Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Occupy Wall Street - So what's the real deal?

For the past week a group of people have come together to "Occupy Wall Street" and several other similar groups have sprung up around the United States. Interesting enough when a group of people, not to many years ago, started a ground swell of protests to the overspending and raising debt by our Government they were tagged as racists. The current group is not touted in a similar method. So, what is it that these "occupiers" want? A list of demands has materialized on the website for "Occupy Wall Street" so let's take a look(http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/):

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

How does "re-imposing trade tariffs" level the playing field while raising the minimum wage to $20? Ironically this demand sort of contradicts a demand made later in the list.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

How does the private insurer prevent health care operatives from doing their business? Isn't Medicare and Medicaid that are dictating to these same health care operatives how much they will be reimbursed?

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Is the guaranteed living wage $20 hr? What happens when the cost of goods go up with the increase in the minimum wage?

Demand four: Free college education.

If we are guaranteeing a living wage why do we need college education? Not to mention we have lost our manufacturing base and skilled jobs. How will a liberal arts degree help us reclaim those jobs?

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

I agree that we need to bring alternative energy to the forefront but we cannot ignore the short term solution to job creation is through fossil fuel. Right now alternative energy does not produce enough for the cost required - plus it is a net job loss notion - See the Spanish report that came out three years back.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Now this is the role of government. To ensure our means of transporting of goods and services are capable to met demand. The question comes as to how do we pay for it? We have already mortgage the futures of our grandchildren to fund entitlement programs and current spending in the United States.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Does this gentleman believe that companies that rely on timber for their livelihood are not replanting trees for those being harvested? Also, we need a certain amount of harvesting otherwise the undergrowth from dead trees and plant life created a tinder box waiting for Mother Nature to strike. I find it interesting that he'd want to decommission all Nuclear Power plants since much of the rest of the world rely more on this type of energy then fossil fuels.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

We already have this in place. It is through continued legislation that we have blurred this line and created second class citizens.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Okay, here is one that goes against Demand One. If we have free flowing borders how do we ensure all goods and services coming into the United States are having the correct amount of tariffs levied against them? Also, will these migrant workers file IRS tax forms, will they contribute to our tax base so we can spend one trillion dollars on infrastructure since they will be using our roads, rails and waterways.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Now I agree that we election reform - but this doesn't do it. We need to eliminate all campaign donations and reduce the amount of time in our campaign season. I am reading a book on the election of Lincoln and one thing that strikes me odd is that candidate Lincoln did no campaigning and didn't even talk to his Vice Presidential running mate until after the election.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

If we forgive all debt then how will we pay for entitlements? What happens to all those retirement plans?

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Really? So we go back to buyer beware then? When one invests or goes for a loan, how will the person lending the money out have a standard of comparison?

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Okay, I trust that this process will work in the opposite direction as well. If a group of people do not want to have a union they can simply sign a ballot and be done with it?

28 comments:

  1. This is from the site you provided: "admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."

    In fairness, I think you should consider posting this at the top of your post or taking your post down completely unless you want to intentionally mislead people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous - I am not intentionally misleading anyone. I provided the link to the source of the information that I posted. If people do not take the extra effort to check the source out that is not my problem. When I respond on other blog sites and citations are made I always go out and check them out first before adding comment. Just as if anyone here provided a link. That is part of the purpose of this blog site - for people to provide links to other points of view and share them with others that read this blog.

    While not a lot of people comment here, there is a readership that is over 300 people. Obviously someone within the movement wants these things so lets discuss them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A person does. Since the group disowns the information, they do not. Seems like you fall into this group: "This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org."

    And yes, you are misleading people You claim this: "So, what is it that these "occupiers" want?" Not true, since it is one person wants not the group. You have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of your claims and what you post, just like anyone does. Others may not choose to do so, but that does change the responsibility.

    If you want an honest discussion, it's start with honestly portraying your information. You have not done so. If a news outlet did the same, you wouldn't have a problem?

    These demands are not what the group is after. To imply otherwise, is certainly misleading. If I reposted your blog and stated that the city of Hamburg wants what you state, isn't that misleading?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous - If the movement does not want these demands or is worried about it not representing their views then why allow it to exist in their forum? I have not dishonestly portrayed any information here. These demands are posted on their site and has been commented by over a thousand people.

    I started a thread as well, partly because I wanted to see if it was moderated - which it is not, comparing this movement to the Tea Party. Are you saying that none of these demands are not appearing on placards or being discussed?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know why they didn't take them down but they certainly disclaimed association.

    You claimed these were the wishes of the group, right?

