5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work

[BlindMessiah]

Ha! You just don't want to admit you are wrong and that they may just make something happen.

First of all I don't, for the most part, agree with their cause and definitely don't agree with their methods. However, what I said was that protesting in Wall St wouldn't accomplish anything. I claimed that if they wanted to accomplish change, they needed to make their demands publicly known, and protest Congress, not Wall St. I don't see how any of that is wrong.

[+DieChecker]

Putting Pundits to Shame: Protesters Know Exactly What They're Fighting For

Their style may not have been as mainstream as the retirees attending a Glenn Beck rally, but they knew precisely what they were there for.

"We know what we're against,” he told me, “but what do we stand for?” John had a 12-point agenda, which he acknowledged would “probably need to be condensed.” “We need to bring back Glass-Steagal,” he said, referring to the Depression-era law that created a firewall between investment- and commercial-banking. “It's really ironic that a law whose purpose was to prevent another Great Depression was repealed and now we have an economy that is worse than at any time since the Depression,” he said. “That's strange.”

http://act.alternet.org/go/11718?akid=7664.313034.QQ6t8c&t=12

Well at least this guy is at least presenting an intellegent arguement. Too many of these protesters were just "there" for the fun of it and because someone told them to go there.

[Michelle]

First of all I don't, for the most part, agree with their cause and definitely don't agree with their methods. However, what I said was that protesting in Wall St wouldn't accomplish anything. I claimed that if they wanted to accomplish change, they needed to make their demands publicly known, and protest Congress, not Wall St. I don't see how any of that is wrong.

Politically, I agree with most of what you say.

[Michelle]

Well at least this guy is at least presenting an intellegent arguement. Too many of these protesters were just "there" for the fun of it and because someone told them to go there.

And calling other people sheep.

[THE MATRIX]

You know a while back I posted a similar thread about the "Occupy Wall Street" and most posters here laughed it off and said it will fizzle out quickly. now that it has spread across the country to more than 100 cities, Who's laughing Now?!

[BlindMessiah]

You know a while back I posted a similar thread about the "Occupy Wall Street" and most posters here laughed it off and said it will fizzle out quickly. now that it has spread across the country to more than 100 cities, Who's laughing Now?!

The Tea Party hasn't fizzled out either. Duration shouldn't legitimize a view point.

[Damrod]

Trying to make a statement and get people to talk and consider the different aspects of our society is not bad nor will it ever be...it MUST start somewhere. Perhaps protesting outside the "Halls of High Finance" is not the best place to start but it is a start.

The Brokers and Bankers are just taking advantage of a de-regulated system of commerce that allows corruption and unbridled greed to flourish...They didn't change the system themselves but they sure are using the heck out of changes. The trip to DC is a better Idea. If you want to change the system back to the way it used to work, you must protest against the people that de-regulated it and allowed it to be changed.

Angery shouts outside of the U.S. Capitol will be heard more loudly than outside a bankers office building...

[tapirmusic]

*taken from reason.com

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, women, and transgendered—and any other human who is able to elude the tyranny of work for a couple of weeks—are created equal. We gather to be free not of tyranny, but of responsibility and college tuitions. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that a government long established and a nation long prosperous be changed for light and transient causes. So let our demands* be submitted to a candid world.

First, we are imbued with as many inalienable rights as a few thousand college kids and a gaggle of borderline celebrities can concoct, among them a guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment and immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness—even if that debt was acquired taking on a mortgage with a 4.1 percent interest rate and no money down, which, we admit, is a pretty sweet deal in historical context...

...but down with the modern gilded age!

We demand that a Master of Fine Arts in musical theater writing, with a minor in German, become an immutable human right, because education is crucial and rich people can afford to fund unemployment checks until we find jobs or in perpetuity, whichever comes first.

We demand a minimum wage of $10, no ... make it $20. We earned it. And we demand the end of "profiteering," because there is no better way to end joblessness than stopping the growth of capital. We also demand a maximum wage law, because selfish American dreams need a firm ceiling.

We demand the institution of direct democracy, because if a bunch of people say it's OK, it's OK. And everyone deserves to have his or her voice heard. Except Mr. Moneybags, who we demand stop contributing his own money to candidates we disagree with, to issue groups we loathe, and to lobbyists who do not work for organizations featuring "Service," "Employees," "International" and/or "Union" in their title.

We demand the end to bailouts and corporate subsidies, unless we're talking about companies that feature sunflowers or sun rays in their logos, because that's the kind of morally gratifying institution we approve of, and thus, they should totally be fast-tracked and bailed out with your money to bring the fossil fuel economy ("the economy") to an end.

We demand the end to a corrupt Wall Street ("Apple" "your 401(k)") because banks hold too much power. We demand that government consolidate authority so that elected officials can make prudent choices for us. All that cash in banks was printed by the war god Mars and has nothing to do with the voluntary deposits by ordinary Americans, so we do not consider this theft.

We demand the end to corporate censorship, because if we can't force private news organizations to run the types of stories with which we agree, there can't be a healthy democracy. So actually, we demand the end of all corporate news organizations in the name of free speech.

