Occupy Wall Street?

[DL82]

I'm interested in people here's views of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It seems, with the exception of some Italian Communists hijacking the Rome rally, that the movement is peaceful, largely law-abiding, and has as its aims some form of distributist approach, in which moral values would trump greed in the regulation of the market. They are extremely disorganized and incoherent, but there is a groundswell of argument in favor of some kind of decentralized control of the wealth.

It also seems to me that the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party basically want the same thing - the Tea Party want to see the Federal Government give powers back to the State and local level, while OWS want to see big multinational corporations broken up so that they have to pay attention to local needs instead of corporate profit. If someone could harness both, they would be highly electable, but they would also be the President who destroyed America, by breaking up everything that holds the Nation together, turning it into a loose federation of autonomous communities - within a decade there would be nothing that a pro-life prayer-in-public-schools Texas would have in common with a Massachussets where pot was legal and handguns were not.

I guess there are two questions here - what do people make of Occupy Wall Street, and is there anything that holds America together anymore?

[Waiting]

Originally Posted by DL82

I'm interested in people here's views of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It seems, with the exception of some Italian Communists hijacking the Rome rally, that the movement is peaceful, largely law-abiding, and has as its aims some form of distributist approach, in which moral values would trump greed in the regulation of the market. They are extremely disorganized and incoherent, but there is a groundswell of argument in favor of some kind of decentralized control of the wealth.

It also seems to me that the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party basically want the same thing - the Tea Party want to see the Federal Government give powers back to the State and local level, while OWS want to see big multinational corporations broken up so that they have to pay attention to local needs instead of corporate profit. If someone could harness both, they would be highly electable, but they would also be the President who destroyed America, by breaking up everything that holds the Nation together, turning it into a loose federation of autonomous communities - within a decade there would be nothing that a pro-life prayer-in-public-schools Texas would have in common with a Massachussets where pot was legal and handguns were not.

I guess there are two questions here - what do people make of Occupy Wall Street, and is there anything that holds America together anymore?

This is America, the land of the free. The Occupy crowd wants to dictate. They are, I'm convinced, Marxist in nature. If their $20.00 an hour minimum wage were put in effect, that would be the end of small businesses, and certainly fast food chains where young people get their start. They want free health care. Someone has to pay. It seems to me that they're making ridiculous demands and destroying all initiative to work and be proud of your accomplishments. Instead of occupying and dirtying the parks that are there for our enjoyment and relaxation, they could be volunteering that same time in places that are very much in need of the services that they could provide. They could be a tremendous force for good if they channeled their energies in the right places.

[Aelred Minor]

I haven't been following it very closely, but it seems to me that Occupy Wall Street isn't so much a movement for something as a movement against an economic system that does not seem to serve or even honestly try to serve the best interests of the vast majority of people. As far as that goes it could be a healthy thing, as long as no one finds a way to harness the discontent to gain support for a cure that's worse than the disease.

I agree that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party Movement have a lot in common inasmuch as they both call for the (perceived) interests of the common people over those of the elites. On the other hand I think the members of each movement tend to be very different kinds of people with very different ideals and ideas for the future. Hippies and rednecks might have a lot in common but they don't generally get along, except maybe in Vermont.

[Rascalking]

Occupy Wall Street are people who are trust fund brats who want to appear "hip and cool" and "down with the working man". I say that because I am also a trust fund brat who messed around with this rubbish when I was in my 20's. I am immensly proud of myself for realizing that people like this don't represent the working masses-they are selfish, spolied rotten, are very insecure. Are there "true believers" in the movement? Yes, of course. They are in the small minority. Ask yourself-if the Wall Street Occupiers are so concerned with "corporate America" why don't they raid they're own trust funds, sell the Iphones, and work for poverty causes?

Is there anything that brings Americans together? Terroist attacks...not much else, sadly. Regardless of what anyone says, Americans are deeply divided today.

[jhynds]

I think she nails it...

"Some Belated Parental Advice to Protesters" by Marybeth Hicks on Oct 19, 2011 in Columnists, Featured, Parenting

http://catholiclane.com/some-belated...to-protesters/

[ManOnFire]

Originally Posted by jhynds

I think she nails it...

"Some Belated Parental Advice to Protesters" by Marybeth Hicks on Oct 19, 2011 in Columnists, Featured, Parenting

http://catholiclane.com/some-belated...to-protesters/

wow

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by jhynds

I think she nails it...

"Some Belated Parental Advice to Protesters" by Marybeth Hicks on Oct 19, 2011 in Columnists, Featured, Parenting

http://catholiclane.com/some-belated...to-protesters/

She has some good points, but falls into the trap of assuming that all of the unemployed (at least those with college degrees) are unemployed because of a moral fault of their own.

