Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why the T.E.A. party isn't joining your cause.

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 8, 2011, 9:39 a.m. EST by TempestuousLiberty (14)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As an original T.E.A. party attendee and member let me please tell you why you don't have T.E.A. party support. In the beginning of your protests we watched and we saw some people saying they were against the crony capitalism, lobbyists writing legislation that politicians don't bother reading and insider bailouts. I agreed with those things. Then we started seeing people in your movement calling for the end of free market capitalism (you know the very thing that enables people to pay for a roof over their heads and to feed their families?), the end of banks in total and the seizure of private property both monetary and physical and to redistribute it. Right then and there I and my friends in the T.E.A. party knew you're movement was nothing more than a Marxist war on freedom and capitalism veiled in taking down the "Evil rich". Let me explain something to all of you. On a personal level, unless a financial institution has changed the terms of the money you borrowed for a home, college, a car, etc they did nothing wrong. YOU accepted the terms of the loan and YOU are responsible for paying it back! No one forced you not to read the terms before you signed.

Then we started seeing that all the leftist groups are supporting you and even financing you like George Soros, media matters, Move on and the leftist unions. Soros himself has said America needs to go down and is the largest obstruction to a global government.

So you wonder why you don't have T.E.A. party and Constitutional conservative support?? Those are the reasons. The T.E.A party wants reform and adherence to the written 1789 version of the Constitution including all amendments. Your movement wants to destroy the Constitution, the declaration of Independence (ex:- aren't your people writing a "new" one?) and replace it with a Marxist ideology and theory that has NEVER worked anywhere it's ever been tried! The only thing it does is make everyone equally poor with no way out of said poverty and enrich and empower the new bourgeois, which will be the very people "helping" you now. Does this sound familiar? It should. Think Lenin and the masses that got him into power. You know the people he called the "Useful idiots"?!! He treated the people of Russia much WORSE than the Czar ever did.

So watch what you wish for people. Capitalism is the ONLY vehicle that brings a better quality of life, freedom and liberty to the masses. Some on here are either lying about that or are dangerously ignorant and just believe what their leftover radical hippie professor has drilling into their skull.

Long live Liberty and God bless those wanting peaceful freedom and individuality!

Tempestuous Liberty

236 Comments

236 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

Tempestuous Liberty,

OWS is not politically motivated. It's people motivated. You've fallen into the same trap many of our citizens do. You believe what your told! The Tea Party was "dubbed" a right wing group. OWS is being "dubbed" a left wing group. Once the Tea Party took on the persona of a right wing group, it attracted more and more extreme right followers and, therefore, made their existence almost laughable since those beliefs are not inline with the populous. Now, they're trying to paint OWS as a left wing group, attract the extreme left followers and laugh us off. And who REALLY benefits from making a mockery of these movements? The status quo. You're being handed kool-aid and, very willingly, gulping it down.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 3 years ago

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I quoted you and put it on Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh facebook pages!!!!! Because they are cracking down on this movement and there are too many inconsistencies with their anologies. They don't believe in left/right but suddenly they do. They think the Occupy Wall street movement should be demonstrating the Fed and the Govt but wants to condemn this movement for demonstrating Wall Street claiming that private entities should not be the target. But again they know the Fed is private and independent . Whats the difference. Thank you so much for posting this because I have been following this divide and I know it does not add up!

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 3 years ago

Was the tea party movement started taking the name from the Boston Tea Party? When did it becomes Taxed Enough Already party?

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 3 years ago

You are so correct, thanks for correcting them.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

OWS is completely politically motivated. You can't claim to be trying to change society peacefully and claim not to be political. And that's good.

I'm beginning to think people don't understand what "politics" means.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

Well, the Tea Party was "dubbed" a right wing group, because, dude, they are in point of fact, a right wing group. With exceptions, I'm sure, the "mainstream" TP supports Michele Bachmann (head of the House Tea Party Caucus) Glenn Beck, and in the recent TEACON straw poll, Herman Cain.

How many lefty candidates has the Tea Party--any version of the multi-flavored versions available--supported? Hint: Zero. None.

You can say this isn't about politics--and that may be true to an extent--but it most definitely is about extremely divergent philosophies. You cannot ignore these differences--debate and discuss and try to deconstruct them, as I've done on this forum many many times--but you cannot ignore them and hope that somehow they don't exist.

I couldn't possibly disagree with the original posting more, but it raises a valid point: the Tea Party and the #OWS adhere to a couple of common ideals, and the rest? They couldn't be further apart. I will, later on, address the poster's comments, point by point, but for now, I actually understand one thing: This poster is representative of the gaping divide that separates the two movements, on purely philosophical grounds, and simply wishing it away won't help the cause. It has to be dealt with, head on; if not today, sometime in the very near future. Not everything that equals division is due to the faceless status quo and MSM--there are very real differences between these two movements, and #OWS; that's a fact, not some conspiracy...

[-] 1 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

Groob,

I don't think the tea party started off that way. At first, they attracted quite a few democrats but there was a change somewhere along the line and now even main stream republican are walking a tight line. I'm trying not to get caught up in this back and forth between TP and OWS by saying that we both DO have commonalities and we need to look at those. Concernedcitizen is correct. The TP is part of the 99% and instead of bickering, we can find common ground. I'm an idealist, I know. :)

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

Well, yes and no. They started out being against TARP and just happened to hold their first rally one week after Obama was inaugurated. Could have been a coincidence. I don't believe it was. I'm not too terribly sure how many democrats they attracted initially, especially the ones who voted for Obama. Democrats were mostly hopeful that things would turn around, and weren't terribly interested in holding the new president accountable for the transgressions of the previous guy (http://tinyurl.com/6gxxws5).

I understand what you're trying to do, and frankly, I'm trying to do that too (read my other posts on this Forum), and I'm pissing off my wife for spending so much time doing it, but it's the least I can since I go to bed not in a park in lower Manhattan, but in my own cozy home.

I don't think bickering is the right approach, but cold, hard analysis of where the two movements are, philosophically isn't "back and forth," it's an honest appraisal of differences--and potential areas of common ground. I'm not talking about the usual snarky b.s. that passes for polemic on this board, I'm talking about a structured, analytical--and honest--assessment of where the two sides are, for realz, know what I'm saying? Not honestly addressing differences is one of the reasons we have this fucked up system in the first place.

I'm an idealist too. But I'm also a steely eyed analyst and student of politics, and have been for 30 years. I lived and breathed Washington for most of my adult life, and live in Vermont now because I was sickened by the town. But now, I have some real hope that this could be something. I'm not interested in co-opting anyone, but I am interested in sorting out the true commonalities and differences that could strengthen this movement--and divide it, as well.

I just spent a shitload of time outlining the basic philosophical differences about government vs. corporations to a very civilized guy who is definitely not like me at all. This is what's needed. We shouldn't pretend we're not different--we are--but we should try to find common ground where we can. It ain't gonna be easy, but I'm doing my damndest here...

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

Keep it up! I agree with you wholeheartedly. If we want reform, we need to embrace everyone, regardless of their ideology/political belief.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

I don't. We don't need tea baggers, just like we don't need racists or bigots or people who think it's okay to openly oppose public health care by depicting Oabma as a Nazi. The tea party is the lowest form of life in the Republican party. America does not need them. The only good thing about them is that they are destroying the Republican party, which is, itself, based on faulty reasoning. (pardon my rant.)

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

Sorry, I can't pardon your rant. You have to understand that the Tea Party started off very similar to OWS. It became marginalized when it started insisting on a specific agenda that not every American agreed with. We do need Tea Party members. Desperately. Just like we need every other American involved.

It doesn't matter if they have some ideas you don't approve of... because those ideas will not gain momentum here if everyone is brought in. Just like fringe leftist ideas (like abolishing capitalism) will fail.

What is needed is the group consensus from 99% of Americans of what is WRONG and moving forward with accepted ideas on how to fix it.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

Of course it matters if they have "ideas I don't approve of".

The British dismiss them as "nutters".....I think that's pretty accurate. Their "specific agenda" is out of the dark ages. I'm not presuming to speak for everybody at OWS, but nobody needs the bigoted, anti-choice, anti-poor, anti-science, Michelle Bachman, whackadoo Tea Baggers.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

We need them because there is strength in numbers. When the mainstream media attempts to marginalize us by saying "oh, they're a leftist group" or "they're neo new-cons" we can point to others and say, "no... this is about ALL of us. We're all pissed off and demanding change".

Do you think that if some people on here started to push for the teaching of Creationism that it would succeed? NO. The more diversity we have, the less likely fringe groups will take over.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

Yes, I do think it would succeed. And that's not even the point. I agree about strength in numbers, and tea-baggers are anti-Union.

I'm glad to see you calling them "fringe". That's exactly why we do not need them. Being identified with them would simply make you look bad. Right now, you've got several unions interested and participating. That's the way to go.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

I am anti-union. Okay, not on the level of the TP, but I've belonged to two unions and went on strike with one of them a few years ago. The entire episode left a bad taste in my mouth. However, I don't want to go too far off track.

Basically, you're trying to push your politics and agenda on everyone else. That's fine actually! Just don't be trying to push everyone out who disagrees with you. That is most certainly NOT fine.

As to the fringe, what part of "we are the 99%" aren't you getting?!? They're just as much part of that percentage as me or you.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

I have no more power to push anybody out of OWS than anybody else. I wouldn't work with any of them. As for the 99%: they are not- I mean, do you really think Michelle Bachman, or Herman Cain, or Rick Perry, or Glenn Beck, or the Koch brothers are in the 99% of people in this country who have been disenfranchised, divested of financial resources or forced into poverty?? The tea baggers may have started out as people who simply wanted to stop Obama from raising taxes, but they got co-opted and became puppets of a whole other bunch.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

So some of them (not all... I know some TeaPartiers) got co-opted and Murdoch's media spun them in the wrong direction. That doesn't mean they should be shunned.

We need to reach out to everyone and you calling them Tea-Baggers doesn't help. Grow up.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

You're telling me to grow up??? Seriously????

Have you seen the pic of the lady at the tea party protest against Obama, wearing the hat with the tea-bags stapled to it? Maybe I watch a little too much Keith Olberman, but not only do I see them called that a lot, they seem to revel in it.

I realize I don't speak for you, but I personally want intelligent, educated, thoughtful, enlightened, pro-choice people working to change things, and most tea "partiers" are not suitable for that. I'm sorry if that offends you, but they don't want a social safety net (I do), they don't believe in science (I do), they seem to be predominantly evangelical Christians (I'm not), they don't want separation of church and state (I do), they don't want gay people in the military or same-sex marriage (I do) and the list goes on. For me, all of these issues are non-negotiable.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

You're not getting it. I'm an outspoken atheist. I've been fighting for separation of church and state, as well as pretty much everything else you've said. Those issues are not being presented here. If some Evangelicals started a push here for inserting Intelligent Design in schools, it would FAIL. Same with a whacky liberal group here advocating for the elimination of capitalism, FAIL!

If you only have intelligent, educated, thoughtful, enlightened, pro-choice people here, you're not going to get enough people to push thru ANY change.

The goal is to push thru reform to stop the corruption by big business. We need numbers. We need to avoid media labeling us as a one-sided group that can then be pushed aside by everyone else.

"Oh, you're just another group of tea-partiers? Pass" "Oh, you're the liberal version of the tea-party? Pass"

We need to be able to point to minorities and rival factions and say, "WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER".

Once we get things reformed, feel free to start ranting about how other childish people wear their head ornaments. Till then, think a little more intelligently for someone who wants to belong to an intelligent group.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

I genuinely think Tea Partiers will harm OWS a lot more than they will help.They've pretty much destroyed the Republican party (which is a shame, in that we need the Repubs to balance the Dems). There isn't going to be any reform, if Tea partiers get involved.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

I've reached out to Tea Partiers... heck, I was involved when they first started forming up before they started disenfranchising everyone. They agree with the core idea that our government is corrupt and we need reform to keep corporations from buying and selling our politicians and legislation.

The extremist right-wingers balance out the extremist left ones. Like right now, we with Al Sharpton and Michael Moore having been on Wall Street, we should be trying to encourage conservative people to step up. Keep things balanced (just not in a Fox News way)

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

They agree with the idea that our government is corrupt, but their approach is to eradicate it. They actually think government is the problem (as Reagan said), and that is fundamentally wrong. The problem is not government, or the concept of government, the problem is the corruption in the government. Also, the problem is not regulation; Reagan de-regulated the airline industry, and that's caused major problems. He did the same thing with Wall St.....I rest my case. The tea party is against any regulations, and they say it's because they want that rugged individualism that Republican values are based upon- but it's really because the big businesses don't want to be regulated, because they'd lose money. IMO, extremist right-wingers balance nothing. Those are the people who believe the earth is 6 thousand years old (cause, hey, that's what it says in the Bible) and want children to be taught that in school. Those are the people who make constant racial slurs against Obama, and somehow think it's acceptable. Those are the FOX people. (Do you realize it's illegal to have a tv station devoted to supporting a political party??)

They have made themselves irrelevant. It's okay to be fiscally conservative, working for reform. You don't have to involve people who don't understand that dinosaurs predated humans by millions of years. The only hope for those people is a lot of time in college.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

Trust me, I have spoken with a lot of them over the last few years. I know what they think. However, like I said, the things you list about them don't have any chance of going forward successfully just like some of the crazy liberal ideas on the forum don't have any hope of succeeding either.

So, our targeted goals won't be about the age of the earth or gay rights or racial inequality or deregulation of industries. Oh, and I disagree about them wanting to eradicate government... they have a white knuckle grip on the Constitution (they're not anarchists).

Our goals are to 1. gather as many people as we can so our message is heard and acted upon.
2. Demand that reform happens and that corporate money/influence is taken out of government 3. Demand legislation that future bailouts won't happen again like they did with the S&L Scandal and our more recent one.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

I'm sorry, but gay rights is part and parcel of making sure nobody gets disenfranchised. So is racial equality. You can't have reform without those elements- just as you have to have free acess to a good education and health care. As for the white-knuckle grip on the Constitution: they don't seem to understand it very well, I'm sorry to say.

Also, I think the bail-out was okay, and kept us from sliding over the edge, but now, the $$$ needs to be paid back. I notice the car companies did pay back the money. The bail-outs were life-saving, but the banks that got them turned around and kept the money without extending loans. Banks have behaved horribly; they need to be punished. Really punished. The British did that with their own banks, who did pay it back. It saved the UK from a depression, and we would have had one, ourselves, without TARP. (It's the only smart thing Bush ever did.)

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but we don't need it to push thru reform. That is a goal that can come later. Don't get me wrong, if you think 99% of Americans would endorse it, then by all means go for it. I am just a little skeptical that this is the time or place for that one.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

Ah, so now we're cherry-picking?? How can a huge and vocal minority be denied their civil rights, while we purport to push reform? And let's talk about a woman's lawful right to choose. Do you realize that drs who perform abortions are being either killed openly, or openly threatened, along with their families? Which issue, in your opinion, is the only one we should focus on??

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

You are totally missing the point. It is not about which causes are just. It is about what 99% of people can agree on so we can move forward with unity and push forward change.

I think we need to focus on the undue influence corporate power and money has on our government. Case in point... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/occupy-wall-street-should_b_1003429.html

There may be other goals. One of my personal favorites is ensuring that our voting machines generate a papertrail and can be easily audited before, during and after. I think most americans would be in favor of that.

