The "Occupy" Movement

[Haletown]

Occupy Whatever, explained.


http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-whatever-snivelers-shredded-this.html

 

[a_majoor]

"Spontanious and Leaderless" indeed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents, After Exposed as Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests
By Jana Winter

Published November 03, 2011

Nov. 1, 2011: Jonathan Westin, organizing director, New York Communities for Change, attends a protest in New York City.

Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the group’s involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.

NYCC also is installing surveillance cameras and recording devices at its Brooklyn offices, removing or packing away supplies bearing the name ACORN and handing out photos of Fox News staff with a stern warning not to talk to the media, the sources said.

Related Video

Occupy Wall Street Tied to Former ACORN Officials

New questions about protest


“They’re doing serious damage control right now,” said an NYCC source.

NYCC Executive Director Jon Kest has been calling a series of emergency meetings to discuss last week’s report—and taking extreme measures to identify the sources in their office and to prevent further damage, a source within NYCC told FoxNews.com.

Two staffers were fired after NYCC officials suspected them as the source of the leaks, a source told FoxNews.com. “One was fired the day the story came out, the other was fired on Friday. (NYCC senior staff) told everyone that they were fired because they talked to you,” a source said.

NYCC spokesman Scott Levenson denied that anyone was fired for talking to the press.

FoxNews.com’s report identified NYCC as a key organizing force behind the Occupy Wall Street protests. Sources within the group also told FoxNews.com NYCC was hiring people to carry signs and join the protests. NYCC -- a nonprofit organization run almost entirely by former ACORN officials and employees --did not reply for comment prior to the publication of the initial article, but later posted a statement on its website dismissing the article and denying that it pays protesters.

A source said that immediately following publication of the FoxNews.com report staff were called into the Brooklyn office for meetings headed by NYCC’s organizing director, Jonathan Westin. Westin handed out copies of the article and went through it line-by-line, the source said.

Staffers were also given copies of photos of Senior Fox News Correspondent Eric Shawn and three other Fox News staff members, including this reporter.

“They reminded us that we can get fired, sued, arrested for talking to the press,” the source said. “Then they went through the article point-by-point and said that the allegation that we pay people to protest isn’t true.”

“‘That’s the story that we’re sticking to,’” Westin said, according to the source.

The source said staffers at the meeting contested Westin’s denial:

“It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they don’t pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting  who work there objected and said, ‘Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day?’ Then Jonathan said  ‘No, but that’s your job,’ and staffers were like, ‘Yeah, our job is to protest,’ and Westin said, ‘No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.’

“Staff said, ‘Yes, you pay us to carry signs.’ Then Jonathan says, ‘That’s your job.’ It went on like that back and forth for a while.”

During the meetings, NYCC Deputy Director Greg Basta provided Westin with the copied photos of Fox News reporters to hand out to staff members, the source said. Basta told staffers they might be asked about the article when out in communities working on campaigns or when calling people by phone, the source said.

“They told us if people bring up the article, we’re supposed to say the source and all the stuff in there came from a disgruntled ex-employee who’s not working with us anymore.”

NYCC is also monitoring its staff’s behavior, cracking down on phone use and socialization. Officials have ordered all papers -- even scraps -- to be shredded every night, the source said.

“And all the supplies—everything around the office that said ‘ACORN’ -- is now all in storage until this blows over,” the source said. “People literally have to cover up the cameras on the back of their cellphones in the office.”

“Now there’s no texting in the office, no phone calls in the office. They tell us to take our phone calls out into the waiting room where there’s an intercom, and then they turn on the intercom to hear our conversations. They’re installing new cameras and speakers around the building so they can hear everything.

“It’s almost like working at Fort Knox.”

NYCC officials declined repeated requests to respond to specific questions about the organization’s response to last week’s story. The group on Wednesday instead sent this statement, attributed to NYCC board member Jean Sassine:

"New York Communities for Change participates in protests, direct action, social activism and campaigns that promote social and economic justice.  We see FOX as the enemy to those efforts.  For the record, this is consistent with Fox attacks on Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, George Soros, Citizen Action, Planned Parenthood and all those who stand for social justice.  Once again, FOX entertainment poses as FOX News. Once again, FOX makes a series of false, unsubstantiated claims and accusations which have no basis in fact. Once again, through a series of sources FOX structures a story which is nothing but a series of lies."

