Advertisement

occupy wall street polled

topic posted Wed, October 19, 2011 - 9:51 AM by  Gerbil
Share/Save/Bookmark
embed.docstoc.com/docs/docu...eview.aspx

interesting tidbits:
- 32% are democrats, 33% are not affiliated with a party
- 53% are employed (kind of nullifies arguments that the movement should "get a job")
- 74% voted for obama in 2008
- 48% will vote for obama in 2012 and 27% are undecided
- 44% approve, 51% disapprove of obama's preformance
- 35% want to influence the democratic party the way the tea party influences republicans
posted by:
Gerbil
Chicago
Advertisement
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Wed, October 19, 2011 - 10:24 AM
    I think working within either established party is a mistake. If anything, it seems that it only leads to the establishment type playing lip-service their values
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Fri, October 21, 2011 - 8:04 PM
      i agree. chris matthews has been pushing this point all week, practically begging the democratic party to embrace and fold the OWS movement into theirs.

      if you look at the percentage that voted obama in 2008, it's almost a moot point. the protesters, at least the ones schoen polled, are already democrats. highly unlikely they are going to vote for a republican. my guess is the majority will vote third party and definitely not support the republican candidate, no matter who it is.

      how can anyone part of OWS even think about supporting a candidate (Romney) who said this:
      www.youtube.com/watch
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Wed, October 19, 2011 - 10:28 AM
    I'd be interested to see more details about the poll's methodology

    this is hysterical:

    21.Do you think that conditions in the United States today are similar to those in
    many countries in the Middle East on the eve of the Arab Spring? 
     
    66% Yes
    16% No
    18% Somewhat


    comparing conditions in the US to those under Middle Eastern dictatorships? Pretty laughable assertion
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Wed, October 19, 2011 - 10:32 AM
      consider for a moment who is doing the polling and the quantity(200 people) being polled.

      online.wsj.com/article/SB...745362.html
      • Re: occupy wall street polled

        Wed, October 19, 2011 - 10:44 AM
        I think the protestors anger should be directed at the corporate lobbyists in Washington DC, not Wall Street
        • Re: occupy wall street polled

          Wed, October 19, 2011 - 10:58 AM
          seriously? who do you think many of those corporate lobbyists work for? granted, not every lobbyist works for wall st, but, still, seriously?

          also, compare the results of schoen's poll to this poll:
          www.fastcompany.com/1789018/...tatistics
          • Re: occupy wall street polled

            Wed, October 19, 2011 - 11:27 AM
            where do you think you're more likely to see public pressure forcing change, wall street, or DC? Who's directly accountable to the public and who isn't?
            • Re: occupy wall street polled

              Wed, October 19, 2011 - 11:41 AM
              honestly, neither. unless, of course, i own an office on k street. an even better place to protest would be at your representatives offices wherever you live. that would get a message across better than a faceless, amorphous protest in nyc and other cities, even if you do have the public on your side.

              now a question for you: where do you think media coverage will be greater: a protest on the steps of the capitol or a protest in front of the new york stock exchange? what's standard fare and what's more, for lack of a better word, exotic?

              do you really think there would be sustained media coverage if the protest had begun in washington dc?
              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                Wed, October 19, 2011 - 11:52 AM
                "honestly, neither. unless, of course, i own an office on k street. an even better place to protest would be at your representatives offices wherever you live. that would get a message across better than a faceless, amorphous protest in nyc and other cities, even if you do have the public on your side. "

                so you're saying direct public pressure towards politicians? That would be DC, mate


                "do you really think there would be sustained media coverage if the protest had begun in washington dc? "

                It's hard to say. But my point was that their complaints seems to be predominately focused on the failings of wallstreet, while ignoring those people have little reason or incentive to listen to them, while they are completely able to force through a change in DC
                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                  Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:16 PM
                  <you're saying direct public pressure towards politicians?>

                  i'm saying direct public pressure towards politicians in the districts and states where you live, not in washington dc. when you go to washington dc you just become another protest sitting on the lawn. it's a one day, maybe 2 day story, and then it's done. the fact that occupy wall street protesters chose wall street is because of its visibility and the fact that it's unconventional, therefore a bigger media story, which, in turn, applies indirect pressure on government officials. notice how many have come out to support or oppose the movement.

                  <ignoring those people have little reason or incentive to listen to them>

                  well i do agree with you that it's somewhat of a pipe dream to think that setting up shop in zuccotti park is going to directly, through wall streets own volition, change the policies and practices of wall street. however, i'll point out again that there is bigger exposure protesting at wall street than there is in protesting in washington d.c.

                  somewhat related:
                  www.pri.org/stories/busi...ral-6436.html
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: occupy wall street polled

                    Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:20 PM
                    "well i do agree with you that it's somewhat of a pipe dream to think that setting up shop in zuccotti park is going to directly, through wall streets own volition, change the policies and practices of wall street."

                    that's the point I've been trying to illustrate. WS doesn't care what the average person thinks, and surely isn't going to undermine their bottom line for them. How you deal with them is thorough laws and regulations
                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                      Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:48 PM
                      <<WS doesn't care what the average person thinks, and surely isn't going to undermine their bottom line for them.

                      I don't think anyone is going to expect Wall Street to just change their tune based on the OWS movement. The point is to draw attention to the problems that exist, to put pressure on our politicians, and in no small part to energize the progressive movement.
                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                        Thu, November 3, 2011 - 3:55 PM
                        "to put pressure on our politicians"

                        To do what precisely? To be generically and unspecifically anti-corporation, just like the protests appear to be?
                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                          Thu, November 3, 2011 - 4:11 PM
                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                            Thu, November 3, 2011 - 4:44 PM
                            And we all know how successful constitutional amendment efforts have been. Of about 11,370 efforts to amend the Constitution, only 27 have passed, and ten of those were in one shot with the Bill of Rights.
                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                              Thu, November 3, 2011 - 4:58 PM
                              your complaint wasn't that the efforts necessarily be successful, which, of course, would be wonderful if they were(granted you approved of the efforts), but rather that they not be "generically unspecific and anti-corporation". does this proposed amendment not contravene those criteria?

                              besides, the amendment may end up having results that are antithetical to what the framers intend. it could end up that states don't place limits on campaign contributions and the system as it currently is set up stays the same. or, as i'm sure the framers intend, states put caps on contributions and we end up with a system less dependent on money and corporate donors.
                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                Thu, November 3, 2011 - 6:27 PM
                                "your complaint wasn't that the efforts necessarily be successful, which, of course, would be wonderful if they were(granted you approved of the efforts), but rather that they not be "generically unspecific and anti-corporation". does this proposed amendment not contravene those criteria? "

                                Futile goals are not serious goals. Abolishing capitalism, supported by some protesters, is also a futile goal. Besides, I don't recall seeing a single sign at Occupy LA that supported a constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United, much less something resembling unified support for such an end. It's just not going to happen. Constitutional amendments typically come as a result of nationally recognized urgencies. I doubt if 5% of the population could explain Citizens United, much less get morally outraged by it. And why presume that there would be general support among Occupy protesters for reversing Citizens, since reversing it would allow for censoring labor union speech as well as corporate speech?
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Thu, November 3, 2011 - 8:06 PM
                                  <And why presume that there would be general support among Occupy protesters for reversing Citizens, since reversing it would allow for censoring labor union speech as well as corporate speech?>

                                  because there is a presumption that the majority of occupy wall streeters are on the left and the citizens united decision was much more repellent to people on the left than it was to people on the right.

                                  here's a poll on citizens united. from the results, it seems that the american public, in principle, believes that campaign contributions are a protected form of "free speech". however, 3 out of 4 believe that limits should be allowed on contributions from corporations and unions:
                                  sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/ori....gif
                                  www.gallup.com/poll/12533...speech.aspx

                                  what's interesting, to me at least, is that the supreme court's approval has taken a dip in the past 2 years and much of that is blamed on the citizens united decision.

                                  here's another poll that reaffirms that opinion, though as the article shows, some problems arise when you really look at the numbers:
                                  www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/br...ns-united
                                  www.google.com/url
                                  <Polls also show that this issue inspires not just disapproval, but a desire for serious action. The Hart survey found broad, bipartisan support for the notion of amending the U.S. Constitution to affirm that corporations don’t have the same rights as people, effectively overturning Citizens United. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Republicans said they would support such an amendment.>
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Fri, November 4, 2011 - 12:07 AM
                                    That first poll wasn't a poll on Citizens United. The question didn't reference CU and only asked if corporations and unions should be limited on how much they can contribute to candidates. Corporations and unions already are limited on how much they can contribute and CU didn't change that. CU just said that corporations and unions can't be prohibited or restricted from directly creating advertisement in support of candidates. That last poll is suspicious and I'd like to see the actual questioning. What sense is it for only 22% of the public to be even aware of CU but 79% wanting to overturn it?
                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                      Fri, November 4, 2011 - 5:30 PM
                                      it may not be directly asked about but the questions are related to the citizens united case. it clearly says that on the page, not to mention in the title explaining the results of the poll. plus the fact that it was released the day after the citizens united case was decided says a lot too.

                                      i looked for the questions for the second poll but had no luck. the hart research associates webpage is pretty nondescript and not very helpful.

                                      <CU just said that corporations and unions can't be prohibited or restricted from directly creating advertisement in support of candidates.>

                                      and it basically rendered the first set of restrictions moot.
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Thu, November 3, 2011 - 8:24 PM
                                  and sorry if i don't buy into your belief that because you didn't see a single sign at a single protest that it isn't an issue of a good amount of people involved in the protests. that would be like me going to bonnaroo and not seeing a single person wearing a business suit. that doesn't mean there aren't any businessmen or women attending the festival.
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:13 AM
                                    "that would be like me going to bonnaroo and not seeing a single person wearing a business suit. that doesn't mean there aren't any businessmen or women attending the festival."

                                    you don't go to Bonaroo to conduct business (at least the type that requires, or is facilitated by, wearing a suit. Conversely, a protest would be where you openly express your political ideas you feel are driving that protest
                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                      Sat, November 5, 2011 - 1:31 PM
                                      the point is the absence of a sign expressing that viewpoint doesn't mean it that viewpoint isn't held by many of the people there. the point isn't that people need to wear a business suit to bonnaroo to conduct business. they can still conduct business without wearing a business suit, whether or not it's the type of business that requires it.

