The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (U.S Protests)

[jackstraw94086]

"Their elected representatives" are Republicans. That's it.

This is exactly what I'm saying. They are leveraging their politicians to push whatever agenda they have.

This is not what the slumber party seems to be up to, which appears to be an attempt to shortcut that whole process and just bend government directly to their abstract will.

[jackstraw94086]

Donald Trump.

They got the white house to respond to it is what I mean.

[jackstraw94086]

Jack, i'm fully aware that that is cherry-picked sound bites from a small group of clueless protestors. That's sort of my entire point. There were no Tea Party Republican congresspeople at the time, so don't invoke Rand Paul on me.

YES THERE WERE. Read Pot's posts. They were there the whole time. The tea party worked the system. These kids feel they don't have to.

[J~$$$$]

College freshman discover George Carlin.

[JebusLives]

Boehner doesn't even control his own house anymore. Cantor, Bachmann, Palin... these wackos are not establishment Republicans. Their patron saint Ron Paul can't even get airtime on Fox. I don't buy that this was astroturfing. I say it was grass roots, highjacked by some Republican opportunists.

[jackstraw94086]

Boehner doesn't even control his own house anymore. Cantor, Bachmann, Palin... these wackos are not establishment Republicans. Their patron saint Ron Paul can't even get airtime on Fox. I don't buy that this was astroturfing. I say it was grass roots, highjacked by some Republican opportunists.

as has been stated before, these folks are all just slightly different hues in the republican crayola box.

You just have a bone to pick. You've personified all your anger as "the tea party". You've put their face on everything that frustrates you just like the slumber party has blamed all their problems on "bankers".




Actually, ya know who the slumber party kids contact to deal with this banker problem?

[JebusLives]

I brought up the tea party as an example of an effective movement that evoked change, as a model for how this could also succeed. This has nothing to do with my contempt for the tea party.

[jackstraw94086]

What has the tea party accomplished?


BTW the slumber party's started on market and speare

[Starraven]

What has the tea party accomplished?

[Gribbz]

Apparently Jeff Mangum is performing at this thing right now.

[MissingPerson]

Well there's an achievement for ya.

[MissingPerson]

Dude, Bowie. Tell them to bring back Bowie. We can all get behind that.

[jackstraw94086]

was shutting down government part of the tea party platform? Regardless, it fizzled.


and btw I know this argument is counter to the line of reasoning about the slumber party, but this tea party phobia is hilarious.

[nathanfairchild]

they got mangum. they won.

[faxman75]

Here's a short storoy with a youtube of his performance.

http://consequenceofsound.net/2011/1...y-wall-street/

[faxman75]

Here is a pretty solid list of demands. I hadn't seen it posted yet in this thread.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/detail...tactics-for-d/



----- LIST OF PROPOSED DEMANDS -----

1.CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal . If we wanted to have a BIG IMPACT and we were able to have only one slogan that we could paint on signs and chant during marches within earshot of press, it would be "PASS HR 1489. REINSTATE GLASS-STEAGALL" or "RE-IN-STATE the ACT GLASS-STEAGALL. IT MAKES THE WALL STREET GAMES ILLEGAL"

2.USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

3.CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. The Supreme Court decision is really weird. Read it when you have a chance. The justices who argued for unlimited corporate contributions thought that wouldn't have an adverse effect on democracy and wouldn't undermine the citizen's view of legitimacy of elections. I'm not sure there's a word for that it's so strange.

4.CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

5.CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

6.CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7.CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

8.ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS (Sorry Mitt Romney)

9.RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

[JebusLives]

Those demands seem eminently reasonable to me.

[jackstraw94086]

and a partridge in a pear tree

[jackstraw94086]

Fantastic that they've been able to compile a list of suggestions, but I'll say the same thing I said when I posted this list a few pages ago.

This list only makes them look even more stupid for camping out on Wall St. It's like they're protesting on the playground to stop bullying. Go picket the fucking parents.

And before anyone says "oh the system is broken, corporations own the government!"
A) STFU moron
B) congress has been close to passing some of this stuff already. The reason it failed is because the representatives from OTHER areas of the country either didn't want it, or they didn't lobby their representatives hard enough to pass it if they did want it.

This is a big fucking country full of many different places and people. If your own reps are already voting your way then go find where the opposition to your agenda is and campaign for it there. That's how governing a country works. Everyone can't get exactly what they want and you have to convince the others where they live that what you want is in their best interests too.

Sleeping on Wall St. isn't going to get you any fucking votes anywhere where you didn't have them already, morons.

[TomAz]

Those demands seem eminently reasonable to me.

Some of them are very reasonable and some of them are whacky as shit.

1- reasonable

2- ok but it sounds like they've already convicted the accused without a trial

3- someone needs to take a class in civics. By which I mean this "legislation" would pretty much have to be a constitutional amendment, and those are very hard to get passed.

4- totally agree

5- spirit is right, but whoever wrote that has to be naive as all hell. Where do they think "proven professionals" come from?

6- would seem to violate freedom of speech protections

7- see #5. Also, $195,000 is not a lot of money to the people we're talking about here.

8- I don't know why this matters so I don't support it or disagree with it yet

9- I have no idea what this means in practice but it seems reasonable

[jackstraw94086]

Some of them are very reasonable and some of them are whacky as shit.

1- reasonable

2- ok but it sounds like they've already convicted the accused without a trial

3- someone needs to take a class in civics. By which I mean this "legislation" would pretty much have to be a constitutional amendment, and those are very hard to get passed.

4- totally agree

5- spirit is right, but whoever wrote that has to be naive as all hell. Where do they think "proven professionals" come from?

