Occupy Wall Street protest

[Silcc69]

Nothing much will come from these protests. Yea,, there will be some kind of window dressing and some leaders of the movement will get good jobs on Wall street but for the most part things will remain the same. Because most revolutions need the masses to be starving in order for real change to occur and people owning ipods, iphones and computers aren't starving.

If the protesters feel that the fed is being controlled by big money then they should do some learning. I understand that history isn't a hot subject in schools anymore but the protesters should learn from history on how to control the gov't to their needs. Just look back to the Tammany Hall Machine of old NYC. Although they were corrupt as hell, one can learn from them in how to use the vote to control the gov't for themselves.

What is lacking from the protest movement and I think the same can be said with unions as well, and that is they rely on democrats and maybe in some way republican parties for leadership. They try and make democrats and republicans do their bidding when a better way would be to put one of your own kind in power. They hope that change can come from the usual suspects that infest the fed gov't.

I know what I say is a bit confusing but what I am trying to say is the protesters(and unions) should not align with any party, instead use their numbers to elect one of their own. Don't rely on a democrat to make change, do it for yourself.

They have been trying to get Ron Paul in there for years but he hasn't had much success. Democrats and the Republicans got this shit on lock plus they have media in there pockets. You'd think with congress being at an all time people would wake up and support a 3rd party candidate. But they will either vote the status quo or stay home.

[Stavros]

Nothing much will come from these protests. Yea,, there will be some kind of window dressing and some leaders of the movement will get good jobs on Wall street but for the most part things will remain the same. Because most revolutions need the masses to be starving in order for real change to occur and people owning ipods, iphones and computers aren't starving.

If the protesters feel that the fed is being controlled by big money then they should do some learning. I understand that history isn't a hot subject in schools anymore but the protesters should learn from history on how to control the gov't to their needs. Just look back to the Tammany Hall Machine of old NYC. Although they were corrupt as hell, one can learn from them in how to use the vote to control the gov't for themselves.

What is lacking from the protest movement and I think the same can be said with unions as well, and that is they rely on democrats and maybe in some way republican parties for leadership. They try and make democrats and republicans do their bidding when a better way would be to put one of your own kind in power. They hope that change can come from the usual suspects that infest the fed gov't.

I know what I say is a bit confusing but what I am trying to say is the protesters(and unions) should not align with any party, instead use their numbers to elect one of their own. Don't rely on a democrat to make change, do it for yourself.

It is not confusing, Yvonne, its the fact that you have created a two-party system that controls central and state governments, and it has proven impossible to break or replace over many decades. New parties tend not to emerge and gain political power in established democracies, even in the case of Italy where the party system collapsed after the Cold War, the remnants re-grouped under different names, even Berlusconi's vehicle was in effect a resurrection of the Christian Democrats. What this means is that change, if it ever happens, happens at the margins rather than at the core. That is why some people, when they realise they can't beat the system, decide to join it. I was once even told by someone offering an excuse for this sideways step from radical street protest to the corridors of power -I can't change things out here, but I can in there. Last I heard he gave up on politics altogether. The USA would have to fall apart in a new civil war before the system is changed. Assuming that works...

[hippifried]

More wisdom from the moron who said Credit Default Swaps and CDO's were "no big deal" three years ago.

Funny that.

You won't be thinking that when Europe tanks, dumb-ass.

LIAR!
If you can find it, quote it. You won't because it didn't happen.
You're confused & don't know what tou're talking about.

[El Nino]

My threads

[Ben]

November 23, 2011, 2:32 pm

Fatalism and the American Dream

By CATHERINE RAMPELL

Dollars to doughnuts.


Two of my colleagues have alluded to a recent Pew Research Center report on American exceptionalism, paying particular attention to the fact that Americans are more likely to say their culture is superior to others than are people in Germany, Spain, Britain or France.
One finding of the report that received little attention, however, was about cultural attitudes toward success. Of the five nationalities polled, Americans were least likely to believe that success in life was determined by forces outside our control.

Just 36 percent of Americans believe in this fatalistic statement, while the vast majority of their compatriots are greater believers in self-determination. Put another way, Americans are (not surprisingly) more likely to believe in the American dream.
Americans with less education are more fatalistic, however. The study found that 22 percent of college graduates believe they have little control over their fate, compared to 41 percent of Americans without a college degree.
Even so, American nongraduates still seem to think they have more control over their destinies than the average German, Frenchman or Spaniard does. Almost three-quarters of Germans, for example, believe that success is determined by factors outside our control.
These findings are particularly interesting when juxtaposed with a separate report from the Pew Economic Mobility project. That report, which examined economic and social mobility in 10 Western countries, found that Americans actually appear to have less control over their success in life than their counterparts do.
In particular, the educational attainment of a person’s parents — a factor usually determined before that person’s birth — seems to matter more for mobility in the United States.
“There is a stronger link between parental education and children’s economic, educational and socio-emotional outcomes than in any other country investigated,” the report says.
As Richard Wilkinson suggested in a recent TED Talk, if you want to live the American dream — and have greater control over your own likelihood of success — you should probably move to Denmark, where the poor have a better chance of moving up in the world.

