Wall Street Protests

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

These cops are a bunch of goons. Fortunately, the PPD here in Philly is going to cooperate (for now).

I wouldn't count on that. Hipster glasses and a handkerchief for pepper spray any time you're out protesting. A pair of vambraces under long sleeves will help a little against nightsticks.

[Shryke]

Also, for the "What are they about????" complaints, I found this interesting:

http://rortybomb.wor...street-debates/

But what if that is backwards? What if participation structures beliefs? What if people start to get a version of what Occupy Wall Street is about – in all its forms, ranging from progressive economics to direct democracy to deep concerns about financialization and political corruption – because they stop by and check it out, or participate for a little bit? What if the things Jaffe describes – from the cab driver listening to it on the radio, to someone who could use some free food stopping by, to a formerly disinterested person staying to listen to a teach-in in a park – in turn structure the beliefs that then in turn call for more engaged action?

This dynamic Jaffe describes was found in the sociologist’s Ziad Munson’s excellent ethnography The Making of Pro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. From the book (my bold):

The link between beliefs and action must be turned on its head: real action often precedes meaningful beliefs about an issue. Demographic and attitudinal differences between activists and nonactivists cannot explain why some people join the pro-life movement and others do not. Instead, mobilization occurs when people are drawn into activism through organizational and relational ties, not when they form strong beliefs about abortion. Beliefs about abortion are often underdeveloped, incoherent, and inconsistent until individuals become actively engaged with the movement. The “process of conviction” (Maxwell 2002) is the result of mobilization, not a necessary prerequisite for it (pg. 20).

[mor2]

Life expectancy doesn't go up a ton. Not among some gruops anyway.

The rise in life expectancy is spread out pretty much exactly as you'd expect: the higher your social class' date=' the larger the increase.

Which means the people who need the money the most and work the most physically demanding jobs are not the ones living alot longer. [/quote']

correct if i am wrong but those same people are also the ones who use most of the services provided by the country and pay the least if anything for them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Cops are stupid to use force. Just toss some soap and shampoo into these Flea Party rallies, and they're sure to disperse.

Heh.

[Shryke]

correct if i am wrong but those same people are also the ones who use most of the services provided by the country and pay the least if anything for them.

.... even if true, so what?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Cops are stupid to use force. Just toss some soap and shampoo into these Flea Party rallies, and they're sure to disburse.

Heh.

I'm telling you dude, you already came up with a solution. If Dimon/Blankfein/Pandit/etc all came down there and started buying pizza for these guys it would be handled.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1. Felice - not to descend into a discussion of tax policy, but just taxing dividends isn't necessarily the best policy alternative. With public corporations you would have the problem of either having a regressive tax (if dividends were taxable at a fixed rate) or that many distributions escape [full] taxation, because the rate applicable to the recipient is so low. In addition our system has a very complicated and technical definition of what consistitutes a dividend (it's basically the current and accumulated earnings of the corporation); distributions in excess of that amount are generally treated as a return of capital. The tax systems that I am familiar with have similar concepts - e.g. "paid-in capital". One could talk about whether that is an appropriate construct to retain, but I don't think it's as simple as saying "all money out is taxable." Third, your proposal falls apart (generally) for close companies in all kinds of interesting ways (I can think of lots of ways that I could make that system work really, really well for me). Anyhow - that's a long way of saying that the problems are complicated, and I'm afraid that the solutions will be complicated as well.

2. I'm all for an estate and gift tax. Someone acquires value without working for it - why shouldn't that be taxable to someone (I'd probably tax the recipient, but hey, that's just me)? And why is land a sacred cow? Seriously - you get value, you pay tax - sorry if there isn't enough cash, but I bet you could write a system where the liability is paid off over time, or something (e.g. for a working farm or a family company).

3. I also agree that disgust with the current state of elected officialdom is everywhere. I am going to be very curious if it actually results in an upswing in voter participation in the fall to "throw the bums out" or if, instead, that people are so disillusioned with the political process that they don't participate at all.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

American national treasure Glenn Greenwald channels Coco to pretty much say it all.

[Just a peasant]

I am one of those people who have lost faith in the the government to do anything well. Both parties rile me up. I hate them both.

I vote in city elections on up but I am really disenfranchised.

If I could go to the protests and not lose my job, I would. I am just disgusted. My Mother has early onset dementia and dealing with Medicaid (MA Health) is like dealing with the devil and it has to be yearly. She is in a nursing home. Dealing with SS is only marginally better.

[Shryke]

3. I also agree that disgust with the current state of elected officialdom is everywhere. I am going to be very curious if it actually results in an upswing in voter participation in the fall to "throw the bums out" or if, instead, that people are so disillusioned with the political process that they don't participate at all.

I was reading something on this (I'll see if I can dig it up again for tommorow or the like) but the general trend is the opposite.

People protest and demand accountability from the government only when they believe the government can actually accomplish shit. When you get the "all politicians are the same/the government can't fix anything" attitude, people tend to disengage from politics instead because, well, they don't think anything will change.

So you end up with more depression and simmering general anger then political action.

Especially true for Americans, who tend to believe in personal accountability for the things that happen to them more then most and thus tend to internalize the bad things happening to them. Basically, they are more likely to put a bullet in their own head then into a politicians.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Shryke - interesting. It certainly fits the mood. No one I know is excited about voting - and this is a bunch of lawyers, generally.