Westin did respond to some questions a day earlier, when approached by FoxNews.com at an NYCC event in Manhattan.

When asked if a staff member was fired because people thought he’d talked to the press, Westin said, “I have no idea.” When asked about handing out photos of Fox News employees, he said, “I have been? No, I don’t think I have been. That wasn’t me.”

Westin did acknowledge NYCC staff have met to discuss last week’s report. “People talked about it,” he said. “People are interested.”

He also deflected a question about the allegation that staffers were being told to blame the report on disgruntled staffers, telling this reporter to contact him later via email.

Responding to reports of pushback from staffers who said they were being paid to go to the protests, and reports NYCC had recently hired people as canvassers or organizers and then sent them to the protests, Westin replied repeatedly “We don’t pay people to protest.”

Westin later did not reply to two emails asking for follow-up.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/#ixzz1cjz9HtBv

 

[ballz]

Well, now we all know which President to blame for the inequality mess, and what political party supports economic policies that increase inequality. Funny what happens when facts are introduced to the debate... >:

http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm

Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 08:05 AM ET

In his weekend radio address, President Obama decried that "over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier." Although he was trying to leverage the Occupy Wall Street movement, the income gap has been a longstanding concern of his.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama said, "The project of the next president is figuring out how do you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth that George Bush has been so enamored with."

But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

What's more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush's eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama's first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it's climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton's eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

To the extent that income inequality is a problem, it's not clear what can be done to resolve it. Among the contributing factors:

Economic growth. Strong economic growth, rising stock prices and household income inequality tend to go hand in hand.

Technology. Tech advances have put a premium on skilled labor, according to a Congressional Budget Office report . Because the pool of skilled workers hasn't grown as much as demand, their wages have climbed faster.

Free trade and immigration. Cheap labor abroad and an influx in low-skilled immigrants can depress wages at the bottom, according to the CBO.

Women in the workforce. As the CBO put it, "an increase in the earnings of women could boost inequality by raising the income of couples relative to that of households headed by single people."

Tax policy changes don't explain the widening income gap. The CBO found that, by one measure, "the federal tax system as a whole is about as progressive in 2007 as it was in 1979."

Of course, all this assumes there's a problem at all. As University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes, while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: "There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently."

A similar analysis found that income inequality has fallen among individuals since the early 1990s, but risen among households due to factors such as more marriages of people with similar education levels and earnings potential.

Others argue that income mobility matters more than equality.

One study found that more than half of the families who started in the lowest income bracket in 1996 had moved to a higher one by 2005. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 57% of families fell out of the top 1%.

A survey by the Economic Mobility Project found 71% said it's more important for the country to focus on improving upward mobility. Just 21% prioritized reducing inequality.

That is seriously one of the poorest arguments I've ever seen and I'm absolutely disappointed that you of all people tried to use it to support your claim.

How does measuring the growth of the top 5% show anything about the growth of inequality? All it shows is the economic growth. It's not measuring the top 5%'s *SHARE* of the wealth. I guarantee you the average income of the bottom 95% went up under Clinton as well.

Your article also contradicts itself. First it tries to argue (poorly) that Clinton, from 1993-2001 created more inequality than anybody else. Then it argues "while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: 'There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently.'"

Before the mid-1990s eh? The "before the mid-1990s" period that Clinton wasn't the President? Could this author please make up his damn mind what his point is?

Below is the kind of graph that actually measure inequality, the ratios of wealthy : not wealthy. S80/S20 is the most common but I can't find one for the US that measures it over a timespan. This one is S80 (top 20%) / S50 (median income). As you can see, the only time it didn't rise dramatically was Clinton's presidency. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/ratio35.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

I cannot recall where I found the data but I made this chart a couple of years ago (so the 2008/09/10 data was, almost certainly, extrapolated) but I offer it for my GUESS about the "progress" of inequality over the decades.

