Occupy Wall Street is a movement that has been growing nationwide over the past several weeks. While some criticize this growing movement as having no definitive policy agenda or organized platform, the activists involved are generally organized against corporate greed, social inequality and other disparities between rich and poor.
These protests have continued to attract support from many around the nation as well as increasing media attention. Take a look at a good summary of this protest movement from the NY Times here and, if you are interested, you can look at the movement's main website here or livestream of events here. Also I suggest you look through a very interesting photo blog running of hundreds of supporters of the movement (identified as "the other 99 percent, as opposed to the top 1% of extremely wealthy Americans) sharing their stories here. Finally there is a very interesting visual description of why these protesters are so upset that gives some good data, which you can find here.
After reading and perusing through this information the growing movement (and there is much much more out there) please start a discussion using the following prompts as a starting point:
- To what extend to you support the protests?
- Do you believe that this movement is going to affect the political agenda of the President or GOP candidates? If yes, in what way? If no, why not?
I think that what they are doing is commendable. They are exercising their rights as citizens to protest an injustice. They are angry and have a right to voice their opinions. However, as the movement currently stands, as a diverse "leaderless" group, there is no overarching agenda. Therefore, it is doubtful that they will achieve any lasting success as the want of one group or individual may not be the want of another. I believe that eventually (as is happening in other cities across the US) people will get annoyed with the protests interfering with their daily lives. They will pressure their elected officials to do something, causing the protests to disband. In regards to having an affect on policy, candidates can not pander to every constituent as it is inefficient and does not lead to results. However, it is possible for them to respond to groups of citizens with the same complaint. OWS can be such a group. If they were to band together behind a couple of overarching ideas, they may have some success as politicians are able to see where they stand in contrast to OWS, enabling an assessment of the status quo leading towards a rectification of the problem.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the Occupy Wall Street Movement I am filled with mixed emotions. On the one hand I believe that the wealthy Americans have earned their money and they should not have to pay more tax then they are already required to. However on the other hand I sympathize for those Americans who are not living comfortably and are lacking financial means and some of them if not most of them whom are jealous of the wealthy Americans.But the latter disturbed me more, therefore I support the idea of the movement. However I DO NOT support the people within the movement that believe they will make their point through violence. I think the most effective way the movement members could make a difference is if they show citizens and government officials the statistics that would illustrate how unfair matters are financially for them.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at the graphs and seeing that the CEO pay has skyrocketed 300% since 1990, while the Average "production worker" pay has only increased by 4% and the minimum wage has dropped something has to be done to change these statistics it is simply unfair. It is about time that CEOs starts sharing their wealth with lower level workers, which will make lower level workers happier. Its about time that the gap between the salaries of the wealthy and lower class are minimized. Perhaps if money distribution within a company is more even the government will be able to lower taxes. This is due to the fact government will no longer need to generate revenue to provide the lower class with services that they used to not be able to afford.
I am mainly in support of the Occupied Wall Street protesters. Their movement is exposing a major problem within the American political system: The top 1 percent of the population has a disproportionally larger amount of influence due to their financial success. This problem seems to be a legitimate concern and I support the idea. Within a democracy no person should have more influence than any other person, regardless of financial means or any other factor. That being said, I believe the fact that their is no leader, no person whom a government official can approach to open a dialogue is a problem. Without the possibility of opening a dialogue with a leader who has binding power and the ability to make deals on the groups behalf, these protests seem to be protests for protests sake. If you do not provide the current regime with a way to settle the dispute, or negotiate with your cause then continued protest seems pointless. I agree with Ezra that people will eventually get tired of this movement because there doesn't seem to be a way to end it short of a revolution or massive governmental reforms. This protests has some interesting and legitimate ideas, but I believe the lack of a singular voice to lead it will ultimately cause it to fail.
ReplyDeleteI think I briefly suggested a comment like this in class, but I will repeat it for the sake of the blog. OWS seems to be a legitimate protest at an injustice that not only, plagues the United States, but other capitalist countries as well. (See similar protests in Israel over the summer)Every American who does not have a relative or family member "draining Wall Street" of its money as a CEO sympathizes with the protest. The discrepancy in bonuses and salary increases, evidenced by the charts, is astronomical. However, the one issue that I do not like about OWS, is that it has become a forum for anyone with a grievance against the current government to unleash their complaint publicly. This detracts from the seriousness at legitimacy of the OWS movement as a whole. OWS is a movement dedicated to bringing democracy back to the United States and not have the President be controlled by the wealthiest 1%, and protest to help correct this economic disaster. OWS is not an animal rights movement, or a gun control movement. Those lines, need to be drawn.
