FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Occupied Wall Street for Dummies (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Occupied Wall Street for Dummies
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post 
OK, so...can somebody explain this occupation to me, what they are trying to do, how it started, and whatever? I mean, everything I hear about it makes it sound really stupid, so I just want to make sure my information is correct before I form an opinion.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post 
Part of your information is, indeed, incorrect. The preferred nomenclature is Occupy Wall Street.

What other information do you have? It is difficult to correct mistakes when we don't know what you think.

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Your opening two syllables put me immediately in mind of The End Of The World, with "hokay, so!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
At this point, I'm sure most of the occupy campers are le tired.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Phanto
Member
Member # 5897

 - posted      Profile for Phanto           Edit/Delete Post 
Occupy wall street is outdated.

it needs to be occupy the streets. Streets plural. Not one but many. It's a black thing, brother. Lol just joking no I'm not black

Facebook friend me and find out the color of my skin

Claire Gurevich

you can see me wearing $1,300 in clothing just yesterday. yay.

Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
At this point, I'm sure most of the occupy campers are le tired.

And all the canadians are like, what's going on eh?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
can somebody explain this occupation to me, what they are trying to do, how it started, and whatever
It is a protest meant to call attention to the fact that the rich have been stealing from the American people with the assistance of the government for the last forty years, and that the rate of this theft has accelerated.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Occupy Wall street is not for Dummies. You must be thinking of the Tea Party.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Bazinga
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Occupy Wall street is not for Dummies. You must be thinking of the Tea Party.

Now imagine if I made a disparaging remark about the occupy crowd..
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
OK, so...can somebody explain this occupation to me, what they are trying to do, how it started, and whatever? I mean, everything I hear about it makes it sound really stupid, so I just want to make sure my information is correct before I form an opinion.

My personal responses to Jeff's questions.

What are they trying to do: draw attention to social ills that they feel are the result of political policy that favors the most wealthy over the less wealthy. It's unclear, beyond generally "fomenting social change" what the end goal is. I've heard lots of policy suggestions, from forgiving student loan debt, to reinstating the Glass-Steagal Act, to a "Robin Hood" tax on all financial transactions. Generally, I would say the Occupiers want greater regulation of the financial and banking industries as well as a more strongly redistributive tax code. At least some of them have also expressed the desire to invigorate the Democratic party in a way similar to what the Tea Party did for Republicans in 2009.

How it started: the origin of the Occupy Wall Street protest seems to have been as a campaign from the AdBusters website, which generally traffics in progressive activism. A sit-in style protest in downtown Manhattan was planned and then executed by progressive activists. The media coverage really took off as a result of confrontations with police, first in downtown Manhattan when several protesters were pepper sprayed, and then during a march of hundreds of protesters across the Brooklyn Bridge. Using effective on-line media campaigns, which included the 99 Percent tumblr account, penetration of multiple progressive blogs, and a strong YouTube presence, the perspective of Occupiers on the police confrontations quickly spread, generating lots of page hits, Google searches, and sympathy. This accelerated mimic movements in many other US cities including Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Oakland, D.C., and others. At least a couple of Hatrackers have been to local occupy gatherings and have reported very positive experiences.

and whatever: Not sure exactly what that means, but I'll give a few (probably biased) thoughts on the overall impact of the protests. My impression is that the protests, while generating broadly favorable impressions among the general public, are beginning to fade in importance. Google Trends seems to back this up, showing that both search interest and media articles involving "occupy" peaked in mid-October and have subsequently subsided by about 50%, with minor local peaks around the violent Oakland protests. At their peak, the occupy protests seem to have generated interest on par with that of the Tea Party.* I find it doubtful that interest will be as sustained, given the lack of a uniting focus on a particular initiative within the occupy protests. One reason the Tea Party had persistent impact was that it was so focused on specific elements of the Congressional agenda (first Stimulus/TARP, then Healthcare reform, then Environmental regulations). This was in part because it was adopted (or co-opted) fairly early on by elite Republican opinion makers who were able to use it as a weapon for rallying populist rage against the Obama agenda. The occupy movement does not seem to have been similarly adopted (or co-opted). Personally I think that the acceptability of illegal protesting tactics (such as ignoring municipal regulations), coupled with the willingness of a subset of the protesters to act violently, has helped the popularity of the movement but has hurt its chances to have a lasting political impact.

*According to Google Trends, peak search interest in the Tea Party came right around April 2009 just after the original tax day protests and was about 1.25x as high as the current peak search interest for "Occupy". Unlike with the Occupy movement, this didn't correspond to a similar peak in media reports; it wasn't until late 2009 when Google's article count for "Tea Party" really grew, leading to an off and on ebb and flow up until it peaked right around the 2010 midterm elections (again, at a level similar to but slightly higher than that of the current peak article interest in "Occupy"), after which both search an article interest in "Tea Party" significantly subsided.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Occupy Wall street is not for Dummies. You must be thinking of the Tea Party.

Charming.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
That's an interesting breakdown actually. I might do something similar as an appendix to SenojRetep's summary:

What are they trying to do: I would say that as a result of the Occupy movement really being a number of groups from sympathetic bourgeoisie, disillusioned Democrats, to Communists, to anarchists, that "they" are trying to do a wide variety of things depending on the group. The only real uniting factor is disapproval of the current division of wealth and income between the poor, the middle class, and the rich.

The former groups will typically have non-confrontational approaches that still work within the system such as changing the tax code, student loan tweaks, stopping bailouts. The latter groups tend to think the whole system is corrupt and want to tear the whole thing down.

How it started:
There is good commentary on the specifics, but I think it is worthwhile explaining some of the context.

An interesting angle to approach is to think about the predominant social commentary on China pre-2008. The idea was that the general population had effectively made a deal with the CCP post-1989, the CCP would manage China's growth beyond 8% per year while the population would "accept" the growing inequality, social problems, and human rights issues. However, the fear among the CCP (or so the story goes) is that if the economy ever crashed then there would be riots and social chaos as the CCP would be powerless to hold up their part of the "bargain."

I think the story is mostly correct, but the American population also has a "deal" with its leaders. The American dream is that no matter which class you're born in, even if you're an immigrant, you can work hard and move up into the middle and upper classes. However, the reality is that the middle class is shrinking and that class barriers are growing stronger. This problem is only exacerbated among the middle class by the financial downturn.

The Occupy movement is a symptom of these general trends, particularly dominated by the middle class (or the bourgeoisie if you will). However, these general trends are playing out all over the Western world, thus explaining strong echoes of the Occupy movement in London, Germany, and Italy.

and whatever:
While the Tea Party was either astroturfing or co-opted early on (by SenjoReep's judgement), I think that the occupy protests are much better understood as a symptom of the underlying social issues rather than something created. This explains their incoherence and lack of a strong message.

This reminds me of something like the May4th Movement in China, not so much in terms of the content, but in terms of a role in incubating potential leaders both moderate and radical that may be able to influence future movements that will have much more impact if things get worse.

Whether the moderates or radicals end up taking over the movement will depend on future economic events and policy

[ November 07, 2011, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to clarify: I believe the early history of the Tea Party was generally driven by populist anger, much like the Occupy movement, rather than Republican elites. So I wouldn't consider the term "astroturfing" to be very appropriate. However, I do think that, starting some time in the summer of 2009, the agenda of Tea Party protesters was more and more driven by the ideological interests of Republican elites. In that sense, I'd say the Tea Party movement was (largely) "captured" by Republican elite interests.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
W.r.t. populist rage and its utility as a tool for mainline political parties, Gallup's track of President Obama's approval increased by two points in the week after interest in the occupy protests climaxed* (and has remained high despite somewhat waning public interest in OWS).

*Note: correlation is not causation. One could easily construct alternative non-causitive explanations for the trends, but I find the causitive story that the rise in poll numbers is a result of public interest in the Occupy movement more persuasive than other stories I've been able to come up.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
... I believe the early history of the Tea Party was generally driven by populist anger, much like the Occupy movement, rather than Republican elites. So I wouldn't consider the term "astroturfing" to be very appropriate.

