Occupy Wall Street Movement: An American Spring

[FayeforCure]

What Occupy Wall Street Wants

Posted: 10/5/11 01:23 PM ET

There has been a whole lot of talk about how the thousands of brave protestors occupying Wall St. have no clear demand. Funny, since this is just one more installment of a global movement for democracy that has taken over the entire planet -- you'd think the press would have caught on by now.

Almost a year ago, a revolution began in Tunisia and sparked a domino of uprisings across the Middle East. Their call was simple: end the dictatorship, usher in accountable government. Through occupation and all out war, countries in the Middle East attempted to topple leaders who clung to power despite representing the interests of the richest and most powerful to the detriment of the public good.

Months later, Europe exploded. Sit-ins in Spain and ongoing rallies in Greece protested economic policies that rewarded the richest 1% while punishing the other 99%. Then London and the surrounding areas erupted into riots: an expression of outrage at rising housing and food costs. Israelis established a massive tent city in Jerusalem protesting the same rise in the cost of living, and the government's stubborn refusal to pass laws that promote the common good and support the survival of the other 99%. Now, the United States and Canada have joined the fray.

Each and every demand in the occupy Wall St. protests and their kin relate to accountability. It is the latest in a global realization that our governments are held hostage by the rich and powerful, our laws and safeguards protect those rich and powerful rather than protecting the rest of us, and our leaders have no motivation to change the status quo.

Democracy is a word we throw around a lot, but it's not one that is very well understood. It's not enough to cast a ballot every four years. Democracy is a system of accountable governance -- a pledge that leaders will represent the interests of those they govern, will protect the weakest in society, and will steward collective resources (like our water and air) to ensure a sustainable future for all of us. It relies on a free press to help inform citizens of governmental action. It relies on freedom of assembly and movement to allow citizens to communicate directly with their representatives.

It is this pure notion of democracy that each and every protestor, from Tahrir Square to Wall St. is after.

So, it's not enough to study Occupy Wall St. as an American anomaly with a surprising lack of cohesion and a fascinating list of diverse demands. It can't be splintered off or explained away. This is the next phase of a global push for real democracy. And, given the poor state of democracy in the United States, it's no surprise cities are exploding with outrage, citizens are on the street, and a national movement has captured the imagination of the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/what-occupy-wall-street-w_b_996412.html

Beautifully said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FayeforCure]

October 6th, 2011

04:00 PM ET
Are the protests spreading across the U.S. the sign of an 'American Spring'?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Today is the 20th day of protests down on Wall Street ... and the movement is picking up steam all across the country.

The demonstrators are critical of the growing economic gap in the United States. They say they take their inspiration from the "Arab Spring" protests that overthrew governments and dictators and continue to cause massive chaos across the Middle East and North Africa.

But in the beginning, barely anyone even noticed. There were a few hundred people with signs, peacefully walking around Manhattan's Financial District, talking about corporate greed and inequality.

And when they were finally noticed, they weren't taken seriously. Reporters made fun of them, saying they didn't even know what they protesting about.

Well, now the unions are joining in and supporting them, and the crowds are suddenly starting to look like this. There were thousands of protesters in Lower Manhattan on Wednesday. There have been hundreds of arrests.

And it's not just New York. Protesters are beginning to take to the streets nationwide, including in Los Angeles; Boston; San Francisco; Denver; Chicago; Seattle; Spokane, Washington; Philadelphia; Houston; Dallas; Tampa; St. Louis; Savannah, Georgia; Hartford, Connecticut; and Washington.

This isn't a joke, and the media would be well advised to take them seriously. Their grievances are real, their numbers are growing, and the rest of us would be well advised to pay attention.

So far, these protests have been peaceful, for the most part. So far. But the more they spread and grow, the bigger a problem it becomes for Washington.

Our federal government should take note. Protests over economic conditions and government cutbacks have turned violent elsewhere in the world. People will only take so much.

Here’s my question to you: Are the protests spreading across the U.S. the sign of an "American Spring"?


http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/06/are-the-protests-spreading-across-the-u-s-the-sign-of-an-american-spring-2/

[FayeforCure]

This is for BT who wanted more specifics on the OCCUPYWALLSTREET Action:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"
1.
CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassâ€"Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glassâ€"Steagall Act of 1933 by the Grammâ€"Leachâ€"Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007â€"2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassâ€"Steagall_Act#Repeal .