The fact is that almost everyone, except the poorest of the poor, those who we have with us always in biblical terms, have "advanced" up the prosperity ladder. The problem is not the super rich, it is groups 7 and 8 (the Working Class and the Working Poor) versus groups 2 and 3 (the Rich and the Wealthy). The rates at which they have improved their lots in live are too different - but, if my data is in any way accurate - not as bad as I think I expected when I analyzed it. One of the reasons that the data does not show greater inequality is because, I suspect it is global: inequality in America is greater than in Europe by about a 3:1 factor. The growth of the Working and Middle classes in China "raises all boats" because of sheer numbers.

But, all that being said, I think my perception is right: the top 3 groups have badly outpaced the bottom three, but the middle three groups have little about which to complain - not enough, anyway, to occupy city parks.

 

[ballz]

I cannot recall where I found the data but I made this chart a couple of years ago (so the 2008/09/10 data was, almost certainly, extrapolated) but I offer it for my GUESS about the "progress" of inequality over the decades.

The fact is that almost everyone, except the poorest of the poor, those who we have with us always in biblical terms, have "advanced" up the prosperity ladder. The problem is not the super rich, it is groups 7 and 8 (the Working Class and the Working Poor) versus groups 2 and 3 (the Rich and the Wealthy). The rates at which they have improved their lots in live are too different - but, if my data is in any way accurate - not as bad as I think I expected when I analyzed it. One of the reasons that the data does not show greater inequality is because, I suspect it is global: inequality in America is greater than in Europe by about a 3:1 factor. The growth of the Working and Middle classes in China "raises all boats" because of sheer numbers.

But, all that being said, I think my perception is right: the top 3 groups have badly outpaced the bottom three, but the middle three groups have little about which to complain - not enough, anyway, to occupy city parks.

While your graph looks a lot like many of the ones I've seen, I'd need your definitions of "Super Rich," etc, to make any use of it. What is the unit on the Y-axis? Percent?

It looks pretty similar to the ones that have been published
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg (not adjusted for inflation, which is sort of irrelevant)

inequality in America is greater than in Europe by about a 3:1 factor.

That's what I've been noticing too, maybe a little more. Average Euro countries have an S80/S20 ratio of around 4-5. The US is at 14.9 I think.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I can recall, I'm pretty sure, that the Y axis is ratio of "senior executive" to "shop floor" salary which was about 40:1 for many decades and the circa 1960 began to grow.

I found the chart in a file and I while can recall making it, I cannot find the source data, nor can I recall why I made it.

 

[ModlrMike]

I wonder if they'll block fire, ambulance and police once people start dying?

Occupy Vancouver protest defies fire safety order
Fire officials say they still expect compliance with order
CBC News
Posted: Nov 4, 2011 8:04 AM PT
Last Updated: Nov 4, 2011 1:05 PM PT

Occupy Vancouver protesters say they will remove some tarps they consider unsafe but don't plan to comply with all the demands from the Vancouver Fire Department to clean up the camp.

A camp spokeswoman, who only gave her name as Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

More at link: CBC.ca


An "interesting" list of their demands: http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-111104-occupy-vancouver-demands.pdf

 

[jollyjacktar]

For those who loved him the last time, he's back...  ;D

Wall Street Wankers - An Irishman Abroad  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVlNZ3SIPbo

and the original rant.  Irish Wanker Bankers  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKvcbA5oFFo

 

[a_majoor]

Ballz argument about the *share* of the wealth is about as silly as a previous poster's rant that the "rich" are *hoarding* the wealth; both are based on the premise that somehow this money and property is *yours* to dispose of as you see fit. Sorry folks, property and wealth belongs to the owners by right; they are the ones who earned it and now they are the ones who will decide what to do with it.

