I’ve had a lot of people ask me why I keep mocking the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Look, I believe in the act of demonstrating. Protesting and speaking your mind is an iconically American thing to do. In fact, grassroots movements have been critical to our nation’s history. The abolitionist movement helped us end the abominable practice of enslaving fellow human beings. The suffrage movement finally forced our government to recognize that women should have a right to vote. The civil rights movement worked to eliminate the embarrassing institutional practice of segregation.
Sometimes, when government fails, the people have an obligation to rise up and right our nation’s wrongs.
As far as I’m concerned, Occupy Wall Street is not on the level of these great movements. It has no clear purpose.
We will look back in history and see that the Tea Party had a real impact on our country. Why? Because they had clear goals and clear demands. They protested for lower taxes and balanced budgets, and those demands were something that the majority of Americans could get behind. The result was an historic 2010 election that swept the Republicans into control of the House of Representatives.
So what’s the purpose of #OWS besides the obvious — ensuring that hashtags have finally jumped the shark?
I think the movement has SOME legitimate concerns. For example, I completely agree with ending crony capitalism. So does the Tea Party, by the way. I oppose bailing out major corporations just because they have connections with those in power. But here’s the thing: it’s in those corporations’ rational self-interest to create those connections and benefit from them. The problem is not the corporations. The problem is that we have far too many career politicians willing to sell out their constituents by giving these corporations favors and loopholes so they can personally benefit.
Crony capitalism is the fault of poor government, not the free market.
If that was the one focus of #OWS, then sure, I’d be supportive. But if there were a classroom full of grassroots movements, #OWS would be the kid with ADD. Its demands are all over the place, and it has absolutely no focus.
Some protesters are demanding that their expensive private college tuition be paid for up front. Others are calling for a $20/hour living wage for people who aren’t even working. I even read one article about a protester demanding that currency be eliminated in favor of the bartering system.
Call me cynical, but I think there’s a reason #OWS has no clear focus. #OWS is trying to be all things to all people so it can grow and expand to deliver its real demand: ending capitalism.
I can assure you that eliminating the free market is not something the 99% want.
I’m going to keep watching the movement to see how it grows and defines itself. But I’ve got a pretty good idea of where it’s going, and that’s an ugly place that most Americans will not want to tread.
agreed
OWS has a right to protest. You have a right to protest. I listen to your show daily for comic relief. You’ve been doing this Catskills schtick for what, 29 years ? You question OWS, but I have one question fo you. What is you and your shows purpose, goal, focus, point, etc. ?!?!
To sell advertising and entertain people enough that they will listen long enough to hear the ads. Thus supporting capitalism and making Rush a butt load of money. Ther you go, purpose, goal, focus, point, game , set , match!
If you were truly listening to Rush’s show daily, even for comic releif, you would not be asking this question….
They absolutely do have the right to protest, which is a big part of the irony here. The very system they are bucking against is unique in the fact that it even allows protests of this nature. Under most social structures, even if this protest had any significant merit, it would have been pelted with tear gas, ran over by tanks, and dragged out back and shot before the first week was out.
Just as they have the inalienable right of protest, those of us with a little sense and some real world experience have the inalienable right to admonish them for their foolishness.
I’ll grant that there “may” (and I use the word generously) be some reasonable demands floating around out there. But what tiny shred of logic and reason that may exist is monumentally insignificant compared to the rest of the drivel that oozes forth. You’ve all seen the list of demands, I take it? I know, I know, shame on use for picking one or two isolated extremist points that exist in a sea of reason, right?
Crony capitalism and government bail-outs are a scourge on true capitalism. Every hard-working, red-blooded patriot knows and agrees with this. I was and still am the first to cry foul whenever another giant car manufacturer, or bank, insurance company, or (LOL!) alternative energy conglomerate has billions of hard-earned tax dollars given to them in order to save them from their own poor business practices. This point (quite possibly the only point), I do agree with. The difference between me and the lazy, socialist imbeciles camping out on Wall Street is, I, as a free-thinking, educated, INFORMED American, know where the true source of corruption is concerning this issue. And it’s not the corporations accepting this money. It’s the bloated marxist government establishment that currently exists in Washington.
