Occupy - theory behind the police reaction

[wezcountry]

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy.

I'm not from the USA so can't really comment, but does this sound right to you guys ? If so it's a total outrage.

 

[dmnEPC]

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

Not really sure how true this stuff is but it would certainly be within the realms of possibility

 

[1yerrot]

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy.

I'm not from the USA so can't really comment, but does this sound right to you guys ? If so it's a total outrage.

That's definitely an interesting read. Thanks. The attack on them is only bringing more attention to them, I ignored everything about them until the macing incident.

 

[REIMktg]

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy.

I'm not from the USA so can't really comment, but does this sound right to you guys ? If so it's a total outrage.

They compare OWS to the Tea Party. The Tea Party pulled permits and left the area clean. OWS participants have not complied with laws, they are a total health hazard, crapping everywhere, and doing drugs. Now maybe I am totally wrong, but even first hand reports of those walking through the encampments confirm these things.

The article above makes it sound like these are just happy college students on a camp out.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

Show me a plan that removes money from politics without inhibiting free speech. You can complain about Citizens Untied but unless you tell me you have a plan to remove Unions and Union money from politics I will allow the Corps all day long. Unions are a big problem and you never hear about it from OWS.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

This does not sound like anything special, they make laws all of the time on issues they are invested in. There should be a law restricting their insider trading, but there is not. I go to jail for insider trading, a congressperson does not. That is a real problem - where is OWS on that?

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

You are correct - they should not be beaten or kicked around. But if they violate health laws I expect them to be arrested/shut down/ or fined - the same that would happen to me if I let my home sewer pipes run into the street or my Restaurant stopped following health regulations.
When I do things without permits and legal permission I am shut down. OWS is getting a free pass.

 

[. Jack .]

Tea Party is far more peaceful overall. why are leftists so much more rowdy than ring wingers? I think the average age difference might be just a small part of it...

I've read that whether you're right wing , or left wing, is in part determined by your genes.....

 

[lukep]

That was an awesome, and piss-in-my-pants-scary read.

So was her other story about being arrested & detained for legally standing on a sidewalk near a protest 1 week before... I don't know if she's making this all up, but if she isn't, then our civil liberties have just failed bigtime, and 1984 is now fully realized and then some.

 

[-Matt-]

Fuck the OWS movement, and fuck the police.

 

[Doc]

Show me a plan that removes money from politics without inhibiting free speech. You can complain about Citizens Untied but unless you tell me you have a plan to remove Unions and Union money from politics I will allow the Corps all day long. Unions are a big problem and you never hear about it from OWS..

Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets

Do you see any unions in this top 20 list of Lobbying Top Spenders?
Unions account for 12-15 % of the work force and they were the major reason this country ever had a middle class. Oh yeah the middle class are your customers and a shrinking demographic. So I do not care how much money you pretend to make you should want MORE middle class. Not more rich people, because unless you are selling yachts or Bentles your customers are joe lunch box.

 

[REIMktg]

Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets

Do you see any unions in this top 20 list of Lobbying Top Spenders?
Unions account for 12-15 % of the work force and they were the major reason this country ever had a middle class. Oh yeah the middle class are your customers and a shrinking demographic. So I do not care how much money you pretend to make you should want MORE middle class. Not more rich people, because unless you are selling yachts or Bentles your customers are joe lunch box.

I do not know what to tell you . How does that chart mix with their other chart of top all-time donors
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

You got me. Seems to be a discrepancy.

As for Unions - I have nothing against them - but from my chart - same website as yours - you see a lot public employee unions basically bankrolling their ultimate employer. The union is hiring those in charge of negotiating with the union - gotta love that.

As for Unions overall, I like Unions. I have seen first hand where Unions benefit the working class. What I do not like is leaving their political influence and pulling away the political influence of others. They are no different than associations, PAC's, and corps. Much of this influence and member's money is in supporting candidates with values much different than the rank and file union member.

 

[. Jack .]

Police would like to keep an eye on actual crimes taking place through out the cities but instead they have to babysit the child like protesters.

