Originally Posted by ziggyX65

And they will until they or their own kids can't find work anywhere. Like the old saying goes, it's a recession until you lose *your* job.

Is this the 4T equivalent to the 2T politicians having kids in the war?

Originally Posted by millennialX

Is this the 4T equivalent to the 2T politicians having kids in the war?

Hard to say but maybe not. The more I think about it, the more the TP and the most critical folks are disproportionately securely retired and thus don't need to worry about the job market any more. They may not care that the job market sucks since they don't need to participate in it any more. But if enough of them find their kids unemployed and not able to use those expensive degrees they bought them...

To call these kids a bunch of "anti-American, violent deadbeats" is rather offensive to me. And I'm sure I'm not the only ones who feel that way. When in reality these young people actually tried to do the right thing. They went to college, acquired student loans to do that and now can't find a job. I just think these Republicans who have said these thing, just didn't think it through. Because you have to know that there are plenty of people in their base who have kids and grandkids that are in same boat.

At the risk of going out on a limb here I'm going to opine that a lot of the establishment, especially the politicans with large corporate donor bases can not earnestly reach out to the occupy movement.
All gifts, including political contributions come with strings attached.
And when the focus of a movement is on the very system that has battened the donors then those strings are more like chains.

IOW, for our elite our economic condition can not ever be focused on them. That's why the truly populistic early stage Tea Party had to be hijacked by the professional right wingers.
And I'm not just accusing Republican office holders of mostly being owned. Anyone who has paid attention to the vote in Congress over the past three years has a good idea of which Democrats are also to blame.

And all of this is another reason why I think that this embryonic movement will continue to grow.
It is focused on the one cause of the economic problem that can not be scapegoated. Sooner or later almost every family in America will know a twentysomething unemployed college graduate with student debt. You can't villanize these civic kids anymore than the GI's could be villanized in their youth.
there's just too many of them and it's too obivous they they aren't to blame for their predicament.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I heard someone else suggest today..."Since Republicans do like to get behind populist movements and spin them to their advantage, I wonder why instead of trying to paint the people at OWS as anti-American, violent mobs. Why didn't the Republicans spin it as "These people are discontented Obama voters who are unhappy with his policies."? I think that's a very good question. It would seem that would have been a better tactic. That way they wouldn't have alienated all these people while making it look the momentum was moving towards the Republicans.

Let's hope the Republicans continue to alienate them. Then for sure they will know which side they are on, more or less. Or at least which side they are not on.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I heard someone else suggest today..."Since Republicans do like to get behind populist movements and spin them to their advantage, I wonder why instead of trying to paint the people at OWS as anti-American, violent mobs. Why didn't the Republicans spin it as "These people are discontented Obama voters who are unhappy with his policies."? I think that's a very good question. It would seem that would have been a better tactic. That way they wouldn't have alienated all these people while making it look the momentum was moving towards the Republicans.

The answer to that question is because of the message of the protests. The "99%" vs. the "1%". The message is not that Obama's economic policies have failed, it's that he hasn't been left wing enough, engaged in enough class warfare, and "soaked the rich". And it's not "give me a job", it's "take their money and give it to me". Although suspiciously, this approach of vilifying the "top 1%"comes directly from Obama himself.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The answer to that question is because of the message of the protests. The "99%" vs. the "1%". The message is not that Obama's economic policies have failed, it's that he hasn't been left wing enough, engaged in enough class warfare, and "soaked the rich". And it's not "give me a job", it's "take their money and give it to me". Although suspiciously, this approach of vilifying the "top 1%"comes directly from Obama himself.

I would especially like them to take more of YOUR money JPT

Originally Posted by millennialX

Is this the 4T equivalent to the 2T politicians having kids in the war?

If you are referring to Vietnam, you would have had to look pretty hard to find any prominent politicians with kids in it. Oddly, the only one who springs to mind is President Johnson, whose son-in-law was an Annapolis graduate and a Marine combat leader there. Remember, college kept you out of the war, and anyone (like me) with education enough to understand the system could find plenty of ways to avoid combat.

