Occupy Wall Street

What do you think of the demostrations? Is this an antidote to the Tea Party? Does it support the Tea Party from a different angle? The media has been downplaying the significance of this movement because they say there are no clear demands and no leaders. However in a report on NPR interviewing some of the original Wall Street demonstrators they didn't want "leaders" but instead vote democratically. The message may not be clear to the media but it seems fairly clear to me. Like the Tea Party they oppose the bailout of the banks. They also want to hold the Wizards of Wall Street who invented some of the more exotic financial instruments which contributed if not caused the meltdown to be charged and tried.
By txholdup | 10/17/2011 11:53 AM | 10 comments
Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • Earkybrd give me a break. I saw on TV the spitting. And I've heard some of the junk that the Tea Baggers have used including the joke that Obama is not a real American. That's not the only thing that they've said. As I said things on both sides bring out the crazies. But I do find the messages on this side compelling. It may be amorphous in that there are many voices, but its very democratic and definately a groundswell from the bottom up. Lets see what this side says and decide later.
    chubear 10/31/2011 07:41 AM
  • I'm sorry did you forget Tea Partiers spitting at black congresspeople? Did you forget the racist crap that went with the tea party movement. Do you forget the guns at their rallys. Its the same thing. Each group has their freaks and their problems but this movement at least is right about the rich. The rich 1% are getting richer and the rest are getting poorer. Give me a break.
    chubear 10/26/2011 08:29 PM
  • I was in Madrid in May of this year when over 10,000 young people occupied the main square there for over two weeks. I was very curious as to what they were doing so I went and talked to several of them on two separate days. What I found is that the unemployment in Spain for under 35 was 44%. It was similar in many other European countries as well. The young people had had enough and were demanding that the elected officials do something to address what was happeing now and also the future. I was also told that what was currently happening in Libya and what had happened in Egypt and Tunisia earlier had helped them to get motivated enough to hit the streets. I thought to myself it is only a matter of time before the young people in the US hear about this and also demand something be done for their situation. Now it is happening and this is only the start of it. To address the idea that have no demands or leaders is to underestimate what is going on. I have a gay nephew who has directed me to several of the blogs of there young people and they have many demands. One of the biggest is to dismantle the current investment scheme that is in place and replace it with something that is fair and honest. Second they want to address the idea that we have moved to a global economy and yet we have not moved to a global social network. One of the things I have heard in my current travels around a lot of Europe is we need to fix imigration. Every country I was in had this as a big problem. We have global corporations and they are allowed to move people around all the time to address their needs but we as common citizens can't. If anyone has dealt with our imigration laws lately it is a joke and we have no policy or procedure for imigrating to the US legally. I know as I was involved in the imigration process many years ago and still from time to time consult about it. So if anyone thinks this movement is not going to contnue and grow is mistaken. The youg people are talking about all of this around the world and one thing that really helps is the internet translators available to them like Google translate. The only way to really affect change in this world is for people to hit the streets and this has happened throughout time and is about to happen again. I hope that it is non violent in nature but that will only happen if those in power realize they can't hold on to their power and keep doing what they have in the past.
    barney290 10/22/2011 10:20 AM
  • Who are they going to vote for? Here are but two examples. Max Baucus, D-Montana and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa both serve on the Senate Finance Committee. This committee writes legislation that affects the securities industry, insurance, health care, banking. In the last election cycle Max raised $10 million, Chuck raised $7 million. Max got $750k from the securities industry, $594k from lawyers, $476k from insurance companies. Among his contributors were Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs, American Express, Morgan Stanley, Verizon, Blue Cross. Chuck got $377k from insurance companies, $374k from health care companies and $247k from the securities industry. Some of his contributors were Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Blue Cross gave to him to and Microsoft. Interesting to me is that I own stock in Verizon, Microsoft and Chevron. Last year two of them had resolutions proposed by stockholders to require the company to disclose who it was contributing to. In both cases the board of directors recommended that shareholders vote against both. If you want to find out who your representative and senators get money from go to OpenSecrets.org.
    txholdup 10/19/2011 07:28 PM
  • Judging by the annual reports I get every year and they are just a sampling of the corporations in this country, the average member of a board or directors earns between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, keep in mind this is a part-time job. In addition many companies pay them an extra $1500 to $2500 for each meeting they attend plus travel expenses. On top of that they are often granted stock options (the right to buy a stock at a certain price) usually issued for much less than the current price. Other companies give them stock grants (gifts).