[Lummel]

3. I also agree that disgust with the current state of elected officialdom is everywhere. I am going to be very curious if it actually results in an upswing in voter participation in the fall to "throw the bums out" or if, instead, that people are so disillusioned with the political process that they don't participate at all.

For people to want to go out and vote they will need to have an alternative to the bums. Swapping one cheek for the other isn't going to motivate anyone.

Is New York enough like Iceland for a Best Party to form and win out in the elections to city hall?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Shryke - interesting. It certainly fits the mood. No one I know is excited about voting - and this is a bunch of lawyers, generally.

I think if you generally lean left (as do most lawyers), there is going to be less excitement about voting because you're already somewhat disappointed in the guy you have. "Winning" just means status quo. Among conservatives or others angry at the President, there is a great deal of "I can't wait until November 2012".

However, it is fair to say that there is also some discontent against congressional Republicans for not doing more to undue the things that have been done. And there also is a great deal of concern that we don't just elect the kind of establishment Republicans who consrvatives view as participated in creating this mess in the first place.

I'm not trying to judge the wisdom of any of this -- I'm just pointing out that there really is a lot of interest among conservatives.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

However, it is fair to say that there is also some discontent against congressional Republicans for not doing more to undue the things that have been done. And there also is a great deal of concern that we don't just elect the kind of establishment Republicans who consrvatives view as participated in creating this mess in the first place.

Too bad that's all the people running.

[alguien]

I think if you generally lean left (as do most lawyers), there is going to be less excitement about voting because you're already somewhat disappointed in the guy you have. "Winning" just means status quo. Among conservatives or others angry at the President, there is a great deal of "I can't wait until November 2012".

However, it is fair to say that there is also some discontent against congressional Republicans for not doing more to undue the things that have been done. And there also is a great deal of concern that we don't just elect the kind of establishment Republicans who consrvatives view as participated in creating this mess in the first place.

I'm not trying to judge the wisdom of any of this -- I'm just pointing out that there really is a lot of interest among conservatives.

To be fair, while not completely satisfied with how Obama has done*--though considering where we were 4 or 8 years ago, I'm fairly OK with most** of the changes that his administration has brought about--I will get VERY excited to deny the GOP another 4 year run of fucking up the country--in both both a social and fiscal sense.

And that seems to be the attitude of most of the people I've talked with. Some may not like the Dems, but they 'hates' the GOP worst. Even my most conservative friends say they hate "both" parties. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a return of a conservative executive office.

Perhaps if you're guy Daniels was running things would be different, but right now you have Perry (W 2.0--endorsed by apostle nuts), Bachman (don't get me started), Cain (crazier) and Romney. Romney isn't that far off from Obama. The guy was governor of frickin' Massachusetts.

And I don't entirely agree with the sentiment of "winning" just being a return to "status quo" for liberals. I think we'd see a bolder, more experienced Obama with another 4 years. (ETA: I can feel your shudders from here!)

*recognizing that a large part of his problems come from an obstructionist GOP House that apparently was willing to hold the entire economy hostage in a dog-and-pony attempt to cut spending

** do not like the Executive Priviledge crap, Guantanamo, and have questions about some of the international interrogations compounds--and I think we need to GTFO of Afghanistan and Iraq--along with completely retool or get rid of the "war" on drugs.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To be fair, while not completely satisfied with how Obama has done*,--and considering where we were 4 or 8 years ago, I'm fairly OK with most** of the changes that his administration has brought about. I will get VERY excited to deny the GOP another 4 year run of fucking up the country--in both both a social and fiscal sense.

I'm sure some folks will be. I was just commenting on the observation made by someone else that a lot of folks aren't.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And I don't entirely agree with the sentiment of "winning" just being a return to "status quo" for liberals. I think we'd see a bolder, more experienced Obama with another 4 years.

More war, more debt, less privacy, more whistleblower prosecutions (Bradley Manning has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial now!), more assassinations, more Goldman Sachs execs in treasury, more crackdowns on medical cannabis. Can't wait!

[Stego]

More war, more debt, less privacy, more whistleblower prosecutions (Bradley Manning has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial now!), more assassinations, more Goldman Sachs execs in treasury, more crackdowns on medical cannabis. Can't wait!

No shit.

Obama is a liar and a failure. He promised to end the wars and they are still being fought. Nothing else matters.

[alguien]

More war, more debt, less privacy, more whistleblower prosecutions (Bradley Manning has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial now!), more assassinations, more Goldman Sachs execs in treasury, more crackdowns on medical cannabis. Can't wait!

Like I said, I'm not completely satisfied.

I think we should definitely get out of Afghanistan and Iraq--ETA: but recognize its a complicated issue

I agree with your position on the Drug War

Though I didn't mention it, I would also scrap the Patriot Act.

You have a good point about Obama's administration hiring from Wall Street--and I think these protests are great repudiation of that.

I hate what's happened with Bradley Manning--I don't agree with what he did--but solitary confinement is torture.

But it isn't enough to make me consider voting for a third party* and certainly not for the GOP who would just be worse.

Shit, after visiting Europe the past two weeks, I want there to be some viable equivalent of a Tea Party for liberals.

*because I like Health Care, strong national infrastructure, and gun control--I can't go libertarian, I'm afraid.

[Stego]

I should edit myself.... if Obama had succeeded in national healthcare for all, I would not feel he was a complete failure, but he did. As such, that coupled with the wars he lied about ending.... I have to consider him an utter failure.

ETA: It's a damn fine thing that the Occupy Movement is not a Democrat movement. Fuck the Democratic Party.