I'm not saying your causes or views are wrong. Heck, I'm in favor of 'em. HOWEVER, I think you are overreaching while pushing aside people we need if we want to push thru ANY changes.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

Well, I'm infamous for overreaching. And your comment about the voting machines is spot-on. Another thing that sets my hair on fire is the concerted effort of Republicans to make it harder to vote. That makes me wanna pack my bags and my cats and run to Canada. But....I can't get in bed with the Tea party. There isn't one person in that bunch that hasn't completely offended me. If I met one sensible tea party person, I'd die of shock.....and now, I must get offline....but I'll be back for round 6. :).

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

Damn, I hope you don't go to bed with any Tea Partiers. I was kinda hoping you liked atheist guys ;)

I've gotten into some rip-roaring debates with TP'ers... but I've also reached some consensus with them, primarily on the whole getting corporate money out of government. That's all this movement is really about (right now). If we can reach further consensus down the road on other subjects, then we can branch out.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

OMG, did you just flirt with me???

big smile

I am almost certainly much too old for you, but I'm flattered. I have nothing against atheism, either. But again....OOOOOOOOLD.

L8R :)

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

Thanks for the reply. Most of the comments I get are from people who completely disagree with me; which is okay. But it's good to get positive feedback on a pretty thankless task. So hard to sort out, but we most definitely are the most polarized we've been since the Civil war. In fact, I believe we're in the middle of a cultural and political civil cold war in this country. I hope that the warring parties can find common ground before it turns ughly, and maybe, just maybe, #OWS can be the medium through which do this. But will be a very long road ahead.

Peace.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

I've been afraid of it turning ugly, too. When this big a part of a country is getting this badly screwed, for this many decades, there is almost unavoidable violence. I was transfixed by the rage in Wisconsin, when the people tried to recall Scott Walker....and I fear, even more, for the future, because the Repugnicans are trying to make it more difficult to vote. If they succeed, our democracy is over. And if that happens, there will be serious violence.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/07/338974/voter-id-worse-than-jim-crow/ -- it's getting very bad out there. It was bad enough in Florida in 2000.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

Thinkprogress! Ah, you must be a Rachel Maddow fan....me too. :)

It is getting bad. I'm often really grateful to be in NYC, which is probably the best armed fortress in the country. I've even thought of learning to shoot, in case the city needs to be defended.

Which would be pretty stupid, considering that we already have our own army.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

Well, it's in the best interest of the status quo to keep the public fractured. Whoever coined the 99% concept made a very smart move and is the only hope this movement has at success. I can't believe how much people have tried pulling it away from its initial stance (me included ;) )

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

Agreed. But you happened to raise what, to me, is the biggest challenge of all: acknowledgement of participation in and furthering of, the "old" paradigm. This is going to be really difficult to rise above, because we're all guilty of it, and it makes complete sense that we would be: this us/them paradigm is deeply ingrained in us.

That said, we really do have some incredibly deep differences to bridge. And it's going to take something that many many people are not familiar with: humility and a willingness to compromise.

Cheers to your humility.

Peace.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"this back and forth between TP and OWS by saying that we both DO have commonalities and we need to look at those."

Yes, totally agree BadAss. Let's start with out opposition to WHO creates and controls our money supply - the FED. END THE FED. Then we can all work out the other details as our democracy takes on its participatory flavor once again.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Groobie - it's no shocking revelation that the TPs are a center/right coalition. The tea parties have actually been a successful joining of center independents and conservatives. They have successfully elected people in a broad spectrum of House and Senate districts - including lately in Brooklyn. The focus on center/right has meant that for practical purposes they have focused on reforming the republican party. They have opposed sitting republican power mongers like Dick Lugar, et al.

Many in the tea parties support dramatic difference and change through Ron Paul (End the FED!!)

What's shocking is that the 'lefty candidates' you discuss, and the current very 'lefty' OWS is attempting here to characterize and label the tea parties instead of trying to reach out and form a citizens, populism coalition.

How can you really claim to represent the 99 without 2/3 (center/right) of the 99? Hint: You CAN'T.

If OWS wants to be the 99 - THEY MUST ENGAGE and recruit the tea parties...simple as that.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

Wait, sorry, broad spectrum? The Tea Party? Wait, no, tell me who the centrists are, because they're not Michele Bachmann, Eric Cantor, and the other House crazies, right? Nothing personal, but this is not a big tent over at any of the Tea Party headquarters. Read the blogs. Look at the TEACON 2011, where Cain won the straw poll--dude, it wasn't Huntsman.

Ron Paul, btw, is no centrist, I'm sorry, he's not. I like his stance on war, yes, but it pretty much ends there. I'm willing to find common ground with Tea Party folks, and have had good conversations with them on this board--it didn't start out that way. I've been called a variety of colorful names. But that's how it goes.

Ahhh, okay, now I see: "current 'very lefty OWS'--dude, that's not how you reach out. You attack the #OWS as being lefty, but say others should be pulled in and that we should rise above party? Seems ironic, to say the least.

As for 99%, well, that's a misnomer, in my view: if someone is "in the 99%" but supports a candidate--someone who's in the 1%, like Cain, say (who hates the #OWS movement, btw)--are they still in the 99%, or just in name?

But I disagree with your premise: I don't think that the #OWS needs to recruit the tea parties, it's the tea parties that need to prove their worth and where they see common ground--not the other way around...

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"Wait, sorry, broad spectrum? The Tea Party?"

Uh, yeah, if you're talking about the Center and the right of this country - totally. Maybe you aren't and maybe you don't want to talk about that part of the country - so that makes you the 10 or the 15 or the 20 vs. the 1 - take your pick.

"Read the blogs. Ron Paul, btw, is no centrist, I'm sorry, he's not." I read the blogs all the time, including DU (I have an account) and other left leaning blogs. In any case, don't you think that the Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party is at least indicative of a centrist position - come on - what are you talking about?

"Ahhh, okay, now I see: "current 'very lefty OWS'--dude, that's not how you reach out."

Dude, have you seen the vitriol about the TPs on this board - it's your movement, prove to us that YOU will reach out...don't moan to me about reaching out when this is your gig!

"You attack the #OWS as being lefty" - that's not an attack, anymore than you feigning shock at me saying the parts of the TPs are centrist - 'quick attacking' blah, blah...no, just making observations, as are you, from your vantage point...talk to me about how OWS is reaching out to the center and right....I'll wait for that clarification that you apparently think is obvious in calling my comments an 'attack.' Show me the sources of your protest and how you're reaching out across a broad spectrum...

The reason the 99 is a misnomer is because OWS is not actively reaching out across to the center and right of this nation...until it does, your goals will fall on mostly deaf ears...

And that's unfortunate, because the stated goals of taking special interest money out of politics and holding banksta and crony capitalists accountable, are good ones, and shared by many in the TPs, certainly including myself.

Ron Paul 2012.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

Wait, so you're saying that Bachmann and Cantor are center-right? Are you saying that provision to never call for new taxes is centrist?

As for Ron Paul, I do think he has some positions that make sense, and some that are crazytown. Leaving everything up to the states--that's a good idea when? For highway projects? If you like those, they wouldn't have been around during Ron Paul's presidency back in the day. And let's look at that, for a moment: Ron Paul basically wants to diminish all federal government activities: We saw the result of this: in the meltdown on 2008. Yep, that's right, Ron Paul's "centrist" views are the kind of Adam Smith, Laissez Faire views that led to the meltdown. See my other posts on this site for explanation, but CDSs and zero down mortgages were the result of no government intervention or oversight--which is what Greenspan (and others, including democrats) wanted. But unfettered free markets aren't always "free," and in 2008, we all paid heavily for 'em.

As for reaching out, no, this is where you're incorrect--seriously, patently wrong: It's not my gig. It's the gig of the people down in the park, and everyone can join--or try to, I suppose. #OWS needs to reach out to no one, and they/we know it. My argument is that there are a few common ideas that both sides have, but many where they're far apart. Destroying the fed? That's your agenda. But realigning / redefining equality in our system and pulling undo monied influence out of politics are the key goals of the #OWS movement. I think there's a lot of room in this movement, but people should prove that they bring something to the table--more than just an agenda. I'm working to describe the similarities and differences; that's what I'm about on this Forum. What are you doing?

As for my "sources" just do a search on my comments on this board. I'm actually having very productive discussions with people "on the right." We don't agree on much, but we respect one another and aren't attacking each other. By "attack" I mean "define the #OWS as lefty"--you undermine your credibility by calling the movement that. Just sayin'...

Whose ears are deaf? Surely, not the almost 1,000 other cities where #OWS is springing up? I think their ears are pretty well open...

Well, the only thing that's unfortunate is preventing yourself from being engaged because you think #OWS is too lefty and isn't reaching out. Ron Paul believes in many things that members of the #OWS don't--he doesn't believe in social programs, and I can guarantee you that a majority of the #OWS doesn't share that view. Big divide to bridge--how do you propose it be done?

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

'Wait, so you're saying that Bachmann and Cantor are center-right?'

I think Ron Paul is center-right. I'm supporting the Ron Paul side of the tea party movement, as are millions of others.

"and some that are crazytown" - oh, and I'm glad that OWS is not crazytown in any way...LOL...;)

"Ron Paul basically wants to diminish all federal government activities: We saw the result of this: in the meltdown on 2008...CDSs and zero down mortgages were the result of no government intervention or oversight"

Do you know about debt saturation, fiat based money, derivatives, et al - it's that speculation, and failed money system that allowed for the conditions of the meltdown. The FED (private)-Government (complicity) is what allowed for the meltdown. I don't notice you talking about the FED - are you aware of their role in the meltdown? Ron Paul does not talk about 'no federal government' - just its proper role - just like the proper role for money is not to be created by a private institution like the FED with no accountability. I would think you would certainly agree with Paul on that point.

"#OWS needs to reach out to no one, and they/we know it."

This is a joke and where you're patently wrong - how will you ever accomplish anything in this pluralistic nation - good luck with that. Let me know how it works out.

"My argument is that there are a few common ideas that both sides have, but many where they're far apart."

Then why don't you call yourselves 'the 33' or more likely 'the 15' and not the 'the 99' because in doing that you're only lying to yourselves. As you said, you're not interested in reaching out.

"Destroying the fed? That's your agenda."

Wow, if you knew anything about WHO controls things that should be your agenda. You're falling down on this, big time. Educate yourself about how the FED creates and controls money and what that means for just the things you supposedly care about. This is not some minor point - it is the 800 lb. gorilla man. You'll never pull out monied interests from politics without addressing the FED and banker cabal.

"I'm working to describe the similarities and differences; that's what I'm about on this Forum."

What does this matter, if you're not interested, nor do you have to reach out - as you've said? You get hot under the collar when I called the OWS lefty, when you mock the tea party right out of the gate. Which is it groobie - you get to attack, but you demand total 'correctness' from me. This undermines your credibility...;)

"Well, the only thing that's unfortunate is preventing yourself from being engaged because you think #OWS is too lefty and isn't reaching out."

You certainly haven't proven that it is...in fact you've said they don't have to! So which is it?

"Big divide to bridge--how do you propose it be done?"

Ron Paul addresses most every issue under the sun including poverty and social net, and all kinds of other issues here: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ and certainly has reached out all across the political spectrum - working with Bernie Sanders and people of many other POV. Will that characterize OWS, or will they, as you've said feel they have to reach out 'to no one.' Shame. Wasted opportunity.

I will watch closely to see if things change for OWS, or if your view is not representative of the whole, or the majority, or perhaps my local expression of OWS.

Peace. Ron Paul 2012.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

The FED isn't the only problem in this country. That's one issue, but only one.

As for "attacking the tea party right out of the gate" I really have no idea what you're talking about. I was saying that the tea party seems to be represented by republicans--that's actually not in dispute. Name me one prominent member of the tea party that's a democrat, please.

Contrary to you statements, I have reached out and am having civil discussions with people who disagree with me. You just don't have to be one of them. Look it up in this forum if you'd like.

Your rejoinders are grammatically incorrect and confused:

""Well, the only thing that's unfortunate is preventing yourself from being engaged because you think #OWS is too lefty and isn't reaching out." You certainly haven't proven that it is...in fact you've said they don't have to! So which is it?"

Haven't proven that what is? The clear meaning of my statement is that #OWS doesn't have to reach out and that you undermine yourself for not calling the movement "lefty." What is it that you're missing here?

Ron Paul works with Bernie Sanders. Really. Somehow, I doubt that. Bernie Sanders stands for just about everything Ron Paul is against, and vice versa:

"Pro-Life Champion" -- First, how is this laissez faire? It's not government off out backs--it's government in women's bodies. Wow. So, where do you think Bernie--and most of #OWS stands on this?

"The power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why Ron Paul will never support higher taxes."

Wow. This is, in no remote way, what made our country strong--which has been driven by a system of taxation that has become so skewed and unfair as to make it surreal. Sen. Sanders calls for increased taxes on the wealthiest and an end to corporate loopholes.

"A nation without borders is no nation at all."

Yeah, more of the same fear-mongering here. Look, unless you're a Native American, you're pretty much an immigrant. Otherwise, the children of illegal immigrants are legal--see the logic? Sen. Sanders is not on board with this xenophobic policy, I can promise you that.

"Ron Paul believes no nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family does."

Homeschooling. Fine. People can do this if they want. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a world-class, high-priority system of education that's affordable. We should. And increasingly, we don't. It's an education system that saddles students with huge, unregulated loan debt when they graduate, and that's completely insane.

Look, I've gone through all the talking points and platform planks at Ron Paul's site, and there's not a single thing there that Bernie Sanders agrees with, with the possible exception of some provisions of the right to work law.

I will say this again, and one last time: the private sector is not the solution to our country's ills. It is part of the solution, just as an efficient, accountable federal government is. Enjoy this Internet exchange, my friend, because if Ron Paul had anything to do with the funding for the research that created it, you wouldn't enjoy this commonly accepted privilege, because that's one of the things the government did. Savvy?

That said, I really am reaching out to people who can engage in civil discourse, and I'll be watching to see if there are any attempts to temper a strict constitutionalist view of the world. But neither of us is likely to be terribly happy with the results, I'm afraid...

Peace.

Reason. Civility. Humanity. Equality. 2012.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"The FED isn't the only problem in this country. That's one issue, but only one"

Thinks about the inter-relatedness of all people for a second...now think about how the national economies are interrelated in the international economy. Now think about what the reserve currency is - I'll give you a hint: it's the Federal Reserve Note - the so-called US Dollar. The FRNs underlie the entire world economy. Everything. So those that CREATE and CONTROL the quantity of the world economy's money are going to have inordinate power.

That is what the FED is. They have massive and inordinate power, and it directly benefits - at its source - the 1%. In the word's of Murray Rothbard who wrote, The Case Against the FED - the FED are the ultimate money counterfeiters and all the rest of society - in fact the entire world suffers.

Listen, as to abortion - Ron Paul is an OB GYN who's delivered 4000 babies - do you expect him to be for abortion? As to what OWS supports - I thought you were 'the 99?' Don't you know that more than half this country is pro-life? So now you're the 49, or perhaps the 46? But certainly, if that issue is going to divide us, you're not the 99 - and at that rate you never will be...

Listen, I'm involved in relief and development in Kenya and Uganda and those people are suffering due to the massive and exported inflation of the FED's money printing. They are suffering - so you can say that the FED is 'just one issue' - but it is a core, foundational issue of all that OWS is saying they oppose.

"But neither of us is likely to be terribly happy with the results, I'm afraid..."