                                      <where you openly express your political ideas>

                                      do those ideas necessarily have to be expressed through a sign? the fact that we are even talking about the reinstatement of glass-steagall means someone, somewhere was talking about it. who cares whether it was on a sign or not except people who want to dismiss the protesters as disorganized, muddled, and lacking a clear, coherent message?
                                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                        Sat, November 5, 2011 - 1:43 PM
                                        "the point is the absence of a sign expressing that viewpoint doesn't mean it that viewpoint isn't held by many of the people there. the point isn't that people need to wear a business suit to bonnaroo to conduct business. they can still conduct business without wearing a business suit, whether or not it's the type of business that requires it. "

                                        and I pointed out how Bonaroo isn't the proper venue to conduct the type of business that requires a suit, but the opposite is true of signs and various other paraphernalia expressing your political views at a protest


                                        "do those ideas necessarily have to be expressed through a sign? "

                                        No, but being that there isn't much visible support for it, in a context you would expect such support to be very visible, makes it unlikely


                                        " the fact that we are even talking about the reinstatement of glass-steagall means someone, somewhere was talking about it."

                                        people are also talking about open borders and guaranteed employment, but that doesn't mean such ideas are central to the movement


                                        "who cares whether it was on a sign or not except people who want to dismiss the protesters as disorganized, muddled, and lacking a clear, coherent message? "

                                        you seem to be trying to disqualify facts for the implications they would have for the movement, as opposed to those facts being correct or not.

                                        that tends not to be a very good way to analyze anything
                                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                          Sat, November 5, 2011 - 3:14 PM
                                          <and I pointed out how Bonaroo isn't the proper venue to conduct the type of business that requires a suit, but the opposite is true of signs and various other paraphernalia expressing your political views at a protest>

                                          i'm not sure why this even matters. it's beside the point. the point, in a way, is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

                                          <people are also talking about open borders and guaranteed employment, but that doesn't mean such ideas are central to the movement>

                                          never claimed that. all i've claimed is that the idea is part of the movement. it doesn't mean that it's goal number 1. besides that, in another thread i posted two people carrying signs saying, "reinstate glass-steagall". and that's just two that i found in a two-second search i did last night. i can't say that i've gone through every single photo taken at every single protest across the country since the middle of september. i'm guessing there would be more, but who knows?

                                          <you seem to be trying to disqualify facts for the implications they would have for the movement, as opposed to those facts being correct or not.>

                                          and your analysis seems to be saying that because you haven't seen any signs stating "reinstate glass-steagall" that means that idea is not part of the movement.

                                          would having signs bring more visibility to the issue? i'm sure it would. i never claimed otherwise. but not having signs doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist within the movement.
                                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                            Sat, November 5, 2011 - 9:39 PM
                                            "i'm not sure why this even matters. it's beside the point. the point, in a way, is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

                                            well you brought up people not wearing suits to bonaroo isn't evidence that there are no business men there. And I'm pointing out Bonaroo isn't the type of venue people wear suits, so it's only natural not to see them there. The exact opposite is true of visible support for the policy goals of a protest at said protest. You expect to see it for obvious reasons


                                            "never claimed that. all i've claimed is that the idea is part of the movement. it doesn't mean that it's goal number 1"

                                            in the sense that some people support those ideas, which can be said about any number of things, including open boarders and guaranteed employment


                                            " besides that, in another thread i posted two people carrying signs saying, "reinstate glass-steagall". and that's just two that i found in a two-second search i did last night. "

                                            the fact that you need to search for it highlights the issues I am talking about: no clearly defined goal or message, beyond we are angry at WS.



                                            "and your analysis seems to be saying that because you haven't seen any signs stating "reinstate glass-steagall" that means that idea is not part of the movement. "

                                            Not at all, Jeff is saying it's one of the underlying elements of the protests (as in it's what the main body of the supporters want), I am saying it clearly isn't, and that there seems to be no clear consensus on what they want


                                            "would having signs bring more visibility to the issue? i'm sure it would. i never claimed otherwise. but not having signs doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist within the movement. "

                                            Never claimed it didn't. What I have been questioning is it's level of support

                                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                              Mon, November 7, 2011 - 9:47 PM
                                              <the fact that you need to search for it highlights the issues I am talking about: no clearly defined goal or message, beyond we are angry at WS.>

                                              the main reason i searched for it is to provide proof that there were actually signs saying so, contrary to ron's claims that because he saw none, there were none.
                                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                          Mon, November 7, 2011 - 3:56 PM
                                          <<besides being angry at the relationship between Washington and wall street there isn't a message.>

                                          Do you really think that they are just upset about the relationship itself? Or do you think people are actually smart enough to realize that there are specific results coming from that relationship that have a negative impact on our society? Obviously it is the RESULTS coming out of that relationship that people oppose, ie tax loopholes for the rich, deregulation that resulted in banking entities being created that caused our economic downturn. Pretending that just having a relationship by iteself is enough to anger people is to really ignore the totality of the story is it not? Without specific negative results for the consumer coming out of that relationship, there is nothing to actually oppose is there? We must tell the entire story, not just scratch the surface and lay the blame for your own superficial investigation at the feet of the OWS movement.
                                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                            Mon, November 7, 2011 - 4:38 PM
                                            "Do you really think that they are just upset about the relationship itself? Or do you think people are actually smart enough to realize that there are specific results coming from that relationship that have a negative impact on our society? Obviously it is the RESULTS coming out of that relationship that people oppose, ie tax loopholes for the rich, deregulation that resulted in banking entities being created that caused our economic downturn."

                                            What people could identify as the results of that relationship can vary widely, Jeff. hence your declaration that they must support this certain thing, because, simply, that is how you see it, is rather laughable
                                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                              Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:07 AM
                                              <<What people could identify as the results of that relationship can vary widely,

                                              Please provide examples of this wide variance in specific results of these relationships that you indicate exists.
                                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:10 AM
                                                Please provide examples of this wide variance in specific results of these relationships that you indicate exists.


                                                Well, Jeff, they could speak to the ability to offshore, to use foreign tax havens, subsidies for companies with wide profit margins, the ability to force bidding, and offers of favorable tax terms, by local and state govts.

                                                In fact, as per my point, the list is rather endless
                                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:21 AM
                                                  <<Well, Jeff, they could speak to the ability to offshore, to use foreign tax havens, subsidies for companies with wide profit margins, the ability to force bidding, and offers of favorable tax terms, by local and state govts.

                                                  These are not variances, they are examples that speak to the same thing, ie corporations stacking the system for the rich. A variance would be examples that are at odds with each other.
                                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                    Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:40 AM
                                                    "These are not variances, they are examples that speak to the same thing, ie corporations stacking the system for the rich. A variance would be examples that are at odds with each other."

                                                    Jeff, those examples speak to specific issues that could be interpreted as a result of the relationship you mentioned below. So merely mentioning the relationship doesn't outline a specific policy goal

                                                    Not sure how many times we need to cover the same thing.
                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                          Sat, November 5, 2011 - 10:59 AM
                          Nothing generic about the very specific demands involved in issues such as reinstatement of the Glass Steagal Act. Or the tax loopholes that allow corporations to pay zero income tax while the middle class bears more and more of the burden. These are very specific issues that the OWS movement shares, regardless of any other pet projects they may have. My opinion is that there are issues that bind the movement, much like the Tea party had issues that bound them together, regardless of whether their pet issue may have been Obama's birth certificate or not.
                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                            Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:05 AM
                            correction: "These are very specific issues that *some of* the OWS movement shares"
                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                              Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:12 AM
                              Sorry, but I have seen ZERO opposition to these core demands of the OWS movement. Issues such as these that cause the inequities between the rich and poor are at the core of the idea of 99% vs 1%. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the reality of the movement.
                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:15 AM
                                "Sorry, but I have seen ZERO opposition to these core demands of the OWS movement."

                                and you have seen zero evidence that they are central to the protests...


                                "Issues such as these that cause the inequities between the rich and poor are at the core of the idea of 99% vs 1%. "

                                People can attribute this divide to all manner of things, even capitalism itself


                                "To pretend otherwise is to ignore the reality of the movement."

                                or to point out the obvious, even if you dislike it...
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:29 AM
                                  Tons of evidence being that I have seen nothing but support for these issues and ZERO opposition. Yes, people with differing overall philosophies CAN find common ground in the specifics. Can you name one philosophical group within the movement that disagrees with the idea that the tax code is stacked for the rich? Or that opposes the reinstatement of the Glass Steagal Act?

                                  <<People can attribute this divide to all manner of things, even capitalism itself

                                  Whether your issue is capitalism or unbridled capitalism, both can agree that the tax code is stacked for the rich, and both can agree that corporations are not paying their fair share. There IS common ground, hence the reason these issues are the glue that binds the OWS movement together. To pretend that they can't find common ground is to ignore the reality.

                                  <<or to point out the obvious, even if you dislike it...

                                  nothing obvious about pretending that differing ideologies can't find common ground.
                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                          Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:51 PM
                          <<To do what precisely? To be generically and unspecifically anti-corporation, just like the protests appear to be?

                          Favoring increasing taxes on the rich is not generic and unspecified, and neither is a desire to increase banking regulations.
                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                            Thu, December 1, 2011 - 12:07 AM
                            "Favoring increasing taxes on the rich is not generic and unspecified"

                            That's a common theme? Really? Didn't see many signs or posters to that effect. If that were the focus, I might have actually been a supporter.

                            "and neither is a desire to increase banking regulations."

                            That is completely generic and unspecific. Whic increased regulations? Any new regulations are good regulations?
                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                      Fri, October 21, 2011 - 7:57 PM
                      yeah, but plenty of protesters think they can change the policies of wall street. while they might fail in that endeavor, they won't fail in changing minds of people all across the country.

                      eventually, it'll get to a critical mass that, hopefully, it will result in changes in washington, which will then result in changes on wall street.
                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                  Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:45 PM
                  <<so you're saying direct public pressure towards politicians? That would be DC, mate

                  I disagree. You are pretending that one must either protest on wall street or DC, and reality is such that the OWS movement is doing both. Simply protesting in DC would be another yawner, whereas the occupy movement allows a presence in any US city, and this has garnered a lot of press attention. And being that our representatives live in many of these states and cities, it most certainly puts pressure on our politicians. Or have you forgotten that this is a representative Democracy, with our politicians splitting their time between DC and their home states?

                  <<It's hard to say. But my point was that their complaints seems to be predominately focused on the failings of wallstreet

                  Their complaints seem to be predominately focused on the marriage between wall street and our politicians, and how that money corrupts the system. Only focusing on the politicians would be to only put attention toward half of the problem.

                  And again, many people dont' have the time or $$ to travel to DC, this movement allows people to protest where they live.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: occupy wall street polled

                    Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:47 PM
                    "Their complaints seem to be predominately focused on the marriage between wall street and our politicians, and how that money corrupts the system. Only focusing on the politicians would be to only put attention toward half of the problem."

