Will "Occupy Wall Street" Stick?

[pixiegirl]

Occupy DC? If you guys promise to stay there, I'll get the "Koch Brothers" to cover your expenses.
I'll also personally go to Rush's studio and ensure air time for "the cause".

I think the hardcore OWS supporters need to realize that your your own 1%. As in 1% of the US population would agree with your solutions to the current economic difficulties the world faces.

Case in point. Spain just threw out their Socialist Party, which was a real Capital S Party, for a conservative government. In a landslide.

Ok, we get it, you love big business and corporatism, and think they're the answer to the mess they got everyone into in the first place. But please, please, stop with making stuff up to try and emphasise your point. If you think the PSOE are a socialist party with a 'Capital S', then you don't know what the word means. Really, I'm not trying to be flippant here; they are a moderate centre-left party whatever you personal pet definitions might be. Also, if you believe the electoral hammering they just got was only due to economics, then you have a profoundly skewed interpretation of Spanish politics, that is if you know anything about them at all beyond a CNN soundbyte.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, as much as it probably seems like one. Honestly. There is just no justification in fact for links you're trying to draw between things, and I'm calling you on it.

[tekla]

You who gloat and laugh better be hoping that the winter of discontent does not get made glorious summer by things out of anyone's control.  Wouldn't be the first time a small fall problem became a huge spring problem.

I don't think the entire Occupy deal is TV dependent to the degree that everything once was as little as 20 years ago.  That was really the Clinton lesson, he was brought down by the internet more than the massmedia, who were totally willing to give him a Free Kennedy and let it pass.  It was Drudge and a few other who kept the heat up and eventually made it a real story.  Same here, more and more is happening outside the carefully prescribed boundaries of TV news and opinion and the flow of information has become harder and harder for the people in power to control.

Just like the cop in Davis found out.  Now that cameras are not only the province of Big Brother and Big Sister, but also part of the tool bag of Little Brother and Little Sister - you don't have to have a TV camera there to be the film at 11 anymore.  And just because the TV stations refuse to cover it - like the Chancellor of UC Davis doing that awesome walk of shame - no longer means that no one else will see it.  And like the use of Georges Seurat'A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte with the pepper-spraying cop photoshoped into it, that fact that some image does not get wide-spread mass media coverage no longer means it does not reach a mass audience just the same.

Now, as most of the occupy sites are dismantled - one way or the other - its' time to take a look at what just went down and what it might mean.  Regardless of who's side your on, this much is pretty obvious.
First - There can be little doubt that there is a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction.
Second - given that there were over 170 such sites set up in sympathy, that dissatisfaction is widespread and not just a local phonomnia.

NOW - and again, no matter which side you are on - widespread dissatisfaction is not a positive thing in any society.  The greater the number of people you have in your society who have nothing to lose the more tenuousness the basic cohesion of that society becomes - to no one's advantage.

And...Third - It's pretty obvious, no matter where you look and no matter how you look at it, the two old systems of political thought/ideals/vision, the Liberals and the Conservatives have had their run, done their good (and bad) and are now out of gas, out of ideas, out of vision - indeed in some ways they are even out of their minds.  We need to begin to build a new politics capable of responding to current problems.


Steps/further actions will center around puting together a list of those grievances that have the most traction and that have real political solutions such as:
- Corporate Person-hood
- Debt Loads
- The mind-blowing rise in Higher Education Costs while the actual value and content of said educations have both lagged
- Banking Shananagains
- Tax rates and structures that are Alice in Wonderland absurd
- Expansion of basic rights (due process, equal protection) to gays, lesbians and transgendered persons
- The role of money and lobbyists in the process of government
- Anti-war
- Anti-drug war
- Green/eco/alternative environmental people


