NYPD forcibly evicts Occupy Wall Street, banning Press

Anybody have any idea who exactly is behind the "occupy our Homes" movement. OWS itself doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

They finally took Occupy Boston out...

I'm glad I made it there a couple of times before the end.

edited 10th Dec '11 8:20:01 AM by sketch162000

They didn't stop OB they just made them leave, the government is scared.

Visit the video site itself for similar videos, or check the dude's channel: lots of good ideas.

Undercover LA Cops Spied on Protestors

Same event different source

What I'm wondering about is why all these camp breakups are being timed for when people are likely to be asleep. I mean, wouldn't the police get better cooperation if they timed their operations for when people are awake to possibly...cooperate?

If people are awake, they are more likely to resist... You can handcuff someone more easily if you do it while they sleep...

Seriously, though... The entire idea is to keep the crowds of people who are not camping from being present because, you know, they're at home asleep... It is also a way of ensuring that those who are arrested were actually violating the law of which they're accused(in this case, illegal lodging)... I mean, if you show up and arrest people at a more "reasonable" time, then you don't know that they were illegally lodging...

Oakland blockades ports and apparently is trying to encourage such actions everywhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/occupy-ports/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about blockades like this, but clearly OWS is not going anywhere just because police are arresting them in the middle of the night.

Edit: Oh hey, they're going to blockade where Walmart is known to have a distribution facility. That I can wholeheartedly approve.

edited 12th Dec '11 9:56:43 AM by AceofSpades

I still think the most useful thing they're currently doing is blocking foreclosures.

Not sure where to stick this but A Rich American claims the low tax rates for Rich Americans doesn't ultimately create jobs

edited 12th Dec '11 11:42:17 AM by whaleofyournightmare

the people of strange famous records made a video ripping Fuck Tha Police's beat and structure. its like a follow up to Fuck Tha Police.

more of Kelly's goons breaking the first amendment.

edited 12th Dec '11 11:59:10 AM by vanthebaron

^^ A properly working link: http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12

And that article just says precisely the point I've made for a long, long time coming.

Or, in the way I would put it, Heavy-Weapons-Guy-style:

Sometimes economy may be affected by taxes. Maybe. But I have yet to see economy that can exist without demand.

edited 12th Dec '11 12:07:44 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Oh, and something to follow up on that:

To counter the usual meme that entrepreneurs create jobs:

http://www.businessinsider.com/no-steve-jobs-did-not-create-jobs-by-inventing-the-iphone-2011-12

In summary: Sure, they can create jobs with investment capital. But they will not be permanent jobs unless a customer base exists.

In other words, it's common sense: the money that people spend has to come from somewhere. If it's not there, there is no spending, period.

Also lends more meaning to the term "seed capital"—yeah, it's just the seed. You can invest in it, but if you ever expect to get your money back out of it, it has to actually produce a product that people are willing and able to buy.

@Glenn: Nice, I've been looking for a source like that.

But there is one thing that bugs me: in another topic, another poster was saying that the entrepreneurers should be protected more than the possibly poor customers because poor people still buy luxuries.

There's something wrong with that sentiment but I can't figure out what it is.

First, the burden of proof is on whoever said that to show that "poor people still buy luxuries".

Second, even if poor people still buy luxuries, people definitely buy fewer luxuries when they have less money. Non-necessities are very logically the first things to be cut when budget-trimming.

edited 12th Dec '11 1:24:21 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Hell, even if they still buy some non-necessities (which I'm fairly sure they do), they're going to buy less of them, which accomplishes the point.

What's wrong with the statement is that it sounds like whoever you were talking to is trying to judge who deserves protection on moral grounds. The idea would be, if poor people buy luxeries, then they don't deserve help, because they just waste their money. The flaw should be obvious- it's a stereotype. It presumes that poor people are less rational than the rest of us (that's why they're poor, you see).

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. Though I guess that is consistent with the presumption in some conservatives' minds that it's your fault if you're poor, a presumption that's perversely derived from a self-responsibility ethic.

What are we defining as "luxuries"? I remember some commentator complaining that poor people had washing machines and televisions...

Either way, protecting entrepreneurs more than poor people doesn't make sense. Yes, poor people buy some luxuries, but they're also the labor that produces luxuries, too. Our methods of production are so efficient that if people only bought exactly what they needed, there would not be enough jobs for said poor people to buy anything at all, which would make them even poorer.

I assume it's a question of how much of the Federal budget to devote to programs designed to help the poor, and how much toward assisting small business owners. Money spent on the poor is mostly in the form of entitlement programs, while that latter benefit from tax incentives. Both contribute to the deficit. Both help stimulate the economy.

Obviously entreprenuers who service the poor benefit from both.

Also, as a country develops/gains wealth the number of thing that stop being luxuries and become necessities. It used to be that shoes where luxuries in most climates (and there are places that they still are).

So, wait, if the original Occupy Wall Street and most other major protests are going away, what's left? Is that really it?

If so, what a fucking waste...

Well I doubt OWS is going to truly disappear but when you have the might of wall street, the police, and the government, and the media cutting you off at every corner, what can you do?