ReplyDeleteThis movement clearly affects both the GOP candidates and the President now because of the popularity of this movement. However, I believe the pressure is more on President Obama then the GOP. The movement is gaining popularity now and being that we are a year a way from election time, things can change very easily in the political climate. Whatever the GOP says regarding OWS will be interesting and telling, but what the President DOES regarding this movement, will affect the incoming election.
After skimming through some of the photo blogs of the "99%" you can't help but feel sorry for them and give them support. It is a shame that American citizens are living this way. That being said it also isn't fair to blame the wealthy for their struggles. I agree with all my peers who have said this protest though commendable and strong now, will not last due to the fact that there is no one person who is the designated leader of the whole protest.OWS is what's hot right now and is even getting more media attention then the GOP debates, however without a Political figure or an appointed leader, OWS will eventually be old news like beanie babies or pogs. It doesn't matter who they get to be the voice of the protest maybe even get Arnold Schwarzenegger because he's not up to anything right now except for maybe paying child support to god knows how many people. But till then there is no hope for this protest to last. My bet it will be over by the end of the year and we will be reading about in PEOPLE magazine sometime from now as one of craziest moments in 2011.
ReplyDeleteAs far as this movement affecting the Presidential or GOP campaigns I say it won't. I don't think any serious political figure who is in the running for a seat in the white house should get involved because you don't wanna piss anyone off and take sides. By Herman Cain saying the protests are the work of “jealous” anti-capitalist, doesn't help his chances of getting the nomination because yes the 1% may like the statement but the other 99% of this country will not and you'll need more than 1% of the peoples vote to become president. As for Obama, I think he's doing the right thing in terms of OWS and that is by doing nothing (He seems to be good at that). He said basically he feels sorry for struggling Americans but that's all and that's all he should say. Because at the end of the day he'll get these peoples vote regardless because he is the Democratic candidate but he knows not to piss off the other 1%.
Therefore, to recap, I have mixed feelings about the movement, the protests will die out due to lack of leadership, and lastly no presidential candidate should address OWS. The end.
I agree with Ezra that the protestors - whether they are "occupying" Wall Street, Chicago or whatever or city (a Jewish group is occupying Judaism, whatever that means) - are doing a commendable thing by protesting against an injustice. I'd take it a step further and say that they've definitively debunked the long-held notion that social networking has killed the kind of mass protests that marked the Vietnam era. The Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street are both, in fact, utilizing social networking to quickly, efficiently and cheaply organize themselves on a global basis.
ReplyDeleteOne beef that I do have is philosophical. While greed itself is certainly an ugly thing, corporate greed is just synonymous. To occupy Wall Street and protest the greed of corporations is, to quote a newspaper article, like going to Thailand to protest the ferocity of tigers. Tigers will eat people; that is their nature. If a tiger escaped a zoo and ate someone, the person we ought to protest is the zoo-keeper - or, in this case, the government that de-regulated to the point of allowing corporations, in their blind but inherent pursuit of profit, to wreck the economy on a global scale.
As for the political influence, I think it's clear OWS has already had impact. It is too large to be ignored. Every GOP candidate has shunned them, for example. While that doesn't get anything done, it does create a dialogue. It raises awareness of the excessive amount of corporate influence on politics, which is, at its core, the point of the movement. Romney, in particular, told a group of people that he "feels" for the 99%, so OWS has already succeeded in framing issues under the 1% vs 99% paradigm.
I believe that the Occupied Wall Street movement is gaining incredible amounts of public exposure. On the one hand, I sympathize with them because I would not want to be unemployed or possess a huge loan over my head to pay back to the bank. Also, I think CEOs of companies are earning a lot of money and not paying their fair share; on the other hand, the business moguls have paid their fair share appropriate by the United States tax code. What Occupy Wall Street, the government, and CEOs must do is devise a bullet proof tax code. This notion will never happen because politicians are the ones who will decide how to revamp the tax code, fix the economy, and lower the deficit. Occupy Wall Street will not change the game of politics!
ReplyDeleteI think the movement will cease to exist months ahead because none of the members have a universal objective. Occupied Wall Street has become a forum for people to gripe about any matter that infuriates them, lash out against others, or to voice anti-Semitic conspiracies that Jews control the Federal Reserve and all the banks. Their supporters will dwindle if they continue to commit violence at Zuccotti Park.
I think this movement can be utilized to exploit either the democrats or the republicans. Republicans can say the democrats don’t care one bit about the middle class because they’ll say take a look at the members of OWS: poor, sick, inebriated, and unemployed. Obama can say we need more regulations on banks and we need to tax the rich because so many Americans such as OWS members are unemployed. Also, Obama can say we need to tax more to render welfare for these people. It depends which party can spin this movement in their favor.