Leveraging advantages is at the core of capitalism, and just like any other organizational entity, there will always be a select few who will attempt to take unfair advantage of a situation (gee, where I have heard that “select few” line before, hmm?). When the government stops posting bail outs and leaving these businesses to succeed (or fail) according to their own devices, only then will this once great country return to its former glory.
If you really want things to be good again, then what you should do is start supporting a return to the constitution. The founding fathers’ vision was brilliant and timeless. I agree, the current state of affairs is dismal. I agree the government has gotten too big for its breeches. I agree that taxes are too high. I agree that corruption should not be tolerated.
What I don’t agree with is conducting what amounts to a riot, for essentially no other reason than to be part of a moment. What I don’t agree with is taking a dump on the hood of a car to make a point. What I don’t agree with is demanding that the debt I freely and unwisely chose to run up be forgiven just so I don’t have to pay back what I rightly owe. What I don’t agree with is the distribution of wealth. What I don’t believe in is a living wage. I guess the point I’m trying to make is, I don’t agree with is the philosophy of a bunch of whiny, lazy, trust fund drama queens who have never worked a day in their lives.
Couldn’t have said it better if i’d tried!! Thanks for putting it so bluntly’
Good response! Thanks for writing what I agree with too! They need to grow up and take responsibility for their own choices and behaviors, and accept blame for their screwed up life! Squatting in squalor and acting like pigs, is accomplishing nothing, except for making us hard working taxpayers to hate you Liberal Losers even more!
Very, very, well said! Anything I would add would be superfluous.
@eon trebor. If you don’t know then you’re dumber than a bag of hammers, REALLY.
ditto
To inform the people, and wade through the crap you guys spill onto the streets so that others can make sense of it. And to reinforce the opinions and resolve of those of us whose voice isn’t as prominent.
On a lighter note……I have lived through this exact same “stuff” in my life (i.e., seen this movie before) back in the late 60′s and early 70′s. The “power to the people” mantra, as spewed by the radical, revolutionaries back in the day, did not work THEN and it will not work NOW! Radical, revolutionaries are behind the OWS movement now, (they are slowly naming their own groups in support). Their goal has always been to dismantle capitalism and the US government, and “start over”. Then, as now, they “used” individuals to rally around them, get the movement started, cause lots of chaos, and in a word, capitalized (no pun intended) on people’s fears and ignorance. The OWS “ideas” now (shared by many) are NO different than the “ideas” (shared by many) back then. Capitalism will NOT be dismantled and the US Government will NOT be torn down, as the only “reset” needed is a return to Constitutional standards. This will ONLY be done through the power of the VOTE, by people who will not stand for or allow their country to become an “European-style” society, as this is where we are headed. How has that worked out for them? There is only ONE “system” that works, and it has been proven time and time again in history. The “lines have been drawn”….once again in this country!
I also lived through & saw all this in the 60′s. The only difference is the nuts are in control of the asylum.
You are so right!
SO true!
Woohoo, great post! I agree with every word that you wrote.
It appears to me that rich, powerful forces are behind this global movement, supporting it financially and in numbers, as well. Their model for the OWS has been the ‘
Arab Spring’ in the Middle East, and the end-game is the same – the toppling of the government and the ushering in of Sharia Law in America! On the agenda, as well, could be Martial Law imposed upon all citizens of the United States! In order for this to occur, the movement will necessarily need to include violence and bloodshed in our streets and cities. If my assessment is correct, this peaceful protest will take a very violent turn in the nearfuture, and the protesters, whom I applaud, will be caught in the middle. Call me crazy…time will tell!
I think the biggest enemy to the OWS movement will crush it before it has the chance. No way will those flea-bitten losers be able to stand up to the onslaught of winter. The first sign of snow will have them packing up and running back to their parents’ houses.