2.
USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

3.
CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

4.
CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

5.
CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

6.
CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7.
CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

8.
ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.


NOTE 1: This is from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail":

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

[BridgeTroll]

Thank you Faye...

Regarding point 1:  You mean the law passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Point 2: 

PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice.

The President said yesterday that no laws were broken...  More importantly... WHO are these "clear cut group" of shadowy criminals?

Point 3: 

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

Really?  I am all for using the process of attempting to amend the Constitution.

Point 4:  Corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world.  I support closing loopholes... even those created and supported by democrats.

Point 5: OK... I guess.

Point 6:  You sound like a lobbyist yourself.  So groups of people should not be allowed to propose bills to Congress??  Really??

Point 7:  Really??  THAT would be an interesting piece of legislation... Barring people from working in a private company.

Point 8:  Glad you brought that up... It is silly that corporations are persons... yet... unborn humans are not.  We should fix both of those with one swing of the axe.

Thanks again Faye... I appreciate this... um... er... clarification.

[hillary supporter]

BridgeTroll, Ive been reading throughout the thread and it seems as if you have yet to get a satisfactory answer to your question. The paradox of dealing with corporations is that the entity is liable for prosecution,and no one else, not to insult you, I'm sure you realize this. The corporations are immune from criminal prosecution,only civil prosecution. And then, in a civil court setting, only when damages can be assessed in $$$$ terms. Hence, in the meltdown of 2008, its impossible to hold a party responsible in $$$$ terms for the unprecedented damage done.And then, who was "damaged"? Who receives any awards?
Added to the fact that without corporations themselves (no pun intended) our modern world just wouldn't exist.
This being said, corporations dont have "morals", in which the huge number of Americans today are just understanding so as they see how those financial corps utilize that so they can very effectively and legally remove families from their homes, kick up credit rates to customers to pay off debt, etc. As unmoral as it is, its very legal. And those people are protesting against such by centering around they only place these corporations can be seen as the shadowy criminals (paradox... only people can be criminals... one who is punished in a criminal court) that the huge number see them as, Wall Street.

[BridgeTroll]

BridgeTroll, Ive been reading throughout the thread and it seems as if you have yet to get a satisfactory answer to your question. The paradox of dealing with corporations is that the entity is liable for prosecution,and no one else, not to insult you, I'm sure you realize this. The corporations are immune from criminal prosecution,only civil prosecution. And then, in a civil court setting, only when damages can be assessed in $$$$ terms. Hence, in the meltdown of 2008, its impossible to hold a party responsible in $$$$ terms for the unprecedented damage done.And then, who was "damaged"? Who receives any awards?
Added to the fact that without corporations themselves (no pun intended) our modern world just wouldn't exist.
This being said, corporations dont have "morals", in which the huge number of Americans today are just understanding so as they see how those financial corps utilize that so they can very effectively and legally remove families from their homes, kick up credit rates to customers to pay off debt, etc. As unmoral as it is, its very legal. And those people are protesting against such by centering around they only place these corporations can be seen as the shadowy criminals (paradox... only people can be criminals... one who is punished in a criminal court) that the huge number see them as, Wall Street.

Thank you HS.  As you assumed... I do understand what you described... and you certainly did it better than I could have.  That said...  Point 2 seems rather silly.  Don't you agree?

PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice.

Faye also uses the term "corporatists" as if they are individuals... someone to be prosecuted.  Just asking who these people are.

I also object to Faye and others rhetoric implying that these perceived problems are somehow republican when in fact both parties have enjoyed creating the system we now have.

points 3 - 8 come under the heading of... "watch out what you wish for... you just might get it"...

[FayeforCure]

I also object to Faye and others rhetoric implying that these perceived problems are somehow republican when in fact both parties have enjoyed creating the system we now have.

BT, how many times have I not said that Republicans are all about "protecting" the corporatists as in "profits over people," and theDems roll over and play dead............thus making them the great enablers generally speaking.

Maybe the following piece will convince you that despite Republicans being clear about their Pro-Corporatist protecting policies as the integral part of their ideology, Dems including Obama have participated in much of the same policies despite spouting Pro-People rhetoric.

