Simple, Quick Question - RE: Occupy Movement

[WiffenPoof]

I have been "debating" a right of center friend of mine on the issue of the Occupy Movement. He, predictably, feels that the Occupy Movement is filled with hippies and spoiled anti-Americans, etc. etc.

I argued back that the Occupy Movement is a result of the President's failure to follow through on many of his campaign promises...such as dealing with the greedy bastards on Wall Street. I told him that after a period of time, it dawned on many of us that President Obama wasn't playing three-dimensional chess after all...he simply wasn't going to do the things he promised and it was time to take to the streets.

Am I wrong in my assessment?

-P

On Edit: Please don't interpret my post as blaming President Obama for our current economic situation. I didn't actually think I had to explain that. I'm merely saying that he has not addressed the Wall Street issue as he stated he would during the campaign and that is at least partially responsible for the Occupy Movement. What is wrong with this place?!

[elleng]

1. Yes

[WiffenPoof]

2. Thanks for expanding my thinking n/t

[elleng]

4. I agree with NYC SKP,

and don't appreciate the anti-Obama sentiment.

[WiffenPoof]

6. Wow...

...so, there is no expressing disappointment in our current President on this board. I see. Sorry I'm out of step.

[elleng]

8. MY opinion, not necessarily that of 'this board.'

[NYC_SKP]

3. "result of the President's failure "? Um, no, not really.

It's been brewing for years, for decades, and it could have been done during the last administration, or it could happen during the next.

The fact is that BUSH's economic collapse happened running up to Obama's term.

The way you describe it seems to let Bush and decades of failed policies off the hook.

So, no.

[WiffenPoof]

5. Good Point...

Let me clarify. There is no doubt that this began long before our current President. Note that I stated that he made promises to effectively address the Wall Street issue and it is my contention that he has not.

-P

[NYC_SKP]

9. If he had never made any promises of any sort, there would still be an Occupy.

Your premise places far too much responsibility on Obama's words and deeds for occupy.

If Obama had never said a word about wall street, there would still be an occupy.

If your contention is as you say it is, then occupy has nothing to do with it.

So there are two contentions, and I reject the one related to occupy.

And to the other, yes, he has not kept all of his promises.

[WiffenPoof]

12. Thank you...

I accept and partially agree with the notion that Occupy would have come about regardless of President Obama's campaign promises. But let me add this...

I think that you will agree that making promises with regard to Wall Street raised expectation. Raising expectations (IMO) can bring about impatience when those expectations are not met. While I agree with you that it would have happened anyway, I also believe that it came about when it did at least partially because expectations were rtaised.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I appreciate it.

[NYC_SKP]

20. I can agree that Obama's raising expectations was had an impact...

Raised the expectations, then let the two-party system play out, including substantial failure of reform, and the people consequently rise up.

I wonder if he planned it to unfold this way, to draw people in to being self-determinant?

He hinted at that in the beginning, that he wasn't going to be able to do these things alone.

[rhett o rick]

16. By 2008 most of the public decided we were in trouble.

Obama got elected by many that hoped, even expected things to change dramatically. However, very little change happened because either Pres Obama couldnt fix them do to Republican obstructionism, or because Pres Obama didnt want to fix them, like Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detention.

By 2010, people realized that the dream of change from withing the "SYSTEM" was a fallacy. I think it is evident that Occupy is made up of progressives, but 76% classify themselves as Independents. IMO they recognize that the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the corporate oligarchs. Of course not near as bad as the Republicans but co-opted all the same.

Working within the system is always good but Spring is coming, time to Occupy something.

[WiffenPoof]

17. Pretty Much...

...what I was trying to say. You just said it better.

-P

[Raine1967]

7. In response to your simple quick question...

Yes, you are wrong.

[Selatius]

10. Yes and no.

Obama's promises have no bearing on his ability to get any law passed. This is civics 101. The power to write and pass laws rests firmly with the legislative branch, and any law they pass simply needs Obama's signature. If he does not like something, he could broadcast it to Congress, and they can tweak the law before sending it to him to sign.

He can propose an idea that can be written into a bill by a lawmaker, but as far as things such as changing tax policy, strengthening environmental regulations, increasing labor standards, increasing funding for public education, etc., those are things that Congress must do. People get the Congress they vote for. They voted for a crop of right-wing Republicans in 2010, and prior to that, half the Democrats they voted for in 2008 and 2006 were also right-wingers.

People like to blame President Obama for losing 2010 mid-terms, for example, especially after the health insurance bill went south with the deletion of the Public Option, but the fact of the matter is the Senate proved to be more of an obstacle to any meaningful change than Obama did on that score. There weren't enough supporters on the Democratic Party side to sustain a Public Option against a certain Republican filibuster. You can blame folks like Ben and Bill Nelson and Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus for that monumental failure. No wonder Obama never issued an unequivocal statement that said he'd veto any health insurance bill that didn't include a Public Option. He knew he would've been shot in the back by some number of Democrats.

As a side note, the fact that so many right-wingers populate the Senate and House is a testament both to the power of corporate cash on setting policy and corporate propaganda on the electorate that puts these politicians into power.

[WiffenPoof]

14. Excellent Response

You gave me a lot to think about...and I agree with your assessment. Thanks

[Lex]

11. The truth is there is no one reason for the Occupy movement.

It has been a long time in the making and it has spoken to many people for myriad of reasons.

[think]

13. It could easily be said that Obama really didn't go after the banksters

Federal Prosecution Of Financial Fraud Falls To 20-Year Low, New Report Shows
11/15/11 07:38 PM ET Updated: 11/16/11 08:56 AM ET

Public mistrust for banks may be at an all-time high, but federal prosecution for certain financial crimes is down to a 20-year low.

The federal government is on track to file just 1,365 prosecutions for financial institution fraud in fiscal year 2011, according to a new report from a watchdog group. That would be the lowest number of such prosecutions in at least two decades.

The report, from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, comes at a time when the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street has gained nationwide visibility -- and no small degree of public support -- by criticizing what its members see as a close relationship between big banks and the federal government....

Full article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/financial-fraud-prosecution_n_1095933.html

[WiffenPoof]

15. Thanks! Excellent Article N/T

[MrMickeysMom]

18. I'd size it up that way...

There are so many videos and live feeds to erase the friend's notion. Follow this up by having them actually watch a few times. Then, you might want to contrast to some of those tea party videos.

Stunning contrast? Fah-get about it.

[Oilwellian]

19. Then there's the JOBS Act Obama just signed

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002539824

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.