Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

We are becoming more and more Chinese like in that we accept the fact that when congress and the courts tell us when and where we can exercise our free speech we do as were told like the good little surfs that the 1% believe us to be. I hope I live long enough to see the explosion that will eventually result when it gets to the point where the 99% cant feed themselves and their families.

You wrote,

That's already happening, and it is getting worse for many. The soup kitchens and food banks are running out of food and donations as more seek assistance to feed their families - as we speak, and the GOP will continue to cut the safety net for the 99% who have lost jobs, homes, and their savings. The GOP doesn't believe in helping other Americans, and continue to advocate for more tax cuts for the rich while their own family and friends become more desperate. They want our military to be number one, but they don't care that our infrastructure and schools are in ruin.

Actually in the Occupy Columbia case, the same judge on December 16, said that the state's decision to evict the protestors was not reasonable because at that time the state did not have any regulations in place that treated all protestors in a consistent manner. The state then enacted emergency regulations. The same judge reviewed the new regulations on December 22 and said they are consistent as defined in the 1984 Supreme Court decision that she cited. A legal test has been in place at least since 1984. Restrictions are reasonable especially when there are citizens outside the movement that need their interests to be balanced with those of the protestors. The judge is still allowing the movement an alternate avenue for protest (marches and protest that does not involve camping). You can't have everything when there are people involved who are not part of the movement.

Rebel, I just read an article that says donations to charities are up 3 to 5% this year over last year. That's good news, but I'm not so sure that keeps up with the increased needs.

So you want to live long enough to see 99% of Americans starving?

Barring some catastrophe of Biblical proportions, that is, thankfully, just not going to happen.

You do realize, don't you, that unless perfect income redistribution is accomplished, there will always be a 1%. You can wipe out the entire current 1% and take all of their money for the US Treasury and there will instantaneously be a new 1%, and the difference in income between the new 99% and the new 1% will remain significant.

This notion that there is some sort of capitalist Illuminati pulling all of our strings is just paranoia mixed with envy and bitterness.

From 1992 to 2008, 73% of the 400 richest taxpayers were in that category for only one year. Only one-tenth of 1% were in the category for the entire time period. Around 80% of American millionaires are the first generation in their families to be rich.

This hardly supports the fiction that there is a financial aristocracy in this country that keeps all the wealth and power of the nation in the clutches of their blood kin.

How telling that you "hope" to live long enough to see the nation spiral downward into a state ripe for revolution, rather than to witness it's return to prosperity.

My criticism still applies. That "emergency" regulations were created is already inconsistent in that the regulations are being tailored to #occupy's methods. I think when you put regulations in retroactively to fit one group, you're playing fast and loose with civil liberties.


Sure, but these regulations don't put things more in balance. The only compelling example I've seen where #occupy has encroached past that line has been in Oakland with it's port. Even in this case, I have a hard time understanding how existing laws don't already provide adequate action.


Occupiers are have never been getting "everything" and hardly get anything. I find the "outside the movement" arguments to be pretty flimsy. Where is this really happening? Let's talk about specific examples, and see if existing measures/methods could be used without creating special rules to stop occupations and maintain civic interests.

A
R
T

A typical hysterical oikaphobic expression.

It is already happening that 99% of Americans can't feed themselves and their families (aren't their families already counted in the 99%?), and it's getting worse?

What does that mean? Even some of the 1% can't feed themselves?

Try and find actual objective facts about hunger in America.

You can google "Hunger in America Statistics" and at least the first three pages of links will be to the sites of the organizations that owe their existence (and member livelihoods) to the notion that hunger in America is a huge problem:

feedingamerica.org
stopthe hunger.com
strength.org
bread.org
worldhunger.org
afaceaface.org
conagrafood foundation.org
alliancetoendhunger.org
dosomething.org
safoodbank.org
drivetoendhunger.org
rainbowwarrior.com
endhunger.com
americanprogress.org
worldsocialist.org

And so on...

One would think that with this many organizations combating hunger in America, the situation would be getting a little better, not worse! What are these organizations doing with all the money they solicit in the name of ending hunger in America?

Here are some of the statistics these organizations and the media are happy to report:

CAVEAT: When it comes to America we must talk about "food insecurity," not "hunger." Why should that be so? Could it be that if "hunger" was used the problem would much smaller in scope? No, that just a cynical contention.