Don't give up Groobie. I'm really glad that you care - which is beyond where half this nation is.

Peace.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 3 years ago

I agree that the Fed needs to be re-thought, but to what extent it should be re-tooled is not a clear, black and white issue--like most challenges that we face. It's not so simple, but it's too complex an issue. Consider this at another point. Not enough space/time to address fully. I agree that the current system is broken...

re: abortion, I don't care that RP is an OB-GYN--that means nothing. He's yet another white male who wants to govern what a woman does with her own body--not terribly laissez faire. There are many OB-GYNs who agree with a woman's right to choose; being a doctor specializing in women's physiology isn't the point. But this is just another point that will not be easily bridged.

I'm an not the 99%--I'm part of the 99%. It is not one person's opinion. I don't represent the #OWS, but no one person does. I have decided (much to my wife's chagrin) to try to address the issues that a lot of people would prefer to wait to address later. Maybe they should be addressed later. But these issues are most definitely on the table, whether the TP or the GA believes that they should be now or not.

But now that you mention it, you say that over half of the country is anti-choice? Based on what data?

To me, it's ironic that people are against government intervention in free markets, but are for intervention in what a woman can and can't do with her own body. This is probably not something that will be reconciled in the near term, if ever, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most in the current #OWS demographic are for a woman's right to choose.

You're saying that people in Kenya and Uganda are suffering because of the Fed? Well, that could be partially true, but they--and especially gay people--are suffering directly from exported christianity. Being gay is illegal in that country, by and large because extremist "christians" believe that it is an abomination--and more than a few people have paid the price for it. So, good on you for helping them, but perhaps try to let them know that all people have a right to exist--not just "straight" people. What would Jesus do? If he were a legislator in Uganda, I doubt he'd sign on to a bill allowing the execution of homosexuals...

All that said, I am making a effort to follow the ideals of the 99% and consider all sides. We have a long road ahead, but respect for one another has to be the starting point.

Peace.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

groobie: If by rethinking you mean remove the FED's charter and take back creation and control of our money supply then, yes, rethink and re-do the FED with an accountable sound money. Only way to prevent the FED from inordinately benefiting the 1% that we're railing on here - and rightly so. What the FED and those that manage it (hint: that isn't our elected officials at this point) do is CRIMINAL. If we're concerned about criminality in the highest places - then you and I should be VERY concerned about the hidden secretiveness of the FED.

"re: abortion, I don't care that RP is an OB-GYN--that means nothing." It most certainly matters. What matters is that the 99 come from all different vantage points on issues like this. They divide us, but since you brought it up, I'm addressing it re: Dr. Ron Paul. If doctors, female, male, black, white, whatever (!) - why bring up race here - what on this green earth does race have to do with anything re: this topic?? People vary in their opinions - almost everyone thinks that if a child can survive if it's taken out of the womb, it's unconscionable to kill it instead (3rd trimester abortions - of which there are about 70,000/year in the US).

"you say that over half the country is anti-choice? Based on what data?"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

"To me, it's ironic that people are against government intervention in free markets, but are for intervention in what a woman can and can't do with her own body."

Being a libertarian doesn't mean that don't believe in any laws whatsoever - that's a misnomer. In something as important as whether a human fetus or human being (take your pick on your perspective) can live or die - that should be based on societal laws/mores, and not left to some randomness.

In any case, it's clear that whatever 'the 99' is - we are both pro-choice and pro-life - right? Otherwise you effectively divide the country right in two - oh the 1% LOVES that...As you say, we're all 'part' of the 99.

"You're saying that people in Kenya and Uganda are suffering because of the Fed? Well, that could be partially true"

Do you know how quantitative easing hot money drove the prices of commodities like corn and rice through the ceiling? Please look into that - there's no 'partially' about this impact. The FED has exported inflation and it's truly hurting the poorest of the poor (which by the way are almost all non-Americans...)

Probably those poor should be protesting us!! But they're pretty busy struggling day to day just to get enough food for their families. I know because I run a foundation in East Africa where we provide business loans and employment for the poorest of the poor - at 0% interest (imagine that.)

Peace.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

OK, in fairness, the Gallup poll I cited above is from 2009 - here's their 2011 numbers which are 47 - 47 right down the middle - fitting for our conversation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"OWS is not politically motivated. It's people motivated."

Hmmm...look at history and understand that people necessarily become political as they join together to accomplish things. You will too...if you wish to ever accomplish anything. Whether you're a marxist, liberal, conservative, libertarian or tea partier, you are a person and you are political...

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 3 years ago

fuck the tea party ows from start has been democratic and all republicans do nothing but demonize the movement read the signs listen to the people and see tax rich get money out of politics end wars have never been backed by republicans tax cuts for middle class modernize roads and bridges invest in middle class not banking class by raising minimum wage thats the occupy wall street message

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"And who REALLY benefits from making a mockery of these movements? The status quo. You're being handed kool-aid and, very willingly, gulping it down."

If this is true, why are you mocking the Tea Party? "made their existence almost laughable..." Have you really understood the TPs or are you just regurgitating the kool-aid you gulped down from the media? See how this goes? Unless you're willing to accept us as a movement, how can you expect us to accept you?

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 3 years ago

If you believe that the TEA party is a far right group, then you validate that OWS is a far left group. You believe what you've been told about the TEA party, but have never actually been to a rally and saw it first hand.

The TEA party has simple and clear goals and a plan to implement them through the political process. OWS too many contradictory positions, no clear goals and no plan to implement anything.

Good luck with that.

[-] 2 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

Hello schnitzlefritz! Actually, I have been to a Tea Party rally and was very turned off. I NEVER believe what I'm told and insist on seeing it for myself. To acknowledge the fact that the Tea Party's motives have 'fundamentally" changed since they started isn't "believing what I've been told", it's the truth. The tea party started out against corporate America, and bailouts, and, if I'm not mistaken, they had the same arguments about capitalism as OWS has now. Now all you hear is, "don't tax me" and "small government" and not a word about the injustice and corporate greed that's going on. Again, I saw this for myself so I know I'm not mistaken.

Now, instead of downplaying OWS, why don't you work to see where OWS and the Tea Party can agree so we can move past the left/right agenda and into an 'agenda of the people'.

I'm not trying to upset anyone and I'm sorry if you took my comment the wrong way but we need to educate folks. You obviously have some experience with the Tea Party (more than me, I bet), how about a post on where we differ and where we can find some parallels?

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"Again, I saw this for myself so I know I'm not mistaken."

The tea parties have done a poor job of reaching out to the left. We DO have common ground in opposing the FED and crony corporate first capitalism. We need free markets where individuals are rewarded for their efforts - that is certainly NOT a L/R issue.

Success will come to those that craft a truly populist message in protesting. The tea parties are far from perfect, as the OWS is far from perfect. But we haven't heard the last from either movement.

How powerful if they merged across a fairly small, but coherent set of principles [ http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2010/02/face-of-freedoms-vision.html ]: --End the FED and replace it with a Constitutional Monetary/Banking system --Clear out excessive debt and derivatives from the entire financial system --Ensure the quantity of money remains under control in the long term

[-] 1 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

Educate me. Tell me what I 'don't know' instead of being retaliatory. I'm open. :)

[-] 0 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

OWS is very much politically motivated or have you not heard the quotes of your attendees or read the list of demands? The Tea party wasn't dubbed a right wing group and then attracted right wing people. The Tea party in itself with protesting huge spending, govt waste and getting back to the Constitution attracted conservative people to become members. No, no kool aid was consumed to make my observations about ows, only seeing, hearing and reading examples from your own attendees. By the way, your wrong about the Tea parties beliefs not being in line with the populous', that's why a ton of open Tea party candidates were sweep into office last year. More people side with the Founders and the Constitution then with Marx.

[-] 3 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 3 years ago

No, you are missing his point. OWS is a group that wants all the things you agreed with. I personally love the constitution. In fact almost all of us do! :D We QUOTE the constitution in our arguments about unjust actions our government has taken lately. Really! I'm not joking. The problem is, that the Media finds the very small majority of people that say stupid shit about communism, and then ONLY reports about that. They ignore all the sane people that just want this country to be for the people by the people like the founders wanted. If TEA PARTIERS Join the movement they can help diversify the ideas!

Do you understand?

[-] 1 points by orionstarman (123) from Kingsville, MD 3 years ago

If that is what you believe in I have to ask, why didn't you join the TP movement.

[-] 2 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 3 years ago

Because by the time I heard of it, it was filled with nutjobs.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

No, you listened to the MSM and came to that conclusion. The same conclusion is already being made of this movement. The establishment politicians don't want any reform. I do. Common sense, Constitutional ones. Remember, other than Hamilton, the Founders weren't for a centralized banking system.

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 3 years ago

I have followed the Tea Party and sympathized with some of their arguments? Why didn't I join? Because they received much of their funding from groups like American Crossroads, and from the Koch brothers, the ultra rich who are the very ones who are support policies that weaken the middle and working classes.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 3 years ago

I agree with you. And I didn't think the Tea Party was crazy at first, but then I realized they weren't doing many things anymore. And People like Palin were representing them. And I personally found Palin (and her cohorts) to be hypocritical and a bit crazy. Then it became engulfed in the republican party. Now they are all the same, they just use the Tea Party name to get extra votes from Tea Partiers.

[-] 1 points by WhyIsTheCouchAlwaysWet (316) from Lexington, KY 3 years ago

Seconded. By the time I'd heard of the Tea Party they were talking about repealing the Civil Rights Act and draconian immigration reform.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

The TEA Party NEVER said they were for repealing the civil rights act. It was the Republican party and the conservatives that got it through! It was the democrats in the Senate like Al Gore's father that filibustered the civil rights act. Get your facts straight!

[-] 1 points by WhyIsTheCouchAlwaysWet (316) from Lexington, KY 3 years ago

My facts are quite straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-a_VLOTzsk&feature=player_embedded#! (links to a 2:42 interview with Rand Paul, a KY [notice where I'm from] representative) In case you don't want to watch. Here is a word for word of about the first 30 seconds.

Rand Paul: "I like the civl rights in that it ended discrimination in all public domain and I'm all in favor of that. Interviewer: "But?" Rand Paul: "You had ask me the but. Um, I don't like the idea of telling private business owners, I abhor racism, I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anyone from your resturant but at the same time I do believe in private ownership but I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in any thing that gets public funding, and that's most of what the civil rights act was in my mind."

Before we get into it. I think his heart is in the right place, but I don't think our country is ready for that yet. I grew up in the south, I've spent time in small rural communities. Racism is still a problem in our society. I'm not going to argue the issues of whether this is the correct thing to do or not (this is not the place, let's stay on topic), but the fact remains, Rand Paul, a tea party supported candidate, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So yeah, some of my local tea party does support repealing the Civil Rights Act. This is why I felt alienated from the Tea Party.

And for the record, I'm not particularly pleased with the democrats handling of things either. Extremely displeased would be a polite way of putting it.

Hence why I'm here.

[-] 1 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

Thank you! That was my point. It's all 'wag the dog' and we need to know that.

[-] 2 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

TL, I was an advocate of the Tea Party... I left it a long time ago when it was marginalized by demanding theology and removing safety nets for citizens while not doing a damn against protective corporate legislation.

I sometimes wonder if I had stayed in it and been more vocal if I could have helped its slide away from its original intent.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

Where do you people get this stuff? The Tea party never demanded people except ANY religion, all they were saying is that in the 1st Amendment we have the freedom to practice our religion and that the government will not create an official government religion. It doesn't say you can't practice it anywhere you want. There was also never any talk of doing away with safety net programs, only reforming them and getting the dead weight parasites off them. All of this is rumors and propaganda from the left.

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

The local Tea Party group in my area got taken over and one of their criteria for being members was acknowledging God. I left over it.

[-] 2 points by MilesSZ (7) from New York, NY 3 years ago

And the Tea Party was also corporate funded, it was effectively a proxy organization of the Corporate body. Thus far I haven't heart of OWS being corporate funded or lying to itself otherwise.

[-] 2 points by igetit (6) 3 years ago

MilesSZ - you are 100% correct. The Tea Party receives substantial backing from the Koch Brothers Billionaires! They brainwash Tea Partiers into thinking the government is going to hinder free markets and abolish capitalism - when in fact Koch Brothers and other corrupt corporations like them- are purchasing votes from particular right wing legislators that vote on laws that allow them to pollute the environment, have low safety standards, and allow them to sell their products to hostile regimes like Iran. The Tea Party will get the respect that OWS does if they stop taking money from Corporations also!

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

I am in the TEA party from the beginning and I have to say two things. the Koch brothers weren't involved until much later after the TEA parties started in 2009, at least I never heard of them and the money they did give only went to one or two TEA party groups at best. The TEA party express I think is one and that's fine. They are free to give to anyone they want as leftists are and do. But I have to tell you the multiple TEA party groups I have seen and members I have spoken to don't get any money from anyone other then the members through donations of $ 25 -$50 bucks every now and then and regularly have to pay for supplies for meetings out of their own pockets.

The TEA party has no leaders, no "General assembly", we are just people that came together because of the giant unconstitutional overspending with TARP and the 847 BILLION dollar "Stimulus" plan that did NOTHING but drive further into debt and now he wants $500 Billion more! Why aren't you people protesting that?? Why aren't you people protesting the FED who routinely prints more and more money that we have to pay interest on and it's not backed by anything? All it does is devalue all of our money and assets. hyper inflation will hit if this is not corrected.
Why aren't you protesting the government who put the regulations in place to enable the banks to make the irresponsible loans they did that created the financial collapse? See the C.R.A. created by Carter, enacted and pushed by Clinton and sustained by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Nancy Pelosi!!

No the Tea party people aren't brainwashed. We know what we believe and where those beliefs are rooted, the Constitution and the Declaration!
Where does your beliefs and ideas come from if not from those??

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

Really? Show me your proof that every TEA party group is funded by a corporation. We'll be waiting for it. Is listening to the progressive cheerleaders over in msnbc proof??

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 3 years ago

Which of the thousands of Tea Parties are you referring to? The national organizations which are Republican shill organizations designed to co-opt the grassroots movements or the many local Tea Parties that pass around a box for donations in order to print their materials?

Don't worry - we will be co-opted in the same way. There will be a national movement by the Democrats to create a front face for the Occupy movement that will make the rounds on media and draft the positions to the ones considered most advantageous for the party's election strategy.

Then you can defend the beginning as grassroots all you want but people will point out Soros funding the national organization that has nothing to do with what we believe in and you will be ignored and dismissed.

This is the world we live in.

[-] 0 points by onesquarelight (60) from Wormleysburg, PA 3 years ago

The general assembly of this "Peoples" movement is in fact creating a political document that espouses many of the anti capitalistic ideals that TempestuousLiberty has laid out. As the underlying motives of the movement solidify it becomes more clear to anyone watching what the ideological base of the movement is. When the masses that have assembled start to wake up and realize that they did not get their way and that the general assembly's list of demands contains in part or in total ideals that run contrary to their own moral, social, and political philosophy, the numbers of those who actively support you with their presence will diminish. The movement currently thrives, because the attendees project their own perception of what the fight is about onto the movement. It can only last so long as you ave no defined goal.

[-] 1 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

Good point but we need to more hopeful than that. People need to realize that the "good" isn't just what's "good" for them. I'd like to believe most intelligent folks are 'on board' with that theory.

