options. You can argue that OWS hasn't been very effective, but at least they tried to bring the issue forward - who else can claim that?

Excessive corporate & lobbyist money has been a complaint of many for as long as I've been alive. Up until a month or two ago, we didn't have OWS. And yet, somehow people were aware of the problem (assuming it's a problem).

 

[Virus]

Hey Bookitty, how is it that you can take 4 months off to sit around in parks with druggies?

 

[stokes234]

The thing about democracy is that majority rules. It is a very, very common complaint from many people who disagree with the status quo that if they use the tools available to them to argue for a certain change and that change doesn't happen, it means their voice hasn't been heard - presumably because if anyone actually heard them they'd agree without hesitation. Well yes, actually; if you used those tools, your voice definitely was heard; it was simply outweighed by all the dissenting voices.

Regular people, who are not rich or politically powerful, manage to get laws made and repealed all the time.

This picture you paint of a perfect democracy reminds me of the friedmanite idea of a perfect free market. It only works in a world where everyone has complete unbiased access to all of the information they need to make an informed decision based on logical reasoning (or, potentially, a world where both sides of every political discussion get an equal amount of bias). In the real world - and this is still admittedly a very reductionist way of putting it - rich people get more influence on the democratic system than poor people because they are able to pay for more bias and spin to convince people of their point of view, and thus advance their interests. It's all very well saying "get out and vote", but when a relevant portion of the population is repeating half-understood factoids (e.g. - the "47% of people don't pay taxes" line, when it actually refers to income taxes), you're not neccessarily seeing democracy reflect the genuine opinions of the masses based on accurate information.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's all very well saying "get out and vote", but when a relevant portion of the population is repeating half-understood factoids (e.g. - the "47% of people don't pay taxes" line, when it actually refers to income taxes), you're not neccessarily seeing democracy reflect the genuine opinions of the masses based on accurate information.

Sort of like when the average dumbell says "The rich/corporations don't pay taxes".

 

[stokes234]

Excessive corporate & lobbyist money has been a complaint of many for as long as I've been alive. Up until a month or two ago, we didn't have OWS. And yet, somehow people were aware of the problem (assuming it's a problem).

My point isn't that nobody knew about it, it's that nobody has been doing anything about it. Camping out in tents and allowing your stupidest members to suck up all the airtime while typical leftist splits tear your organisation in half and waste your time may not seem like much, and in the end it may not achieve anything other than a brief spat of media coverage, but I still prefer it to people saying they've cared for years and have done precisely zilch and therefore we should all shut up and watch democracy do it's clearly very effective thing.

 

[stokes234]

Sort of like when the average dumbell says "The rich/corporations don't pay taxes".

Yes, very much like that. Anyone who truly believes the rich pay zero taxes is an idiot voting on misinformation. I personally suspect there are more people who believe the "47% of people pay no taxes" line than the "rich people pay zero taxes" one, but who knows.

 

[Checkmite]

Well, my counter-argument to that would be that nobody else was going about it at all.

This is simply not true, and plenty of people can claim to have been attempting to do something about it.

 

[bookitty]

And?

I'm so sorry, I'm over multi-tasking. I was reading that article immediately before reading your post. The juxtaposition (oooohhh corporations are so eeeevil!!!) struck me as humorous but without that snippet of back-story, it might have been hard for you to share the humor.

 

[stokes234]

This is simply not true, and plenty of people can claim to have been attempting to do something about it.

Perhaps I missed it, or it simply didn't filter across the pond, but i've never seen any american political parties, movements or organisations come up in the news carrying either the "reducing corporate influence on government" torch or the "reducing inequality" one. Who did you have in mind, and how well has it been going?

And before anyone claims that the majority opinion, and thus the obvious democratic decision and will is that corporate influence is not a problem and to leave it alone, here is the gallup poll that suggests to me if the system worked, it should have done something about it by now.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, very much like that. Anyone who truly believes the rich pay zero taxes is an idiot voting on misinformation. I personally suspect there are more people who believe the "47% of people pay no taxes" line than the "rich people pay zero taxes" one, but who knows.

I'll take that bet.