Is Occupy Wall Street the new Tea Party?

The mainstream media will try to make it the next Tea Party.

They'll try

I actually haven't heard about this. I'm glad that they've found at least some kind of response to the far-right's conservative streak. Having a more-liberal party will "even things out" a bit, and maybe help some people understand, better, liberals' ideology, so that liberals can talk about their ideas without being called a socialist or a hater of the country.

You may want to voice your own opinion yourself, rather than waiting for this crowd. As Paul said: "not only do not have any principles; when asked exactly what they are protesting, they cannot seem to come up with an answer. Furthermore, do you expect lawbreakers to speak for you?

You know that words to mean things and when some of us use the word socialist, because it is the word that fits. I am not intending to invoke an emotional response from you. So when I use the word it is because this president is acting the way a socialist would. He is ignoring the rule of law and making policy changes within departments that would normally require law changes with votes in congress. It appears as though this president is funneling money though solar companies into his reelection fund, the same way he paid off his supporters with stimulus money the first time he was elected. Given a chance he took personal freedom and 17% of the US economy and put it on the track to be centralized within the federal government, yes Obama Care, with a real potential that it is unconstitutional. He took over two car companies closed many private dealerships, some of the Banks and almost taken over the mortgage industry. While all of this is going on, he is paying for it with a printing press, forcing the US dollar to risk collapse.

Greece has been a socialist country on and off for years and now they are in debt because of over spending by the government and the currency is in question. Many countries are bailing them out, including the US. Must we fail too, before you see that socialism does not work?

Annie, Haven't you noticed it is the left who tends to call the right names such as un-American,haters, racists, etc. etc. or was I just dreaming?

I just don't think these stupid Marxists will get anywhere in the political arena. And yes, Marxist is a proper term in political science and these people are Marxists.

The current Dems are so afraid of the upcoming election, looking more radical just increases their chance of loosing.

a horse is a horse and if the shoe fits..... a Marxist is as a Marxist does... When will people wake up and understand that the founders of this country wanted to maximize personal freedom, by minimizing centralized authority. You can’t have both! No kings, Tyrants, Marxist, or Socialists allowed! It is that simple.

As this drags on it seems that this is being funded by George Soros, the SEIU and MoveOn.org to name a few. That should tell you something.

it sure does, grass roots, naaaa. Astroturf, bought and paid for by some rich guy who wants to oppress us little people.

IMO, a large number of the people demonstrating with the "OCCUPY" movement are doing so out of utter frustration and dispair - much like the Tea Party did during it's early steps. People are scared, people are concerned, people want "CHANGE".

I believe for this movement to become effective, they need to do at least the following:

1) Lose the "Demands" from their platform, demands are not calls to action but rather something kidnappers use during hostage negotiations. Allowing themselves to be viewed as "kidnappers" does NOT progress the movement forward with any amount of validity.

2) The marches, the focus should be directed at Congress not towards Wall Street/Big Business. "Big Business" is the beneficiary of the corrupt nature of COngress today. If not for the loopholes, the preferred treatment on the part of elected officials towards "Big Business", the rewards could NOT be realized by them. No matter how one slices this, it ALWAYS will lead back to the corruption stemming from Washington.

3) The organizers need to keep violence to a minimum at best - if not totally out of the scene. As soon as a few protesters begin throwing rocks through windows, setting cars on fire - the movement immediately loses credibility. YES people are frustrated, YES people want "CHANGE" but most people want civility and the notion of law & order - NOT lawlessness!

4) In order to gain the most traction, the "OCCUPY" moement should reach-out to ALL Americans, no matter what teh party affiliation. Inclusion rather than exclusion will serve their desires better in the long run. Many moderates already view the Tea Party as a counter balance to the "far-left progressives". Making this movement about the needs of the same "far-left progressives" will only alienate the moderates further away from the Democratic Party and will undermine to goal of the "OCCUPY" movement.

