About the Rent for Occupying Wall Street
When I was young, I passed the entrance exam for Hunter College of the City University of New York by one point. I was lucky to have stayed on the academic track and grateful to cops who cut me a break in sticky situations. New York City then had four colleges in different boroughs where students who passed the exam could attend for some twenty dollars per semester. Texts were free too, loaned out at each college’s massive bookstore.
This magnanimous gift was made possible through taxes and a city government that invested in education. New York was then a middle class city. A bus, train, candy bar or comic book cost a dime, maybe fifteen cents as time wore on.
In the summer of 1963, for the second time in his career, Mickey Mantle came within a foot or so in hitting a fair ball out of Yankee Stadium. Pitcher Bill Fischer of Kansas City wasn’t upset. “That’s why he makes $100,000.”
Switching to the present, the occupiers of Wall Street, which spontaneously arose from a small number and since flamed to Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco as I write, this are paying the bills for three wars—putting aside the recent evil manipulations of banks and investment firms. These latter escape “rule of law” and continue to prosper as if never you mind.
The country changed direction in the Vietnam years. Young people, who merely wanted to get on with their lives and plan for the future, were mercilessly pressured to serve by every local, state and federal governmental entity. “I ain’t got nothing against them Cong,” was spoken by Earl Monroe, a star guard for the New York Knicks, a feeling shared by multitudes who got ensnared by the draft. This did not include Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and many another. Unlike the Korean War, celebrities also got the bye. Ted Williams served in the Korean War. There was no such parity with Vietnam.
President Lyndon Johnson’s line then was guns and butter …
Those called had three options: flee to Canada, revolt against the government they had been raised to trust, or serve. As many chose the first two as the third. Despite the wealth of praise deservedly given to the military today, something omitted during Vietnam, had there been a draft during the “run up” to Iraq, my guess is the discord of Vietnam would have been revisited.
The young today are in a similar box. Their lives are not in immediate danger from a foreign enemy, but rather a feeling of strangulation from the powers within holding their futures hostage. Herman Cain can wax eloquent about getting a job and that anyone who works can get rich. Yet can all in the throngs be made up of loafers and malcontents? Not so if you count the steady trickle of executive-types joining in, as well as mandarin celebrities. Foreign media outlets are now on hand.
The mayor in Boston talks about disruptions, but in New York the occupiers are a tourist attraction.
The day that Eric Cantor called the occupiers “mobs,” a German television program on PBS showed the opposite: clearly-marked stations for sundry, donations of food and clothing coming in and distributed, and, overall, a situation where cooperation was at last trumping competition.
The question is: what exactly will local metropolitan governments do when they are either cutting back on services or just making it? Services mean police, detectives, prison guards, jails, clerks, food, fire departments, schools, libraries and everything else that makes for a civil society, even judges. One violent incident will light a media bonfire.
The Vietnam protest was not as depicted in movies: young men with bandanas screaming epithets. Had that been so, there would have been no protest since the nation is conservative by tradition. I worked on Park Avenue then at a company owned by millionaires. They were against the war, the people I knew where against the war, and so were the little “blue-haired” ladies—all before Walter Cronkite.
The same may be happening here: the young who feel robbed being joined by a cross-section of others who are equally fed up.
Finally, in this information age, it is easy to access the Internet for information about where everyone in the government gets his or her contributions. When you see the amounts given by Disney, the big banks and financial institutions that wrecked the economy, big oil and giant health care institutions, among others, it makes you wonder who the real mobs are.
T.S.
8:18 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
A few things I wonder. I wonder when we'll ever get balanced factual coverage. I watch MSNBC, FOX and CNN equally, have problems with all 3 but get different views that allow me to research how much reported is fact, how much spin. So, in this article I wonder things that have me equally inquisitive of other media. I wonder why there was no mention here, or mostly anywhere, of the government's role in our current economic crisis? The strong arm push in Clinton & Bush's admin to banks to qualify unqualified people for home ownership. I wonder why there's no mention of 33% of those 'occupying Wall Street' polled say the US is worse than Al Qaeda. I wonder why so many Democrats say this group is admirable, while the Tea Party is destructive and should "go to hell"--don't recall any Tea Partiers being arrested, squatting on private property or defecating in public. Why hasn't anyone on Wall Street been arrested? I can't imagine that our government & Atty Gen Holder would be afraid to indict Wall Street Execs? Could it be that they were just immoral and didn't break the law? Certainly if there was a hint of breaking the law the current administration wouldn't hesitate to put a face on the bad guys. The CEO Merrill Lynch bankrupt the company and walked away with $160 million, but the news organization that did confront him was called racist--because the CEO was Black. I wonder why Occupy Wall Street didn't march on his front lawn. Hypocrisy is strong in NY, DC and the media.
Harry H.
12:08 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
It will be hard to catch them actually breaking a law when they own the lawmakers. But what can the everyday citizen do? Sometimes it takes protests like this to wake people up and get them moving towards change. They can't protest Merill Lynch, AIG, Enron or Lehman Brothers separately. So, instead they protest is on wallstreet as a whole. I do agree it is unfortunate that we have to have people living in the streets to get their voices heard. But I would like to join them sometimes, because I am frustrated by all politicians. Or should I say frustrated by the Koch brothers and other corporate elites controlling government and politicians to do their bidding. If the Tea Party really wanted freedom and fairness they would be going after wallstreet, instead of going after public employees as the corporate creators of their party have dictated. How can our economy improve if all the money is hoarded by a few and the masses have none to spend? Not saying take it from them but if we are all contributing to fixing our deficit and our country then we ALL have to pitch in more. How about spending your mega-wealth on raises to the hard working employees?