86 percent of american citizens believe in god. Enough said. (the same god in the bible)
Look Rush the rest Y’all, remember freedom is a very passionate thing. Without that emotion, victories would never be won.
You have to remember a lot of people live off their emotions rather than intellect ( referring to struggle btwn perfect/imperfect will)…so things are going to get a little out of hand now and then and not always follow your need for rational thinking….yet it is America and we are guaranteed freedom of expression and right to assembly no matter how futile or pointless it may seem.
I say unless people are being hurt and/ or property damaged, maybe our law and order policies need be revisited…afterall, when the czar repressed political demonstrations he not much later was dethroned and executed (as wrong as that was).
Cameron, you say, “unless people are being hurt and/ or property damaged,” I believe the that the grass that has been killed due to the activity in New York City is enough to say that the OWS has caused more problems than they have presented solutions.
So, let me get this straight: You (correctly) acknowledge that OWS is a variety of people with different social and political preferences (although you incorrectly claim that the Tea Party movement is somehow a single ideology) only to make an unsupported blanket statement that–wait for it, wait for it–they want to end capitalism.
And what’s your evidence for this?
It sounds more like you’re making up stuff on the fly.
Maybe if you were familiar with more OWS-sympathetic people, the you would realize that many are not interested in ending capitalism. In fact, there are some pretty naive Ron Paulish people there who want to end fractional reserve banking and adopt a gold standard.
Rush, Your analysis will stand as correct.
These spawn of the radical half of the baby boomer generation have put an extension on Sex, Drugs, and Rock&Roll, (how did that work out for everyone). Add Disgusting acts for which they will no doubt refer to as art. They will self destruct in front of our eyes.
Boils down to belief in a higher power. When you take God out of the picture, you are left with “knowledge” and “isms”. How would we know whose knowledge to follow. Gnosticism is the problem, just like back in the 2nd century. Read about St. Irenaeus and 2nd century France. Rush, you are correct. Mega dittos to you.
Rush is brilliant as usual!
Like the old saying goes if u dont stand for something you will fall for everything…….the focus must come soon before infiltrators destroy the spirit andall is lost
If we all stopped talking about it then maybe the allure of the head shop or coffee shop or whatever would return to its original strength.
100%. Agree
The street sitters are like groups of D students with a substitute teacher who has lost control of her class
So would you agree with this purposed OWS support of “”"A”" first demand as being practical, realistic and proactive in the heart of the issues at hand??? The Election Reform Act of 2012 … http://www.occupyr.com/Demands/thread.php?id=666
I can see where you are coming from I just believe that Capitalistic venture should have a relationship with consumers ONLY in a free market. Government should not be in that relationship except to tax and regulate against exploitation and damage to the people, planet and government. Government should not be an entity manipulating the free market only taxing and regulating it. Capitalistic ventures should not be in government either. Those should be regulatory only relationships not representative. Remove the corruption of Capitalism/wealth in our government.
The government is essential in a free market, but only in it’s most minimalistic form. The way I see it, the government should function similarly to the referee of a basketball game. They are necessary, just to keep the players honest, but they have absolutely NO business actually participating in the game.
Just imagine how uninteresting, distasteful, unfair, and ultimately epically failed a basketball game would be if the guy with the whistle is driving in for a layup. With the current level of government interference, that’s exactly what we have right now in what is supposed to be a self-evolving free market. The people who are in charge of the rules are trying to get into the game, and it’s ruining it for everyone … everyone.
I’m gonna say I never knew wtf Tea Party stood for either. I see nutty whores like Bachmann and Palin and my skin crawls. On the flip side – these Occupy tards are just as bad. Waah waah down with capitalism, down with socialism … WTF is wrong with keeping it a mixed economy? Too much of one or the other leads to unbalance. Down with cronyism. And the TP and Occupy are both right – it is the gov and it is Wall St becuase they’re the same people. And please explain how you are against a living wage? Ford paid his workers a living wage so they could buy his product. To not support a living wage just baffles me. Otherwise – this site makes me lol.
