jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (157 posts)

Purpose of the Occupy Movement?

  1. gmwilliams profile image84
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    Do you think that the Occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were totally constructive or were totally an utter waste of time and energy?

    1. kathleenkat profile image91
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that depends on the person.

      To me, the Occupy movements were a waste of time, and I honestly could not take them seriously. At the time, I was in college, and the bulk of my Occupy exposure was on the college campus. I kept thinking... Many of you are still dependents on your parents. They pay your tuition and fees. I know this because you have time to protest, instead of going to work after school. Yet you are complaining about "The 1%" as if you know anything about working to make a living.

      Perhaps those in or around Wall Street may have had a different experience. But for me, it was just a bunch of dead beats camping outside of banks, spending time they could use to find a job.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So...

        What if I were paying my own tuition? Say I had a job after school?

        Perhaps that one time you saw me was on my one day off after 10 straight days of working....

        But you're right, anyone who protests before 5p.m is clearly a deadbeat.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No it's no biggie. You can attend classes and then go learn to rape and defecate on public property as a night class at Occupy.

        2. kathleenkat profile image91
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The percentage of college students who pay their own tuition AND participate in protests, I think, you'll find is very low.

          Good for you, however, to have time to work and complain about people making money, all the while making money yourself and investing in your future of money-making, and also haivng time to post on the internet about it wink

          I think you'll find the majority of college protestors fit the bill of what I just described. Those who worked all through school? Probably no extra time to make signs and stand around the fountain with them.

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            To Kathleen and JS,  the average student who works his/her way through college really do not have time to participate in the occupy movement.   They are busy studying and making a better life for themselves.   The average student who works his/her way through college often come from a lower middle, working class, or lower socioeconomic background.  Believe me, these young people are extremely mature and serious about their education.   They know that education is important because they definitely do not want to be poor and see education as a way out of poverty!   

            It is usually the more affluent students with lots of time on their hands and who have never know poverty who are doing the protesting.    It truly amazes me that those who are more affluent tend to  be attracted to socialist and/or communist philosophy.   It must be a subconscious guilt on the part of these affluent young people!    They come from moneyed backgrounds yet hate those who are earning monies!  Really amazing!

            1. kathleenkat profile image91
              kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I once saw a student protest (outside the window of my classroom) that lasted for 4 hours. They stood around the fountain with signs that had dead fetuses on them. Anti-abortion, I guess.

              There are also the students who have time to play games like Humans vs. Zombies all over campus.

              There are also the students who rally for gay pride parades and gender-neutral bathrooms.


              Me? Didn't matter how much I was "for" or "against" something: I went to school all morning, rushed home and left for work to work a 2-11pm shift (because that's the only shift I got with school in the morning). I would do my homework on my lunch break, then do it before bed when I got home. I went to bed whenever I was done with homework. 7am? Repeat.

              No time for bitching and moaning and the unjustices of the world. Spend any amount of time on a college campus, and you can pick out the ones that are there on their own money from the ones that are there on their parent's/student loan money. You can tell the difference between a student who works 10 hours per week on campus, and a student who works 30 hours per week off campus. There are those who sit and eat meals at the cafeteria, and there are those who stand on the sidewalk with a bagged PB&J in one hand, and a book in the other. The ones who had time to make posters and organize protests were not the ones working jobs while going to school; can almost guarantee.

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey, Kathleen, you know it!    I remember while I was in college( I was one of the blessed ones whose parents paid her tuition), there was one student who was rich who complained about her parents' materialism.   Her parents, of course, paid for her tuition.    The other students, some who had to pay their way through college, confronted her, telling her how lucky she was.   One of the students who worked all of her way through college stated that if she had parents like hers, she would kiss the ground they walked on.     Well, I am digressing.   Some affluent students do not know how good they have it!    Let them be poor for a day and see if THEY could survive!  Hmmmmmm! 

                When I was in college, I was in it for the education.   No time for shenigans and nonsense for me.   College protests?  Please, my education was more important.    To me, what is the use of pointless protests.   If I want to make changes, it would be inside the system, after I have learned about the system!     There were youth protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s when I attended college.   Had better things to do like study and get my education!    The protests were not going to get me a job, put food on my table, and/or clothes on my back!    In other words, I had better times to do with my idle time!   