Also I doubt anyone, much less billions of people, would literally die for a college degree. What good would a college degree be if you are dead? I think her gut feelings ran ahead of her brain on that sentence.

The reality is that college has become an assumption for middle-class American kids, something they are told to go to their entire lives (along with the idea that you can do anything you put your mind to), and it's only around the time they graduate that they start encountering the hard realities of how the world works, unable to find their dream job and saddled with massive debt that they agreed to because their parents told them to. They feel they have done everything they were told to do and are now being denied their due (much like seniors with their “keep your hands off my Medicare and Social Security; I worked my whole life and deserve my benefits!”) . Also they've grown up in a culture that idealizes the protests of the 1960s and have been exposed to media coverage of the nonsense going on in Europe. It's a perfect recipe for big naive demonstrations.

[ManOnFire]

Why aren't more people asking why colleges are paying to fly their non-revenue sports scholarship teams across the country for games? This adds to the costs and debt of the non-scholarship students and it's unnecessary.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

She has some good points, but falls into the trap of assuming that all of the unemployed (at least those with college degrees) are unemployed because of a moral fault of their own.

I don't see where moral fault is blamed, rather, bad decision making on the part of the student.

Also I doubt anyone, much less billions of people, would literally die for a college degree. What good would a college degree be if you are dead? I think her gut feelings ran ahead of her brain on that sentence.

'to die for' is an idiom in American English. It carries the meaning of 'to strongly desire'

The reality is that college has become an assumption for middle-class American kids, something they are told to go to their entire lives (along with the idea that you can do anything you put your mind to), and it's only around the time they graduate that they start encountering the hard realities of how the world works, unable to find their dream job and saddled with massive debt that they agreed to because their parents told them to.

"Dream job"??? I certainly do not remember anyone promising me a 'dream job' when I graduated. If I had my druthers, I probably would have gotten a degree in Art History. It certainly would have been a lot less work than the Engineer degree that I did actually get

It didn't take a genius to see that my employment options would be much higher as an Engineer than it would be with a B.A. in Art History. It would most likely provide for a much better standard of living for any family that I chose to have.

Did any of these kids look at what fields were extensively hiring and choose their majors accordingly?


It's great to have a 'dream job', but it's also important to plan for a job that will pay the bills.


.


I

So are you stating that root of the problem is the kids parents? Or the fact that the kids listened to their partents. If so, should the kids be camping out on their parents lawns instead?

They feel they have done everything they were told to do and are now being denied their due

What, exactly, is 'their due'. Did their parents promise them something, if so, would it not be appropriate for them to take it up with their parents. Why did this become an issue regarding potential employers.



(much like seniors with their “keep your hands off my Medicare and Social Security; I worked my whole life and deserve my benefits!”) . Also they've grown up in a culture that idealizes the protests of the 1960s and have been exposed to media coverage of the nonsense going on in Europe. It's a perfect recipe for big naive demonstrations.[/quote]

[Nate13]

I suggest making it a requirement that anyone who receives student loans must attend college advising so they will know the implications of their choices beforehand. A student could be advised beforehand that taking out x amount of debt would mean paying x amount per month when they graduated for x amount of years. They could then compare that to the expected wage they would be earning depending on the degree they were pursuing and would have the knowledge to make sound decisions.

[tomarin]

I can't understand for the life of me how anyone can take these people seriously or indulge any of their whims for more than a nano-second. Their messages seem shallow, one-dimensional, insufficiently thought-out, self-contradictory and primarily emotional and romantic to a comical degree. Walking past their protest site is the equivalent of exposing oneself to one high-decibel left-wing populist slogan after another, the next more shrill and hare-brained than the last. It's an exercize in intellectually debasement.

It doesn't help that the people there are mostly in their twenties and look riff-raffy but in a studied way (one suspects their parents live a commuter train ride away in Connecticut), plus some older ones who look like they've been waiting for the revolution since the 1960's.

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by jhynds

I think she nails it...

"Some Belated Parental Advice to Protesters" by Marybeth Hicks on Oct 19, 2011 in Columnists, Featured, Parenting

http://catholiclane.com/some-belated...to-protesters/

Thanks for finding the link to this column.

[Ella]

Fracking shale to get natural gas is an ecological disaster.

Please read this website:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

and watch the movie Gasland

[mgoforth]

Originally Posted by Ella

Fracking shale to get natural gas is an ecological disaster.

Please read this website:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

and watch the movie Gasland

Yes, it's horribly polluting and it doesn't even solve the problem at hand, which is a cheap liquid fuel shortage.

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Ella

Fracking shale to get natural gas is an ecological disaster.

Please read this website:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

and watch the movie Gasland

Gasland is about as accurate as Gores "Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread724358/pg1

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02...pagewanted=all