REAL POLITICAL ACTIONS LIKE:
* Taking back one of the political parties
* Demand public investigations with full legal standing in a wide varriarty of jurisdictions to investigate, criminally charge and prosecute to the full extent of the law the Wall Street firms and managers and the Banks and their managers and their actions over the last 10 years
* Demand an immediate reinstatement of the Glass-Segal Act
* Moratorium on overseas wars/drug wars
* Moratorium on home repossessions by banks.
* Demand that all personal income be taxed, and taxed at the same rate.
* Find someone who is willing to take leadership on the debt issue and take real steps to meet it
* End any and all tax incentives for moving jobs offshore.
* Find candidate who have experience solving problems and elect them
* I believe that nothing will change in this country until common justice comes regularly and faithfully to those who currently consider themselves above it.  To that end we need to start to really hold people accountable and put under judgement.
* Put a public face on it.  Call out some of the most grievous examples, (GE, BofA) and organize economic boycotts.  Call out the people responsible for those decisions and protest at their house, their country clubs, where they park their car - until they get hounded out of existence, and then go on to the next target.  Decisions like GE shutting down the manufacture of X-ray equipment in the US and moving it to China should be easy to target.  Who got the biggest bonuses on Wall Street?  Start with that guy.
*Direction, planning and strategic thinking.  Occupy got people's attention, some of it good, lots of it bad.  How about everyone picking the same place?  How about Charlotte this summer?  How do we build a year-round presence that begins to put real pressure on the system.


Other odds and ends:

* It's not going to take the National Guard to have a Kent State moment.  The serious and massive militarization of our domestic police forces is pretty amazing.  Most of that was accomplished with DoD money as part of their 'dual-use technologies' program.  Never doubt your own government views you as no less an enemy just because you are a citizen.

* Tragic the way the powers that be seem to enforce park regulations with far more rigor than the banking laws.

[Amazon D]

Damn tekla now your saying it in a powerful way .. and no one has been powerful / sexy to me in over 14 yrs ...  I love your input

Thanks for letting me know what the mindest is back west .. as i am out here in the dol-drums .. which surely is a safe place to be but what your talking about has me wanting to take a drive west ..   

[Dana_H]

"The Doctrine of Fascism" by Benito "Il Duce" Mussolini. In his 72 page manifesto, "The Chief" defines pure fascism as a merger of the state with corporate power. Not nationalization or a take over corporations by the state like in communism. Rather he describes what we have today; a merger of power where the corporations are free to earn profits for a small group of people in and out of government. 94% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money. This is how a congress with a 9% approval rating stays in power.

Very true. Sadly, it has been my hard earned experience that most people do not want to hear this particular truth. I have been called a "crazy conspiracy-theory wingnut" on more than a few occasions for trying to make the point. Most people in my area would rather believe that the system is somewhat corrupt, but still fundamentally sound.

While I may not agree with everything the Occupiers have been doing, at least they are awake to the fact that business and government have gotten in bed together and no longer have any reason to care what the public wants except to the increasingly minor degree to which public opinion affects the outcomes of elections.

[Julie Marie]

Kat, I agree with you in part or in whole on all but one point - one tax rate for all.  It won't work. 

At the bottom end of earnings, people are having a hard time paying for the basics - food, clothing and shelter.  Taxing them would only further increase their hardship and ensure many of them will never escape poverty.  Plus those on the bottom and low middle rungs spend everything they earn.  Not so with the wealthy.  A healthy economy needs a healthy influx of cash to keep it going.  We need to keep money in the hands of people who will spend. 

Like it or not, a graduated tax rate does more than increase the tax revenue this country needs to operate.  It also is an equalizer.  Rob from the rich, pay to the poor.  And as noted above, that's good for the economy. 

Not every poor person is lazy and good for nothing.  Most of them would gladly take a job if it gave them even a sliver of satisfaction and paid them enough to get buy and maybe have a little fun too.  Until we figure out a way not to penalize the poor, we have to have an imbalance in tax rates. 

And along with this we have to put an end to politicians using tax revenue to pay back their campaign supporters.

There's something I would like to add to your list - we need to put an end to the belief social security, medicare and medicaid are entitlements.  Yes, they are not entitlements nor are they social programs. 

From the very first day we begin to earn an income, the government is taking money out of our earnings and putting it aside for our retirement.  (That's what I was told back in 1968, when I saw the deductions on my first paycheck.)  In the private sector its called an IRA or a pension or an annuity.  Not only do we contribute but our employers do too.  And employers know they have to pay this and deduct that when they figure how much they can afford to pay us.  In other words, it's all our money. 

Same with medicare and medicaid.

I ran the numbers.  If I took what my employers and I have contributed over the years and just figured minimal interest, what a low risk CD would generate.  I could buy myself an annuity today that would give me more than what SS will pay me when I retire plus have another $600/mo to put towards health insurance premiums. 

