Comments on: Occupying Hypocrisy
By hotfishmt on 01-14-12
Party does not matter when it comes to the $$$ benefits. Its all run or controlled by/for/with…..LOBBIEST GROUPS….changing laws in Washington is all in the hands of
elected officials that are busy playing GOLF on a so called Junket paid for by groups that
lobby the representatives.
By mooseberryinn on 01-14-12
Unfortunately, the OWS folks will not change anything, except maybe provide more fertilizer for the grass in the parks. Much like Reid and Pelosi, obama won’t make anything better as he is simply part
of the problem. The D.C. and Wall St. players are taking care of themselves and “we the people” are
merely the drones producing their profit. If Republicans stand for anything, it is most likely a less
corrupt regime than the dems.
By reggie on 01-14-12
Not changing government away from the Bush error (as he campaigned on) regarding; economic policy, appointments, international trade, torture, habeas corpus, reregulating
corporations, retaxing the rich, and the rest of the radical right’s agenda is why many liberals
stayed home in 2010 election. As he ignored “single payer” and dropped the “public option”
whial his chief of staff called liberals “bleeping morons” with no place else to go so their wishes
don’t matter?!
Only the deluded right calls him, or his policies liberal, his actions in office prove otherwise. As
such, liberals have little to defend in Obama.
By Mark W. on 01-14-12
And only the deluded radical left calls Bush’s actions “conservative.” Welcome to the real world. Are you ready to accept that massive government seldom responds to constituent demands?
No. Of course not. Because what’s at fault isn’t the very idea of massive, intrusive government,
but the people we elect that just never seem to get it right. Maybe if we just trash a few more
public spaces they will finally listen.
The typical commulib refrain: We didn’t vote for this! We voted for free healthcare, student and
mortgage loan forgiveness, the 20 hour work week, awesome jobs for everyone, rubber sidewalks
so nobody gets hurt and peace on earth.
What, you didn’t get it?
Well freakin’ DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH.
By reggie on 01-14-12
Can’t remember conservative condemnation of any Bush policy at the time, or him allowing any his administration to denigrate conservatives, perhaps you can refresh my memory.
I do believe/agree that every candidate for federal office must first be approved by wealthy
financiers before running (even in the primary) to have a chance of winning. And that this is
only one step in the corruption of our democracy by wealthy self interests.
Just because the tea party was astroturf, don’t think OWS is. No billionaire sugger daddy
funds/misdirects this real grass roots upriseing, and because no “change” is comming from
either party, look for this national/world movement to continue to grow in size and militancy.
The tone of your comment shows the standard right wing subservience to a daddy type
authoritian figure who cannot be questioned. “Government of by and for the people….” is a
quote from a Republican President. That you dismiss it so easily “...ready to accept that
massive government seldom respondes to constitutant demands” is self explanatory.
If you agree that we are in a downward slide that is and will destroy all our forfathers fought
and died for, what do you suggest we do about it? If you think the status quo is OK, then never
mind, maby this comment will effect another to positive thought/action.
By Mark W. on 01-14-12
God help us all.
By reggie on 01-15-12
Amen to that, Mark.
By Eileen Wright on 01-15-12
There was quite an uproar from the left about an element of the Patriot Act that allowed forsome monitoring of overseas calls. But, nary a peep came from the left when Obama signed his
order allowing for the indefinite incarceration of American citizens without trial.
It seems it all boils down to who’s side get to make the rules this time around and who’s ox is
being gored.
By reggie on 01-15-12
There was an uproar from the left when Bush first stole habeas corpus (in violation of constitution) from us, and indefinitly detained U.S.citizens, AND when Obama signed it into
law. It is regretable that Obama failed to reverse this travisty, like he failed to correct so many
other Bush crimes, but the circumstances in this case show at least part of the reason why.
Repubs in the house attached language encoding this into law to a “must pass” military
spending bill (with troops in the field) during an election year, making it extremely untenable to
veto. Since it just continued the existing loss of rights established under Bush, and after
issueing a signing statement explaigning that he would not read the law as allowing indefinite
detention without charges he reluctantly signed the necessary military funding bill, against the
wishes of the left.