Friday, October 07, 2011

Paul Krugman: Confronting the Malefactors


"How can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?":

Confronting the Malefactors, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NYTimes: There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people. ... Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate... In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst â€" but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support â€" and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts â€" behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand? ... It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. ... Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment â€" not more tax cuts â€" to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

And there are real political opportunities here. ... Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

[FayeforCure]

Faye also uses the term "corporatists" as if they are individuals... someone to be prosecuted.  Just asking who these people are.

If only they could be prosecuted, sigh.........but much of what they do is actually legal due to lawmakers allowing it to be legal.

I cannot describe it any better than the following piece, and BTW BT I think you bring up a good point.............what and who are the corporatists..............since we've all become very familiar with those "welfare queens" in the past, it is incumbent upon us to fully realize what and who the corporatists are, since they pose a present and current danger to the well-being of our nation:


Posted: September 16, 2009 01:08 PM

Corporatists vs. Capitalists



Read More:Capitalism, Capitalism: a Love Story, Capitalists, Conservatives, Corporations, Corporatists, Democrats, Health Care Industry, Health Care Reform, Mainstream Media, Max Baucus, Media, Public Option, Republicans, Politics News


When I heard the word "corporatist" a couple of years ago, I laughed. I thought what a funny, made up, liberal word. I fancy myself a die-hard capitalist, so it seemed vaguely anti-business, so I was put off by it.

Well, as it turns out, it's a great word. It perfectly describes a great majority of our politicians and the infrastructure set up to support the current corporations in the country. It is not just inaccurate to call these people and these corporations capitalists; it is in fact the exact opposite of what they are.

Capitalists believe in choice, free markets and competition. Corporatists believe in the opposite. They don't want any competition at all. They want to eliminate the competition using their power, their entrenched position and usually the politicians they've purchased. They want to capture the system and use it only for their benefit.

I don't blame them. They're trying to make a buck. And it's a hell of a lot easier making money when you don't have competition or truly free markets or consumer choice. All of these corporations would absolutely love it if they were the only choice a consumer had.

Blaming the corporations for this is a little silly. It's like blaming a man for breathing or a scorpion for stinging. That's what they do. In fact, they are legally bound to make their best effort at not just crushing the competition, but eliminating it. Lack of competition will lead to making more money (presumably for their shareholders; though realistically it winds up being for their executives these days).

As the saying goes, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." We have to understand how this system works and then account for the abuses that are likely to arise out of it. I don't hate the scorpion for stinging but I also wouldn't put a bunch of them in my bed. And I wouldn't take kindly to someone else putting them there, either.

Politicians are very cheap to buy (and senators from smaller states are even easier to buy - great bang for your buck). So, obviously corporations are going to look to buy them so they can pass laws to kill off their competition. If you don't understand this, you're being at least a little bit dense.

You should lose significant credibility as a journalist if you're naïve enough to believe that corporations would not do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Come on, can anyone really believe that? Yet, in today's media atmosphere, saying politicians are in the back pocket of the corporate lobbyists who raise the most money for them is seen as an unacceptable comment. Anyone who challenges the system is portrayed as an outsider, fringe element who must be treated with scorn and shunned. We are told in earnest tones we must trust the corporations and not question the motives of the politicians.

The sensible approach would be to recognize the problem and figure out a way to avoid it the best we can. Money always finds a way in, but we can at least be cognizant of the issue and try to combat it as much as possible. We must do this as citizens who care about our democracy, but we must also do it as capitalists.

I believe in the capitalist system. I think it makes sense and it is attuned to human nature. People do not work to the best of their ability and take only as much as they need. They work as little as humanly possible and take as much as humanly possible. Capitalism helps to funnel these natural impulses in a positive, hopefully productive manner.

But in order to have capitalism we must have choice. If consumers do not have different companies to choose from, if the markets aren't truly free and there is no real competition, then you kill capitalism. Corporations are a natural byproduct of capitalism, but as soon as they are born they want to destroy their parent. Corporations are the Oedipus of the capitalist system.

In order for capitalism to work, they must not be allowed to succeed. We must guard capitalism jealously.

So, it is of the utmost importance that we watch politicians with a very wary eye. Campaign contributions are a tiny expense to a large corporation. And the politicians treasure them too much. It is an easy sale. So, beware of politicians receiving gifts.

The perfect example of this is the health care reform debate going on now. And perhaps there is no better example of a politician who works for his corporate overlords than Max Baucus, who has received nearly three million dollars from the health care industry.

I don't blame the health care companies. I would do the same thing in their position. In fact, it is their fiduciary responsibility to buy an important (and cheap) senator like Max Baucus (he's cheap because he comes from the small state of Montana, where it is far less expensive to buy ads and crush your political competition with money they cannot possibly match).

If the health care companies can eliminate their competition, they'll make a lot more money. That is why there is so little competition among corporations in so many parts of the country now and why they are desperate to avoid the public option. ( we have an oligopolistic system where prices are upwardly rigged)

They'd have to be stupid and negligent not to buy Max Baucus. He is the head of the Finance Committee and in charge of writing the most touted and awaited version of the health care bill.

I don't blame them, I blame us. How stupid and negligent are we to let that guy write this bill? The media should be treating Baucus and many of the other senators (who all get millions from the health care industry) with enormous skepticism. Instead, they are treating them as if they are honest actors who would never be affected by all that money.

They treat their concerns as if they are legitimate issues. The Republicans and the corporatist Democrats pretend to be fiscal conservatives who care about the budget when they are trying to kill the most important cost constraint in the whole bill - the public option. If you're a budget hawk, that's the last thing you'd kill, not the first. That's what keeps our costs down.

You see, these politicians betrayed their real motives in this debate. They made it crystal clear that they are not, in fact, conservatives or moderates or centrists or even capitalists. They are corporatists. They look out for the interests of the corporations that pay them above all else. Capitalists believe in competition. They believe it lowers costs and gives consumers better choices.

So, I would ask the media to please stop calling these politicians conservatives or even capitalists. And could you please look out for the rather obvious fact that they might not be working for us but for the people who pay them?

Of course, the media outlets might be able to better recognize this if large corporations didn't also own them. But that probably wouldn't affect their judgment either, would it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/corporatists-vs-capitalis_b_288718.html

[hillary supporter]

BridgeTroll, Ive been reading throughout the thread and it seems as if you have yet to get a satisfactory answer to your question. The paradox of dealing with corporations is that the entity is liable for prosecution,and no one else, not to insult you, I'm sure you realize this. The corporations are immune from criminal prosecution,only civil prosecution. And then, in a civil court setting, only when damages can be assessed in $$$$ terms. Hence, in the meltdown of 2008, its impossible to hold a party responsible in $$$$ terms for the unprecedented damage done.And then, who was "damaged"? Who receives any awards?
Added to the fact that without corporations themselves (no pun intended) our modern world just wouldn't exist.
This being said, corporations dint have "morals", in which the huge number of Americans today are just understanding so as they see how those financial corps utilize that so they can very effectively and legally remove families from their homes, kick up credit rates to customers to pay off debt, etc. As unmoral as it is, its very legal. And those people are protesting against such by centering around they only place these corporations can be seen as the shadowy criminals (paradox... only people can be criminals... one who is punished in a criminal court) that the huge number see them as, Wall Street.

Thank you HS.  As you assumed... I do understand what you described... and you certainly did it better than I could have.  That said...  Point 2 seems rather silly.  Don't you agree?

PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice.

Faye also uses the term "corporatist" as if they are individuals... someone to be prosecuted.  Just asking who these people are.

I also object to Faye and others rhetoric implying that these perceived problems are somehow republican when in fact both parties have enjoyed creating the system we now have.

points 3 - 8 come under the heading of... "watch out what you wish for... you just might get it"...

Yes, #2 seems not possible, and not legal. If it could be done, it would have been done a long time ago. This really is the essence of Occupy WallStreet. Since its impossible to prosecute corporations as criminals (in criminal court) combined with who is the damaged parties and how would one "award America for damages", when no laws were broken, the protesters are essentially mounting a symbolic gesture against "the financial sector" which, as close as one can figure, exists on Wall Street.
I support this point of theirs vigorously, and will do the only thing i can do by being at the protest here downtown. Now, that's just me, my personal feelings. If one chooses not to, they can. I believe many who choose not to still share with me the resentment towards those corporations and, just as important, the paradox which presents such a feeling of helplessness. I feel that, for those that feel such an act is foolish (since there is really nothing concrete to accomplish) let us note that the circumstances in Europe, which when combined has a larger economy than ours, are turning for the worst. All the major financial corps are involved in this. I'm hoping that an undeniably strong showing today will make the Congress deal much more harsher, ( or should i say much less naive?) terms when they knock on DCs door. Which they will.
 

