Quantcast

Occupy Wall Street Movement Is a Year Old: Did it Change Anything?

Chris D 2012/09/17 19:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
It must get tiring camping out in front of the Stock Exchange and complaining that there are no work opportunities, because the crowds have gone home -- hopefully to a place to live and a job. The campers did have a point though.

The banks caused a huge crisis by repackaging crappy defaulting loans and selling them back to us as mortgage-backed securities and "derivative" investment products. That's a nice magic trick...then once it all blew up, the the politicians used tax payer money (otherwise known as TARP funds) and bailed the bankers out, so they could still get their bonuses. Maybe the bankers who were paying big money to the election campaigns (on both sides) were cashing in their influence? Either way, the whole thing sinks. So maybe we should be able to regulate the financial services industry a bit better so that banks can't defraud America. Isn't that the government's job?

How did the industry ever get deregulated in the first place? Well, the whole cause of this mess can be traced back to when Bill Clinton signed the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act into law in 1999, repealing part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. Voila, the fox was now guarding the hen house, and guess what happened?

So the government causes the problem by letting banks self-regulate their businesses. The Occupy Wall Streeters started with a good high level complaint, but then the cause spiraled into a sloppy self, indulgent mess that became an attraction for petty criminals and anyone looking to cause trouble. Did the movement change anything or was it all just noise?

CNN.COM reports:
Police encircled Lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park on Sunday as protesters geared up to observe the one-year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street.
park sunday protesters geared observe one-year anniversary occupy wall street

Read More: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/16/us/ny-occupy-anniver...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Watermusicranger 2012/09/19 09:16:48
  • RastaFan 2012/09/19 09:01:52 (edited)
    Yes
    RastaFan
    +3
    It temporarily changed the air quality in many American city centers. It will be forever remembered firstly as a stench, followed a close second by being filled with the weird sound of white guy fake jungle drums and thirdly as the sight of mental finger wagging.



    Was there anything so embarrassing to the world as those mumps??
  • andrew.micheals.353 2012/09/19 08:38:39
    No
    andrew.micheals.353
    +3
    Greed is just too strong to change.
  • WestSeaDoc andrew.... 2012/09/19 10:05:00
    WestSeaDoc
    Greed is simply a human emotion and a condition that seems inherent in a large segment of any population. It is like anger/rage, lust, love, etc. The emotion and desire isn't the problem. It is how it is managed by a society that is the issue. The emotions noted previously are going to be felt in varying intensity dependent on their surrounding environment and are expressed to a varying degrees depending on the prevailing society structures, norms, and mores that either promote, condone, or discourage their manifestations.
  • andrew.... WestSeaDoc 2012/09/19 10:42:08
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    Well the morals of American society promote greed. What car do you drive? How big is your Tv? How big is your home? Right now America is considering voting for a man who does not care about you if you do not have any money. Nothing has changed.
  • Sailor ... andrew.... 2012/09/19 15:45:09 (edited)
    Sailor Jerry [Proud Libertarian]
    +1
    i have a beat up ford f250, but i use my motorcycle when i don't need the truck. i use a projector for movies and have a 23" tv for the news. a home is too expensive, i live in an apartment.
    and i'm a Militant Libertarian who believes that the money an individual possesses is theirs alone, and nobody else is entitled to a cent of it.
  • andrew.... Sailor ... 2012/09/19 15:55:21
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    Well you have just proved my point. You have next to nothing and your greedy. Money is exchanged for goods if you want something you pay for it. Likewise if you want roads and public services you pay for them. You can call yourself a militant liberated spaceman you stiill have to pay your damn taxes.
  • Sailor ... andrew.... 2012/09/19 16:06:13 (edited)
    Sailor Jerry [Proud Libertarian]
    +1
    you can't make something out of nothing; there's no such thing as a free lunch.
    someone's gotta pay for it in the end, and is sure as hell won't be me.
    i've got bills to pay, a stomach to feed, and a retirement to save for, so i can't spare a dollar.
  • andrew.... Sailor ... 2012/09/19 16:11:32 (edited)
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    Ever heard of Tax returns? Income Tax? Do you work? If your rich ever heard of capital gains tax? You ever buy anything? We all pay tax. You might not like it ,but you go to jail if you don't and then everyone else pays tax to keep you locked up.
  • Sailor ... andrew.... 2012/09/19 16:17:17
    Sailor Jerry [Proud Libertarian]
    +1
    yes i have heard of taxes, but the real question is:
    why am i arguing with someone who doesn't even live in the same country? go back to your tea and crumpets, you bucktoothed limey bastard!
  • andrew.... Sailor ... 2012/09/19 16:24:10
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    You still pay tax and you were not arguing you were being shown up. Land of the free? You don't even like it when some disagrees with you you get upset. What a loser.
  • Sailor ... andrew.... 2012/09/19 16:31:03
    Sailor Jerry [Proud Libertarian]
    +1
    believe whatever you want to believe, troll.
    this conversation has ended.
  • andrew.... Sailor ... 2012/09/19 16:37:41 (edited)
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    You can't even debate. Go on, give up, knew you were a loser when you admitted to being greedy. Now the conversation is over.
  • Sailor ... andrew.... 2012/09/19 16:38:48
    Sailor Jerry [Proud Libertarian]
    +1
    i wasn't here to debate, just to speak my mind.
  • andrew.... Sailor ... 2012/09/19 16:40:23
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    Well you really need to learn how to think before you speak.
  • Sailor ... andrew.... 2012/09/20 01:02:31
  • Jon Bergen andrew.... 2012/09/19 17:46:25
    Jon Bergen
    +1