                    Yeah, the half they have control over
                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                      Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:52 PM
                      The point is not that they expect to change the mind of Wall Street. The point is to draw attention to the problems that exist, to put pressure on our politicians, and in no small part to energize the progressive movement. In addition to the fact that the expansion of the movement allows for people to protest in their home states where there elected representatives actually live.
                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                        Wed, October 19, 2011 - 4:35 PM
                        They're not going to bring Wall Street to some kind of spiritual revelation.

                        What they possibly can do is to frighten Wall Street into being less resistent to new forms of federal regulation to be administered by a government answering more responsibly to voters.

                        Why should Wall Street be scared?

                        That's up to them.

                        Let them imagine what are other possible options to cooperating with a more responsible government.

                        I can think of a few scenarios, and cooperating with new regulatory policy should be preferable to at least some of them.
                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:37 PM
                  <<so you're saying direct public pressure towards politicians? That would be DC, mate

                  Dustin, why dismiss the fact that our elected representatives work both in DC and in their home states? And that subsequently putting protesting where these representatives live, and where people actually vote for them can be just as effective?
              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                Thu, November 3, 2011 - 3:53 PM
                "do you really think there would be sustained media coverage if the protest had begun in washington dc? "

                There would be if thousands were semi-permanently camped out on the Mall.
                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                  Thu, November 3, 2011 - 4:05 PM
                  i doubt it. i'll say it once again: it's far more of a news story to camp out in front of wall street than it is to camp out in front of the capitol building or the white house.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: occupy wall street polled

                    Thu, November 3, 2011 - 4:41 PM
                    "it's far more of a news story to camp out in front of wall street than it is to camp out in front of the capitol building or the white house. "

                    It wasn't that big a news story until it started lasting a long time and then people like Michael Moore started showing up. It's longevity and popularity among some celebrities is more newsworthy than its location.
                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                      Thu, November 3, 2011 - 5:01 PM
                      it didn't become a big news story until at least 2 weeks after it began and then only because of clashes with police. it really took off after the brooklyn bridge incident.

                      this chart illustrates exactly that:
                      graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...g480.png

                      what i find interesting in this chart is the difference between OWS and tea party coverage. tea party coverage basically came out of the gate as a story:
                      graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...g480.png
                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                        Thu, November 3, 2011 - 6:19 PM
                        "this chart illustrates exactly that: "

                        Then it had less to do with location than with what happened at the protests

                        "tea party coverage basically came out of the gate as a story: "

                        Perhaps because the Tea Party began with something resembling specific policy goals that opposed prevailing wisdom in Washington: Oppose stimulus packages and bail outs; oppose tax increases; oppose Obamacare.
                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                          Thu, November 3, 2011 - 8:16 PM
                          <Then it had less to do with location than with what happened at the protests>

                          so then what's the allure of the OWS protests to the media? i mean, if it's just another violent protest like we see on TV from time to time, i.e. london riots and unrest in greece, then why is the media continuing to cover it so diligently and with less focus on the violence and more on the "message"of the protest? there has to be something else at play. do you think the oakland protests would have gotten as much play if they marched on city hall instead of the port? i don't really think so. granted, the violence there has helped keep it in the news but the main gist of many stories is about the protest itself rather than the violence. the violence just happens to be a by-product of overzealous protesters and aggressive police.
                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                            Thu, November 3, 2011 - 11:55 PM
                            Are they focusing on the "message" of the protest? Hard to do that when any message beyond generic corporation bashing is muddled. I suspect the media is covering it because of its longevity, it's evolving nature (expanding to different cities, including new complaints about police brutality, etc.), its embrace by certain celebrities, and the fact that it's so vague in its message that it has attracted a wide variety of lefties who are projecting whatever message they want it to mean on it.
                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                              Fri, November 4, 2011 - 10:11 AM
                              << Hard to do that when any message beyond generic corporation bashing is muddled >>

                              Why do you keep pushing this non-fact? Did someone on the radio with a loud buttery voice *tell* you this truthless bullshit?

                              You should really be more critical of the right-wing talking points you ladle out in here.
                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:39 AM
                                <<Why do you keep pushing this non-fact?

                                I have to agree, it is an absolute non-fact being pushed by the rightwing media in an attempt to downplay the movement.
                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                              Fri, November 4, 2011 - 5:48 PM
                              they focus on the "message" to the point of criticizing it, as you've done, as "muddled". the media has its panties in a bunch about the "message" because they can't reduce it to a fancy-looking chyron. i wonder if that's because OWS is both anti-government and anti-corporation rather than just anti-government. why would the media want to help create a groundswell against the very entities that keep them afloat?

                              www.salon.com/2011/10/05/..._the_people/
                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                Fri, November 4, 2011 - 7:24 PM
                                1) besides being angry at the relationship between Washington and wall street there isn't a message.

                                2) the fact that there isn't a clear message under mines it's ability to actually achieve success, for reasons we already discussed. So yes, such deserves criticism for that

                                -a perfect example of this is the fact that many probably find issue with policy coming from the white house, but would never vote against Obama. SO there is really no reason for him to do much beyond playing lip service to them
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Sat, November 5, 2011 - 10:11 AM
                                  <<1) besides being angry at the relationship between Washington and wall street there isn't a message. >>

                                  That you'll admit exists.

                                  The "no message" meme you guys fling around in place of facts and experience is really laughable.

                                  All you're doing is admitting your own media-based ignorance of OWS.

                                  << the media has its panties in a bunch about the "message" because they can't reduce it to a fancy-looking chyron >

                                  Oh, their message likely *can* be reduced to slogans and oneliners, but the media won't print or air any of it if they did. The last thing the press will give space or time to is people who want to replace the exploitative economy their owners live and fatten by with something else.

                                  The Tea Party lumpen, with their canned racism and violent language, are much more their speed.
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Sat, November 5, 2011 - 10:17 AM
                                    dude, I absolutely wish there was a more focused policy message to the protests, and that they had a chance of achieving something significant (because some serious reform is needed). But as of right now I think all they will accomplish is forcing some establishment types to play lip service to their cause


                                    Also, I made it pretty clear they had a message, it's just that message is unfocused and vague
                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                      Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:32 AM
                                      << dude >>

                                      I can't see what your Keanu Reeves impersonation adds to this discussion.

                                      <<< I absolutely wish there was a more focused policy message to the protests >>

                                      You aren't looking.

                                      Seriously, is there an OWS movement in your city? Go there, hang out a few hours, then come back and tell me again they're "unfocused" and "vague." I have *yards* of proof in my email account they have policy debates and their organizing/management techniques are so new that most journos don't recognize them as such.

                                      << Perhaps because the Tea Party began with something resembling specific policy goals >>

                                      Those "goals" and the same billionaire-bought wingnut crap we've heard out of GOP pols and the corpo media for literally decades look an awful lot alike.
                                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                        Sat, November 5, 2011 - 12:27 PM
                                        "I can't see what your Keanu Reeves impersonation adds to this discussion. "

                                        and your little fit does?


                                        "You aren't looking. "

                                        Indeed I am.


                                        "Seriously, is there an OWS movement in your city? Go there, hang out a few hours, then come back and tell me again they're "unfocused" and "vague." I have *yards* of proof in my email account they have policy debates and their organizing/management techniques are so new that most journos don't recognize them as such. "

                                        I know plenty of people involved with the movement.
                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                      Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:50 AM
                                      <<dude, I absolutely wish there was a more focused policy message to the protests

                                      If that were true, then you would not be ignoring that peole are not just opposing the cozy relationship between wall street and DC, there are very specific resultscoming from that relationship that are opposed. People are not opposing that relationship for no reason.
                                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                        Sat, November 5, 2011 - 12:28 PM
                                        "If that were true, then you would not be ignoring that peole are not just opposing the cozy relationship between wall street and DC, there are very specific resultscoming from that relationship that are opposed. People are not opposing that relationship for no reason."

                                        Jeff, repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make something a fact
                                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                          Mon, November 7, 2011 - 3:50 PM
                                          Is it your assertion that there is a portion of the OWS movement that supports tax loopholes for the rich? Is it your assertion that there is a portion of the OWS movement that supports the repealing of Glass Steagal? Is it your assertion that there is a portion of the movement that supports the banks gouging the consumers with outrageous fees? Is it your assertion that some are trying to get people to stay with big banks instead of switching to credit unions? Of course not, there is zero evidence that even one person in the movement is promoting such an agenda, any one of those would be ludicrous being that it is antithetical to the movements message. Pretending that many and varying ideologies can't share common ground is also absolutely ludicrous. The movement is premised on the idea that the system is stacked in very specific ways for the 1%, and those that are anti-capitalist and those that are simply against unbridled capitalism can and do share that opinion. They can and do share the opinion that we should end the crazy tax loopholes for the rich and corporations, they can and do share the idea that deregulation has helped to create the very entities that are responsible for our economies nose dive, they can and do share opposition to gouging of custormers by the big banks (and subsequent switching to credit unions).

                                          Ultimately it comes down to to this, you are getting stuck in a black and white paradigm that pretends people from differing ideologies can't find common ground in opposition to these very specific things I have listed. I am stuck in no such paradigm. People CAN work together in working toward change where we are in agreement. Socialists, communists, libertarians, capitalists.......etc. can certainly agree that the banks in conspiracy with some in Govt. are fucking us, sandpaper condom....no vaseline. If your ass is sore, it matters not your core ideology, we can all agree that it hurts.
                                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                            Mon, November 7, 2011 - 4:36 PM
                                            Jeff, I explained my assertion to you a number of times. So I am unsure what your confusion is. Also, endlessly repeating yourself doesn't overcome the shortcomings of your arguments, which I have also pointed out numerous times
                                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                              Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:04 AM
                                              <<Also, endlessly repeating yourself doesn't overcome the shortcomings of your arguments

                                              You have not pointed out any shortcomings to my argument. As a matter of fact, the poll that this thread is based on backs up many of my assertions regarding the specifics of what these differing ideologies find in common. For instance, 77% of the OWS movement favor ending tax loopholes and raising taxes on the 1%. 73% agree that we need greater regulation on the banks, ie, reinstatement of glass steagal etc. So you can endlessly repeat the false assertion that these differing ideologies don't find common ground in these specifics, it won't make it any less false.
                                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:06 AM
                                                "73% agree that we need greater regulation on the banks, ie, reinstatement of glass steagal etc."