It's a tragedy that so many americans are struggling to make ends meet and that they are scared for their futures and for their children's futures. Its understandable that they have come together to express grievances. For me the problem isn't the gap between the 1% and the rest of us it is the number of people struggling to rise up out of the lower classes and the number of people un or under-employed. With all of the talk of quick fixes to stimulate our economy I would like us to take a good hard look at our education system to see if we are preparing our populace to compete in the new international marketplace. Americans aren't only competing against Americans anymore but thriving studends and entrepreneurs and engineers and manufacturers all over the globe. If we are going to raise many people out of the lower classes and maintain the dominance that we are used to and would not like to relinquish we need to provide our citizens with the skills they need in order to compete and excel in the new economy a economy that is changing rapidly.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat surprised by peoples feeling about Occupy Wall Street. I am not a closed minded person and I definitely give people the time of day to hear their opinions, I just would have thought people in this classes feelings would be a lot more negative towards this group.
ReplyDeleteI am not at all for Occupy Wall Street. I find this movement extremely fascinating. Looking at pictures, reading the articles and talking about it in class is definitely unique and interesting. My positive feelings for it end there. They are misguiding and misdirecting their feelings and it is turning into a movement with really no goals. I am not a pro socialist person - I grew up in a business minded house and defiantly plan to go into business myself. I believe in hard work resulting in money. I feel that if these people put their efforts into making money rather than living on the street it would make a difference. I acknowledge times are hard sometimes, but thats life. You can either complain about it or work hard to make things better. I know that it is "unfair" to some that people make different amounts of money but I dont think that people would like socialism either. For their slogan to be "Were the 99%" is absolutely inaccurate. Although this movement is growing, it is still a small percentage of population. I think that this type of protesting needs to end or have some sort of goals. I am not sure how this could work but it would be interesting to see how much support they would get if they had any involvement in an election.
Jesse, first off I too stated that though I feel for the "99%", I am as well not for OWS. Being that you can't blame people for being successful and expect the rich to support the poor. However, to say that these people are trying to make it better for themselves is false. The people that are protesting aren't the homeless men you see on the street. Yes a lot of them probably came from unprivileged backgrounds, but they all for the most part still have jobs most of them are probably even holding multiple jobs just so they can barely get by or even get by at all. Another thing is that they are a large part of the population. Thank god non of us no from this but the truth is a large part of this country that are living in poverty. So overall I think you may be a tad insensitive towards this whole movement. But once again I'm not disagreeing in the sense that we the "1%" should be supporting them but I am disagreeing with you in the fact that you don't seem they have valid point to be protesting because they for sure do.
ReplyDeletejust noticed my last post has a lot of grammar mistakes, my blunder. please try to look past it.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings initially when viewing the concept that runs the "we are the 99%" protests, is that it is a pretty un-american thing to protest for. "the 1% has everything and the 99% have nothing" This seems to be the dog eat dog world of american capitalism at its best. Whether it be moral or immoral its survival of the fittest. But in truth America does not exist in a vacuum where everyone has an equal chance to survive and thrive and I may contend the likelihood of foul play by the 1%. Therefore, I do support these protests and the 99% should be empowered with the ability to acquire basic human needs like financial and personal security that is not being had by so many.
ReplyDeleteI think the GOP candidates and President Obama will increasingly address the issues raised by the 99% protesters. But they will address it in a rhetorical way without actually addressing it. I get this vibe that listening to protesters in the American government is like negotiating with terrorists- you don't want to do any direct negotiation. So therefore the language of the Head of State and the potential head of state will exist in general to job creation and economy stimulation, even though as we learned the president does not have much capability of turning these things around single handedly.
I think that many of the things Occupy Wall Street advocates for are valid and should be supported. Such as desiring banks to be more careful with our money, and desiring a decrease in the unemployment of the general population. However, some of the specifics they ask for seem to me to be a little bit past the cliff and at the very least need to be taken with several grains of salt. For example, this morning I listening to the live stream and heard a call for a city wide strike, and for all students to walk out of school. I find this just a tad ridiculous, here I am paying quite a bit of money to go to school and now because I support some of the things they bring attention to I am supposed to waste that money?
ReplyDeleteObviously not, yet I still want them to continue if only because it might result in some changes that might bring us to more of a middle ground on the various issues.