This “living wage” nonsense doesn’t stand up to economic reality. The fact remains that there are some labor that are not worth $[X.xx] / hour.
Having the government step in and force businessmen to pay $[X.xx]/hr does NOT mean that said businessmen will suddenly raise all employees’ wages to that level. It DOES mean that said businessmen will start cutting employees from their payroll and demanding more work & responsibility out of those who were not cut. Setting an artificial $[X.xx]/hr price floor on labor simply means that all those employees and potential employees whose labor is not worth $[X.xx]/hr cannot be hired and will remain out of work.
On the flip-side, those who remain behind and still have a job will ultimately be forced to work harder to pick up the remaining slack. This is ultimately a good thing because it means they’re stepping up to earn the additional income they are now getting.
Henry Ford didn’t pay his assembly line employees a “living wage” because he wanted to them to be able to buy his product; that was just grand-standing hogwash to cover up the real rationale behind his offering substantially more pay than was par for the era. He was doing that because he needed to attract the best workforce he could because his product and manufacturing process was (for that era) one of the most advanced and complicated machines being mass-produced for general public consumption. The Model T automobile was as complex to produce as contemporary airplane (A Curtiss JN-1), thus calling for the most skilled workforce Henry could hire.
Q: How do you hire and retain the best employees in the industry?
A: By offering the best compensation for their work.
Henry knew he needed the best work force he could get for his factories and he was willing to pay for it. Capitalism 101. The difference between working in a high-tech factory (Ford was the highest tech in the 1920′s) and working in a gas station (or other low level labor job) is as stark as night & day.
A gas station owner doesn’t need the best workforce he can get for his store. He just needs a handful of semi-reliable kids who can fill a work position that hasn’t (yet) been replaced by an automated computer system. His unwillingness to pay a “living wage” is a reflection of how much actual labor and/or skill he needs in that position. The same goes for farmers who have to rely on illegal alien labor for their harvesting. (because the minimum wage law has artificially priced *legal* labor out of his budget)
As I finish typing this, I can already see the leftie responses forming: “How dare you claim that some people are worth less than others, yadda-yadda.” “blah-blah…greedy businessmen…blah-blah…cheap labor…yadda-yadda…another Mercedes…yakety-yakety…poor families’ children…blah-blah…Top Ramen..yakety-yak.”
Very well said sir!
All I can say to this is – it’s just another theory. Not practiced.
We, society, don’t know what the real and actual outcome would be by deleting a minimum wage.
We do know that companies are not honest. And even with limited corporate tax and “financial forgiveness” overall, they’re still outsourcing. They’re still using undermining Swiss Bank Account tactics. And speaking of outsourcing, we do know that life and work conditions in China for the non-minimum wage workers there is miserable.
So Aaron – you answered my question with another theoretical ideology that isn’t really backed well by the visible behavior of the private institutions.
Are there any other, more probable arguments to delete minimum wage?
#1. Outsourcing is not dishonest.
#2. Using “Swiss Bank Account tactics” is a symptom of an over-regulated financial system that inadvertently provides sufficient incentive to use said “tactics”.
#3. The living and working conditions of factories in China are China’s problem, not ours. I don’t care what the conditions of factories in China are because China’s factories are not my problem. If you want China to improve the conditions of its factories, then go to China and convince their labor forces to unionize and fight for better working conditions. Maybe you’ll drive the cost of labor there up high enough that outsourcing is not financially practical for private institutions.
#4. The visible behavior of private institutions is based (almost) entirely off of acting in their rational self-interest. If you make it in their rational self-interest to not outsource (i.e. through tariffs, beneficial trade agreements, etc…) then they will not outsource.
#5. None of what I put forth above required any business to only act “honestly” (according to your artificially-imposed standard of “honesty”) In fact, I specifically used an example of dishonest business practices to prove my point (see farmers using illegal alien labor).