                                                Jeff, while it very well could speak to support for reinstating GS, it doesn't necessarily speak to that. So once again we are confronted with you arguing your interpretation of the issue is right, despite it being possible to interpret it in a number of ways
                                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:16 AM
                                                  Be that as it may, greater Govt. regulation is just as specific as those demands Ron layed out for the Tea Party. As is raising taxes on the rich. Thanks for playing. :)~

                                                  <<despite it being possible to interpret it in a number of ways

                                                  Examples please.
                                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                    Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:19 AM
                                                    "Be that as it may, greater Govt. regulation is just as specific as those demands Ron layed out for the Tea Party. As is raising taxes on the rich. Thanks for playing. :)~ "

                                                    so despite being wrong you were right? Also, I am unsure what Ron's argument, what ever it was, has to do with mine


                                                    "Examples please."

                                                    besides the ones I listed?
                                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                      Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:22 AM
                                                      <<"Be that as it may, greater Govt. regulation is just as specific as those demands Ron layed out for the Tea Party. As is raising taxes on the rich. Thanks for playing. :)~ "

                                                      so despite being wrong you were right? <<

                                                      What was I wrong about? 70% agree that we need greater Govt. regulation, that is a fact. An example of these regulations is Glass Steagal. Please be specific as to what exactly I was wrong about.

                                                      <<Also, I am unsure what Ron's argument, what ever it was, has to do with mine

                                                      OK, show me examples from the Tea Party that you find specific and acceptable. What = a specific demand in your book?
                                                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                        Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:35 AM
                                                        "What was I wrong about? 70% agree that we need greater Govt. regulation, that is a fact. An example of these regulations is Glass Steagal. Please be specific as to what exactly I was wrong about. "

                                                        Jeff, I was already specific numerous times: GS is not the only way to interpret "greater govt regulation


                                                        "OK, show me examples from the Tea Party that you find specific and acceptable. What = a specific demand in your book? "

                                                        What does the demands of the TP have to do with the demands of OWS being specific, or not?
                                                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                          Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:45 AM
                                                          <<Jeff, I was already specific numerous times: GS is not the only way to interpret "greater govt regulation

                                                          I did not say it was the only way, subsequently I could not possibly of been wrong being that it is one example among many. Greater Govt. regulation of the banking industry is just as specific as the Tea Parties demands for lower taxes. And yet I did not see you indicating that we don't know what the Tea Party wants. Greater Govt. regulations on the banking industry, raise taxes on the rich, these are specific enough to know what the movement is demanding. Could there be differences on the exact method to get to lower taxes among the Tea Party? Absolutely. Could there be differences on the exact method to get to greater Govt. regluation of the banking industry? Absolutely. But that does not mean we don't know what they want the result to be. Case closed.
                                                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                            Tue, November 8, 2011 - 11:22 AM
                                                            "And yet I did not see you indicating that we don't know what the Tea Party wants."

                                                            and I've never seen you speak out against the child rape committed by the LRA. But again, so what, and what does the tea party have to do with the goals of OWS being specific, or not?
                                                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                              Tue, November 8, 2011 - 11:32 AM
                                                              Because the Tea Party was effective in a number of ways, in elections, with the type of legislation being put forth, the influence they had in pulling their own party to the right, and in changing the national conversation. And being that the OWS movement is just as specific, then obviously your claim that the movement needs to be more specific in order to be effective in any ways is a mistaken assumption.
                                                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:06 PM
                                                                "Because the Tea Party was effective in a number of ways, in elections, with the type of legislation being put forth, the influence they had in pulling their own party to the right, and in changing the national conversation."

                                                                Jeff, no one has argued that the OWS movement couldn't push the democratic party more to the left.But on the issue of specifics in the tea party, one of the first protests to adopt the moniker was:

                                                                "BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -- Just call it the Binghamton Tea Party without the tea. A group of locals took to the South Washington Street Bridge Saturday and poured a few gallons of soda into the Susquehanna River to protest Governor Paterson's new proposed taxes. "

                                                                centralny.ynn.com/content/a...n-s-taxes/


                                                                and: "Several hundred people gathered on the Capitol steps yesterday to protest the "B word" -- the ongoing bailout, by the federal government, of mismanaged banks, poorly run auto makers, homeowners who can't pay their mortgages and state officials who can't control their spending.

                                                                The event, organized by the Commonwealth Foundation, a politically conservative group, and two local radio talk show hosts, was called the "Harrisburg Tea Party."

                                                                "These are people who believe in limited federal and state government, but who think government has overstepped its limited role in our lives," said foundation President Matthew Brouillette."



                                                                Read more: www.post-gazette.com/pg/0906...d97hYqBD

                                                                and: "WASHINGTON — A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government."

                                                                www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13...estweb.html

                                                                and: "eli Carender, blogger, teacher and star of the movement, organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests — before they were even called Tea Party protests. As far back as February of 2009, Carender held a rally against the economic stimulus package in downtown Seattle.

                                                                She built a following, and by Tax Day, she had more than 1,000 demonstrators in downtown Seattle. Dressed as Alice in Wonderland, Carender took the stage and channeled Janis Joplin with her rendition of "Obama, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz." The song was YouTube gold."

                                                                www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php
                                                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:18 PM
                                                                  <<Jeff, no one has argued that the OWS movement couldn't push the democratic party more to the left.

                                                                  Have you or have you not argued that the message is not specific enough to be effective? Yes or no?
                                                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                                    Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:24 PM
                                                                    "Have you or have you not argued that the message is not specific enough to be effective? Yes or no?"

                                                                    effective in enforcing effective reforms in the relationship between wall street and the govt? Yes


                                                                    Pushing the democratic party to the left doesn't necessitate such an achievement
                                                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                                                      Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:40 PM
                                                                      You are ignoring the body of what I indicated. The Tea Party was effective in a number of ways, in elections, with the type of legislation being put forth, the influence they had in pulling their own party to the right, and in changing the national conversation. ALL of this is also possible with the OWS movement, and in reality we are seeing it happen in many ways as we speak. It has only just begun and you are ready to declare it a failure. I would not be so hasty if I were you, the Tea Party surprised many folks with their inlfuence as well.
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:45 AM
                                  <<1) besides being angry at the relationship between Washington and wall street there isn't a message

                                  AND the specific results of that relationship, ie, a tax system stacked for the rich, ie, the repealing of regulations that kept the banks in check, ie, repealing of Glass Steagal, ......etc. etc. Pretending that this relationship between Washington and wall street has not had very specific results that the OWS movement opposes is to only look at half of the story. You got the first part right in the above sentence, but ignored the actual results of that relationship, results that caused people to step out and speak up.
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Sat, November 5, 2011 - 1:37 PM
                                  <besides being angry at the relationship between Washington and wall street there isn't a message.>

                                  why exactly does there need to be a message other than that? it's like you are saying "they have a message, but, shit, it's not good enough for me, so i think i'm going to go ahead and criticize them for not having a message that i want to hear."

                                  <clear message>

                                  you yourself just pointed out that there is a message of being angry at the relationship between washington and wall street. if your problem is that they don't have another message other than that, then you might have a legitimate gripe. but let's not talk out of both sides of our mouth and say they have a message/don't have a message.
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Sat, November 5, 2011 - 1:48 PM
                                    "why exactly does there need to be a message other than that? "

                                    there doesn't, you're just unlikely to accomplish much without one (goes back to my example of no clear agenda politicians need to adhere to)


                                    "they have a message, but, shit, it's not good enough for me, so i think i'm going to go ahead and criticize them for not having a message that i want to hear."

                                    again, you seem to be taking issues with facts because of their implications, not their validity.


                                    "you yourself just pointed out that there is a message of being angry at the relationship between washington and wall street. if your problem is that they don't have another message other than that, then you might have a legitimate gripe. but let's not talk out of both sides of our mouth and say they have a message/don't have a message. "

                                    Being angry at the relationship between Washington and WS isn't a clear political agenda (Ive clarified the difference a number of times. So let's not have some pointless argument when what I am criticizing is rather obvious, simply because I am speaking colloquially)
                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 2:33 AM
                                "they can't reduce it to a fancy-looking chyron."

                                I don't think anyone can. Again, I zig zagged through the Occupy LA campsite and found messages against war, against genetically modified food (an apparently big issue there), for animal rights (another popular issue), generic corporation/Wall Street bashing with no specific proposals about what to do with them (if you ignore the display calling for the heads of various Wall Street and right wing types), a petition to abolish the death penalty, a petition for a millionaire's tax, generic calls for a "fair" economy (as opposed to all the people who want an unfair one?), pro Native American rights, a call to open borders, calls to legalize marijuana/hemp and/or end the drug war (another popular issue), to reverse Citizens United, lots of generic, unspecific slogans (like "Listen to us!", calls for an end to "the war on workers", generic calls for rebellion and civil disobedience, and "We are the 99%!"), to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, to tax Wall Street transactions (one sign for that), satirizing of "The American Dream", a call to lower tuition, general economic complaints, etc.

                                Real coherent, clear message they got there.
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Wed, November 9, 2011 - 9:39 AM
                                  i'm guessing that a tea party rally would have a similar mix of signs advocating a plethora of different goals and messages.
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Wed, November 9, 2011 - 2:44 PM
                                    They can and they do. What signs stand out and what signs make it in to the news stories? A sign with specific tax proposals? Or some "Nobama is a foreigner" sign?
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Thu, December 1, 2011 - 12:09 AM
                                    "i'm guessing that a tea party rally would have a similar mix of signs advocating a plethora of different goals and messages. "

                                    Except the Tea Party began with specific positions on issues that were before Washington: Oppose massive spending plans; oppose tax increases. Oppose large increases in federal government (specifically, anti Obamacare)

                                    I think a reason the black community hasn't embraced Occupy more is that black civil rights protest veterans understand that effective protests need to be focused on addressing specific issues

                                    www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ry.html
                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                              Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:37 AM
                              <<Are they focusing on the "message" of the protest?

                              Actually they are, depending as to if you are diversifying your news sources or not. The OWS movement brought the ever increasing income gap divide to the forefront of our national conversation. AND it is beginning to propel specific legislation in Congress to be pushed by progressives, thereby demonstrating that it is indeed giving support and backbone to these ideas. Be that as it may, it has changed the national conversation as we begin the election year, and that can't help but have an effect. This alone demonstrates that the movement has in no small part changed the national dialogue and thereby achieved at least a portion of their goal.
                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                          Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:16 AM
                          Perhaps because the Tea Party began with something resembling specific policy goals that opposed prevailing wisdom in Washington: Oppose stimulus packages and bail outs; oppose tax increases; oppose Obamacare.