 

[ayzo]

I don't agree with the entire occupy movement but they are idiots for letting themselves get distracted by being redirected from protesting wall street to protesting the police. If I was in charge of a city/state/government office that's exactly how I would take them down, by telling the police patrolling the area to start exerting themselves more than needed and incite anger among the protesters at the police. Once you change the narrative from kids against wall street to hippies clashing with riot police, you win the PR war. Study after study (such as the Milgram experiment) has shown that people trust authoritive figures simply by their uniform/suit/lab coat and will agree and follow their orders & beliefs even if they believe what they are being told to do is wrong. Same thing is happening here, the public sees that police are tazing and pepper spraying people and they figure that since a police officer in riot gear is doing it that the protesters deserve it. Polling showed that the movement had a high approval rate but the more you see these incidents with police the lower their favorability rating goes and the sooner it all dies out. Brilliant move by local and state governments, extremely stupid mistake by the occupy wallstreet protesters. They should have known better than to fall for that.

 

[Doc]

I do not know what to tell you . How does that chart mix with their other chart of top all-time donors
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

You got me. Seems to be a discrepancy.

As for Unions - I have nothing against them - but from my chart - same website as yours - you see a lot public employee unions basically bankrolling their ultimate employer. The union is hiring those in charge of negotiating with the union - gotta love that.

As for Unions overall, I like Unions. I have seen first hand where Unions benefit the working class. What I do not like is leaving their political influence and pulling away the political influence of others. They are no different than associations, PAC's, and corps. Much of this influence and member's money is in supporting candidates with values much different than the rank and file union member.

Your chart is a chart of Top All-Time Donors, mine is of Lobbying Top Spenders. Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. So this is money spent on people that are already elected vs. donators which is spent on helping get people elected. Much of which is spent on people that never make it to office. Donating to a campaign would hopefully get an official in who would be favorable to your cause where lobbyist go after specific issues and will pay money to anyone they can influence. So take everyone on your list and add to their total all of the money on my list and you have what they totally spend.

 

[Kstanki2]

Tea Party is far more peaceful overall. why are leftists so much more rowdy than ring wingers? I think the average age difference might be just a small part of it...

I've read that whether you're right wing , or left wing, is in part determined by your genes.....

Your view of the world is way too red and blue, polarizing people and ideas like this is close-minded and childish.

Anyways...

This extreme reaction by the gov't to Occupy just gives the whole thing more merit. The real threat to Occupy isn't police with batons and mace, it's the media ruining their reputation. Politicians will throw a lot of money at this to make sure everyone involved with occupy is portrayed as a 'leftist extremist', a 'jobless hippy', 'anti-american', 'socialist', you name it.

The American public needs to wake up, they don't know what's bullshit and what isn't anymore, they are too pliable.

Show me a plan that removes money from politics without inhibiting free speech. You can complain about Citizens Untied but unless you tell me you have a plan to remove Unions and Union money from politics I will allow the Corps all day long. Unions are a big problem and you never hear about it from OWS.

To be fair, this is a bit nitpicky. Free speech is inhibited far more by the involvement of money in politics than it would be without. If our politicians had no financial incentives, many institutions and systems of law would be reworked to accommodate it which would do away with a lot of bullshit like this.

It needs to be taken one step at a time, and separating money from politics is the logical first step.

 

[REIMktg]

Your chart is a chart of Top All-Time Donors, mine is of Lobbying Top Spenders. Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. So this is money spent on people that are already elected vs. donators which is spent on helping get people elected. Much of which is spent on people that never make it to office. Donating to a campaign would hopefully get an official in who would be favorable to your cause where lobbyist go after specific issues and will pay money to anyone they can influence. So take everyone on your list and add to their total all of the money on my list and you have what they totally spend.

The campaign donation is seperate from lobbying. I will agree with that. Lobbying expenditures go to the lobbying firm itself for cousnel, meetings, drafting legislation, determining strategy, and even developing PR campaigns. An example would be that OWS lobbying letter that was passed around recently $800K to the lobbying firm for its activities.