What no one will admit is the SS fund was completely solvent back in the 80's and could support itself forever.  And then our politicians started "borrowing" from it and they never paid it back.  Now they tell us it was a broken system.  BULL!

I want my money back!

[tekla]

I'm really opposed to people who work paying a higher rate of taxes than people who clip coupons or make cap gains.

[Dana_H]

Kat, I agree with you in part or in whole on all but one point - one tax rate for all.  It won't work. 

At the bottom end of earnings, people are having a hard time paying for the basics - food, clothing and shelter.  Taxing them would only further increase their hardship and ensure many of them will never escape poverty.  Plus those on the bottom and low middle rungs spend everything they earn.  Not so with the wealthy.  A healthy economy needs a healthy influx of cash to keep it going.  We need to keep money in the hands of people who will spend. 

Honestly, I'm not entirely convinced that an Income Tax is the best way to fund the government anyhow, but I could see exempting the first $xxx of personal income where $xxx is some value a bit higher than poverty level wages plus an allowance for entertainment and savings (the exact amount is open for debate, but should be indexed to inflation).  I also agree that the obscenely wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes, but that is largely due to loopholes and exemptions. Then there are those rich people who say they want to pay more, but don't write a check for more than is due (legal) and don't even pay the taxes they are liable for. Take those "workarounds" away and government income from taxation would dramatically increase, even on a flat tax basis. The problem with a progressive tax rate is that if you raise the upper rates high enough to actually pay for the kind of spending our government has become accustomed to, the rich start selling off businesses, laying off workers, and pulling in investments with the attitude of "if all this income is going to get sucked off by taxes, why bother?"

Like it or not, a graduated tax rate does more than increase the tax revenue this country needs to operate.  It also is an equalizer.  Rob from the rich, pay to the poor.  And as noted above, that's good for the economy. 

I would argue that job creation is even better for the economy. Poor people don't create jobs. Rich people who start businesses, invest in businesses, and pump money into expanding existing businesses are the job creators. If you simply take money from the rich, you provide a disincentive against creating jobs. If you give that money to the poor, it gets spent on today's necessities and is gone tomorrow, whereas a job would feed the family today and tomorrow.

Not every poor person is lazy and good for nothing.  Most of them would gladly take a job if it gave them even a sliver of satisfaction and paid them enough to get buy and maybe have a little fun too.  Until we figure out a way not to penalize the poor, we have to have an imbalance in tax rates. 

Today especially, I think there are plenty of poor people who are hard-working honest people who have fallen on hard times and just need a little help. No argument there. I deeply sympathize. I've been there.

However, I do know from personal experience, having been a poor person living in several different poor neighborhoods for a while, that there are also plenty of poor people who complain about not having work but then turn down a job when offered because the government handouts are easier. I have known these people. I've talked with them. I've lived next to them. I've heard them talk openly (they just assumed I was like-minded since I lived there) of ways to scam the system for more free money and benefits. Heck, there used to be a burrito van about a mile from my current neighborhood that sold fake IDs, including drivers' licenses and social security cards. They periodically got shut down by the authorities, but would be back a week or two later, run by a relative or friend of the previous owner. I haven't seen it for a while now, so they may have run out of unjailed friends and family members. These are the poor for whom I can find little compassion in my heart. I can't imagine actually wanting to live that way, but there are people who will go to almost any length to avoid real work.

And along with this we have to put an end to politicians using tax revenue to pay back their campaign supporters.

Absolutely! The coziness between government and business needs to be ended. It only damages the nation.

There's something I would like to add to your list - we need to put an end to the belief social security, medicare and medicaid are entitlements.  Yes, they are not entitlements nor are they social programs. 

From the very first day we begin to earn an income, the government is taking money out of our earnings and putting it aside for our retirement.  (That's what I was told back in 1968, when I saw the deductions on my first paycheck.)  In the private sector its called an IRA or a pension or an annuity.  Not only do we contribute but our employers do too.  And employers know they have to pay this and deduct that when they figure how much they can afford to pay us.  In other words, it's all our money. 

Same with medicare and medicaid.

