Occupy Wall Street

[DrPhilPhreak4Jesus69420]

If there a thread on here already about this that I missed?  Great video here that I agree with 100%.  Not trying to get anyone to donate money to the kickstarter here, just don't know how to embed the video.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/610964639/occupy-wall-street-media
Actually you all might not want to click on that link.  Big Brother might come after ya, just for clicking it.

Anyway aren't they meeting in Atlanta today?

[DrPhilPhreak4Jesus69420]

http://downtown.11alive.com/news/news/85265-downtown-occupy-atlanta-brings-wall-street-protests-peachtree-street
Yesterday apparently.

[twarley]

 Occupy Atlanta has office space at 60 Walton St., they're set up at Woodruff Park,and they're asking people to join them there.

[Cap'n Ken]

I'll resist the temptation to get all "what's the point?" about the movement and just say it's difficult to form much of an opinion about it right now. If you project out and think this will result in the Bizzaro Tea Party, it seems like it's geared very much to the extreme left and I don't see how politically these folks become much of a force. The Tea Party stuff isn't about promoting radical right-wing politics (like having abortion as a centerpiece or something), but more about making people who are closer to the center believe what the Tea Party represents is what you believe and want.

What's the position the Occupy movement might get to that's similarly aimed at the middle? If the Tea Party has "less government" as its core concept, does Occupy have "less business"?

[DrPhilPhreak4Jesus69420]

I'll resist the temptation to get all "what's the point?" about the movement and just say it's difficult to form much of an opinion about it right now. If you project out and think this will result in the Bizzaro Tea Party, it seems like it's geared very much to the extreme left and I don't see how politically these folks become much of a force. The Tea Party stuff isn't about promoting radical right-wing politics (like having abortion as a centerpiece or something), but more about making people who are closer to the center believe what the Tea Party represents is what you believe and want.

What's the position the Occupy movement might get to that's similarly aimed at the middle? If the Tea Party has "less government" as its core concept, does Occupy have "less business"?

Less business control of government.  I'm hopeful that the teapartiers and occupiers can get together to make govt more answerable to the people and less to the almighty $.

[Cap'n Ken]

I'll resist the temptation to get all "what's the point?" about the movement and just say it's difficult to form much of an opinion about it right now. If you project out and think this will result in the Bizzaro Tea Party, it seems like it's geared very much to the extreme left and I don't see how politically these folks become much of a force. The Tea Party stuff isn't about promoting radical right-wing politics (like having abortion as a centerpiece or something), but more about making people who are closer to the center believe what the Tea Party represents is what you believe and want.

What's the position the Occupy movement might get to that's similarly aimed at the middle? If the Tea Party has "less government" as its core concept, does Occupy have "less business"?

Less business control of government.  I'm hopeful that the teapartiers and occupiers can get together to make govt more answerable to the people and less to the almighty $.

What's interesting about this notion is businesses can't vote. Businesses can funnel money to campaigns, but the CEO of Bank of America has the same one vote as anybody out there in the Occupy movement.

If voters were more engaged and weren't as influenced by advertising, the money from business, union and other interests wouldn't matter much, right? How about that as the base of a movement - ignore political ads and think for yourself.

It's pretty clear that you can't really control the money that flows into and out of political campaigns. The fact is we live in an era where President Obama is setting a 2012 fundraising goal of more than $750 million ... and that may end up being just a fraction of the Super Pac money raised and spent on all sides. The courts have pretty consistently upheld the right to give and spend money. And it's problematic at best to think there would be a way to actually limit money in and money out (money actually does represent speech).

But the money only matters because people pay attention to what that money buys. How about we put an end to that? That's something that absolutely and very literally is something individuals control.

[DrPhilPhreak4Jesus69420]

But the money only matters because people pay attention to what that money buys. How about we put an end to that? That's something that absolutely and very literally is something individuals control.

OK, I'm on board with that.  How do you make that happen, practically.  You've got to make it easier to understand and more transparent.

[Cap'n Ken]

But the money only matters because people pay attention to what that money buys. How about we put an end to that? That's something that absolutely and very literally is something individuals control.

OK, I'm on board with that.  How do you make that happen, practically.  You've got to make it easier to understand and more transparent.

Dunno. The problem is there's no specific agenda that's supported by "think for yourselves and ignore advertising". An ultimately political action is driven by agendas. Somebody on the left (or right) would love it if all the money went away right up until it meant his side wasn't doing as well.

[ManBearPig]

Frankly when walking past there over the past two weeks it reminds me more of just walking through little 5 on a Saturday more than anything else.  Sorry you can't get a $85K a year job straight out of school, might have helped if you hadn't gotten a degree in Womens studies.

As for the "media blackout" that is a stretch.  The area that these guys are taking up is slightly larger than the parking lot of the earl, and yet we are all hearing about them endlessly. 

[strawberrythief]

What's interesting about this notion is businesses can't vote. Businesses can funnel money to campaigns, but the CEO of Bank of America has the same one vote as anybody out there in the Occupy movement.

That's true, but businesses also funnel a butt-load of money into lobbying congress and have had tremendous successes manipulating legislation to favor their interests. Interests that may or may not be beneficial to the American people as a whole.  I see that as a bigger problem than campaign finance issues.

The Occupation Movement is similar to the Tea Party in some ways. I've heard the chant "banks got bailed out, we got sold out" during coverage of some of the protests. That is a statement I think both sides could agree on...

[Cap'n Ken]

What's interesting about this notion is businesses can't vote. Businesses can funnel money to campaigns, but the CEO of Bank of America has the same one vote as anybody out there in the Occupy movement.

That's true, but businesses also funnel a butt-load of money into lobbying congress and have had tremendous successes manipulating legislation to favor their interests. Interests that may or may not be beneficial to the American people as a whole.  I see that as a bigger problem than campaign finance issues.

The Occupation Movement is similar to the Tea Party in some ways. I've heard the chant "banks got bailed out, we got sold out" during coverage of some of the protests. That is a statement I think both sides could agree on...

Lobbying is about campaign money. If the politicians didn't need their money, they would not listen to the lobbyists. A member of Congress isn't going to push some industry's goals above those of the people who elected him unless it's in his interest to do so. And it's in his interest to do so because the money is more valuable than the votes likely to be lost.

It's the same system and same issue. Money controls elections, therefore politicians are beholden to money.

[strawberrythief]

What's interesting about this notion is businesses can't vote. Businesses can funnel money to campaigns, but the CEO of Bank of America has the same one vote as anybody out there in the Occupy movement.

That's true, but businesses also funnel a butt-load of money into lobbying congress and have had tremendous successes manipulating legislation to favor their interests. Interests that may or may not be beneficial to the American people as a whole.  I see that as a bigger problem than campaign finance issues.

The Occupation Movement is similar to the Tea Party in some ways. I've heard the chant "banks got bailed out, we got sold out" during coverage of some of the protests. That is a statement I think both sides could agree on...

Lobbying is about campaign money. If the politicians didn't need their money, they would not listen to the lobbyists. A member of Congress isn't going to push some industry's goals above those of the people who elected him unless it's in his interest to do so. And it's in his interest to do so because the money is more valuable than the votes likely to be lost.

It's the same system and same issue. Money controls elections, therefore politicians are beholden to money.

Clearly, I must have just misread what you were trying to say because I focused on that singular sentence above. I think in my mind I was imagining the favors and kickbacks involved in lobbying (trips, business favors, meals, etc) and not necessarily the fact that campaign contributions are related.

[Cap'n Ken]

What's interesting about this notion is businesses can't vote. Businesses can funnel money to campaigns, but the CEO of Bank of America has the same one vote as anybody out there in the Occupy movement.

That's true, but businesses also funnel a butt-load of money into lobbying congress and have had tremendous successes manipulating legislation to favor their interests. Interests that may or may not be beneficial to the American people as a whole.  I see that as a bigger problem than campaign finance issues.

The Occupation Movement is similar to the Tea Party in some ways. I've heard the chant "banks got bailed out, we got sold out" during coverage of some of the protests. That is a statement I think both sides could agree on...

Lobbying is about campaign money. If the politicians didn't need their money, they would not listen to the lobbyists. A member of Congress isn't going to push some industry's goals above those of the people who elected him unless it's in his interest to do so. And it's in his interest to do so because the money is more valuable than the votes likely to be lost.

It's the same system and same issue. Money controls elections, therefore politicians are beholden to money.

*Sigh* Clearly I must have just misread what you were trying to say because I focused on that singular sentence above. Imma go have a beer...

I struggled trying to write that last bit. What I'm saying is lobbying ultimately is about politicians getting money for elections, isn't it?

[strawberrythief]

I struggled trying to write that last bit. What I'm saying is lobbying ultimately is about politicians getting money for elections, isn't it?

Yes, it is - and money in general. I just didn't connect the two in my head. 

[Cap'n Ken]

I struggled trying to write that last bit. What I'm saying is lobbying ultimately is about politicians getting money for elections, isn't it?

Yes, it is - and money in general. I just didn't connect the two in my head. 

I don't think the Occupy movement is really just about the role of business in government (except perhaps in the sense that they would want all government moves to be anti-business), and I certainly don't think a campaign to ignore advertising would ever go anywhere.

But it's interesting when you realize that the only reason all this money in politics matters is because people are swayed by advertising. Stop being swayed and that problem ceases to exist.