6- would seem to violate freedom of speech protections

7- see #5. Also, $195,000 is not a lot of money to the people we're talking about here.

8- I don't know why this matters so I don't support it or disagree with it yet

9- I have no idea what this means in practice but it seems reasonable

they assume those that currently "control" the SEC (as if there were a small group of peopel that do) are evil and those that they would replace them would be good. They don't have the first clue what the SEC is. SEC rules are intentionally written fuzzy in order to capture more wrongdoing, and prevent as many loopholes as possible. In practice it could never truly be fuzzy enough to prevent all of it. Sure it could probably be improved, but these kids assume it was created for the purposes of screwing the public, and that they could write a much better one from scratch right now.

The fact that the softball = $195k bit made it into their published list of demands really reeks of amatuerism. They need to get some proof readers here, some "proven professionals" perhaps.

[PlayaDelWes]

Most of those seem somewhat legitimate, assuming there is a plan to address any unfavorable consequences and the people driving these demands are at least transparent or honest with the full effect. My questions are few.

GLASS-STEAGALL ACT

The Wiki article does a good job weighing both sides of the argument and why it’s repeal may have helped escape the financial crisis. Whether you agree or disagree with the act, my question is why the urgency now? The only securitizations that commercial banks have been doing for the last 4 years are GSE through FNMA and FHLMC. Repealing Glass-Steagall would eliminate their ability to do that passing the burden onto ~ 80% of borrowers who would no longer be able to refinance or get a mortgage on a new home. Assuming that’s the intention (or unintended consequence?), why not just shut down the GSEs? They are a cash drain on US taxpayers as is. And for private label securitizations, don’t Dodd-Frank, Basel III, and Reg AB-2 address these same concerns?

PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

So why not protest in front of the department of justice?

it wouldn't take long to develop the list

By the time I’m done writing this, perhaps the list has already been generated??? so let’s name names and crimes and get going.

3.CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

This should be the “one slogan that we could paint on signs and chant during marches within earshot of press”

THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE

Can you point me in the direction of those who are currently paying their fair share?

5.CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION…and 6.…PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS…

Seems either ambitious or there needs to be some more meat attached here. Having dealt with the both sides of the SEC, I can assure you they are pretty bad ass when it comes to enforcing violation of securities law. I’ve seen them put people I’ve known and absolutely hated in jail and destroyed their careers for their unethical actions.

6.…PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS…

Doesn’t this seem rather pie in the sky while watering down their message?

7.… LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

It takes the same skill-set to regulate or audit an industry than it does to run one. The only way to get quality regulators is to pay well and absorb industry expertise into the agency. If there is no exit option, I can’t see any regulating agency ever able to attract the talent it would take to effectively create and enforce relevant regulations. As long as there are ways to address this, it may eliminate the occasional conflict of interest, but IMO having a weak agency that is unable to regulate is the worst of both worlds. In their larger plan, do they outline how to maintain this balance?

8.… ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" status…

Flavor of the week?

9. RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES …

Also pie in the sky, but a noble cause. Who covers the cost?

[J~$$$$]

I give this one more week before Alex Jones and his loonies ruin the party.

[JebusLives]

It really doesn't matter where the protests take place... yeah they're asking for government intervention, but they need to protest wherever the noise will be heard best. Why would protesting in Washington be more effective?

I was just glad to see nothing about "ending the fed" in that list of demands.

Personhood of corporations is actually a fairly concrete concern. When I was an independent contractor I had to incorporate purely for liability reasons; essentially if I fucked up a job, a customer couldn't sue me directly. They'd have to sue Jebus inc. No matter how badly I screwed up, I was protected behind my corporate identity.

If shareholders were held personally liable for the actions of their investments, the world would be a far more accountable place.

(Yes I understand this would be an extremely radical reorganization of western society.)

[PlayaDelWes]

Personhood of corporations is actually a fairly concrete concern. When I was an independent contractor I had to incorporate purely for liability reasons; essentially if I fucked up a job, a customer couldn't sue me directly. They'd have to sue Jebus inc. No matter how badly I screwed up, I was protected behind my corporate identity.

People offering one-sided explanations without complete transparency that could potentially undermine their argument is getting tiring. Nevertheless, let me remind you that when you incorporate, you sign up for double taxation; first as corporate income tax (at a rate greater than personal income tax rates), and then again as profits are distributed to shareholders. That's just ONE of the tradeoffs that is made. I don’t see anyone complaining about Billions of extra tax revenue.

If shareholders were held personally liable for the actions of their investments, the world would be a far more accountable place.

Oh really. So everyone in America who has any equity, from a kid who got a share of Disney Stock for his 1st birthday, to retirees living off their 401Ks, to public retirement funds would be liable beyond their initial investment.

[TomAz]

If shareholders were held personally liable for the actions of their investments, the world would be a far more accountable place.

(Yes I understand this would be an extremely radical reorganization of western society.)

It would make rich lawyers even richer, that's for sure.

[TomAz]

amatuerism

yep, this is it right here.

but, you know, the capital structure of the entire american economy isn't that big a deal, it's ok.

[obzen]

3.CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. The Supreme Court decision is really weird. Read it when you have a chance. The justices who argued for unlimited corporate contributions thought that wouldn't have an adverse effect on democracy and wouldn't undermine the citizen's view of legitimacy of elections. I'm not sure there's a word for that it's so strange.

Boom-shakalakalakalaka-shazam...






bitch.

[jackstraw94086]

but you don't understand, Tom, it's not FAIR!


This whole thing is just a tantrum.

They didn't pass the legislation that I wanted. FUCK THIS! LET'S RAGE (in our PJs on a sidewalk with wifi).

[obzen]

Tom, Jack, and Playa; elitists.