The thing to remember is that WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGEHTER!!! A majority of Americans are frustrated with how the country is being run by our elected officials. We can argue which tact is the best to pursue moving forward...but I think it's safe to say that the current course is NOT working.

So, to answer the original question: DO I think that teh "OCCUPY" movement is the new "TEA PARTY"? I would answer NO, not at this time...but it does have the prospect of perhaps building into something similar if handled correctly.

Respectfully

You really want to change things? Go to the polls and vote. As long as we keep reelecting the same people, whether Democrats or Republicans nothing will change. These people are so entrenched in Washington, they know no other way.

Paul;

I have voted every election since President Carter (first time old enough to do so)...2008 was the very first year that I DID NOT cast a vote for President! Althugh I did cast votes for Senate & House races here in Maine as well as all local offices/grants/amendments/etc.

So yes I agree that we have to vote different people into office - but then we NEED to hold ALL of the elected officials accountable - something I believe we, as a People, have not done enough of lately.

Respectfully

John, you are right, we do need to hold them all accountable, and the only way to do it is to vote those who are not doing what you think is the right thing out.

Too many complain, like my son for instance, but he isn't even registered to vote. To me that is a big problem. We must e the same age, that was my first election voting as well.

I really do not think this group has much in mind other than anarchy, I would like to be wrong on that, but time will tell and lawlessness will be the proof.

John, you make a good point that crimes on wall street is a reflection of the laws that are created by those who we elect. I love your point about accountability. In the whole housing bubble we have only found part of what happened, no attempt was made to place true blame in a congressional hearing or to even change legislation to keep the same bubble from happening again. In fact when you look at what this administration and the Fed are doing to “Stimulate” this economy, it looks like they would love nothing more than to blow up the same bubble… Is that not the definition of insanity? Much of the blame falls to the media in all of this, not reporting what could happen, before it did, who is to blame, why, and even electing someone with no skills or ability to manage such a situation. It is up to each one of us to tell the truth, because the media has their own agenda.

Political movements, at their beginning, do not always necessarily focus, right away, based on a delineated platform.

It is too early to tell whether "Occupy Wallstreet" has legitimacy, or not.

However--whether anyone likes or not--the movement continues to grow.

Its daily expansion ought suggest possible legitimacy.

To speculate whether this movement is being, quote, "manipulated", unquote--by powerful, and organized, forces--is as prejudicial as those who thought that the Civil Rights movement, and the VietNam protest movement, were manipulated by Communists.

Regardless of who is manipulating this group, read the demands and decide for yourself if they are communists / socialists or capitalist. It is very clear. This group wants to give up its freedom for a bigger centralized government.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Driz, good points

“The #OccupyWallStreet movement, on the other hand, appears to want to use the very same apparatus of government to meet its ends.” I agree, but I feel that the end you speak of and that they list are in direct conflict with what the Tea Party is looking for.

OW is demanding:
Institute a universal single payer healthcare system.
Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Free college education.
Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end
A Trillion dollars for this and for that
Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.
Open borders migration.
Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.

All of this is a transfer of wealth from those who work, to those who don’t and those who don’t work will have no need to work. The Tea Party at its core seems to be for personal responsibility.

Drizzle;

WOW, that's very well thought out and a little much to take ALL in, the first thing in the morning without so much as the benefit of a cup of Joe!!!

I would have to mostly agree with your statement(s)...but I guess as I see it...the root of both the "Tea Party" (at it's humble beginning) and the "Occupy Group", is IMO frustration and the lack of representation.

The "Occupy Group" has focused it's frustrationr on the "effect" i.e. "Big Business Greed" whereas the "Tea Party" focused it's frustration on the "cause" i.e. "ineffective Federal governance".

I believe that it is too early to know if the "Occupy Group" can/will grow/morph into something more than just a one-time "call-to-action" by many frustrated Americans. Of curse one of the challenges facing the "Occupy Group" is their percieved "cal-to-action" does not yet contain a communicable "action" yet aside from protesting...but I think if we look realistically on the past...much of the early anti-Viet Nam protests were similar.