Don't agree with how they earned it? Support someone else; this is a free market society, no one is forcing you to buy goods and services from Wal-Mart or GE (although your money was expropriated to support GM and Chrysler regardless of your wish to purchase thier products). Similarly, there is nothing to stop you from buying shares or other financial products (bonds etc.) from companies you support, or selling shares in companies you don't; you can also check your mutual fund portfolio and "clean out" your investment product mix to support your goals.

"Unearned wealth" is a bit of a non sequiter. If you inherit the wealth or win the lottery, you personally are rich but it will be your work ethic and choices that determine if the wealth will be a living force (i.e. you invest it productively and continue to make it grow) or simply a dead body being consumed until it is gone. Looking at the real numbers (which demonstrate that even a 100% confiscation of the wealth of the "rich", however defined will not make more than a small dent in the global debt crisis), it is vary apparent that greater income mobility is the key to wealth creation and the ultimate resolution of the crisis (which will also require ruthless cost cutting, dismantling of non productive economic structures and programs and debt defaults in the form of "haircuts" to investors who purchased securities underfalse pretenses due to stupidity or greed).

In the mean time, the Chicago Board of Trade (which is also the home of the person who sparked the TEA Party movement) has its own answr to the OWS movement:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/traders-from-chicago-board-of-trade-dump-mcdonalds-applications-on-occupy-chicago-protesters/

Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters
by James Crugnale | 12:03 pm, November 4th, 2011
» 118 comments

In the middle of an Occupy Chicago teach-in this week, traders at the Chicago Board of Trade dumped several sheets of paper on top of the heads of protesters below. Demonstrators were angered to find out they were showered with employment applications for McDonald’s.

RELATED: Chicago Board Of Trade Taunts Occupy Chicago: “We Are The 1%”

“Real class acts, the Chicago Board of Trade,” tweeted Occupy Chicago. “This week, it’s McDonald’s job applications they litter from the windows. Soulless place.”

This is the second incident between the two groups, following Chicago Board of Trade’s “We Are The 1%” missive plastered on their windows last month.

Washington Times freelancer Peter Bella reports that unlike other cities, the Occupy Chicago movement “does not have a permanent encampment. They have a one half block stretch each on LaSalle Street and Jackson Boulevard,” across the street from the Board Of Trade, and have been relatively peaceful.

 

[Teeps74]

I wonder if they'll block fire, ambulance and police once people start dying?

Occupy Vancouver protest defies fire safety order
Fire officials say they still expect compliance with order
CBC News
Posted: Nov 4, 2011 8:04 AM PT
Last Updated: Nov 4, 2011 1:05 PM PT

Occupy Vancouver protesters say they will remove some tarps they consider unsafe but don't plan to comply with all the demands from the Vancouver Fire Department to clean up the camp.

A camp spokeswoman, who only gave her name as Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

More at link: CBC.ca


An "interesting" list of their demands: http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-111104-occupy-vancouver-demands.pdf

I can sum up that list.

"We demand that we all get stoned, and be like Greece."

Their list of demands are completely bereft of reality.

 

[vonGarvin]

"...Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery."

:rofl:

 

[ModlrMike]

"...Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery."

:rofl:

The cynic in me reads between the lines: "We're itching for a fight, we just have to get you sufficiently painted as the bad guys."

 

[vonGarvin]

Love their political demands:

"We demand the electoral playing field be levelled by limiting each political party to equal small amounts of taxpayer money.  We demand the elimination of campaign contributions entirely"
Let me translate:
"The Greens will never elect more than Elizabeth May because too many people contribute to the "big three", especially the CONservatives.  This isn't fair.  IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!!  :crybaby:"

"We demand the installation of a porportional representation system in all municipal, provincial and federal elections.  We demand the adoption of Swiss-style direct democracy and Nunavut-style consensus-decision-making into all political processes".

