Occupy

[kevbone]

Can anyone here accurately sum up the Occupy movement?

[rob]

[tvashtarkatena]

No. Next thread.

[kevbone]

I am asking because some of my right wing friends are against it because they think that the movement is misguided.

[ivan]

a large # of unorganzied people who are angry for a variety of reasons and who propose a laundry list of solutions, few of which they would seem to agree on?

[kevbone]

a large # of unorganzied people who are angry for a variety of reasons and who propose a laundry list of solutions, few of which they would seem to agree on?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

a large # of unorganzied people who are angry for a variety of reasons and who propose a laundry list of solutions, few of which they would seem to agree on?

 

they propose solutions? that's news!

[minx]

Ivan nailed it!

 

The boise occupiers...bwahahaha...are still there camped out at the capital. the problem is that they've been there a long time. i just noticed them again the other day but i hadn't noticed that they were still there in the previous umpteen times i've driven by recently. very effective protest that gets its point across right?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Ivan nailed it!

 

The boise occupiers...bwahahaha...are still there camped out at the capital. the problem is that they've been there a long time. i just noticed them again the other day but i hadn't noticed that they were still there in the previous umpteen times i've driven by recently. very effective protest that gets its point across right?

 

by "notice", do you mean with the olfactory sense?

 

 

[minx]

KKKKK...lol

 

excellent question.

 

No...fortunately boise is on the breezy side and i drive a car. a fuel inefficient car. with AC and working heater so its not necessary to roll down the windows

[kevbone]

So are the right wingers right? Are the occupy movement misguided?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So are the right wingers right? Are the occupy movement misguided?

 

OWS folks have some legit gripes.

[ivan]

So are the right wingers right? Are the occupy movement misguided?

the point is they are a mulititude of people and ideas, so can't meaningfully be dismissed as a single entity.

 

were the sans coulottes wrong?

 

the girondists?

[rob]

The basic premise all of the OWS types seem to agree on is that the wealth distribution in America is totally unfair, and that the disparity is intentionally perpetrated by the rich against the poor. I think it's a fair argument. But that's why your conservative friends hate it -- conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone, and that "anyone" could do it if they only worked hard enough. To conservatives, poor people tend to be lazy, dishonest and stupid whereas the rich are hard-working, honest and industrious -- that's why they're rich and the poor are poor. It all makes sense to them that way.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The basic premise all of the OWS types seem to agree on is that the wealth distribution in America is totally unfair, and that the disparity is intentionally perpetrated by the rich against the poor. I think it's a fair argument. But that's why your conservative friends hate it -- conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone, and that "anyone" could do it if they only worked hard enough. To conservatives, poor people tend to be lazy, dishonest and stupid whereas the rich are hard-working, honest and industrious -- that's why they're rich and the poor are poor. It all makes sense to them that way.

 

wrong. that's not how "they" think, but if it is easier for you to live in that myopic world-view, have at-it!

[AlpineK]

Something like this

 

[video:youtube]

 

Sometimes ya gotta yell. All you know is you're mad. Putting exact reasons into words is harder.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Feck

[selkirk]

a large # of unorganzied people who are angry for a variety of reasons and who propose a laundry list of solutions, few of which they would seem to agree on?

 

hmmmm, sounds kind of like the Tea Party, but with less political success.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

a large # of unorganzied people who are angry for a variety of reasons and who propose a laundry list of solutions, few of which they would seem to agree on?

 

hmmmm, sounds kind of like the Tea Party, but with less political success.

 

yes, and that comparison was made a lot during the reporting of OWS protests.

[kevbone]

The basic premise all of the OWS types seem to agree on is that the wealth distribution in America is totally unfair, and that the disparity is intentionally perpetrated by the rich against the poor. I think it's a fair argument. But that's why your conservative friends hate it -- conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone, and that "anyone" could do it if they only worked hard enough. To conservatives, poor people tend to be lazy, dishonest and stupid whereas the rich are hard-working, honest and industrious -- that's why they're rich and the poor are poor. It all makes sense to them that way.

 

wrong. that's not how "they" think, but if it is easier for you to live in that myopic world-view, have at-it!

 

Sorry kkk.....that is pretty money if you ask me. I have conservative friends and they think that exact way. It almost sounds like them exactly.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The basic premise all of the OWS types seem to agree on is that the wealth distribution in America is totally unfair, and that the disparity is intentionally perpetrated by the rich against the poor. I think it's a fair argument. But that's why your conservative friends hate it -- conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone, and that "anyone" could do it if they only worked hard enough. To conservatives, poor people tend to be lazy, dishonest and stupid whereas the rich are hard-working, honest and industrious -- that's why they're rich and the poor are poor. It all makes sense to them that way.

