• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Wall Street vs The Tea Party

At least that dude is doing something other than playing armchair politics.. :)

I'll take arm chair politics over that any day... If they want to be taken seriously, they have to prove they are worth taking seriously. Some of them just can't.
 
LOL! This can't be real....



Seeing that this is an OWS vs TP thread, I'll see you're crying douche and raise you this guy:



HOOAH! :D
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I do not have a local occupy event here.... just following the one in NYC.

I attended my first local Occupy protest and I must say it was a very interesting event. There was over 100 people at our Occupy event. It was pretty quite with no civil disruptions.

I met people from various racial groups - Blacks, Whites a few Hispanics and atleast one individual of Arab decent.

There were people of all economic demographics in attendance. I met a few college students; some still in school, others who had their degree but still couldn't find a job months after graduating. There were a few house wives in attendance, as well as a couple of working moms. Most of the men were gainfully employed; however, I did meet one older gentleman who claimed to have recently been forced into retirement and was angry about it. As he put it, "he was caught up in the numbers game". There was even a guy who claimed to be a retired Wall Street trader who made it clear "the (stock market trading) game is rigged!"

As I walked around getting to know my fellow protestors, I was surprised to hear folks clarify the movement's position not as an anti-capitalism movement, but rather as an anti-corruption movement. I know I've mentioned this in my posts before, but I was surprised to hear people actually say it. I think the movement is starting to clarify its voice.

After marching and showing our signs to passers by and motorist, we broke up into groups to discuss why we supported the movement in greater detail.

The college students were upset 1) because they couldn't find jobs to put their degree to work; and 2) because it costs so much for them to go to college in the first place. Many feel the government should either provide student-loan forgiveness or provide a longer time period before they have to start repaying their government loans.

The employed had a host of issues to discuse ranging from stagnant wages/wage disparity to the higher cost of healthcare and retirement contributions.

The unemployed clearly focused on jobs period! Most put the blame squarely on Republicans for playing politics and not moving faster to bring about job growth even in the short-term under the President's jobs plan.

The elderly worried about their Medicare and SSN benefits being drastically reduced or taken away. I can't blame them on this one as most of them acknowledged the worked and earned these benefits and felt that politicians had no right to steal from Social Security (again) to balance the federal budget or drawn down the national debt.

There were a few environmental enthusiast in the crowd, too. Let's just say I gave the "tree huggers" their due respect; I listened but wasn't as passionate for their concerns though I do understand their perspective on cruelty to animals and misuse and/or abuse of our natural resources. But I'll save that for another debate.

One thing we all agreed on was how Wall Street greed and our national politic are inter-linked. Lobbyist working for corporate interests "pay" politicians via their campaign contributions to write or stir legislation toward their "interest". The biggest complaint, of course, was how the banks got bailed out only to ignore the fact that it was the taxpayers who saved their butts. And now that these very same taxpayers are demanding jobs, it seems nobody's listening. And folks are pissed off about it!

People are tired of verdicts being handed down like the Citizen's United case that now allows corporations to make large, multi-million dollar donations in secret to whomever they please to stir public opinion in any direction they want. Everyone in attendance saw this decision as I do - that all it did was stack the deck against the people who don't have the financial clout to pay for expensive TV and radio advertising to counter the half-truths these SuperPACs can generate. Most of use saw this as wealthy corporations stiffling or drawing out - effectively silencing - the voices of the dissent.

Some people were educated on federal economic policy since the Nixon and Reagon eras few knew about, i.e., how the U.S. dollar was placed as the world's reserve currency or how financial services was purposely placed ahead of manufacturing and how such jobs were outsourced abroad as a result. We even had a few people who had heard about the movement stop by just to listen to what people had to say whether they agreed with the movement or not. A few even joined the movement which I thought was cool. Those who might have held a different opinion on some issues were treated respectfully and encouraged to stick around to discuss the issues further. A few people who attended actually had plane tickets for flights leaving for NYC the very next day.

No one harrassed anyone else if they disagreed with their point of view. We all sat or stood around holding mature, rational discussions. The local media showed up, took pictures, conducted interviews. It was very rewarding, informative and unifying experience. I can't wait for the next Occupy meeting.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Another moron, Bardo.
 
Oh...one last thing...

I looks like the Occupy movement is starting to have an affect particularly on the Right. It seems House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor is backing way off his "mog" allegation. Not only that, he has also toned down his rhetoric against the Occupy movement and has finally acknowledged there is a large wealth gap in this country. See this article from theHill.com for details.

"We know in this country right now that there is a complaint about folks at the top end of the income scales, that they make too much and too many don't make enough," Cantor said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, toning down his earlier criticism of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

"We need to encourage folks at the top of the income scale to actually put their money their work to create more jobs so we can see a closing of the gap," he added.

Cantor’s change of tone comes as protests against Wall Street are gaining in popularity and the White House seeks to ride the latest wave of populist anger.
 
Last edited:
Oh...one last thing...

I looks like the Occupy movement is starting to have an affect particularly on the Right. It seems House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor is backing way off his "mog" allegation. Not only that, he has also toned down his rhetoric against the Occupy movement and has finally acknowledged there is a large wealth gap in this country. See this article from theHill.com for details.

Now THAT'S telling.

Backed right off the "there's nothing to see here move along" line they've been taking.

Which means that the disparity charts/numbers being bandied about are probably pretty accurate.

It will be interesting to see what the new meme is.

I'm going to bet that the best way to encourage income mobility is to lower taxes and cut regulations and spending.

At least we'll get some new "stories" about how the same solutions will work THIS time.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I personally think both movements are founded on valid frustrations and arguments, but I don't either has done a very good job of coming up with practical solutions to legitimate problems. Of course, both movements, like all movements, will attract poor representatives of the general organization.

Uh-huh. This from Gallup:

In politics, 2010 may best be remembered for the impact of the Tea Party movement on the year's midterm elections. Tea Party-backed candidates had a significant say in determining which Republican candidates were nominated, upsetting GOP establishment candidates in many races. Some of the Tea Party-favored candidates eventually prevailed in the general election.

In its short existence, Americans acknowledge that the Tea Party movement has had a measurable impact, most notably in terms of getting people more involved in the political process. Now that the 2010 elections are over, one of the key stories in the coming political year is whether the Tea Party will gain or lose influence in American politics. This will be evident in the effectiveness in Congress of its favored candidates who won election, as well as its influence over who is nominated as the Republican presidential candidate for the 2012 election.​

2010 was the largest shift in political power we have seen in many, many years. We need another Tea Party election to sweep the one term Marxist president Obama out of the white house, and to return control of the Senate to conservatives. Since there are no conservative democrats that means Republicans.
 
. . .And introducting a public health care option (or at least trying) somehow amounts to communism. People have simply adopted these fallacies. So you have people in OWS saying "down with capitalism" and crazy tea partiers comparing Obama to Stalin.
The one term Marxist president Obama is more like Lenin than Stalin. He is creating a crisis, and then he is exploiting a crisis. And the OWS useful idiots are people Lenin would understand and use, much as Obama who stands with them.

But it is not going to work. The one term Marxist president Obama will be defeated and sent home to hound and harass Chicago unless good people do nothing.
 
Or tea partiers decrying out of control government spending, after driving to events on government funded roads, their flights home made safe by government programs and regulations, and rallying in government funded parks.

There, I made it right for you by adding the bolded missing words.

The issue is not government spending. It is spending by an unconstrained government, unbounded by the US Constitution.
 
And its not just income but ownership of everything that can be owned.

Does anybody know if Locke or the Founders contemplated the possibility of a finite Commons? Where every square inch was owned and providing for ones needs is not even legal?

I can provide for myself from the earth. All facets. Took a long time and a lot of effort to acquire the skillsets necessary to do so.

The world is full, I feel some form of "synthetic commons" might be in order.
So your argument should be with the Federal government who owns most of the US lands. Let's have a public auction of the federal lands. The feds own and control way too much. It is time to put the much of the federal lands into private hands.
 
So your argument should be with the Federal government who owns most of the US lands. Let's have a public auction of the federal lands. The feds own and control way too much. It is time to put the much of the federal lands into private hands.

1313287918370.jpg
 
I agree. Moreover, one of the biggest problems I perceive is the entanglement of business and government. In my mind, they should be as separate as possible (except you know, laws against putting poison in food and all that). Business should be allowed to fail and government should not function at the will of big business. I think both OWS and the Tea Party essentially agree on those things, but each of them puts emphasis on different things which is where they conflict and end up talking right past each other.
Where is T. Jefferson with his letter to the Danbury Chamber of Congress calling for a wall of separation between business and state?
 
I agree. Moreover, one of the biggest problems I perceive is the entanglement of business and government. In my mind, they should be as separate as possible (except you know, laws against putting poison in food and all that). Business should be allowed to fail and government should not function at the will of big business. I think both OWS and the Tea Party essentially agree on those things, but each of them puts emphasis on different things which is where they conflict and end up talking right past each other.

You're a conservative! Who knew? :p
 
I lean left, but I would never say I have an ideology because that would mean I follow a strict set of rules. I would classify my beliefs as mainstream.
Most on the almost far left believe they occupy the middle. It only looks like the middle to you because the other people you know are even more to the left than you are. You are hardly mainstream. You are hard left all the time.
 
I'll take arm chair politics over that any day... If they want to be taken seriously, they have to prove they are worth taking seriously. Some of them just can't.

Can you take this guy serious?
 
Can you take this guy serious?


I don't know if this guy is a Occupier or a Tea Partier, but one thing's for sure: he certainly covers issues both side have problems with.

Tea Parties seeks limited government (in size and personal intervention), reduction of federal spending and limited intrusion and influence in the affairs of soverign nations.

Occupiers are upset that taxpayers bailed out banks but have all but ignored the need for them to loan money to community banks and/or entrepeauners to either start new businesses or expand their business.

Both sides are concerned about the economic policy and the Federal Reserves seemingly unfettered ability to print money. Both sides are concerned about the devaluation of U.S. currency.

Both sides are concerned about the wealth gap.

Both sides are concerned about manufacturing jobs returning.

Democrats seem the only side willing to put forth legislation to create jobs now - even if only temporary - to spur economic growth until Congress can get its act together and draft bills that will spur long-term and more permanent job growth. Two recent pieces of legislation that will make this possible are the trade agreements the President just signed into law including the one he signed with India not long ago, and the new pattent act he signed a month or so ago.

Republicans may slice and dice the President's Job Plan and send up bills in smaller segments and try to pass their efforts off as some big victory on job growth for them, but those who've been paying attention know the truth. He did say if either side came up with ideas for job creation/job growth they thought were better, he'd be willing to listen to them. And he said he didn't mind if they broke his plan up into smaller pieces. So, whatever they try to do, people who know the truth are already unto them.

Either way you slice it, Republicans can't win in the long run. In times of national crisis, the more people learn the truth about things, the more the country needs a Centrist President.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Keystone XL Pipeline gets approved, too.
 
I swear you say this exact phrase in every thread you post in. Why not just make it your signature and save some time?
It is important that you read it over and over. He is a dangerous demagogue. He is doing great damage to the US. He needs to be stopped.
 
It is important that you read it over and over. He is a dangerous demagogue. He is doing great damage to the US. He needs to be stopped.
I hope you think this way of Bush, as he did far greater damage to the U.S.
 
Bush is gone. Obama needs to go, too.
 
It is important that you read it over and over. He is a dangerous demagogue. He is doing great damage to the US. He needs to be stopped.

Worry not, its over. He was term limited in 2008. He has already left office. We have been working hard over the past three years to repair the damage. Its going rather slowly, however, as the party mates of the dangerous demagogues have turned out to be party poopers.
 
I hope you think this way of Bush, as he did far greater damage to the U.S.
Although I did not like either of the Bush presidents and I loathed the very idea of compassionate conservatism, massive new entitlement, and the imposition of federal education standards on the states I do not agree either did greater harm that the one term Marxist president Obama has done and continues to do.
 
Worry not, its over. He was term limited in 2008. He has already left office. We have been working hard over the past three years to repair the damage. Its going rather slowly, however, as the party mates of the dangerous demagogues have turned out to be party poopers.
If you like Marxism then yes, I suppose you could see the fundamental transformation of the nation from a free market capitalist driven economy to a commissar controlled bureaucratic state to your liking.

Others of us know that the president is a temporary steward of the nation's resources. He has no right to do what he is doing.
 
Can you take this guy serious?

He's Tea Party.
I don't take his particular message convincing or serious, but if he wants to back someone who moves is towards libertarianism, OK.
Fractional banking unchecked is a problem, just check it. We have nuclear weapons that can destroy the world 50x over, yet we check them. I think we can check fractional reserves if we have the will to.
 
Back
Top Bottom