When I worked out of the Sacramento office for an international lobby firm the lobbyists made huge salaries. The money delivered to each candidate was what would be listed on the All Time Donors list (using the definitions you provided which I agree with) but aren't we concerned about actual dollars to candidates? Isn't that the focus? We are never ever ever going to stop companies from paying lobbyists for strategy opinions, meetings, and advice on how to work within the government.

I imagine that this info is convoluted in order to confuse us. On the surface I agree with your statement, but when thinking deeper I am thinking that the actual dollars that make it to a candidate counts more than dollars to a lobby firm. Maybe not, maybe I think that way because it reconfirms my current beliefs - I am willing to admit that.

Maybe we simply need to take power away from the legislature and congress so that they are not able to make decisions and so many laws that have such a large impact on society so that companies feel the need to lobby?

For example, I have a project where if the City of Fullerton, CA OK's it, I will make 80K net profit within 90 days. If they do not, I make $0. Should I pay a lobbyist for influence?

I also have $250million (private equity fund I work for) ready to deploy for FDIC assets, should I pay a lobbyist for help?

 

[REIMktg]

.

Free speech is inhibited far more by the involvement of money in politics than it would be without. If our politicians had no financial incentives, many institutions and systems of law would be reworked to accommodate it which would do away with a lot of bullshit like this.

How is free speech inhibited with money? I do not understand.

How can you possibly remove the financial incentive? They hold power over my making money - I pay for influence and I get a 100x ROI.

 

[lukep]

How is free speech inhibited with money? I do not understand.

How can you possibly remove the financial incentive? They hold power over my making money - I pay for influence and I get a 100x ROI.

REI, I know you're playing devil's advocate more than anything else, but surely you can see that when you pay for "influence" you are paying to have someone in public office do something that they might not normally do, say, like decide to wipe out a wetland preserve so that you can build a storefront.

If people care for that wetland preserve, then the 1st amendment guarantees their right to a free speech that can be used to protect it, and these people, without your opposition, would normally triumph in influencing the public office-holder's opinion... The way our forefathers designed the system.

Hint: It's called a PUBLIC office, not a RICH BASTARD'S office! Their position was made to serve the public, not lobbyists.

 

[Kstanki2]

.

How is free speech inhibited with money? I do not understand.

How can you possibly remove the financial incentive? They hold power over my making money - I pay for influence and I get a 100x ROI.

Free speech is inhibited with money all the time, one example that's probably close to home for you is the Internet Blacklist Bill. LukeP just laid it out pretty well.

As for how exactly you can remove the financial incentive from politics, that's a bit more complicated. This will involve laws stating that corporate donations cannot influence any sort of political decisions- there's quite a bit to consider, especially when you're talking about election funds and things like that. I'm no bureaucrat, someone can figure out the details.

The main idea is to have politicians make their decisions based on the welfare of the people, void of all personal interests whatsoever. That's the bottom line, and anything else is unacceptable.

 

[REIMktg]

REI, I know you're playing devil's advocate more than anything else, but surely you can see that when you pay for "influence" you are paying to have someone in public office do something that they might not normally do, say, like decide to wipe out a wetland preserve so that you can build a storefront.

That's the problem though. Bureaucrats save the Delta Smelt while tens of thousands of legal immigrant farm workers starve. What is right? Maybe the farm workers union should lobby to have the Delta Smelt removed from the endangered species act. I am so proud to know that my country is protecting a little fish while people starve and die.

As for my Fullerton deal - hey it's just a tweak of the rules where they count how many sorority girls are allowed to live in the sorority I have been contracted to tear down and re-build. (save all the WF juvenile comments). What harm is done - and I make an extra $80K - not to mention all the sub-contractors that will be able to feed their families and pay their bills.

If people care for that wetland preserve, then the 1st amendment guarantees their right to a free speech that can be used to protect it, and these people, without your opposition, would normally triumph in influencing the public office-holder's opinion... The way our forefathers designed the system.

Hint: It's called a PUBLIC office, not a RICH BASTARD'S office! Their position was made to serve the public, not lobbyists.

I get it. But as long as the politicians have power - even business needs a voice.

The people that care for the wetland have a right to influence the politician also - all I have is money - they have actual votes.