    Even Fox News doesn't claim these to be all the wishes of the movement. Some individual demands might very well be, but certainly not all of them or the unrealistic ones like debt forgiveness, free college education, etc.

    Why won't you simply put a disclaimer up saying these are only the wishes of one person and not the group? What are you afraid of? What is wrong with saying while at the time I posted this it appeared this person was speaking for the group but it has become clear they are not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous - What more needs to be said? The link is there. We have both acknowledged that it was posted in their forum. The message is posted by one person but there are pockets of people on Wall Street and around the nation that have touted several, if not all, of these points listed. Yes, it is not an official credo of the group but the demands are being discussed so why don't we discuss them here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow, so you have no responsibility to properly frame the conversation from the start? Certainly reasonable people will rightly think you are accurately portraying the wishes of the group, since your post claims to say these are the demands of the group. I'm all for discussing them with the upfront notion that these are not the wishes of the group.

    It's shocking that you either don't see the issue or are too stubborn to add a brief disclaimer at the start. More likely, you like your shock value too much.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous - take a moment and read what I wrote -

    So, what is it that these "occupiers" want? A list of demands has materialized on the website for "Occupy Wall Street" so let's take a look(http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/):

    I posed the question on what these "occupiers" want and looked at their website to find out. I found the list and addressed the list. The original post was September 25th on their website and it wasn't until recently that they put the disclaimer on. Again, how am I misleading anyone? Read carefully what I original wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder why Anonymous is struggling to discuss the list of demands. The statement you made is not misleading. You pondered what the group wanted and found something posted on their website. If they have issue with it then remove it and not place a disclaimer on it. They want Wall Street to be accountable then be accountable for the posts put on the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon, you prove my point. The demands aren't the groups or the movements but one random individuals. And occupies, Viper, is inaccurate since it is one person's demands, not plural nor the groups.

    Anon, I'm happy to discuss the group's demands when they are clearly provided not when the demands of one person not representing the group are provided. See the difference? So, no, I'm not struggling with anything. How is disclaiming the demands not accountability? Isn't ignoring that disclaimer and passing along the demands as the groups irresponsible?

    You seek what they wanted but yet posted not what the group wants. Maybe the group does want some of those things, maybe it believes the comments that follow are an insightful debate. However, the demands you posted as is are in no way the group's or the movements. Thus, the disclaimer. You haven't found nor posted what you sought.

    Viper, you don't like this group. That's fine. But you haven't addressed a list of the groups demands.

    You use occupiers directly after referencing the group and it's clear you are seeking out specifics to this group. So it's clear this post references the movement. Then you claim to find the occupiers demands and you present them as such. But that's not what you found.

    Think what you want but Anon proved that you presented things as the groups. Anon may not have intended that, but there's no disputing that's what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry Anonymous my point was the manner in which Viper is portraying the demands is not misleading. The person who compiled this list does touch on a points being raised at the occupation. Granted it's not a message being espoused by all but it still exists. I think people are to focused on the messenger and not the message because it does exists just not from a large single source.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's not that I don't like this group. I think their a focus in misguided by protesting those that create jobs. The people on Wall Street played by the rules that our elected officials made. Right or wrong. But as the other Anonymous has pointed out - the list of demands above have surfaced in the multiple groups that make up the occupation. Granted there is no singular message but if you listen to all the factions the demands listed above exists.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, because SOME tea partiers espouse racist and hateful messages, therefore that means ALL tea partiers are hateful and racist, right?

    Because I can guarantee you that I can find forum posts on Tea Party websites that espouse such ideologies. And since the Tea Party didn't delete said posts that's tacit complicity isn't it?

    Oh wait, perhaps they consider their forums "open" in order to promote free speech and as such, have a compunction against censoring it but would rather leave the post and disclaim it as they have.

    God forbid they actually believe in something like that right?

    Oh, and Viper, your post was VERY misleading since I presumed that it was the entire groups list of demands and as such, didn't bother to respond to this thread. Knowing now that it's one person, you should have disclosed that.

    But I'm not surprised by your lack of disclosure anymore. Honest discourse has never been your intent, so I wonder now why you pretend it is now?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon,

    Please show me where in his post he portrays these demands to only be one person’s who is not speaking on behalf of the group. It certainly isn’t in the headline. It certainly isn’t in the first paragraph. You even describe them as the groups demands. I’ll focus on the message when the groups message is given.

    At least two people have now believed that these were the groups demands as posted by Viper. So to avoid confusing, why not state these are not the groups demands and only one person’s wishes? What’s so hard about that? What’s the danger? Doesn’t that promote fairness in conversation?

