It's very flattering, for this Tea Partier anyway, to hear that the Occupy Wall Streeters believe they are copying Tea Party methods in order to emulate its success.
Aside from the obvious incongruities (no Tea Party event has ever done anything like try to take over the Brooklyn Bridge), there is an even more important difference. Typical Tea Partiers turn out for a specific event - and then go home. But the occupation of lower Manhattan has gone on for weeks. Who is paying those folks to camp out? Don't any of them have jobs or other obligations? Do you think we'll ever find out?
Who is paying those folks to camp out? Don't any of them have jobs or other obligations? Do you think we'll ever find out?
ReplyDelete-------
So people need to have a job and/or money to have a voice?
Good to know.
Camping out in a public park for weeks on end is not the only way to make your voice heard. In fact, many Americans - among them the Tea Partiers - have found other, much more effective ways to do so.
ReplyDeleteSo now you are critiquing their method?
ReplyDeleteThey're doing an OK job so far. Getting people talking. You wrote a blog post about them.
If they dressed up nice and organized according to your rules you still would find a way to criticize.
Rather than listen.
Let me attempt to comment on the "don't they have jobs or obligations" question.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to tell PRECISELY what the Wall Street protest is about. There's some kind of unofficial website with a list of demands. Among them are student debt forgiveness, all debt forgiveness, and getting rid of credit reporting agencies.
It's not unreasonable to ask if the people making these demands are working toward paying off their obligations (debts). Or do they want someone else to pay for their obligations with no effort on their own part?
---
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to tell PRECISELY what the Wall Street protest is about. There's some kind of unofficial website with a list of demands. Among them are student debt forgiveness, all debt forgiveness, and getting rid of credit reporting agencies.
---
Fair enough, but a few things.
(1). That was a proposed list by a small group. Not unlike when the Tea Party was getting started and had many ideas floating all over the place.
(2). Here is a few things from the Official Press release: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
Note the difference. I find it striking that some of the demands are the same as what the Tea Party was calling for, such as more accountability.
Seems you don't want to talk about that and instead focus on poking holes.
---
It's not unreasonable to ask if the people making these demands are working toward paying off their obligations (debts).
---
Maybe they are but can't work to pay the debts off because there are no jobs. Or on permanent disability, etc. It seems silly to just assume that the baseline demands that they are making are for freebies. I doubt that. The vast majority of the folk there HAVE worked in the system as was told to them.
---
Or do they want someone else to pay for their obligations with no effort on their own part?
---
See above. You seem to assume all the protesters are the same.
Look, if you are going to disallow discussion then don't host comments.
ReplyDeleteWhen people reply in a respectful manner and then you delete them, it shows that you are unwilling to engage and that your argument is probably faulty.
Stop pretending. Just don't have comments and then your worldview will be clean of facts, logic, and reasoning.
Calm down. No one deleted your comments, as far as I know. I administer the blog, and I didn't do it. Blogger is capricious sometimes, and I've lost many a comment on other blogs because of it.
ReplyDeleteYour comment was caught in Blogger's spam filter, crisque. I found it and published it. It might have been snagged there because you included a URL in your comment.
ReplyDeleteAs to the substance of your comment...On the one hand, you accuse us of making sweeping generalizations about the protestors, but on the other hand, you are willing to do the same ("The vast majority of the folk there HAVE worked in the system as was told to them.")
As to calls for accountability, I'm all for accountability. How about some accountability in government -- on the Solyndra or Fast and Furious scandals, for a start? Or even on who has run up the most federal debt?
Since you provided a URL, here's one I recently liked: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/letter-new-york-city-protestors
Thanks. I'll take back what I said.
ReplyDeleteAs for what you wrote here:
---
On the one hand, you accuse us of making sweeping generalizations about the protestors, but on the other hand, you are willing to do the same ("The vast majority of the folk there HAVE worked in the system as was told to them.")
---
Then you rewrite your statements so that you are not asking questions like "Who is paying those folks to camp out? Don't any of them have jobs or other obligations? Do you think we'll ever find out?" and I'll take back my statement.
---
As to calls for accountability, I'm all for accountability. How about some accountability in government -- on the Solyndra or Fast and Furious scandals, for a start? Or even on who has run up the most federal debt?