There is no viable plan to remove money from politics unless we take away from politicians the power to make decisions and laws that can make or cost me money.

That lobbyist firm I worked for - they had on their brochure that they will either "get around a law or make a new one" - it was said a little softer but that was the gist.

Free speech is inhibited with money all the time, one example that's probably close to home for you is the Internet Blacklist Bill. LukeP just laid it out pretty well.

As for how exactly you can remove the financial incentive from politics, that's a bit more complicated. This will involve laws stating that corporate donations cannot influence any sort of political decisions- there's quite a bit to consider, especially when you're talking about election funds and things like that. I'm no bureaucrat, someone can figure out the details.

The main idea is to have politicians make their decisions based on the welfare of the people, void of all personal interests whatsoever. That's the bottom line, and anything else is unacceptable.

Telling me my corporate donation cannot influence anything does not make sense. As a corporation I can direct all of my staff and everyone else involved to make maximum donations to a particular candidate. It may not add up to millions, but when the politician knows I control 1000 maximum donors I can still have influence and without $1 in corporate donations.

I think the answer is in removing power from the politicians in the first place. Strict constitution - get rid of all of this other BS that they do each day.

 

[lukep]

That's the problem though. Bureaucrats save the Delta Smelt while tens of thousands of legal immigrant farm workers starve. What is right? Maybe the farm workers union should lobby to have the Delta Smelt removed from the endangered species act. I am so proud to know that my country is protecting a little fish while people starve and die.

This is you muddying the waters, it's really off topic IMO.

Fish v/s people is not something we should be giving a thought; because if the system works it's obvious to the public official that he should choose people over fish, if for no other reason than the fact that fish can't vote.

There was no need to bring this example under the light; we're talking about business or rich persons' interests versus the public at large. Every single day politicians are bought and paid for to decide AGAINST the public at large, which is who they are there to work FOR.

It's all just TOO broken, can't you see that?

As for my Fullerton deal - hey it's just a tweak of the rules where they count how many sorority girls are allowed to live in the sorority I have been contracted to tear down and re-build. (save all the WF juvenile comments). What harm is done - and I make an extra $80K - not to mention all the sub-contractors that will be able to feed their families and pay their bills.

Perhaps if the system wasn't so broken as to produce politicians who EXPECT you to pay them off for such petty shit then you wouldn't even have to go though any trouble at all... In that case, just a letter to your congressman should do the trick when it's something so small... So really, you should be against the status quo of buying influence too. It hurts you in the long run.

The people that care for the wetland have a right to influence the politician also - all I have is money - they have actual votes.

Who the fuck took away your 1 vote???

Why in hell do you think that as a business owner you suddenly should have more power over your elected officials than just 1 vote? That's not in the charter for any democracy...

There is no viable plan to remove money from politics unless we take away from politicians the power to make decisions and laws that can make or cost me money.

None yet. That's why I'm leaning towards anarchy...

But it could be a LOT better if we simply make a solid law that stated no money can find it's way to an elected official from anyone other than the state, or the elected official will immediately be removed from office and never allowed to return.

That lobbyist firm I worked for - they had on their brochure that they will either "get around a law or make a new one" - it was said a little softer but that was the gist.

I bet OWS members would LOVE a copy of that brochure if you've still got one lying around. :thumbsup:

As a corporation I can direct all of my staff and everyone else involved to make maximum donations to a particular candidate. It may not add up to millions, but when the politician knows I control 1000 maximum donors I can still have influence and without $1 in corporate donations.

I'm having trouble with this part. Let's do a scenario here:

Let's say you're the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt. You've got 287,000+ employees worldwide, scattered in a dozen different industries. You're among the most powerful CEOs in the planet's history, yet the state of Wyoming is considering a law to outlaw your most profitable type of lightbulbs because they believe that your filament tech hurts their environment.

You don't have a huge factory nor a HQ of any kind in Wyoming. Perhaps some kind of repair shops... Let's say 50 Employees.

What can you do besides outright BUY votes to keep your bulbs on the shelves in Wyoming? For that matter, ANYWHERE besides Connecticut or New York, where all of their top officers work? 48 other states and 203 or so other countries could all do the same thing eventually...