    Only point I can disagree with in your statement would be 'America is considering voting.' GOP-controlled Ohio is being rigged for Romney as we play on this site, and Pennsylvania's House Majority Leader bragged ~ on video ~ to fellow Republicans that PA's Voter ID law 'is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania' (PA has gone Democratic in the past few presidential elections).

    And, unfortunately, neither UN monitors nor Jimmy Carter will be watching to ensure that Americans have the benefit of a 'free and fair election.'

    Romney has already been 'voted into office' before the Election. Just as, before him, Bush was ~ twice.
  • WestSeaDoc andrew.... 2012/11/14 13:18:38
    WestSeaDoc
    You are correct in assessing that Mr. Romney (for whom I did not vote BTW) has incredible wealth but it is a large stretch which betrays your own bias to presume that you know that he does not care about you if you do not have any money. That's specious and simply ad hominem. Mitt has given vast sums of money away to charities and has been molded by a religion that does value human beings but has also determined that it is not uncharitable to gain wealth through your own efforts. The old Progressive Republican legion more sought social justice through open opportunities for advancement and to have access to the corridors of wealth acquisition as it were. What one did to attain such or do after such was attained was more defining of character than the accumulation of it. My suspicion is that you are not wealthy or those whom you love are either not wealthy or have lost your wealth. If so, this experience biases your viewpoint. I hold you neither in esteem nor disdain for whatever your economic status is but merely point out that your opinions sound more biased based on the way that you express conclusions that you cannot know and are character assassination in their tone rather than state specific examples. Bias would lead you to completely discount Mr. Romney's contributions t...
    You are correct in assessing that Mr. Romney (for whom I did not vote BTW) has incredible wealth but it is a large stretch which betrays your own bias to presume that you know that he does not care about you if you do not have any money. That's specious and simply ad hominem. Mitt has given vast sums of money away to charities and has been molded by a religion that does value human beings but has also determined that it is not uncharitable to gain wealth through your own efforts. The old Progressive Republican legion more sought social justice through open opportunities for advancement and to have access to the corridors of wealth acquisition as it were. What one did to attain such or do after such was attained was more defining of character than the accumulation of it. My suspicion is that you are not wealthy or those whom you love are either not wealthy or have lost your wealth. If so, this experience biases your viewpoint. I hold you neither in esteem nor disdain for whatever your economic status is but merely point out that your opinions sound more biased based on the way that you express conclusions that you cannot know and are character assassination in their tone rather than state specific examples. Bias would lead you to completely discount Mr. Romney's contributions towards charity and focus on any behavior that reinforces your opinion and ignoring that which negates it. I admit I have a bias against opinions based on emotional predisposition and pre-estabilished categorization that engenders your opinion before any facts are in evidence. (e.g. All Democrats like to tax and spend; All Republicans are beholden to wealth ... etc.) You will find in interesting to take a tack opposite to your own and witness the conflagration of hate that comes your way by merely positing a position different from either the far Right or the far Left. I'm sure your bias would conclude that a governor that would oversee the relocation of millions of Japanese during WWII would be unfit for the Supreme Court. I might agree but we would both be very wrong. Given the tenor of your prior post, we would be equally wrong but you would be more absolutely certain of your conviction that would I since you are more quick to determine actions and attitudes by label than would I.
    (more)
  • andrew.... WestSeaDoc 2012/11/14 18:20:01 (edited)
    andrew.micheals.353
    Not that my views have changed however it was so long ago that I wrote my words I have no idea what you are talking about. I will say that it is rather presumptuous of you to assume I do not have money. Not that it is any of your business but I am fortunate enough to have come from a wealthy family who adequately provided for me to the extent that I do not need to work. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know that some people value breeding, culture and education over and above wealth. As far as your defence of Romney. I only judge people by what they say. He said he does not care about 47% of the population. Further he says he is a Mormon. That religion did not acknowledge black people as equals until the 1970s and does not accept women as equals. That says enough about the man to me, thus my conclusions are based on fact and far from ad hominem. I have no idea what to make of you and no idea why you have addressed me. Thus far you have only shown yourself to be opinionated and wrong.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 13:51:01
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +3
    Whoops...I assumed you were talking about the greedy occupiers who want something for nothing. My bad. No rave for you.
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 13:53:06
    andrew.micheals.353
    +2
    A feeble attempt at humour.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 13:58:15
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    No, it was an actual accidental rave and I felt the need to correct it.
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 14:04:45
    andrew.micheals.353
    +2
    I am not about to demonstrate in the street against against greed however if you think the people were trying to get something for nothing you are a fool. That was not what the demonstration was about at all and although I did not take part I would not make a stupid comment like that which has no factual basis.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 14:20:33
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    It was absolutely about their greediness. It was simply cloaked in a feigned outrage over the Wall Street debacle. These people have no intention of doing anything with their lives and need someone to blame. Yeah, a few of them were there out of genuine conviction, but that is not the majority. Many of them just wanted to hang out at the block party and destroy property so the taxpayers could pick up the tab.
