« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

In Support of the #OWS Protests

By: streiff (Diary)  |  October 11th, 2011 at 03:22 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m going to diverge a bit from our RedState Echo Chamber® and come out in support of the Occupy Wall Street protests. I’m struggling to find a downside to this bit of theater for conservatives or the GOP. I don’t really see an upside to it for the Administration and the Democrats.

Personally, I can’t think of anything more amusing than several heavily blue cities being overrun by unwashed hipster trash protesting the excesses… or existence… of the industry group that has given Obama truckloads of money. If heads are broken, it will be under the direction of Democrat mayors. If people are inconvenienced they are by and large Democrat voters.

The media will eat it up as they vicariously relive their recollections of what Woodstock would have been like if only they had been conceived or out of diapers at the time. Night after night the nation will be reminded of exactly who is in the White House.

The administration fantasizes that it will create some sort of counter Tea Party but misses the obvious disconnect. The Tea Party was for something rather than merely an inchoate protest for the sake of protest. More to the point, where the Tea Party found a natural, if somewhat strained, alliance with the GOP, it is hard to see how these protesters find alliance with the political party that came to, and remains in, power by monetary contributions from Wall Street.

What they forget is that the street demonstrations of the mid-1960s did not help the Democrat party. To the contrary the protests of 1967 and 1968 led directly to the decision of LBJ to decline to seek a second term and to the election of Richard Nixon.

I think the conservatives should get behind this movement. We should make sure these people are able to stay in downtown Boston and New York City and Atlanta and wherever. We should send aid convoys from Red States to the #OWS protests to show that we, too, have been victimized by Barack Obama’s donor base. And we should make sure they get free bus tickets to the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    Operation Valkyrie is already taken, and while Operation Gotterdammerung has a nice ring to it*, I’m not sure just which gods would be getting sunsetted.

    Anyone else?

    Mew

    *yes, that’s a deliberate pun

    • flteng8251

      “And we should make sure they get free bus tickets to the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.”

      Now there’s an idea I’d throw some money towards. hehe

      • flteng8251

        Operation Fool Aide.

    • JSobieski

      nt

      • runner12

        NT

    • qsclues

      n/t

    • kenchely

      You finished in the Rheingold.

  • ezservant

    My concern is for those of us that are not involved in the march. Will there be retaliation from the administration if it does not go as they have planned. How will this effect us. If they ,the OWS have the same directive and hold that cause then will this benefit what is good and righteous direction. This has been orchestrated by the obama administration , How can we use this to our advantage? Should we?

    • Tbone

      If you are so screwed up that somehow you can look at that motley crew and somehow relate to them, then you are already so screwed up as to be hopeless.

      Personally, I hope they crap on every cop car in America. After all, there is a good chance that each is occupied by two grossly overpaid, unionized “public servants”.

      • fadetobolivia

        I earn every penny I make. At the age of 30, I have already had torn MCLs and scars to prove it. And I work for a local public whose general attitude toward me is indifferent at best, but more often hostile. I’m not complaining because I get satisfaction out of what I do.

        But my point is that the next time you advocate something like that, maybe you should tell everyone what your profession is. That way we can all come up with reasons to park you and your car in front of a bunch of malcontents, and then see what they do.

        • Tbone

          I live in a California county where the patrol deputies routinely make well over 6 figures and where a 30+ year undersheriff just retired before age 60 at about $275,000 per year.

          Your union has bought off every Democrat legislator at both county and state level and own Jerry Brown.

          You guys all suffer from an us vs them bunker mentality and, if not already, you will cease making much distinction between the general public and the bad guys as is evidenced by your own words. … “a local public whose general attitude toward me is indifferent at best, but more often hostile.”

          If you are 30 you may have about another 25 years to go before you retire on a pension that will be equivalent to some one who actually earned and saved about $2 million in cash in today’s money. This, providing that you don’t take an early “medical” retirement like the majority of your buddies, for your bad knees brought on more by being 50 pounds overweight than your old MCLs.

          If you personally haven’t beaten up a defenseless person you have certainly turned a blind eye while some of your buddies have both on the street and in a jail.

          You have either perjured yourself in court to get maybe just a traffic conviction or watched your colleagues commit perjury to get a conviction.

          The truth is that yes, you do need that “stinkin badge”, don’t you?

          • powertothepeople

            assessment of most of the cops in your area. Same could have been said about the cops in my old neck of the woods, Macomb County MI. Way too high of salaries, way too much corruption, and so on. But as we all know MI and CA are too very union controlled states.

            Now in my new neck of the woods, SC, cops make less than what it takes to make a decent living. There are still the punk cops, weaklings who were beat up in high school who now hide behind the badge in order to get revenge, corrupt cops, and so on, but as a general rule most are grossly underpaid and are forced to work side jobs to to make ends meet.

            We just had a young cop killed here in Laurens who was only on the job for six weeks. He died making $23,450 a year and his wife will get around $225 a week in survivor benefits to support herself and her two children.

            Most cops are decent, hardworking, honest men and women who make little for the job they do. Unfortunately, in some areas, MI and CA included, too many good cops across the country have their profession smeared by unionized blood suckers who if they ever had any decency or morals, they got rid of them long ago in favor of way too much money and corruptive behavior.

          • Tbone

            It is one of their programs funded by their bi-partisan membership.

