Occupy Wall Street. Can someone please explain to me what it is?

[Justin G]

Corporate donations are already limited by law, all politicians rely on individual donations.

This statement is either disingenuous or completely naive. The Citizens United decision plowed a huge hole through those regulations.

 

[adaher]

They did not. They simply said that Congress cannot limit independent advocacy. Corporate donations to campaigns are still prohibited, and constitutional.

However, a corporation speaking out on political issues or endorsing candidates is not a "contribution", unless we're getting into really Orwellian territory here.

 

[nailz]

Corporate donations are already limited by law, all politicians rely on individual donations. Barack Obama was elected with something like 70% of donors being small donors.

 

[PureXul]

Preface: I generally support the concept behind OWS (curbing the corrupt links and influence that the corporate sphere has on government), but I take issue with a lot of the tactics and specific issues the protesters have brought up. However, a couple of specific points:

The funny part about that cartoon is that Congress passed student loan reform, yet OWSers are calling for student loan reform.

The student loan reform that Congress passed was a joke. The student loan industry is INCREDIBLY profitable and while the reforms curbed it slightly, they still make money hand over fist, more or less exploiting people just entering adulthood who don't have the maturity or knowledge to understand the implications of taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree in philosophy, communications, or any other number of unmarketable majors.

This is largely a societal problem, in that we have beaten it into a generation's heads that you MUST go to college and get a degree because it WILL increase your earning potential. What we didn't beat into their heads is that you'll have a ton of debt when you get out, and that you need to decide if the degree you're getting with these loans is honestly going to be worth the investment. A lot of people are finding out its not, and over the next decade or two, the nation's higher education system is going to go through a lot of massive changes. That's a whole discussion unto itself, but student loans are a branch of it that's very relevant to the OWS protests.

I work in marketing (on the technology side, but marketing nonetheless), and for a couple of years a company I was at did lead generation campaigns for the student loan industry - mostly on the student loan consolidation side (before reforms made that unprofitable), but I also have enough knowledge of the for-profit education sector (University of Phoenix, DeVry, etc.) to know that the existing Congressional reforms did very little to curb their borderline exploitative practices. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I lay blame at the feet of the people taking on these loans...but your assertion that Congress already fixed the student loan issue is just flat out wrong.

All of that said...I do find it ironic that a group protesting government bailouts to banks is so largely in favor of student loan forgiveness. Bailing out corporations for bad decisions isn't okay, but bailing out people for bad decisions is fine? Hypocrisy at its finest, and provides the seed for the people who say the OWS movement just wants its free government cheese.

OWSers are calling for Wall Street reform, when Congress passed Wall Street reform.

Congress passed a very small set of reforms, the major banks have just found new avenues to exploit. Here's one very specific reform I'd like to see - re-enact the provision of the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibits a single entity from being both a commercial and investment bank. Example of why they should be separate. Every major bank, not just in America, but around the world, has over-leveraged themselves using absolutely fucktarded investment instruments. America's only saving grace right now is that we're not quite as close to the cliff as the Euro-zone is.

I know, the vast majority of OWS protesters haven't provided anything this specific, and it annoys me that such an important topic is being voiced in such an inarticulate manner, but it doesn't invalidate the core point they have.

So I think it's fair to say that they don't know what they are protesting.

No...they know what they're protesting, most of them just don't know what the solution is.

Unless OWS's existence is an admission that the Democrats have failed, since almost all the reforms OWS demands have already been passed by Democrats.

The Democrats have absolutely failed the American people, just as the Republicans have. Both major parties are beholden to corporate interests, the Republicans just don't try to hide it.

 

[adaher]

Those are the employers of individual contributors. You'll notice that some politicians get donations from the State Department. The State Department is not using money from their budget to support certain politicians, it's just State Department employees donating.

 

[adaher]

The student loan reform that Congress passed was a joke. The student loan industry is INCREDIBLY profitable and while the reforms curbed it slightly, they still make money hand over fist, more or less exploiting people just entering adulthood who don't have the maturity or knowledge to understand the implications of taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree in philosophy, communications, or any other number of unmarketable majors.

The bill Congress passed takes student loans out of the banks entirely. Now the government loans directly. In fact, my wife's student loan, which was formerly with Chase bank, is now the government's. We get bills from them now instead of Chase.

Congress passed a very small set of reforms, the major banks have just found new avenues to exploit.