I know, and I've noted that. I just happen to disagree [Smile]
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think part of the accusation of "astroturfing" stems from the corporate sponsorship from FOX News.

And CNBC.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
... I believe the early history of the Tea Party was generally driven by populist anger, much like the Occupy movement, rather than Republican elites. So I wouldn't consider the term "astroturfing" to be very appropriate.

I know, and I've noted that. I just happen to disagree [Smile]
I wasn't sure what you meant, if you were equating my claim of co-option with the term "astroturfing." I see now you were drawing a distinction between the two terms.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, the latter (as in drawing a distinction).
Sorry about being unclear.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think part of the accusation of "astroturfing" stems from the corporate sponsorship from FOX News.

And CNBC.

The accusation of "astroturfing" is best justified by the very early involvement of the Koch brothers who funded and trained Tea Party activists from the start.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the claims that the Tea Party movement was astroturf by Fox News and the Koch brothers are about as valid as claiming that "Occupy" is astroturf by MoveOn.org and labor unions.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Neither of which are corporations.

Edit: For profit corporations.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think part of the accusation of "astroturfing" stems from the corporate sponsorship from FOX News.

And CNBC.

The accusation of "astroturfing" is best justified by the very early involvement of the Koch brothers who funded and trained Tea Party activists from the start.
They were "trained" by the Koch brothers?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
I think the claims that the Tea Party movement was astroturf by Fox News and the Koch brothers are about as valid as claiming that "Occupy" is astroturf by MoveOn.org and labor unions.

The tea party largely got co-opted and turned into a tool — whether you want to call one of the ends of that tool specifically to turf is not very relevant, and whether the Kochs and FOX were bigger or smaller players in this engagement is mostly irrelevant. You can see what they got turned into, and the ease by which this was done.

The comparison is invalid only because it hasn't happened to Occupy yet. Whether this is because there is not the same effort on the part of monied liberal parties, or because the protesters are not as easy to co-opt, or just because it hasn't happened YET and needs more time, is yet to be seen.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think part of the accusation of "astroturfing" stems from the corporate sponsorship from FOX News.

And CNBC.

The accusation of "astroturfing" is best justified by the very early involvement of the Koch brothers who funded and trained Tea Party activists from the start.
They were "trained" by the Koch brothers?
quote:
She (Peggy Venable) explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity (founded by David Koch) was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=2
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity

It's so funny to see conservatives and liberals each try and paint wealthy concerned parties on the opposing side as being part of some nefarious shadow syndicate, complete with "tentacles."

The main point of that linked article seems to be that the Kochs give funding to fiscally conservative candidates, and donate to nonprofits that work for the advancement of libertarian/fiscal conservative principles. Unsurprisingly, these same nonprofits were enthusiastically behind the Tea Party.

SenojRetep nailed this one. MoveOn.org, labor unions, George Soros etc. are examples of leftist organizations that many conservatives similarly try to paint as insidious boogeymen funding and spearheading left-wing action (like OWS).

This is really laughable in both cases. People like the Kochs and Soros put their money where their ideologies are. If Matt Damon donated $15 million to Green Peace over a period of several years, would anyone say that he'd stuck his "tentacles" and wring their hands in dismay?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Is Matt Damon a whale? I think it becomes a different level of problem when a corporation can throw enough money at politics that the government passes legislation that makes it easier for the corporation to make even more money that they can throw at government...and so on. It becomes a spiral of government by the rich for the rich.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
SenojRetep nailed this one. MoveOn.org, labor unions, George Soros etc. are examples of leftist organizations that many conservatives similarly try to paint as insidious boogeymen funding and spearheading left-wing action (like OWS).
Dan, Do you really think that Unions, who get there funds from thousands of individual members, and MoveOn.org, with over 1 million donors averaging $50 each, are comparable to PACs like the CATO Institute and Americans for Prosperity who are funded by a hand full of corporations and billionaires?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Why make that big a deal about the kochs specifically? They're just small parts, indicative of the larger trend of what happened to the tea party.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Adbusters, a big supporter of OWS wishes it got some of that Soros money.

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Is Matt Damon a whale? I think it becomes a different level of problem when a corporation can throw enough money at politics that the government passes legislation that makes it easier for the corporation to make even more money that they can throw at government...and so on. It becomes a spiral of government by the rich for the rich.

This is interesting because I kind of agree in broad strokes, but I'm certain we fundamentally disagree in the particulars. Because corporations throwing money at the government to regulate their competitors into the ground, or to lobby so that they can get outrageous contracts of "stimulus" money, is a great example the sort of corporatist capitalism that can be a real problem in our system, and a great example of the sort of thing that groups like the Cato Institute are firmly against.

PS: Matt may have put on a little weight lately but your aspersions are still totally insensitive and way off base.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
SenojRetep nailed this one. MoveOn.org, labor unions, George Soros etc. are examples of leftist organizations that many conservatives similarly try to paint as insidious boogeymen funding and spearheading left-wing action (like OWS).
Dan, Do you really think that Unions, who get there funds from thousands of individual members, and MoveOn.org, with over 1 million donors averaging $50 each, are comparable to PACs like the CATO Institute and Americans for Prosperity who are funded by a hand full of corporations and billionaires?
I think that most people, whether they are billionaires or the middle class, donate to nonprofits that are already working for goals they approve of. They don't donate to nonprofits and then try to use their donations as leverage to make the nonprofit change its principles. Why bother?

I think that the Cato Institute and FreedomWorks and all the rest of the recipients of Koch money are already striving to achieve goals, and those goals align well with what the Kochs want, so they donate. I really don't see the value in attributing to a nefarious backroom conspiracy what is just as easily explained by looking at the publicly stated ideologies of the Kochs and the foundations they support.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I wish someone would donate a million dollars to MY non-profit.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Seriously!

Maybe it's just as easy as telling donors you'll do whatever they want if they give you money. Or, maybe you need to convince donors through your actions that you're already working towards aligned goals.

Let us know which is the case!

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not part of the fundraising department, but I'll pass along the theory and let you know the results.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, but if you go with option A then once your donors wrap their tentacles around you they'll probably order you to keep from admitting it to anyone.

I didn't think this through very well.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, I didn't expect so many responses. Thanks guys (and gals)! Very useful info. I'll have to think on this...

Clearly, I haven't been following the news very much (no cable + full time job = sadface), but I try to read about it when I can. I must say, however, that until now the details of this protest have escaped me. [Smile]

Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:

I think that the Cato Institute and FreedomWorks and all the rest of the recipients of Koch money are already striving to achieve goals, and those goals align well with what the Kochs want, so they donate. I really don't see the value in attributing to a nefarious backroom conspiracy what is just as easily explained by looking at the publicly stated ideologies of the Kochs and the foundations they support.

You are mistaken if this is what you think. The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Charles Koch and Edward Crane. It was not "already striving to achieve goals" that align with what the Koch's want, so they donate. Charles Koch co-founded it to advance his agenda. It didn't exist before the Koch's donated to it.

Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity were formed in a split of "Citizens for a Sound Economy" in 2004. Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by David Koch. David Koch is chairman of Americans for Prosperity.

These organizations are absolutely NOT simply groups that that happen to be doing things the Koch family want to support. They are institutes founded by the Koch family to support their agenda. It's not up for debate. Those are the facts.

[ November 08, 2011, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
On the issue of co-option/astroturfing: last Friday's "Occupy" protest in DC was evidently funded by "a confederation of long-established progressive political advocacy groups."

quote:
On the surface, the "Occupy the Kochs: Guerilla Drive-In" event looked like any other "Occupy" movement protest against the proverbial 1 percent of the population who hold the nation's wealth.

But a confederation of long-established progressive political advocacy groups -- the Campaign for America's Future, Campaign for Community Change, Common Cause, Health Care for America Now and the aptly named Other 98% -- were behind Friday's protest.


Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
SenojRetep, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between political advocacy groups in general and political advocacy groups organized and funded by the very wealthy or large, for-profit corporations in order to advance their interests.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm confused, Rabbit. FreedomWorks and the Cato Institute are really open about their agendas. Take a look at their sites!

Now that you've taken a look, do you think that any of what they've been doing has been counter to their stated goals? If so, then have they been subtly influenced by the tentacles of the Kochs to achieve goals antithetical to their stated ideology?

If one of the Kochs helped found Cato, that just pretty much confirms that he's genuine in his stance as a libertarian. Actually I know one of the Kochs (maybe Charles, maybe the other one?) ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in the 80s, so I guess I already knew they were genuine in their beliefs. And that's really cool. It's nice to know that there are a few real libertarians left in corporate business. Too many of them are more interested in cronyism and using the government to regulate out their competition, instead of ensuring a free market and a level field for all competitors.

So... I'm confused. What's the problem, exactly? I mean I know you think libertarian policies would be terrible if implemented, but obviously plenty of libertarians disagree, right? Is there a reason you want to demonize those that disagree as doing something nefarious, instead of just having a different vision for what the best possible America would look like?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
SenojRetep, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between political advocacy groups in general and political advocacy groups organized and funded by the very wealthy or large, for-profit corporations in order to advance their interests.

This might be because not everyone sees large for-profit corporations as automatically insidious monstrosities!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's worth noting that whether any individual Occupy protest is astroturfing is less interesting than the whole problem with social inequality. We're seeing Occupy protests from Australia, Germany, London, Canada, Italy, and even some stunted protests in China and Hong Kong. In some cases like Italy, it seems to me that the banner of Occupy has been taken up by folks who would be protesting anyway, but in solidarity. In other cases, you have mass protests in Spain or the Arab Spring who pre-date Occupy but clearly see themselves in it.
Regardless of what happens with Occupy itself, the underlying issues of social inequality and failing economies clearly have legs regardless of who is in charge. Occupy Canada is running while Conservatives are in charge, while Occupy US is running with Democrats in charge.

That's a very different animal from the Tea Party which has much tighter ideological control, probably wouldn't even have got off the ground without very American-specific issues like birtherism and healthcare, and has been around for two years without so much as an echo in any other country around the world.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
SenojRetep, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between political advocacy groups in general and political advocacy groups organized and funded by the very wealthy or large, for-profit corporations in order to advance their interests.

I certainly see some distinctions, as well as similarities. I don't think the distinctions are particularly pertinent to the issue at hand. The point, I feel, is that well-established advocacy groups attempt to co-opt or capture populist protest movements in order to further their ideological causes.

That said, CAF is a 501(c)(4) (just like AFP) that refuses to disclose its donors. However, it's founder is a highly influential long-time Washington insider and Yale-educated lawyer. Common Cause gets funding from at least one billionaire business magnate (George Soros). I think you likely overestimate the differences in funding structures between liberal advocacy groups and their conservative cousins.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
SenojRetep, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between political advocacy groups in general and political advocacy groups organized and funded by the very wealthy or large, for-profit corporations in order to advance their interests.

This might be because not everyone sees large for-profit corporations as automatically insidious monstrosities!
I don't see them as insidious monstrosities; I see them as organizations whose goal is (and should be) to make money for their shareholders.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, okay. So do you think that, to use a previous example, the Cato Institute is primarily concerned with helping the Kochs make money?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I would say that AFP is. Or, perhaps not just the Kochs but large corporations in general. I think the Cato Institute has broader interests but is still supports the goal of making it easier for corporations and their shareholders to make a lot of money.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that wanting to make it easier for corporations and their shareholders to make a lot of money is a very different goal than wanting to specifically make the Kochs a lot of money. Do you agree?

One of these goals, in my opinion, leads to the betterment of our society as a whole and an improvement on our quality of life. The other is fraught with a lot of really serious problems that can backfire massively. I suspect you won't agree with my assessment here, but hopefully you'll see what I mean about them being different goals.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that the first goal is only going to lead to the "betterment of society and improvement of our quality of life" if you are only including corporate shareholders as society and only meaning money as betterment. I find it hard to swallow the idea of a political action committee started and organized by an oil baron for the purpose of influencing the government to deregulate the oil industry (for example) to be about the betterment of society.

On the other hand, I have no problem with their donations to the Met.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2