What's truly hilarious is how similar this movement is to the nascence of the Tea Party. Both groups bitched about government bailouts and cronies in DC. The right (for whatever reason) can't see that this group of people have given up on the government just like they have. In fact, the Occupiers have called for citizens to voluntarily move their back accounts from big banks to credit unions and local banks. They aren't asking the government to do anything and have declared vehemently that it's up to the people. Why does the right have a problem with this? Can't a group of people decide on their own what to do?
More importantly, this is the first concrete demand followed by action that we have seen from the group. It's going to be interesting to see what happens as a result of this. Will the big banks bleed?
Naturally, there is a ton of anti-Occupy propaganda out there now. Take a look at this photo.
1. What is the source for this photo? (You won't be surprised when you find out)
2. How accurate is the math? (Check it, it's not)
3. Where does scholarship money come from?
4. Why does such a large group of people in this country persist in blaming the victims of the Collapse of 2008 and give the actual perpetrators a free pass?
5. Did the United States build itself into an economic superpower, unlike any this world has ever seen, by being a nation of rugged individualist libertarians? Or did we do so with much higher taxes and actual regulation?
Then show them these photos.
The derision that is floating around out there (courtesy largely of the right wing blogsphere) isn't working. There are too many people that identify with this movement and it has now gone global. The Tea Party can't even boast that.
I think the right needs to be very, very careful their commentary on this movement. They've got a pretty good hold in the House that will be hard to erode in the 2012 election. They have a real chance at picking up some more Senate seats. But if they ally themselves with Wall Street, they will have forgotten what mobilized resources on their side back in 2009. The public could see them as very pro corporation and they will lose some of their populist base.
21 comments:
You just wish people would be careful. I actually don't think there are that many people associated with this movement.
Well, since I'm not clairvoyant, how about you tell us, Mark, what is the source of the photo, what's wrong with the math, where the scholarship money comes from, and where in the hell you come up with #4? More clairvoyancy on your part?
I think the left needs to be careful about identifying with the OWS people.
I'm dying to know what you think the source of the first pic is. I first saw it on the 53% website.
I agree with Don. Their numbers aren't that great, they're just really loud.
Love your first paragraph. OWS is just too hip, too edgy, for all the conservatives to understand. Whatever. Same old same old since the 60's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html?hpid=z1
"As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined".
Thanks for the warning on allying oneself with Wall Street. Not to worry - I'm sure they expect no return whatsoever on their investment.
Don't you know last - Democrats are immune to corporate influence. Stupid corporations give to them and never get anything in return.
Wasn't someone campaigning in 2008 on the evils of corporate/wealthy cash in elections? I just don't seem to remember his name.
Larry,
The source of the photo is conservative radio station 640WGST in Atlanta. The math makes no sense when you consider the information in the post. If the wage where they work is the standard $7.25/hr then the gross of say 35 hours is $254 (rounded up) a week that is $1,016 a month. Subtract 200 bucks for taxes so now we are at 800. Do they have a car, car insurance, or books to buy for school? How much is rent? "Cheap" is 400-700 dollars theses days. How about food? Let's say that he ekes out 100 a month for food. Now we are down to (at best) 300 dollars. What are his utility bills? Gas? Electric? Water?
Next we look at tuition. An average in-state college tuition is approximately $7500 a year and the author has two scholarships that cover 90% so that leaves about $750 a year. That's 62 a month but tuition is usually due at a specific time-all at once. How do they afford that? Do they not eat, pay bills, or rent for a month or two?
This person does say they saved since they were 17 but how much? And for how long? 1 year? There's also no information given about the author (as with many 99 percent photos that are similar to this). In short, this whole image seems manufactured by the "pull yourself up by your boot straps" crowd. (see: unicorn fart land). It's red meat for the folks who just can't fathom that there are actually people out there who worked there asses off and lost everything due to Wall Street fraud. Somehow it must be the fault of the unemployed, not the ivory towered Job Creators who sprinkle their magical job dust on everyone.
Who are the ones who believe in fantasy again?
Subtract 200 bucks for taxes
That seems a little steep for that low an income. I figure $75 for SS/MC and maybe $50 for Fed Inc Tax (maybe less) - depending on the state anywhere from 0 to 30 bucks.
