Title: A Message From Occupied Wall Street (Day Four) Source:
OccupyWallStreet URL Source:https://occupywallst.org/ Published:Sep 21, 2011 Author:easilydistr Post Date:2011-09-21 12:42:04 by lucysmom Keywords:None Views:4070 Comments:30
This is the fourth communiqué from the 99 percent. We are occupying Wall Street.
On September 18th, 2011, we were awoken by police bullhorns around seven in the morning, they objected to us protecting ourselves from the rain. They told us that the tarps suspended above us had to be taken down. We held a General Assembly to determine how to respond. We decided that we would hold the tarps over ourselves and our possessions. The police ripped the plastic away from us. We then scrambled to protect our possessions, primarily the media equipment streaming our occupation to the world. The police were also mostly interested in our cameras, it seems like they don't want you watching us.
Before we say more about what happened to us it seems important to point this out: we do not think the police are our enemy. They have jobs, how could we fault them for that, when one sixth of America lives in poverty? when one sixth of America can't find work? The police are part of the 99 per cent.
I'm thinking that with out big money, and media coverage, the Tea Party wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
To me, the TP represented the frustration felt by many - perhaps a majority - in this country.
Now granted the frustration may have come about in part because of Obama - not because of his color but because of how blatant he was governing against the will of the people (as epitomized by Obamacare)
MY frustration dated back to at least about 2005 and the second Bush admin (with a GOP congress that spent like the proverbial drunken sailors on shore leave).
Anyway, I really liked the TP when it first started, and the fact it drove the Left and the MSM crazy was just icing on the cake. And no, I don't believe (initially, at least) there was a lot of money behind it.
It was leaderless, after all.
That's not to say that sadly it has not been co-opted by the GOP and neo-con statists on the so-called right (see my tagline)
So it's an exciting thing that has come . . . and now it has gone.
To me, the TP represented the frustration felt by many - perhaps a majority - in this country.
Now granted the frustration may have come about in part because of Obama - not because of his color but because of how blatant he was governing against the will of the people (as epitomized by Obamacare)
Don't you think the "Occupy Wall Street" protest has come about out of the same frustration?
You mean like the people who don't want government mixed up in their medical care with the exception of their government administered Medicare? (Kinda makes one think they are being manipulated to oppose something they really support, don't you think?)
Don't you think the "Occupy Wall Street" protest has come about out of the same frustration?
About the only similarity I see is that both groups are frustrated. Other than that, the TP tends to want less gov't.
I suspect the OWS crowd wants more.
Kind of like the Leftist "critics" of Obama. They think he's not left enough.
You mean like the people who don't want government mixed up in their medical care with the exception of their government administered Medicare? (Kinda makes one think they are being manipulated to oppose something they really support, don't you think?)
You really ought to try thinking outside the box which the false paradigm has put you in.
Gov't has involved itself in medical issues - but they have just screwed it up halfway. So we have a bastardization of free market mixed with gov't that somehow manages to combine the worst aspects of both.
It has managed to make otherwise independent people to feel they must depend on it, however.
In that, it has succeeded.
Which is why governments grow and grow and grow until they eventually collapse. Exactly what we're seeing now.
That's certainly news to me. Can you elaborate - what exactly do you mean when you post " . . . government (per capita) is shrinking"?
...California – which has 38 million residents – had the third lowest number of full-time state government employees relative to the population.
California and Florida both had 103 state employees for every 10,000 residents, while Illinois had the lowest ratio at 97, the group reported. The U.S. average was 143 state employees per 10,000 residents, with California 28 percent below the national average.
certainly news to me. Can you elaborate - what exactly do you mean when you post " . . . government (per capita) is shrinking"?
...California – which has 38 million residents – had the third lowest number of full-time state government employees relative to the population.
Couple of points:
1. You can measure government size per capita if you wish, but all that shows is that you citizens of CA are getting hosed. How is it that such a "small" gov't produces numbers such as THESE?
2. No offense to CA, but I'm more interested in the FEDGOV - and I don't think even you can spin that it is shrinking.
1. You can measure government size per capita if you wish, but all that shows is that you citizens of CA are getting hosed. How is it that such a "small" gov't produces numbers such as THESE?
In short:
1. Republican unwillingness and inability to deal with the financial realities of running a state the size of California.
Example: bond debt, which is paid from general funds leaving less money for current items, tripled under Schwarzenegger.
2. Recession that has reduced state revenues, but not reduced expenses.