 

wrong. that's not how "they" think, but if it is easier for you to live in that myopic world-view, have at-it!

 

Sorry kkk.....that is pretty money if you ask me. I have conservative friends and they think that exact way. It almost sounds like them exactly.

 

 

I'm not gonna argue endlessly with you or Rob, but take this one part to start with

 

"conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone"

 

Firstly "conservatives" don't all think exactly the same way, so Rob's comment sorely needs qualification. Secondly, many (most? a majority of?) conservatives don't make this point at all. The point I hear is that many who have succeeded have earned their success through hard work, rather than just sitting on their ass doing nothing (what many left-wingers state openly if not imply indirectly), or by just being "lucky", or by inheriting their wealth ("the silver spoon" argument). There are ample stories of US millionaires who started out poor and worked their way up from nothing. Sure, there are folks who inherit a fortune (e.g. the Kennedies ;-0 ) and those that just get lucky, but they are not the majority. Indeed many children of the rich end up being zeros, and once you go down a couple generations wealth tends to dissipate in families pretty quickly.

Many conservatives also argue that in America we all have an *opportunity* to succeed. That is a far cry from claiming *anyone can do it*, yet alone guarantee outcomes. And what conservatives I know resist the most is the idea that it is the governments job to try to guarantee outcomes - primarily by wealth redistribution.

 

 

 

[Jim]

I agree with some, but not all of this. Conservatives have a range and their voice is needed in the political process - it's just too bad the GOP has decided to vere into the righthand ditch so hard.

 

Correspondingly, it's a bit of a generalization to say liberals what to redistribute income. I think it is valid to say that the upper 1% or so are getting away with quite a scam recently regarding tax policy and absolutely no repercussions following the heist they commited to financial markets. Watch the film "An Inside Job" for a decent summary.

 

And the Politico response has been weak - including from Obama. Very little DOJ prosecutions, a tepid consumer protection law, and generally business as usual. The OWS folks have that part correct - just don't seem to have the political organization now, maybe never. Sheeple will be sheeple.

[rob]

"conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone"

 

Firstly "conservatives" don't all think exactly the same way, so Rob's comment sorely needs qualification. Secondly, many (most? a majority of?) conservatives don't make this point at all. The point I hear is that many who have succeeded have earned their success through hard work, rather than just sitting on their ass doing nothing (what many left-wingers state openly if not imply indirectly), or by just being "lucky", or by inheriting their wealth ("the silver spoon" argument). There are ample stories of US millionaires who started out poor and worked their way up from nothing. Sure, there are folks who inherit a fortune (e.g. the Kennedies ;-0 ) and those that just get lucky, but they are not the majority. Indeed many children of the rich end up being zeros, and once you go down a couple generations wealth tends to dissipate in families pretty quickly.

Many conservatives also argue that in America we all have an *opportunity* to succeed. That is a far cry from claiming *anyone can do it*, yet alone guarantee outcomes. And what conservatives I know resist the most is the idea that it is the governments job to try to guarantee outcomes - primarily by wealth redistribution.

 

 

 

Sounds like you agree with me. IN GENERAL, Conservatives tend think rich people got there because of their own hard work, or at the very least that they deserve their good fortune. And certainly I've met enough rich people to know that hard-work is definitely the secret-sauce for success, but also it requires a certain amount of good fortune that many people are simply born without. Many of our most successful entrepreneurs would have been miserable failures had they been born without certain advantages. So many people are born with an amazing legacy which conservatives tend to discount -- they associate personal success with financial success more than I think is appropriate.

 

Had I been born to a completely different legacy with different parents and different values I may have ended up one of those guys begging at a freeway on-ramp. Republicans tend to assume all americans have equal opportunity, and therefore rich people deserve their good fortunes. They tend to assume that the poor are there because of "their own poor choices." They tend to believe that merit and personal ability are the deciding factor for success. It's a cute idea, and I hear you and other conservatives make this argument ALL THE TIME, so it's amusing to hear you reject it while basically confirming it at the same time.

 

Additionally, conservatives tend to be much more likely to assume the poor are simple "milking the system" and are more likely to use words like "welfare moms" and tend to be more distrustful of public assistance. This is because they think that success is defined by one's actions. In a large degree this is true, but not as much as they think.

 

Conservatives also tend to refuse to accept that our capitalist system ensures that there will always be poor people. But of course, this is true. After all, the majority of people -- by definition -- cannot be above-average. If everyone were rich, nobody would be.

 

I would much rather see conservatives admit that our capitalistic system ensures a certain percentage of underprivileged wage-earners but attempt to argue the poor are better off than in other economic systems. But, that would assume a level of non-bias that you just don't see these days.