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 14:27:10
    andrew.micheals.353
    +2
    On give me a break. because people do not do what you want does not mean they do nothing with their life's you do not know any of them so you cannot make sweeping statements. You sound like the person looking for someone to blame because you have to pay tax. Some people choose to live a different way. Get over it.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 14:33:34
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    Are you kidding? Some of them have been living on the streets for a YEAR! And yeah, when we are paying taxes so they can trash our public property, that's a legitimate reason to be pissed.
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 14:46:39
    andrew.micheals.353
    +2
    Like I said how do you know they are living on the streets? Do you know any? How do you get a welfare cheques living on the streets? Now your just contradicting yourself. Your making assumptions about people without facts. Your paying taxes for public services so even if no one claimed welfare you'd still pay taxes. There is not a country in the world that does not have a taxation system. You are just beating the same old disgruntled middle class drum because you need to put someone down to make yourself feel as though you have achieved someone with your life when the truth is you probably haven't done anything significant at all.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 14:50:03
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    WTF??? When did I bring welfare checks into the discussion? lol!
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 14:55:07
    andrew.micheals.353
    +2
    My mistake I apologise. I have a couple of arguments going on at the same time so i got you confused with another idiot. However you did mention taxes and living on the street so if you didn't say it you probably thought it.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 15:10:11
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    lol! That's okay...it happens! I think it's funny. Even if you are so ignorant as to resort to calling me names! :)) :)) :))
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 15:14:38
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    lol, you took it well, I like to push peoples buttons that is why I am here.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 15:38:34
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    I'm sorry, that job is already taken. ;)
  • andrew.... BoredCo... 2012/09/19 15:46:40
    andrew.micheals.353
    +1
    Well at least you know someone else who has a job.
  • BoredCo... andrew.... 2012/09/19 15:48:11
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +2
    lol! :))
  • WestSeaDoc andrew.... 2012/11/14 13:36:40
    WestSeaDoc
    The 99% made a major mistake to not have some ideas that would emasculate the 1%. The wealth disparity has widened ridiculously in the past 30 or so years and that has been with the consent and aid of both parties. A Republican can't climb into bed with a rich bedpartner without a Democrat falling out of the other side of the bed!! What WILL help the 99% is improving the friggin' playing field. The best way to diminish the power of wealth is to limit its access to political power and one of the best ways to do that is campaign finance reform and term limitations. Power is cumulative ... gains like a snowball rolling down a mountainside. If we can stop it from rolling early, maybe we can stop an avalanche down hill. Voting with any individual that will agree to limit the accumulation of power (if such can be found .. though there are a few ... before the ethics get sucked out of them by Washington, D.C.) no matter the party. This might force Republicans to vote for Dems and vice versa ... i.e. the true INDEPENDENT voter, who will vote based on facts and character, not always in agreement with me but who can explain their vote such that I can understand it wasn't purchased. If you and I were to have a race dribbling a ball down a sidewalk and back, but I got first pick of the ba...
    The 99% made a major mistake to not have some ideas that would emasculate the 1%. The wealth disparity has widened ridiculously in the past 30 or so years and that has been with the consent and aid of both parties. A Republican can't climb into bed with a rich bedpartner without a Democrat falling out of the other side of the bed!! What WILL help the 99% is improving the friggin' playing field. The best way to diminish the power of wealth is to limit its access to political power and one of the best ways to do that is campaign finance reform and term limitations. Power is cumulative ... gains like a snowball rolling down a mountainside. If we can stop it from rolling early, maybe we can stop an avalanche down hill. Voting with any individual that will agree to limit the accumulation of power (if such can be found .. though there are a few ... before the ethics get sucked out of them by Washington, D.C.) no matter the party. This might force Republicans to vote for Dems and vice versa ... i.e. the true INDEPENDENT voter, who will vote based on facts and character, not always in agreement with me but who can explain their vote such that I can understand it wasn't purchased. If you and I were to have a race dribbling a ball down a sidewalk and back, but I got first pick of the balls, and chose a basketball, leaving you with a football ... guess who'd win? It only seemed fair at first blush. The 99%'ers should have found a way to resonate with ALL of the 99%, not just the lower 20% that were demonstrating. It's the laws that allowed Romney to use legal means to acquire wealth. Change those. If he acquired wealth legally though with questionable moral fiber, it doesn't negate the fact that it was legal. Change the laws the tilt the table. That has better dynamics than outraged whining, which the larger population find tiresome and infantile.
    (more)
  • andrew.... WestSeaDoc 2012/11/14 18:25:26
    andrew.micheals.353
    You actually make some valid points here.
  • WestSeaDoc andrew.... 2012/11/21 15:01:26 (edited)
    WestSeaDoc
    Thank you. My prior post "in defense of Romney" was not a defense of Romney but more a cautionary note that we not make conclusions on another's character due to our own biases, that we all suffer from confirmation bias.