          • kopen

            No disrespect intended .. BUT! All Cops aren’t Bad and all cops aren’t good and “We the People” just have to suck it up and take the good with the bad ..
            some where along the line lets pray that all of us remember the phase do unto others as you would have them do unto you .. Maybe we will be a Country that faces our responcabilities and quits crying out for the Government to funish every thing we want .. A Nanny State is NOT what our Constitution calls for and Capitalism is our best hope of survival ..Just give us a level playing feild so all can suvive anbd thrive (if you are willing to work towards it)
            GOD Bless America … Let Freedom ring

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            Cops put their lives on the line for you every day. When there is danger, the public runs away from it, and cops run towards it. Cowards like you benefit from the public safety that cops provide while you make blanket generalizations about them. Yet if someone breaks into your house at night, or assaults you on a street, you’ll be the first to call 911 and expect them to come to your rescue, and to risk their own safety while doing it.

            You’re no better than the POS protesters who burn American flags and mock American soldiers while taking advantage of the first amendment rights that those soldiers defend.

            Disgusting.

          • Tbone

            Soldiers serve our Country. Most cops serve themselves.

          • jimmyg

            Slowly move away from your computer and keep your hands where we can see them..

          • Tbone

            Cops are everything I say they are and their is ample evidence to that effect. Are you a cop?

          • wonkish1

            But lets be honest here, issues of many police officers and police departments becoming defacto IRS agencies and engaging in almost thuggery towards the general public is fast growing problem.

            You definitely cannot paint a broad stroke here and I wouldn’t even say that it is a problem with a majority of police officers, but it is a real problem none the less.

            I am friends with some police officers that talk about the pressures put on them to try to extort average citizens, but choose not to. And I know a few cops that are on power trips, resent the public, and take every opportunity to further their career by going after normal law abiding citizens.

            For those that try to defend this behavior, shame on you!

          • fadetobolivia

            He said he hoped they crap on *every* cop car in America. I simply want to know why I deserve to have that happen to me.

            As you touched on, he can’t give a reason without generalizing me. He also apparently isn’t capable of walking back his comments when he can’t back them up. So no, as far as that goes, he isn’t addressing any issue in a way which is based in reality.

            More to your point, I agree with you that the issue of law enforcement being used for things other than they should is a problem. I’m big on civil liberties because I know exactly what would happen if they were gone. But it’s not the individual police officers that would be a problem, but the government itself. The government goons who have no concept of civil liberties because they’ve never had to even contemplate them. I’m quite sure there aren’t too many cops who would be happy with the idea of lending a hand to the IRS.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            But for those who use the offenses of some bad cops as an excuse to claim ALL cops are bad, as Tbone did, more shame on you!

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            in the WTC. Who were they serving?

          • Tbone

            some were bad. All were unfortunate.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            Yet they all went into the WTC or stayed there. They had to know it was dangerous. But they did their duty to society, because that is what cops do. They serve our country just as surely as soldiers do. The only difference is location. Soldiers face danger for us overseas. Cops do it here at home.

            Your previous post did not say some cops were good and some bad. You said they are all bad. You claim the evidence supports this. Nonsense.

            There are some bad cops, just as there are bad apples in all walks of life. But because cops serve society in the most dangerous conditions, they deserve our respect and grattitude until they individually prove themselves unworthy.

            Conservatism, is based on respect for our society, traditions, and values. Your views deserve nothing but contempt in this forum.

          • fadetobolivia

            replying to your post had I know I was dealing with such a bitter person. In a way I’m happy for you, you seem like you REALLY need the outlet. It’s not a great look though.

            As a point of fact though (as opposed to your post), I’m 5’11 180lbs ( not 50lbs overweight), I tore my MCL arresting a would-be burglar who was booting in an 80-year old’s door. I also have no use-of-force incidents after 5 years on the job (sorry, no defenseless people beaten up by me). I’m also a conservative who is not a fan of his own Association (and by “Your union,” you’re assuming I’m a member).

            And bunker mentality? If you won’t concede that there is a strong cultural element to the San Francisco area that is anti-police, then you’re just intellectually dishonest. Just like the area is anti-conservative.

            Anyways, I just thought I’d correct the suggestions you made about me.

            Unfortunately, I’m not going to let you lump me in with “You guys all,” and “the majority of your buddies.” You’ve made quite a few insinuations (all imagined) about me, but you still can’t articulate – in a way based in reality – why *I*, fadetobolivia, deserve to have a protester relieve himself on my car.

            Considering that, maybe you should admit you shouldn’t have said what you said. I also couldn’t help but notice you didn’t tell us all what you do for a living. Not that it matters… I happen to have that sense of appropriateness you seem to lack.

          • Tbone

            wouldn’t be like it is, I guess. Would it?

            Question. One of your brothers in blue is kicking a handcuffed suspect. You see a guy 20 feet away videotaping. What do you do?

            Sure you would.

            But one of your other brothers goes after the video taper. What do you do?

            You know that you would conspire and lie to protect your “brothers”.

            Wouldn’t you? Sure you would or your career would be over. You know it, why shouldn’t I?

          • vandalii

            …then pick it on HuffPost or some other place where it belongs.

            Police anywhere have to make snap decisions and a hostile populace like SF make those snap decisions knowing the high likelihood of some over-priced lawyer looking to make some big moolah on the city is going to call.

            Unfortunately, we don’t get much context in all the conspiracy-theorists blogging about videotaping being stopped. I’m concerned about several things I’ve seen in past months with police taking cameras away from citizens filiming on their own property. I also have no context. As we all learned (much later) from the Rodney King situation, editing makes a story that isn’t really there — Mr. King refused to get on the ground when ordered multiple times, got back up when initially knocked down, refused to stay where he was ordered. What did we see for weeks afterward? Beating the man. That, per the police, was the only way to get him to stay prone.