This from today's NY Times does quote one Republican spokesman as saying the protesters are complaining about Obama. It also talks about the ambivalence of establishment Democrats, including, to my amazement, the liberal Robert Reich, unless he was quoted out of context.

I checked Reich's post. He does say the Democratic Party will not be able to cotton up to the protesters, but he says it in sorrow, not in anger. He's almost exactly my age and he seems to be about as optimistic about the near term future as I am.

What will be interesting is to see how the administration "triangulates" this whole thing, trying to walk a fine line between demonstrating support for many of the core ideas embodied in OWS without pissing off the corporate/establishment wing of his party as well as campaign contributors. I suspect they will try to do this; they won't want to dismiss the message but they also want to avoid ruffling feathers and, let's face it, this president has surrounded himself with Wall Street types. It remains to be seen how skillfully they can navigate this tightrope if they try it.

As for Reich's comments, they may be correct but they also illustrate the point that way too many Democrats are in the back pocket of corporate interests and campaign funds like the Republicans. Yes, "less bad" is better than "more bad," Establishment Democrats, but you insult a lot of people by expecting their support even while you openly defy the ideals they hold, and "we're not as bad as the GOP" only goes so far.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

.... let's face it, this president has surrounded himself with Wall Street types.

No doubt. The road to reelection will require him to turn his back on the Wall St types and embrace a more populist position. If he doesn't, someone else is going to plug in to this strong current.

While he seems a bit cooky, former Gov. Buddy Roemer (he is running as a GOP candidate, not that you would know it) is the only one talking the right message now.

EDIT: Link to Buddy supporting OWS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...63-503544.html

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The answer to that question is because of the message of the protests. The "99%" vs. the "1%". The message is not that Obama's economic policies have failed, it's that he hasn't been left wing enough, engaged in enough class warfare, and "soaked the rich". And it's not "give me a job", it's "take their money and give it to me". Although suspiciously, this approach of vilifying the "top 1%"comes directly from Obama himself.

Actually, that is the message. There are many concerns coming out of OWS but one of the big concerns of the young people there is that they have these huge student loans and can't find a job. And the idea that these people who are protesting are a bunch of Robin Hoods, is not accurate. Since the recession corporate proftis have soared and Wall Street has done fairly well, yet unemployment hasn't really budged. My brother is a manger for the commercial loan department at a bank. He deals with business owners all day long. He told me a while back that the business owners are saying they have no intention of hiring back the people they layed off or hiring new employees. They are making good profits now and they like their bottom line. They just work their current employees harder and get the same results. Yet at the same time they aren't giving them raises either. And people have no choice but just to put up with it because they are just grateful to still have a job. Plus they know they can't get a better deal anywhere else. This is very frustrating for people who still have jobs. So you have a combination of angry and frustrated unemployed and employed workers.

Here is an article talking about the wealth distribution in this country. In addition to hearing on the news yesterday that since 2009, 88% of income growth went to corporate profits, but just 1% went to wages, there was also some other statistics released yesterday by a government report that the medium household income in America has dropped from $53,000 to $49,000.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period,corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”

People are upset that the supposed trickle down theory just isn't working for them. And that anger and frustration is real. If everyone was doing great and feeling like they were getting ahead instead of falling behind you wouldn't see these protests happening in cities and towns all over America.

Now, I'm not trying to slam the Republicans, just trying to give them a little advice here. If they truly want to get the people behind them, they need to stop pretending that the frustration people are feeling isn't coming from a real place and that people are just jealous. I'd be willing to bet there are very few people in this country who don't have a family member or friend who isn't truly struggling and is having trouble finding a job, or aren't struggling themselves.