Posted for Zack Goldberg:
ReplyDeleteI have very mixed emotions about the Occupied Wall Street movement. I feel bad for people who are in debt for all sorts of things. I feel bad for people who have degrees and cannot find jobs. Furthermore, I find OWS protests to be significant in writing the next chapter in American History. Maybe OWS has the right to stand against corporate greed, social inequality and the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process. Yet, these corporations are being taxed accordingly. Recently, OWS has received a lot of media attention and exposure all across America. I agree with Elie that violence is not the way to protest effectively. However I don’t believe that these protests are going to go on forever. OWS doesn’t have a clear cut agenda. I think the protests will be subdued before the election in 2012. At the end of the day, Obama or the Republicans can spin OWS in their favor.
For the most part I feel that some sort of protest of this nature is absolutely necessary for our country. While I may not agree with 100 percent of what the 99 percent stands for, I definitely sympathize with them and feel that our government is far too heavily influenced by the economic elites. These protests are bringing these issues to light and hope to change the overall mood and outlook of our government. I agree with the anti-greed sentiment of the movement, I feel that it is unfair to simply attack the entire one percent. Only certain segments of the one percent are actually to blame for the current situation of the 99 percent. Both Obama and the GOP candidates would be wise to stay quiet on the subject and refrain from taking sides as it could only end up negatively affecting them. If the movement keeps growing I could maybe see it causing the GOP to lose a slight amount of votes, as their tax policy generally dissents from the values of Occupy Wall Street. At the end of the day I see occupy wall street impacting the United States for the better, in that it should change the influence that money currently has on our government. It should result in the entire 100 percent of the country having a say. I just don’t see it as enough of a game changer in the upcoming election to impact whether Obama or one of the GOP candidates will win.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I support the idea of people uniting actively for change. Especially when the people’s slogan is that they are the 99% and are speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Having witnessed some of the movement in the protest to “Occupy Philly,” I must say that many of the people involved in this protest are neglectful to the other side of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is certainly debatable that corporate CEO’s and many of the people working on Wall Street are overpaid, the corporate social initiatives taken by many of these corporations and instigated by the corporate heads who are being targeted, seem to be entirely overlooked. In my humble opinion it seems to me that many of these protestors are simply frustrated that the government bailed out many of these corporations and for lack of a better word, are simply jealous that they were not the government’s first concern. I’m not saying the government’s overwhelming concern for the company’s and firms on wall street shouldn’t be brought into question, I’m simply not understanding what exactly this movement hopes to accomplish by targeting them.
People are frustrated and any good politician, especially one trying to run a presidential campaign, should try to address the voice of the people. While this movement continues to attract media attention and grow, in order for me to personally support the movement, they need to start becoming more focused on what exactly are their primary concerns. They have the spotlight, now I am curious to continue following the media in seeing what exactly they do with it.
Although I share in some of the concerns of OWS as most of my classmates do, I do not support the protests and I think it hurts anyone, especially the politicians, most notably the presidential candidates, including pres. Obama. The amount of hate stemming from the protests is unconscionable. They preach civility yet they squat on private property, bang drums at all hours, steal food, donations, and possessions from each other, hurt the economy by disrupting traffic, and do drugs and have sex in public. They preach equality yet they despise anyone who has a differing opinion from them, give preference to minorities, and many reported cases of anti-Semitism. By supporting the movement, Obama has aligned himself with anti-capitalists, borderline Marxists. They preach redistribution of wealth and Obama is still wondering why he is getting very few campaign donations from former Wall Street donors. A funny thing is if you look around Zucatti Park and at some of the preppy clothes and Apple gadgets they have, and realize they go to schools like Columbia and NYU, it seems like THEY may be part of that notorious 1%.
ReplyDeleteThe OWS protesters are leaderless, and protesting to the wrong people. Its not wall streets fault that tuition is so high, that there are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that they don't have jobs. The government was the entity that gave CEO's huge bonuses and bailed out huge corporations, (who by the way create jobs). They go through literally no political process unlike the Tea Party, who with their clear objectives and political representation does and as a consequence, OWS will fizzle out with getting little more done than getting on TV.
Posted for Eyal:
ReplyDeleteI have something to say to all the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Get off your behinds and go work instead of sleeping in the streets for weeks at a time… protesters are complaining about making money. The protestors claim to represent 99 percent of the American population, but they actually are less than 1 percent of it. What happened to rest of them? Some of the protestor’s stories involve them and their families suffering from illnesses, I’m sympathetic for that, but that isn’t Wall Street’s fault. Here is a link that contrasts the protestor’s “stories”: http://i.imgur.com/QiZQb.jpg
-I don’t agree with everything said in here, but sometimes you have to combat extreme with extreme.
Thank you
Eyal Greenberg