            Is there police brutality? Yes. Is that a reason to vent against one of the men in blue that is serving his hateful, hostile community because that’s what he feels is his calling? H*LL NO! Get over yourself, Tbone! You’re sounding more and more like a troll with each post…

          • Tbone

            is a fool.

            You want to apologize for cops taking away the rights of citizens, be my guest. I never said being a cop was easy, I said it was lucrative.

            I have seen way too much to think that cops should be covered in a cloak of righteousness.

          • Ann_W

            He’s an idiot who will say anything when you disagree with him. His idea of a good closing argument to me one day was to tell me to go fold laundry. So cops aren’t the only ones on his **** list.

            Thanks for your service.

          • Tbone

            like I suggested you iron the sheets too. ;-)

          • Ann_W

            As always, my best wishes (or is that condolences) to Mrs. Tbone.

          • fadetobolivia

            Thank you for your support.

            Like I mentioned earlier, I didn’t start this little tangent of a discussion (or join the police department) for kudos. And I get it… people don’t call the police to tell them they’re having a great day. Most police contact is going to be negative; it’s the nature of things. And our bad apples (they’re fewer than you would think) don’t help things. But knowing that there are people who get all that and can still offer kind words is encouraging.

            I did, however, start this tangent because Tbone said something that I thought he needed to be called out on. But it seems as though as of his last post to me, he is apparently having an imaginary conversation with me in which he is providing my answers. Honestly it’s pretty strange behavior. I wasn’t joking when I said I was glad he had an outlet. So yes, I’ll be ignoring him henceforth.

            Thanks again!

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            nt

        • vandalii

          I suspect you do not often get thanked for your service (including by those on this board). Frankly, teachers, fire fighters, police and our military are some of the most critical, under-appreciated and under-paid people in the USA. We’ve really done poorly by these professions IMO.

          To Tbone, please remember that the undersherriff spent a good deal of his working career serving folks, probably including getting shot at. As an engineer, I don’t experience that kind of “excitement” much and am grateful for folks like your undersherriff that protected your life. Paying them more than you get paid, well, why don’t you go deal with domestic disturbances night-in night-out and see how much *you* think that should pay…

          Unions are something I wish we could do away with, but to throw out the police baby with the union + police bathwater would really be a bad idea. Seems there’s little enough deterrence to prevent today’s youth from just taking whatever they want at 7-11 (ever seen a “no more than 2 teenagers allowed inside at a time” sign?). Remove the police, sherriffs, constables, etc. and all you’ll have is whatever firearm our Organizer in Chief will allow to stand between your business and some punk that thinks he/she is entitled to whatever he/she wants. Then you get to deal with the lawsuits for defending yourself. Bad business, IMO.

          Please be careful when lumping our true public servants in with miscreants that do nothing but cry and throw temper-tantrums when they don’t get their way like our neighbors occupying, well, whatever they’re actually occupying.

          Fadetobolivia is one of the good guys, so thank him! I do. Thanks for your service, sir!

          • Tbone

            about how your great unionized public servants were acting? They do that everywhere. You sound like an SEIU organizer.

            “Please be careful when lumping our true public servants in with miscreants that do nothing but cry and throw temper-tantrums when they don?t get their way”

          • wonkish1

            The Collective Bargaining law right?

            They didn’t really show up after that.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            Really? You have evidence of this?

            Because I live in Tampa, which falls under the definition of “everywhere”, and our cops are well respected. Especially cops like officers Kocab and Curtis. Google them and read about men much better than yourself.

          • Tbone

            Car.

            BTW, we can trade anecdotes as long as you want. Read this about guys just like you.

            http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/tampa-police-officer-fired-over-phony-complaint-letter/1090534

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            but I am not a cop. My bio is available for anyone who bothers to look. What is your exalted occupation?

          • Tbone

            The implication was that you are a Ford.

          • Tbone

            I have created 100s of jobs, helped 1000s of people earn their living. All without a government check or taking advantage of my personal 8A qualification because I consider it just another affirmative action program where the government wants to pick the winners and the losers.

            Neither I nor you should consider it to be exalted, just responsible to the people who work for us.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            as there are crooked cops. Bad CEOs nearly destroyed our economy with their incompetence, while getting rich in the process, and now they gorge on corporate handouts.

            You want to condemn all cops for the actions of a few bad ones. Tell me why the same “logic” does not apply to you and your profession?

          • Tbone

            I think there are some Defense Department handouts that you can use your 8A to gorge on.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            means you don’t have any substantive way to respond. Ergo you lose.

          • Tbone

            I didn’t know he was even in this game. LOL.

            Substantive response to what argument? You make a statement that there are good and bad cops and good and bad CEO’s. Well Duh.

            Don’t you have some over-billing of the Government to do? I wouldn’t want you to miss your share from the public trough.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            Google officers Jeffrey Yaslowitz, Tom Baitinger, and David Crawford in St Petersburg. All in the last year.

          • Tbone

            “ST. PETERSBURG ? The FBI arrested a St. Petersburg homicide detective Wednesday on public corruption charges, accusing him of using his position to extort cash, shoes and a flat-screen television from a confidential informant.”

            http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1174239.ece

            Now, I suggest we both just quit.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            What you appear unable to understand is there there are also good cops, and that the good ones deserve our respect for risking their lives for us.