We demand the end to health profiteering, because everyone knows that all the wondrous and lifesaving advances in modern medicine were invented in the People's Democratic Republic of Laos. Smart people work for the good of humanity, not because they're greedy.

We demand these rights because of the mass injustice of being able to freely protest against racism and corporatism without any real fear of imprisonment in the most diverse city on earth. And to the wiseguy who walked by the other day and claimed that I'd be writing this manifesto with a quill pen on parchment paper if it weren't for capitalism, we have two words for you: Koch brothers. Think about it.

This is the fifth communiqué from the 99.9 percent. We are occupying Wall Street, and we're not going home until it gets really cold.

*These grievances are not all-inclusive."

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi

[acidhead]

This is a great segment of the difference between capitalism and forced socialism... which I believe these protestors want.

Milton Friedman discusses the moral values encouraged by economic systems and explains that a primary difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between free choice and compulsory force.

Edited October 6, 2011 by acidhead

[ninjadude]

Maybe the protesters should spend more time getting or creating some type of job,

Maybe you should learn what's really going on. There are FIVE job seekers for every one job.

[BlindMessiah]

Maybe you should learn what's really going on. There are FIVE job seekers for every one job.

If that were the case unemployment would be at 80%.

[ninjadude]

If you get the same pay whether you are unemployed or employed, why work?

you misred that. It has nothing to do with unemployment. A living wage regardless of where you work.

[BlindMessiah]

you misred that. It has nothing to do with unemployment. A living wage regardless of where you work.

Are you sure? It's not really clear which way they mean it. I would interpret it as saying whether or not you're employed. The reason I say this, they already said they want to raise minimum wage to a living wage of $20 an hour. Minimum wage affects every place of employment. This makes it seem to me that they're calling for everyone to get it regardless of employment.

[ninjadude]

If that were the case unemployment would be at 80%.

I hate to do this to you but it's true sources

Edited October 6, 2011 by ninjadude

[BlindMessiah]

I hate to do this to you but it's true sources

That says there are five job seekers for every job opening. You said there are five seekers for every job. That completely changes the meaning.

[ninjadude]

That says there are five job seekers for every job opening. You said there are five seekers for every job. That completely changes the meaning.

If you say so.

[BlindMessiah]

If you say so.

According the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 8/11, there are 139,627,000 employed Americans. There are 13,967,000 unemployed Americans. This means that there are at least 10 jobs in the country for every job seeker. So the BLS says so, not me. You've now shown that you meant to say unfilled jobs, which is fine, you weren't clear in your language and there was a communication error. Just admit it, move on, and next time don't leave a snide link that you might later regret. Here's a real source for you.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Are you sure? It's not really clear which way they mean it. I would interpret it as saying whether or not you're employed. The reason I say this, they already said they want to raise minimum wage to a living wage of $20 an hour. Minimum wage affects every place of employment. This makes it seem to me that they're calling for everyone to get it regardless of employment.

Why would they ask for a living wage regardless of being employed or unemployed. A case of wanting what they wrote to be what you expect. Are you one of those nincompoops who think they are lazy no good people wasting their time because they want hand outs? If so then of course that's what you read. Pure bias. I hope you realize they are standing up for you too when you don't even think their cause is worthy.

Maybe their demands are not perfect and maybe they need better organization. But they are out there. Standing up for America which can be compared to those in the military that are fighting for your country and freedom. Instead of calling the military murderers support them the same should be true for these protesters. Don't call them lazy when they are doing something for everyone in America. Support them.

I don't get Americans sometimes. When no one does anything someone is always there to complain when someone does do something their they are criticizing how stupid and pointless their reason is..

wake up America support those that try to make this country better. Whether military or civilian at least someone is making an effort.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I understand we are not all going to agree on the best course of action. I'm not that naive. I think we all can agree though that something is wrong. Whatever the details or the way to improve on it. Something is wrong.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[BlindMessiah]

Why would they ask for a living wage regardless of being employed or unemployed. A case of wanting what they wrote to be what you expect. Are you one of those nincompoops who think they are lazy no good people wasting their time because they want hand outs? If so then of course that's what you read. Pure bias.

The only impression I had of these people before reading this demand list was that they weren't accomplishing anything by protesting Wall St so I had no expectations when reading the list.

I stated my reason for the interpretation. First of all, regardless of employment, typically means whether or not you are employed, not where you are employed. So if they mean what you claim, it's an odd way to word it. The other reason is that they already called for raising the minimum wage to $20 in demand one, so they'd just be repeating themselves with demand three. Unless they're pointlessly repeating themselves, demand three must have a different meaning than demand one. This would agree with the traditional reading of demand three as calling for living wage income for everyone, employed and unemployed.

I'm not claiming definitively that this is what they're calling for, but it certainly reads that way to me, and they need to clarify as there are several people just in this small thread reading it like that.

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.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

I hope you realize they are standing up for you too when you don't even think their cause is worthy.