I'm just basically an observer of human behavior. I also like to play "arm chair quarter-back" in looking at the different political strategies. For the last two years the debate in Washington has been over deficit reduction. The Republicans have really steered this conversation. It's been all about what can we cut. They talk about slashing spending on education, social security, along with other social service programs. Basically they are asking the American people to sacrifice. And that's fine. Nothing wrong asking with people to sacrifice but you have give them a light at the end of the tunnel. So far, no one has. You can't just ask people to sacrifice without promising them any rewards for their sacrifice. Jimmy Carter found this out. He came out with his "malaise speech" while Ronald Reagan promised the American people that "tomorrow is new day and there is hope." I think the Republicans need to take a page out of "Ronald Reagan playbook". If they continue to poo poo the feelings of Americans and insult them, they aren't going win voters.

The message of OWS is anger but there is also hope in it too. And that's why people gravitate towards it. They are basically saying, "We are angry and frustrated because we did play by the rules yet we are still falling behind, but we can take our country back and make it work for all Americans."

Originally Posted by ASB65

To call these kids a bunch of "anti-American, violent deadbeats" is rather offensive to me.

Understate much? It is extremely offensive. It is libel at its worst.

Dead-beats aren't simply unemployed; they are the people who want things done for them without any desire to earn them. Violence? That would be obvious if there were any violence. People would scatter once someone did something violent. So far I have as much cause to fear violence from counter-protesters who would incite riots.

The economic Right would love to see economic competition in which unemployed people try to get jobs by competing with people who now have jobs by undercutting all to the benefit of employers who would get free money through pay cuts. For good reason we have unemployment insurance that gives people good incentives for not driving down pay for others.

And I'm sure I'm not the only ones who feel that way. When in reality these young people actually tried to do the right thing. They went to college, acquired student loans to do that and now can't find a job. I just think these Republicans who have said these thing, just didn't think it through. Because you have to know that there are plenty of people in their base who have kids and grandkids that are in same boat.

Precisely! They bought into an American Dream that now costs more to join and is less certain.

Economic exploitation is extremely profitable. It is horrible to those exploited. It might be crass to say that the only economic security other than ownership of profitable assets is to be overworked and underpaid... but even that form of security, perverse as it is, is no longer available.

The solution: tax the Hell out of people who own cash cows in which further investment is unlikely to create economic growth.

Originally Posted by ASB65

...business owners are saying they have no intention of hiring back the people they layed off or hiring new employees. They are making good profits now and they like their bottom line. They just work their current employees harder and get the same results. Yet at the same time they aren't giving them raises either. And people have no choice but just to put up with it because they are just grateful to still have a job. Plus they know they can't get a better deal anywhere else. This is very frustrating for people who still have jobs. So you have a combination of angry and frustrated unemployed and employed workers.

Yes, this -- it's recognition that not only the unemployed are being shat on by Wall Street and the Corporate Elite who buy government. Their misery "trickles up" even to the employed, because the fear of unemployment allows these companies to work people longer, harder and "motivate" through fear. Trickle down prosperity may be dead, but trickle-up misery is not, at least while it's not yet trickled up to the wealthy and the connected.

They know damn well high unemployment can be used against the people to increase their earnings by letting them "cut costs" through reduced payrolls and just making everyone left work longer and harder... and no raises for years (and those are the comparatively "lucky" ones who didn't get a cut).

Interesting Washington Post commentary on the political strategy of the Obama Presidency and his governing style.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Interesting Washington Post commentary on the political strategy of the Obama Presidency and his governing style.

Well, it's seemed to me for some time that his role model is Abraham Lincoln. This makes sense. They're both thinking type presidents, and somewhat introverted, unlike the exuberant Roosevelts and Reagans. And I like to think that Obama has a good grasp of the big picture and a long-term strategy that ends up in the opposition being suddenly checkmated and never knowing what hit them.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Well, it's seemed to me for some time that his role model is Abraham Lincoln. This makes sense. They're both thinking type presidents, and somewhat introverted, unlike the exuberant Roosevelts and Reagans. And I like to think that Obama has a good grasp of the big picture and a long-term strategy that ends up in the opposition being suddenly checkmated and never knowing what hit them.

Chess game/ thinking man!