            Quit if you want, or keep going. You make yourself look more stupid and callous with every post.

    • macbookben

      …of monkeywrenching this movement by supporting it? Let them beat themselves over their heads with their own agenda.

  • gwalt

    Streiff,
    I recall back in Feb 2009 after hundreds if not thousands of fawning Obama stories was the final straw: Obama was compared to Capt Sullenberger, a guy who had just landed a huge aircraft in the middle of winter on the Hudson River and saved every single life on that massive piece of flying metal. Thank you Soledad Obrien for the comparison. From that moment I realized the more they made such ludicrous comparisons, the faster he would fall. And I was right. I wanted him out more and more and more and more. And they (Lamestream Media) complied.

    So goes OWS. The more they are out there, the more it costs blue cities, the more they pollute (what about the Environment? Losers.), the more they chant and all of a sudden have a Forrest Gump moment where he stops running—-and goes home. Suddenly realizing that all this running is well, for nothing. They will all of a sudden realize, with Twitters help of course, that the guy in the White House IS MR. EVIL CORPORATION.

    It may work if enough Conservatives tweet over and over the gargantuan sum of money Obama has received, they might, just might turn. Earlier today there was a good rundown of money Obama has received from WS titans(Dimon) and the largest corporate giver is Comcast. It is quite a list. Penny Pritzker and other WS financiers. What about Soros? Immelt?

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    The fact that these people are such narcissists means they are posting videos of their every move. Every nutty, anti-social, anti-American move. I can’t wait to see the campaign commercials targeting the genuflecting Dems who support this movement.

  • Jack_Savage

    …the 2010′s are giving us the Wagon Riders, disguised as OWS.

    h/t to Phil Gramm, 1995 ,College Station, Texas:

    “I want to ask the able-bodied men and women riding
    in the wagon on welfare to get out of the wagon and help the rest of
    us pull.”

  • explodinghead

    Listening to Rush, it seemed that some of these people (not the free-love,food,drugs crowd) may have legitimate worries about the amount of taxes they are paying, and are concerned about their futures, lack of jobs etc. I’m not saying that many of them could be converted, but there may be a small minority of normal folks that could be swayed to the TEA party, but have seen the TEA party lambasted by the MSM.
    The hard core marxists, union thugs, and Obama lovers of course will never change, but is it possible that some may be evangelized if we could infiltrate the smaller gatherings and quietly spread Conservative principles among the Kool-Aid?
    …….I know I’ve been drinking waaaaay too much TEA. It was a nice daydream though.

    • streiff

      from joining a Tea Party.

      • kyconservative

        …

        • luvnthebigsites

          .

    • lucky364

      Here’s one that appears to be a Tea Partier that simply doesn’t know it. “Rachel” is confused.

      http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/10/08/2074034/mike-tharp-why-the-wall-street.html

  • uncmike

    The Dems, using labor goons as their tools, have tried to co-opt OWS, but that is dangerous business for all the reasons you point out. The longer this clown carnival goes on, the more damage it does to Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the left-wing pack called Democrats. So, maybe we should try to keep the circus performing for as long as we can.

  • apocomilitiaman

    You know Free Love

    Camping

    STD’s

    Beating on Drums

    Exchanging Beads

    Hair Braiding

    Drugs

    and a shower from a fire house at the end of the event.

    • eugenio

      In light of the photo on the Daily Mail website, I think that name describes them perfectly.

      • lineholder

        -

      • Ann_W

        nt

    • qsclues

      I prefer Deadwood-stock.

  • dukefergus

    My first reaction to OWS as also, “bring it on” the more america sees the commie hippies, their agenda and democrats cozying up to them, the better. but then I realized, that the only ones reporting these things were right blogs and fox news. now, completely false accusations of racism at tea party rallies are national news, but all the craziness, defecating on cop cars, etc doesn’t merit any reporting from MSM. its either silence or general reporting that protests are “people unhappy with wall street greed”. so here’s hoping for OWS success at having protest in every town in America so that everyone gets a chance to see what these people are about.

  • jeffperren

    “What they forget is that the street demonstrations of the mid-1960s did not help the Democrat party. To the contrary the protests of 1967 and 1968 led directly to the decision of LBJ to decline to seek a second term and to the election of Richard Nixon.”

    Uh, that wasn’t exactly an improvement. Nixon gave us Wage and Price Controls and the EPA, along with Burger, Blackmun, and Powell on the Supreme Court.

    Apart from that, the amused attitude of the pundits and public toward the protests of the ’60s led to their successful march through the institutions, resulting in the Progressive dominance of the universities, media, and government that we have today.

    Be careful what you take casually.

    • streiff

      the other alternatives were Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. And that academia had been a hotbed of leftwing activism since the 1920s.

      So you’re right if you just ignore the history of the era.

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    I have had similar thoughts and was thinking about writing a blog post on the same thing. Simply put, when the other side is making a fool of themselves, get out the way, grab some popcorn, and watch.

    One caveat….we as a movement should be responding the economic concerns of the country. We don’t need to protest, but we need to be clear on how our policies will help ordinary people.

  • Vaughn Harold

    40% the wealth in this country, where do they get this info from?

    I was wondering because if there was any truth to it then wouldn’t the conservative position be to support breaking apart this monopoly of wealth?

