The Democrat version of the Tea Party

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
The Democrat version of the Tea Party
84
Mon, 10-03-2011 - 9:42pm

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

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

You won't find the word "freedom" in there anywhere.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 10-03-2011 - 10:29pm

Show us, do, where the Democrats have anything to do with formal support or endorsement of the "occupy Wall Street movement".

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Tue, 10-04-2011 - 9:05pm
Yeah, unrealistic, ya think? They are too nuts for anyone to support, except other nuts. But I just know that democrats would secretly love to get all those demands. Right?

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 10-05-2011 - 3:29pm

If your post was meant to go to me rather than yourself, would have to say that as a liberal independent,

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Wed, 10-05-2011 - 8:47pm
I didn't realize that the average bonus was so little, you'd think it would be in the millions the way they talk about it in the media. I really don't know why I should be mad about it, it doesn't bother me. Why aren't they having an "occupy Freddie Mac"? Didn't they give millions of our tax dollars to people that cooked the books in order to get those bonuses? Let alone what they did to the financial markets with the mortgages to unqualified borrowers.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 10-06-2011 - 12:09am
If you were out of work and watching as Wall Street bankers and investors got richer, then perhaps the ire would be more pronounced.

Yes, millions did go to Freddie Mac and there certainly ought to be closer scrutiny of who got what in exchange for a job poorly done. But Freddie's behavior was bit less visible in comparison to the big investment banks of Wall Street.

Maybe all that PR money was a sound investment from the FMs' angle: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2008-07-17-fannie-freddie-lobbying_N.htm

Your last statement seems a bit misinformed. From the above link: "Neither one makes loans on its own, and they were not directly involved in the subprime mortgage fiasco."

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Thu, 10-06-2011 - 12:52am

Your last statement seems a bit misinformed. From the above link: "Neither one makes loans on its own, and they were not directly involved in the subprime mortgage fiasco."

Their involvement goes a bit deeper than making loans, which they do not do. You have to understand Freddie and Fannie's role to know what they had to do with the crisis.

Saying that they

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 10-06-2011 - 9:14pm

Your earlier statement in regards to the FM's was this:

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 10-07-2011 - 2:26pm
jabberwocka wrote:

Your earlier statement in regards to the FM's was this:

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 10-07-2011 - 2:32pm
jabberwocka wrote:

Show us, do, where the Democrats have anything to do with formal support or endorsement of the "occupy Wall Street movement".

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Fri, 10-07-2011 - 3:06pm
"So you may think that the protesters "don't have a clue as to why they are there [protesting]" but unless you can read minds, that statement seems based more on disagreement than actual insight into their psyches and motivations."

Yep...not to mention that a lot of people who make the above claim are self proclaimedTPers who apparently don't have a clue about what the Constitution actually says...or perhaps consider the original wording irrelevant to the Cause. Ironic.

Pages