                My suggestion to these young protesters:  Maybe they should volunteer their time tutoring inner city youth, being a Big Brother/Sister, and volunteering in a homeless shelter.    This would be a more constructive use of their time than to aimlessly protest class inequality!

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Cool story.

                I worked 4-1130 after going to class from 8-11 a.m. Had homework and stuff to do as well.

                I still found time to live a life.

                You don't have to alter your whole life, ignore your education or anything like that to take a few minutes out of your time to speak up about a cause you care about.

                I'm pretty sure that the kids who work 30 hours a week work at least one day during the weekend. That frees up an afternoon a week. If you really care about something, spending your free time devoted to that cause is admirable.

                1. Wayne Brown profile image86
                  Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What Kathleen references has been the norm from the 60's onward.  So many of the "Baby Boomer" gneration found their niche protesting the Vietnam War....it became a life-long pursuit for them moving from one cause to another.  Much of what we see in terms of social issues and rabid environmentalism comes from this need to "belong" and to rebell against the establishment.  It is their "badge of intellect"...that social and/or environmental awareness puts them on a shelf about most Americans and give them a sense that their reasoning is one of higher intelligence.  That is okay if it is just about feeling good about self.  Beyond that...they have lost touch with simple common sense.  LIfe experience goes a long way to showing us that our intelligence quotient in our early 20's does not open doors to new knowledge mainly because it ignores too many details and it assumes that the parts they like will remain untounched while they change what they do not like....models do not work that way....most things have a level of interdependence.  If one does not grasp that...then take the back off your watch and try fiddling around with the parts for a while....there is a lot of "interdependence" going on in there.  ~WB

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh look amateur psychology, wonderful.

                    Or you know it could be just that some people care about things and sacrifice the time and effort to try to change them because they are good human beings... nah.

                2. kathleenkat profile image91
                  kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Days like that were my catch-up day, where I would do as much homework ahead of time as I could. Of course, I was an engineering and design double major...

              3. theliz profile image61
                thelizposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I wish I had had this work ethic when I was in college.  My high school education came easy for me, I excelled at academics, and was prioritized by my family as the only "job" I needed.  I look back and wish I had been encouraged to work, earn, save, budget and study, as that is the grind of life.  Now as a thirty something I struggle to hang in on the grind, and lament my early youth as being wasted.

                Good for those who find time to stand up for what they believe in, I wish we all as a humanity would rally behind a cause in greater numbers.  Good for the seed of the Occupy movement being a cry against the promise of the American Dream being muddied and outsourced and politicized away.  Bad for the overall look and air of the occupiers in many cities (they were in my city in large number as well and I saw them regularly) which was more like idealistic street urchins looking for a fight with local law enforcement than educated, disillusioned people with a legit complaint.  It was a mess and an embarrassment and really did nothing for anyone.

    2. twosheds1 profile image59
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It was very constructive. It got us talking about the 1 percent vs. the 99 percent. To the critics, how do you know the occupiers don't have jobs? How do you know anything about them? Don't make blanket statements based on assumptions.

      I do think, though, that they need to take it to the next level. Continued occupation probably won't have much of an effect. Awareness has been raised, so now they need to do something with it.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      With no central organization and helter skelter protests there seems that there was no possible chance of success.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh sure...they learned how to rape and defecate on public property. Just what they wanted to do.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi JS, was that everybody involved who learnt how to rape and defecate on public property, or just one or two?

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh it was more than a couple......

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well how many then? 1% - 10% - 100%?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Here's a short list:

                http://www.verumserum.com/?p=33490


                And it's multiple types of crime.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting, and how many of these offences happened solely because of Occupy and how many would have happened any way?

                  And how do they know about all the unreported crimes?

                  And, considering the numbers involved, not really that much for a society inclined to violence anyway.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well John considering this list was compiled of calls being responded to at Occupy sites I would say all of them had to do with Occupy sites.

                    Now look....we can't go claiming these folks are more peaceful and better educated and so forth and them act as though these things don't fly right straight in the face of that.
                    That list was from almost a year ago just about two months after Occupy started. Have no idea since....

                2. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  JS, there is a documentary regarding the occupy movement.  It is called Occupy Unmasked.   This documentary discusses in detail how the left wing socialists and communists are using the protesters to achieve the former's  goals of a so-called classless society.  The documentary also details the crimes committed during the occupy movement.     The real purpose of the movement is to instigate a class war and later a race war.   This documentary is quite eye opening.    Of course, the movement did not serve any purpose at all.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    big_smile

                    Get a huge amount of young people in a single place for a long time and of course there will be some crimes committed, totally irrelevant.

                    As for Race war big_smile from what i saw there were people of every race under the sun campaigning together, sharing their food etc. the occupy I saw was pretty much a mini hippie commune and while that's not really my scene there was certainly not much warlike potential there tongue or any racial division at all.

                    Every protest particularly protests as big as these have been (and international) have a massive impact they let politicians know what the will of the people is more directly and they are essential to a healthy democracy.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think it funny you find that that is a learned behavior. On the other hand the stars and bars flags and racially charged posters of the Tea Party is possibly in the same category.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Show me some Tea Party racially charged posters, boss.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7204826_f248.jpg


              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7204828_f248.jpg


              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7204830_f248.jpg

              Plenty more if you want, judging the whole Tea Party on the basis of this would be daft... which is precisely what you are doing with the Occupy movement.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well i  guess those are a few,
                Of course the left had these for Bush:

                http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/index … sh+posters

                These are always ignored or justified.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Which is precisely my point, every group will have... lets say people of small intelligence or with anger management problems, it says nothing about the overall make up of the group to point them out and laugh, it's pointless when either side does it.

              2. kathleenkat profile image91
                kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I see no rape or fecal matter, here. Just a bunch of idiots with signs. I have the same opinion towards these individuals as I do any other protesters. Gah, there are more effective ways to make change then stand around with signs.

    4. Onusonus profile image89
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure exactly what their platform is, but I do appreciate the symbolism which represents a truely authentic approach to politics.

      http://sniffits.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/plp.jpg?w=497
      Wait, that's not it.

      http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/museumoflondon/images/microsites/derivatives//exploring/076/mid/99_20.jpg
      Here it is! Oh, hang on a second.

      http://talismanix.com/external/120325_opt/clc_occupy_wall_street_ows_symbol_logo_pendant_99_percent_revolution_necklace_fist_red.jpg
      Ah finally! Show your support in the fight against capitalism with this trendy OWS pendant for the low cost of only $13.66. Act now and get free shipping from whatever third world country they are made in!

      1. kathleenkat profile image91
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't tell Metallica, because judging by their reaction to Napster, they probably wouldn't appreciate this!
        http://991.com/NewGallery/Metallica-St-Anger-Promo-Fl-312927.jpg

        1. Onusonus profile image89
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well I think they'll bounce back.
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/53/Metallica_-_Death_Magnetic_cover.jpg/220px-Metallica_-_Death_Magnetic_cover.jpg
          This one was way better...

    5. mythbuster profile image85
      mythbusterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think the Occupy Movement events on Wall Street were reactionary and didn't come together in terms of "organization and proper call to action."

      I think an impact was made on the consciousness of North Americans by the fact that such a large group of protesters formed, spoke out, etc - however - the "Movement" is different from an "event" involved in the movement.

      Tho' the happenings with Occupy protesters didn't achieve a great deal, they set off a strong "Movement" that is still palpable and dynamic today.

      I think there will be more protest events and if people involved in these wish for the events to create an outcome or "result," then anyone involved will have to be more organized, present reasonable calls to action and also methods by which to move toward the goal that the call to action calls for.

      I do not think the Movement is a waste of time at all, nor the events within the movement... every event can be analyzed for its degree of success in delivering information, calls to action, and methods for following a call to action.

  2. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    I think they got a good education on rape and defecating on public property.

  3. AJReissig profile image86
    AJReissigposted 4 years ago

    I was one of those people who was not blessed to have Mom and Dad pay for college.  It was not that they didn't have the money (they were pretty much middle of the middle class), it was that they didn't believe in it.  So I served in the Army for four years and used the GI bill/Army college fund to help pay for school.  Even though that covered my tuition, I found I had little time for anything other than work or school.

    It has always amazed me that some of the people who have benefited the most from free markets are those who crizisize it the most.  There was a recent cover to Forbest that had Bill Gates, Oprah, and Warren Buffet on it.  Three people who would not be rich if it were not for the free market system...and yet they are hard core liberals who criticize the very system that made them rich.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But see that's rubbish (not the college stuff) the free market is great and it helps us succeed but for most of us in a pure free market system we would never have succeeded for myself I only have a successful business because of the help of a union, I was partially raised in a government orphanage (different government but regardless) etc. etc.

