• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the first regulation you wish to impose?

Me? personally? I've been working on smaller stuff. Specifically with people who interested in working towards a state bank of California, modeled after the state-owned Bank of North Dakota.

Because I, personally, believe that new solutions can be implemented faster than re-regulation and can have a similar effect although possibly on a smaller scale.
 
Weren't the banks limited to one state before they were deregulated?

I'd re-regulate the electric utilities back to one state.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is part of what OWS is asking for. Even that process isn't simple. First our politicians need to see that it is in their best interest to do so. Given that the candidate with the largest amount of donations will inevitably win, our choice of politicians not beholden to those dedicated to deregulation is very slim.

You're mistaking cause and effect. The candidate who will win inevitably receives the largest amount of donations.
 
You're mistaking cause and effect. The candidate who will win inevitably receives the largest amount of donations.

The mistake is even more fundamental than that: regardless of the direction of causation, the presumed relationship doesn't even exist. It's not infrequent for the better-funded candidate to lose.
 
That seems like a usefully vague statement. What has he done that is idiotic, and why was it idiotic?

Listen kiddo - I'm done talking about Sgt. PepperSpray*. If you really need to know what it was he did that I find idiotic, well....



What precedent do you base this judgement on? When was the last time the power of US oligarchy was seriously threatened and under mass attack from the people?

Police forces use all of the items I mentioned before they'd use live ammo versus people who weren't shooting back. This needs no "judgement". It is just a statement of fact.




* Free for everybody to use if they'd like.
:D

( i dunno.... i thought it was funny)
 
The mistake is even more fundamental than that: regardless of the direction of causation, the presumed relationship doesn't even exist. It's not infrequent for the better-funded candidate to lose.

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/...big-money-in-the-2006-congressional-primaries

Money was a key factor in determining primary election outcomes. According to FEC data, major party congressional candidates who raised the most money won 92% of their primary races in 2006. Candidates who spent the most won 91% of the time. Winning candidates out-raised their opponents by a margin of 3.5-to-1, with the winners raising an average of $1.06 million and losers raising $304,000. This pattern held true for open seat races as well. The biggest fundraiser won 82% of the contests without an incumbent running for re-election in the district.

This should get you started if you're interested. There's more but I'm heading out.
 
That's not the message of OWS. OWS wants to reduce corporate influence within our government, see the banks that crash the worldwide economy be held accountable and to address a wealth disparity that allows the richest 400 Americans to hold more wealth than half of all Americans (156 million people) combined. OWS supports no specific candidate.

Even if they did, there is no hard left in government anymore. (with the sole and notable exception of Bernie Sanders) Even the failed super-committee was willing to make deep spending cuts, beyond the comfort level of even the most moderate progressive.
Please describe the changes in policy that would have, for example, kept Warren Buffet from amassing $39 billion in wealth.
 
Please describe the changes in policy that would have, for example, kept Warren Buffet from amassing $39 billion in wealth.

I don't think "preventing" anyone from becoming rich is part of their agenda. Preventing the government from being manipulated by rich people in order to become even richer, that is part of their agenda.
 
a wealth disparity that allows the richest 400 Americans to hold more wealth than half of all Americans (156 million people) combined.
Are 100 million of those people children? How much wealth do you think children should have?
 
I can't read her statement any other way.

Funny...

"That's not the message of OWS. OWS wants to reduce corporate influence within our government, see the banks that crash the worldwide economy be held accountable and to address a wealth disparity that allows the richest 400 Americans to hold more wealth than half of all Americans (156 million people) combined. OWS supports no specific candidate."

1) You focused on just part of one out of three stated goals. Why is that?

2) How does "addressing" = "preventing?"
 
Funny...

"That's not the message of OWS. OWS wants to reduce corporate influence within our government, see the banks that crash the worldwide economy be held accountable and to address a wealth disparity that allows the richest 400 Americans to hold more wealth than half of all Americans (156 million people) combined. OWS supports no specific candidate."

1) You focused on just part of one out of three stated goals. Why is that?
Oh, they have many stated goals. See my next post.

2) How does "addressing" = "preventing?"
So they don;t want to prevent wealth disparity, just "address" it, whatever that means?
 
OWS loses focus yet again:
Protesters are planning to Occupy Black Friday by hosting a series of demonstrations across the country, including an anti-fur rally at Macy’s Herald Square in Manhattan.

More than 150 animal-rights activists and Occupy Wall Street protesters will add to the frenzy outside of Macy’s flagship store on W. 34th St. starting at 1:30 p.m. Friday, organizers told The Associated Press

Several other demonstrations are expected in U.S. cities on the nation’s post-Thanksgiving shopping splurge.

In Seattle, protesters plan to carpool to Wal-Mart stores and there join other Occupy groups from around Washington state.

In the nation’s capital, protesters want people to donate unwanted items so others can go gift shopping for free.

And a few groups plan to hit the mall, but not for shopping. So-called “Consumer zombies” from the 75-person Occupy encampment in Boise, Idaho, plan to wander around malls in silent protest of what they see as unnecessary spending.
So now OWS is against fur, against black Friday sales or something, and against large retailers.

You get dizzy trying to keep up. :boggled:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom