Really - What Do We Expect The Greedy Rich To Do To Satisfy The Worldwide Protest Fueled By OWS?....

[global1]

I don't want to be a wet blanket here - but I'm puzzled by what we expect to accomplish by the OWS and the worldwide protests going on against the greedy rich.

What do we expect the banksters, financiers and politicians - or essentially the top 1% to do to quell the protests? Are these 'greedy rich' sitting somewhere together thinking - what will satisfy the protesters? What will make this protest that is spreading worldwide - go away?

These banksters, financiers and politicians - according to a Reuters article - "are accused of ruining global economies and condemning millions to poverty and hardship through greed."

What kind of concessions will be satisfactory to bring peace or placate these protests and protesters?

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here but I get concerned when I see the police being brought out in force to stand down the protests. As far as I can see these protests have been pretty well mannered and peaceful. I'm worried that the show of force by the powers that be will agitate unrest that could lead to violence and give the powers that be a reason to shut down the protests.

I see 'shutting down these protests' the main option the greedy rich have in order to avoid making concessions of any kind. After all they are the "GREEDY RICH". They got that way by stepping on us 'people' and didn't care how they did it. I can't see them changing now because of some 'uncomfortable and irritating protests'. The other option the 'GREEDY RICH' have is to just let the protests go on and do nothing and hope that the people will give up and go home. Basically a "Wait Them Out" strategy.

I'm really concerned and am growing more concerned as these protesters 'dig in' and I'm looking for some serious dialogue here as to what will satisfy or appease the protesters?

The other way of looking at this is "These protesters will stop when (this ?)happens. What is (this)?

[JackDragna]

1. I think the mistake is expecting a single event "x" will happen..

..which will make all of us happy. What I hope the protests do is start an international dialogue about income inequality and the duty of citizens in general to contribute to the general welfare. It's entirely likely, as you say, this will end up with something draconian being done to the protestors, but that may in itself engender other forms of resistance to the current political and economic situation in the country.

[Amonester]

2. I hope nobody will 'forget' the current (dire) environmental situation

in all that talking-about more 'equal' economic growth...

If it has to include a more equal 'general welfare' I think it 'should' be kind of implicit.

After all, what sort of general welfare would a irresponsibly tra$hed, planet-smashing environment bring?

[Kennah]

6. Totally agree

The economy and the environment are inexorably entwined. They have been decoupled for a long time, and that's probably at least one reason why both are so out of whack.

[JackDragna]

7. I agree 100%

The environment is a part of our general welfare, in addition to being an intrinsic good in itself.

[global1]

8. I Don't Expect A 'Single Event' To Happen.....

To right this thing - seems to me - would have to be a series of events. But what are they? I think most of the 99% of us in the world agree that there is income inequality. Us citizens may have a duty to contribute to the general welfare - but I'm not so sure that the top 1% - the greedy rich - feel that they have a duty to contribute to the general welfare. That's not how they became the top 1%.

I'm sure that these protests are making the top 1% uncomfortable. Case in point I think Bloomberg backed down from the park cleaning because he felt 'uncomfortable'. I think his backing down was a concession to the protesters. I'm just asking how far will the top 1% back down to bring back a relative peace? Are they willing to make real concessions? What will those concessions need to be in order to get us back to a relatively good peaceful co-existence between the 99er's and the 1%er's?

[Kennah]

3. I think the OWS protests are happening because concession and debate long ago broke down

People are pissed off and frustrated, and I don't think many if any of them honestly expect the 1% to start making concessions. Won't surprise me if OWS remains in some form until November 2012. Perhaps it's just the thing to awaken the giant in the next 13 months.

[global1]

10. You Say It Won't Surprise You If OWS Remains In Some Form Until Nov 2012......

What do you feel has to happen in Nov 2012?

[Kennah]

26. Mostly a lot needs to happen between now and then ...

... so that the results of the elections are seen as some sort of success in response to OWS. Obviously, the GOP is a lost cause, and the Tea Party is worried their little money making niche will disappear or be significantly diminished, although I think that's already true.

An ideal outcome might be that Obama wins 52-48, but maybe 270-280 Democrats in the House, and 61 Democrats in the Senate. Make it a Progressive victory more so than a Democratic Party victory.

[Duer 157099]

4. You think the protests are to get Wall Street to do something?

Hah!

The protests are to get the 99% aware of what is happening, not to somehow plead with the 1% to please stop being so mean to us.

LOL

[Blue_In_AK]

5. The protests contribute to a paradigm shift.

I don't think anyone can predict what will happen in the future, but this movement is gaining momentum, and lawmakers should be feeling some heat. When people become educated as to what is at stake and who is to blame, hopefully they'll start electing people who will represent the interests of the 99%, the people who elected them.

[global1]

9. But If It's The "Monied Interests" That Are Helping The Lawmakers Get Elected.....

will the lawmakers feel the heat? I too hope that we'll be able to start electing people who will represent our interests - but the deck seems to be stacked against that given things like 'Citizens United' and 'Corporatism'.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. The monied interests can only contribute money,

they still have only one vote a piece (that is, if you take rigged machines out of the equation, which is a big IF). Education is the key.

[Lionessa]

11. Seems to me pretty straight forward.

Congress, President, and courts start finding resolutions for unemployment and income disparity, and make sure those that broke the system (banksters and wallstreeters) pay the price on the recovery of jobs and reasonable profit/income distribution.

[aquart]

12. Thank you for your concern.

Whoever taught you history failed.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. They can sell us cheap plastic souveniers of the event, made in China.