      So with wealthy liberals it's either #1 they were given a helping hand and know the value of it #2 they know how lucky they got #3 they succeeded because of factors most people dont have available to them and they recognize that.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is nothing to say that unions would not exist in a truly free market. Some free marketers might say they are in fact necessary to ensure the workers are receiving the market clearing wage. Free marketers only oppose unions lobbying government to compel businesses to raise wages. Negotiation is above compulsion in our book, which is why we respect right to work.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What planet is that on? Certainly not this one. "Free" marketeers are too busy lobbying government for the right to pay their workers less and governments are too busy sucking up to them to listen to the Unions.

          1. kathleenkat profile image91
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A union is a contract between employer, and employees. Unions have more power than you think. I was part of a workers union once (actually, I was required to join the union, or I would no longer be able to work at the business, as was part of the contract); the union worked to increase wages and benefits, and most recently, prevented certain benefits from being taken away. I withdrew my membership about 3 weeks prior to a mandatory strike, actually. Employers listen to unions because they have to. The government probably doesn't have to listen to unions, but does so if there is any unlawful activity. Usually, the government stays out of employer-union relations.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Stay on track please, Innersmiff was saying that free marketeers only object to unions lobbying governments for wage increases. I was criticising that comment.

              How do you know how much power I think Unions have?

              1. kathleenkat profile image91
                kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Stay on track, please. If you do not wish to discuss unions, do not continue the discussion.


                To my knowledge, the Occupy movement hasn't caused any changes in the way the United States economy works. Wall Street is still oporating as it always has, as far as I know. Thus, they were a little pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How on earth do you get the idea that I do not wish to discuss Unions? I merely pointed out that your comments had absolutely no bearing on mine!

                  And yes, you are wrong to say that the Occupy movement hasn't achieved anything - we are talking about it aren't we? And as they all ways tell us, Rome wasn't built in a day.

                  1. kathleenkat profile image91
                    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, "they" always tell us Rome wasn't built in a day.

                    But Occupy doesn't encourage building, or growth of any kind. They encourage the destruction of the system as it is today. Wall Street has already been built, and has prospered.

                    It can also take a lot less than a day to destroy a city, too. Occupy did not succeed.

              2. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Free marketers by definition do not lobby government, because that would make them cronyists.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There are no free marketeers.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me clarify a little bit. I don't count those who lobby government to relieve restrictions on our lives as crony-ists. They are simply trying to get back what they are entitled to.

                    We have no free market, but I'm sure you'll find many many entrepreneurs and workers who are strong proponents of free markets - I count these as free marketers, e.g. anybody in the liberty movement. But therein lies the problem: we've inherited a culture of government intervention, and frankly a lot of those who don't lobby government to some degree are going to get left behind, even if they don't want to. However, there still exist successful individuals and businesses who have had little to no government assistance because that's how great the market can be.

                    So my point stands, true free market capitalists oppose anybody lobbying government to interfere with the market.

                  2. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And you'll be surprised how much the government listens to the unions. The Labour party, for instance, is still largely influenced by unions. They've interfered with the market a lot when you actually look at it: minimum wage, discrimination laws, anti-trust laws etc. You might not get exactly what you like but you've gotten a lot already. Maybe you're just mad because none of these things have actually achieved lasting change.

          2. Backwater Sage profile image60
            Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ouch! The truth hurts. We need free marketeers that want to make sacrifices so that their workers can make a decent wage.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But what do we get?

              Remember Henry Ford, anti Union but thought his workers ought to be paid enough to be able to afford the goods they made!

              1. Backwater Sage profile image60
                Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                He could have paid more and still been a rich man.

                1. AJReissig profile image86
                  AJReissigposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My wife recently started her own business, an online auction company.  When you figure in the amount of time she is putting in the business, she makes less that $5/hr.  Were it not for the money I make from my job (and my writing on the side), we could not make it.  However, it is our hope that as the business grows, profits will grow and the business will pay off for her.