[Ben]

To the left of President Obama a female in a purplish top is clapping at the 26 second mark... ha ha! Supporting the protesters.

[Yvonne183]

Maybe this isn't occupy related but it might make some sense.

Any alternative political group can control the US gov't, they don't need to be dems or repubs and they don't even need a majority to do so.

The congress and especially the senate are so tightly woven between dems and repubs that if a small group takes only 5 or senate seats would rule the country. Because both parties vote along party lines and because there is almost an even number of dems and repubs that this group of 5 senators would swing their vote in any way that pleases them. If they agree with a democrat position, they could swing their vote towards the dems and vise verca. So in effect they would control congress cause neither dems or repubs would get anything past without these swing votes, that is unless the dems and repubs agree and don't need their swing vote,, that day will be the same day Satan goes ice skating.

I think this is what is wrong with alternative political parties here in the US. They seem to think they need a majority in order to have a say. But I think they could rule if they have just enough votes to swing a policy which way they want. Of course the Pres can veto things but he/she can't veto everything. People got to learn how to use the system. Protesting is cute,, but if one learns the system they can tweek it to work for them without coming out like cry babies. If the big business and banks can do, it then so can anyone, brains aren't limited just for the rich.

[Stavros]

In this country, an MP who has been a member of say, the Conservative Party, and elected as such, can change if he wants to, just by saying: As of today I shall sit in Parliament as an Independent -usually such people join one of the other Parties -Churchill was a Liberal MP until the Liberal Party was sent into the wilderness when the Labour Party became so popular -so Churchill joined the Conservatives (many of whom loathed him and regarded him as a political opportunist, which he was). People argue if an MP changes party he should put it to a new vote, but they rarely do -MP's in the UK are elected to represent a place, not people or party, legally speaking. After all, there used to be 'rotten boroughs' in the 19th century where MP's were elected from constituencies where there were maybe two residents.

Can it happen in the USA? Eg, could like-minded Democrats and Republicans form a new party in the House after an election? Could the President form a new party with supporters in the Senate and House after an election, and without seeking new elections? I don't know.

[onmyknees]

In this country, an MP who has been a member of say, the Conservative Party, and elected as such, can change if he wants to, just by saying: As of today I shall sit in Parliament as an Independent -usually such people join one of the other Parties -Churchill was a Liberal MP until the Liberal Party was sent into the wilderness when the Labour Party became so popular -so Churchill joined the Conservatives (many of whom loathed him and regarded him as a political opportunist, which he was). People argue if an MP changes party he should put it to a new vote, but they rarely do -MP's in the UK are elected to represent a place, not people or party, legally speaking. After all, there used to be 'rotten boroughs' in the 19th century where MP's were elected from constituencies where there were maybe two residents.

Can it happen in the USA? Eg, could like-minded Democrats and Republicans form a new party in the House after an election? Could the President form a new party with supporters in the Senate and House after an election, and without seeking new elections? I don't know.

I'm not entirely sure of the Constitutionally of it, but it's highly unlikely. Members of Congress do switch political parties on occasion, which to me is a odd. If you're going to switch parties because of ideological concerns, do it prior to the election. What you're suggesting sounds more like a non violent coup. There has always from time to time been a moderately successful 3rd party presidential contender, Ross Perot being the latest, but here's the problem. Independents tend to be "moderate" and squishy and lack the ideological conviction that most voters look for. And the mechanisms ( money) always flows to the 2 parties and an independent or 3rd party candidate will never be able to mount a serious threat without that. Obama will raise a billion dollars for his 2012 run and it's largely about the money. The US can be governed by the current 2 party political system because that framework has allowed it to be the greatest experiment of individual freedoms and force for good the world has seen....but what's lacking is leaders. People follow leaders....not vice versa. Southern Democrats set their party affiliation aside and voted for Reagan twice, moderate Republicans liked Clinton's move to the middle and voted for him twice, but those individuals were skilled politicians and the understood and read the electorate. The current occupant does not possess those skills, and has not been able to transition from campaigning to actually governing a country as diverse as the US. So while the 2 party system presents huge monetary and ideological challenges, it can and has been managed.

[Ben]