Again, translation:

"The Greens will never electre more than Elizabeth May because the electorate are too smart to vote for them otherwise, so we need to ignore the very constitution behind which we claim to hide and just 'wing it' when it comes to making decisions"


"We demand that the science minister be replaced with an MP who recognizes the realities of evolution and global human-caused climate change"

Translation:

"Think what we think or you're opinion will not count and you'll be shipped out"

"We demand an independent investigation into 9/11 which will examine all evidence including that which support a false-flag explanation"

Translation:

"Bush did it"

"We demand that 'none of the above' be an option on all electoral ballots"

Translation:

"Just staying home and not voting isn't an option, and yes, we realise that if we go to consensus style decision making, this flies in the face of that. "

"We demand that post-secondary education be free with no hidden user fees.  We damand that most oustanding student loans should be forgiven based upon income"

I haven't a clue what to say about this one.  It's free, but loans (?) are forgiven, unless you're rich, I guess...?

"We demand the release of all non-violent prisoners"

Does this include thieves?  White collar ciminals?

39. "We demand public universities and colleges stop taking money from the corporate sector"
and
41. "We demand an end to the corporate funding and control of collages (sic) and universities."

I was confused until I read the following:
32.  "We demand that all botanical drugs be distributed like coffee beans.  Human medial autonomy must now be respected by all."

;D


Oh, to be a hippy!!!!

eace:

 

[a_majoor]

Day by Day cartoon:

 

[ballz]

Ballz argument about the *share* of the wealth is about as silly as a previous poster's rant that the "rich" are *hoarding* the wealth; both are based on the premise that somehow this money and property is *yours* to dispose of as you see fit. Sorry folks, property and wealth belongs to the owners by right; they are the ones who earned it and now they are the ones who will decide what to do with it.

Stop trying to twist what I said. You are trying to demonstrate that wealth inequality rose during the Clinton years. You are wrong and you are beyond arrogant if you think you can convince everybody else otherwise on such a simple concept. The only way to measure "inequality" is to measure the "share" (as in the DISTRIBUTION) of money that each class has. You know the difference, take your biased mask off on and stop pretending like you don't, and stop trying to pick out one of my words and twist its meaning. I'm not going to entertain that kind of tactic.

Stop pretending that I'm sitting here complaining that the rich should be taxed more so that we can distribute their wealth to the poor. I'm advocating someone apply a bit of practical knowledge to the economic theory that you're having an affair with, instead of just throwing tax cuts around willy nilly and expecting the magic beans to grow the economy, jobs, and higher tax revenues.

The only thing silly is saying "The top 5% got richer under Clinton" and expecting that anybody here can't see that that statistic alone proves nothing if it's not compared to the other 95%. It's downright offensive that you think the members of this site are that dull. What if the the top 5% got 10% richer, and the bottom 95% got 20% richer? Hmmm, then income inequality was lessoned. So try and explain that to... actually forget it, don't.

 

[a_majoor]

The tax cuts argument was definitively proven multiple times, I invite you and everyone else to read here and then tell mewhat a $20 billion dollar increase in tax revenues during the period demonstrates.

As for the share of the wealth, if incomes are rising in general due to economic expansion, then virtually every grouping is also rising. If some groups are rising more, the answer is to see how you can move upwards to achieve this sort of growth. In a democratic, free market economy this isn't stealing or anything else, despite what the rhetoric of class warfare claims.

The point of the article was to (once again) expose the hypocrisy of the OWS movement and its suporters and fellow travellers; the economic expansion of the Clinton era was more unequal than the economic expansion during the Bush era, but somehow that never seems to enter their world view. Neither does the general increase in everyone's living conditions over the entire time period; the idea of iPhone waving protesters was simply not possible at the start of the Clinton era (cellular telephones and even personal computers were still luxury items for the most part when President Clinton was elected).

 

[vonGarvin]

Guys...guys...it's all about the pot, remember?  eace:


;D

 

[a_majoor]

Well, maybe a soothing pot of tea (or perhaps a nice single malt...Hmm, what to choose?)

The OWS is annoying because they are not only detached from reality inside their encampments, but the legacy media outside the encampments isn't doing the real job of investigating and reporting, hence the silly memes like the CTV reporters claiming the movement is "spontanious and leaderless" while standing in front of a huge CUPE baner...