I think the answer is in removing power from the politicians in the first place. Strict constitution - get rid of all of this other BS that they do each day.

That will be the ultimate answer but I think you know very well that it's impossible in this day and age.

Perhaps, just perhaps if the internet somehow enables all of mankind to grow smarter over the next century, (against the Idiocracy effect) could that come about in your grandchildrens' time or later. But today? LOL. You'd have a far easier time taking over the world yourself with a peashooter.

 

[REIMktg]

This is you muddying the waters, it's really off topic IMO.

Fish v/s people is not something we should be giving a thought; because if the system works it's obvious to the public official that he should choose people over fish, if for no other reason than the fact that fish can't vote.

But those that are out of work are the legal immigrant farm workers - no vote. The Govt makes unaccountable bureaucratic decisions all of the time that kill. How many countries needed DDT and were denied it?

There was no need to bring this example under the light; we're talking about business or rich persons' interests versus the public at large. Every single day politicians are bought and paid for to decide AGAINST the public at large, which is who they are there to work FOR.

It is relevant. An administrative decision from unelected officials has a consequence where people cannot feed their families and lose their only hope. We cannot leave decisions in the hands of those that are not accountable - take money out of politics and no one has a chance to influence anything.

It's all just TOO broken, can't you see that?

I worked for top lobbyists in CA - I knew it was broken before the internet told everyone it was broken. I worked there in the late 80's early 90's.

Perhaps if the system wasn't so broken as to produce politicians who EXPECT you to pay them off for such petty shit then you wouldn't even have to go though any trouble at all... In that case, just a letter to your congressman should do the trick when it's something so small... So really, you should be against the status quo of buying influence too. It hurts you in the long run.

No one does anything for anyone. By the way, the City is right in denying my application for the Sorority - but I know I could lobby for a different outcome and win.

Why in hell do you think that as a business owner you suddenly should have more power over your elected officials than just 1 vote? That's not in the charter for any democracy...

I shouldn't have more influence. But I should have a voice and without a vote, how can I?

But it could be a LOT better if we simply make a solid law that stated no money can find it's way to an elected official from anyone other than the state, or the elected official will immediately be removed from office and never allowed to return.

This is impossible - also who in the state gets to decide? It is all political. The only way to accomplish this is to take away their arbitrary unaccountable power.

I bet OWS members would LOVE a copy of that brochure if you've still got one lying around. :thumbsup:

If I only kept so much from back then - but I was young and had no idea how important the information I was holding was - especially all of the internal memo's etc. Unbelievable really.

I'm having trouble with this part. Let's do a scenario here:

Let's say you're the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt. You've got 287,000+ employees worldwide, scattered in a dozen different industries. You're among the most powerful CEOs in the planet's history, yet the state of Wyoming is considering a law to outlaw your most profitable type of lightbulbs because they believe that your filament tech hurts their environment.

You don't have a huge factory nor a HQ of any kind in Wyoming. Perhaps some kind of repair shops... Let's say 50 Employees.

What can you do besides outright BUY votes to keep your bulbs on the shelves in Wyoming? For that matter, ANYWHERE besides Connecticut or New York, where all of their top officers work? 48 other states and 203 or so other countries could all do the same thing eventually...

You buy an LED plant. Screw CFL's - LED's are the future. But anyway I can direct all of my employee contributions through congress or through the party itself who then can distribute money to local party politicians in the state I want to have influence on.

That will be the ultimate answer but I think you know very well that it's impossible in this day and age.

Perhaps, just perhaps if the internet somehow enables all of mankind to grow smarter over the next century, (against the Idiocracy effect) could that come about in your grandchildrens' time or later. But today? LOL. You'd have a far easier time taking over the world yourself with a peashooter.

There is not way. With enough money I can influence the opinions on the internet as well. Start my own news sources, my own network of bloggers, my own Huff Post, Snopes, and everything else - just like Soros has.

I wish there was a better way but there is not. Take away their power, thats it, but as it stands you cannot remove the money.