By Eileen Wright on 01-15-12
“he reluctantly signed the necessary military funding bill”
...without a single comment voicing his opposition, reluctance or coercion. But, the point is
the lack of uproar from the usual suspects on the left. Is the argument he was out politiked, so
it’s OK?
By reggie on 01-15-12
Don’t know where you get news, but the signing statement was reported on the broadcasts I saw, not just the comment but commited to formal record as all signing statements are.
And the negative reaction, before and after were front page items on the lefty blogs I frequent.
Similuar to when they were when first authorized by Bush.
See the statement here vhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-
president-hr-1540
By Eileen Wright on 01-15-12
White House deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, has even gone so far as to state as a matterof public record that the administration now considers the role of Congress to be optional,
saying of legislative action: “that’s no longer a requirement.”
By reggie on 01-16-12
The press secretary was referring to Obama’s publicly stated new policy of using executive authority to advance his recovery agenda against the organized opposition from elected
republicans; recess appointments, rule changes, things he can do regardless stubborn partisan
refusal to allow any improvement in the economy. The left sees this as way overdue, and never
expected elected republicans to compromise on anything, taking Senator McConnell at his
word when he explaigned the number 1 priority of the right is making Obama a 1 term
President…..economy be damned.
In an earlier comment you asked “Is the argument he was out politiked, so it’s OK?” the answer
is; no. I only explaigned how this abomination was pushed and who did the pushing, giving no
indication that it is OK to lose any of our rights.
By ICallB.S. on 01-16-12
You clowns continue to hurl invectives at each other (Libtard, Republiclown, etc.) while ironically missing the point that both of your parties are virtually identical when it comes to action. You hate
the OWS movement while you actually belong to the 99% that they are empowering. Do not vote
for either candidate and rid us of the existing members of congress if you hate the status quo so
fervently.
By Native on 01-17-12
The OWS movement is not about rich vs poor, have vs have-nots. Its about a corrupt system that favors and protects those at the top and suppresses and punishes those from the middle on down.
The American Dream is dead to those who don’t have the connections and support to give them a
head start.
Those who do not like OWS, try to mischaracterize it by making it sound like class warfare. They
call supporters lazy, jealous & ignorant while insisting that the 1% are hard working job creators.
70% of welfare households bring home at least 1 paycheck and we all know that a 40 hour work
week no longer guarantees that food will be on the table. How do you not think that something is
wrong when there are families with 2 fully employed parents and they still can’t afford to take their
kids to the doctor, buy a house or start saving for retirement?
By Eileen Wright on 01-17-12
Our system is out of balance. Of that there is no doubt. There are a lot of things I take issuewith myself but, just burning stuff or sitting in the street doesn’t seem to be a way to cause
change. However, it does bring the media and that serves to wake folks up to the fact that a
number of people are willing to put themselves out front for what they believe.
In this case, what they believe is the hard part to distinguish. They are down on banks, no
quarrel there. But, they seem enamored with the government that works with bank lobbyists to
conjure up the rules that enables them to devour us.
They also seem to align themselves with groups that work to reverse some of the constitutional
guarantees that make our country the great place it is. I don’t think their communist bookstores
offer much that would warm the hearts of those fully employed parents hoping to buy a home and
start saving for their retirement.
By Native on 01-17-12
“...just burning stuff or sitting in the street…” is at least forcing everyone to join in the conversation and maybe do a little research to find out what side of the fence they are on. Its no different than
how those who disagreed with the Tea Party (myself) still probably learned a lot by fact checking
and reading up on some of their stances and claims. Its just unfortunate that the left can only
focus in on the angry, ignorant racist element of the Tea Party and the right can only focus on the
uninformed, unemployed pot-head element of OWS.
“In this case, what they believe is the hard part to distinguish.” Really? Because it sounds like
you have distinguished some very specific positions that they hold, exactly who they are enamored
with and generally who they align themselves with. How convenient for you that even though you
say that you don’t really know what they stand for, you are still able to attack them with such
precise accusations. You kind of sound like an unfounded political attack ad… I think there inlies
the real hypocricy.