    If multiple people are unclear, it’s misleading.

    Some of those demands might exist, Viper. But not all of them and not in the manner listed. You claimed to want to bring to light the demands of the occupiers. You have failed to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here's the irony of all of this, the demands that I've heard on the TV aren't that different from the demands of the Tea Party 2 years ago. In fact, much of the outrage is over the same topics.

    Bailouts, assault on the middle class, outsourcing jobs, fair free-trade, corporate malfeasance, an out of control financial system etc. These are all things the tea party railed against not even 24 months ago.

    While the above "demands" are far and away radical left wing nonsense the majority of what I've heard/read about these protests sounds remarkably similar to that of the Tea Party.

    So why hasn't the tea party backed this kind of angst? Why are they going out of their way to label this group as "radical" while insisting that their own movement is not radical?

    Seems like a pretty high height of hypocrisy if you ask me. But it wouldn't be the first time that the Tea Party mixed principles up with politics and chose the latter over the former.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Truman - I posted this on the Occupy Wall Street Website..http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party/#comment-41331

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous

    Viper asked what the occupiers want then mentions something "materialized" on their website. The fact that it exists in the forum should be clue #1 that it may not be representative of the entire group. I too while listening and reading the news over the weekend did hear nearly everyone of these demands talked about by the various groups that make up the occupiers. Not sure why you and Truman struggle with that.

    As to Truman, I agree that the Occupiers and Tea Party have a core similarity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Not sure why you and Truman struggle with that."

    I don't struggle with what I hear on the news that is attributed to these groups. It's usually the result of a journalist interviewing a singular person and trying to illicit some extreme response to grab headlines. They all do it because you all watch their channel when they do it.

    What I struggled with was the fact that this list that Viper posted was presumed by his post to be a list of demands for the entire group.

    Viper consistently references the group, not referencing the author of the list as a single indivudual. He uses phrases like:

    "So, what is it that these "occupiers" want?"

    Then follows it with:

    "A list of demands has materialized on the website for "Occupy Wall Street" so let's take a look"

    While I agree, some of these demands have appeared in other forums, it's clear that the occupy wallstreet group has disavowed these demands in writing on their forum. So why reprint them and purport them to be from that "group" as Viper did?

    That's more than disingenuous, it's outright fabrication in my opinion.

    It's no different than taking a quote completely out of context and then using it to slander someone. By repeating as fact what he knew was, at the very least a fringe elements opinion and what had been disavowed by the group itself is the worst form of journalism.

    Viper might as well be a gossip columnist if that's the level of intellectual honesty that he's going to put forth here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Truman

    I did not bring forth these demands nor am I being disingenuous with the framing of these on the blogsite. The fact that they come from the forum obviously states that it's an opinion and not the overriding message by the occupation. That being said, it is still on the website and in reading the thousands of responses and listening to the reports on the news - nearly everyone one of these demands are being echoed by some faction or another of the occupation.

    So let's discuss some of the more common themes of the occupation that do exist within the list of demands above.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Truman

    The list that Viper put up on the site, did it not materialize on the Occupy Wall Street website? As you admit, a number of the demands are being voiced throughout the occupation - not just on Wall Street - so to say that Viper is being misleading is a bit of stretch since it does bear fruit to what is being said. Granted not every point is being made to the point multiple groups are in agreement but they are being said, right?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Anon,
    What is disingenuous is to lead us to believe that this group is supportive of these demands - many of which are absurd.

    Common themes I've heard are income inequality, fair/balanced trade agreements, financial industry accountability, no bailouts - those are all themes that I've heard repeated in the news. However, most of those don't appear in the "demands" above that Viper purported were from that group (as I showed with my citations). That is disingenuous to me.

    @Viper,
    Here's what I think is rather two faced about the tea party. If you take nearly any quote from 2008/2009 about the tea party and played it today without telling the viewer the timeframe, they'd think you were talking about the Occupy wallstreet group. Yet the Tea party can't seem to get far enough away from this group - why is that?

    Common themes are what I noted above;

    An end to government bailouts of irresponsible companies

    Financial Industry Accountability

    Representative Leadership in government

    Fair free trade agreements (unlike NAFTA and others)

    Income inequality (squashing of the middle class)

    If I didn't tell you what group wanted those things, you'd think it was the Tea Party. So why does the tea party show such hatred for this movement in Wall St?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Truman

    This is a different Anon then the other two and I am a regular reader here. I don't see how Viper is misleading anyone. We all recognize that the demands talked about originally did not come from the "leaders" - although I think Soros has said all of the ones listed before - but they are demands being made by many within the occupation. Had Viper just posted the demands without the link, I'd agree with you and the other Anon but he didn't. He included the link and with the word FORUM in the link leads a person of average intelligence to realize that this is not from the group putting forth the website.