I ran the numbers.  If I took what my employers and I have contributed over the years and just figured minimal interest, what a low risk CD would generate.  I could buy myself an annuity today that would give me more than what SS will pay me when I retire plus have another $600/mo to put towards health insurance premiums. 

What no one will admit is the SS fund was completely solvent back in the 80's and could support itself forever.  And then our politicians started "borrowing" from it and they never paid it back.  Now they tell us it was a broken system.  BULL!

I want my money back!

We definitely need to find a way to keep government fingers out of the SS/Medicare/Medicaid funds (I would go to prison for engaging in such tactics in my fledgling small business but it is legal for the government to do - that really burns me up).  To the extent that we pay in money, I would call these "entitlements"; we are entitled to receive the benefits of our own money.

I would argue that any fund where all contributions go into a common pool from which expenses are paid without regard to percentage contributed per participant is a social program. If someone pays in $1000 and gets only $1000 of benefit, not a social program... if someone pays in $1000 and can get $4000 of benefit while someone else paid $3000 and claimed no benefits but cannot ever get that money back, social program. Also, if government contributes funds on a general basis (as opposed to "per contributor" basis) to caver payout overruns, social program.

The issue I have with SS specifically (besides it being nothing but a box of IOUs right now) is that it was set up so that one generation pays for the next generation's retirement. At least, that's what we were taught in the 80s in high school when studying FDR and his New Deal programs - I am prepared to reconsider if presented with scholarly evidence to the contrary.

With that in mind... Technically, that money you are paying in is no longer yours; it belongs to your children (abstractly speaking). It's fine as long as the pool of donors is expanding, but really sucks when the pool shrinks. This is mighty similar to how a pyramid scheme is set up. I would much rather see my paycheck contributions go into a fund managed by a financial manager of my designation and escrowed so that the only people who can touch it are me, my spouse, my heirs, and my designated medical/retirement providers. The government wouldn't even need to be involved except to mandate that it happen. We do it for 401k accounts, why not medical payments and disability/retirement funds?

[Julie Marie]

I think it was in the late 90's I was sitting in the office of my investment guy.  I was looking at rolling over some money from my union into a self directed IRA.  He pulls out this graph.  It was one of those ones that has clear overlays.

He said, "After studying trends for decades, it became clear that by watching those who spend the most, we can better predict the future of the US economy.  Money spent creates jobs, creating more spending, creating more jobs, etc."

He pulls out this book and opens it up.  "This graph shows the S&P 500 from 1900 to date." 

Then he lifts the clear overlay page.  "This graph represents the numbers of those in the 44-46 year age group.  That group was chosen because that's the time in one's life one typically spends more than at any other time in their life.  Their income is higher, they have a bigger house, nicer cars, kids in college.  And we know when there is lots of money in the economy, the economy thrives."

He then laid that graph over the S&P 500 graph.  They were virtually identical.

He then pointed out, "We don't have a graph showing the future of the S&P but we do of the 44-46 year olds."  And he pointed to their numbers peaking in 2004 and declining for years after that.  Then he added, "Before we hit that peak, we're going to take your money and invest it overseas, where we know economies are in the upswing."

Of course what that graph can never predict is the crime that took place in the corporations, Wall Street and banking industry.  But what that graph does show is spending creates jobs.  Businesses have already shown that giving them a tax break only succeeded in boosting their profits.  The job creation promise never materialized.  2010, a year when unemployment hovered around 9%, was a record setting year for corporate profits.  CORPORATE TAX BREAKS DON'T CREATE JOBS!  Not anymore.  Greed has taken over.

I don't like the graduated tax system any more than anyone paying taxes.  We just haven't come up with a better plan to keep this country running.

What we should do is write into law politicians cannot use tax money to pay back their campaign supporters.  No special tax breaks or funding for the businesses or people who poured big money into the elected official's campaign chest.  We should also separate defense spending from offense spending.  Defense would be defined as protecting our borders.  Offense is outside our borders.  And when we make cuts, we cut offense spending.  Maybe that way we can go back to being a sleeping giant.

There's a whole lot more we can do to fix this country.  But we have to fix the corruption in politics first.  And that will always be our biggest problem. 

