The Future of the Occupy Movement
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-16/future-occupy-movement
Occupy Wall Street activists vow protests will persist. Yesterday New York City police in riot gear evicted hundreds and razed the city of tents where some in the group had been living for close to two months. The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to highlight income inequality and has inspired hundreds of similar protests around the country and the world. Most have been small and some have been marred by violence, but participants claim, despite evictions in New York and elsewhere, it’s an idea that will continue to gather momentum: Join us for a conversation on what the Occupy movement has accomplished and its future.
Guests
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Michael Premo
participant, Occupy Wall Street
Legba Carrefour
participant, Occupy DC
Lawrence Lessig
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
author of “Republic,Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It”
Tyler Cowen
general director, Mercatus Center
professor of economics, George Mason University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Actually gentlemen, this is also an inaccurate statement. General Welfare refers to the nation benefiting as a whole. That can mean some people benefit more, but the nation as a whole benefits really."
Huh? OK, I'll say it again. There is no need for the rest of the Constitution. The FG can collect the taxes is wants and distribute however it sees fit. There is no need for Article 1, Section 8.
"Article 1 Section 8 is about minutia."
Nonsense. Read the document. Section 8 begins "Congress shall have the Power To ...". Then it lists them. The end of Section 8 is just as specific "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the FOREGOING POWERS (my emphasis), and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (That is, laws with respect to the other two branches). Article 1 Section 8 enumerates those things that states cannot do by themselves or that don't make sense at the state level only. Again, with your interpretation of the general welfare clause, Congress can do anything it wants. Sorry, what benefits individual citizens DOES NOT benefit everyone. If the founders had intended that, why does the "preamble" talk about "general welfare" followed by a list of very specific things that all, coincidentally benefit everyone! When the FG builds a road it's something I MIGHT drive on if I choose even if it's across the country from where I live. When they pay someone to stay home for almost two years on unemployment or pay for someone else's medical care that CANNOT benefit me. Again, those types of programs are fine at the STATE level - never at the Federal level.
On education, "I am not saying the federal government should control it."
But they DO!!! That's the problem with any of these departments. They hold the purse strings. They call the shots. The FG runs by the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
"So what are you two trying to say here?
That we should reverse 230 years and get back to what the founders believed.? Do you think that only property owners who are white and male should vote? Many of the founders owned slaves and had no problem with it. Should we bring that one back too?
Should we repeal the right of women to vote or own property while we are at it?"
Folks on your side of this argument always jump to hyperbole as soon as this subject comes up. White, black, women all should and do have the right to vote. The idea of only land owners voting was that THEY HAVE A STAKE in what they're voting for in a way that others simply don't. I'm not saying that we should go back to that. But the founders had a reason for doing what they did and it served us for more than 60 years. How the voting right is given would be an interesting debate, but voters MUST have a stake in what they are voting for.
"This is an awesome hypothetical proposition…. I love it ... Well pre-Citizens United I would argue that Michael Moore could not have used his production company to do a hit job on Romney with the intention of showing it on TV or other widely broadcast ways within the 30 days prior to the election according to the electioneering laws."
Hit job? It has nothing to do with Romney. It's a "documentary" or a "mockumentary" on Mormonism! It's 2012 and Oliver Stone wants to do a movie that involves sexual harassment in the workplace. There's a scene where the star player, who happens to be a black executive, is sitting in the car with one of his employees. He puts his hand on her knee and propositions her. Can the movie run within 30 days of the election?
Here is why the SCOTUS decision makes sense. As I have asked elsewhere on this board, Who decides if a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown? It becomes a sloppy mess. That is why the court, AND THE FOUNDERS, said, "allow everything". If there are questions of slander, libel, or other factual issues, take the producers to court, otherwise, shut up and produce your own movie.