    So here is how the gaming starts. I, the CEO of the corporation, nominate you for this part-time job that pays $50k a year. You sit on the Compensation Committee, which pays you another $1500 every time it meets and you decide how much I make in salary, bonus and stock awards. Your job (fiduciary responsibility) is to watch out for the stockholders. However, I also decide how much compensation you get for serving on the board that decides how much I get. So who do you think they look out for the stockholders or the guy who nominated them in the first place and decides how much they make? Nice game if somebody invites you to play it with them.
    txholdup 10/18/2011 06:12 PM
  • To me, what I see is the opposite of the Tea Party. The Tea Party (Oh, why are we splitting the Republican party? So fucking stupid!) is a very conservitive group who is part of the Republican party that wants to strip the rights of ALL human beings that are not like them. If you are not rich, not straight, pro-life, pro-marrage as they see it, you are wrong. What these protesters want is what our President has been trying to pass all along. Those who can afford to pay taxes SHOULD be paying taxes. No loop holes, no excuses for being rich. These people see that the big wigs of finance are getting richer off of the lower and middle class and they are the reason this country has fallen, that and the fact that George Bush allowed it to happen and sits in his mansion today, counting his money and watches while our corrent President takes the blame for the actions of the past administation. All these assholes who are voting down, week after week, jobs bills and tax hikes for the rich are ALL currently employed and ALL make OVER $100,000 a year. What about us that make so much less or can't find a job because we don't know how to bilk the system. That's what these people are fighting for. They want those who have the cash to pay up, just like you and I do. They want this party split to stop, let the President help in what ever way he can, to get us jobs and help out those in need. Right now, all we can wish for is to win the lottery, become a millionare and NOT have to pay the taxes the poor FUCKS have to pay.
    kelleysiland 10/17/2011 10:33 PM
  • I don't quite get the protesters. I get the inequality of wealth, those getting richer and the rest of us strggling. What I don't get are people complaining about the bailout. As far a I know we have been paid back the majority of the money and what would have happend if the goverment did not step in?

    I am old enough to remember the Keating Five, savings and loan guys and I'm sure we never got any of that money back; though Barbara Bushes pearls are divine.

    I don't think the Tea Partiers want anything to do with the protest, they just like to protest Obama because he's a democrate.
    Spiritwalker 10/17/2011 08:26 PM
  • In Dallas they camped out at what we call Pioneer Plaza which is in the downtown area. It is mostly covered with bronze cattle to represent what Dallas never was part of in the first place. The city issued them a permit but then required they secure $1,000,000 in insurance. This from the mostly college age kids unable to find jobs, the long term unemployed and retirees protesting. They reached a stalemate then the city backed down and has not issued a permit for them to camp behind city hall where nobody will see them. There is a Federal Reserve bank here and they have marched to it a couple of times. I usually watch the news on NBC and CBS flipping from one to the other when the commercials come on. In one report on one of the networks they said there were demonstrations supporting Occupy Wallstreet in 109 cities. The other network broadcast a similar story saying there were supporting demonstrations in 190 cities.
    txholdup 10/17/2011 05:28 PM
  • Unlike the Tea Party, I fear this can turn very violent. I don't think it will end well.
    fenwaydav 10/17/2011 12:50 PM
  • I am posting to my own blog because the puter keeps screwing up and I lose everything.

    One of the claims of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators is that the deck is stacked against the 99% who are mostly wage earners, retirees, the poor and the un or underemployed. I am a stockholder in some 34 corporations. I actually read the annual reports and vote on the nominees to the board of directors of these companies and the resolutions that are offered.

    One of the things I have noticed is the number of people who sit on the board of directors of multiple companies. The CEO of a company nominates the members to fill vacancies on the board. The board determines the salary of the CEO. I am astounded at some of the salaries and perks that these CEOs get especially when the company is losing money or the stock price is down significantly. Due to recent regulations companies are now required to tell us stock holders what other board of directors nominees also sit on. I regularly "withhold" my shares on board members who have a backround I don't feel is relevant to the company or officers of the company that sit on the board when I feel the company has not done well over the past year.

    However the voting process is stacked against shareholders. Most mutual funds and many pension funds which tend to be the largest holders of stock almost always vote for management. There is some growth in the movement to be more active shareholders by some of these institutional investors but the CEO practically has to go to jail before they will vote against him or other board members.

    Resolutions are another process which is stacked. Companies have process where a shareholder can offer a resolution to be voted on when the board is elected. The most common shareholders who offer such resolutions are religious groups or unions who own stock through their pension funds. Often the resolutions request a company stop polluting, stop producing in China, report who their political contributions are going to etc. etc. When I owned Exxon-Mobil there would be as many as 35 resolutions. In every case the board or directors would recommend a vote against each and every resolution. And normally they fail. One of the resolutions that came up year after year was that Exxon-Mobil include sexual orientation in their discrimination policy. The continually refused to add it claiming it wasn't necessary. However I originally bought Mobil because they specifically included it. When Exxon bought them I got to vote but what chance did my 456 shares have to influence the vote? Eventually I sold Exxon-Mobil because the price got lofty and I didn't like the way management seemed to be so arrogant.
    txholdup 10/17/2011 12:14 PM