                          How is that any different than the OWS demands? Oppose bailouts. Reinstate Glass Steagal. oppose a tax code that is stacked for the rich. How are these any less specific?
                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                      Sat, November 5, 2011 - 11:09 AM
                      There has been very little news regarding celebrities, I am not sure where you got that idea Ron. Protesting at home allows for sustained protests, and allows people that can't make it to DC to become engaged in their own home towns, where people actually vote for the politiicans. This ensures that it is both local and national news. And of course local news is going to have an effect on politicians, who actually reside in these cities and states. Michael Moore was not very big news, what made it big news was when the police started pepper spraying caged in women who were no threat to anyone.
                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                  Sat, November 5, 2011 - 10:52 AM
                  This ignores the point that the OWS movement allows people to protest in their home states.being that our elected representatives split their time between DC and their home states, this absolutely has the effect of putting pressure on our politicians, and does so where the votes against or for these politicians actually happens.
            • Re: occupy wall street polled

              Wed, October 19, 2011 - 11:56 AM
              << where do you think you're more likely to see public pressure forcing change, wall street, or DC? >>

              Wall Street. At least they're talking to the front end of the horse.
          • Re: occupy wall street polled

            Thu, November 3, 2011 - 8:53 PM
            Of course they work for someone. It is a question of trying to go after the nameless, headless corporations who answer to their shareholders and care about their fat salaries, or the politicians who only want to get reelected. Which is the easier target?
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:39 PM
      Brent, you are right in that it is important to understand methodology. But what do they mean by "conditions"? They should have been more specific being that many may well be responding in regards to the conditions being ripe for change, as opposed to conditions being equal to a dictatorial Government.
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Thu, November 3, 2011 - 3:49 PM
      "comparing conditions in the US to those under Middle Eastern dictatorships? Pretty laughable assertion "

      Ditto. Apparently to some,a protest is a protest regardless of what's being protested.
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Wed, October 19, 2011 - 12:56 PM
    They don't need to come to some kind of agreement today as to who they will vote for in a year.

    Lack of a prevailing opinion among them on this point, rather than showing a lack of ideological coherence as I'm sure their critics will say, actually is an indicator that they are issue-focused and not driven, positively or negatively, by questions of party loyalty.

    I'm not involved in the protests, myself, but I did vote for Obama, so I guess I have something to say about re-electing him.

    You might say I haven't decided, but it's more accurate to say that Obama hasn't decided.

    Obama has a year to start walking the walk. If he does, he gets my vote. If he doesn't he doesn't get my vote.

    Fair enough?
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Fri, October 21, 2011 - 8:10 PM
    sites.google.com/site/the9...claration/
    <3. Prohibiting all federal public employees, officers, officials or their immediate family members from ever being employed by any corporation, individual or business that they specifically regulated while in office; nor may any public employee, officer, official or their immediate family members own or hold any stock or shares in any corporation they regulated while in office until a full 5 years after their term is completed; and a complete lifetime ban on accepting all gifts, services, money or thing of value, directly or indirectly, to any elected or appointed federal official or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or other entity that the public official was charged to specifically regulate while in office. In sum, elected politicians and public employees in regulatory roles, may only collect their salary, generous healthcare benefits and pension. Any person, including corporate employees, found guilty and convicted of violating these rules in a court of law by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, shall be sentenced to a term of mandatory imprisonment of no less than one year and nor more than ten years.>

    this seems rather draconian especially for representatives who might only serve a two-year term in congress. i'm not of the mind that any action taken by a representative is highly dubious.
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Fri, October 21, 2011 - 10:52 PM
    www.gallup.com/poll/15016...-goals.aspx
    October 18, 2011
    Most Americans Uncertain About "Occupy Wall Street" Goals
    Majority also lack an opinion about the way the protests are being conducted
    by Jeffrey M. Jones

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Less than half of Americans express an opinion about either the Occupy Wall Street movement's goals or the way it has conducted its protests. Those with an opinion are more likely to approve than disapprove.

    Do you approve or disapprove of the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, or don’t you know enough to say? Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Occupy Wall Street movement protests are being conducted, or don’t you know enough to say? October 2011 results

    The results are based on an Oct. 15-16 USA Today/Gallup poll. The Occupy Wall Street movement has attracted significant media attention for its nearly month-long protest of major U.S. financial institutions in New York, with similar demonstrations taking place in numerous other cities in the United States in recent weeks.

    But the American public does not seem to be very familiar with the movement or its goals. Part of that may stem from the below-average level of attention Americans are paying to the news story. Fifty-six percent say they are following the story closely, including 18% who say very closely. The averages for more than 200 news events Gallup has tracked since the 1990s are 61% closely and 22% very closely.

    Additionally, the lack of knowledge about the movement's goals may be because the movement has not had clearly defined leaders or goals. Rather, it appears to be united by grievances against the wealthiest Americans -- in particular, those who run major Wall Street financial institutions.

    Republicans (57%), Democrats (57%), and independents (55%) are about equally likely to say they are following news about Occupy Wall Street closely.

    Those who are closely following the news about Occupy Wall Street are more likely to approve than disapprove of the movement's goals, but even among this more attentive group there is a substantial degree of uncertainty, 44%. That drops to 27% among the most highly attentive group, those who are following the story "very closely." Among this group, 45% approve and 29% disapprove of the Occupy Wall Street movement's goals.

    Americans paying attention to the news about the Occupy Wall Street movement are more inclined to have an opinion about the way the protests are being conducted, and are somewhat more likely to approve than disapprove of those methods.

    Opinions of Occupy Wall Street Movement's Goals and Conduct, by Attention Paid to News About Occupy Wall Street Movement, October 2011

    Republicans are generally more likely to disapprove than approve of the movement's goals and methods, with the opposite true for Democrats. But half or more of Americans regardless of party affiliation do not have an opinion on either Occupy Wall Street's goals or its actions.

    Public Largely Neutral Toward the Movement

    Given Americans' apparent lack of knowledge about the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is not surprising to find a minority of Americans describing themselves as supporters (26%) or opponents (19%) of the movement. A majority, 52%, say they are neither supporters nor opponents, with another 4% not having an opinion.

    Those closely following the news about the movement are more likely to describe themselves as supporters (38%) than opponents (24%). The percentage of supporters increases to 52% among those following the news "very closely."

    Do you consider yourself to be -- [ROTATED: a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, an opponent of the Occupy Wall Street movement], or neither? October 2011 results

    Democrats are much more likely to say they are supporters (42%) than opponents (8%) of the Occupy Wall Street movement, with the remainder neutral (47%) or not having an opinion. Most Republicans, 55%, are neither supporters nor opponents, though Republicans are much more likely to oppose the movement (34%) than support it (9%).

    The poll sought to contrast support for Occupy Wall Street with another prominent American movement, the Tea Party. In the poll, 22% describe themselves as Tea Party movement supporters, 27% as opponents, and 47% as neither. Gallup has typically found that about equal percentages of Americans are Tea Party supporters or opponents, with the greatest percentage neutral. Thus, the current level of public support for Occupy Wall Street is similar to that for the Tea Party movement.

    Implications

    Protesters have demonstrated in and around Wall Street for nearly a month, with the movement spreading and appearing to gain momentum around the U.S. At the same time, Americans are not highly familiar with the movement's activities or its goals. Those who are familiar with the movement tend to be more approving than disapproving of Occupy Wall Street, though with limited public knowledge about it, its supporters represent roughly a quarter of Americans.

    It is unclear what the future course of Occupy Wall Street will be, and to what extent it will try to influence the outcomes of the 2012 elections or try to force changes in U.S. policies more generally.
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Sat, October 22, 2011 - 9:19 AM
      socialistworker.org/2011/10/...-occupied

      A brief history of Occupying the Workplace! (The labor movement was totally doing this before it was cool.) : )

      When workers occupied
      October 18, 2011

      Today's Occupy movement stands in a long tradition of radical struggles in the U.S. that have used similar tactics. In particular, the U.S. labor movement owes some of its greatest victories to the determination of workers that "we shall not be moved."

      In this excerpt from her book Subterranean Fire: A History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States, www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Sub...-States Sharon Smith tells the story of the legendary Flint sit-down strike against General Motors that began 75 years in December--and how labor's victory at GM unleashed a wave of sit-down strikes across the country.

      BY 1936, working-class confidence was already surging, especially among workers in the tire and auto industries. An economic upturn that began in 1935 and lasted until the fall of 1937 boosted militancy still further. A wave of sit-down strikes spread through the center of rubber production, Akron, Ohio, beginning in early 1936.

      As Jeremy Brecher, author of the labor history survey Strike! described:

      A week seldom passed without one or more sit-downs....The Goodyear management, for instance, assigned two non-union inspectors to a department with instructions to disqualify tires produced by known union men.

      After pelting them with milk bottles for a while, the men sat down and refused to work till the inspectors were removed. The company rushed in forty factory guards with clubs, but a 65-year-old union gum miner met the army at the entrance and told them to "beat it." They went--and the non-union inspectors were replaced.

      Although the leadership of the United Rubber Workers (URW) did not approve of these strikes, the Akron sit-down successfully won most of the workers' immediate demands, though not URW recognition.

      Most sit-downs were fought over wage and work issues, but Goodyear rubber workers also sat down for a full day in the fall of 1936 after company goons beat up a local union leader. The next night, the same group of workers sat down again--this time, to protest a KKK cross-burning in view of their Akron plant.

      Neither top CIO officials nor Roosevelt's emissaries could dampen the Akron rubber workers' defiant mood. In late February 1936, Roosevelt sent his own mediator to convince Goodyear workers to end a two-week, company-wide sit-down. Four thousand workers assembled at a mass meeting responded to the mediator's suggestion that they return to work with the chant, "No, no, a thousand times no, I'd rather be dead than a scab!"

      After a month on strike, the Goodyear workers went back to work with some gains, but no union contract. Rubber workers did not win union recognition from Firestone, Goodyear, Goodrich or U.S. Rubber until a year later--after the United Auto Workers' (UAW) victorious Flint sit-down strike.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      IN NOVEMBER 1936, the sit-downs spread to the auto industry, reaching Detroit in late November, when 1,200 steelworkers occupied the Midland Steel auto-body plant, setting off an organizing frenzy. As socialist and author Bert Cochran describes:

      After the Midland victory, Detroit went into a fever of union agitation and organization. Workers would repeatedly call up union offices demanding that an organizer be sent to their shop to sign them up, or take care of their grievance, or call a strike. Delegations would descend on union headquarters for union books and equipment. There were sit-downs at Gordon Baking, Alcoa, National Automotive Fibers, Bohn Aluminum and Kelsey Hayes.

      The legendary Flint sit-down strike turned the tide more dramatically than any other 1930s strike. During the course of the Flint struggle, which began on December 28, 1936, and lasted until February 11, 1937, 140,000 General Motors autoworkers--out of the company's workforce of 150,000--either sat down or went out on strike.