    • streiff

      aren’t really conservative ideas

      • Vaughn Harold

        in a TV interview talking about breaking up large companies into smaller entities, and I was just wondering if there would be any correlation with the distribution of wealth. It doesn’t seam prudent to let 1% of the population hold 40% of the wealth any more than it would be to let corporations get to big to fail.

        • Vaughn Harold

          no text

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            and making him/herself rich?

            Do you believe that someone’s getting rich makes someone else become poor?

          • Vaughn Harold

            of wealth in the hands of a few is just as bad as large amounts of power concentrated in a central government and businesses becoming to large to fail. This is the reason I posed the question, sometimes we fail to see the truth behind the wrong motivations of left and use that truth to our advantage within the Republican party.

            So my question still stands, what is the conservative position on wealth concentration?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            on wealth concentration.

            With respect to “breaking up companies”, in this country it’s not done to move wealth around, it’s done because as companies grow, especially if they grow by acquisition, they reach a point where parts of the company are no longer relatively as productive as the company expects. Or the mission of the company undergoes a redesign (see HP). The parts of the company that no longer meet the mission or are non-productive are spun off so that the company can focus on it’s core mission and improve it’s productivity and it’s profit margins.

            With respect to wealth concentration, if you earned it, you keep it. Period.

          • Vaughn Harold

            curious as to conservatism’s answer.

            I’m in agreement, just needed help seeing.

            Thanks!

          • vandalii

            The Left believes there is only a single pie from which each gets a slice. If one person gets “too big” a piece, then someone else will get too small a piece. Makes sense if the single-pie economic model were true.

            But it’s not true. The truly wealthy in this country realize that it is a free market, meaning anyone is welcome to go create a whole new pie from which to take a slice. Think back to 1968 before the first PC came out. The “pie” was IBM, NCR, DEC, HP, a few other big players in mainframes. Suddenly a new pie appears and a multi-multi-billion dollar market is created that makes pie-makers wealthy as well as a number of pie-slice partakers that understand how to take advantage of the new pie’s opportunities (patents, mfg. spinoffs, accessories, etc.).

            Our billionaires today are, for the most part, pie creators. Yes there are some in the old money that know how to move it around without actually producing anything, but even they create opportunities in financial fields for folks that understand how to use money to make money. Is that bad? Per OWS folks, yep. If it doesn’t work, eventually it will fail, the pie will collapse (when was the last time you bought whale oil for your heater?).

            As Ronald Reagan once said:
            “It’s not that our friends on the left are ignorant. It is that they know so much that isn’t so”

          • funwithknives

            that is the premise of an old blues standard: ” The Thing That Makes Her Rich, Makes You Poor” {see Paul Butterfield, Geoff Muldaur}
            ” …while she was up theah’ ,livin’ high on the hog,
            he had me down here, scruffin’ like a dog.
            And the very thing, that makes her rich,
            makes me poor.”

            So Rick, it CAN happen, on occasion and it’s voluntary!
            G-Day to Ya’!

        • JSobieski

          is not a redistribution of wealth.

          The shareholders of the large company would simply become shareholders of the various smaller companies. There is no “redistribution” merely “restructuring”—something that is totally different.

          Second, the only reason why small/large matters in an age of global competition is in the context of bailouts. It is only because of “too big to fail” being a justification for bailouts does Erick’s discussion even begin.

          • acat

            decreases the efficiencies of scale, increasing the cost to the consumer.

            If you squint, you can sorta call that “wealth redistribution”, I suppose .. kinda…

            Mew

          • Common_Cents

            Two distinct and separate things.

            Large companies can be efficient. Efficient companies may be large.

            There are bloated inefficient pigs out there.

          • wonkish1

            Common Cents you are right larger companies do not equal more efficient. Most of the time the opposite is true.

            As you get bigger you tend to gain more scale efficiency, but you also pick up more bureaucratic efficiency.

            In today’s market where outsourcing and the ability to focus on a particular segment of a the market chain scale efficiency is almost completely disappearing from the market before our eyes.

            And bureaucratic inefficiency is still as bad as ever in bigger institutions.

          • acat

            HR staff for 1 company of 10,000 is smaller than for 10 companies of 1,000.
            Insurance costs for 1 company of 10,000 is lower than for 5 companies of 2,000.
            Telecom costs are cheaper for 1 company of 10,000 …

            The point is, there are economies of scale that are available to large organizations that have not been available to small ones.

            The internet and department-level outsourcing is starting to change that. It’s always been possible to outsource some or all of IT and bookkeeping, but it’s now possible to outsource part of HR and parts of Finance and .. etc.

            My point is still true – large companies benefit more from economies of scale, and by doing so can – not will, *can* – offer lower prices .. at this time. This will change as the disruption of the internet continues to percolate through society.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            It depends entirely on both the costs of scaling up (esp information and opportunity costs), and the marginal benefits of scaling up. Bigger =/= better.

          • acat

            A high enough threshold to entry, example would include the oil industry or the airline industry, can ironically serve to protect inefficiency by reducing competition.

            Until upstarts like Southwest came along, United and PanAm and TWA and American were much less efficient… and the survivors are *still* less efficient than Southwest…

            Government-mandated monopolies or industries that are heavily regulated, such as banking and .. again, airlines, are also generally more protected from challenges by more efficient competitors.

            The initial point stands, IMO – in terms of creating jobs and therefore transferring wealth, breaking up large companies is somewhat redistributionary.

            After all, what’s the second thing companies do after merging? Lay off the “redundant” people. (The first thing being a massive payoff to the board of directors, not that there’s anything wrong with it!)

            Mew

    • Doc Holliday

      .

      • Vaughn Harold

        really want to know the conservative position on this issue.

        • acat

          The conservative position is “So what?”.

          Seriously. Did Bill Gates break into your home and steal your piggy bank? Did someone hold a knife in your back and force you to buy Windows? (instead of, for instance, buying a Mac or teaching yourself Linux)

          The conservative position is that, so long as no laws are broken, people can and should be encouraged to find their own measures of success, and pursue them. For many people, that means piling up money. So what?

          Mew

          • Vaughn Harold

            Although, I think we have to have something better to say than “So what?” to those who have bought into this kool aide.

            Thanks for your responses!

          • acat

            and the ones who will listen will ask “What do you mean by ‘so what?’” .. and *then* I can quote J. Sobieski at them. (see below)

            Pearls before swine, and so forth.

            Mew

    • gekster

      The top 1% pay 40% of income taxes.
      The bottom 47% pay no income taxes.
      That’s the monopoly that we need to break up.
      Listen to a conservative talk show sometime, they deal in the truth.
      That’s what makes them so successfull.

      • petespa

        But, then again, I honestly don’t know what the conservative position is when it comes to concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands. Traditionally, that kind of concentration inhibits free markets, innovation and competition.

        It seems to me that in considering using government power to break up concentrations of wealth, we simply commit one horrendous mistake to attempt to undo an undesirable situation.

        I think we all favor a strong middle class and upward mobility. But we can’t unleash the tyranny of government to design a shortcut to the society we wish we had. In the end, we don’t get the result, but we’re still stuck with the tyranny part.

        • Vaughn Harold

          these concentrations of wealth to happen, and therefore the only one able to undo it?

          • davesinsanantonio

            hands out wealth. It does neither. Wealth is the result of effort on some individual(s)’s part. The real distribution comes when that person(s) use their wealth to gain something they want instead. For example giving up a little gold to get food. The person with the food wants that gold. Hence, a free exchange of goods that satisfies both. The government is not involved. Where the government does get involved is when a third party comes along and tries to take the food or the gold, or both, by force. The government has no other legitimate function in the marketplace. So, if I amass more wealth than you because a I had a better idea than you, or worked harder at bringing it to fruition, or just saved my wealth and maybe put it to work at the going interest rates, then you have no reason to complain that I have a larger concentration of it than you do, no matter how envious of my “stash” you may be. Get over yourself! You are NOT entitled to someone else’s wealth, no matter how much more of it they have than you, unless they committed some crime to take it away from you in the first place.
            Here’s another truth. Most wealth that is amassed in one individual’s hands gets redistributed during his lifetime as he finds things he wants more than the money. At his death, his heirs further redistribute that pile of wealth as they also trade it for things they want more. Just look at how may rich heirs became penniless in short order, or how may star athletes or Hollywood millionaires go broke. Wealth redistribution by the government is not desirable, nor needed. Just wait and it will all distribute itself after a while.

          • Vaughn Harold

            too much wealth in few hands creates the situation where the few control the many. These does not seem like a desirable conservative position. What I’m wanting to understand is how conservatism applies when this happens, because it appears to be the case in our country. The liberal position is taxation to correct this problem, what is the conservative position? Just let things work themselves out. I don’t think that’s the answer when a few hold 40% of the wealth.

          • JSobieski

            There is nothing in conservatism that is against too few people having too much money. There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth inequality. Wealth does not equal monopoly.

            Moreover , you are remarkably ignorant of history if you think the present day represents some type of abnormal time for wealth concentration.

            At the time of John D. Rockefeller’s death in 1937, his estimated net worth was $1.4B while the GDP of the US was $92B (1.5% of GDP). Does anyone in 2011 have a net worth of $225B?

            Why do you care if some people are really really rich? The wealth of Bill Gates does not come at my expense. The only time wealth comes at the expense of others is when government gets involved.

            In the modern global economy, most monopolies are the result of government. Capital crosses borders very easily.

            What is the problem with 1% of the population holding 40% of the wealth?

            1% of the population probably holds more than 40% of the existing musical talent in the world.

            1% of the population probably holds more than 40% of the existing knowledge in the field of medicine with respect to the entire world.

            Far less than 1% of the population makes far more than 40% of the revenues generated from professional sports.

            Life is unfair in the divying out of talents. People make choices based on the cards that they are dealt. A lot of entrepreneurs that I know have problematic marriages because of time spent working. Someone else may focus more on family and community, work less and make less.

            Redistributing wealth for the sake of redistribution is playing God.

          • Vaughn Harold

            n t

          • Vaughn Harold

            that maybe concentration of wealth is necessary to having limited government, and that the new deal broke up the concentration of wealth in this country, the result of which has been that our government has grown because of the regulation necessary to keep an eye on making sure that concentration of wealth does not happen again.

            I know I’m probably sounding crazy, but I know you guys know way more than I and I really appreciate your incite into things that I do not have time to learn about.

          • acat

            After all, what would a Duke or a Baron be, in England in the year 980, other than “a concentration of wealth” ? And that certainly wasn’t a limited government… (and I don’t think Runnymede changed matters that much for the average peasant)

            Ironically, to understand the New Deal, it’s helpful to read a bit of Marx. (Karl, not Harpo)

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            However, it may be an inevitable result of limited government + freedom.

            People are different. Different talents, aspirations, and circumstances. Freedom means some will fail, and others will found Google.