[Amazon D]

The computer age and age of statistics and graphs surely has changed how people calculate doing business. Its a shame we are so precise because our precision means we have to value every last fraction of a cent which leaves no room for extra in case we were wrong or extra to share around for those in need. The stock markets and traders now use the most elaborate systems to figure out every last possible variation so they always win, even if they are winning on a fraction of a cent from a milion investors they make fortunes. Oh i long for the good old days of the abacuss and when the king only wanted 10% of the peasants crops versus today where the banks want at least 15% interest and more if your new or young.

[Julie Marie]

I just got back to finish reading your post...

The issue I have with SS specifically (besides it being nothing but a box of IOUs right now) is that it was set up so that one generation pays for the next generation's retirement. At least, that's what we were taught in the 80s in high school when studying FDR and his New Deal programs - I am prepared to reconsider if presented with scholarly evidence to the contrary.

That doesn't make sense because how would the first people who paid into the SS system ever get SS when they retire?  There would be no one before them that had paid into the system.  The truth is, when the Social Security System was originally set up, they paid you a lump sum check when you retired.  That was in place from 1937 to 1939.  Here's the other facts:  http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html 

No doubt some politician came up with the idea of monthly payments because he hated seeing that big stash of money constantly depleted.  There's nothing like a hugs stash of cash to make a politician drool.

I think it was in the late 70's or early 80's that I read an article from some financial guru.  He had just done a study on the Social Security System and declared that what was in the fund at the time, if invested wisely and we never put another penny into the fund, it could fund itself forever.  That's how much money there was in it back then.  If remember correctly, there was a lot of debate not too long after that where some politicians wanted to borrow from SS to pay for other things.  There was a huge uproar because everyone who had paid into it saw that money as theirs and they knew what politicians do after they "borrow" money.

They promised to pay it all back, with interest.  Even with all the screaming and yelling, they were allowed to dip into the SS fund.  You only have to look at the state it's in today to see what happened.

They blamed the baby boomers retiring for the cash deficiency yet failed to explain where all that money that the baby boomers paid into it went.  After all, there were so many of them they had to be putting in substantially more than what was being taken out.  And the percent the baby boomers were paying were the highest in SS history, at that point.  What happened to all that cash?

If you want to see the tables here's a link: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2010/2a1-2a7.html#table2.a3

I created an Excel spreadsheet and ran the numbers myself.  All you need to do is plug in the numbers from the report you get from SS.  And if the money that each person paid into the system was used to buy safe investment vehicles like CDs or something like that, each one of us would have a nice retirement waiting for us.  And if the Medicare/Medicaid monies were also safely invested, we could all buy our own health insurance when we retire.

Take that back to your high school teacher and see how he or she responds.

[Sarah Louise]

I agree 100% with your post Julie.  I don't feel bad at all taking my SS (I'm 67), I (and my employers) paid in plenty during my years of working.

[Julie Marie]

The Occupy Protests actually began almost 30 years ago...

[Dana_H]

I just got back to finish reading your post...

That doesn't make sense because how would the first people who paid into the SS system ever get SS when they retire?  There would be no one before them that had paid into the system.  The truth is, when the Social Security System was originally set up, they paid you a lump sum check when you retired.  That was in place from 1937 to 1939.  Here's the other facts:  http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html 

After reviewing the link you provided, I couldn't help but notice this bit:  (emphasis mine)

Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month.

So it would seem that either the first batch of payees got more money than they paid in somehow (such as from a non-existent previous generation of payers...or Trust Fund loans from the govt to be repaid as the SS pot grew bigger), or they just got back as much as or less than what they had paid in...which seems kind of pointless unless part of that money got used for the next round of retirees.

But then, I suppose that might explain this other bit:

A fellow named Ernest Ackerman got a payment for 17 cents in January 1937.

Even at 1937 prices, 17 cents isn't much of a retirement plan. $1 in Jan 1937 would be worth $15.62 in Jan 2011...if you believe the BLS CPI-U calculations. Some economic experts put the amount at almost $50 after accounting for certain CPI calculation changes that were instituted during the Clinton years. Either way, it would buy you anywhere from some bread, eggs, and milk, to a few bags of groceries and that's about it. It would really suck to be a member of that first generation of retirees.

I do love the video post. 

[Julie Marie]

I think the guy who got the 17 cents had paid in only one month before he retired.  I figured he paid in about 17 cents and at the end of the month, when he retired, he got the 17 cents back, as there wasn't much time for interest to accumulate.  It would be like your company instituting a new retirement program one month before you retire.  You wouldn't see much of a benefit from that.  But for the employee just beginning their working career, it would mean a lot.