Maybe their demands are not perfect and maybe they need better organization. But they are out there. Standing up for America which can be compared to those in the military that are fighting for your country and freedom. Instead of calling the military murderers support them the same should be true for these protesters. Don't call them lazy when they are doing something for everyone in America. Support them.

I don't get Americans sometimes. When no one does anything someone is always there to complain when someone does do something their they are criticizing how stupid and pointless their reason is..

wake up America support those that try to make this country better. Whether military or civilian at least someone is making an effort.

I realize they believe they are standing up for me just as the Tea Party believes it's standing up for me and I also don't agree with their cause. I didn't exactly call their cause unworthy. I disagreed with it, and said the methods they're using are making their efforts pointless, but I didn't call it unworthy.

Their demands are far worse than imperfect. I'm not disagreeing with everything they're saying as I displayed with my review. Several of their ideas are terrifying, however. They definitely need to work on their organization but that isn't my main issue with them. Given I don't agree with them, I'd be perfectly content with them remaining unorganized. I'm sorry but a bunch of people politically protesting has no parallel to military service. They aren't fighting for freedom. If you were ask them to sum up what they're fighting for, I'm pretty sure they'd claim it was economic equality. The issues they're protesting just really aren't civil rights issues. No one is this thread has even mentioned the military let alone call them murderers. I didn't call the protesters lazy. I called them unorganized and wrong. So every group that does something they believe helps America should be supported by everyone?

If my leg is injured, and I ask someone to help, and they come up with the idea to set my leg on fire by sacrificing a goat to the sun, I'm not only going to dislike their idea but also think their method of achieving it is stupid. I realize this is an extreme example but the analogy works. I support people with good ideas who try and make the country better. Supporting someone on intent alone is an extremely dangerous principle.

[BlindMessiah]

I understand we are not all going to agree on the best course of action. I'm not that naive. I think we all can agree though that something is wrong. Whatever the details or the way to improve on it. Something is wrong.

If that was all the world had to agree on, there would be perfect harmony among every nation, culture, and people. Unfortunately it's slightly more complicated.

[+DieChecker]

I think the Question should be... What is a Living Wage? Is it enough that only one person of a family of five needs to work, or are both parents expected to work???

Poverty is at... 16,000 for one person and 22,000 for two, 39,000 for 5. So does a living wage mean 50% more, or 100% more then Poverty??

Even if it is +100%, for a man and wife both working, that is 44,000 a year, or about 11 dollars an hour each. Is 11 dollars an hour a Good Wage? Are these people thinking that everyone needs a UAW salary of 80,000 a year so that everyone can have the McMansion and a boat and 4 cars??

[Ravinar]

If greedy people in power are the problem, and they got their through degrees, and these protesters are presumably claiming not to be greedy given that is what they're protesting, then to change Wall St and government's greed, non-greedy people would need to get into Wall St and government, which would require that these people get degrees. If the people currently in charge are not doing things properly, make yourself more qualified than they are, take their job, and do it properly. If you are incapable of doing that, then you don't really have much of a case.

kinda hard to do that when your collage rates skyrocket in order to pay for more tax cuts for the rich.

[BlindMessiah]

I think the Question should be... What is a Living Wage? Is it enough that only one person of a family of five needs to work, or are both parents expected to work???

Poverty is at... 16,000 for one person and 22,000 for two, 39,000 for 5. So does a living wage mean 50% more, or 100% more then Poverty??

Even if it is +100%, for a man and wife both working, that is 44,000 a year, or about 11 dollars an hour each. Is 11 dollars an hour a Good Wage? Are these people thinking that everyone needs a UAW salary of 80,000 a year so that everyone can have the McMansion and a boat and 4 cars??

They defined a living wage as $20 and hour. That'd be forty grandish for one person.

[Marks_Thoughts]

When a corporation forbids a small entrepreneur the right to grow by creating loopholes for themselves they are going against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. When Corporate buy themselves the majority of congress to protect themselves and their evil deeds it's against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. When Corporate takes the money of those who do not have it to begin with to perpetuate their lavish lifestyle it goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Corporate America members are not capitalist, they are fascist as they removed all morals out of their modus operandi.

When the market crashed in 2008, corporate America received fund for the government.. it's called welfare and it's socialist.

Do not misunderstand, I don't disagree with you at all. Every single adult and every single business entity in this nation should pay the same percentage in taxes. No write offs, no loopholes, no government looking to pick the winners, no bail outs, no argument about the fact that you are a citizen of this nation and have a responsibility to pay your share. Yet, I look and see billions going to 'green' technology companies, subsidies for this, that and the other. Tax breaks for this, that and the other. This is bankrupting our nation and breeds a rotting corruption we have put up with for far too long.

Why is it fair or equitable that someone who makes minimum wage has withholdings that must be claimed back at the end of the tax season and maybe even get more back than they had withheld or those earning large amounts come out paying the lion's share of the actual tax revenues? Either extreme is wrong. The poor pay nothing - what, are they not entitled to contribute to our national success and be part of the solution? The poor should have pride and a stake in the nation just as the rich do. They deserve this kind of respect as hard-working Americans.

If you want to fix the corruption vote for Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 proposal. I will.