[-] 1 points by onesquarelight (60) from Wormleysburg, PA 3 years ago

I adhere to the principle that man is unable to act contrary to what he/she perceives to be his/her best interest. Man acts. All actions are dictated by preference. The underlying preference is always revealed in outward action. As humans we are unable to do anything that is contrary to self interest. What action we choose to engage in is entirely based on the perception of what action will yield the most desired outcome. Since at any given moment we are faced with options and desires for future outcomes, and because we are all subject, at the very least, to the scarcity of time, we must arrive at a preference for present action. Some desires must take precedence given our inability to invest the time into every conceivable desire. How we as individuals choose to invest our time and resources is always dictated by what we perceive to be our most beneficial coarse of action. Who is better than the person itself to determine what is in it's best interest? What your are suggesting, by introducing the idea of collective interest, is that some in the group stop acting and allow themselves to be overtaken with indifference.

Indifference is not sustainable. It would, without doubt, manifest itself as total emotional, physical, and subconscious paralysis. Indifference is the philosophical opposite of action. Man acts. Any argument to the contrary immediately finds itself at odds with the original premise.

That is why I believe the political philosophy that best suits the character of humans is one which hinges on the principles of individual liberty. When each person is afforded, by all others, the right to act to their own advantage so long as their actions do not infringe on the same right of others, there can exist a homogenous society that supports the widest possible prosperity. Government plays an important role of protecting the individual. Constitutional government protects the individual's property from those who would wish to acquire it by force and provides justice on behalf of those who have been wronged.

It is not the responsible citizen who seeks to build up government so that it may bargain with it to wield it's sword on their behalf. Contracting the government to confiscate the property of others is theft. Acting in such a manor serves only to widen the gap between the ruler and the ruled, empower the ruling class and diminish the rights of the individual.

Our government rather than providing those basic protections, has become a monster who wishes to dictate the lives of it's subjects in every facet of life. This has been a long slow process that has been perpetrated on the people by the people. One group should not and cannot use government to instill their own personal moral values by force on others. That is why I believe the solution to our problems starts with a consensus to limit government to it's constitutionally defined role. Recognize that individual rights are the only rights and that it is no ones right to misuse the government's power to take away freedom from another and force their moral agenda on the masses.

When a small group of bankers created legislation that endowed on themselves the sole right to create money, dictate the value thereof and manipulate the rates at which they would lend it, a great right of all was concentrated into the hands of a few. That power has sapped the wealth of our currency through constant inflation. It has served to fund unjust wars without the consent of the people. It has served to confiscate great amounts of wealth out of the hands of the many into the hands of the few.

The way to correct this grave injustice is to repeal the federal reserve's charter, allow men the freedom to determine what payment to accept for their time, and to eliminate fractional reserve banking system. The bank should be nothing more than a warehouse for money. What one puts into it should remain there until withdrawn. Banks should not assume that while they are in possession of other people's property they can do with it as they wish.

[-] 1 points by BadAss0830 (68) 3 years ago

"by introducing the idea of collective interest, is that some in the group stop acting and allow themselves to be overtaken with indifference"

Great points, really, but I'm of the mind that we also have a 'human' responsibility to one another. My interests may not necessarily be in the interest of the whole and, therefore, as a logical person, I need to understand that. I don't become indifferent about it; it is what it is. I would much rather see my species thrive on the common good than die for the good of me, which is pretty much where we are now. We're all in misery for the good of a few. Our planet is in peril for the good of a few. We refuse to acknowledge the most basic of human rights for the good of few.

I can't tell if you disagree with my points on the common good, but I think we're making the same argument from different perspectives.

Either way, great points!

[-] 1 points by onesquarelight (60) from Wormleysburg, PA 3 years ago

Similarly it is man's right to determine for himself what he will accept as payment for his time. That is why the central banking cartel's monopoly of money creation and the government's laws that force individuals to accept only what they decree as payment are so obviously a great force against individual liberty.

A free market is one where the consumer dictates what is valued. It becomes each individual's goal to best meet the needs of their fellow citizens at the lowest cost. Those who best serve others reap the rewards of their efforts. That is capitalism. That is free markets.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

It is mans right, but certainly not reality. And it has less to do with any government institution than with the degradation of labor and the living wage.

[-] 1 points by onesquarelight (60) from Wormleysburg, PA 3 years ago

Man's right to choose what he will choose to accept as payment for his time..."has less to do with any government institution than with the degradation of labor and the living wage."

(preceded your thoughts with my proposition to clarify yours)

The phrase "less to do" still implies that you agree that the federal reserve's monopoly infringes on man's right to determine for himself what he/she will accept as payment. I won't try to convince you that you are wrong since in essence you agree with me.

It's conceivable that forces other than the federal reserve infringe on the same right of the individual to choose what to accept for their time. I won't argue which one takes precedence or If I agree with the ones you've chosen.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

Could be....I dont really care for the fed because they have the power to dictate market shifts. But, the question that keeps coming up re: The Fed is, then what? There will have to be something in place to avoid having people speculating in any number of exchange currencies.

[-] 0 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"Once the Tea Party took on the persona of a right wing group, it attracted more and more extreme right followers and, therefore, made their existence almost laughable since those beliefs are not inline with the populous."

Seriously? Without the Center/Right tea parties - you're representing the 33, not the 99! Now that's laughable...doesn't have to be that way...

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 3 years ago

I must disagree. The quality of life which capitalism brings is always at the expense of another group.

This is due to the fact that the foundation of capitalism is based on competition. Competition itself implies winners and losers/ haves and have nots.

What most don't understand is that the overall quality of life cannot be measured by material wealth which our country prides itself on. There exist indogenous tribes with 'gift economies' which are proven to be happier than the average citizen here.

The only time in which we see villages with poverty and deprivation is when money gets involved. Money itself has been great as a tool for exchanging value over the past few centuries. Money is still used as the primary means of distributing goods and resources however money itself is no longer necessary.

Money is based on scarcity. Something must be rare (in short supply) in order for money to be used. E.g. People don't pay for the air they breathe because it is abundant.

Money itself is at the core of our competitive environment because it grants access to rare goods/services while preventing others from accessing those same things. So money is the middle man defining the winners and losers. For this reason individuals/groups will always attempt to game the system. Over time businesses will be successful in gaming the system and gain an advantage over those who play the money game ethically.

The market is where this game is played. These unethical groups will look for anyway they can to maximize profitability. E.g. Products are purposely designed with life cycles so they become obsolete based on how often people are willing to purchase them. Artificial scarcity is created to ensure a good/service remains profitable (e.g. crop destruction). Also a tremendous amount of money is spent advertising unnecessary goods/services so people will continue purchasing them.

If consumers stop buying stuff the business collapses. On a massive scale the economy would collapse. If enough people become unemployed, the purchasing power of consumers decreases and the economy again collapses.

So overall money does NOT create the best system. It simply works in environments which have scarcity (or artificial scarcity) by enforcing the will of those that find the most efficient way to obtain money. (regardless of morality and ethics)

The justification often used for money is that it is the only means of motivating individuals: This is untrue because there exist plenty of volunteers willing to perform tasks simply because they enjoy the activity. Look at all the open source movements and even how most families operate. (Did you pay your parents for making you food or giving you shelter?)

The other justification used is that money is necessary in order to understand how to distribute resources properly. In otherwords the market is the means of self correcting errors: This is also untrue because we can determine where to distribute resources through our advancements in technology. We don't have to wait for mistakes already made to eventually be corrected.

Another way to put it is this: The scientific method > money, beliefs, and political opinions

So this is the alternative. Apply the scientific method to organizing society. To clarify, organize society to maximize sustainable abundance in the most humane way possible.

By giving power to the 'opinions' of uninformed individuals or groups even if it is through democracy, those groups will often make mistakes and again corrections will have to be made after the fact.

We need to arrive at important decisions through evidence and testing. I don't want any party voting on the best way to perform surgery, or how to build a plane.

We have automation and cybernation technologies which can eliminate many of the jobs we currently Must perform in order for our economy to survive. Many of the other jobs serve no other purpose than to circulate money.

Point is: We must create a post-scarcity global society and I don't believe capitalism nor any traditional forms of government can accomplish that.

If these ideas sound reasonable please look into thevenusproject.com and Jacque Fresco's Resource Based Economy

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

I think this author is jumping the gun. We don't know yet what this movement is about. If it's about eradicating the fascists, let's not blow an opportunity to unite the Tea party with OWS.

If it truly is about socialism then I'm afraid we are divided and conquored as usual.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

Ron Paul libertarian/Tea Partier here. I like what I see. As long as this movement is not a socialist attack on free market capitalism and instead against the fascists, you could get the Tea Party with you. And then it's all over for the Fed and the bankers.

[-] 1 points by kmanpdx (105) 3 years ago

Capitalism has worked, so far, sort of. However, what we are all witnessing, is the failure of Capitalism, and maybe even democracy if this movement goes no where. It will end up failing due to unregulated GREED. Warren Buffet has assets of over 24 Billion (that's BILLION). Seriously, why would any single individual or household need that much? No one in the world can convince me that's not excess greed, even if he thinks the rich should be taxed more. He could easily put most of his salary back into the people that work for him. That in turn would stimulate the economy by itself to an extent.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the TEA party and OWS want the same basic thing: a level playing field. The field is not level today, it is skewed towards the rich, as demonstrated by the distribution of wealth in the US. http://saintpetersblog.com/2011/09/chart-actual-distribution-of-wealth-vs-what-americans-thinks-it-is/

[-] 1 points by Leabharan (9) from Ashland, OR 3 years ago

Alas, you have been drinking the Kool Aid of right wing propaganda. you'll need to open your mind and forget your prejudices before you will understand the real problems that face the 99% of citizens of this country including you yourself preumably.

[-] 1 points by StrictlyConfidential (1) from Tallahassee, FL 3 years ago

You are not invited fool....

[-] 1 points by Haitiana4Obama (20) 3 years ago

The Tea Party is about HATE and supporting the Status Quo, we are about PROGRESS. Big difference.

[-] 1 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 3 years ago

The Tea Party isn't joining the cause because it supports the corporate state. It cares nothing for the collective benefit or will, but rather seduces would-be activists with appeals to self interest, mixed with a revisionist message regarding American history.

It is the public face of the problem and not a proper revolution. It was inspired by the "greed-is-good" mentality and supported by the "greed-is-good" corporate elite. The Tea Party, while at the outset, a legitimate libertarian minded public action, was quickly co-opted by vested right wing interests, much as vested left wing interests are seeking to do the same with the OWS.

However as this movement is rooted in opposition to the existing and self sustaining machinery of corporate money politics and influence based legislating, this will not be the case.

Your thesis is entirely ideological and hyperbolic and as such irrelevant to current discussion.

[-] 1 points by randyharberson3 (6) 3 years ago

randyharberson3 In 2008 I filed a 150 billion complaint in the Arizona US district court. The reasoning behind this complaint was that I was upset about the bailout money and the bonuses that the banks were giving out to the CEO's. I requested in my complaint information to where the funds were going, also at that time I requested that the remaining 300 billion dollars should be used towards citizens who were facing forclosures. It is my understanding that as a citizen I have a right to request this information. However, the justice department did not think this was proper. Therefore, they aggresively fought the case labeling me as a radical with their briefs. In this suit I listed the treasury department and Hank Pauson as defendants. Shortly after this lawsuit President Obama came to Phoenix after he was elected and alloted some 80 million dollars to help people going through foreclosures. Another 123 million was given to help this cause, yet to this day only 3 houses have been modified. Which brings me to believe that something is not right. I feel that under the freedom of information act that every federal grant should be monitored and accounted for. Therefore I wish that citizens would aggresively pursue under their rights and find out where and how the funds are used, for instance the stimulus funds which incidentally create jobs regardless of what the republicans and other right wing nut cases say, but I feel Obama in passing the stimulus act did not realize that with this amount of money that the potential for fraud is tremendous. This is too much money and impossible for the government to monitor. Although the media such as the Arizona Republic has concerns about this problem it is up to the citizens to monitor them properly under the freedom of information act. I will make a challenge to President Obama, pay me 60 thousand dollars a year and give me 3 helpers or accountants with good eye sight and I will save the government at least $2 million in one year. Again I challenge him even though my energy level is very low and I am 73 yrs old. I am tired of the way things are going, I feel like the middle class and poor are under attacked and I don't like the atmosphere of greed that is being used by wall street corporations ect. Since I filed the complaint in U.S district court the IRS has constantly harrassed me, which pisses me off as I am only on social security. I dont know whether this is Obama's administration but something isn't right when companies like G.E and others don't pay any taxes and Suprme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife who made thousands from working at the Heritage Foundation and he put on his tax reform 0. Another thing that bugs me is during the bailout Ben Bernnake and Hank Pausson forced Bank of America to buy Merril Lynch, which cost the investors millions. In all due respect they broke FEC regulations which were against the law, yet the prisons are full of individuals. Are some more equal than others? If you break the law you break the law. Again if I am given freedom of information rights I again challenge the government that I will save them $2 million in one year.

Randy Harberson 623-580-0035 Cell phone 602- 369- 4038 4038 W. Camino Vivaz Glendale AZ 85310

[-] 1 points by randyharberson3 (6) 3 years ago

randyharberson3 In 2008 I filed a 150 billion complaint in the Arizona US district court. The reasoning behind this complaint was that I was upset about the bailout money and the bonuses that the banks were giving out to the CEO's. I requested in my complaint information to where the funds were going, also at that time I requested that the remaining 300 billion dollars should be used towards citizens who were facing forclosures. It is my understanding that as a citizen I have a right to request this information. However, the justice department did not think this was proper. Therefore, they aggresively fought the case labeling me as a radical with their briefs. In this suit I listed the treasury department and Hank Pauson as defendants. Shortly after this lawsuit President Obama came to Phoenix after he was elected and alloted some 80 million dollars to help people going through foreclosures. Another 123 million was given to help this cause, yet to this day only 3 houses have been modified. Which brings me to believe that something is not right. I feel that under the freedom of information act that every federal grant should be monitored and accounted for. Therefore I wish that citizens would aggresively pursue under their rights and find out where and how the funds are used, for instance the stimulus funds which incidentally create jobs regardless of what the republicans and other right wing nut cases say, but I feel Obama in passing the stimulus act did not realize that with this amount of money that the potential for fraud is tremendous. This is too much money and impossible for the government to monitor. Although the media such as the Arizona Republic has concerns about this problem it is up to the citizens to monitor them properly under the freedom of information act. I will make a challenge to President Obama, pay me 60 thousand dollars a year and give me 3 helpers or accountants with good eye sight and I will save the government at least $2 million in one year. Again I challenge him even though my energy level is very low and I am 73 yrs old. I am tired of the way things are going, I feel like the middle class and poor are under attacked and I don't like the atmosphere of greed that is being used by wall street corporations ect. Since I filed the complaint in U.S district court the IRS has constantly harrassed me, which pisses me off as I am only on social security. I dont know whether this is Obama's administration but something isn't right when companies like G.E and others don't pay any taxes and Suprme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife who made thousands from working at the Heritage Foundation and he put on his tax reform 0. Another thing that bugs me is during the bailout Ben Bernnake and Hank Pausson forced Bank of America to buy Merril Lynch, which cost the investors millions. In all due respect they broke FEC regulations which were against the law, yet the prisons are full of individuals. Are some more equal than others? If you break the law you break the law. Again if I am given freedom of information rights I again challenge the government that I will save them $2 million in one year.