Edited February 29, 2012 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"conservatives wrongly assume that rich people got rich on personal merit alone"

 

Firstly "conservatives" don't all think exactly the same way, so Rob's comment sorely needs qualification. Secondly, many (most? a majority of?) conservatives don't make this point at all. The point I hear is that many who have succeeded have earned their success through hard work, rather than just sitting on their ass doing nothing (what many left-wingers state openly if not imply indirectly), or by just being "lucky", or by inheriting their wealth ("the silver spoon" argument). There are ample stories of US millionaires who started out poor and worked their way up from nothing. Sure, there are folks who inherit a fortune (e.g. the Kennedies ;-0 ) and those that just get lucky, but they are not the majority. Indeed many children of the rich end up being zeros, and once you go down a couple generations wealth tends to dissipate in families pretty quickly.

Many conservatives also argue that in America we all have an *opportunity* to succeed. That is a far cry from claiming *anyone can do it*, yet alone guarantee outcomes. And what conservatives I know resist the most is the idea that it is the governments job to try to guarantee outcomes - primarily by wealth redistribution.

 

 

 

Sounds like you agree with me. IN GENERAL, Conservatives tend think rich people got there because of their own hard work, or at the very least that they deserve their good fortune. And certainly I've met enough rich people to know that hard-work is definitely the secret-sauce for success, but also it requires a certain amount of good fortune that many people are simply born without. Many of our most successful entrepreneurs would have been miserable failures had they been born without certain advantages. So many people are born with an amazing legacy which conservatives tend to discount -- they associate personal success with financial success more than I think is appropriate.

 

Had I been born to a completely different legacy with different parents and different values I may have ended up one of those guys begging at a freeway on-ramp. Republicans tend to assume all americans have equal opportunity, and therefore rich people deserve their good fortunes. They tend to assume that the poor are there because of "their own poor choices." They tend to believe that merit and personal ability are the deciding factor for success. It's a cute idea, and I hear you and other conservatives make this argument ALL THE TIME, so it's amusing to hear you reject it while basically confirming it at the same time.

 

Additionally, conservatives tend to be much more likely to assume the poor are simple "milking the system" and are more likely to use words like "welfare moms" and tend to be more distrustful of public assistance. This is because they think that success is defined by one's actions. In a large degree this is true, but not as much as they think.

 

Conservatives also tend to refuse to accept that our capitalist system ensures that there will always be poor people. But of course, this is true. After all, the majority of people -- by definition -- cannot be above-average. If everyone were rich, nobody would be.

 

I would much rather see conservatives admit that our capitalistic system ensures a certain percentage of underprivileged wage-earners but attempt to argue the poor are better off than in other economic systems. But, that would assume a level of non-bias that you just don't see these days.

 

work on your listening skills and stop broad-brushing troking and attributing opinions and I might respond to you. later.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree with some, but not all of this. Conservatives have a range and their voice is needed in the political process - it's just too bad the GOP has decided to vere into the righthand ditch so hard.

 

Correspondingly, it's a bit of a generalization to say liberals what to redistribute income. I think it is valid to say that the upper 1% or so are getting away with quite a scam recently regarding tax policy and absolutely no repercussions following the heist they commited to financial markets. Watch the film "An Inside Job" for a decent summary.

 

And the Politico response has been weak - including from Obama. Very little DOJ prosecutions, a tepid consumer protection law, and generally business as usual. The OWS folks have that part correct - just don't seem to have the political organization now, maybe never. Sheeple will be sheeple.

 

The rich keep getting richer. True. But is it not a part of our cultural values here in America now for each guy to grab as much as he can? Whether it be a CEO, a movie star, a top-tier athlete, or a university President - don't they all demand a "competititve" salary with all the perks possible - even if that is 1000x what the guy at the bottom of the organization makes? It hits all levels of our society - fuck humility or moderation - get all you can - you deserve it and the next guy has it! If we really want to "fix" this, it needs to come from a paradigm shift in our culture and values. Maybe OWS can start to affect this - that's about the only way I could see some of the change they demand actually happening.

[Jim]

Again, I partially agree and you raise some inherent cultural issues. It's amusing that when asked, most folks somehow think they can possibly end up in the upper 10% income bracket. Sorry to break the news to you but.... and it affects how they see the rich and how they vote.

 

Conversely, in the past 15 yrs or so the uber-rich have pushed down their tax rate and loosen financial oversight much to their advantage by having the politios on their leash. Historically this isn't the first time nor will be the last, but it's due for the pendulum to swing a bit the other way.