          • acat

            Nothing *in law* restricts the individual from being as charitable with his or her money as they see fit.

            That is, there’s no legal barrier stopping Sergey Brin or Larry Page from following in Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffets’ and Andrew Carnegie’s shoes and giving away quite a lot.

            The reason I bring this up is it goes to the nature of the difference between liberalism and conservatism. The former would mandate that a portion of Brin et al‘s wealth be redistributed by government drones, the latter assume Brin et al have enough wisdom to do so on their own recognizance.

            Mew

          • wonkish1

            Is created by government though.

          • acat

            to find that this is true, wonk.

            The question this cat has is why we tolerate it.

            Tie the pay rate for Fed electeds to given armed services ranks, i.e. congresscritter earns the same as an Army Lieutenant, Junior Senator is paid like a Navy Commander, Senior Senator is paid like a USMC Major, President is paid like an Air Force Colonel.

            To sweeten this slightly, each elected Fed also gets free housing. Of course, this is provided on an Armed Services base in the D.C. area, just like the Veep’s digs at the Naval Observatory.

            Health care for Senators to be provided by the Veterans Administration; for Congressmen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The President and Veep can still go to Bethesda.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Do you no absolutely nothing about the marketplace?

            Please explain to me just how “the government” “allowed” the Koch brothers to get wealthy. Or Bill Gates.

            And please write a diary on the appropriate mechanism for “the government” to break up the concentrations of wealth that you’re so concerned about.

          • Vaughn Harold

            government we currently have is picking the winners and losers.

            I have a hard enough time, as you know, communicating. Writing a diary on the subject would be pointless, but I do want to learn from you guys.

            Thanks for the response, it’s helpful!

          • Vaughn Harold

            no text here

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            as in companies to grant loan guarantees to, but they don’t pick w&l when it comes to individuals being successful and accumulating wealth.

          • Vaughn Harold

            to those whom they wish to reward. Isn’t this sort of making sure that wealth stays in certain hands and would also be diametrically opposite of a free market, which in my understanding should be consumer driven?

            Just thinking: I understand that government must invest, but where is the line. Maybe it doesn’t matter because that’s what elections are for. Not sure how to process this.

            Thanks!

          • JSobieski

            So many of your statements are suggestive of bad faith.

            “So whichever party is in power, money will be funneledto those whom they wish to reward.” WRONG. GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE FUNNELING MONEY TO ANY COMPANY. MOST COMPANIES (SEE FORD, IBM, APPLE, GOOGLE, ETC) SUCCEED BY THE MARKETPLACE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. THIS RIGHT-LEFT EQUIVALENCY IS ABSOLUTE CRAP. WHEN AN R DOES THE “FUNNEL MONEY” THING, IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE R BETRAYING R PRINCIPLES.

            “Isn?t this sort of making sure that wealth stays in certain hands and would also be diametrically opposite of a free market” NO AGAIN. HOW IS MONEY STAYING WITH THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT CONTRARY TO A FREE MARKET.

            “which in my understanding should be consumer driven?” NOT CORRECT, BUT NOT AS WRONG AS YOUR PRIOR STATEMENTS ABOVE. A MARKET IS “MARKET DRIVEN”—NOT JUST CONSUMERS. ENTITIES ENGAGED IN BUYING AND SELLING IS THE MARKET. NOT JUST BUYERS, NOT JUST CONSUMERS.

            “Just thinking: I understand that government must invest, but where is the line.” GOVERNMENTS SPEND, I WOULDNT USE THE WORD “INVEST” UNLESS BY INVEST YOU MEAN WASTE. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT NEED TO INVEST, IT NEEDS TO DEFEND THE RULES THROUGH A MILITARY AND COURTS.

            “Maybe it doesn?t matter because that?s what elections are for. Not sure how to process this.” ABSOLUTE DRIVEL. BETTER POLICIES ALLOW THE MARKET TO FLOURISH. OBAMA IS DIRECTIONALLY WORSE RE: FREE MARKET THAN ANY PRESIDENT SINCE FDR.

            Your use of left-wing talking points is suspect. Are you by chance a pro-life liberal?

          • Vaughn Harold

            based on Erick Erickson’s comments on companies being to big to fail and whether or not how conservatism deals with large concentrations of wealth. The question was answered, but some of the comments lead to rabbit trails.

            It obviously was my bad to translate Mbeckers “government may choose winners and losers” to the government funneling money to the winners and denying to the losers, I viewed this as government making sure wealth stayed in certain hands. I know that that would be wrong from a conservative point of view, but it appears my regular joe perspective that seems to be what our government has been doing for quite a will.

            Again, thanks for your response, as always it is much appreciated.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You have a fundamental problem staying on point, don’t you Vaughn.

            First, you start out decrying government concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals. Now you move seamlessly to government picking industries in which to dump money – and don’t use the word “invest”.

            Government does not invest, they spend. BIG difference.

            They don’t “make sure that wealth stays in certain hands…”. They dump money into industries for R&D, etc. This particular administration has performed major wonders in income and wealth transfer just in the auto industry, shutting out secured bondholders and giving their union friends a major chunk of GM and Chrysler.

            I was going to run this down point by point for you, but I’m frankly tired of dealing with your inability or unwillingness to even attempt what a group of us are attempting to school you on. I will make one passing comment, if you look at the “concentration of wealth” that the left is railing about, it is the result – by and large – of consumer driven actions.

          • Vaughn Harold

            n text

  • petespa

    n

    • gekster

      ….