"I occupied Wall St. and all I got was this T-Shirt!"

[lunasun]

14. a general strike ? countrywide or locals at different times/dates

queen bees don't get much with out the workers

solidarity instead of indvl angst?

raised consciousness if nothing else?

Many have nothing to lose so they will stay long,time is on their side I think

chaos can create often better than organization!

[Goldstein1984]

15. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible...

...make violent revolution inevitable." MLK quoting JFK

So, the path of the future will be determined by whether or not the 1% and the governments they control allow nonviolent revolution to occur.

It really isn't a matter of what the 1% is willing give, it's all about what the 99% are capable of taking.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. to change political policy you first have to first change the political culture especially when

challenging deeply established and entrenched political and economic power. What the OWS movement is doing is putting back into mainstream discussion the whole issue of economic justice and equitable distribution of wealth. There was a time when this was very much a part of mainstream political discussion - but with great effort that whole discussion has been relegated for the past thirty years or so to the fringes of respectable opinion. The struggle for economic justice is not going to simply end some day when a set of limited demands are met anymore than the civil rights movement was successful and could end when civil rights legislation was passed. Fundamental change is a process which requires a change in peoples thinking as much as it requires a change in legislation. But there can be no process at all if it is not even part of acceptable mainstream political discussion. This is the start of something that has the potential to be the start of something very big.

[enough]

21. +1 (nt)

[eShirl]

17. What does a tsunami hope to accomplish?

[flobee1]

18. My 2 cents

The protestors are just everyday people that have had enough. They have decided to gather together and make their voices heard. They know the system is broken, possibly beyond repair. The people are gathering together all over the country to talk about a solution and to let others know that a different solution is needed. The solution will not be a simple demand or soundbyte that the current system operates on, The problem and issues are far more complex and go deeper than CNN or MSNBC can deliver to the masses in a short 30 second blurb. Blurbs are part of the broken system, and are not reliable or truthful. You will not get what the OWS movement is about in a feature on the news. You have to go talk to the people holding the signs.

[rucky]

19. Give us time to find our voice. It's been awhile since we've had one.

This is getting more and more organized every day. I'm not seeing anything but good that can come of this.

[Bonhomme Richard]

20. Maybe it will give the politicians the balls to go against their

masters and do the right thing.

[frustrated_lefty]

22. The goal isn't to get the 1% to make concessions.

The particulars are subject to debate, but the fundamental goal of the protests is for change to occur because the status quo is no longer tolerable. Since a large part of the problem is that the 1% have an unfair and undue influence on decision making in politics, by definition it is undesirable for them to "make decisions" which bring the conflict to resolution. We're not asking them to use their authority to our benefit. We're saying they shouldn't have the authority to begin with.

Predicting what will happen is impossible, but a number of possible scenarios seem equally likely. In the short term, the only real question is how monied and/or political interests approach squashing the protests. Brutality will only draw the attention and support of those currently disinterested, but the egomaniacal among the 1% may hope to instill sufficient fear to prevent such protests from ever happening again. I think it's more likely that politicians will wait for the cold of winter to bleed off attendance, and pursue actions which make it incredibly inconvenient to participate. The attempt to forbid tents and sleeping bags is a precursor for this kind of thing, and we can probably expect to see it become difficult to find access to a restroom, or for power to be shut off, or a long laundry list of crap designed to wear people down.

As to change, what kind of changes might occur bringing the protests to some semblance of resolution... Lawrence Lesig (sp?) on the Maddow show suggested the possibility of a constitutional convention being called. It's an interesting idea, probably one of the most extreme of possibilities, probably the best solution, but also the most difficult to implement. More likely is that the current crop of politicians will advocate some token gestures towards reform in hopes that enough of the protestors will be satisfied for the protests to lose cohesion. Some may even pursue genuine reform, but I don't see their corporate handlers allowing that to get too far. In the coming months, we're probably going to see career politicians, and possibly some new faces drawn by the protests, running for election in November, all of whom are going to adopt various planks of the OWS movement. They'll all be promising to fix things. How convincing they are, and whether they'll actually do anything, remains to be seen. That pretty much covers the range:

1) existing politicians enact enough reform to satisfy enough people for the protests to languish;
2) "new" politicians bring "change" to Washington, supported by OWS
3) a constitutional convention occurs, opening up all sorts of possibilities

The thing is, I don't see the 99% being satisfied without some combination of banking industry regulation, political finance reform, foreclosure relief, and restoration of the safety net. And, frankly, I don't think that's possible to implement in a way that actually works without something on the order of a constitutional convention. If history is any indicator, I think we're more likely to end up with a new crop of politicos (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) come November.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. people all over the planet are organizing an alternative government

we don't expect 'the rich' to do anything other than 'protect their power and privilege'.

[Aerows]

24. No

They have to be forced to do so. That's why we used to have regulations, because our ancestors realized that business is in the business to make money, exploit every loophole and break the law where able. They become able when no one gets held accountable.

You can't break a business man. He's going to engage in business, regardless, but he will break everyone along the way in order to do it if he is allowed to, for the sake of money and power. That's something to think about, and it's a reality. Some people don't have the mechanisms to care about others or to do what is good for society.

[randome]

27. Agree completely.

Unfortunately, greed is a part of human nature. The rich should NOT be the focus of the protests. Government officials not doing their jobs and overseeing the economy -THAT'S where the focus needs to be.

[WinkyDink]

28. You wouldn't like my answer.

[meow2u3]

29. Get their damned tentacles out of government

They make enough money hand over fist from their businesses. They have no business ruling the government with an iron fist.