Effect of Occupy Wall Street on the 2012 elections?

[John_Mace]

:rolleyes: Yes, everyone who disagrees with you does so because he gets all his information from FOX.

[Lobohan]

@John_Mace

:rolleyes: Yes, everyone who disagrees with you does so because he gets all his information from FOX.

I think it might be more fairly represented as, “Many who disagree, do so because they have factually incorrect information and emotional polemics that FOX and other right-wing news sources specialize in, as the basis for those stances.”

[gonzomax]

There is plenty of decent coverage. But TERR is way off in right wing land. He is obviously not reading or listening to info on real news stations. There is plenty of fair minded news showing the occupations springing up across the country. Yet he apparently is not aware. He also gives the lowest figure in NYC that I have not even seen . I saw 20K. I saw 15. He says emphatically, it was 6. He may be Rush in disguise. But he is certainly so far to the right that only Rush and Beck are his neighbors.

[Terr]

@gonzomax

There were camps in 900 cities in America. There are large demonstrations across the world. It is huge and will have impact. You are desperately trying to define it away. You are failing. NYC had 20k. But i did not listen or watch Fox, so they may have said it was a lot less. What a surprise that would be.

20,000? As long as you’re making up numbers why not say one million?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-15/wall-street-protest-rallies-at-jpmorgan-branch-in-support-of-worker-banks.html

"At least 6,000 gathered later in Times Square, the organizers estimated. "

When the organizers “estimate” 6,000, you can be pretty sure it was something less than 2K. Maybe 1000.

[Terr]

@gonzomax

I saw 20K. I saw 15. He says emphatically, it was 6. He may be Rush in disguise. But he is certainly so far to the right that only Rush and Beck are his neighbors.

“At least 6,000 gathered later in Times Square, the organizers estimated.”

Even the organizers, whose estimates are ALWAYS way overblown, in any gathering, estimated 6,000. That means there were maybe 2,000 people there. Pretty pathetic, when you consider that this is NYC, moonbat central.

[John_Mace]

@Lobohan

I think it might be more fairly represented as, “Many who disagree, do so because they have factually incorrect information and emotional polemics that FOX and other right-wing news sources specialize in, as the basis for those stances.”

Not really, since it was directed at a specific poster, not some vague group of people. In that context, it’s a worthless throw-away line.

[gonzomax]

@Terr

“At least 6,000 gathered later in Times Square, the organizers estimated.”

Even the organizers, whose estimates are ALWAYS way overblown, in any gathering, estimated 6,000. That means there were maybe 2,000 people there. Pretty pathetic, when you consider that this is NYC, moonbat central.

Note. Moonbat central. Yes there are plenty of reasons to dismiss TERR. He is right of Rush and Beck. Childish names are stock in trade for the rightys. If we had audio. I am sure he would be screaming at the top of his slanted voice. That is what the right does.

[BrainGlutton]

Michael Lind says there are 6 reasons why OWS won’t help the Dems the way the Tea Party helped the Pubs.

Reason No. 1: The Democrats depend on Wall Street for campaign donations. Both national parties are captured to a large degree by financial industry contributors. But this is not as much of a problem for the Republicans as for the Democrats. Since Nixon, the Republicans have successfully channeled anger away from Big Money to Big Government. They have done so by manipulating the classic populist paradigm of producers vs. parasites. They have treated private sector workers, business owners and investors as allies in a common struggle of producers against parasitic public sector employees and poor people dependent on welfare.

<snip>

Reason No. 2: The Democrats rely increasingly for votes on elite professionals. Having lost the white working class to the Republicans decades ago, Democrats have had some success in winning over upscale white professionals with liberal attitudes on social issues and the environment. But identification with the professional-class minority poses as many problems for would-be Democratic populists as does the party’s reliance on the financial sector.

<snip>

Reason No. 3: Public Sector Unions. The left-populism of the New Deal era drew on both organized farmers’ movements and organized labor. The right’s counterrevolution against organized labor since the 1980s has all but annihilated unions in the private sector.

<snip>

Reason No. 4: Identity Politics. The essence of populism of the left, right or center is the defense of the common good of the demos, the people, against unjust privileges sought by special interests — that is, populations who make up less than the whole. Populism only works if there is a clearly identifiable “people.”

<snip>

Reason No. 5: Progressives and Double Standards. The definition of America as a collection of peoples, rather than as a single, diverse people, creates another problem for would-be Democratic populists — their endorsement of race-based double standards. One consists of race-based affirmative action, which, in spite of liberal attempts to argue otherwise, means nothing if it does not mean sometimes favoring blacks and Latinos with lower tests scores in college admissions at the expense of whites and Asians with higher test scores.

<snip>

Reason No. 6: The Vilification of Working-Class Lifestyles by the Cultural Left. Last but not least, Democrats are not likely to be able to compete on populist terrain with the right as long as a substantial portion of the progressive intelligentsia is identified with scorn toward the lifestyles of people in the suburbs, where the majority of working-class blacks and Latinos as well as whites are now found. Since the days of Nixon, right-wing populism has derived much of its appeal from attacks on “limousine liberals” — more recently, “latte liberals” — who, according to conservatives, look down their noses at the religious beliefs and folkways of the American working class. Unfortunately, much of the progressive intelligentsia seems determined to live up to the right’s stereotype, by demonizing the elements of modern American working-class life, from SUVs and low-price exurban box stores to the kinds of cuisine that upscale foodies frown upon.