I understand the frustrations of the Occupy people. I get it - there were and still exist abuses in business and government that demand fixing. That being said the OWS calls for "revolution" and "tearing down the system" just sound so much like the over-zealous cry of a generation of arrogant and spoiled children. How dare they claim to speak for me (for now, I am decidedly in the 99% economically)! Speak for yourself. I am the son of an immigrant and know that the system they are so anxious to change is the system that offers hope to the rest of the world. Only in the US can a newly arrived immigrant rise through education and hard work. Our only government aid was free English language classes at the local high school. The promise of this country is the equality of opportunity - not outcomes.
Don't ask me to pay your college debt. You decided to go to an expensive school and you benefited from the education. Why should I pay for your benefit? I have a daughter where I'm paying the bills for a state school. I sacraficed and saved to pay for her education, likely with no debt necessary. To heck with my paying your bills.
ecgberht wrote:
This is why the SCOTUS decision makes sense. As I have asked elsewhere on this board, Who decides if a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown? It becomes a sloppy mess. That is why the court, AND THE FOUNDERS, said, "allow everything". If there are questions of slander, libel, or other factual issues, take the producers to court, otherwise, shut up and produce your own movie.
------
Well I think your point does make sense. I largely agree with your presentation.
But, what I don't like is the fact that this all can be funded and done anonymously.
I also don't like big organizations like unions, corporations, non-profits or whatever pouring money into the election process. I think it just taint the process and makes the politicians do the bidding of the moneybags more than take care of the needs of their constituents.
Whose back is gonna get scrubbed more when someone can pour millions into a particular politicians campaign... not the constituents. The entire original Boston Tea Party was about undue influence by the East India trading company being able to line the pockets of the crown and power brokers to get themselves and anti-competitive sweet deal.
ecgberht wrote:
But they DO!!! That's the problem with any of these departments. They hold the purse strings. They call the shots. The FG runs by the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
-------
But they don't. Only 10-12% of funding comes from the feds. Everything else is from State and local.
Feds give things like hot lunches with crappy food sponsored by monsanto and whoever else paid to have pizza labeled as a vegetable.
ecgberht wrote:
Folks on your side of this argument always jump to hyperbole as soon as this subject comes up. White, black, women all should and do have the right to vote. The idea of only land owners voting was that THEY HAVE A STAKE in what they're voting for in a way that others simply don't. I'm not saying that we should go back to that. But the founders had a reason for doing what they did and it served us for more than 60 years. How the voting right is given would be an interesting debate, but voters MUST have a stake in what they are voting for.
----------
Fair enough on the hyperbole,,, but it is because taking us back to the seventeen hundreds is also hyperbolic. It is not a reasonable thing to do and in fact a flight of fancy. It will never happen. In fact... Going back before the 1980's will never happen. We live in a constantly changing world and although I hear people often say they want to take us back to some idyllic place in our history, they don't know what they are talking about because nobody actually alive today had to live with what life was like back then.
We can only live from here on out. Nothing is going to be reversed because the course of history is not getting reversed.
Question if we held another constitutional convention and a lot of how things are today got hard coded into the new constitution would that be ok? I mean that would be the purest constitutional way of dealing with things correct. I'm pretty sure that the constitution would change dramatically a convention was held again.
"Article 1 Section 8 is about minutia."
Nonsense. Read the document. Section 8 begins
--------
What I mean by minutia is the details. It isn't about the bigger concepts which redefine man and his government.
It isn't that I don't think that is important at all. It is, but what I was trying to say is the bigger overarching concepts and philosophy lie elsewhere in the constitution.
As far as the general welfare... it is broad and should be.
We will disagree on this.
But in the end. In todays America the general welfare is broad and getting broader. I think of this as a good thing. You do not. So we have a difference of opinion, but in the end, things will not be going back to where you would have them be.
Voting is NOT a universal right, as entitlement to a home, for example is NOT a right under our Constitution.
I think you interpret the words "human rights" too vaguely, which allows you to play with this term fast and loose.
----------------------
Voting is a universal right.
I interpret human rights broadly which allows me to want more out of my government for the benefit of the citizens.
The Constitution is about human rights fundamentally. Whose rights is the constitution about if not humans and their natural rights?