#6. This is far from theory. Actual practice has shown the impact of raising minimum wage, and it is the same every single time. It causes more outsourcing, more layoffs, more closures, more dishonest practices in business and more people (more importantly, more Americans) out of work. That Ford needed the best work force and knew he had to pay to get it was not theory, that’s economic fact. That a gas station owner doesn’t need a skilled labor force is also economic fact. In addition, the actual practice of “no minimum wage” was practiced in the US from its founding until FDR instated the minimum wage in the 1930′s. Considering that FDR’s economic policies and actions mostly prolonged the Great Depression rather than help recover from it, the impact of instating the minimum wage is obvious to all but those blinded by such an idiology (misspelling intentional) that would support a minimum wage to begin with.
You clearly don’t understand what a living wage is, at least as far as these occupiers define it. The occupiers define a living wage as receiving payment for simply being alive. Yes, you heard it right. They were born, therefore, it’s their birthright to be paid 20 dollars an hour of your hard-earned (well, mine, anyway) tax dollars. We can certainly pontificate, spew rhetoric, and play semantics if you like, but wouldn’t we all be better off if we dealt in hard facts?
These spoiled brats have spent the first years of their pointless, unproductive lives being supported by someone other than themselves, and their only motivation is continuing that trend.
Do you think you or anyone else deserves a paycheck just because they can draw breath? Because that’s what the occupiers think. We owe them compensation the privilege of sharing space with them.
Henry Ford’s living wage and the ocupiers’ living wage is not the same animal. Nice try, though.
You claim that the tea party will be looked back at in history as more influential than the OWS protests.
That is hard to tell.
But you are trying to slander, and smear the name of those who support the protest.
I support the protest, but I feel it is misdirected.
The main problem right now, is that the rich aren’t paying nearly the same proportion of taxes as those in lower income brackets – for example Warren Buffet pays fractions of what people who make less than him pay – and Mr. Buffet himself disagrees with this.
Occupy wall street shows us that capitalism isn’t perfect, and there are losers from the system.
All of the pictures posted with notes above, with so called ‘success stories’ who aren’t like the ‘lazy’ occupy wall street people.
You see their pictures above, and they are “rubbing it in the face” of people who are poor, homeless, maybe they don’t have the same supportive family, or a family at all.
Maybe they grew up in the inner city somewhere, maybe they grew up in an isolated native reserve, maybe they are from the desolate coal mining towns, where industry once thrived and now has gone to China – where they workers are exploitable – but we’ll still buy their goods.
But listen, I’m not against trade liberalization – trading with China, or trading with anyone.
I believe we need to trade more with the world, and open our markets more so.
But realize, that there are losers in capitalism, and our choice on whether or not to compensate these losers is a personal one.
I can’t imagine personally, not helping out a poor person, someone in need.
You people are heartless, terrible people, who wouldn’t give a dime to a hobo. That’s your personal viewpoint, and it sickens me.
“You people are heartless, terrible people, who wouldn’t give a dime to a hobo. That’s your personal viewpoint, and it sickens me.”
Oh…that’s right, you’re a liberal; you’re only generous with OTHER peoples’ money. You love spending and giving money, so long as it is from an account that isn’t yours.
Let’s break don’t your attack, Aaron.
Part one: I’m a liberal
Part two : liberals are only generous with other people’s money.
So I understand that you don’t like left wing politics, neither do I.
I am interested in helping those in need, the most poor and destitute, who aren’t looked out for in our society, living on the streets – have you no heart?
You clearly wouldn’t help a soul in need.
If you want to help the poor and destitute, then pull a double shift, or start a charity. Stay the hell away from my tax dollars. Charities, by their very definition, are funded by peoples’ choice. Not by some government mandate. Especially since most of these so called destitute people you speak of are not nearly as destitute as you would have us believe.
If and when my money goes to a charity, I will be the one who decides which charity. and I will be the one who decides how much and when. It’s my money. I earned it. I damned well intend to control it. Marxist, bleeding heart liberalism is what’s gotten this country in the shape it’s in right now. Distribution of wealth is the most asinine, self-destructive concept ever.