<snip>

Today’s plutocratic America could use a populist movement of the center-left, comparable to the coalition of workers and farmers and radicalized professionals who provided the backbone of the New Deal Democrats. But the prospects are remote that any genuine populism of the left will come from a party funded by Wall Street that finds its core constituencies among upper-middle-class professionals and public sector workers and reaches out to minorities on the basis of narrowly tailored patronage policies targeting particular groups. A Democratic Party that channeled popular anger for constructive liberal purposes would look and sound very different from the Democratic Party of today.

[Sage_Rat]

@BrainGlutton

Michael Lind says there are 6 reasons why OWS won’t help the Dems the way the Tea Party helped the Pubs.

Or, said more simply:

The OWS people aren’t particularly representative of anyone but themselves and have silly ideas that make no sense to every else.

[Terr]

@gonzomax

Note. Moonbat central.

Yep. Moonbat central.

Wall Street Protester Has World's Greatest Meltdown

[Blalron]

@Terr

We can. But I don’t think we can come to a consensus on what constitutes a “government handout”. I don’t consider the government grabbing a little less money from you than it otherwise would a “handout”. You probably do.

In this case, I’m talking about literal handouts to the rich. For example, Bank of America got a billion dollars handed to them last year courtesy of the taxpayers, and didn’t pay a penny in taxes either.

It seems to me like the sort of thing that both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street folk could together on.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

In this case, I’m talking about literal handouts to the rich. For example, Bank of America got a billion dollars handed to them last year courtesy of the taxpayers, and didn’t pay a penny in taxes either.

It seems to me like the sort of thing that both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street folk could together on.

Most I can tell from your cite, they reported a loss that they can carry over in the future. This is no the same as having cash handed to you. It’s a function of our complicated tax code. It also appears to be at least partially due to having to a write-down due to federal regulations:

On a noncash basis for the quarter, the bank reported a loss of $7.3 billion because of a $10.4 billion write-down in the value of its credit card unit, attributed to federal regulations that limit debit fees and other charges.

[Blalron]

@John_Mace

Most I can tell from your cite, they reported a loss that they can carry over in the future. This is no the same as having cash handed to you. It’s a function of our complicated tax code.

My interpretation of the cite was that they actually got payed a billion dollars.

Even setting that Bank of America issue aside, there are plenty of examples of welfare for the rich. Like ethanol subsidies, cane sugar subsidies (and tariffs) which, as far as I can tell, largely benefit millionaires and not ordinary people.

[River_Hippie]

At the Occupy event that I attended, out of a crowd of between 4-500 people (pretty good in this very conservative city, I thought) there were maybe a handful of “moonbats”. The vast majority were thoughtful, articulate people with jobs and families. Many brought the whole family. One woman had a sign that I think most there would identify with, “Pissed Off Working Stiff.”
I spent a lot of time walking around eavesdropping on what people were talking about and that was pretty much it. People working thier asses off trying to stay afloat while the top 1% just keeps getting richer and more powerful. Lots and lots of American flags. I think the vast majority of 99%ers here are patriotic.

That was my experience.

[Terr]

@Blalron

In this case, I’m talking about literal handouts to the rich. For example, Bank of America got a billion dollars handed to them last year courtesy of the taxpayers, and didn’t pay a penny in taxes either.

It seems to me like the sort of thing that both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street folk could together on.

Definitely. The problem is, of OWS has objections of that sort, they get crowded out by the various “give me a handout” and “tax those other guys more” slogans.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

My interpretation of the cite was that they actually got payed a billion dollars.

It wasn’t at all clear in your cite, which I why I looked it up elsewhere. Here’s what your cite said:

The Charlotte-based bank had no federal income tax expense for a second straight year and actually reported a tax “benefit” of nearly $1 billion. Also, the bank’s billions in accumulated losses could reduce its taxes in future years, a tax expert said.

Even setting that Bank of America issue aside, there are plenty of examples of welfare for the rich. Like ethanol subsidies, cane sugar subsidies (and tariffs) which, as far as I can tell, largely benefit millionaires and not ordinary people.

I agree. And to the extent that the OWS folks are focused on that, I’m with them. I just think they are casting too wide a net with their corporations are evil bent.

[gonzomax]

What net is that? They are specific about banks and the one percent who have paid for pols to allow them to escape paying their share. Wall Street refers to the banks and financial manipulators who collapsed our economy and then convinced the pols to give them free access to the treasury.
When people bitch about home foreclosures, they have the same bankers in their sights. Bitch about the financial instruments like CDOs and credit default swaps and you have the same malefactors. Complain about credit card rates and burdensome fees, the same bankers are there. Bitch because they did not lend to small businesses when they said they would, and you come back to the banks. Angry because the bankers rewarded themselves with huge salaries and bonuses when they totally screwed up the economy, and they are on your radar again.
The bankers have instituted a lot of programs that screw over the common man. Complacency will not do.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sage_Rat

Or, said more simply:

The OWS people aren’t particularly representative of anyone but themselves and have silly ideas that make no sense to every else.

:dubious: No, that’s not at all what he’s saying.

[gonzomax]

@Terr

Yep. Moonbat central.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSo-MEiMbac

Well there you go. That means they all are like that. So you must win something or other. He obviously was a spokesman for the movement.

[Terr]

@gonzomax

Well there you go. That means they all are like that. So you must win something or other. He obviously was a spokesman for the movement.

They don’t all have to be like that for it to be “moonbat central”.