Randy Harberson 623-580-0035 Cell phone 602- 369- 4038 4038 W. Camino Vivaz Glendale AZ 85310

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

TempestuousLiberty, There will always be misguided folks calling for an end to Capitalism, but let us not confuse Capitalism with a vehicle for freedom and liberty to benefit the masses. Nazi Germany was a State directed Capitalist country, Adolf Hitler actually despised Socialists, but Nazi Germany utterly threw freedom and Liberty out the window. One common mistake, made by Americans, is the assumption that Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism or the opposite of totalitarianism. This is largely due to the influence of Friedrich Hayek a critic of, what we call, Classical Socialism or Communism. The Communists, unlike their National Socialist cousins, used a Command Economy system, so Command economics became synonym for Communism and Hayek and Capitalism was portrayed as the hapless dupe of the Nazis.

Many of the financial elitists and industrial elitists, the stone cold Capitalists, were not only supporters of Fascism, but eventually of Communism. In point of fact, President Ronald Reagan rejected the prevailing financial elite perspective and industrial elitists perspective and called for an end to trade with the Soviet Union, thus helping to break an evil empire; an evil empire the Capitalists wanted to preserve through trade.

Today, the financial elite and industrial elite, of Wall Street and Corporate America, sacrifice the jobs and future of Americans to make money off of building up the P.R.C. They lobby to put Russia in the WTO, even though the next President of Russia called the break up of the Soviet Union, the greatest tragedy of the generation or something to that effect. Putin is not only a stone cold fanboi of Communism, he is the grand son of one of Stalin's cronies. If you are scared of hippies and we agree that hippies are not the solution to our problems, then the Capitalists, in the financial and industrial elite, should really give you pause. Best regards, MJ

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 3 years ago

TempestuousLiberty, There will always be misguided folks calling for an end to Capitalism, but let us not confuse Capitalism with a vehicle for freedom and liberty to benefit the masses. Nazi Germany was a State directed Capitalist country, Adolf Hitler actually despised Socialists, but Nazi Germany utterly threw freedom and Liberty out the window. One common mistake, made by Americans, is the assumption that Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism or the opposite of totalitarianism. This is largely due to the influence of Friedrich Hayek a critic of, what we call, Classical Socialism or Communism. The Communists, unlike their National Socialist cousins, used a Command Economy system, so Command economics became synonym for Communism and Hayek and Capitalism was portrayed as the hapless dupe of the Nazis.

Many of the financial elitists and industrial elitists, the stone cold Capitalists, were not only supporters of Fascism, but eventually of Communism. In point of fact, President Ronald Reagan rejected the prevailing financial elite perspective and industrial elitists perspective and called for an end to trade with the Soviet Union, thus helping to break an evil empire; an evil empire the Capitalists wanted to preserve through trade.

Today, the financial elite and industrial elite, of Wall Street and Corporate America, sacrifice the jobs and future of Americans to make money off of building up the P.R.C. They lobby to put Russia in the WTO, even though the next President of Russia called the break up of the Soviet Union, the greatest tragedy of the generation or something to that effect. Putin is not only a stone cold fanboi of Communism, he is the grand son of one of Stalin's cronies. If you are scared of hippies and we agree that hippies are not the solution to our problems, then the Capitalists, in the financial and industrial elite, should really give you pause. Best regards, MJ

[-] 1 points by michael123 (25) 3 years ago

Hey guys, I'm an Occupy Wall Street artist and I would like to invite you to my Occupy Wall Street art show called SPANK THE BULL: AN OCCUPY WALL STREET MANIFESTO, which is in the form of an Interactive Theatre.

You can view my art show by going to WWW.SPANKTHEBULL.ORG

By the way, do you know why the Tea Party won't join us, because they are the 1%.

[-] 1 points by rmmo (262) 3 years ago

You should because there has been a massive "wealth redistribution" that has gone on for the last 30 years. The top 1% now controls over 42% of our entire nation's wealth and the top 10% now controls over 70% of our entire nation's wealth. The bottom 50% now control around 2% of our entire nation's wealth. (University of Southern California Study).

How did this wealth redistribution happen? The middle class is the engine of our economy. The middle class spends their wealth on corporate goods/services and the corporations take that money in as profit. The corporations redistributed the middle class wealth by paying vast majority of their profits out to the executives at the top and shareholders. Middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years while executive wages have gone up 256% in since 1980. Even last year executive compensation went up another 11%. We have not seen numbers like this since the great depression. All of our nation's wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the few.

How did this happen? The middle class was roped into replacing wages with easy credit and loans. So instead of paying people living wages, corporations fooled us into thinking we were doing well and could afford things by giving us easy credit instead of wages. Corporations came up with the brilliant idea that they could loan us money instead of paying us wages. Instead of having wages to buy t.v.'s, furniture, etc. we were given easy loans. So the middle class became a debtor class.

There used to be a tax disincentive to paying out all of corporate profits at the top because in the 1950's income was taxed at 90% over a certain amount money ($2 million in today's dollars) and now that tax disincentive has disappeared. In 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1960-1970's it was 70%. In 1980's it dropped to 49%. In 1990's dropped to 39%. Under George Bush it dropped to a mere 36%.

We have had over 30 years of massive tax cuts for the wealthy. There is now no tax disincentive to paying out all of the corporate wealth at the top. And there is no employee bargaining power because now less than 7% of all of private sector jobs are unionized.

With no tax disincentive and no employee bargaining power, all of the corporate profits are being paid to shareholders and executives. Why can't you just trust executives to pay people fair wages? In the 1980's our courts ruled that corporate executives only have one duty and that is to maximize shareholder profits. The 1980's ruling single-handedly removed executives from having any duties to their employees, society, or to the company's long-term future. Executives only have one duty and that is to maximize short-term shareholder profits. And executive compensation is usually directly tied to maximizing short-term shareholder profits. This caused companies to not create long-term growth plans and to instead use gimmicks to increase short-term profits.

In fact, instead of executives using innovation, creation, and growth to increase profits and stock prices, executives know that they can do it through easier methods like laying-off workers and cost-cutting like pushing healthcare and retirement costs on workers.

The problems are: 1) deregulation of the banks by the Republican-controlled congress in 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act); 2) hedge funds are exempt from regulation (and are currently causing the world financial crisis by betting against Greece and other Euro nations and the Euro currency); 3) tax system no longer has a disincentive against paying outrageous executive salaries (highest marginal tax rate has dropped from 90% to 36%); 4) commodities market (oil, gold, food, metals) is exempt from regulation and is now a haven for financial speculators (Republican-controlled Congress exempted it in the Commodities Future Modernization act of 2000); 5) the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can spend unlimited funds in campaign elections - Citizen's United case (thus politicians on both sides favor the wealthy/corporations) and 6) the rise of corporate/billionaire propaganda media "news." Because of the need to raise massive sums in politics today, we no longer have a party that represents the people. The Democrats have to chase the corporate and big money donors too.

What can we do about this: 1) re-instate Glass-Steagall Act regulating the banks; 2) regulate hedge funds and the commodities market (because the commodities market is not regulated speculation has caused prices for commodities to go through the roof); 3) get rid of the money in politics (have federally funded elections with clear limits on spending and no outside groups allowed to have ads); 4) get rid of 1980's laws stating that corporations' only duty is to maximize shareholder profits; and 5) regulate "news" channels and newspapers (no more "slanted opinion news" masquerading as hard news) and reinstitute the fairness doctrine across all news outlets to ensure that both sides get equal time.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

calling it free market capitalism is a con scam. its not even capitalism. its a slave market system. and it does need to end.

the people who have been redistributing the wealth are the corporate oligarchs. its fair to point out that they are criminal and to un-distribute the wealth after they have gone to all the trouble to cheat and lie and steal from everyone else. A marxist? etc? sorry , no we don't have anything to do with marxism. "War on freedom" what freedom? this is a slave caste system, there is no freedom. We are fighting for real freedom instead of the orwellian lie of freedom. And if a financial institution uses con scams and lies to make its bucks it most certainly did do something wrong. We don't wonder about tea party support, and we don't care. Far right wing nonsense and BS is part of the problem. Saying our movement wants to destroy the constitution is another lie. We would like to uphold the constitution. we are not interested in marxist ideology. your lying, your con scamming, your spinning, you have no idea what you are talking about. Capitalism has never existed, corporate oligarchy is the system we have, democracy is the real vehicle of prosperity, and again you are ignorant and clearly prove you have been programmed by right wing talking points, you don't even know what system we have or what the real definitions are of the systems your smearing us with.

Grow up and quit lying and spin doctoring.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/thetruth-socialismcapitalismcommunismmarxism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-versus-corporatism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/help-me-understand/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-a-love-story/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sociology/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ethics/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-your-left-right-conditioning/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nader-kucinich-and-paul/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/5-facts-you-should-know-about-the-wealthiest-one-p/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-am-homeless-joe-jp-morgan-chase-accidentally-for/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-we-end-the-fed/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-end-the-federal-reserve-and-what-do-you-replac/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/teaching-the-occupation/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-needs-structure/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-not-your-personal-billboard-for-your-politi/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/systems-theory-primer/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/organize-inform-take-action-effect-change/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/better-website-needed/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nonviolence-the-only-path/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-not-against-capitalism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-not-about-political-stripe-it-is-about-bas/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/national-initiative-for-democracy/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-third-political-party-the-movement-of-the-middle/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/300-fema-camps/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-a-false-flag-operation/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-this-will-not-work/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paradigm-shift-now/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-proposal-for-focus/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-bullshit-posts-and-get-organized/

[-] 1 points by BigDikdJew (61) from Stratford, CA 3 years ago

Im sure many of the protesters had the time of their lives in college while blowing all that student loan money.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 3 years ago

How many times can a right-winger put the word Marxist in a paragraph before they start to bore us? Just remember the abuses of the Robber Baron era, and why unions, (and the progressive movement), became necessary in the first place. This world does not belong to the ones who accumulate the most. The disenfranchised always wake up at some point. Kissing the ass of the upper class with tax cuts is not doing us any good. http://sibob.org/wordpress/?p=8012

[-] 1 points by SickandTired (5) 3 years ago

I realize that Marxist theory is considered leftist in in history/economics books....but When I say Marxist theory is to the "right" in the way in practice was rendered and how people were controlled with no freedoms, is very close to fascism. I would say that Stalin and Hitler were not that far apart in a practical sense in terms of how things (the economically, socially, and politically) were handled, Marxism in practice and fascisim, respectively.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

No tea party? Qu'elle damage!!

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 3 years ago

(From Arlington Vt) Looking at this discussion I am struck by so extensive focus on whether people or a movement is "lefty" or "right" or "center right". Those are labels concocted by the media and pundits and sometimes, cynically by opponents of a movement to besmirch the good faith or validity of the opinions of that movement.

I advocate things such as : "We believe in the virtues of work, of having a meaningful career that enable us to support our families and contribute to our communities. We also have the expectation that if we work hard and live by the rules, we will have the means by which we can maintain a reasonable standard of living, and provide for a comfortable retirement and help educate our next generation."

or We believe that every person has the expectation that they will be allowed to benefit from the fruits of their hard work, ingenuity and investment, but that with any success, there comes the obligation to treat those responsible for that success with fairness, dignity and respect and also allow others to so benefit from their own hard work, ingenuity and investment, whether such investment is in the form of labor or capital.

Does that make me a "lefty>"

[-] 1 points by SickandTired (5) 3 years ago

This is capitalism run amuck. This is not a perfect world, and to build shareholder wealth, the mantra of capitalism, at any expense, is quite Machiavellian. We are increasing shareholder wealth in spite of rules, regulations, ethics, and morals. And, pure capitalism, does not exist. Pure anything doesn't exist (maybe death is pure is all). Supply and demand theory is out the window, because markets are corporately and governmentally (one of the same at this point) controlled and manipulated. How can you claim that capitalism is the "only" vehicle that brings a better quality of life? Where is your data. Certainly you cannot be making that assessment when looking at our present global economic debacle. Educate yourself to your erroneous view of economics 101. I guess you are also a Milton Friedman economist, and we have seen how well that has worked in the Southern cone of South America, and soft-handedly in the U.S. Please stop calling the "left" Marxist. Marxist theory and fascist theory (the right) go hand-in-hand as socio-political-economic theories are concerned. A socialist approach is geared more for the people, as it is in European countries, who offer health care, retirement, and educational benefits out of tax dollars (and these countries I guess can becaue they are not engulfed in a continual state of warfare). Aren't our tax dollars supposed to be benefitting us? Read and educate yourself TL. This is not about politics, left or right, at this point anyway, it is about the sorry state of affairs and the corporate takeover of America and the globe. If you are not part of the 1% of wealth, then you are only working against yourself with delusions of grandeur to be in that 1%, I am sorry to report. But, it is your right to have a great day, so go ahead and have a spectacular afternoon.

[-] 1 points by zelduh (14) from Los Angeles, CA 3 years ago

Can you tell me, specifically, what you think is anti-Constitution in the list of eight demands?

The list is here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Im1percent (30) 3 years ago

Here Here! Well said!!

[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 3 years ago

No, we just want an even playing field, which ended with the end of Glass-Steagall Act. Free markets only work with regulations over the greedy bankers, as any one can see now.

[-] 1 points by alwayzabull (228) 3 years ago

Nice try. You are wrong. The tea party was hijacked by the establishment Republican party months ago. The Democrats are trying to do the same thing with OWS.

[-] 1 points by FreeFromPoliticalLabels (11) 3 years ago

OWS doesn't want the right wing hijacked version of the Tea Party it is now. The Sarah Palins and these people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II21iLtbLY4 can just stay home.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 3 years ago

My opinion only:

OWS is not a political movement. Tea Party Support is not necessary nor is it welcomed anymore than support from politicians. There are a lot of groups trying to jump on the OWS bandwagon, such as unions. Individuals from any group are welcomed, but not the organization they belong to.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

The TEA party doesn't want to be part of your movement. I saw on the message board that someone had asked "Why the TEA party wasn't supporting us?" So I responded.

Like I said the TEA party wants responsibility from the government, the federal government getting back to their 18 enumerated powers and Constitutional adherence from all branches of the federal government.

We would be part of a group no matter how well intentioned in the beginning that has so easily become a leftist progressive marxist utopian sit in financed by George Soros, the Tides foundation, the Alliance for Global justice which is actually supports Nicanet and is a supporter of communist Daniel Ortega. Funny how that disappeared from your website under the "Donate" tab. but this isn't Marxist communist supported right? No! LOL

[-] 1 points by sfck23 (34) 3 years ago

I have to agree that there are a small portion of people speaking concerns and voicing idea that don't represent the movement or me. However, in the beginning stages of the declaration of independence, how many drafts and how many voices helped contribute to the formation this great document?

For me, I don't believe in entitlement at all. I think that corporate welfare and public welfare have been abused and need to be addressed... IMEDIATELY!

I work hard everyday and I have a good job, but in the last 4 years since I graduated from college I have seen my salary lowered each year while having to take on "extra work", while also paying higher percentage into a failed retirement system that won't even go towards my retirement... I live paycheck to paycheck and I pay all my bills on time, but I am ENRAGED to learn that as taxpayer we are being hit 3 times harder than the original terms of the bailout, allow to share my perspective.

  1. taxpayers BAILED-OUT the big banks in order to prevent global economic collapse

  2. taxpayers learn that over the last 10 years “widespread FRAUD from WELLS FARGO, BANK of AMERICA, J.P. MORGAN CHASE and GMAC Mortgage, pick-pocketed VETERANS for millions of dollars...