                  My point is this.  I have seen both the employee and employer side of employment, and I can say this with 100% certainty...being an employee is a cakewalk.  I know there are a lot of people who are employees that work hard at their job (I am one), but most have no clue how hard the people who start businesses work.  While I think the pay of some CEO's is exessive, that is for the company to decide, not an employee.

                  Any of those employees of Ford...or any employee of any company for that matter...is completely free to go out and start their own company.  Once they start their own company they can pay their employees whatever they want.  They can then decide what is "fair".

    2. twosheds1 profile image59
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think you severly misunderstand their positions, if you think they are anti-free market. And what exactly is a free market? Does it exist in the US now? No, it doesn't. There are regulations that limit the freedom of the market. If you sell food, you have to adhere to certain health standards. You have to pay your workers, and provide them with a reasonably safe working environment. You have to have a vendor's license and pay taxes. All of those are limits to a truly "free" market.

      Regarding the people you mentioned, I don't think that they wouldn't have acquired their wealth had their criticisms of our system been made into law. Warren Buffet, for example, has said that taxes should be raised on the upper-income levels. Would he not be rich if that was the case? He's been in business - and wealthy - a very long time, since before taxes on the rich have come down so sharply. Yeah, if they lived in Soviet Russa they wouldn't be rich, but they're not suggesting that we become like Soviet Russia (despite what Fox News reports).

      By your logic, no one should criticize anything the US does, because we have benefitted from its freedoms..

      1. Billy Hicks profile image89
        Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While agree with most of what you have to say, I disagree with your characterization of the "free market system". Free Market doesn't mean anarchy, it doesn't even mean that there can't be regulations (working environment, pay rates, etc.); what it means is that the Government sets the rules and then stays out of the way.

        It means that, for example, if a business get's itself into a position where it's going to go under, you let it. No business is "too big to fail".

      2. AJReissig profile image86
        AJReissigposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        On the contrary, I understand their positions very well; however, it seems you do not understand my position.
        I am in total agreement that we do not have a truely free market in this country.  In fact, it is far less free than it once was.  That is my major criticism of local, state, and federal governments...they need to get out of the way and let the free market work.  If you are objective and look at every major recession this country has had, you will for that the cause has been the government getting involved in the markets (or in some cases, government "help" has turned a mild recession into a major one).

        I see government's role in the market as a very minor one.  Making sure that contracts are upheld (by both parties) is an example of something the government should be doing in the marketplace.  The government should not be setting prices, setting wages, trying to redistribute income, or decideing which products or services are favored or not favored by the government.  A friend of my said it best when he told me all he wants out of the federal government is for it to defend our borders and run the judicial system.  Other than that, leave me the **** alone.  I think he hit the nail on its head.

        1. Onusonus profile image89
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I find it interesting that when a stimulus package comes out the government acts like they created jobs when the only thing they did was to take money from one group and give it to another. Keynesian economics simply creates a false economy. It dupes small business owners into opening little shops that sell things that people wouldn't normally buy if the government didn't cut everyone a check. The store eventually goes bankrupt and closes it's doors unless another stimulus package gets handed out.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Stimulus does not rely on more stimulus to continue it creates it's own demand and growth becomes self sustaining.

            Money goes to poor person therefore
            poor person can spend more money therefore
            their local shop has more business therefore
            they can employ more people and open new shops therefore
            demand for certain goods increases therefore
            the mines, farms and factories that produce those goods raise production therefore
            more businesses open to compete for that demand therefore
            wealth is created and prices fall therefore
            the poor person who now has a job spends more money therefore
            the growth continues and becomes self sustaining ad infinitum.

            It really is indisputable logic, that is the only thing that can happen given sufficient stimulus.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So why didn't the first stimulus cause all that?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Basically it did but not to a massive extent because basically the stimulus was too small and in my opinion not given to the right people.

                The UN and IMF have both placed Australia as the most successful country in dealing with the recession, they in fact prevented a recession completely and continued to grow by providing large stimulus directly to the people who would spent it fastest and thus incentivise the economy most, the poor, this culminated with the government giving any employed Australian one thousand dollars up front and it was a complete success unfortunately we Americans have a habit of not looking outwards and not taking the advice of international expert bodies.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Where did they get the thousand dollars?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Revenue and borrowing I believe, mostly revenue. It's a lot easier to stimulate an economy when you don't get an economy that has a massive debt already.