---
Fair enough. Let's ask those questions but also ask why it is better to give tax cuts rather than actually fix our bridges and roads. Or why we deregulated Wall Street to the point where impending collapses are a regular occurrence.
Crisque -- or is that C. Risque?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow you. You want me to retract a generalization by my blog partner...because I point out your critique of generalizations doesn't apply to yourself?
You also want to know why "it is better to give tax cuts rather than actually fix our bridges and roads...and why we "deregulated Wall Stree to the point where impending collapses are a regular occurrence."
For a critic of sweeping generalizations, you seem to like to use them a lot.
I'd love to see our bridges and roads fixed. I don't believe raising taxes does that...especially in an economy like this one where jobs (and the revenues they produce) are doing so poorly. So, I believe our first priority has to be getting people back to work in jobs primarily created by the private sector.
I also think you overgeneralize a great deal when you claim impending collapses are a "regular occurrence."
Crisque -- or is that C. Risque?
ReplyDelete---------
Crisque is kool.
---------
I'm not sure I follow you. You want me to retract a generalization by my blog partner...because I point out your critique of generalizations doesn't apply to yourself?
---------
What I am saying is that it is unfair to make any assertion about the protesters. This blog now have several posts questioning whether they are fulfilling their debt obligations. Except the job market is practically non-existent so they CAN'T fulfill their obligation.
-------
I'd love to see our bridges and roads fixed. I don't believe raising taxes does that...especially in an economy like this one where jobs (and the revenues they produce) are doing so poorly. So, I believe our first priority has to be getting people back to work in jobs primarily created by the private sector.
--------
OK, so you agree that there are things that can be done right away that (1) will fix the economy and (2) fulfill a need?
If so, then why not get it done? The private sector already is sitting on massive amounts of cash, but they are not spending due to no demand.
Tax cuts, like what Pres. Bush has tried in his first term, only stimulate growth to a point.
Why not try a different approach?
Now, now, C.Risque, you say it's unfair to make any assertions re: the protesters, but you tell us (with no qualifiers) that they can't fulfill debt obligations because "the job market is practically non-existent."
ReplyDeleteYes, the job market is awful, with high unemployment. What is it the proestors want? To have their debts forgiven? Read Megan McArdle's article on the idea of a "debt jubilee" for student loan debt. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of how that would affect the economy.
You also posit that "The private sector already is sitting on massive amounts of cash, but they are not spending due to no demand.Tax cuts, like what Pres. Bush has tried in his first term, only stimulate growth to a point.Why not try a different approach?"
What, precisely, is the different approach? Are you talking about the current jobs bill that the president is pressing for? Even Harry Reid can't muster the votes for that, which is why he's kept Republicans in the Senate from introducing it -- he doesn't want to embarrass the president with Democratic "no" votes.
Now, now, C.Risque, you say it's unfair to make any assertions re: the protesters, but you tell us (with no qualifiers) that they can't fulfill debt obligations because "the job market is practically non-existent."
ReplyDeleteYes, the job market is awful, with high unemployment. What is it the proestors want? To have their debts forgiven? Read Megan McArdle's article on the idea of a "debt jubilee" for student loan debt. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of how that would affect the economy.
-------
If you want to get technical, that's fair. I'll amend my position this way:
The vast majority of protestors who have mountains of debt can't pay off their obligation because of the sour job market.
And, as a side-note, there wasn't any major demands about debt forgiveness. A blog post in their forums don't count, as that is just one protester. There wasn't a major communique about debt-forgiveness at all.
-----------
You also posit that "The private sector already is sitting on massive amounts of cash, but they are not spending due to no demand.Tax cuts, like what Pres. Bush has tried in his first term, only stimulate growth to a point.Why not try a different approach?"
What, precisely, is the different approach? Are you talking about the current jobs bill that the president is pressing for? Even Harry Reid can't muster the votes for that, which is why he's kept Republicans in the Senate from introducing it -- he doesn't want to embarrass the president with Democratic "no" votes.
-----------
Why not a strict bill that funds the repairs of roads and bridges? A national project, similar to the project President Eisenhower oversaw, that completely revamped all of our roads and bridges. Right now.
That's one, right off of the top of my head. It can be combined with other ideas but why not a national commitment to fixing ALL of the major roads and bridges?