"This earth does not belong to only those with power, privilege and money."
Sounds like a Bolshevik slogan.
The next logical step - "Let's rob the robbers!" and "let's send the red rooster up their mansion" (i.e. - burn a rich person's house down in the night).
------------------------
Not at all. Why should everything excalate to killing and murder and be equated with violence.
If you disagree with my statement above... I guess my question is who does the earth belong to for you?
To me, obviously they don't have "zero standing", but it is just as obvious to me that they don't have a right to a home, for example. And I believe that they should not vote as long as they don't contribute.
---------
Fair enough..... the poor according to you have the rights of the bill of rights, but shouldn't vote because they don't contribute.
My question is than what is contributing?
Does working all of your life adding to the GDP equal contribution?
Does raising a family contribute to our nation?
Does buying products and making companies and shareholders wealthier equal contribution?
What is your definition of contribution and who are those contributing?
paikinator,
"Voting is a universal right."
Why?
"I interpret human rights broadly which allows me to want more out of my government for the benefit of the citizens."
No, you want more from ME, because I pay taxes. Government only manages the money that I relinquish to it. By itself, government cannot do a thing. It is only as powerful as the amount that we pay to it.
"Whose rights is the constitution about if not humans and their natural rights?"
"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", plus Bill of Rights.
That is all.
paikinator,
"Not at all. Why should everything excalate to killing and murder and be equated with violence."
Glad to explain.
It is because no one in their right state of mind will part with their own money unless it is out of their free will (i.e. charity).
When the Prodrazverstka (platoons of Red Army soldiers charged with taking away peasants' harvest for the benefit of the government) first started to operate in 1918-20's, the only way they could do it was if they shot a few people to set an example. So, if you don't believe the rich deserve their money, the only way for you to take it would be through violence.
"I guess my question is who does the earth belong to for you?"
This question has about as much sense to me as "Is Friday purple?", sorry.
I don't know what it means for the earth to belong to anybody.
paikinator,
"It implies that all men start at the same point"
To me - it does not. Where did you get that from?
To me, meritocracy implies making best choices with what has been dealt to you.
----------------------
Meritocracy aka pulling oneself up by ones own bootstraps would imply that one gets where they are purely by what they themselves do. Work in.... Result out.
Except that things in general are not equal so you cannot say for example someone who is wealthy by birth got there by merit. They just were born into that situation.
Same with the person born into squallor. They didn't cause that themselves, it was something they were born into.
One of the biggest premises of the pull yourself up by your own bootstraps is that any and all people could become wealthy and successful if they just work hard and do the right things. But this is all predicated on a false idea, which is that there are enough resources for everyone to pull themselves up to a high level. But unfortunately we don't live in a world of infinite resources where everyone is actually able to pull themselves up. There is not a big enough economy with enough jobs and enough resources. We live in a world of scarcity.
So what does meritocracy typically mean. For those who have, it is a justification of why they have what they do and a way for them to say that what they have is because they have better smarts, moral character, integrity, work ethic and etc. It is a way to discount the riff-raff and say they are not where I am because I have done things the right way.
double post...
paikinator,
"My question is than what is contributing?"
Once again: Paying taxes.
You want your government to do something for you - pay for it. Otherwise all you are doing is trying to use someone else's money, which to me isn't fair. If you are not paying - you should just be content with what you are getting for free, i.e. what others paid for.
Good .... then we can have some agreement since everyone pays taxes!
Everyone is contributing and therefore should vote.
Phew... that was easy.
paikinator,
I'll repeat it: Meritocracy is doing your best with what has been dealt to you. I don't understand what you are driving at, sorry.
"But unfortunately we don't live in a world of infinite resources where everyone is actually able to pull themselves up. There is not a big enough economy with enough jobs and enough resources. We live in a world of scarcity."
So, is your solution this: Collect all resources and distribute them equally? Then, I disagree. I came to this country with $500 in my pocket and through work reached my happiness. Why should I give it all up so that someone else could pursue their happiness?
paikinator,
"since everyone pays taxes!"
