OWS
My impression of the current news cycle.
1) Some Progressives: “We’re gonna hold public demonstrations about some grievances we have.”
Some Conservatives: “Hey! That’s only cool when we do it!”
2) Some Conservatives: “We’re gonna pick out the craziest members of that crowd and attempt to pretend they represent the views and attitudes of the whole group.”
Some Progressives: “Hey! That’s only cool when we do it!”
Follow
October 20th, 2011 at 6:12 am
My impression of news coverage of the Tea Party protests:
1) Some Conservatives: “We’re gonna hold public demonstrations about some grievances we have.”
Some Progressives: “Hey! That’s only cool when we do it!”
2) Some Progressives: “We’re gonna pick out the craziest members of that crowd and attempt to pretend they represent the views and attitudes of the whole group.”
Some Conservatives: “Hey! That’s only cool when we do it!”
IMO, the media coverage (and political reactions) to both shows that the leadership of both parties do not want the change either group is talking about. But, that is not surprising when you consider that it would cut off a huge chuck of their funding (most corporations give big donations to both parties).
Reply
October 20th, 2011 at 7:06 am
Keep thinking of a quote I heard once – “Whenever I see the politicians on TV, I think that somebody must have stolen the diving board off the gene pool.”
Reply
October 20th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
If only all these protesting people could get together and run a party .. and collect votes .. and make changes.
Reply
Squab reply on October 20th, 2011 8:11 pm:
Depends on the protesters.
Reply
Doogie reply on December 8th, 2011 5:47 pm:
Shadowydreamer says: “If only all these protesting people could get together and run a party .. and collect votes .. and make changes.”
We did. That’s the two-party system we have today. Same as it was in the Revolutionary Days: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists argue for more power for the central government over individual (property) rights (Democrats). Anti-Federalists argue for more power to be retained locally, as close to the individual as possible (Republicans and, to a greater extent, Libertarians). It is written in our US Constitution that all rights not expressly granted to either the federal or state governments are retained by the individual. Unfortunately, the OWS protesters have forgotten that it is not only their responsibility, but their RIGHT to work. An extension of that right to work is the right to form partnerships to increase productivity and/or profit. Because businesses owned by one person or a small group of people presents high exposure to potential loss of personal PROPERTY(another right, although it was later changed to “pursuit of happiness”), these businesses have the right to seek private investors. Because business property is now “shared property” and can neither be equitably attributed among the various ownership groups (including investors), nor discriminated from personal property , these businesses are allowed to sell stock options and incorporate to protect their personal property from the consequences of business decisions. This business model places “ownership” of the business in the hands of the stockholders. Whoever owns the controlling share has the most say in how the business runs, regardless of the original business creator(s)’ intent.
For some reason, OWS is against this endstate. They refuse to attempt to make themselves a profit by providing a product or service needed or wanted by their community. Instead, they are angry over President Obama’s failed promised “hope and change,” that provided them neither guaranteed employment, nor a “living wage.” It is their own unrealistic expectations that fuels their anger. If you don’t believe me, feel free to research their comments yourself. The majority of the protesters ran up ridiculous amounts of credit debt, relative to their income levels, which was not forgiven by their creditors, as suggested by President Obama during his campaign. They are mad at the same banks that granted them loans that got them into their personal mess that are now denying them loans that would dig them deeper into debt.
Of course, no-one is looking at how or why the banks granted them loans that they obviously were not fiscally qualified for. Under President Carter in the 1970s, legislation was enacted that effectively authorized the government to intervene against banks that discriminated against a person based on race or color, and further suggested minorities be considered for home loan qualification, based on “non-financial factors.” President Clinton “won a major victory for blacks” when he changed that suggestion to a requirement, specifically for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who are essentially government-owned and run. You can read about that in the newspapers from that timeframe. Ironically, the NAACP (an OWS member/sponsor organization) is suing those same banks that followed the federal requirement to grant home loans to minorities that were not financially qualified for them, stating that the banks “targeted” these groups with sub-prime loans. For those that don’t know, sub-prime loans project an ever-increasing APR% – any economist would balk at such an offer, knowing the financial consequences (unaffordable interest rates in the future). Of course, the minority applicants, even after the sub-prime loan was fully explained to them, agreed to the terms, since they could afford the initial payments. The travesty here is two-fold: 1) The sub-prime loan was the only way the banks could “qualify” an applicant for a loan, which they were REQUIRED to grant. 2) The largest groups affected by the sub-prime loans were minorities, since white applicants of similar financial status were disapproved for these home loans, at least in the beginning. Of course, once the sub-prime interest rates increased, the loan recipient were unable to afford the monthly payments and inevitably defaulted, since their income did not increase at a similar rate, and the “housing bubble” burst. It is interesting to note that conservative Republican politicians and economists foresaw this unavoidable consequence, and predicted the housing collapse as early as 2003, when the “housing bubble” was at its height.
So, here’s the question – if the federal government had not intervened, and the banks declined to provide home loans to minorities and whites who couldn’t afford them, how much debt would these “victims” have today? Yay, government intervention. Let’s get this country back on the right track… personal responsibility (not govt welfare), ambition (not hope), and change we can believe in (because we are the ones initiating and controlling the change, not govt trying to change us).
I am a Conservative Republican. I am the Tea Party.
Can anyone tell me the worst thing a Tea Party protester did to: a) another Tea Party protester? b) anyone else? I also don’t know of the police getting involved to break up any Tea Party protests. I assume that’s because the Tea Party protests are peaceful, and any police involvement would not cause any media-worthy story. Meanwhile, the average protester is your typical suburbanite, armed with signs and talking points.
So far, the worst I’ve heard about OWS protests is that fellow OWS protesters have been raped and stabbed, as well as the well-publicized clashes with police. I don’t believe I have heard about any deaths. From what I have seen, the average OWS protester has shipped in from some post-highschool learning institution (student or professor), or is a leftover “hippie” from the “Peace and Love” movement of the 1960s, which had its own inherent violence and crime during its drug-fueled concerts and riots.
During the Tea Party movement protests, how many local “mom ‘n’ pop” businesses were forced to close? None to my knowledge. The same cannot be said for formerly-loved cafes on Wall St.
Comparing the Tea Party to the OWS protests is like comparing apples to oranges. It is nonsensical.
Reply
tg851 reply on May 7th, 2012 8:19 am:
word salad,needs ranch.
Reply