World Socialist: 15% of US Household, 17.4 million families; 50 million Americans suffer from "Food Insecurity."

NPR: 38 million Americans are considered "food insecure."

Feeding America: In 2010, 48.8 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 32.6 million adults and 16.2 million children. (It's important to note that Feeding America consider the "food insecure" to be those who can be classified as suffering from Low Food Security and Very Low Food Security) They also report that 1 in 6 Americans suffer from hunger, and at the same time report that it's 1 in 8.

Where do these statistics come from? How are they developed?

They come from the periodic Food Security Survey (FSS) of the United States Department of Agriculture.

So, first of all the statistics are developed from a sample obtained via survey that is then extrapolated to represent the national situation. Individuals faith in surveys tends to depend on their affinity to the conclusion reached, which in itself discredits reports based on surveys.

Why do some people mistrust conclusions based on surveys?

Well, in the case of this survey:

Until 2005, the FSS divided food insecurity into "food insecurity without hunger" and "food insecurity with hunger." It then replaced those labels with "low food security" and "very low food security."

In addition, those designated as subject to "very low food security" (formerly "food insecurity with hunger") represent only one third of the total sample. So, even if we accept the accuracy of the FSS, drawing a conclusion, based on it, that 1 in 8 (or 1 in 6) Americans struggle with hunger is obviously inaccurate.

Considering all the hyperbolic claims about hunger in America, what does "hunger" mean?

The Committee on National Statistics defines "hunger" as "a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation." (emphasis added)

The FSS places a family in the "very low food security" bucket if:

"...at times during the year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food."

At times...Once or twice a year satisfies this requirement.

Less than 1% of all American families with children are counted as having "very low food security" among their children which by any accounting implies that most families that qualify as experiencing "very low food security" are able to shelter their children from whatever effects the condition brings.

Hunger in America is always associated with poverty (another great scourge of our nation) and yet half of the families designated as experiencing "very low food security" have incomes in excess of the poverty line, and two thirds of families that fall below the poverty line are "food secure."

In addition, two thirds of the 37 to 50 million Americans struggling with hunger find their way to that sample by being designated as experiencing "low food security," and you will qualify for that designation if, at times during the year you simply worry that the food intake of household members may be reduced and normal eating patterns are disrupted . In other words you don't even need to actually experience the usual uneasy sensation to be counted among America's hungry masses!

This is not to say that it's fine and dandy for something like 2% of the American population to worry about or experience insecurity about food, but it's a long way from 1 in 6 Americans suffering from hunger and getting close to rising up in rebellion as a result.

If 2/3 of people below the poverty line are "food secure," then it's hard to accept a conclusion that whatever extent of food insecurity present in this country, there is no means to overcome it without bringing down the 1% and spreading their ill gotten gains around.

The millions and millions of people in the Third World who are actually starving to death would feel blessed indeed to be Americans with food insecurity.

Finn wrote,

When you make stupid assumptions, there's no need to read the rest of your post.

Finn is a ass. He always takes one sentence out of a long post and tries to make the whole post mean what he wants it to. Its the reason I dont argue with him because he dosent acknowledge any point but his own. Finn is a ass.

I know; he has the bad habit of arriving at assumptions that a ten year old uses to try to argue a point, and it really doesn't make any sense.

This is a photo of OWS's tobacco donation station (I think it's for tobacco lol). I did notice in a lot of the photos and video footage that there are a lot of smokers among the protesters.

Just think...in a decade or two, we'll get to help pay for their lung transplants! Woot!

You seem to have a hard time with sarcasm CI. That wasn't as assumption, it was a jab.

If you don't wish to read the rest of my post, then don't but your stated reason was quite lame.

I didn't expect you to reconsider you oikaphobia anyway.

In other words, you prefer to spew your nonsense for likeminded clowns and chose not to substantiate your opinions.

Your "jabs" are meaningless attacks. Try rational.

It's all good Irishk

A good review of OWS

What could be less rational that claiming that the 99% are already having trouble putting food on their tables and the situation is getting worse?

Claiming that the above is the sole raison d'etre of the Occupy movement, perhaps?

Which means that 1/2 of the 2% at the top are having such problems.

I should have problems like that.

I agree, but then who has made such a claim?

I was responding to the hysterical claims of CI and Rabel. As far as I know, OWS hasn't made much at all of "hunger in America."

I could be wrong though since I don't hang on their every crowd repeated word.