That Monty Python video is something I saw in the mid 80's ('84-'85 maybe?).  We just had cable installed and I had just purchased our first VCR.  I turned on the TV and HBO was doing one of those freebie sessions.  They announced Ghostbusters was the featured movie, the kids went nuts, I hurriedly opened the new package of blank VHS tapes and put one in the recorder, fumbling around until I got it to record.  Then this strange screen pops up with "Our Short Feature Presentation" (that part was cut from the video above) and then the Crimson Assurance video starts.  The kids were freaking, thinking they were being cheated out of seeing Ghostbusters.  I thought HBO screwed up.  But the video really had me laughing.  After that, Ghostbusters started and sanity in our home was restored.

Julie had some video playing the other day that reminded me of the Python clip.  I Googled it and there it was.  I hadn't seen it in a very long time.    As I was watching it, I was surprised how relevant it was to the Occupy Movement.  And around the time it was made is about the same time the whole shift in wealth began.  Leave it to the Python boys. 

This is the full version but the quality is poor
The Crimson Permanent Assurance

[SandraJane]

Sea's of Accounting....its a bitch!


Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985) - Ministry of Information



The "Suits"....

[Julie Marie]

Ann Coulter... She's something else.  Recently she was on a radio talk show.  She was talking about the Occupy Movement and her book.  But I kind of found this disturbing, more so than I usually do when words leave her lips...

COULTER: It was so easy for the liberals to control a large part of the country. I mean you always did have the silent majority as Nixon called it, but I just think it's easy for the silent -- easier for the silent majority to communicate with one another now. And thus, for example, instead of speaking in abstract terms, with the Occupy Wall Street, I mean I'm sure you've been online. All these kids with flipcams are out there filming the Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Oakland, and I'm sure occupy -- I bet I can find a video of what you were just describing, which sounds horrible, and I'm sorry about your bank by the way, and people can see for themselves and get the news they want themselves.

So at the moment anyway, I mean I don't know what's going to happen in New York today, but at the moment I'm not really worried of a movement like SDS which really swept a lot of the college campuses --

SUSSMAN: Yes.

COULTER: -- taking over. Of course if it does, just remember the lesson from my book: it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good. And despite the Neil Young song --

I'm sure she wasn't meaning to say we ought to shoot the Occupy protesters, at least I hope not.  She can get out there on the fringe and doesn't hesitate to do so if she feels she's right, which she usually does.

Anyway, if you're interested in hearing the audio or reading the text, here it is: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111260001?frontpage

[tekla]

I'm sure she wasn't meaning to say we ought to shoot the Occupy protesters,

Hard to read that any other way.

[Shana A]

COULTER: -- taking over. Of course if it does, just remember the lesson from my book: it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good. And despite the Neil Young song --[/font][/size]

I'm sure she wasn't meaning to say we ought to shoot the Occupy protesters, at least I hope not.  She can get out there on the fringe and doesn't hesitate to do so if she feels she's right, which she usually does.

She clearly advocates violence, and that it would shut down the OWS.

Z

[Julie Marie]

The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality

US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened.  FULL STORY

The article is certainly shocking.  But it doesn't surprise me.  Occupy is exposing, among other things, the massive shift in wealth that began in the 80's and the political corruption that is fueled by this wealth. The rich and the politicians do not like these kinds of things present and in the forefront of the mind of the public.

There were things I suspected were going on, basically closed meetings between politicians and big money people discussing how to put an end to the Occupy Movement, seeing as they are the ones who have the most to lose.  But to read in print "the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests" and to read the linked article, was pretty disturbing.  Maybe Coulter's comment was something she heard buzzing around the extreme right camp and there has really been talk about allowing law enforcement to use any means necessary to quell the uprising.  And here I was giving Coulter a pass because I wanted to believe in the inherent goodness of the human animal.

I guess things like allowing overnight camping out to purchase tickets for a show or event but cracking down on Occupy protesters camping out shouldn't surprise me.  Capitalism, 1; Freedom of Speech, 0

[tekla]

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the ->-bleeped-<- kicked out of them.[/b]