I don't mean to cut off your quote, since you said a lot of really awesomely intelligent things, but this is the part I need to contest. Dodd-Frank was a pretty huge bill, as significant as Glass-Steagall and Graham-Leach-Bliley. Of course OWS is free to think that it's not enough, but it just seems odd that OWS would protest the very things that Democrats worked so hard to accomplish. OWS would have made sense in 2005, when Republicans ran everything. OWS becoming a force now just exposes Democrats as failures. And despite the fact that OWS is not technically partisan, I'm sure their intention is not to hurt the Democrats. But that's what they are doing.

No...they know what they're protesting, most of them just don't know what the solution is.

I think it's more a case that the core of OWS is so far left that these Democratic measures aren't what they are looking for at all. But at the same time, they can't exactly say out loud what they would like to see, because it would shrink the movement.

The Democrats have absolutely failed the American people, just as the Republicans have. Both major parties are beholden to corporate interests, the Republicans just don't try to hide it.

The Tea Party however is an effort to change the Republican Party from within. To use the system to further the views of the right. The honest right, not the corporate-owned right. The Tea Party hates bailouts and corporate welfare and pork barrel spending. And those views are now a must if you want to be a Republican in good standing today. OWS, on the other hand, works outside the system. Many supporters I've talked to want to overthrow the system somehow. Why not just focus OWS on changing the Democratic Party? Maybe it will evolve to that by the time the election season heats up. They already seem to like Elizabeth Warren, so that's a start.

 

[PureXul]

The bill Congress passed takes student loans out of the banks entirely. Now the government loans directly. In fact, my wife's student loan, which was formerly with Chase bank, is now the government's. We get bills from them now instead of Chase.

Sorry, I should've been more specific - the loans are no longer as profitable for the lenders since the government intervened, but they are still incredibly profitable for the 'educational' institutions (and I use the term educational loosely for places like University of Phoenix). They sign up new students, encourage them to take out the maximum amount of loans possible even if their degree program doesn't require that much money, and the government foots the bill.

You are correct in that the government reforms addressed a lot of the lender side issues, but there's still a LOT to be done to clean up the higher education system, starting with the for-profit diploma mills.

Of course OWS is free to think that it's not enough, but it just seems odd that OWS would protest the very things that Democrats worked so hard to accomplish.

I can't speak to OWS's logic or lack thereof...I've seen enough different people say enough different things as far as OWS views, many of them contradictory, that I wouldn't pretend to understand the nuances of their bills.

In my opinion though, the financial sector needs to get brought into check in a big way. Conceptually, I'm actually a big fan of deregulation because I hate unnecessary government, but unfortunately our society has proven that deregulation leads to gross abuse because most people are incapable of governing themselves and their own actions.

I fully grasp the fact that corporations are designed to maximize their profit - I'm a small business owner, and every day my end goal is to make sure my partner and I stay in business, can pay our employees, and hopefully end up with a nice amount of profit at the end of the month. But there's a fine line between maximizing profit and irresponsibly jeopardizing your own company, the companies you do business with, and in the case of banks, the entire economy. Dodd-Frank is great on paper, but banks are still grossly under-capitalized, exposed to far too much risk than they should be, and the 'free' market props itself up through backroom deals.

I mean come on, look at Groupon's IPO...I know this is highly tangential to government regulation, but it illustrates my point that logic has gone out the fucking window. Here's a company who has only ever shown profit through borderline-fraudulent accounting methods, got slapped for those accounting methods pre-IPO, and people were still lining up to buy their stock! I would bet money that within 5 years (probably sooner), GRPN will be de-listed and their CEO and CFO will be under inditment. The financial markets have become completely divorced from logic and reality, and that's one of the real underlying problems of what's going on.

OWS would have made sense in 2005, when Republicans ran everything. OWS becoming a force now just exposes Democrats as failures. And despite the fact that OWS is not technically partisan, I'm sure their intention is not to hurt the Democrats. But that's what they are doing.

I think it's hurting both parties equally, which is fine by me...honestly though, the Democrats are lucky that the GOP can't get its act together in picking a presidential candidate. If they had someone even mildly charismatic and qualified, Obama would be toast. As it is, Ron Paul is interesting but highly divisive, Romney doesn't energize anyone, and Perry is fading fast. The Democrats have a pretty bad track record lately of capitalizing on opportunities to deliver a knockout blow, but Obama would have to get caught in a hotel room with hookers and blow to screw things up the way they stand right now.

I think it's more a case that the core of OWS is so far left that these Democratic measures aren't what they are looking for at all.

Agree completely with this.

But at the same time, they can't exactly say out loud what they would like to see, because it would shrink the movement.

They've missed enough opportunities to grow the movement as it is...the majority of my friends/family that I've talked to about OWS have had the same basic thought - they agree with the core points, but feel that OWS isn't on the right path. Drum circles aren't going to fix the economy.

The Tea Party however is an effort to change the Republican Party from within. To use the system to further the views of the right. The honest right, not the corporate-owned right. The Tea Party hates bailouts and corporate welfare and pork barrel spending. And those views are now a must if you want to be a Republican in good standing today.

Those WERE the views of the Tea Party, but it has been co-opted in a huge way by the Koch brothers and the party's stance has been skewed heavily. Even the Tea Party darlings in Congress like Eric Cantor are hypocrites - one minute he's ranting about government waste, the next he's looking for federal stimulus money for his district. You can't have it both ways.

OWS, on the other hand, works outside the system. Many supporters I've talked to want to overthrow the system somehow. Why not just focus OWS on changing the Democratic Party? Maybe it will evolve to that by the time the election season heats up. They already seem to like Elizabeth Warren, so that's a start.

A lot of OWS supporters are too naive to realize that overthrowing the system would lead us into an even bigger world of shit via unintended consequences.

Any way you slice it, the next couple decades are not going to be exceedingly pleasant. Our economy and credit have been on an unsustainable path and no one in power wants to be the one to tell the American people that the game's up and we're fucked.

 

[nailz]

The Democrats have absolutely failed the American people, just as the Republicans have. Both major parties are beholden to corporate interests, the Republicans just don't try to hide it.

Agreed. What a lot of conservative and republicans fail to see with OWS is that it's not a political party line thing like the Tea Party has become. The original concept of the Tea Party is very similar to OWS, before it became the mutated shitstorm it is now.

I'm sure their intention is not to hurt the Democrats. But that's what they are doing.

Actually, yes, it is. Because government as it is now has let us down as a whole. OWS movement is about the failure of every single person involved in government, from the President to Congress, from this election cycle to back to the 197X's.. OWS is against corruption, corporation influence in politics to the detriment of the people, and the choke hold the powerful have on us. OWS is trying to break their hold before we black out and die.

You are correct in that the government reforms addressed a lot of the lender side issues, but there's still a LOT to be done to clean up the higher education system, starting with the for-profit diploma mills.

I work for a State University and you hit the nail on the head. People often stare at me wide eyed when I tell them College is the Great American Scam. They don't understand why I think that way, but they don't open their eyes and see 2000 English Students graduating into Starbucks Barristas every semester. They don't work with students in the CIS field who couldn't tell you the first thing about my job in their 3rd year of schooling with no hands on experience. These kids are getting out of college and earning $10 an hour in their field because they don't know anything.

 

[Pellaz]

OWS movement is about the failure of every single person involved in government, from the President to Congress, from this election cycle to back to the 197X's..OWS is against corruption, corporation influence in politics to the detriment of the people, and the choke hold the powerful have on us. OWS is trying to break their hold before we black out and die.

I think some of the OWSers -- and most if not all of the original ones -- think this. But it's clear that Democratic Party interests are trying to "muscle in" to the movement, just as elements of the social-conservatives muscled into the Tea Party Movement.

Case in point: Occupy Atlanta, who staged a march to the Capitol here, only to have it hijacked by a bunch of people from MoveOn.org who quickly turned it into a party-political rally. The OA folks departed back to Woodruff Park in disgust.

In the case of the Occupy Wall St. protests, the SEIU has been taking an active role in the protests, and the NY reincarnation of what was ACORN has also. Both have long-established ties to the Democrats and the current administration.

Meanwhile in Oakland, staunch anti-capitalists were very obvious in their presence, with a giant banner among other things. According to one of the original OWS organizers, speaking on Dave Ramsey's radio show about a week ago, THAT is not the message the OWS movement is trying to convey.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out for OWS.

 

[PureXul]

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out for OWS.

This is where OWS's decision to be overly democratic - not have official spokespeople, not have leaders, be entirely equal - is going to come back to bite them in the ass a bit. If you don't have an official platform, or official speakers, how do you show who is really OWS compared to who isn't?