      But the strike's importance reached far beyond the auto industry. The attention of the entire nation was riveted on the Flint autoworkers as they took matters into their own hands--confronting the company and, at various points, the union leadership, the police, the company's hired thugs and even Roosevelt--and won.

      By the time the Flint sit-down began, auto manufacturers had developed an elaborate apparatus to undermine unions. GM contracted with the Pinkerton Agency to develop an elaborate spy network against union organizers. "Those whom spies identified as unionists were often beaten up or had 'accidents' happen to them," according to historian Stephen Norwood. He explained:

      Fiercely determined to prevent unionization, the auto manufacturers and their parts suppliers developed sophisticated and extensive espionage systems and assembled formidable arsenals of tear gas and firearms, which they shared with municipal police departments in the Detroit area and Flint, active agents in the anti-union campaign.

      Management's commitment to use violence to derail the union effort, its ability to employ the police as an anti-union instrument, and GM's mobilization of vigilante armies in Flint and Anderson, Indiana, precipitated a seemingly endless series of physical confrontations with those attempting to organize the industry.

      Flint was the center of the General Motors' manufacturing empire. GM employed roughly 47,000 Flint workers in 1936. UAW membership in Flint grew from 150 at the end of October to 4,500 by the end of December that year.

      UAW leaders had hoped to delay the start of the GM strike until Michigan's New Deal Gov. Frank Murphy took office on January 1, 1937, but they were unable to hold back the workers. The sit-down started at the Fisher Body plant in Cleveland on December 27, spreading the next day to the Fisher Body and Chevrolet plants in Flint.

      The targeting of these plants was strategic. They were key to production for roughly 75 percent of GM production nationally. Within a week, autoworkers were on strike in Anderson, Ind.; Norwood, Ohio; Janesville, Wis.; and Detroit.

      GM management--while itself refusing to abide by the Wagner Act--responded by declaring the sit-down strikes illegal: "Such strikers are clearly trespassers and violators of the law of the land. We cannot have bona fide collective bargaining with sit-down strikers in illegal possession of the plants. Collective bargaining cannot be justified if one party, having seized the plant, holds a gun at the other party's head."

      GM won a court injunction on January 2, 1937, restraining the strikers from remaining inside the plant and from picketing and confronting strikebreakers. But when the sheriff read the injunction aloud to the sit-down strikers, they laughed him "out of the plant." Judge Edward Black, who issued the injunction, as it turned out, owned $219,900 worth of GM stock.

      Alfred P. Sloan, president of the automaker, informed strikers that GM would "not recognize any union as the sole bargaining agency for its workers, to the exclusion of all others."

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      ON JANUARY 11, management cut off all heat inside Flint's Fisher Body Plant No. 2, and company guards stopped all food from entering the plant. The strikers and their supporters confronted the guards at the plant gates--battling the police, who used clubs, tear gas and riot guns against them. The strikers replied with door hinges and fire hoses. Thousands of supporters streamed in to defend the strikers, who finally succeeded in defeating the police, in what unionists later called "The Battle of the Running Bulls."

      But General Motors continued to refuse to negotiate with the UAW. John L. Lewis, leader of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) union federation, issued this scathing rebuttal, using labor's electoral support as a direct challenge to Roosevelt:

      For six months during the presidential campaign, the economic royalists, represented by General Motors and the DuPonts, contributed their money and used their energy to drive this administration from power. The administration asked labor to help repel this attack, and labor gave it. The same economic royalists now have their fangs in labor. The workers of this country expect the administration to help the strikers in every reasonable way.

      Frances Perkins, Roosevelt's labor secretary, spoke defiantly: "There was a time when picketing was considered illegal. The legality of the sit-down strike has yet to be determined."

      The UAW reacted to Sloan's refusal to negotiate by extending the sit-down strike to GM's motor assembly plant, Chevrolet No. 4, in Flint. Outsmarting police, the union pretended to target Chevrolet Plant No. 9--while quietly seizing No. 4.

      When the company secured a second injunction against the strike in early February, the workers met and voted to hold the plants at all costs, even as Gov. Murphy threatened to call in troops to break the stalemate. The strikers from Fisher Body No. 1 responded to Murphy in writing:

      We have decided to stay in the plant. We have no illusions about the sacrifices which this decision will entail. We fully expect that if a violent effort is made to oust us, many of us will be killed, and we take this means of making it known to our wives, to our children, to the people of the state of Michigan and the country that if this result follows from an attempt to eject us, you [Gov. Murphy] are the one who must be held responsible for our deaths.

      By the next morning, wrote Art Preis, author of Labor's Giant Step, "all the roads into Flint were jammed with unionists from Detroit, Lansing, Pontiac and Toledo." The solidarity contingent, including more than a thousand veterans of the 1934 Toledo Auto-Lite strike, rubber workers from Akron and coal miners from Pittsburgh, formed a ring around Fisher Body No. 1--ready to do battle. The sheriff refused to enforce the injunction.

      GM again turned off all the heat to try and freeze out the strikers. In response, the sit-downers opened all the plant windows to let in the frigid January air--fully aware that if the plant's firefighting equipment froze, GM's insurance contract would not cover any damage that ensued.

      Flint city officials, meanwhile, began arming antiunion vigilantes. The chief of police stated, "Unless John L. Lewis wants a repetition of the Herrin, Ill., massacres, he had better call off his union men. The good citizens of Flint are getting pretty nearly out of hand. We are organizing fast and will have between 500 and 1,000 men ready for any emergency."

      Lewis responded, "I do not doubt your ability to call out your soldiers and shoot the members of our union out of those plants, but let me say that when you issue that order, I shall leave this conference, and I shall enter one of those plants with my own people. And the militia will have the pleasure of shooting me out of the plants with them."

      The police emergency order was pulled, and the governor abruptly changed his mind about sending in the National Guard.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      GM MANAGEMENT, fearing for the safety of their plants and equipment, finally backed down, and on February 11, 1936, signed a six-month contract with the UAW.

      The strikers' willingness to disobey the "law"--in defense of workers' legal right to organize--proved the key to success. Indeed, roughly half of all sit-down strikes in this period demanded basic union recognition, granted by the 1935 Wagner Act yet denied by their employers. As historian Walter Galenson commented,

      The strikes were clearly illegal, and there was little disposition on the part of anyone to take an opposite point of view. Although they would be unthinkable today, they were tolerated in 1937, and even received substantial public support, mainly because large segments of American industry refused to accept collective bargaining. Trade unions were the underdogs, and they were widely represented as merely attempting to secure in practice the rights that Congress had bestowed upon them as a matter of law...

      It is not at all unlikely that General Motors and other manufacturers could have resisted the UAW more successfully if the union had confined itself to more orthodox weapons."

      The strikers' ingenious tactical maneuver, occupying Chevrolet Plant No. 4, had been critical to winning the strike. In addition, during the strike, the strikers organized a system of self-defense, food distribution, exercise and even entertainment, with all decisions made at daily mass meetings.

      Strike leader and socialist Kermit Johnson described the immense satisfaction felt by the workers when, "herding the foremen out of the plant, we sent them on their way with the same advice that most of us had been given year after year during layoffs: 'We'll let you know when to come back!'"

      Women also played a decisive role in the Flint sit-down strike. Some 350 strikers' wives came together to form the Flint Women's Emergency Brigade after taking part in the Battle of the Running Bulls.

      Like the strike itself, the Emergency Brigade was organized along military lines, commanded by socialist and striker's wife, Genora Johnson, and staff captains overseeing individual squads. Far from a typical "women's auxiliary," the Brigade organized a women's speakers' bureau, day-care centers for women on picket duty and a line of defense, ready to battle the police at a moment's notice.

      Their courage was every bit as great as the men's inside the plant. On January 20, Johnson instructed members, "We will form a line around the men, and if the police want to fire, then they'll just have to fire into us."

      The Flint women's experience in the class struggle changed their lives forever, as this remark by one Brigade member shows clearly: "A new type of woman was born in the strike. Women who only yesterday were horrified at unionism, who felt inferior to the task of organizing, speaking, leading have, as if overnight, become the spearhead in the battle of unionism."

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      THE FLINT victory impacted the class struggle nationally, raising working-class confidence still higher. The New York Times reported, "By entirely stopping production of all General Motors cars in January and February and obtaining recognition in the first written and signed agreement on a national scale which that great citadel of the open shop had ever granted to a labor union, the CIO...opened the way for the remarkable upsurge in sentiment for union organization which is now going on in many sections of the country."

      Labor historian Sidney Fine commented, "The GM strike, as a spectacular and successful example of the sit-down, greatly increased the popularity of the tactic." He added, "The sit-downs involved every conceivable type of worker--kitchen and laundry workers in the Israel-Zion Hospital in Brooklyn, pencil makers, janitors, dog catchers, newspaper pressmen, sailors, tobacco workers, Woolworth girls, rug weavers, hotel and restaurant employees, pie bakers, watchmakers, garbage collectors, Western Union messengers, opticians and lumbermen."

      The sit-down tactic also gained popularity as a form of protest in other arenas of struggle. As historian Phillip Nicholson commented, "People sat down in protest at relief offices, in employment agencies, against police in eviction demonstrations. Prisoners adopted the tactic in jails in Joliet, Illinois, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Children did the same in movie theaters to protest program cuts."

      By the end of 1937, nearly a half-million workers all over the United States had taken part in a sit-down strike. The number of all strikes more than doubled between 1936 and 1937, from 2,172 to 4,740, involving nearly 2 million workers overall.

      In the auto industry, there were 170 sit-down strikes against General Motors alone between March and June 1937. As the New York Times observed, the sit-downs were due at least in part to "dissatisfaction on the part of the workers with the union itself," and the auto workers "are as willing in some cases to defy their own leaders as their bosses."

      The Flint victory also helped the CIO organize other mass-production industries in its aftermath. On March 2, the giant United States Steel Corporation signed a CIO contract without a strike.

      The sit-down strike wave earned massive sympathy in the population at large. A Fortune magazine poll in July 1937 showed only 20.1 percent of respondents thought sit-downs should be stopped if the price was bloodshed. Even among corporate executives, just 32.9 percent thought this was a price worth paying to stop the illegal sit-downs.

      By September 1937, the CIO claimed a membership of 3.7 million. But the CIO's success also benefited the AFL, and both organizations grew significantly during the strike wave of the 1930s. The AFL garnered a million new members, bringing its total to 3.6 million. After its intransigence against industrial organizing that caused the CIO split, the AFL subsequently proved willing to organize unskilled workers into its ranks.

      President Green reported to the AFL executive council in April 1937:

      At the present time it is almost impossible for me here, working 24 hours a day, to meet the requests that come in for our organization. Many of these requests are coming from employers suggesting they are ready to bow to the decision of the Supreme Court on the Wagner Act, and they are ready to become organized.

      We are going forward in a wonderful way organizing, and I know most of our National and International Unions are meeting with the same situation, particularly those having jurisdiction in manufacturing and industry."
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Thu, November 3, 2011 - 3:57 PM
      "Additionally, the lack of knowledge about the movement's goals may be because the movement has not had clearly defined leaders or goals. Rather, it appears to be united by grievances against the wealthiest Americans -- in particular, those who run major Wall Street financial institutions. "

      Bingo! It's more a complaint party and marketplace for left wing causes du jour than an actual movement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: occupy wall street polled

    Mon, October 24, 2011 - 10:04 AM
    Here's my view on OWS, vs Tea Party.

    The Tea Party believes government has become too big. They don't hate government, and know it has its place; but also understand that when they become too big- they become dangerous (history has proven this).

    The Tea Party believes our politicians should be more responsible, and have more accountability.

    The Tea Party believes more attention should be paid to the constitution.

    The Tea Party believes in fiscal responsibility, and were against bailouts; even when Bush was apart of it.

    For these beliefs, they were called racist blah blah blah; and don't get me wrong there are/were definitely some kooks within the Tea Party, but ultimately their basic message is spot on. Now they've moved from being protesters, and into the political world- only time will now tell how they go on from there.

    Occupy Wall Street... Where do I begin lol.

    Their anger over bailouts, corruption, and greed is spot on; as these are the very same things the Tea Party protested against, and were angry about. This is where the "solidarity" ends however.

    They should be protesting in Washington, in front of the White House- as the policies that have been coming from there for decades; have shaped the policies of banks. The policies of this administration and the ideology of people like Pelosi, and Obama, allow bailouts, play favorites- which invites the corruption and greed they are so angry about. It was Democratic policy to make banks give out loans so much more easier, for homes people had no business buying- because they didn't have that job to keep that home. So many of these people started losing their homes, especially as we approached 2008. They should be protesting at the homes of Barney Frank, and Frank Dodd.

    I went to Wall Street, to check it out hear from people there; as apposed to seeing it on the news. I wanted the real deal- and I wanted to be fair as I was with the Tea Party. I learned that many of these people at OWS, are very misinformed- not knowing much of anything that goes on in this country, let alone the world. Many of them have a very unrealistic view on how things should be done. What they are protesting against really is crony Capitalism (the ones angered by greed and corruption). I hate crony Capitalism as well, that occurs when you have the government getting its hands into too many things, and playing favorites. Its a stepping stone to Socialism. The many ill-informed among them, just hate Capitalism, and want to do away with it- and want the government to take care of them.

    Then of course we have many out there, who are into the Marxism, Socialism, Communism. I saw quite a few anti-Israel signs, I saw pro radical Islam support like Hamas. It smells, it looks disgusting, we've got some violence (not a lot-some) which lead to arrest. The area was looking like a piss hole. We had drugs going on, people defecating on police cruisers, and in other areas, claims of theft, and even a claim by one female, of rape.

    About a week after I had my OWS experience, I then saw that the American Nazi Party, and Communist Party USA threw money and support behind them, along of course with George Sorros, and greedy corrupt union fat cats, and people like Francis Fox Piven who was there, and has called for violent revolution, and race baiters like Cornell West. I thought to myself what a disorganized and disgusting mess we have here.

    www.fireandreamitchell.com/2011...ists/

    I wasn't shocked to find out about the support coming from ANP, or CPUSA. This isn't the first time Fascist, and Communist rallied together in the streets against the establishment. So needless to say, I did not- and will not align myself with this group, who has such people around them who believe in everything so very anti what this country is about... Now I can only imagine what would have happened to the Tea Party- had it turned out they had support from ANP, or CPUSA.

    In the end, one of two things will come about from this group...

    1. They'll fade away, being that this is a center right country- and the views of many down there are very far to the left. Keep in mind; everyone agrees that there is too much corruption and greed going about, but when you get to the core of what these people believe in, it veers off into the twilight zone, and is a huge turnoff. So its very very dangerous and foolish for the Democrats to support these people, especially with support behind them like mentioned above. It won't be like the Tea Party for them.

    2. A lot of the class warfare garbage coming from them, which was also sparked by some of the class warfare rubbish coming from this administration; could incite violence down the road, that leads to bigger acts of violence, as we've got people down there who have called for, and do want to see a bloody revolution in this country- who also want to implement something tried before many times, and has failed many times, taking the lives of millions.

    So their argument will be "We've tried Capitalism and its failed" Yeah things are failing because we've moved so very far from what our founding fathers had spoke of. The more we've moved away from what these men have implemented- which had made this country quite dynamic and unique; the more we've become a complete mess.

    So in closing, these people at these protest, all over- are nothing more than useful idiots.
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Mon, October 24, 2011 - 1:41 PM
      <<The Tea Party believes government has become too big. They don't hate government, and know it has its place; but also understand that when they become too big- they become dangerous (history has proven this).

      What history would that be? The history of choosing to take care of our elders with Social Security? The history of educating our children? The history of inspecting our meat and poultry? The history of cleaning up and protecting our enviroment? What specific history are you speaking of Kai?

      <<They should be protesting in Washington, in front of the White House- as the policies that have been coming from there for decades

      The location of the protests need not be in DC. Why? Because the movement is about garnering attention for these issues, and a protest in DC would just be another yawner. Not only has protesting on Wall Street garnered the necessary media coverage, the movement has grown in such a way as to allow people to protest in their home states, which also puts pressure on the politicians. Why? Because the House and Senate members actually split their time between DC and their home states, thereby putting pressure on politicians where they actually live. This allows those that don't have either the time or money to travel to DC to join these protests.

      <<I learned that many of these people at OWS, are very misinformed

      What specifically were they misinformed about?

      <<It was Democratic policy to make banks give out loans so much more easier

      That is factually incorrect, Bush signed the legislation responsible for expanding home loans to low income Americans and did so with taxpayer money, specifically by way of programs by Fannie May and Freddie Mac. You can see Bush's own words on the subject as proof: www.youtube.com/watch

      I find it intreresting that Republicans blame Obama for policies set in place by Bush. As a matter of fact, Bush bailed out the banks, not Obama. The Obama administration saved thousands of jobs by preventing the collapse of the American auto industry with bailouts. The Republican party continually conflates the two and erroneously attributes the bank bailouts to Obama.

      Regardless, we have had over TEN years of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and all it has done is demonstrated that trickle down Reaganomics is a failure. Do you really want to go back to the failed economic policies of the Bush administration?

      <<I hate crony Capitalism as well, that occurs when you have the government getting its hands into too many things, and playing favorites. Its a stepping stone to Socialism.

      When corporations own our Govt. that is in reality a stepping stone to Fascism, not socialism. The reason we had an ecomic meltdown was because of deregulation of the banking industry, there were FEWER rules thereby allowing banks to engage in riskier behaviour.

      <<So their argument will be "We've tried Capitalism and its failed"

      The argument is not against Capitalism, the argument is against Crony Capitalism, as you yourself have admitted.

      <<So their argument will be "We've tried Capitalism and its failed"

      At the very least they are educated enough to understand that Bush drove us in to the ditch economically, and that Bush bailed out the bankers that precipitated the financial crisis in the first place. Yes, Obama did some bailing out as well by saving our Auto-Industry, so they blame him for some of this as well. But the primary blame goes where it belongs, the Bush administration policies that led us to the brink of a second great depression. I do NOT want to go back to those policies.

      • Re: occupy wall street polled

        Mon, October 24, 2011 - 1:48 PM
        "I find it intreresting that Republicans blame Obama for policies set in place by Bush. As a matter of fact, Bush bailed out the banks, not Obama."

        actually Obama and McCain publicly endorsed the deal. and their support was considered vital in getting it through congress
        • Re: occupy wall street polled

          Mon, October 24, 2011 - 2:11 PM
          <<actually Obama and McCain publicly endorsed the deal. and their support was considered vital in getting it through congress

          fact remains that we all plugged our noses as Bush bailed out the banks, which many people think saved us from a second great depression. President Obama bailed out the Auto Industry. The fact that Republicans keep attributing the bank bailouts to President Obama is factually incorrect, they have short term memory loss.
          • Re: occupy wall street polled

            Mon, October 24, 2011 - 2:15 PM
            "fact remains that we all plugged our noses as Bush bailed out the banks"

            No, actually Obama and McCain openly endorsed the deal, and were largely responsible for it passing. Personally I think it was the right move (unfortunate, but right). The failure has been not dismantling the "too big to fail" institutions after that (something volcker lobbied heavily for)
            • Re: occupy wall street polled

              Mon, October 24, 2011 - 2:42 PM
              <<No, actually Obama and McCain openly endorsed the deal

              I never claimed otherwise, so I am unsure of where the "no" is coming from. The claim by many Republicans is that PRESIDENT Obama bailed out the banks, and that is not true being that Obama was not yet President, regardless of his support for the deal as a Senator. PRESIDENT Bush signed the deal, not PRESIDENT Obama.
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Mon, October 24, 2011 - 1:46 PM
      And part of the reason for the slow pace of recovery? Republicans are blocking any and all jobs and recovery bills, they want the economy to fail because their stated number one goal is to ensure Obama is a one term president. This is why the Senate Republicans would not even allow the recent moderate jobs bill to the floor for a vote, using the filibuster rules to block it.

      Sen. McConnell: Making Obama A One-Term President Is My Single Most Important Political Goal
      www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mc...ical-goal/
  • start a new damn party stupid people

    Tue, October 25, 2011 - 3:28 AM
    35% want to influence the democratic party the way the tea party influences republicans

    people are out of jobs, and politicians need to be replaced. The best way to send a message is to send them packing. Give Obama 4 more years just as bush had, and then people can consider Obama's performance.
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Fri, November 4, 2011 - 12:20 PM
    I wonder if banking and multi-national corporate interests will send infitrators into Occupy, so as to ruin its reputation?

    The Freedom of Information Act, etc., etc., do not appy to secretive, private groups.

    They would want to:

    Make anti-American statements. Nothing like being the nerd at the high school pep rally who roots for the opposing team.

    Frame every point in anti-American terms.

    Focus on foreign affairs.

    Laugh at the notion that there are terrorists inthe Middle East who want to kill Americans. (Refereing to 2 points up his list: claim those Muslims are merely angry because we oppressed them. Ignore womens' roles here versus there, secularism versus totalitarian religion, etc.))

    Be Utopian. Not realistic.

    Vandalize small businesses. The media will have folks sympathetic to the mom and pop shop. They'll say it was done by Utopian anrachists or Marxists.

    In short, present the movement as of the lunatic fringe.

    And, oh, urge peope to vote for third party candidates, or not at all. Besides demonizing the USA, diss Obama because he failed to usher in Uopia, and plays politics.

    Yup. That could be the corporate recipe for monkey-wrencing the Occupy movement..
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Sat, November 5, 2011 - 12:18 PM
      << Make anti-American statements. >>

      Either define "anti-American statement" or provide examples.

      I'd think Tea Bagger incitement to murder might qualify.

      << Nothing like being the nerd at the high school pep rally who roots for the opposing team. >>

      Most of us got out of high school some time ago.
      • Re: occupy wall street polled

        Tue, November 8, 2011 - 2:34 AM
        "I'd think Tea Bagger incitement to murder might qualify. "

        The ubiquitous nonsense slander

        I can cite more Occupy protesters explicitly calling for the removal of Jews from America than you can cite Tea Party protesters calling for murder.
        • Re: occupy wall street polled

          Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:36 AM
          <<I can cite more Occupy protesters explicitly calling for the removal of Jews from America

          Can you actually cite ANY examples of this coming from actual OWS protesters? Because I know that Fox news attempted to slander the OWS movement with this claim, and they did so in a false and malicious way. They used a ranting anti-Jew lunatic among the OWS protesters as an example, the problem being that this man is always down there ranting about the Jews. He was there before the OWS movement and he will be there when they leave. So is this claim true? Or are you falling for the slander campaign?
          • Re: occupy wall street polled

            Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:45 AM
            "Can you actually cite ANY examples of this coming from actual OWS protesters?"

            odd, that this was addressed in another tribe for you


            smartpolitics.tribe.net/thread...657d82c

            also:

            www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...52.html
            • Re: occupy wall street polled

              Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:46 AM
              <<odd, that this was addressed in another tribe for you

              Nothing odd about me not often visiting that tribe.
              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:48 AM
                lol, it was a response to the exact same post you made below, in a thread largely comprised of posts made by you
                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:54 AM
                  <<lol, it was a response to the exact same post you made below, in a thread largely comprised of posts made by you

                  And in a thread I had not visited since Salil posted his response. AND I had only posted twice in that thread, contrary to your false assertion. But feel free to continue your lame attempts at personal denigration with blatant lies, it is your typical MO. You might actually sound smart if you were to stick to the subject instead of constantly trying to play gotcha games with falsehoods and blatant exaggerations, you fail every time and it only serves to make you look foolish. Like right now "chuckles".
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: occupy wall street polled

                    Tue, November 8, 2011 - 11:23 AM
                    Yes, you're right, you just started that thread...
                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                      Tue, November 8, 2011 - 11:34 AM
                      <<Yes, you're right, you just started that thread...

                      Yet another lie being that I never indicated I "just started" the thread. What I clearly indicated is that I rarely visit that tribe and had not yet seen Salil's response. Pay attention "chuckles".
                      • Re: occupy wall street polled

                        Tue, November 8, 2011 - 11:51 AM
                        "Yet another lie being that I never indicated I "just started" the thread. What I clearly indicated is that I rarely visit that tribe and had not yet seen Salil's response. Pay attention "chuckles"."

                        I'm not following
                        • Re: occupy wall street polled

                          Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:16 PM
                          I can't lay it out any simpler for you Dustin.
                          • Re: occupy wall street polled

                            Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:24 PM
                            ok?
                            • Re: occupy wall street polled

                              Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:46 PM
                              KO!
                              • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 1:25 PM
                                Jeff, if making utterly confusing posts, that make no sense, is your interpretation of victory, then have at it, sailor.

                                Also, you would probably fair better if you stopped looking at these discussions as some sort of contest
                                • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 1:35 PM
                                  You insinuated that I ignored the answer to the same question in another tribe. I corrrectly pointed out that I don't often visit that tribe and had not yet seen Salil's answer. You falsely indicated that I was the majority poster on that thread, insinuating that I had indeed been back since the question had been answered. I correctly pointed out that I had only responded to that thread once. You then created the straw man argument that I was claiming to of just created that thread.

                                  Conclusion: My statements were factual, your statements were lies. Simple as pie sailor boy!

                                  <<Also, you would probably fair better if you stopped looking at these discussions as some sort of contest

                                  I don't, which is of course why I don't resort to being a liar such as yourself.
                                  • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                    Tue, November 8, 2011 - 1:38 PM
                                    "You falsely indicated that I was the majority poster on that thread, insinuating that I had indeed been back since the question had been answered. I correctly pointed out that I had only responded to that thread once. You then created the straw man argument that I was claiming to of just created that thread."

                                    actually, no, I was admitting that I was indeed wrong, and that you only started the thread...


                                    "I don't, which is of course why I don't resort to being a liar such as yourself."

                                    of course you don't, Jeff
                                    • Re: occupy wall street polled

                                      Tue, November 8, 2011 - 1:47 PM
                                      <<Also, you would probably fair better if you stopped looking at these discussions as some sort of contest

                                      You said "just" started, and I made what would normally be a correct assumption, ie, that you were being a smartass. But ok, we an agree you were wrong.
            • Re: occupy wall street polled

              Tue, November 8, 2011 - 10:53 AM
              Be that as it may, are these isolated incidents examples of actual wall street protesters? As in they are actually part of the movement itself? Or are they actually examples of isolated incidents of anti-jewish Libertarians attempting to get attention by injecting themselves? I think it is clearly the latter. I don't think these people represent the OWS movement anymore than the KKK represents the Tea Party. Let's be consistent shall we?
  • Re: occupy wall street polled

    Thu, November 17, 2011 - 6:00 PM
    www.publicpolicypolling.com/main....html
    Occupy Wall Street Favor Fading

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.

    Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.

    I don't think the bad poll numbers for Occupy Wall Street reflect Americans being unconcerned with wealth inequality. Polling we did in some key swing states earlier this year found overwhelming support for raising taxes on people who make over $150,000 a year. In late September we found that 73% of voters supported the 'Buffett rule' with only 16% opposed. And in October we found that Senators resistant to raising taxes on those who make more than a million dollars a year could pay a price at the polls. I don't think any of that has changed- what the downturn in Occupy Wall Street's image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the 'Occupy' than the 'Wall Street.' The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message.

    Voters continue to be very unhappy with the new majority in the House. Only 37% of voters think the Republicans have been an upgrade from when the Democrats were in charge, to 41% who believe they've been worse. Among independent voters, whose overwhelming support fueled the new GOP majorities, 26% think the Republicans have been an improvement to 37% who believe they've made things worse. That unhappiness extends to John Boehner's personal poll numbers as well- just 30% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 46% who disapprove. That -16 spread is a whole lot worse than the -6 we find for Obama's approval, but you don't see the Speaker being described as unpopular whenever you read about him the way you do the President.

    As unpopular as the House Republicans are we find a tie in the generic Congressional ballot with 45% of voters favoring a Democratic candidate and 45% going for a Republican. That's because Congressional Democrats, with a 28/63 approval spread, are almost as unpopular as their GOP counterparts. They've succeeded in poisoning public opinion about the new Republican majority, but they haven't necessarily done anything to make voters see them as a palatable alternative. That will be the challenge for House Democrats in the next year.

    Full results here
    www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/...3.pdf
    • Re: occupy wall street polled

      Thu, November 17, 2011 - 6:22 PM
      the protests seem to be sinking in their own filth at this point. Shame really, but to be expected once they start getting hijacked by crust punks and the professional protester set
      • Re: occupy wall street polled

        Mon, November 21, 2011 - 11:18 AM
        << the protests seem to be sinking in their own filth at this point. >>>

        How anyone can follow American politics and fret over "filth" is mysterious...

        <<Shame really, but to be expected once they start getting hijacked by crust punks and the professional protester set >>

        It's plain you've never seen #OLA. Most of the people there are too young to be part of any mythical "protester set" and the last crusty punk I saw *anywhere* was panhandling for whiskey on the Mission last spring.

        Put the wingnut media down, go to an occupation and make up your own mind, sonny. Don't be a dupe.
        • Re: occupy wall street polled

          Mon, November 21, 2011 - 11:28 AM
          "It's plain you've never seen #OLA. Most of the people there are too young to be part of any mythical "protester set" and the last crusty punk I saw *anywhere* was panhandling for whiskey on the Mission last spring. "

          Actually that professional protester set (as in "I protest anything, and see them as a dynamic part of my social life") tends to be made up of young people


          "Put the wingnut media down, go to an occupation and make up your own mind, sonny. Don't be a dupe. "

          quit defending a lost cause
          • Re: occupy wall street polled

            Mon, November 21, 2011 - 7:18 PM
            << (as in "I protest anything, and see them as a dynamic part of my social life") tends to be made up of young people >>

            Did you read that in a 1966 issue of Reader's Digest or something? The Sixties are *over*, hoss.

            What next? You gonna claim getting pepper sprayed as radical chic?

            And I say again stop being a dupe. What you get out of being an unpaid macaw for the 1% is a bit mysterious.

            << quit defending a lost cause >>

            Fuck if I can think of a nice thing to say about Mitt Romney...
            • Re: occupy wall street polled

              Mon, November 21, 2011 - 7:45 PM
              "Did you read that in a 1966 issue of Reader's Digest or something? The Sixties are *over*, hoss. "

              are you one of those people that get off on arguing for obviously faulty points, because they have some agenda? Anyone who has been to a protest in the past ten years knows the exact crowd i am talking about



              "Fuck if I can think of a nice thing to say about Mitt Romney..."

              Not a Romney supporter, hoss
      • Re: occupy wall street polled

        Mon, November 21, 2011 - 5:14 PM
        <<the protests seem to be sinking in their own filth at this point.

        Reality is such that ending the occupying aspect of the protests has become a blessing in disguise, allowing the movement to shake off the less than savory characters that were riding the movements coat tails. As the massive bridge demonsrations have shown, the movement is stronger than ever and is not dependent upon encampments in order to continue forward. Recent police violence is also only serving to inspire and propell the movement forward.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: occupy wall street polled

          Thu, December 1, 2011 - 1:35 AM
          Recent yes we can police puppets violence darkness, guilt, pain, master, slave, torture, tracking, lies, direct, obey, run, reptiles, disease, evil, control, hidden knowledge, secrecy, supervise, death, fear, damage is serving to inspire and propel their movement forward shift:

          peace, liberty, truth, love, life, health, individual, knowledge, local, growth, prosperity, creativity.