  3. the liability of this fraud has been shoved on the federal government (Dept. of Veteran Affairs).”

  4. NOW the taxpayers have to pay to investigate this fraud!!!

  5. ENOUGH is ENOUGH, justice is HERE… DEMOCRACY LIVES!!!

This movement is about JUSTICE for the criminal behavior on Wall St. that stole from taxpaying citizens and the government…

Do you want justice also?

“The lawsuit accuses WELLS FARGO, BANK of AMERICA, J.P. MORGAN CHASE and GMAC Mortgage, of engaging in “a brazen scheme to defraud both our nation’s veterans and the United States treasury” of millions of dollars in connection with home loans guaranteed by the VA."

“This is a very significant case,” Patrick Burns, spokesman for the non-profit Taxpayers Against Fraud, said Tuesday. “It deals with WIDESPREAD FRAUD from VETERANS who were personally pick-pocketed for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, and the liability has been shoved on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.”

“During the past decade, more than 1.2 MILLION of the refinanced loans made to VETERANS and their families, and up to 90 % may have been affected by the alleged fraud, according to attorneys for the plaintiffs.”

Oct. 4, 2011 - Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suit-alleges-banks-and-mortgage-companies-cheated-veterans-and-us-taxpayers/2011/10/04/gIQATp4RLL_story.html

[-] 1 points by hardhead (25) from Gosport, IN 3 years ago

PLEASE except my sincere APOLOGIE for that remark. IM SORRY

[-] 1 points by hardhead (25) from Gosport, IN 3 years ago

take you and your tp iers back down texas way, let mexico have you all back

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 3 years ago

Tempestuous Liberty, there are a lot of people involved in this, each with their own goals and demands. If we want 99% of Americans involved in this, we're going to see a lot of whacky ideas floating around.

We both know that the insane ideas won't fly.

However, if we stick together and find things we all agree on (like fighting against crony capitalism, lobbyists writing legislation that politicians don't bother reading and insider bailouts), then we will WIN those things.

If you give up because you're against some demands that only a few are shouting out, then we will never win reform. Those demands would fail anyway. Stick with it and promote the ideas that would work.

Do you understand? You need to stay in this and bring in other TeaPartiers because there are things that all American's can agree on... and if we stick to those things (and perhaps find other areas of agreement) we can get them rammed thru.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 3 years ago

True, capitalism is the only vehicle that brings a better life, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves, and you can't get any more capitalistic than that. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 3 years ago

Who cares for the tea party?

[-] 1 points by diborah (16) 3 years ago

we need love. and thats it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WBHic2Ea_8

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

I think you are confusing the thoughts of a few self admitted communists with the movement as a whole. The main difference I see between this and the Tea Party, besides a difference in the demographics (which I welcome), is that the Tea Party thinks this is a government problem that can be solved with things like a balanced budget amendment and PACs and all of that stuff. Forget about the Koch brothers for a minute in all of this. OWS does not believe this problem begins or ends with the government, nor does it believe the real robbery is with taxation. The real robbery has been taking place for 30 years (at least) in the form of crony capitalism, offshoring of jobs, leaky consumer protections....etc, all at the urging of big business. So the problem is with the master not the slave. Also, we believe that the government should represent even its weakest citizens and should be a helper rather than a hinderance to them. That has nothing to do with regulations but rather a consistent built in inequality that benefits the rich rather than the poor. We believe in helping the homeless, that they didnt all put themselves there and that, even if they did, it benefits society to bring them out of that rather than just watch them walk by on the street. It is the essence of true equal opportunity, along the lines of Roosevelts second bill of rights that this movement wants. This group, especially the young, deeply values individuality and to some extent, lacks a leader because it believes in individuality and the freedom of independent action. Capitalism is not the problem. Greed and a threefold increase in the wealth of the top 1% is. As for professors, I am 39 years old so the influence on me is negligible but many are conservative. Nevertheless, most are educated and can accept that there are problems that need to be solved. The views are less a reflection of their ideology than their education. No one wonders why conservatives dont support this movement. For one thing, we differ, though not as much as you might think. For another, there is a real mean streak running through conservatism that we just dont like.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

There is no mean streak running through conservatism. Conservative's give much, much more in charitable donations then liberal progressives ever give.

Conservatives want to be free from government telling them what to do with their money, with their lives, and with their property. Liberal progressives want to use everyone else's money, but their own to fulfill their agenda.

Roosevelt's "Second bill of right's" that was nothing less than purely unconstitutional and his pursuit of it and Johnson's "great society" plan has done nothing but empower the federal government with powers NOT found in the Constitution and make people reliant on government and has greatly contributed to the bankrupting of our nation, destroyed people's will to compete and to become the best they could be in exchange for government handouts. It was these exact programs that have destroyed minority citizens and their family structure. We as conservatives want to free them from the government check and have them start competing in the free market with no discrimination of any kind as all people should. To take pride in their accomplishments and build the life THEY want, not the life a democrat politician wants them to have so they can continue to coerce their vote from them for the government handout!

As for crony capitalism and outsourcing jobs outside the U.S., we agree. I think you should also look at excessive government regulation on business as part of the problem as well. If you have a corporation that is involved in a shady relationship with government officials then you should be able to take your business and your money to a company that doesn't. That being said, the more regulations on starting a business and on existing companies that force them out of business in the first place actually CREATE THE MONOPOLIES people are against! Other than public safety regulations, i.e.- worker safety, building safety, customer safety (think of the lead paint filled Chinese toys a few years ago) food,/drug safety and contract law enforcement (think how Obama screwed the legitimate bond holders of G.M. and Chrysler when he took them over and forced them to take $.20 on the dollar! Many of those people were regular people that had their retirements in GM and Chrysler because they thought they were stable, blue chip stocks and then Obama just gave huge parts of them to the unions for nothing! Why didn't the bond holders get part of the companies? I'll tell you why. It was payback to the unions for helping him get elected! F*&%ing tyrannical A-hole! You wanna talk about crony capitalism there you go!) Also, there should be no type of regulation for "fairness" or "equality". You can't legislate morals into people, and people run companies. All you can do is allow people to start their own businesses to give people a better choice and possibly put the cronyists out of business!

As for the Marxist portion of OWS, there are people really interested in reforming the system to root out the corruption and that's all. But much of the time in video and in postings I am seeing that the want to end capitalism. replace the declaration of independence and the Constitution with something they "think" is better, and some actually calling for the overthrow of the entire government. this isn't a small faction. I'd say now it's a majority out there that believe in Marxist ideology of "Empowering the workers" or the proletariat instead of keeping the system open for EVERYONE to achieve wealth and a better life if they want to put the effort in to do that.

From Wikipedia for proletariat - "In Marxist theory, the proletariat is the class of a capitalist society that does not have ownership of the means of production and whose only means of subsistence is to sell their labour power for a wage or salary."

Also - "According to Marxism, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must use the means of production that are property of others in order to produce, and, consequently, earn their living. Instead of hiring those means of production, they themselves get hired by capitalists and work for them, producing goods or services. These goods or services become the property of the capitalist, who sells them at the market."

and this - "Marx argued that it was the goal of the proletariat to displace the capitalist system with the dictatorship of the proletariat, abolishing the social relationships underpinning the class system and then developing into a communist society in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

So I've heard variations and bits of all of the above in every announcement and statement and from video and sound clips and from reading signs of the occupiers or as I like to call them "Squatters". So tell me again how this isn't a Marxist movement?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 3 years ago

Well, what you are seeing is a message first of all from communists and second from inflammatory media. I have not gotten the sense (and I have been at these meetings) that anyone wants communism, or those that do are a very distinct minority. What I see are disaffected Americans wanting real democracy where the interests of the people come first, before the interests of big business. The agenda so far promoted by the right means, not only more of the same (which is promoted by the left, by the way), but more of more of the same. The same policies that moved 15% of the country's wealth up the ladder to the top one percent are the policies the center left advocates and policies which would result in even more wealth transfers to the top are advocated by the right. That is why the movement does not really side with either.

Marx argues that popular uprisings must overthrow the top in and then the people would (in theory) take over the business sector. In practice, this never has happened and what we see in supposed "Marxist" revolutions is big business leaders replaced by government honcho's. So it is no different and tends not to work because of this. So most people do not advocate utopian theories, either Marxism or a kind or libertarian anarchy that simply dont work.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Some OWS-TP Areas Common Ground:

--opposition to the un-Constitutional FED and the 1%'s debt slave money system

--in favor of maximizing participation in our democracy and engaging those who are unengaged in the process

--opposition to the inordinate abuse of power, and two sets of rules of law for those in the 1% and those in the 99% (so we're both in favor of a return to a Constitutional rule of law for everyone.) Along these lines, there MUST be convictions for those responsible for the financial meltdown and derivative debacle of 2008.

I'm sure there are many others - please add to the list!

[-] 1 points by MrVMAC1776 (62) from New York, NY 3 years ago

You guys want to know what we need? 1.) Smaller Central Government The federal government has more power than ever, with the absolutely unchecked beurocracy, with agencies like the NSA ,CIA, FBI all with unlimited resources stomping all over our constitutional rights. 2.) Larger state and local Governments With the 10th amendment restored, our states will have much more say over the laws in each state. When government and law is controlled more locally, it is easier to elect someone who actually represents your views. It's also easier to hold that person accountable 3.) repeal of the PATRIOT ACT and Looser Gun laws The patriot act, since t2001 ( regardless of your 9/11 beliefs) has been effectively taking about our constitutional rights. By allowing the government into your computer for any time, into your home at any time, we are setting ourselves up for what is already becoming a tyrannical power in the united states. Yes, in theory it may do good to stop"terrorism" but at the cost of our own freedom. (and its already been used against people that decent from the status quo(hactivists)) In addition to this, having to register our weapons through the government lets the government know EXACTLY who has weapons. In our constitution, if you want to overthrow the government, you have the RIGHT. the Government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around. 4.) End the Federal Reserve +REGULATE WALL STREET. IF you haven't seen the OSCAR WINNING 2010 Documentary : INSIDE JOB about wall street and our government, i suggest you do as soon as possible. (available by torrents or iTunes) This bulletin needs no explanation. 5.) End the wars/ end the 900 military bases we have. Right now the US is more vulnerable to a foreign attack than ever. we have THOUSANDS of troops stretched out in over 900 foreign military bases. These UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS ( not approved by congress) are yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how our Constitutional rights are being TRAMPLED ON. Our Polititons have way too many special interests, and that is why power needs to be taken away from the central government. We start these wars so that we manufacture weapons, and the people in our government own stock in those military companies. Its Deep and widespread corruption. And in addition, they believe that by fighting wars, it will stimulate our economy (ie:WWII) When in fact, it wasn't until AFTER WWII (1950's) that we began to be prosperous, when we had all our troops home, and there was a lot more people, with a lot more money to spend in the US. BRING OUR TROUPS HOME. There here to DEFEND THER COUNTRY, not imperialize others. 6.) Fair tax Either a FAIR TAX system, or equal percentages THROUGHOUT America. THIS is what Occupy wall street is about DONT let the media tell you other wise

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

Greetings teabagger and thanks for stopping by.

I've spent a lot of time talking to people in your movement, and I've learned a lot about libertarian philosophy, which is in many ways idealistic and noble.

We'd probably disagree on a lot of things, but I think we probably have one point of agreement in common: this isn't about Big Business vs Big Government. Big Business IS Big Government, and it ain't serving the people, be they churchgoing red state suburbanites or long haired liberal college hippie kids.

Now the question of who ate who can be put off for another day. A regular teabag interlocutor of mine tells me that elitist liberal eggheads from the coasts, in cahoots with a "vote yourself benefits paid for by OPM" segment of the underclass, are responsible for the government takeover of business. In response I cite facts from the pages of history, examples such as the invention of the Fed by bankers.

At this point, it's all moot.

What matters is that the system is not working for you and I. Can we agree on that, teabagger?

See you down at OWS.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

Since you know the term "Teabagger" used by sexually deviant homosexuals so well as the left does let me ask you, do you get both your testicles in your boyfriends mouth at the same time??

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 3 years ago

You named your party the teabag party, not me, bagger. Why didn't you pick a better name, like the Shut Up And Take It Party, or the Galtian Occupation Party?

[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 3 years ago

"Then we started seeing people in your movement calling for the end of free market capitalism"

If you still believe the media doesn't hire crazies to send out and say stupid things in order to discredit legitimate movements, as happened with "Tea Party" people carrying signs full of misspelled words and retarded vitriol (coming from an RP supporter, spare me, you know it is true), then you can't really say you are awake to what is really going on in our country.

[-] 1 points by PJ63 (48) from St Paul, MN 3 years ago

I was behind the tea party until it became too right wing for me. I see the TEA party as being taken over by the very people this protest is about. I have seen many people take great care to see that this does not become a party politics movement, and I respect them for that. These politicans are playing with us as if we are toys. The majority of Americans WANT to live in a representative republic, we just want CITIZENS to be represented.

[-] 1 points by nVenti (48) 3 years ago

Free Market Capitalism isn't the only way to do Capitalism.

Hamilton Capitalism for instance (protectionism).

Or The North Dakota non-profit banking model.

Free Market capitalism is to had unregulated super monopolies control everything. Yuck. Its great if u have a 1700's era monarchy led trade dominion, suck everywhere else.

[-] 1 points by mleon (53) from New York, NY 3 years ago

We have marxists but we are not about marxism.

its long been known the tea party has been astroturfed some time ago, there was a former member of your group on here to warn us.

our movement certainly does NOT want to destroy the consitituion

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

How do you know he/she is really a former member? As I have said before, the TEA party was NEVER astroturf. Myself and my friends weren't paid or given anything to go to these things. I wasn't paid to go to a 6:30pm meeting after working all day. Why don't you ask your union buddies how much they get to hold a sign and protest??

The TEA party being astroturfed was a lie started by the left because they are afraid of the TEA party and they should be. In the 2010 elections the TEA party candidates, over 500 of them on the federal, state and local levels from all across the country were voted in by the people, not the corporations!

BTW, Marxists believe in Marxism which evolves into totalitarian communism.

[-] 1 points by mleon (53) from New York, NY 3 years ago

yes, and we are not a totalitarian organization. We welcome all organic elements.

dont believe everything you see about us on MSNBC. We welcome all who aren't here to be purposefully disruptive, but try to not let everyone who comes represent us.(charlie rangel got chased off, even if he was allowed to speak because everyone is)

That said, the TEA Party was astro-turfed. There have been more than one person to complain. Mainstream money bought loudspeakers to shout out and marginalize the grassroots elements.

500 tea party canidates where elected by the same electorate that voted in Obama. So what? Its in the same fashion that all canidates get elected. Do NOT deny there was no corporate money in their campaigns. Then comes the same recycled cold war rhetoric about marxism and patriotism.

you seem to know little about OWS and care less. The so called "left" is just as fake as the so called "right". If you where on the ground you'd see kids with the same anti-obama t-shirts as anti-bush shirts cause they know the truth.

One party, same diffrence. You paid attention here, or even what OWS had to say for ITSELF, you'd see the diffrence. The tea party got astroturfed when they let themselves be goaded into being the same media monster they despise. We do our best not to. The so called "leftist" mainstream media does NOT speak for us.

The only ones who speak with us are the general assembly and associated subcomittees. If it didn't come from them, its not offical OWS.

Oh, and there are plenty of liberterians in the square. Why? I guess they just wanted to be part of the conversation. Your invited too if you could only put down your misplaced rhetoric and anger. If you oppose the mainstream media so much, then don't listen to MSNBC

[-] 1 points by FUCKTHENWO (280) from RIVERDALE, MD 3 years ago

Cool...America knows the T.E.A party is crazy anyway.