It's a double-edged sword as it does have its benefits, but if they want to avoid having the movement co-opted by MoveOn.org or other groups, they're going to need to build some legitimate structure to differentiate what they really stand for vs. others trying to associate themselves after the fact.

 

[adaher]

This is where OWS's decision to be overly democratic - not have official spokespeople, not have leaders, be entirely equal - is going to come back to bite them in the ass a bit. If you don't have an official platform, or official speakers, how do you show who is really OWS compared to who isn't?

It's a double-edged sword as it does have its benefits, but if they want to avoid having the movement co-opted by MoveOn.org or other groups, they're going to need to build some legitimate structure to differentiate what they really stand for vs. others trying to associate themselves after the fact.

They can't do that. They need to be about only the most general ickiness of the system. Once they get specific, people will start abandoning them. Much like Mitt Romney, their support relies primarily on their vagueness.

 

[adaher]

I agree completely about college. But there's really only one way to solve the problem and it won't be pleasant: cut off federal subsidies. If we don't pop the bubble now, it will be much more unpleasant when it happens anyway.

A good start would be to attach strings to the money. Colleges now have as many administrators as teachers. Before the Pell Grant era the ratio of teachers to administrators was something like 13 to 1. Now it's 1 to 1 at a lot of universities. Higher tuition isn't improving education, it's becoming a jobs program for white collar academics. The government should require a freeze on administrative positions for all schools receiving federal money. In addition, schools that do not seem to be preparing people for the job market, like University of Phoenix, and Kaiser, should be cut off. I'd also make only some majors eligible for aid. many majors do not lead to jobs that will enable students to pay off their loans. Subsidized student loans should be limited to majors where the student will make enough money to pay them back.

One more reform: student loans, and tax debt, should be dischargeable under bankruptcy law. Debts to the government are not more important than debts to the private sector. If someone can't pay their taxes or student loans, it's no different from their perspective than being unable to pay their mortgage or credit card bill. All debts should be eligible to be wiped away in bankruptcy.

 

[Pellaz]

[Some well-intended but probably tricky suggestions deleted; how does one determine which majors are "good" and which are "bad", etc.....]

One more reform: student loans, and tax debt, should be dischargeable under bankruptcy law. Debts to the government are not more important than debts to the private sector. If someone can't pay their taxes or student loans, it's no different from their perspective than being unable to pay their mortgage or credit card bill. All debts should be eligible to be wiped away in bankruptcy.

Individual income tax debt IS eligible to be waived under bankruptcy, but it is exceedingly rare. In 22 years, I've only seen it 2 or 3 times.

I agree about student-loan debt being includible in bankruptcy, assuming it isn't now.

 

[adaher]

There are plenty of objective studies about the marketability and likely salary expectations of various fields of study. When lending was purely done by private entities, they took that into account, because it affected the student's ability to pay back the loan. the government does not take that into account.

The President has made some good changes. Having the government directly loan saves taxpayers money. And reviewing whether some of these schools that don't lead to jobs are worth subsidizing is also a positive step. But it can go further and should go further. Because even the good schools are using those subsidies to create cushy white collar jobs for administrators rather than actually improving the education of college students. If anything, colleges are going downhill despite more and more money being shovelled at them.

 

[nailz]

Being that we were comparing #OWS to the Tea Party, I thought some of you would be interested in this graphic. Yes, the word racist is used for Tea Party. Yes, there is a section of Tea Partiers that are blatently racist. However, Hipsters are just as moronic for #OWS. Look at the larger infographs.

 

[adaher]

They left out a few things, like recent polls of OWSers that show that they don't have the slightest idea what's going on in the country. 80% don't know what Dodd-Frank is, and although they hate the Fed, they are less likely to know who is the Chairman of the Fed than the overall population.

And as of right now, the polling for OWS has gone way south. Now it's comparable to the Tea Party's polling.

http://pollingreport.com/politics.htm

25% support the Tea PArty, 29% support OWS.

As for racists, the major racist organizations have endorsed both OWS and the Tea Party, and it's hard not to notice the vocal anti-semites at OWS rallies.

 

[Pellaz]

Michael Moore a "politician"?

* run flee hide *

 

[booB]

Why is the Middle Class Liberal guy not wearing any pants? All I can think of is that his 401(k) took one hell of a hit during the recession.