    Now, I have heard every one of those demands talked about by several factions throughout the occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Viper,
    Something interesting to consider. The Tea Party/GOP rail about how 47% pay no taxes and they need to "pay their fair share" but here's an article detailing how Reagan felt about it.

    You might find it surprising since the Tea Party/GOP constantly hold up Reagan as their icon for small government and such.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/reagan-lauded-tax-law-dropping-poor-rolls-143904344.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. I had seen that piece of video a while back and was thinking of putting it up on the blogsite to discuss it. I know it's been awhile since I first put forth my idea of a flat tax - if you recall I wanted to have the flat tax start after one earns $50K or it may have been $60K a year.

    The interesting part of Reagan's speech was his talk of not using the tax coded to cater to special interests yet adding more exemptions for children and mortgages interests did that as well. Why not make the tax code less confusing by flattening it out and removing all the deductions, credits and exemptions that exist now?

    ReplyDelete
  25. What's to stop all of those deductions, credits, and exemptions from creeping back in? Powerful interest groups will always push for an exemption and to be treated different.

    My understanding is that the original income tax code was pretty straight forward. Basically two rates.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Viper, here's my problem with flat taxes. They're inherently regressive and still leave the door open to loopholes/deductions later on. Unless you pass a constitutional amendment tying congresses hands to modify the tax code once you implement the flat tax, IT WILL CHANGE. We both know that.

    And what's worse, some of the flat tax proposals are downright obscene. Cain's is the most regressive tax proposal ever offered. The bottom 84% see a massive tax hike in his according to an independent analysis. Those making 10-20k see their taxes go up 590% to $2700 a year. That's more than 10% of their income in taxes when they make almost nothing.

    I know yours isn't that regressive but that's the end result none the less, those who can't afford it are the ones who pay the most as a proportion of disposable income.

    And the rich get a tax cut.

    It's more trickle down economics. But in this recession which is COMPLETELY demand driven, raising taxes on the middle class while cutting it on the rich will do nothing but stimulate investment overseas where demand exists while leaving the US behind to wallow for 10 years.

    The best solution is a short term 1-2 year tax cut for the middle class. A truly meaningful one like a 50% reduction. That would massively stimulate demand while only having a short term negative impact on the deficit. That demand would have the result of stimulating supply, which creates jobs and investment. That means more people working which feeds the cycle of demand which generates more supply requirements which creates more jobs.

    And those new jobs generate taxes albeit at a lower rate.

    But you'd never get something like that through congress because it doesn't have any goodies for the corporations or super-rich (I'm sorry jobs creators) who line the politicians pockets.

    But that's what we need right now. It's just too bad no one has the political will to do what is right. Instead we talk about abolishing the EPA, an entity that generated 2 Trillion in economic benefit in the last 20 years while also keeping our water/air/soil clean.

    We should not be trying to race China to the bottom of the deregulation pile....because the consequences are far worse for future generations than the deficit ever will be.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Going with the logic of "they will just re-introduce deductions", woudln't it make sense that no matter how high you raise taxes, they will find new loopholes and deductions? So don't we just end up back at square one?

    I like your idea too, Truman. Yes, utopian, as it probably won't happen. But in my opinion, ideas that "probably won't happen", can happen eventually (or a variation of), if thee is enough buy-in.

    Here is something else I've been thinking of - and it will likely expose my naiavety here (and the fact that I can't spell naiavety, and was just too lazy to check the spelling). A lot of this comes down to personal responsibility. So you have Warren Buffet commenting on what a "crime it is" that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does. I agree. But #1 - isn't that due to the deductions he can take? And #2 - Couldn't he just NOT take the deductions if he feels wrong about it? (Maybe he does - nobody has commented either way that I have noticed)

    So along those lines - what deductions do WE take, that maybe we could not? Another utopian idea - but if we really feel they should go away - what if we didn't take them ourselves? Yes - they are small - but small amongst a lot of people adds up quickly, no? Look at how much money is raised by having people text a number and donate $10 to a given cause. Obviously not THE fix - but every little bit coudl help. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  28. In order for it to work, the manner in which I envision the flat tax, it would have to be a Constitutional amendment. Just like any piece of legislation passed the next Congress can change things - which is the biggest problem with the Super Committee or any discussion of cutting spending over the next ten years. Never hear them spreading revenue over the next ten years, why?

    ReplyDelete