    "Confirmation Bias
    A cognitive bias is a tendency to think in one way and not another when faced with certain situations. Every brain in every body comes preloaded with cognitive biases and then adds some more as it navigates through life.

    Like most people, you are biased to notice, remember, and seek out information that confirms your beliefs and opinions while ignoring, forgetting and outright avoiding information that disconfirms your pre-existing notions.

    The things you place on your bookshelf, the sites you add to your web-browser’s bookmarks, and the sources you trust for daily news are all selected through the lens of your confirmation bias. When you head to the opinions pages or flip the channel to your favorite pundit, you don’t do so out of desire for information, but out of a need for confirmation of your beliefs and a desire for validation of your ideas."

    Mitt's comment about the 47% was a strategic analysis -- though it showed shameless pandering to that audience of wealthy elitists. If we were to define him more on this event, it would say more about...

    Thank you. My prior post "in defense of Romney" was not a defense of Romney but more a cautionary note that we not make conclusions on another's character due to our own biases, that we all suffer from confirmation bias.

    "Confirmation Bias
    A cognitive bias is a tendency to think in one way and not another when faced with certain situations. Every brain in every body comes preloaded with cognitive biases and then adds some more as it navigates through life.

    Like most people, you are biased to notice, remember, and seek out information that confirms your beliefs and opinions while ignoring, forgetting and outright avoiding information that disconfirms your pre-existing notions.

    The things you place on your bookshelf, the sites you add to your web-browser’s bookmarks, and the sources you trust for daily news are all selected through the lens of your confirmation bias. When you head to the opinions pages or flip the channel to your favorite pundit, you don’t do so out of desire for information, but out of a need for confirmation of your beliefs and a desire for validation of your ideas."

    Mitt's comment about the 47% was a strategic analysis -- though it showed shameless pandering to that audience of wealthy elitists. If we were to define him more on this event, it would say more about his groveling for support than how he would actually govern. His prior record showed him more of a centrist than a R wing elitist. What was worrisome is more his being a chameleon than what were perceived to be his true colors. Obama played the same game and did it better. His statisticians and strategists targeted the 6% between them and won convincingly.

    Your comment that you do not need to work will engender some biases though it is not for me to have any inkling of what those comprise. One of the newer theories on reasoning is that our "reasoning" is meant to be argumentative and but not necessarily correct (though it can be) due to confirmation bias ... rather it is meant to enhance our own biases in a social milieu such that the mixture of differing arguments can ferret a better group agreement (if not consensus) for action. Experiments in Psychologic Sciences have determined that, for most, if left to make decisions purely on our "own reasoning," we tend to be erroneous. Interesting and explains a lot, esp in the blogosphere.
    (more)
  • MQ-American Values Again (AVA) 2012/09/19 06:02:13
  • thє вlu... MQ-Amer... 2012/09/19 13:27:44
  • madsam 2012/09/19 05:52:48
    No
    madsam
    +2
    just another stupid political movement.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/21 18:12:31

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals