USA Politics

No doubt the OWS group has captured general anger at the system, not sure there is any surprise there.  I would suspect whatever popularity they have diminishes as a movement as it becomes more defined (on specific issues), pretty much as what happened to the Tea Party ... Perhaps this turns into the left wing version of the Tea Party with all the benefits and detractions.
 
I have been pondering the same thing, but I don't know if the policy affect can be as negative as that of the Tea Party. The Tea Party's policy demands piss off a lot of people (seniors, unions, poor), while OWS seems to be targeting only the rich and powerful. As they like to say, the 1%.

I find it interesting. I'm considering going to an Occupy Halifax demonstration sometime.
 
There are plenty of Center/Right of Center that the left can piss off too in the US, the list of demans on the OWS website are pretty out there.  It is always easy to say, things are bad, they should change ... and there is massive support for that.  But when you specify exactly how you want to make changes, the support meter starts dropping.

I agree with at least some of the OWS "End the Fed" signs for example, but not a lot else, I really do not care what other people make.

But, in essense OWS and the Tea Party are anti-establishment movements, if OWS becomes bigger, I am sure you will see them run against Dems in primaries and will push the party left as the Tea Party has pushed the GOP right.
 
Yes, I could see a lot of that, except that if they get to the point where they imperil incumbents, the incumbents will just move left harder. I think primaries out are less likely on the liberal side of things. In addition, thanks to the recent losses in the Senate, there are less areas that are in danger of that. There are very few truly "moderate" Democrats left (Ben Nelson of Nebraska not withstanding, and one of the others, Jim Webb, is about to retire to beg to replace Joe Biden on the Democrat ticket - a move I think Obama should seriously consider, and rotate Biden into the Sec State position if he is re-elected).

I think that OWS would be satisfied if the Bush tax cuts on the rich were allowed to expire. I don't even think they'd be put out if all the Bush tax cuts went away. Hell, even if the Obama tax cuts went away too, which benefit the lower class more than anything else. Some of them would be upset, sure. But I think that as long as the "1%" pay their fair share at the same time, they wouldn't mind.
 
I don't think it is. I firmly believe the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes. At the very least, I think the upper class should pay the same in percentages as the middle class - which they don't.

I also think that the insane amount of tax loopholes in the tax code need to be closed. Americans are undertaxed, at all levels. Taxes haven't been lower since Ike.
 
Oh, I agree. Toss the whole thing out and start over - it can't hurt. Closing tax loopholes...every president talks about it, none of them do it. Congress is far too afraid to touch things that help their corporate buddies.
 
Yeah, the problem is everyone likes someone ... Industry 'x' is seen as good, so they get special breaks, industry 'y' is seen as bad, so they get slammed.  Congress needs to stop picking winners and losers, set one lower Corporate tax rate, eliminate all but the most standard of deductions and let them sink or swim on their own. 
 
I'm mostly in favour of that. I don't mind the idea of tax rebates for average joe for buying X or Y, especially encouraging buying local, buying environmental friendly. But overall? I agree.
 
I am fine with consumer credits, at least then you are helping to create some sort of demand, but creating a supply where there is minimal demand generally leads to vast over spending/tax rebating for an incredibly minimal gain. 
 
Yes, I tend to agree there. Look at the corn/ethanol/wheat situation. It's getting ridiculously out of hand, but of course, the flyover states have tremendous power for their weight class. Tons of subsidies for nothing. I think that demand-side economics are far more promising than supply-side.

I am not against government development grants and loans, either, with more favourable rates for certain areas of the economy. Especially the loans. I don't know. It's complex enough for me to not want to say that "subsidies are bad", but I do know that when it comes to tinkering with the supply-side, you can do damage very easily. Influencing people to make better choices is far easier and safer.
 
New poll of likely voters

Who is most to blame for the financial crisis Washington 56%, Wall Street 33%, 11% not sure
Does OWS help or hurt Obama's re-election  28% help, 38% hurt, the rest not sure or no impact

Full poll results
http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/ ... hehill.pdf

Story
http://thehill.com/polls/187837-the-hil ... all-street


The Hill Poll: Voters say Washington is worse than Wall Street

By Elise Viebeck - 10/17/11 05:15 AM ET


In the minds of likely voters, Washington, not Wall Street, is primarily to blame for the financial crisis and the subsequent recession.

That is the key finding of this week’s The Hill poll, which comes as the national Occupy Wall Street movement — a protest that objects to risky practices and excessive salaries at major banks, along with American income disparities in general — enters its second month.

The movement appears to have struck a chord with progressive voters, but it does not seem to represent the feelings of the wider public.









The Hill poll found that only one in three likely voters blames Wall Street for the country’s financial troubles, whereas more than half — 56 percent — blame Washington.

Moreover, when it comes to the political consequences of the protest, voters tend to believe that there are more perils than positives for Obama and the Democrats.

A plurality believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement will hurt Democrats and Obama in the 2012 election. Even those whose sympathies lie on the left of center seem unsure about the likely political repercussions. Just half of all liberal likely voters — the group most likely to blame Wall Street for the recession — and fewer than half of all Democrats believe the protests will help their side next year.

The split on the question of apportioning blame for the nation’s economic travails corresponds closely with voters’ political ideologies: More than 7 in 10 conservatives blamed Washington for the recession, while more than 5 in 10 liberals blamed Wall Street.

But self-identified centrists, importantly, appear to be siding with the right on economic issues, with nearly half blaming Washington for the recession.

The difference also reflected voters’ views of Obama: Among those who “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of the president, most blamed Wall Street, while those who “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove of the president blamed Washington.

Interestingly, those who described themselves as “not sure” about Obama nonetheless blamed Wall Street over Washington by a more than two-to-one margin, 55 percent to 23 percent.

Pulse Opinion Research conducted The Hill Poll on Oct. 13. It is based on the responses of 1,000 likely voters and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
 
I just glanced through that, I'll read more later. My first thought is that Washington is more to blame. I understand responsible and moral business, but a business is foolish to not try to profit if the Feds are going to keep handing them money.
 
But a Gallup Poll just came out with this

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150164/Ameri ... Goals.aspx


22% Approve, 15% Disapprove, 63% do not know enought to say

Same Poll had Tea party suppurt at 22% Support, 27% Oppose, 47% Neutral


National Journal is not a hippie organization for sure, but I am always wary of polls where they do not publish their results or methodology, which National Journal never does.  Most main stream polls seem to be along the lines of this Gallup Poll, there is anger and this movement is capturing some of it, as is the Tea Party, but there is an uncertainly of exactly what they are proposing.

As for the millionares tax, I have no  doubt it has majority support, it is always easiest to pawn problems onto someone else and have a scapegoat, but it does not make it good policy.  Even Bill Clinton recently said he would not raise taxes on anyone while the economy was in the shape it is in (think he proposed waiting until 2013, which I still disagree with)
 
Supreme Court took up the Arizona Immigration Law, Kagan recused herself.  Wonder if she will do the same with the Health Care case(s).
 
Man has this topic been silent since all these countless blunders by Rep candidates. Don't worry, the whole world knows.  :D
 
bearfan said:
There is little doubt the US is well on it's way to a "lesser of two evils" election.
It's been that way for the past 20 years.....Republicans and Democrats are on the same side. That is why neither is concerned about the deficit and national debt. It's only about retaining power. Without a serious 3rd party, Congressional Term limits are the only feasible way to address the problems .
 
Back
Top