By Eileen Wright on 01-17-12
Identifying some of the organizations OWS is aligned with doesn’t quite define their purpose orgoals. Can you help me with that?
By Native on 01-18-12
From the “unofficial” website:
“ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations
over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has
caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in
Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the
rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.”
As you can see, its not that major banks or the 1% exist, its the fact that they have so much
power over our political system, destablized our economies and made things generally unfair to
everyone else.
Be rich, be powerful, be capitalistic, but don’t get so friggin greedy that you ruin it for everyone else
by using your extreme wealth to influence our political system to your own favor.
By Eileen Wright on 01-18-12
I’ll bet many, if not most people would go along with the idea that money has become tooinfluential in politics. I have been a long time supporter of the idea that politicians should
only be able to raise money in the district they represent. I also think that a lobbyist who
previously held public office should be taxed 100% on all income above the salary earned in that
office.
While it would maybe be an improvement to do away with super pacs and Wall Street lobby
influence, I have a hunch that the OWS adherents would scream bloody murder if the idea was
proposed to include unions, or ACORN, Rainbow Push, PETA, Sierra Club and such. So how can a
line be drawn that stops the influence creeping into the government cesspool?
As much as we might be able to regulate laws governing campaigns and corruption in the
government, it never works to try to regulate human nature. The fact that the so called 1% pays
most of the bill for running our country and supporting those who are not productive should
probably earn them a little respect instead of animosity and vitriol.
By Native on 01-18-12
Grouping OWS in with unions, ACORN, and those other groups is just you stereotyping. There is no affiliation whatsoever.
So what your saying is, trying to regulate corruption is futile because its human nature to be
corrupt?
Yes, 1% pays more than half the taxes. Maybe thats because they control 80% of the wealth.
Thats not the point. You keep missing the point. Turn off Fox News for once and try to grasp what
I’m saying. I make about twice the money of an average Montana household and I would still have
to make 8X more to be considered in the 1%. So you think I’m a lazy hippy who must be in love
with PETA and the Sierra Club? No, I’m not. I just work for a business that like almost all
businesses around here depend on middle to lower class customers for 100% of the revenue. And
our profits continue to shrink because fewer and fewer people can afford our service which gets
more expensive all the time because our costs keep going up. Our costs keep going up because
we are not a Gigantic Super Store that gets preferred pricing from the supply chain. Also, we can’t
get representation from our politicians like the big boys (our competitors) because they can buy the
vote and all we can do is send emails that the big boy is crushing us because we simply can’t
compete when they get all the incentives. They make more money than us but pay their
employees less and we give 10X the benefits so who do you think is really better for the
community? The only ones that win in the current scenerio is handful of senior executives and
they do it at the expense of all the rest of us.
By reggie on 01-18-12
A major difference between unlimited corporate/wall street spending to corrupt government and the organizations you mentioned is their non profit status. As such, they have very limited
ability to sway elected officials with money and are minor players in the money portion of
government influence. These primarily effect government by members personally engaging in;
voter registration drives, get out the vote operations, gathering signatures on petitions,
volunteering on campaigns, (phone banks, physically doing the mailouts etc.)...inexpensive,
labor intensive action.
If corporations were limited to these kinds of political action, and not allowed to use their profit
to effectively influence governence to make it easier to make more profit, the field would be
much more level. I doubt anyone would fault corporations if their employees did similar
volunteer work.
By Eileen Wright on 01-18-12
Native -I tried to have a conversation with you in order to understand your perspective and maybe see a
different point of view than I have reached. So what do you do? Immediately you talk down to me
and assume I only get information from one source you obviously don’t care for.
But, worse yet, you went completely off the rails trying to say that unions and OWS have “no
affiliation whatsoever”. It is widely known and published that much of the OWS organization,
funding, sign making and demonstration staffing, including supplying buses and paying homeless
demonstrators was performed by SEIU. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion,
but not your own facts.
When politics trumps every facet of conversation things get hopelessly mired. It’s no wonder
Washington is so dysfunctional.
By Native on 01-18-12
I apologize for the condecension.
You said: “I’ll bet many, if not most people would go along with the idea that money has become
too influential in politics.”