Time for progressives to lead the way.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

That's why the public voted in over 500 new Tea party candidates in 2010 on all levels of government! Keep dreaming and we'll keep laughing at you progressive idiots.

[-] 1 points by diabloelk (7) 3 years ago

<b> I'm just an Independent voter. I think you need to have a chosen leader, a very strong measured person (such as Jon Stewart from The Daily Show) who can articulate your grievances and fight for you/us at rallies. Then, you need a name for your movement, as did the Tea Party who have been fairly successful. You can then mobilize voters, via social networks or TV, to vote against any politician who thinks the banks and Wall Street aren't greedy and controlling our wealth! If you don't do these things, your movement will likely fritter out. I know a good social movement when I see one. I'm 74 yrs old and have seen some of the best marches for justice. Good Luck! </b>

[-] 1 points by charrob (22) 3 years ago

Instead of the divisive labels, ie. "communist", "marxist", etc., why not identify the problem, say jobs, then come up with solutions, say tariffs on imports from countries engaged in unfair trade practices. In other words, get away from the labels and concentrate on solutions. Labels are what divides us; if you follow and work with the group on coming up with solutions, you'll be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

Marxist, communist, socialist these are not pejorative terms. These are tried social and economic ideologies. What makes them negative is how every regime that has ever tried them has failed and usually resulted in permanent poverty, total government control of the people and their belongings, no private property, all is for the "State" and out right murder of what 100 - 125 million people worldwide in every country that has tried marxist communism? Sounds great doesn't it? Let's give it another shot here. I don't think so!

no I'll stick to my current description of people. I don't need nor want any working together with such people who ultimately seek to destroy people's freedoms and liberties. If you do then God bless you when they come for you and your family and all your property. As for me I'll be waiting with my shot gun!

[-] 1 points by AMERICAN (7) from Fallbrook, CA 3 years ago

I am a UNION MEMBER! I am an AMERICAN! I believe in the AMERICAN right to peacefully organize and protest.... WHO and where do people get off calling this Socialist? LOOK at what they do! Do not believe the LIES of the FAR right wing and corp. America. They have controlled the masses for too long and ruined this country and the American dream. The unions are almost nonexistent now, less than 10% of the work force. and its not enough. History... This country was the MOST productive many will say in the 50's. This was when a large chunk of jobs were union, and the standard of living was good for the Average Joe ( six pack). The corp. greed drove down wages. Sold out Jobs. Turned Wall street into an almost gambling numbers game. The market goes up and down with almost no rhyme or reason. Then the GREED and CORP. controlled gov. GIVES THEM OUR MONEY!!!!! This needs to end... ITS NOT SOCIALIST!!!! ITS AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by zowhatian (31) 3 years ago

As far as I remember the 1789 version had some pretty shitty things in it, like treating people as property.

[-] 1 points by TempestuousLiberty (14) 3 years ago

They didn't treat anyone as property. Jefferson wanted to do away with slavery all together and couldn't because the southern states who used slave labor for crops would never go along with it. You have to remember the times and that why I said we support all amendments. What else was shitty? The equal protection clause? The 1st Amendment? What? Nice try.

[-] 1 points by zowhatian (31) 3 years ago

Actually your writing was as muddled as your thought and it was ambiguous as to whether you meant the 1789 version plus 1789 amendments or the 1789 version plus all current amendments.

But you're picking and choosing interpretation at this point, since the 1789 version allowed slavery but you're against it and reference Jefferson. You've already acknowledged that times change and that the original constitution was inadequate. Liberals trying to change things is no different from that position.

Nice try!

[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 3 years ago

Every new movement has extremists, including the Tea party. Please go to this site to get a feel for where this is headed, I think you will be able to support the vast majority of these proposals.

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by CalifTom (19) 3 years ago

Militaristic nationalistic Americans. The largest threat to World Peace is America and the knee jerk supporters of corporatism who can't wait to "kick some butt". The demise of the American promise comes from within...simplistic stupidity from lazy minds that are easily rallied by the Koch Brothers, Bush's , Reagans, Cheney's, and Palin's in America. Here's a "you-betcha" to the loud mouth conservatives who dragged this country into economic ruin who still think they're the critical defenders of America. Go have a beer, get in your Hummer and drive to your evangelical church and pray for your sorry soul.

[-] 1 points by reaganite (100) 3 years ago

I pray for yours too... So what do you say about the lazy minds easily rallied by Trumpka? Your mission is simple, really if you are really about the people as you say. Get a majority and win. Then figure out how to defend a nation from those who would see it destroyed. You'll need to do more than call folks names and make snarky remarks, though.

[-] 1 points by CalifTom (19) 3 years ago

Defend the nation from those who are out to destroy it? This is your paranoia Reaganite which is no surprise given your handle. Oh yeah...Reagan destroyed the "evil empire" (slurp kool aide)...it didn't fall from it's own limitations. A glaring deficiency in knowledge of history and a preference for simplistic ideology (Friedmanism aka "trickle down economics) is the greatest threat to America. I have no doubt about the patriotism of the tea party folks....it's their ignorance that frightens me and their faith in savage capitalism.

[-] 1 points by reaganite (100) 3 years ago

Actually, my reference had nothing to do with the Soviet Union. Do you believe those who favor Sharia would destroy you given the opportunity? Iran? Have you actully consumed the cool-aid with those who believe negotiation with those who hate us will work? As for the beer, I prefer Fat Tire...the F150 is superior to the Hummer....I will pray for you tonight...and tomorrow after church, I'll take my deer hunting 15 yr old out to the range...we'll discuss politics, from fascism to conservatism and free market superiority... Then he'll shoot my glock.. Hope your day is as fine as mine.

[-] 1 points by kyle4nia (48) 3 years ago

34 million without health insurance, recession, homeland attack, widespread joblessness, govt. bailouts...

so what exactly about THIS system is working?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

the prominence and presence of this thread

indicate the Tea Party is watching and are interest

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

You're entitled to your opinion but here are some people who say they were among the original groups and they managed to find some things to support without entering into a rant about communism.

http://www.fedupusa.org/2011/10/an-open-letter-from-fedupusa-to-occupy-wall-street-protestors-all-over-the-country/

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 3 years ago

Who cares? OWS is not a political organization. Actually at a personal level I would not want TEA to join with OWS. It would send a message that OWS is politically aligned and it is not.

[-] 1 points by jasonetc (6) from Denver, CO 3 years ago

The points about the co-opting of this effort by various interests groups is an interesting one; making a guilt by association determination based on those that would glob on to anything resembling a bandwagon. I think its important to be critical as well as not to cynical just because of associations for these are inevitable in a hegemonic process its how the status quo is maintained. In other words, I wouldn’t be too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water without first reaching an understanding of what the main thrust of the movement appears to be. As was once said, politics makes strange bed fellows. One of the stumbling points of our nation is our inability to see collaborative opportunities with those seemingly across the ideological divide from ourselves (IMHO). To the points about constitutional conservatism, I would offer that the founding fathers imbued our constitution with structures intended to promote evolution and change over time (amendment provisions, balance of power, elections etc.) I would argue that so long as the basic tenets of the Declaration (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are upheld then we’re not wandering too far afield from the legacy laid forth by these men. In fact reading the DOI further one finds the caution, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” It would seem that we find ourselves on this precipice at this moment, at least I would imagine that the OW and Tea Party would find some agreement there. The real crux of it comes down to whether the fundamental articles of government should be specifically configured to secure and proffer a specific theory of economics. To a large point this is perhaps inevitable, however with the course of economies and economic principles being sure to fluctuate wildly as technology, convention, resources etc change, hanging ones hat too finely on a particular approach might ultimately prove foolish in retrospect (evidence to that point you could just ask the Marxists…or eventually perhaps us as well.) Thanks TL for the conversational salvo.

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 3 years ago

I think the politics of the future will be determined by the ability of people to form coalitions. I don;t believe the Tea Party and OWS will ever merge, but there can be times when we can work together to deal with common interests. i think that is what you are saying and it's an excellent point, and it matters not what the leadership of the Tea Party says or feels, it is the members that will decide.

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

Your an idiot. YOUR Tea Party is none of that and hasn't been since KOCH bought and paid for you.. just look at the laws passed since Tea Party took certain states, some of US believed your lies but after seeing how you vote, your laws, The Tea Baggers are nothing but Tools of the 1% and YOU should wake up and join us as we are REAL.. YOU got Hi-Jacked years ago and either don't know it or are purposely lying thru your teeth to trick others into the servitude of the 1%... Even the Jews that walked their brothers to the gas chambers had a place in line. Just as middle class that support the 1% do also.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"Your an idiot."

Great, inclusive, tolerant point....you'll win a lot of people with this approach...;) LOL.

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

you should live in Ohio, i believed these lies before.. i'm sick of politicians being able to say anything and getting elected with no repercussions to their lying. Not just GOP , Obama has sold out to the 1% now, he promised an end to the wars, LIE< he promised to not waste our tax dollars fighting against states that legalized MJ, LIE.. yes im angry and the fake Tea-orrist party deserves the negative feelings it is getting.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Agree with you on corrupt lying politicians Dave. But blaming those that have just recently gotten involved (2009) and are fighting against the powers that be, the same as you are doesn't make sense, imho. Ron Paul 2012. Here's an honest, consistent politician - at least as honest as they come - and he supports ending the wars...

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

I like Ron Paul. He is not part of this new ( KOCH / 1%) Tea Party. simple truth really is that simple.

Ron Paul would do best if he ran as an independent but wont because his son is too bright a star in the " new GOP " .

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"I like Ron Paul. He is not part of this new ( KOCH / 1%) Tea Party"

Do you know how many dozens and dozens of decentralized tea parties there are? They're in all the states and it's still a mass movement and quite decentralized...

IMHO, Ron Paul is running as an R to maximize a reform impact, and may run as an I, going out of the nomination process. Will you vote for him over Obama?

[-] 1 points by CHRISHEPBURN (44) 3 years ago

Slight problem the Tea Party are a bunch of Red Necks. I wonder does it touch anybody that an evil woman stole millions from charity? WWW.JUSTICEFORTHECHILDREN.ORG

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"Slight problem the Tea Party are a bunch of Red Necks."

Slight problem, you want to mock huge other parts of the 99 and expect compassion and understanding in return...nice...

[-] 1 points by CHRISHEPBURN (44) 3 years ago

I mock Morons and that is what the Tea Party are. I expect people to be morally outraged that a woman stole from children. WWW.JUSTICEFORTHECHILDREN.ORG

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"I mock Morons and that is what the Tea Party are." I checked out your rambling website - good luck. What in the world does this have to do with the TP??

[-] 1 points by CHRISHEPBURN (44) 3 years ago

Yes I ramble I am ill you would also ramble. The TP do not have a clue look at Palin the woman is dumb as dirt however having said that her cat would do a better job than Obama. What kind of world do we live in I noticed a cop in the media with an Italian name macing a young girl disgusting

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

I hope that you feel better Chris.

[-] 1 points by CHRISHEPBURN (44) 3 years ago

Many Thanks I just want my day in court. Take Care Chris

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 3 years ago

I agree that, at first there seemed to be something to the OWS protesters. The more I looked, listened and learned, the less I believe that it is a viable movement. It is being co-opted (if not organized from it's inception) by the left, the unions, Obama donors and the socialist/communist sympathizers.

Time is running out for the OWS to come up with a simple goal and a plan to implement it.

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

We demand representation and a government that works, we dont care if its dem, rep, or aliens, we are sick of the 1% getting richer off of nothing but bribes to Criminals that are paid to represent 100% and not just 1%.. it is that simple .

[-] 1 points by GeoffH (214) from Jacksonville, FL 3 years ago

First, this is not a political movement. It has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Muslim or Jew or Christian or Atheist. It has nothing to do with the Left or the Right. This is a Financial Revolution. This is a revolt of the 99% that are throwing off the yoke of financial oppression to free our Government from the corrupt control of the 1%. We are no longer willing to sit idly by and just voting in hopes that the elected officials will ignore the puppet strings and do what is right. We are taking our future into our own hands and standing up to fight for what we believe in, a Government for the People by the People.

We live in a Feudalistic Capitalist society governed not by the elected officials but by the person who donates the most money to their cause. The top 1% controls the money and thus controls the laws, fixing them to better themselves rather than better the 99%. So we, the serfs, are rising up against our oppressors. We will fight for ourselves. We will not ignore the 1% mocking us while they sip champagne and wonder "Why do they starve when they can eat cake." Like the American and French Revolutions we will rise against the Monarchy and attain our freedom.

In a modern American society it is virtually impossible to violently fight a rebellion against the 1%. The military industrial complex has insured that the general populace can not compete in an arms race. The 2nd amendment was intended to keep the Government honest with the ability of the populace to rise up if it ever overstepped it's bounds. The forefathers did not envision a future of smart bombs, drone airplanes, and tomahawk missiles. So what weapons can we fight with to effect this Financial Revolution? What peaceful, civil, and responsible solutions is there? We have, our money.

We will cripple the banks by refusing to acknowledge their credit system. We will en mass refuse to pay our mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, unpaid medical bills, insurance, etc. We will couple this with pulling our money out of their Banks. Unified, we will force the banks to relinquish their control on the Government so that the Government can do what they need to do to correct the system. Meanwhile, we will still go to work, buy groceries, pay our utilities, and live normal lives.

The 1% have to be accountable for their actions. They have to relinquish control. They can not live in their ivory towers and ignore us anymore. The 99% are here to fight for our country. We are American and we believe that the American Dream is still alive. We just have to work hard to wrest it from the iron grip of our oppressors.

[-] 1 points by txronson (1) 3 years ago

Tempestuous, not to mention that fact that these goons are anti semites. Here are two videos as proof.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/10/jewish-man-scolded-mocked-occupy-wall-street-protester

[-] 1 points by pgodbold (2) from Tallahassee, FL 3 years ago

USA much better off pre-tea party... sure as hell not missing you now.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Better off with unsustainable debt and enslaved to the bankstas and politicians? Please clarify...

[-] 1 points by pgodbold (2) from Tallahassee, FL 3 years ago

Better off in the sense you know full well... your tacky little group serves only to amplify, via FOX News and the other for profit media, the braying of a small group of slow thinkers clinging desperately to the past. We are accustomed to your methods, always having to be drug kicking and screaming into the future, even though the tea party is the first group of your sort to have the benefit of a prepaid Koch brothers electronic bull horn. You are a waste of time and a stumbling block. I'll waste no more of mine with you because this is NOT a conversation. You are a part of the walking dead with whom I will have no truck. Don't despair, others here may wish to spend some quality troll time with you. . Buh-Bye.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

What do I know full well? I'm asking you to clarify and all you can say is 'tacky little group', 'slow thinkers' 'You are a waste of time' 'You are a part of the walking dead'? What? Is that all you've got? Is this how you recruit to your 'cause?' Best wishes on representing the 99. LOL. BTW - I don't watch Fox news - lol, you're little misrepresentation of me, and us, is so charming.

[-] 1 points by Anactualworker (7) 3 years ago

To the OWS unorganized leaderless faction that actually represent only the spoiled self-pity fruits: you dont represent hard working laborors, teachers, or anyone that sows up for work. Some, like polosi, may leverage you as useful idiots, but even she knows how to work. Keep writing your incoherent thoughts. Useful idiots may be the best description of the OWS crowd. It's like a SNL skit. This crew will destruct themselves as they oppose anyone or anything that has the desire, persistence, and ability to actually drive something to a complete thought or identifiable outcome. Oh...and you may want to give up your Mac books, as is screams hypocrisy... Goof balls.

