Their movement has died but better late then never. If this doesn't interest you other subjects posted below.
Any protest that hopes to accomplish some goal needs, well, a goal. If a demonstration like this lacks concrete objectives, then its purpose will be limited at best and nonexistent at worst. At this time, all the protest really appears to stand for is a general dislike of Wall Street. But what does that mean? [3]
Wall Street Doesn't Care
They will to continue to fund DEMOCRATS and keep doing what they do. Now I made a controversial statement, time to prove the democrat statement.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/obamas-raised-more-money-for-democrats-from-wall-street-donors-than-all-republican-candidates-combined/
go there if you don't believe me.
The Protesters Can't Sway Congress
The Tea Party accomplished something very key: it helped to significantly alter the makeup of Congress through the 2010 election. It had a goal -- to put out of power the big government candidates -- and it accomplished that goal. The Occupy Wall Street cannot hope for any result as significant.
As mentioned, it doesn't have a clear set of objectives. But let's say, for argument's sake, that it has some general fringe-left goals. Some that have been suggested include new taxes on Wall Street and much stronger financial regulation. The problem is that these views aren't likely to catch on in Congress: even when the mix was much further to the left in 2009 through 2010, a relatively mild financial regulation bill was passed and even the Bush tax cuts remained intact.
The reality is that the U.S. is a center-right nation, and Congress reflects that. While some cities are farther to the left than others, they already have very progressive representatives. Meanwhile, the message of Occupy Wall Street isn't likely to catch on and affect any change in more center-right regions like the Tea Party did.[3]
Their Timing Is Off
Even if the U.S. were to embrace the message of these protests, Congress would not act. The bailouts were hugely unpopular with voters, but they occurred anyway. That's because there are times when Washington just needs to be practical. When unemployment is stuck above 9% is such a time.
[3]
Banking is a Vital Institution -- Especially to the U.S.
Hating banks is counterproductive. You simply can't live without banks in a modern, sophisticated economy. Wall Street investment firms are equally essential. Capital markets and debt markets allow businesses to function smoothly. Without them, growth and progress would be much slower. [3]
Also they are for wealth distribution (hey at least they have one goal).
The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love. [5]
Well that's is, the occupy movement sucks.
http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/ [5]
As the ‘Occupiers,’ protest, ‘elitist suppression’ in the very nation that invented classless society and upward mobility, it should be noted that even a purely material appraisal of America’s fruit basket offers ample evidence to the capitalist blessings we enjoy. Ironically, those shouting Bolshevik slogans and wearing Mao Tse Tung t-shirts (as they defecate on police cars and lob urine bottles at uniformed officers who would be instructed to kill them with impunity in any of the totalitarian states they seem so eager to promote) are ignoring the truth that the bank bailouts they hate so much were a non-solution rooted not in capitalism, but squarely in the soil of the communist ideology they seek to empower. ‘Too Big to Fail,’ is purest socialism adopted by people enriched beyond words by the very capitalism now being defiled by those too ignorant of history to recognize the difference. The American Dream is not dead. It is being short-circuited by mental manipulation and propagandized devolution willingly adopted by a lazy society. [1]
self explanatory.
They have no real answer for what they stand for.
You could look this up, they say "I don't know" or "anti-obama" or "destroy wallsteet" or even " it just seems like a good idea"
A good reason why the occupy protests should be ignored.
Occupy protests lack common/coherent message "Occupy protests need to focus on coherent demands." Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011: "The protests have been linked and compared to the tea party movement, due to their similar grassroots nature and extreme ideological stances. However, the tea party does have a centralized message, which the "Occupy" protests lack. The tea party is about reducing taxes and cutting spending to make government smaller. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the tea party's stances, it is possible to know what the entire group and all of its smaller subsidiaries are about. We believe the "Occupy" protests need to do the same thing. Define and convey their message correctly, and stick to reasonable demands that resonate with the rest of the American public. Most of the country has been seriously hurt by the financial crisis, and most of the American public wants to focus on creating a more equal and fair country. There is a lot of room for the "Occupy" protests to grow, but without a consistent message, most Americans will be turned off." [2]
That is that.
Also there are 5 reasons why the movement won't work:
Its Goals Are UnclearAny protest that hopes to accomplish some goal needs, well, a goal. If a demonstration like this lacks concrete objectives, then its purpose will be limited at best and nonexistent at worst. At this time, all the protest really appears to stand for is a general dislike of Wall Street. But what does that mean? [3]
Wall Street Doesn't Care
They will to continue to fund DEMOCRATS and keep doing what they do. Now I made a controversial statement, time to prove the democrat statement.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/obamas-raised-more-money-for-democrats-from-wall-street-donors-than-all-republican-candidates-combined/
go there if you don't believe me.
The Protesters Can't Sway Congress
The Tea Party accomplished something very key: it helped to significantly alter the makeup of Congress through the 2010 election. It had a goal -- to put out of power the big government candidates -- and it accomplished that goal. The Occupy Wall Street cannot hope for any result as significant.
As mentioned, it doesn't have a clear set of objectives. But let's say, for argument's sake, that it has some general fringe-left goals. Some that have been suggested include new taxes on Wall Street and much stronger financial regulation. The problem is that these views aren't likely to catch on in Congress: even when the mix was much further to the left in 2009 through 2010, a relatively mild financial regulation bill was passed and even the Bush tax cuts remained intact.
The reality is that the U.S. is a center-right nation, and Congress reflects that. While some cities are farther to the left than others, they already have very progressive representatives. Meanwhile, the message of Occupy Wall Street isn't likely to catch on and affect any change in more center-right regions like the Tea Party did.[3]
Their Timing Is Off
Even if the U.S. were to embrace the message of these protests, Congress would not act. The bailouts were hugely unpopular with voters, but they occurred anyway. That's because there are times when Washington just needs to be practical. When unemployment is stuck above 9% is such a time.
[3]
Banking is a Vital Institution -- Especially to the U.S.
Hating banks is counterproductive. You simply can't live without banks in a modern, sophisticated economy. Wall Street investment firms are equally essential. Capital markets and debt markets allow businesses to function smoothly. Without them, growth and progress would be much slower. [3]
Also they are for wealth distribution (hey at least they have one goal).
The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love. [5]
world GDP in 2010: $74.54 trillion
Population 2011 july: 6,928,198,253
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
$ 10, 758.93 per person.
Thats nothing. wealth distribution fails.
Well that's is, the occupy movement sucks.
sources:
http://www.rightsidesd.com/?p=6455 [1]
Student Life Staff Editorial. October 17th, 2011 [2]
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/5-reasons-why-occupy-wall-street-wont-work/246041/ [3]http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/ [5]
No comments:
Post a Comment