Okay, so we are on the same page that OWS’s mission statement is valid. Buttttt…..... you
completely discredit it because someone suggested that the Union chipped in for protest costs?
I’ve never even heard of this and I don’t care if its true or not. Why would it even matter? Do you
know who funded the Tea Party protests? Because I don’t, and I don’t care, its not even worth
looking up. Isn’t it about the issue’s? SEIU didn’t organize anything. They don’t have anyone
influencing the direction of the movement. This is a real problem, not some political stunt. You
can’t keep just finding excuses to ignore the problem and find comfort in obscure attacks on
irrelevent details and affiliations.
By Westside2 on 01-19-12
Joe just because you assume something does not make it so.
By Eileen Wright on 01-19-12
When OWS speaks out against John Corzine or the antics of Fannie Mae under Franklin Raines andJamie Gorelick, I’ll be listening.
By Native on 01-19-12
Why do they have to be that specific? John Corzine’s actions and influence is the absolute perfect example of what OWS opposes.
By Mark W. on 01-19-12
Come on Eileen. Don’t be so archaic. It’s not about bad people doing bad things, but broad groups of people not feeling the right way about life. You know, Social Justice. Kill and rob all you want. As
long as you’re pro-green, not hetero-normative and mouth the correct bromides.
By Eileen Wright on 01-19-12
They oppose a lot. Is there a fix in mind?
By reggie on 01-20-12
The logical “fix” of returning to the policies in effect when we were the most prosperous nation is not allowed in the conversation by the very forces that pushed policy change and continue to
profit from our downfall. Supported, of course by a substantial portion of the public who have
been successfully brainwashed by the corporate media into voting against their own financial
interests.
On a positive note, relative to all facts, it is good to see the attack on the free flow of
information on the internet collapse under the light of exposure. Good ridence to SOPA/PIPA.
By reggie on 01-20-12
Riddance…..sorry.
By Eileen Wright on 01-20-12
Here is where I could stand with OWS if they came across as more sincere about their agenda. Thearticle I cite is about wall street brokers being charged with insider trading. The strong talk
by government officials struck me as humorous when these people are being arrested for engaging
in a practice that is acceptable in the US congress.
This idea of somehow cleaning up the system by giving some of the most corrupt players the
ability to write more laws seems absurd to me.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-charged-61m-single-stock-170855198.html
By Native on 01-20-12
That particular case doesn’t coincide with OWS’s agenda. Those guys broke the law and they are being punished. The real concern is all the stuff that is going on that is perfectly legal. On Wall
Street, its still legal for a firm to do all the things that caused this recession. The low capital gains
tax ensures that executives still only have to pay a 15% effective tax rate. Large corporations that
are based in the US can still open up a PO Box in Ireland and call it their headquarters so they
don’t have to pay US taxes. Politicians can still architect legislation that favors a megabank and
than join the banks board of Directors when they don’t get reelected.
You are right, poloticians are corrupt. But for the most part, their actions are legal, just unethical.
In my opinion, every time I hear someone say that we need less regulation, what they are really
saying is that they want their biggest campaign contributor to be able to rip everybody off without
the risk of going to jail.
By Eileen Wright on 01-20-12
It needs to be remembered that someone paying 15% on their capital gains has already probablypaid 28% - 35% on the money they risked in order to realize that gain.
The people we are talking about being punished for insider info sharing would be free to keep
going if they were in congress. Attempts to change that have been blocked, yet those that
blocked the legislation will be reelected. Every election cycle pollsters report that over 85%
of the voters disapprove of congress and then over 85% of the incumbents are reelected. In
essence we tell them to have fun and forget the law.
By Native on 01-20-12
You are wrong on capital gains because you are only taxed on the “gain”, not the investment. If you buy stock and than sell it for the same amount you bought it for, you pay no taxes. Big
companies use it as a loophole. That is why a CEO will get paid $250k as a salary but receive
$10 million in stock options. The instant gains that are produced by the options is only taxed at
15%. They pay nothing for the stock because it is instantly exercised as an option.
By mooseberryinn on 01-20-12
ANYBODY but O’Gomer.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.