I think no matter what, it is becoming more and more obvious to an ever increasing populace that the current "two-party" system of governance is NOT working for America presently...and I for one applaud everyone who is willing to stand up and be heard on that front.

Respectfully

You guys are trying to give this group the benefit of the doubt, and I get that, but look at the money that is starting to fund it, look at who is being bused in to protest(the Unions). This is not a homogonous group of that does not have a political tilt. If they started out apolitical, they are political now. Even the democrats are jumping in to help. Its fare, they have a voice and they can use it, but let’s keep this in context the message is almost completely Marxist.

Clark;

I now agree...the fact that the unions have joined the "OCCUPY" cause, this is now a very short-lived event...gone in a couple of weeks.

The moderate "Indies" DO NOT want either the far-right or the far-left dictating US policy any longer and for the first time in a long time - they are willing to stand-up, stand-out and be counted.

Respectfully

What is a "moderate "Indies""?

"moderate "Indies" = moderate independent as in:

Independent moderates view bumper stickers, laugh, then shake their heads.

Independent moderates see the best and the worst of the two parties at the same time.

Independent moderates view the political landscape as a football field, thus never let the ball cross either 30 yard line.

Independent moderates know all media is naturally biased, thus pick their preferred network on other factors.

Independent moderates honestly criticize or praise both sides.

Independent moderates have a better understanding of issues and positions because they study and don’t automatically side with a partisan party.

Independent moderates don’t jump on a party bandwagon because they don’t trust where the wagon is going.

Independent moderates don’t like nick-picky bickering, campaign BS, nonanswers to questions, and lack of specifics.

Independent moderates not provoke fear if candidate X in party Y is elected.

Independent moderates balance government programs with fiscal responsibility.

Independent moderates listen and reflect.

Independent moderates see through campaign BS.

Independent moderates are the ones who change the direction of the political pendulum.

Independent moderates listen to new ideas (such as President Bush’s social security reform) but also ask the tough questions about financing the transition from one system to the next (a subject the Bush administration did not address).

Independent moderates have a clear, grounded view that is a response of the far left’s heads-in-the-clouds view and the far right’s head-up-their-butt view. (Or visa versa.)

Independent moderates prefer a Supreme Court balanced with different legal ideologies rather than a court dominated by one.

Independent moderates do not vote based on red or blue, gender, race, or a single issue.

Independent moderates disapprove of negative campaign ads by either party, and despise special interest ads.

Independent moderates know legislation dealing with morality, patriotism, civic responsibility, and faith-based issues are doomed for failure.

Independents trust our country’s election outcomes more than party partisans.

Independent moderates long for campaigns based on issues.

Independent moderates favor people-driven, country-first solutions over party interests.

Independent moderates want the victor to be successful - no matter how they voted.

Got it. The biggest problem that I have with Independent Moderates as you seem to be defining it is encapsulated one that you listed:
“Independent moderates prefer a Supreme Court balanced with different legal ideologies rather than a court dominated by one.”
The issue is simple, the Supreme Court Should not be balanced, it should have one ideology. It is called the constitution, based on the intent of the framers. Any other ideology would be, by definition non-constitutional. Thus the above statement leads me to believe that Independent Moderates have no core belief and can shift opinion at will. Long term that does not seem good. Right is right and wrong is wrong if one does not have a clear understanding of that, then we could elect anyone and it really would not matter much.

Or am I missing something?

Clark;

I am a firm believer that the U.S. Constitution is the ONLY framework that any of our Federally elected/appointed officials should use to guide them in their work. By SCOTUS having different legal ideologies - I mean to infer that all ideologies would still be within the confines of the U.S. Constitution - NOT oustside of it.

Respectfully

just checking, never know these days

I rest my case...enjoy

The "Occupy" Folks...