[-] 1 points by bleedingsoul (134) from Youngstown, OH 3 years ago

No surprise with the tea party not joining this movement. They are only demonstrating once again how nothing gets done because of divided parties.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

BTW Bleedingsoul - you NEED the tea parties to truly represent the 99 - otherwise it's a LIE.

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

The 99% embrace any of the 99% NOT the Tools of the 1%.. Tea-orrists have PROVEN themselfs TOOLS.. so no, we dont need you, The Real Believers in what the OLD Tea Party believed in are welcomed. not the koch tools that just want to strip whats left of the 99% and deliver it to the 1%.. like in MI

[Michigan] The Republican controlled legislature narrowly approved Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s push to cut taxes on business by $1.7 billion and pay for it by raising taxes on individuals by $1.5 billion, with lower income folks and seniors taking the hardest hits.

For the Tea Party to do this, then cry you are about freedom and liberties is stupid, are you getting paid to spread your lies? Are you really this ignorant or maybe you just get your news from Faux news? I could understand at first, but after a couple years of votes and history, you just cant pretend to be a people movenment, its just wrong.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"NOT the Tools of the 1%" - I love how you can make this designation. May want to think of a more objective standard.

"not the koch tools" - you're making assumptions, about me/us - not unlike what the media is doing with the OWS movement...

"then cry you are about freedom and liberties is stupid" - this will be the case for OWS unless they reach out to the other part of the 99.

"are you getting paid to spread your lies? Are you really this ignorant or maybe you just get your news from Faux news?"

I've already mentioned several times I don't watch Fox - get up to date here - many I know in the TP don't watch TV at all, as they suspect the media in any case - that's probably not unlike you, and many in OWS anyhow.

I most certainly am not being paid to be here.

To mischaracterize, generalize, and spout insults at everyone in the tea parties, it's just wrong Dave.

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

The Tea Party as it stands today, electing only extreme right politicians that only serve the 1% is a fact. Deal with it like many other former TP'ers .

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"The Tea Party as it stands today, electing only extreme right politicians that only serve the 1% is a fact."

Prove this. If you are saying that TPs are trying to reform the political parties and work outside/in and inside/out - yes. Electing people that serve the 1% is blatantly and demonstrably false.

So, what about those union leaders - the AFL CIO leaders and all of those people that are in the 1% - what about them? How are you dealing with that duplicity, by the way?

[-] 1 points by bleedingsoul (134) from Youngstown, OH 3 years ago

Absolutely. I'm sure there's a percentage that reduces the 99%. All I am seeing so far is that the movement first and foremost recognizes and demonstrates a change in the system needed. And it doesn't mean the Tea Party can't claim their own little spot amongst the crowds and demonstrate some of their disagreements.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

reduces? Try cuts it into 1/3 - otherwise it's not the 99 - right? To be the 99 truthfully, you need left, center, right - you need the tea parties - that sounds horrible to you doesn't it? And that means chiding the tea parties as having "their own little spot" demonstrates that you have not extracted yourself out of the old, failed L/R paradigm of US politics.

[-] 1 points by daveprice (12) 3 years ago

you think to much, its simple.. the 99% have lost 2-3 rungs on the social ladder while the 1% have gotten richer, we didnt mind them on the top rung but now they say we cant be on the ladder at all.. anyone working to keep the 99% off the ladder is tools of the 1%.. The tea party have proven themselves, just like most in the gop to be Tools of the 1%... drop your servitude to the 1% and join the 99% and be accepted. but you are NOT welcomed just to attack the 99%.. or try to recruit us to become tools of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"you think to much" - LOL - gee thanks Dave.

"we didnt mind them on the top rung but now they say we cant be on the ladder at all..The tea party have proven themselves" - 'now' they say? Try at least for the last 100 years...the system is totally corrupt and captured - and you're just now finding out? Maybe you should think a little bit about history - it's simple. The tea parties have been around for only 2 years. Try looking at the history and impact of the FED and get back to me on 'proven to be tools of the 1%' - PLEASE Dave.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

The tea parties have actually been a successful joining of center independents and conservatives. They have successfully elected people in a broad spectrum of House and Senate districts - including lately in Brooklyn. The focus on center/right has meant that for practical purposes they have focused on reforming the republican party. They have opposed sitting republican power mongers like Dick Lugar, et al.

Many in the tea parties support dramatic difference and change through Ron Paul (End the FED!!)

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

If the 99% want to oppose the 1%, then the left, center and right must come together in such protests. The protests must be against the FED (private bankers that create and control our money supply and keep us ALL in massive, unsustainable debt, and their corrupt, captured politicians), oh money, and plenty of it make the world go 'round - don't ya know. Now a worthy goal of OWS is to extract money from politics, but we can't do this unless we take back over the creation and control of our money. Please read End the FED by Ron Paul or The Case Against the FED by Murray Rothbard for more.

This will HAVE to happen in stages, and it will have to involved opposing the FED and taking back our money (to be accountable to the people as the US Constitution requires!

Until this happens, it will be impossible to reign in corrupt politicians and criminal bankers/corporate elites.

The focus of the tea parties has been on reigning in the insane debt based spending (the other side of money from thin air!)

NOW is the time for the Tea Parties and the OWS to join together and demand: http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2010/01/fallacy-of-gold-backed-money_02.html 1. End the practice of debt backed money at the federal level, returning the power of money creation to the people via Congress as the U.S. Constitution dictates.

2. Clear out excessive debt and derivatives from the entire financial system, thus repairing balance sheets and producing workable debt to income ratios. The following will be accomplished:

    a. People’s balance sheets will be repaired by returning tax dollars to the people to be used to directly pay down existing debt.

    b. All banks and financial businesses are run through a special bankruptcy procedure to cleanse away unserviceable debt and derivatives. All banks will survive this process and will exit with 10 to 1 fractional reserve ability, a level of leverage that is safe and will be capped by law.

    c. State balance sheets will be repaired and all states will create State Chartered Banks based on the successful model of the Bank of North Dakota. Additionally, these banks will assume the roles and functions formerly held by the 12 “Federal” Reserve banks, thus decentralizing control but in a coordinated manner where all states are benefitting equally.

3. Ensure the quantity of money remains under control in the long term by:

    a. Ensuring accurate and unbiased economic measurements and reporting. This is easily achieved with 100% transparency in all data gathering and statistical methods, allowing the market to 'police' the government.

    b. Create controls that tie overall money quantity to PRICE of ALL asset classes. Target ZERO price inflation and adjust quantity of money spent into existence without debt. Interest rates are set by the free market. This means no more long term inflation or deflation.

    c. Separate special interest money from politics. This targeted political reform is necessary to keep the political system functioning for those who it is supposed to serve. Without this piece history proves that the other pieces will not last long, as those with large reservoirs of money will eventually co-opt the system for themselves.

This is a permanent fix that can successfully get us from our current situation to a sustainable and prosperous future without crashing global markets in the process. It is fair and it is just.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago
  1. End the practice of debt backed money at the federal level, returning the power of money creation to the people via Congress as the U.S. Constitution dictates.

  2. Clear out excessive debt and derivatives from the entire financial system, thus repairing balance sheets and producing workable debt to income ratios. The following will be accomplished:

    a. People’s balance sheets will be repaired by returning tax dollars to the people to be used to directly pay down existing debt.

    b. All banks and financial businesses are run through a special bankruptcy procedure to cleanse away unserviceable debt and derivatives. All banks will survive this process and will exit with 10 to 1 fractional reserve ability, a level of leverage that is safe and will be capped by law.

    c. State balance sheets will be repaired and all states will create State Chartered Banks based on the successful model of the Bank of North Dakota. Additionally, these banks will assume the roles and functions formerly held by the 12 “Federal” Reserve banks, thus decentralizing control but in a coordinated manner where all states are benefitting equally.

  3. Ensure the quantity of money remains under control in the long term by:

    a. Ensuring accurate and unbiased economic measurements and reporting. This is easily achieved with 100% transparency in all data gathering and statistical methods, allowing the market to 'police' the government.

    b. Create controls that tie overall money quantity to PRICE of ALL asset classes. Target ZERO price inflation and adjust quantity of money spent into existence without debt. Interest rates are set by the free market. This means no more long term inflation or deflation.

    c. Separate special interest money from politics. This targeted political reform is necessary to keep the political system functioning for those who it is supposed to serve. Without this piece history proves that the other pieces will not last long, as those with large reservoirs of money will eventually co-opt the system for themselves.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

Why does the fed lower interest rates to get banks to loan money out? let's start with a simple premise that could encourage lending. -If a bank borrows form the fed at a low rate to plump up their books but don't loan the money the pay fed +4% -If a bank borrows from the fed but forms a loan with an outside entity (entrepreneur) then they get the money at the fed rate. We need regulation as you cite above nut its got to do something and be simple.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Yes ST - we need to take control of the creation of our money (which is what the private FED currently does.) The people should control this money creation and it's supply - and the economy would be wrested from the captured control of the 1% crony bankers and corrupt politicians. The power of money and its supply is the source of all of our ills.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

start small- let's do something then tweak it as we go. over arching declarations change nothing. start with small actions intended to change then tweak them.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Agree - right now I'm trying to 'get real' with my economic life - so as not to feed the corrupt/criminal banksta cabal and the FED.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

i have to get real with my kids soccer tourny now. if only wee could trust the helmsman of this country to steer us into safe harbors while we go about our 'real' lives

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

True dat - that is the shame. For our kids, we must focus on making these changes - that involves a hard balancing act. Enjoy those soccer games - and value your kids (as you're doing!)

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 3 years ago

Thanks TL for posting this. You put it into words better than I could have.

[-] 1 points by captaindoody (339) from Elizabethville, PA 3 years ago
  1. A free mansion for me filled with 1000 servants
  2. A fleet of jets for me like that fat ugly bitch who owns ketchup
  3. Two Ferrari cars. One must have rims. The other is for this nurse friend of mine from another thread who asked for one.
  4. A bitchin' Camero with an epic stereo system.
  5. A pink shirt and feather boa for pissedoffconstructionworker.
  6. Free college for me.

Also, we should make all the bankers wear monocles and pinstriped suits so we can identify and scapegoat them easier. It would be just like we did in ancient WW2 times with the star of David, only much more fashionable. Retro is in right now.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

There is no free market. The lobbyist get everything subsidzed. Big oil big pharma. stop standing up for a systemt hat doesn't exist

[-] 1 points by RightWingReactionary (74) 3 years ago

There may indeed be no free market, just like there was never a real Communist state. Yet, it's interesting that imperfect capitalism lifts more people out of poverty than imperfect Communism, which makes everyone but high-ranking party members poor.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

Stick to the point- nobody is asking for communism just a capitalism that works for all. An imperfect capitalist system is not capitalism anymore.

[-] 1 points by RightWingReactionary (74) 3 years ago

If you want to improve capitalism rather than replace it with a failed ideology, fine by me!

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

so let's work for that instead of name calling- find a solution not an ideaology.

[-] 1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

How true.

[-] 0 points by Anactualworker (7) 3 years ago

Excellent. Of course, your well framed points will be answered with personal slurs, attacks, and demonizations.

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 3 years ago

I know for a fact that one of the instigators of this movement in new York is a Marxist and has been to several Marxist rallies. He is a family friend.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

marx and weber only countered that there is value in the work that the production line work does. Capitalism's goal for the last century has been to limit that value too as low a value as possible increasing thee value of their capital. Recently that has included sending manufacturing overseas to drive down that value. Marxists want recognition of the value of the worker. Capitalists want recognition of the capital. There was a time in this country when those two values coexisted. What's wrong with wanting that?

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

"There was a time in this country when those two values coexisted. What's wrong with wanting that?"

Marxism and Free Market Capitalism have never really existed (they are idealism), let alone co-existed. Free market capitalism, given reasonable, rational constraints, can provide the innovative structure to allow for a Steve Jobs' Apple and any number of innovations to arise from people that let their ideas drive forward the market. Unfortunately free market capitalism has not been given an opportunity to truly shine since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (the FED) and before then the crony capitalism of the Rockefellers and Gettys and Carnegies had to be reigned in.

That's a far cry though from the experimentation of Marxism - which has resulted in the death of 10s of millions.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

I would add that another failing of capitalism (and the need to return to reasonable free market capitalism) is its capture by the military-industrial complex. This too is related to the creation and control of our money by the private banks (with their front, the FED). This is the source of many of our ills and as we take back and cap the supply of money, it will prevent and make it VERY difficult to wage unnecessary wars.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

You blame marx for the leaders that subjugate them to create a divide for a system that needs a solution. Communist Soviet Russia was run by crooked leaders. What made it coexist here was the foundation of unions that demanded respect from the capital owners. The destruction of unions has led to the devaluation of the american worker and the collapse of our economy. Remember the health care reform act was not pushed by marxists but by big business interests in this country that did not want to pay for health plans. All of the countries they compete with have centralized health care and allows their businesses to lower their prices. Nothing happens here with out the influence of business lobbyists here.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

I'm saying that neither pure marxism nor pure free market capitalism has existed, but that in the experiments with them both, marxism has resulted in much more death of its own citizens. Capitalism must be reformed. Marxism has failed something across something like 45 nations.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

Marxism is not the failure. Communism failed. Value in the worker will never fail society. Don't prop up an argument with words that will be used to label and obfuscate the truth of the solution. Fix the system you want to fix with positive ideas that lead to change not angry words that lead to walls.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

OK, I'll give you that, but Communism took Marxism as it's guiding philosophy. I'm saying that 45 nation-wide experiments is a lot of data pointing to the failure of that philosophy. Free market capitalism doesn't have that kind of mass murder failure (as an ultimate result) in its historical record.

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 3 years ago

only as a byproduct- both systems fail that test. Take the best of the guiding philosophies and craft a SYSTEM that works-not an ideology or a guiding principle but what actually works in the real world.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 3 years ago

Certainly respect for the worker (being rewarded for the fruits of your own labor (innovation and initiative)), concern for the poor and weak in society, etc., can involve the best of both systems. I will agree. Systems though have ideologies that guide them - always. I happen to be in favor of the Austrian school of economics, over the Keynesian school, because I see the failures of the Keynesian school and the predictive capabilities of the Austrian school that predicted the failure of the fiat money system that we're now experiencing.

These schools of thoughts are like working ideologies - by definition, in order to have a 'SYSTEM that works' you must have a rational, working ideology.

I'd highly suggest reading End The Fed by Ron Paul. Are you also familiar with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which informs the Austrian school of economics...http://mises.org/

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 3 years ago

The manufacturers have a responsibility to the share holders to make a maximum profit. Most money in the stock market belongs to middle class people, not the 1%. If you want to shut down wall street then you hurt the majority of people. Co-ops work in small areas and serve a limited population and are not profit driven. You cannot make caterpiller, Boeing, Kmart, or any other corporation a co-op. Without profit there is no investment. Without invest,ent there is no growth. Without growth it withers and dies.

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 3 years ago

// Most money in the stock market belongs to middle class people, not the 1%//

False, please see table 2 - Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2007 http://tiny.cc/wt77w The top 1% owns 60% of financial securities.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 3 years ago

Assuming that I am wrong, you are willing to sacrifice the 40%?