Very interesting and with this perspective I might enjoy watching the next 4+ years.

But for all those who are not familiar with chess...it's a very slow game with a great pay off.

I'm beginning to suspect that Obama is either getting better political advice or else has figured out that all of the Clnton era advisors tha he's been listening to never had to deal with a depression era economy. A year is a long time and a lot can happen, but for now anyway one has to wonder if his new found populism is too little too late.

Originally Posted by ASB65

There are many concerns coming out of OWS but one of the big concerns of the young people there is that they have these huge student loans and can't find a job. And the idea that these people who are protesting are a bunch of Robin Hoods, is not accurate. Since the recession corporate proftis have soared and Wall Street has done fairly well, yet unemployment hasn't really budged. My brother is a manger for the commercial loan department at a bank. He deals with business owners all day long. He told me a while back that the business owners are saying they have no intention of hiring back the people they layed off or hiring new employees. They are making good profits now and they like their bottom line. They just work their current employees harder and get the same results. Yet at the same time they aren't giving them raises either. And people have no choice but just to put up with it because they are just grateful to still have a job. Plus they know they can't get a better deal anywhere else. This is very frustrating for people who still have jobs. So you have a combination of angry and frustrated unemployed and employed workers.

So far this is a plutocrat's recovery and a Depression for everyone else. The political ideology of America's ruling elites is essentially the Marxist stereotype of an elite that grabs everything that it can while others get what the ruling elite considers barely necessary for survival... of the fittest. That's the way of the Gilded Age for industrial workers -- seventy-hour workweeks and forty-year lifespans (the "life" of a worker as such beginning in the single-digit years even in the mines)for the possibility, if one is lucky, of just getting enough to eat and shelter and rags adequate -- just barely -- for survival in the climate. Karl Marx' stereotype is ugly, and capitalism has saved itself not so much with the crude force of death squads but instead by refuting Marx' stereotype.

America has as much a moral crisis as an economic crisis. Our economic elites have soft standards for themselves but harsh ones for everyone else. That is itself unstable. Maybe our economic elites need moral philosophers as much as they need financial analysts and lobbyists. We can all see where corporate success lies and where corporate failure lies.

Here is an article talking about the wealth distribution in this country. In addition to hearing on the news yesterday that since 2009, 88% of income growth went to corporate profits, but just 1% went to wages, there was also some other statistics released yesterday by a government report that the medium household income in America has dropped from $53,000 to $49,000.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery//

People are upset that the supposed trickle down theory just isn't working for them. And that anger and frustration is real. If everyone was doing great and feeling like they were getting ahead instead of falling behind you wouldn't see these protests happening in cities and towns all over America.

Throughout the 3T and into the 4T, the rich are getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer. It's not because people have been getting stupider or lazier. Giant entities have been gobbling up or marginalizing small business. Technological miracles -- robots and information technology -- have been reducing the need for unskilled workers and have been reducing wasteful production. Except for the first two years of the Obama administration, the legal system has strongly and consistently favored management over labor and corporations over consumers and the environment. Free trade has allowed corporations once known as manufacturers to become low-cost importers. Ordinarily the benefits of such improvement trickle down -- but they don't do so this time. People are getting angry, as demonstrated first by the Tea Party Movement (which offered the wrong targets for anger!) and its right-wing populism; now people who saw through the Tea Party look to left-wing populism.

Now, I'm not trying to slam the Republicans, just trying to give them a little advice here. If they truly want to get the people behind them, they need to stop pretending that the frustration people are feeling isn't coming from a real place and that people are just jealous. I'd be willing to bet there are very few people in this country who don't have a family member or friend who isn't truly struggling and is having trouble finding a job, or aren't struggling themselves.