  • 1stRichard

    This is typical Bourgeois abuses the Proletarians propaganda, OWS jumps on the populist egalitarianism bandwagon to ruin because they are uneducated useful idiots and not much more. Stalin, Hitler, Mao all used the same Marxist ideology and as history has shown this is a slippery slope that is simply too dangers to play with. All the past protests of 1967 and 1968 did not have the same Marxist elements as they do now and there is no comparison that can be made.

    • streiff

      and fly in the face of history. The 67 and 68 protests were larded with communists and many of the organizing groups received money from CPUSA and USSR front groups. They were violent (Weathermen) and organized.

      How anyone can mistake this bunch of mewling babies for something dangerous is beyond me.

  • mikeymike143

    left wing scum

  • daniel22

    I see your point but could not disagree with you more. I understand that in a perverse way you would be empathizing with what the OWS are saying. However how much thought was given to the position of the Tea Party? By supporting OWS even in the small manner in which you were writing about would allow them to usurp positions already owned by the Tea Party. It would give them a claim of legitimacy that was not earned. Any acts or statements that these people do would also bleed over and onto the Tea Party by association. Do you not think that politicians in their great love for the Tea Party would not jump on the chance to malign the Tea Party?

    • streiff

      and you spelled Erick’s name wrong.

  • atillathehun

    I would align myself with Geporge Will when he said that this movement is the best thing that could have happened to the GOP. Unfortunately it will be just a matter of time before the radical element asserts itself in violence as it always does.

    The contrast between the Tea party and the Flea Party is stunning as is the message.

  • ihateliberals

    i do see where it could benefit the Republicans. Anyone that has nay knowledge at all about Wall Street knows that most of the Money there is in the pockets of Democrats that run these alleged “Greedy Corporations” . These people tht are protesting Are just a bunch of dirty, lazy, Marxist Types that think everything they want the government should just give to them. They think that anyone that makes a living is Greedy. I don’t think they realize that is their message. They are against profits. well i guess they could be since most of them don’t have jobs and most likely have never drawn a paycheck. My take home pay is my profit for selling my time to a company. everyone that works and gets paid makes a profit. Now if they are right in their message then every time i want a raise i am being greedy as defined by their message.

  • donrsherwood

    I completely agree with Erick – at every opportunity, pictorial comparisons of the #OWS participants, their behavior, arrest records and their protest scenes should be contrasted to the Tea Partiers, their behavior, arrest records and their rally scenes! The differences are startling.

    Tea Partiers are the CONTRIBUTORS to America. #OWS participants are the TAKERS from America.

    The #OWS participants and their behavior (and their Democrat supporters) should be paraded before the public. The question should be, “chose – which are you?”

  • paco12348

    This is not working the way the Dems wanted it to work. They wanted the Tea Party and others opposing the motley crew to show up and then hopefully a big fight could start. Obama could declare martial law and all of America would be in an uproar. Instead, the opposite has happened. The Motley Crew are showing the ugliness the Democrats i. e. Pelosi, Obama and Wasserman Schultz and others seem to cast approval on.
    Instead of a police car beind defecated on it should have been Pelosi’s. Perhaps she could have handed the poor fellow some toilet paper and Wasserman Schultz could wiped his a** while Obama pulled up his pants.
    Isn’t that the way a big, government treats the people? A Nanny state because the poor dumb idiots are only good to pay taxs and too dumb to wipe their own a**.

  • Common_Cents

    One group is the left wing agitators that should be villified.

    2nd group are normal Americans that are confused, brainwashed people (my words) that are looking for solutions.

    Very smart not to alienate the whole crowd and generalize. Target the agitators and co-opters.

    Channel that anger, distrust to the administration which is 50% accomplices to the big Wall Street “banksters”. Could Wall St. melt down w/out repeal of Glass Steagal? Could Wall St. fail us if Barney Frank held Fannie and Freddie accountable? Could Wall St fail if the SEC actually did its job? etc……Our economic problems do include crony capitalism at the highest levels and it takes two to tango. cozy revolving doors with firms like goldman Sachs and more importantly, the federal government. 50% of the focus needs to be on government blame.

    Do you have to agree with OWS? hell no. Should you generalize and alienate all of them? No. should you channel their energy to the current Admin and past dirty government officials? Yes.

  • earls

    and I tend to agree with them. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012

    I’m a Tea Party member and believe we should be doing what we can to win over many of these people – some of them can be reasoned with – some of them want many of the same things TP members want – we have to be aware the far left is trying to co-opt these people and that should concern us.

  • runner12

    Party wants. The Tea Party wants less government, these people want MORE to enforce what they feel is “right.” We may share on thing in common which is we do not like bank bailouts. But our reasons are different.

    The Tea Party is against bailouts because we do not like the government using our money foolishly to bail out private companies. OWS does not like it bevause they see it as adding to the coporations’ profit margin, and all profits (evenly lawfully gained) are seen as evil in their eyes.

    Secondly, we do not like the government picking winners and losers because we dislike Big Government and it is dishonest. They do not like it because they think all corporations should make the same amount of money and want everyone to be exactly alike in income, thought, etc.

    Do not be fooled by some of the words. Look at the philosophy behind it. We are for limited Republican government, they are for Socialism. The two philosophies are incompatible.

    Remeber history. Look up the French Constitutional Royalists, namely Lafayette. They chose very poor alliances and terror reigned as a result.

    • runner12

      This was meant as a reply to earls above.