I break it out just to make the point that low income earners - the working poor - often are hit by SS/MC taxes hardest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/steve-jobs-biography-obama_n_1022786.html?1319148475
Big shocker here. The guy who started his company in his garage (aka from nothing) says the same thing we do.
"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform."
Steve Jobs wassn't living in fantasy land, he was the real deal.
Steve Jobs was also one of Obama's supporters.
So you think we should have a government like China's? Think about that for a moment. I also think it's amusing (and sadly, no surprise) that your comments on the article are one sided (see: proving him wrong, winning the argument). No mention of how Jobs wanted to design the 2012 campaign ads or Jobs' insistence that the president ask him personally for meeting. There were some other strange things as well noted in the article that you seemingly have failed to take into account.
nobody advocated we have a government like china. where do you come up with these giant leaps you make? sheesh. we all know jobs supported obama, he was just being honest with him.
So you think we should have a government like China's?
Is that what he said? Are you just playing that you are that stupid? Or are you that desperate to 'score points' and "win" the debate?
rld (via jobs quote)
"As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them."
Mark
"So you think we should have a government like China's? Think about that for a moment."
juris (demonstrating, once again, his trouble with basic comprehension)
"Is that what he said? Are you just playing that you are that stupid?"
Good Lord, smelly skunk-ape, how in the fuck does pointing out how much more difficult and expensive it is to open a factory here than it is in China translate into "therefore we need a totalitarian government like China"? Apparently both you and Mark are that fucking stupid and/or desperate.
Fifty to sixty years ago - back in M's fabled Golden Age of Good Capitalism [and leaving aside all the rest of the downside of the 50s to early 60s] it was far easier to build and operate a factory in the U.S. than it is in China today. Does THAT comparison say we should emulate China today - or the way this country used to be?
Are all of you really that stupid, or is it just some asinine partisan game? I'm actually beginning to believe you really are that stupid.
Just because it's funny…
PHD Comics on OWS
Mark, I don't know that just because the picture was publicized by a conservative talk radio station says anything one way or the other about the sign's veracity. Unless you believe in guilt by association. Silly me, I thought you knew something about the sign writer that we didn't, but no, you just let your imagination run wild. The math can certainly add up. How old is he? You don't know, but you're willing to make assumptions. If he's working at a restaurant, perhaps as a cook, like my brother did in college, he can get free meals. You assume he's renting an apartment of his own. Anyone but a complete fool realizes that's almost certainly a Really Bad Assumption. As for where his scholarships come from, I can't be bothered to give a fuck, because it doesn't have a damned thing to do with anything except in your vivid imagination. I'm inclined to think the sign could be true because my nephew is doing exactly that right now. It's not impossible for someone who's got their head screwed on right, works hard and lives frugally. I know this for a fact because I know people doing more-or-less the same thing.
Now that doesn't mean the sign isn't a fake, but it's funny how uncritically you accept the Occupy crowds' assertions. Some of which are just head-slappingly stupid.
The whole movement is stupid because they're not also down at the White House and Treasury protesting the Goldman-Sachs Administration. Instead, this seems to sum up the level of "thought" at these rallies, which are a living example of Blair's Law in action.
My central problem with the sign (other than its half truths or possible lies) is that it blames the victim-just like you guy always do. Continue with your tone deafness at your own risk because while I'm certain there are people in the OWS movement who are free riding (any social movement including the Tea Party has this happen), many got fucked over by Wall Street. For whatever reason, you refuse to accept this and, ultimately, will be the right's undoing.
There are an awfully lot of unemployed people in this country and giving the the Cain line ("It's all your fault") is pretty much the same as HW Bush expressing surprise at how food can be electronically scanned at a grocery. This is very large group of voters who are going to likely be massively turned off by your bullshit.
You should be happy, though, because they are just as mad at the government but at least they know the origin of the problem, as does the author of the second photo I put up.
" I don't have any debt but I do blame Wall Street for other people's problems. I blame them because it's THEIR FAULT. "
I'd suggest you start doing the same. 37 percent of this country supports the OWS movement. That's a significant number of people.
Then by your own math, you silly twit, 63% of the nation does NOT support the OWS idiots, and the Democrats are going to be ina world of hurt if they embrace the OWSidiots. And how does the first first sign "blame the victim"?
Post a Comment