People know that they are getting $crewed badly. Corporate America has power without moral authority. Its political and journalistic stooges blame the victim for the ill effects of corporate power. I can now see little difference in the morals of tycoons and executives with

(1) those who bought fascist movements into power in Europe and Japan so that they could suppress working people's struggles
(2) the nomenklatura of the old Soviet Union and other "socialist" regimes
(3) slave-owning planters
(4) feudal barons
(5) organized crime

Contemporary American tycoons and executives aren't quite there yet, but nothing says that they don't intend to get there. It may be that our tycoons are more like (3) or (4) and our executive elite (along with their political operatives) are more like (2) -- basically a quibble. For capitalism, doing good and doing well must coincide. If they don't, then the model looks more like (5). Gangsters do well by doing very bad things to people and enforcing social and economic rot.

I'm just basically an observer of human behavior. I also like to play "arm chair quarter-back" in looking at the different political strategies. For the last two years the debate in Washington has been over deficit reduction. The Republicans have really steered this conversation. It's been all about what can we cut. They talk about slashing spending on education, social security, along with other social service programs. Basically they are asking the American people to sacrifice. And that's fine. Nothing wrong asking with people to sacrifice but you have give them a light at the end of the tunnel. So far, no one has. You can't just ask people to sacrifice without promising them any rewards for their sacrifice. Jimmy Carter found this out. He came out with his "malaise speech" while Ronald Reagan promised the American people that "tomorrow is new day and there is hope." I think the Republicans need to take a page out of "Ronald Reagan playbook". If they continue to poo poo the feelings of Americans and insult them, they aren't going win voters.

Jimmy Carter was a good man but a very ineffective President. Ronald Reagan was one of the most flawed people who ever became President, but he was extremely effective because he got the core activities of the Presidency right. As an optimist he could associate personal sacrifices with tangible improvements likely in people's lives. Ronald Reagan came into office with high interest rates, high inflation, and escalating energy costs. He got Congress to enact measures, perhaps those that deferred many people their dreams, that cut interest rates, brought inflation down to a low level, and cut energy use -- namely, transferring income during an overheated economy to the upper reaches of the American economy and weakening the unions. Of course, Reagan-era measures to reduce interest rates and inflation that the Hard Right now proposes can do little good; indeed they would cause even more suffering without solving any problems whatsoever. High interest rates and high inflation are completely irrelevant to contemporary politics.

The message of OWS is anger but there is also hope in it too. And that's why people gravitate towards it. They are basically saying, "We are angry and frustrated because we did play by the rules yet we are still falling behind, but we can take our country back and make it work for all Americans."

The Tea Party won the 2010 election for Republicans -- only to become a model for people more rational, tolerant, and decent than they in the 2012 and likely 2014 elections. OWS shows another side to the political debate, and such scares people who have nothing to offer to the common man except greater sacrifices on behalf of people who own or manage cash-cow enterprises.

I looked at the charts or planets for some of the candidates. Cain, Perry and Huntsman are not presidential material and will not be elected or nominated. Perry has the better chance among those three. Romney will be the nominee and has a chance to beat Obama. I still think Obama will win.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Well, it's seemed to me for some time that his role model is Abraham Lincoln. This makes sense. They're both thinking type presidents, and somewhat introverted, unlike the exuberant Roosevelts and Reagans. And I like to think that Obama has a good grasp of the big picture and a long-term strategy that ends up in the opposition being suddenly checkmated and never knowing what hit them.

I've been wondering about Obama's MBTI for a while now, and after reading this and a few other articles, I'm becoming more convinced he is an INTx (not sure if P/J...I lean toward P). Make of that what you will...I think his personality has been both a strength and a weakness.

It is quite true that both Democrats and Republicans are bought and paid for by corporate America and that Barack Obama has shown no interest in serious reform of our economy. It is quite true that his re-election is unlikely to improve things very much. However, I want to urge everyone here, especially Xers and Millies, not to get so carried away by the excitement of the "non-partisanship" of OWS, or to buy into the idea that both parties are so hopeless that we need a third party or something else new.

And the reason, as Krugman points out today, , is that there is one simple, huge difference between the two parties at this time. Democrats are at least marginally in touch with reality. Republicans are not. Any of them. Above we see a number of people (including yours truly) clinging to the hope that Romney, if elected, will rediscover his inner centrist. And he might, but that is really grasping at straws.