From PJM reporter "Zombie" (who does real iinvestigative reporting) is an article naming the groups which have openly supported the OWS movement, incuding links in the article to the source documents:

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/

The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers
Posted By Zombie On October 31, 2011 @ 10:48 am In Uncategorized | 624 Comments

The Occupy Wall Street movement has received so much media coverage in recent weeks that it’s nearly impossible to keep abreast of all the developments. So many endorsements and criticisms coming from all directions enter the news cycle in such rapid succession that even the most dedicated news junkies may have missed out on many of the pronouncements. Supporters and detractors of OWS both might find it useful to have a handy all-inclusive list of who has endorsed or embraced the protest.

To satisfy that demand, we hereby present a list of groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Note: All entries on this list are real and verified. Below each entry you will find a series of source links documenting the support for OWS. We have striven in almost all cases to reference either first-hand statements by the groups or individuals themselves, hosted on their own Web sites; or videos of the people in question voicing their support for OWS at various Occupations; or news reports from reliable mainstream networks; or articles by publications or organizations sympathetic to the Occupy movement; or indisputable evidence, whatever the source. As a result, it cannot be claimed that these statements of support were made up or distorted by detractors of the Occupy movement.

As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges.

This list is obviously incomplete; we hope to update it over the upcoming days and weeks.

If you think we’ve left out any well-known endorsers for which there is solid evidence, then please post suggestions and evidentiary links in the comments section; but please try to supply links that will stand up to any potential claims of misrepresentation.

If you disagree with the inclusion of any of the entries on this list, please post your reasoning and any contravening source links in the comments section, and we will take the evidence into account when updating the list.

Members of the media, bloggers, activists, OWS supporters and detractors as well are all free to repost this list, in whole or in part, without any restrictions. Do note, however, that it may be updated over time, so make sure to get the latest version.

And without further ado, here is…


The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers


Communist Party USA
Sources: Communist Party USA, OWS speech, The Daily Caller

American Nazi Party
Sources: Media Matters, American Nazi Party, White Honor, Sunshine State News

Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
Sources: The Guardian, Tehran Times, CBS News

Barack Obama
Sources: ABC News, CBS News, ForexTV, NBC New York

The government of North Korea
Sources: Korean Central News Agency (North Korean state-controlled news outlet), The Marxist-Leninist, Wall Street Journal, Times of India

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam
Sources: video statement (starting at 8:28), Black in America, Weasel Zippers, Philadelphia Weekly

Revolutionary Communist Party
Sources: Revolutionary Communist Party, Revolution newspaper, in-person appearance

David Duke
Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, davidduke.com

Joe Biden
Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, Mother Jones

Hugo Chavez
Sources: Mother Jones, Reuters, Examiner.com

Revolutionary Guards of Iran
Sources: Associated Press, FARS News Agency, UPI

Black Panthers (original)
Sources: in-person appearance, Occupy Oakland, Oakland Tribune

Socialist Party USA
Sources: Socialist Party USA, IndyMedia, The Daily Caller

US Border Guard
Sources: White Reference, www.usborderguard.com, Gateway Pundit, Just Another Day blog

Industrial Workers of the World
Sources: IWW web site, iww.org, in-person appearances

CAIR
Sources: in-person appearance, Washington Post, CAIR, CAIR New York

Nancy Pelosi
Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, ABC News, The Weekly Standard

Communist Party of China
Sources: People’s Daily (Communist Party organ), Reuters, chinataiwan.org, The Telegraph

Hezbollah
Sources: almoqawama.org, almoqawama.org (2), almoqawama.org (3), wikipedia

9/11Truth.org
Sources: 911truth.org (1), 911truth.org (2), 911truth.org (3)

International Bolshevik Tendency
Sources: bolshevik.org, Wire Magazine

Anonymous
Sources: Adbusters, The Guardian, video statement

White Revolution
Source: whiterevolution.com

International Socialist Organization
Sources: Socialist Worker, socialistworker.org, in-person appearance

PressTV (Iranian government outlet)
Sources: PressTV, wikipedia

Marxist Student Union
Sources: Marxist Student Union, Big Government, marxiststudentunion.blogspot.com