[BridgeTroll]

So... is it all corporations?  Or just a few?  Someone used Apple as an example earlier... would Steve Jobs be considered a corporatist?

[hillary supporter]

No. its not all corporations. As i said before without corporations, the world today wouldn't exist. Even (modern) socialist countries today have corporations. Its abilities to handle risk as allowed humanity to move forward in an astronomical manner ever since its inception after the civil war.
While i accept its "drawbacks" i. e. Noam Chomsky's defining that "if a corporation was indeed a human being, as it has all the Rights, it would be in a hospital as a sociopath", again, the accomplishments far outrank its negatives. Chomsky himself must accept the fact that he receives a salary from none other than M.I.T. one of the biggest benefactors of US defence contracts. Hence the paradox that precedes us today.

[Jumpinjack]

http://www.youtube.com/v/MbykzqJ6ens

[FayeforCure]

Watch Video here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44823732#44823732



>> we got the employment report for september this morning. it was better than the experts expected. employers added 103,000 workers to their payrolls, though that number included verizon workers that went back to their jobs after a strike. unemployment rate stayed steady. 9.1%. but that's part of the battle cry of the protest movement occupy wall street which has spread far beyond new york city. our report from nbc's chris jansing.

>> reporter:  the demonstrations have lasted so long and expanded so widely that even with a few funny outfits, they are hard to ignore.

>> occupy wall street.

>> reporter:  occupy wall street, a protest against economic and social inequality has spawned organized marches in 45 states. in just the last 24 hours-- protests from houston to washington, d.c. hundreds took over a los angeles intersection. 4,000 marched in portland. and in tampa, raucus demonstrators descended on the banking district.

>> we are the 99%.

>> reporter:  the protesters, not always who you would expect.

>> i had a $100,000 a year salary job.

>> reporter:  buddy bolton lost his job a year ago. frustration brought him to lower manhattan.

>> i think it's our arab spring. it's our opportunity as citizens to let the government know the system is in need of repair.

>> reporter:  occupy wall street is drawing historical comparisons.

>> the first stage of any movement is a lot of people showing how unhappy they are at the situation. civil rights movement, the anti-war movements. if it lasts long enough and is organized well, it could become a mass movement.

>> reporter:  money could help. supporters have dropped thousands of dollars into buckets on the street. 11 days ago, occupy wall street got tax exempt status and quickly raised at least $50,000, most of it online.

>> it's compelling to see how quickly things have grown and taken off. what it means is that the burden of responsibility is now on us.

>> reporter:  experts say leaders need to emerge with a plan to use that cash and harness all that energy before rage can turn to revolution. and here in new york tonight, there are hundreds of protesters. some have been here all 21 days. while there are skeptics, the organizers here say they are not going away. brian?

>> chris jansing in lower manhattan

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#44823732

[ronchamblin]

Thanks for gathering the informative material FayeforCure.  I am overjoyed with the emerging movement.  Whereas the beginning was awkward, the end will be clear.  There may be hesitations, sidetracked energies, and appearances of failure, but the truth of the absurdities and abuses on the eighty percent is so formidable that a clear picture will finally emerge for all to see; and the pressure of need, of justice, and propriety will force the changes our population deserves and demands.

Many ....  the protesters, the bloggers, the columnists, the posters, are working a large painting, each welding the brush according to ability and inclination; but as colors and details are refined, as truth emerges, as the walls of secrecy are destroyed, and as the painting approaches completion, only the totally blind will avoid seeing the beauty of it.     

[dougskiles]

Many ....  the protesters, the bloggers, the columnists, the posters, are working a large painting, each welding the brush according to ability and inclination; but as colors and details are refined, as truth emerges, as the walls of secrecy are destroyed, and as the painting approaches completion, only the totally blind will avoid seeing the beauty of it.     

Wow - you really are gifted with words.  And, you are 100% correct.  Thanks for your insightfulness, Ron.  I love reading your posts.