A Republican victory will be a great national catastrophe and I think we should all keep that in mind.

Well, my vote is still up in the air. Historically for President I have always voted against the party in power at election time, I guess its sort of a 'throw the bums out' mentality.

Obama is a choice. I'm considering Romney too. Perry, Bachman and Santorum I won't even consider voting for. Although Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, he is tempting to consider voting for.

The thing about Obama...is second terms are historically always rotten. If he wins, he's going to go into 2013 with a GOP House and Senate. Likely he'll go along with most of what they send him. (as he's already continued most of Bush's policies). And who knows what scandals are brought out in the open.

Obama would be unlikely to win either house back in 2014..in the Senate a handful of Democratic Senators elected in 2008 could lose making the GOP pad their majority there. By 2016 most will want to see Obama gone. The GOP field may not be as sensible then as they are now..rather

Now if Romney were to win, and he would have a Republican Congress as well, there would be two full years of the GOP running things. They go too far to the right, and the Dems might have a chance to pick up a chamber or both in 2014. Maybe this weakens Romney, maybe not. But you might have a better chance of winning the 2016 election for the Dems if Romney is elected as opposed to being at the end of Obamas second term.

So...trying to think long term here.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It is quite true that both Democrats and Republicans are bought and paid for by corporate America and that Barack Obama has shown no interest in serious reform of our economy. It is quite true that his re-election is unlikely to improve things very much. However, I want to urge everyone here, especially Xers and Millies, not to get so carried away by the excitement of the "non-partisanship" of OWS, or to buy into the idea that both parties are so hopeless that we need a third party or something else new.

And the reason, as Krugman points out today, , is that there is one simple, huge difference between the two parties at this time. Democrats are at least marginally in touch with reality. Republicans are not. Any of them. Above we see a number of people (including yours truly) clinging to the hope that Romney, if elected, will rediscover his inner centrist. And he might, but that is really grasping at straws.

A Republican victory will be a great national catastrophe and I think we should all keep that in mind.

Lets make an analogy. Suppose the house next door to you is empty. You get to pick who your new neighbor is going to be. Here are your choices, a murder or an arsonist, pyromaniac. Which one are you going to chose? I think I chose neither. I'd pack up and leave.

I don't think it really matters whether or not Obama or Romney wins. They may appear to be different sides of the coin, but they aren't. I don't know who I'm going to vote for. I plan on taking a look at every candidate from every party (Independent parties too), and I'm going to vote for the one who best represents my ideology and is willing to fight for what I personally believe in. This time around I plan on voting for who I can actually feel good about when I pull that lever and know that I have morally stood my principles. I'm tired of playing in the system. The system doesn't work for me...And if there is no candidate out there who I can feel that way about, then I guess I'll write in a name...Like my own. At least then I would know for sure the person I voted for actually represents my ideals.

Besides congress makes the laws and is the most at fault for the shape our country is in. I think it's much more important who is in congress than who is the president. It doesn't matter who the president is if congress isn't willing to work with him or each other.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I don't think it really matters whether or not Obama or Romney wins. They may appear to be different sides of the coin, but they aren't. I don't know who I'm going to vote for. I plan on taking a look at every candidate from every party (Independent parties too), and I'm going to vote for the one who best represents my ideology and is willing to fight for what I personally believe in. This time around I plan on voting for who I can actually feel good about when I pull that lever and know that I have morally stood my principles. I'm tired of playing in the system. The system doesn't work for me...And if there is no candidate out there who I can feel that way about, then I guess I'll write in a name...Like my own. At least then I would know for sure the person I voted for actually represents my ideals.

We must move "...past a certain point of self-consciousness, inevitably becom[ing] so self-conscious that [we] distrust even [our] own distrust of things as they are, and [we] begin to establish an idea of personality, of the community, on a different plane altogether." -- Frank McConnell, Land's End, Land's Beginning

~Chas'88