Freedom Road Socialist Organization
Sources: FightBack News, fightbacknews.org

ANSWER
Sources: ANSWER press release, ANSWER web site, Xinhua

Party for Socialism and Liberation
Sources: Liberation News (1), pslweb.org, The Daily Free Press, Liberation News (2)
UPDATE: Thanks to the hundreds of readers who have made suggestions for additional entries on this list. I now have a large pile of potential new OWS supporters to investigate, and will work on updating this list over the upcoming weeks. When I’ve made it more thorough, I will re-launch an updated list that will be much more “official” in its comprehensiveness, sometime later this month. Keep an eye out for it!

 

[ballz]

The tax cuts argument was definitively proven multiple times, I invite you and everyone else to read here and then tell mewhat a $20 billion dollar increase in tax revenues during the period demonstrates.

I read it when you first posted it. I ignored it since you had resulted to name-calling.

The economic environment from 1995-2002 (exiting a recession) was quite different than 2008-present (stuck in / entering a new recession). Mike Harris took over when the economy was just beginning to expand. He was absolutely correct in cleaning up Bob Rae's mess when he assessed that the tax rates in Ontario at the time were way too high to enable economic expansion. He probably could have expanded it a lot more if he had applied the tax cuts with some reasoning (aka focussing on small businesses, etc), instead of just blanket tax cuts all across the board.

Clinton, during the same time period, did not have the luxury of crazy high tax rates that could be cut. He raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% and cut them for low-income families and small businesses (see what I said about "tax cuts combined with reasoning skills") and yielded just as good or better results, and he didn't have to cut social-assistance by 22% to do so either.... So while Harris is probably the best example for your argument, it still doesn't prove a whole lot.

As for the share of the wealth, if incomes are rising in general due to economic expansion, then virtually every grouping is also rising. If some groups are rising more, the answer is to see how you can move upwards to achieve this sort of growth. In a democratic, free market economy this isn't stealing or anything else, despite what the rhetoric of class warfare claims.

How is that even relevant to OWS or anything I said? Incomes are not "rising in general" due to economic expansion... Income distribution is changing, the higher percentiles are getting more of the pie, the lower percentiles are getting less of the pie. No one said it was stealing, what it *is* is bad for society as whole. A certain level of inequality is desirable, but out-of-control inequality (aka the industrial revolution) is not. Like it or not, pure-laissez faire is a system that eats itself from the inside out.

The point of the article was to (once again) expose the hypocrisy of the OWS movement and its suporters and fellow travellers; the economic expansion of the Clinton era was more unequal than the economic expansion during the Bush era, but somehow that never seems to enter their world view.

No, it wasn't. That is the problem with the article. It's whole point is based on a stupid statistic that has nothing to do with inequality levels.

Neither does the general increase in everyone's living conditions over the entire time period; the idea of iPhone waving protesters was simply not possible at the start of the Clinton era (cellular telephones and even personal computers were still luxury items for the most part when President Clinton was elected).

Are you trying to argue that this has anything to do with economic policies?

Say hello to Moore's Law = Computing power doubles roughly every 18 months. This results in technology becoming cheaper and cheaper.



You want tax cuts. I get it.

I want tax cuts aimed where they're going to be productive. Small businesses, new corporations (for the first 5 years, 0% on the first 100,000 of profit), low-income families that will *gladly* spend that money (because they have to) instead of taking it out of the economy. Why is that so hard to agree to?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't see the problem as 'inequality'.

If I take the time, spend the money, have the foresight to pick something marketable and get that high(er) paying job. That's not inequality. That's called survival.

If you want to sit in the mud chanting shit, waiting to take my money to support your lazy ass, you'll deteriorate into that same dirt before you get a cent from me. You're free to die cold and hungry. That's not my fault. You are not entitled to a single thing from me that I worked for.

You may benefit, because I choose to pay taxes, but I owe you nothing.

As to all these stats you guys rave about, the old saw holds true, here more than anywhere else. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."