History proves that the most effective way to improve wealth and prosperity in a nation is not to create more taxes. It’s to create more taxpayers. That’s done by giving people and companies more control over their own money. Not by letting idiotic government lackeys, who have absolutely no experience managing money, pretend to know what’s best for the rest of us.
And oh yea, before I go, give me one moment to LAUGH OUT LOUD at your “the rich don’t pay their fair share comment”. Have you ever even bothered to do a little research and, you know, learn some actual facts? I ask because it seems a lot like you spend your days parroting socialist garbage that you don’t actually know anything about, but it gets you fired up and you can’t resist the urge to be part of the moment.
Since you’re so in to moments, maybe you could take a few and track down some raw data and move away from the socialist propaganda that’s spewed over the air waves day in and day out. Of course, I know you won’t. It’s clear that you’re committed to the lie. Who wants to waste time with boring old facts when we can have sensationalist fanaticism, right?
Aww that’s cute. If you’re so interested in helping the most poor and destitute, then do so from your own wallet. How dare you demand others to finance your pet causes through any means to include the use of tax money. You claim to dislike liberal politics and yet you’re poised to demand money from me and others to support (only) those causes that are meaningful to you.
Your desire to “help” (read: enable) poor families by demanding others pay for it is disgusting. It’d be one thing if you were willing to fork over your own money to help, but instead you demand others bankroll it instead. What’s the matter? New iPhone cost too much, leaving you with no left-over money to give to charity?
It’s so easy to be so “generous” when it is someone else’s money you’re forking over, isn’t it?
I relish, lead to I discovered exactly what I was looking for. You’ve ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
“Not by letting idiotic government lackeys, who have absolutely no experience
managing money, pretend to know what’s best for the rest of us.”
This is a very good point, and it shows that this indeed is a political decision, not some scientific one – that can be proven, in finding the “best” route.
There are gains from trade, and yes some incentive is taken away – whenever you redistribute wealth – but bear in mind this is a political decision.
So it is the United States’ decision to not re-allocate as much of its wealth as Canada does.
What you sir, are trying to do is portray this as “a science” where we can try to maximize efficiency, and make the most money – but it’s not about that in politics – yes money influences politics there is no denying that.
Our decision as taxpayers as to how we reallocate those funds is a fundamental right, and Aaron “How dare you” – I will dare all I wish, even though your comments are quite threatening in the way that you constructed it -”How dare you…” almost seems like a personal attack.
Your decision to spend your own money on your pet causes is your right. Your right to spend money stops the instant you attempt to reach into my wallet. Attempting to use tax-money (money forced from the hands of others) to support your causes is a major breach of ethics and is tantamount to *extortion*. If you want to take up causes that are dear to you, do so with your *own money*. You have zero right to commit an act of theft against my bank account for any reason; it’s not your money.
Who are you to declare yourself the spokesman for “Our decision” to spend money that’s not yours? For that matter, who are you to take issue with personal attacks after posting this little gem?: “You people are heartless, terrible people, who wouldn’t give a dime to a hobo.” You’re a hypocrite, and it sickens me.
And you can dare all you wish–and be called out for your support of the monumentally stupid notion that is “wealth redistribution”. Think it’s not a failure? Look at North Korea.
And for the record. Giving someone else’s money (through allocating tax-dollars) to support a cause you like, is NOT a form of generosity in any measure.
You’re in reality a just right webmaster. The web site loading pace is amazing. It kind of feels that you’re doing any unique trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you have performed a magnificent activity on this subject!
Thanks for some other excellent article. The place else may just anybody get that type of info in such a perfect approach of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I am at the search for such info.
North Korea spends more on military in its budget – as a percentage – than any other country.
Sorry that you feel its “extortion” to take a little bit of your money and use it to help provide social safety nets – that came out of FDR’s “new deal”.
It seems clear that you all have missed the point of the great depression.
That point is – in part that we require social safety nets – that require public funding.
FDR would slap you all.