T.S.
2:05 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
The American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party have just voiced their support for Occupy Wall Street..hmm interesting? The two, supposedly opposite views TEA vs OWS are very similar. Both are against bail outs, they both are against corruption. But to say that the reason WSJ Execs werent prosecuted is because they own the lawmakers doesn't make sense... cuz then you're agreeing that the D's are just as guilty as the R's, and in this case, they must own the D's since the D's are in charge of the DOJ, no one disputes that this whole thing started because of the housing crisis, headed by Barney Frank who refused to even think anything could be wrong with Freddie and Fannie... and top D's got more Fred & Fann's donations than R's. Both D & R's are bad, but its disingeniousness to think its the mainly the Koch Bros, T Party or R's fault. No one's going AFTER public employees, can't get blood from a turnip. The private sector doesn't have their health care premiums or pensions paid for, why should the public sector--especially when salaries & benefits are paid by private sector taxes? TAX MORE? Even Bill Clinton publicly stated that taxing the rich now is wrong, and won't solve the problem. You can't make everyone happy but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water which is where the fork in the road comes between OWS & TP. There's not a single tax or tax amount that will make the poor richer, just more dependent. Solution-A Rising tide Raises ALL Ships!
Kathleen O'Brien Wilhelm
7:50 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Looking hopefully forward to this president defending the police against these unfocused sheep cluttering Wall Street. Looking for this president calling for a halt to the distruction and abuse of property. Hoping this president calls for the sheepcrowd to disperse as they are hurting small business and tourism in the area. This president should be defending law and order. Last year, he sure had no problem singling out a police officer doing his job against a possible robbery. Remember Obama, the college prof and the police officer having a beer at the White House because of Obama's quick attack of a police officer?
John Meola
11:17 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Tell us, please, what is unlawful about a group of people in a PRIVATE park (no, lady, Bloomy doesn't own Zuccotti Park) carrying signs and speaking out about something that is so obvious only an idiot couldn't recognize it -- that big banks and Wall Street have been bleeding this country dry and nobody's lifted a finger to do anything about it? So these people got together, had a march and it grew from there. I saw these protesters in person a couple of weeks ago. They weren't carrying loaded guns like Tea Partiers and threating "Second Amendment remedies". They just marched up Broad Street chanting loudly. That's it. Nobody was violent and nothing got smashed. Some lawless group they are!
As for "destruction of property", I didn't see anything like you're portraying. And whatever "destruction" there may be, its nothing compared to the destruction of jobs, income, wealth and prosperity done by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, et al to the American people.
As for tourism, if anything it's driving more people down to lower Manhattan. And I'm sure the fruit vendors, soda vendors, and push cart food vendors in the area are on track to have a very good season with all of those people needing sustinence.
Note to Mr. Siegel - MTA fares are now $2.50. A poor person there may have to work almost an hour just to get to and from their job.
Ed Kent
9:41 am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Yes, the White House and many in Congress were put in place by Wall Street, with the help of voters, yet many protesters (those in New York and Tea Party) won't criticize those they voted for so they look for a corporation to blame instead of looking in the mirror at the voter who helped put people in places of leadership that really shouldn't be there. Sometimes it's because both choices we have on the ballot are bad so we try to pick the lesser of two evils only to realize their speeches of hope and change had no true intention. Who did this president and our last president put in charge of finances and banking? Those who came from the very corporations the protesters are speaking out against. Leadership to lead out of a mess starts at the top and if they can't lead we try to vote someone else in who can. Let's admit it; many of us are to blame for voting in the current president and we have seen the error of our ways. Look who he surrounded himself with. Looks like the Chicago Machine didn't work very well for this nation. Nor did the financial advisors these presidents have had who came from Goldman Sachs. Who can we trust?
T.S.
9:51 am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011
In keeping the spirit of the recent occupy wall street protests, i think we need to actually expand its scope. Frankly i feel that the NFL should take some wins away from other teams and just give them to the Browns. I have no real logical argument for this to take place, i just think they should because this is america, and no team should ever be that much better than another and we should all have a fair shot at making the playoffs, no matter how little talent or lack of consistent coaching/leadership there has been for the last decade, its only fair. Also, we should also be able to hire the talents away from the Patriots in getting Tom Brady as our quarterback. I know we can't afford him, but who cares, only the rich can afford to go the Browns games anyway, so lets raise the ticket prices $15 each so we can afford him, that's really not that much. Now, just because we now have Tom Brady and can finally afford him because we raised tickets ( what the heck, let's also raise the price for hot dogs too, the rich have to eat) that doesn't mean we're a better team, but at least we'll have a better record by redistributing the wins to the Browns, we can at least afford Brady for a year before the rich decide they can't afford to go to the games anymore and attendance goes back down to where we can only afford a QB like McCoy, but at least in the short term we had a better QB. Then, the next Browns owner will have to deal with problem and Lerner can then go on a book tour.