  4. Backwater Sage profile image60
    Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago

    .Unemployment is real close to 20% in Florida. The way they figure the stats is goofy. They only count people receiving unemployment. You have heard that they don't count those who quit looking. Not many people quit looking. There are thousands who have no job or unemployment.

    A long way? Remember, they were partying in Babylon the night they saw the writing on the wall. It doesn't take long to collapse.

    Amazon? That's good for now. The trucks are still running.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry man, they don't believe the Babylon thing anyway.

      1. Backwater Sage profile image60
        Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I hear you, but it is still a good literary reference. I suppose that would even be repulsive to some, though. Think of the season we are in.

  5. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    @JS Charms, re your comment about infiltration. We have teams of police in the UK which are know as Forward Intelligence Teams, FIT for short (the acronym may possibly give some indication of their true purpose) Their role is to infiltrate political groups, befriend activists, incite violence and public order offences which they have carefully choreographed. Then blame the activists.

    If you don't believe me that's fine. I'm off to find a link of a well reported case where a Fit's member was undercover for a longtime, developed romantic relationships with female activists, and also encouraged them to commit offences. I'll get the link now. It's disgusting and it should never happen, I agree with you there, but not everyone thinks the way that we do. Just because we *wouldn't* does not mean that it *doesn't* happen.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is just one example, if you need more I can get them for you.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/2 … -activists

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh it's ok Hollie. I am not aware of such units here in the states.
      They may or may not exist here.
      Perhaps part of my beliefs on these things go back to my youth in the sixties where there were definitely no such thing and the demonstrators were the ones perpetrating the violence.
      Many of those same folks are big cheerleaders if not participators in the whole Occupy thing. It's what they do.
      Actually I find it rather amusing that a group of people is still doing all this crap when they are basically....no the ARE ....in power. They are demonstrating themselves.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah yes, because EVERYONE listens to college kids....

        1. kathleenkat profile image91
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Berkely protests in the 60s were very well heard, Cody.

        2. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey that one professor you had with the silver ponytail. You listened to him a lot didn't you?

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Never trust "Those People" with a ponytail. Still doesn't get it. What a shame.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I get a lot more than you know.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am sure you do but your inuendo in the answers and explanations to the forum are loaded with judgement and demeaning riffs. I hear an intelligence in your writing but I wish you would attack the ideas rather than the source.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok, judgmental and demeaning?
                  What I am seeing with the Occupy is an attempt to bring back the good old demonstrations of the Sixties.
                  Now...here's the Democrat Party Who ARE IN POWER!
                  When this happened before Nixon was in power. I understood more when they weren't pulling the strings but any problems they are having now? They need to go look n the mirror. They have had Barack and the majority of the Senate and House for four years and even got the Chief Justice to go along with them.
                  I can promise you that wasn't happening forty odd years ago.
                  So oh un-judgemental and non-demeaning one......why do they think they have to do these things and why do the American people have to be subjugated to it? What is it they think they want? That they can't get if they will it?

  6. ITcoach profile image60
    ITcoachposted 4 years ago

    Hi Everyone,
    I am also the voter of the opinion that Both were the wastage of time. No fruitful result were gained from these two movements as well.

  7. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    purpose is "no purpose"

  8. 0
    ITALIANATHEARTposted 4 years ago

    I think it was worth it.  It made a statement of what a lot of people were thinking.  That is one of things that makes America great people taking a stand to make it right.

  9. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago

    Occupy was really destructive. Cost the city of Oakland a couple of million it didn't have.

    Free market needs to be defined here.  Free means free.  It doesn't mean businesses burdened by the Environmental Protection Agency and all sorts of rules and regulations.
    Heard a story Monday where a lady decided to sell her home, her loan was upside down.  She asked her bank for a short sale.  The bank was B of A.  They had sold her loan to Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac, so they asked them for permission . Franny and Freddy had given B of A permission to act as their agents .   The sale was approved by B of A acting as agents for F&F the house sold, all the money got to everyone that needed to be paid, the deed was recorded, the new owners moved into their new home, then Freddy and Franny denied the short sale and they lost the house. 
    This is an instance of rules and regulations having gone wrong.    There is a big law suit ensuing that will be interesting to watch. The point is we don't have free market in this country.  So there can't be free marketers lobbying.

  10. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7212191_f248.jpg

 
working