About 40% of the population does not as far as I know.
"Not at all. Why should everything excalate to killing and murder and be equated with violence."
Glad to explain.
It is because no one in their right state of mind will part with their own money unless it is out of their free will (i.e. charity).
-----------
So totalitarianism weighs heavily on your thinking. That is not what we have here. It is kind of like anti-totalitarianism.
I never said the rich don't deserve their money.... I think there is a great disparity which is not good for a democratic republic. All countries with gigantic wealth disparities end up more like banana republics. We just don't want to go that way. It is much better to have a country with a giant middle class. The same number of wealthy and fewer poor people. It is just better for everyone. The rich make a boatload. Most of the rest of everyone leads the american dream and we take care of those who are not very capable to at least make sure they don't starve, spread disease, and rob the rest of us.
paikinator,
"It is much better to have a country with a giant middle class. The same number of wealthy and fewer poor people."
I agree. The only difference is that you think we should start with taking away from the rich and giving to the poor and I think that the poor should get out of the Zuccotti Park, take a shower, cut their hair and get a damn job.
About 40% of the population does not as far as I know.
------
Well you would be completely wrong on that.
Everyone pays a bunch of taxes.
Property taxes
Gas taxes
Cigarette taxes
Payroll taxes
city taxes
state taxes
fees for things we do
There are hundreds of taxes and we all pay taxes even the poorest of the poor.
So everyone contributes something somewhere along the line. We are all vested in this country. Each really according to his or her means.
paikinator,
"It is a way to discount the riff-raff and say they are not where I am because I have done things the right way."
But isn't it true most of the time?
I mean, I have yet to see a country where one could have the opportunity to live a good life by working hard. Sure, things get worse and they get better sometimes, but on average, it IS one of the most (if not THE most) equitable, fair and merit-oriented societies in the world!
I can understand "Occupy Kremlin" or "Occupy Tehran" protests - which would be, by the way, genuine, dangerous and justified - but OWS to me is just laughable and slightly irritating. Kind of like the Kardashians.
paikinator,
I do not understand why you are trying to pull switch-a-roos. It's a bit insulting, to be honest :)
We are talking about the federal government and the federal taxes only here. This is the tax that we file every year on April 15, remitted to the federal government.
I agree. The only difference is that you think we should start with taking away from the rich and giving to the poor and I think that the poor should get out of the Zuccotti Park, take a shower, cut their hair and get a damn job.
-------------------
I don't think the rich paying more taxes is a problem. They should pay a fair share. My wife and I pay much higher taxes than our wealthier friends who live off of their investments. Why should we pay more when we have less? Its ridiculous.
What I hear a lot of folks on the right is that we need to make capital gains zero... Yeah.....so our wealthy friends would pay next to no taxes and wouldn't contribute to social security because they don't pay payroll taxes and yet they will still be able to draw on it... that is not really fair either.
Why should me and my wife with a small business and salary be paying an unduly larger proportion of what we make eh? We feel like we are shouldering more of the burden and have less money coming in to do it.
The 40% who don't pay income tax you talked about earlier only account for 2.5% of the wealth of this nation. Exactly how do we balance our budget by trying to squeeze more juice out of that rock especially when their earning power is actually in freefall? Bringing the percentage of what wealthy people pay to levels my wife and I do would rain money down and chop down the deficit considerably.... I am not saying take money from those who have... we just gotta get to a fairer system where they pay what we do.
But isn't it true most of the time?
I mean, I have yet to see a country where one could have the opportunity to live a good life by working hard. Sure, things get worse and they get better sometimes, but on average, it IS one of the most (if not THE most) equitable, fair and merit-oriented societies in the world!
---------
Hard work is always a great thing. But just because the poor are poor doesn't mean they don't have to work hard. I lived on and off in south america sometimes in the slums with some of the poorest of the poor.
I was amazed at how hard people worked to make it. They worked hard, they struggled, they scrambled for every scrap.
And yet all of that hard work didn't translate into much of anything. They and their parents before them and their grandparents before them were all hard working people, honest, moral and yet they could never get a leg up. There just isn't a way out for most people born into those situations.
So by those people working hard doesn't translate into what they merit, because there is so much scarcity.
I think the reason for the OWS in this country is more about how we don't want to end up like south americans or africans or other poor nations. It is about preserving the middle class when it is largely being erased and so many people are not finding they can get to the middle class anymore. That is reality.
paikinator,
I do not understand why you are trying to pull switch-a-roos. It's a bit insulting, to be honest :)
We are talking about the federal government and the federal taxes only here. This is the tax that we file every year on April 15, remitted to the federal government.
----------------
You didn't say 40% don't pay federal taxes. you just said taxes unless I am reading too fast again. You are saying tax contribution gives people the right to vote I assume.
ok... so payroll taxes are not federal? Every working man pays those.
Most people pay gas taxes those are federal, or cigarette taxes or a host of other federal taxes. I buy a park pass that is federal
The only people I know who don't pay them are my really really wealthy friends who live off of investments. All the poor people pay payroll taxes because they work. And they pay a whole host of other taxes which are federal.
And you are using the tax thing to say that somehow these people don't contribute and therefore shouldn''t have a right to vote?
Are you just saying they shouldn't have a right to vote in Federal election only then. That would be a strange thing to try and enforce. You pay state and local taxes so you can vote for states things, but no federal offices. Wow.... talk about convoluted.
But of course your definition of people contributing is kind of screwy. We all contribute to this country and we should all have a say... that is called democracy.
houblon:
"True democracy is everyone in society voting for what they want. "
And that is precisely why our Founding Fathers did NOT want the "true democracy" to be our form of government. In fact, they expressly warned about it!
James Madison: "Democracies, in general, have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
John Adams: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
John Quincy Adams: "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
---------------------
Hmmm I don't think that really encapsulates how the founders felt about democracy. It is more a reflection on how apprehensive they were about the grand experiment which Franklin said he doubted would last 5 years. There were no real models for what they were doing.
It didn't mean that they weren't going to set up a democracy which is what they did. They just were very paternalistic about it at the get go. They thought only the priviledged should make the choices. That is fine... we have seen that we can do more. Full American democracy has yet to be realized.
ecgberht wrote:
Unemployment insurance was introduced in this country in the '30s. What happened before that? I'll tell you, people's families and neighbors stepped up to help. On this one Ron Paul is right. This is not a necessary function of government
---------
Yep.
Peoples families and neighbors stepped up to some degree.
We don't live in an agrarian society like the Amish anymore.
We have all of this misery going on in the current economy right now and lots of people are falling through the cracks. How many have you deemed to help out of your salary? How many have you invited to stay in your home after theirs was foreclosed upon?
The opportunity is still there to help when there are so many in need and yet I don't see much of this happening. It is a nice concept that fails to bear fruit in reality.
Ron Paul may be right that Unemployment is not a necessary function of government and yet people want it to be and so it is. That isn't really going to change no matter what Ron Paul says. The majority of citizens recognize there is a role even if unnecessary and are willing to do it to help fellow citizens in need until they can get back on their feet. This is a good thing.
paikinator,
"I don't think the rich paying more taxes is a problem. They should pay a fair share. "
As far as I know the US tax system is already highly progressive, meaning that those who make more money are already paying a far greater share in taxes. The statistics isn't hard to find: a cursory look showed me a figure of over 50% of the income taxes being paid by the top 5% of earners. So, despite, perhaps, anecdotal evidence to the contrary, the rich do carry the greatest burden in taxes here.
Now, with regards to your family and small business - it does make sense to me that you'd like to pay less taxes on your income. What does not make sense to me are the OWS protesters who do not even have any income, and do not pay taxes at all (who, if I understand correctly, are a majority there). These folks should just be grateful for what they are getting for free and spend their time more productively if they want to get anywhere in life.