Thread: Occupy is about morality, not just economics

Occupy is about morality, not just economics

By Leif Dautch
Updated 19h 51m ago

Critics of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement note that protesters lack a fine-tuned political or economic message. But this critique misses the point. The unifying principle of the movement is not based on political or economic theory, but instead on a quintessentially moral theme.

The signs say it best. From "Robin Hood Was Right" to "Hey You Billionaires: Pay Your Fair Share," the movement's core principle is an appeal to fundamental fairness and the belief that the highest-earning among us should help those struggling to meet the basic needs of life. Although religion has no monopoly on social morality, one might recognize the concept as a core tenet of, among other religions, Christianity: the claimed faith of 80% of Tea Party members and 95% of GOP members of Congress.

The outrage that spawned Occupy has many causes, from staggeringly high unemployment rates to proposed cuts to government services. But thousands of people didn't march on Times Square in 1982 when the nationwide unemployment rate neared 11%. And town squares across the country haven't filled with protesters every time politicians preached fiscal austerity.

Rejection by ultrarich

Instead, the catalyst for the Occupy movement was the perceived rejection by the ultrarich — or at least by the politicians who represent the ultrarich — of this notion of social morality. If the debt-ceiling crisis and the defeat of President Obama's jobs bill revealed anything, it was the reluctance of the top 1% to shoulder any significant burden in the country's efforts to rebuild the economy and put people back to work. It was these public displays of indifference that ignited the discontent of the 99%.

In a way, the protesters' decision to frame their demands in moral terms is good strategy. Economics is premised on the assumption that people will act solely in their best interest. Morality is one of the few remaining realms in which individuals are occasionally expected to act for another's benefit.

Protests' honest approach

The movement's decision to frame the debate in moral terms is also refreshingly honest. The core strength of Occupy lies in the implicit admission that perhaps the top 1% will never derive government benefits equal to the tax bill they are asked to foot. Nonetheless, the movement contends, the ultrarich have a moral responsibility to help rebuild the middle class, to help put people back to work, to help shore up the health of our economy. And let's be honest: Each of the proposed fixes for the employment crisis — from lowering payroll taxes to direct government investment in infrastructure projects — will require the government to raise revenue. And revenue means taxes.

"Socialism!" some pundits cry. But asking the ultrarich to contribute to our economic rehabilitation is not socialism. It's the way this country has functioned since ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 gave Congress the authority to establish the modern income tax. In fact, today's top 1% are asked to shoulder a far lighter tax burden than their wealthy forebears. Today's top federal income tax bracket is 35%; in 1918 it was 77%. In 1952 it was 92%. As recently as 1980, it was 70%.

The protesters will not relent until the ultrarich embrace this norm of social morality. How that transformation will manifest is unclear, but a symbolic first step would be passage of a "millionaire's tax" akin to that proposed by Senate Democrats in Obama's jobs bill. Such a measure would not only provide much-needed revenue for the economic recovery, but would also reflect at least partial recognition of the ultrarich's duty to help those in need.

Leif Dautch is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and works in New York City.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... 51187286/1

Some good points in this article, but it ignores the fact that most of these protesters want to abolish capitalism rather than to reform it. The problem is not capitalism per se, but rather crony capitalism, a point most left-wing and anarchist demonstrators consistently ignore.

Working people have been upset by changes, ever since they started taking place. The Industrial Revolution consistently abolished what once were secure jobs and threw the victims into a frenzy. The goal of capital is to pay as little as it can for labor, so when labor saving devices become available workers go out the door.

But without these innovations that disrupt the security of labor we would be hopelessly backwards and defeated.

The burden of society should be to help those who were displaced by these changes move on to new things. That seems even harder to do when we now have a foreign worker pool factored into the equation, as well. And a lot of the ideal occupations that OWS protestors said they wanted have been commandeered by foreign workers. They said they wanted green jobs---but the starting level ones like horticulture, forestry or landscaping are dominated by foreign workers.

The top 1% starts around $343,000. That's not ultra-rich, but that group pays nearly 40% of taxes. Anybody remember the first "jobs stimulus" of nearly 800 billion which was supposed to build roads, bridges, etc, but went to shore up govt jobs? This new jobs bill is a crock, a sham which will, once again, go to Obama crony's. The govt. can't create jobs. The strangling regulations, the EPA, Obama-care....there is so much uncertainty, businesses are reluctant to hire.

Obama's sham jobs bill is nothing but a political ploy because he knew it wouldn't pass and he could blame Republicans and it's working with the braindead OWS people. How can anybody buy into Obama's jobs and demonizing the rich? The real "ultra-rich" are Democrats, and 8 of the top 10 wealthiest Congressmen are democrats, the highest income districts in the country are democratic, but somehow Republicans got labeled the "rich".

Ironically, most of the OWS people have/had jobs according to a survey. A lot of them quit their jobs to protest.....that says it all. When I see a 18 year old kid who just graduated HS, protesting that he has a hard time making it, well, it's kinda jaw dropping.

How does anybody get off saying that they are, somehow, entitled to other peoples money? What about the people who know nothing about building roads and bridges?

Obama just destroyed up to 400,000 jobs by canning the Keystone XL pipeline. He's not interested in jobs, just keeping his own cush job.

He lied about the first jobs bill, blew billions on failed "alternative energy projects, gave the lion's share of the "stimulus" to govt union jobs that only lasted a year.......WHY would any sane person want to give him a dime more????? After he's blown billions, he wants to tax the rich to create jobs??? Funny how all this comes up when election nears. Where's the OWS outrage over all this?????

When it becomes APPARENT that Obama will lose the election, the market will respond and you will see the economy begin to turn. It won't happen until Obama's gone and you can take that to the bank!

The OWS people don't really understand what they are doing, they aren't going to change anything in any significant way. They will just wind up making a lot of trouble and the public has already turned against them. What's the moral they are trying to communicate? That disrupting society makes people dislike you?

Originally Posted by Justthatguy

The OWS people don't really understand what they are doing, they aren't going to change anything in any significant way. They will just wind up making a lot of trouble and the public has already turned against them. What's the moral they are trying to communicate? That disrupting society makes people dislike you?

No, I COMPLETELY understand my job as part of the OWS. And how has the public turned against us? You must watch the FOX "news" propaganda network. The moral we are trying to communicate is the teachings of people like Jesus. I am 99% sure you call yourself "christian" while denouncing his teachings. You support the very idealology that put Christ on a cross.

"57 members, or roughly 11%, of Congress can count themselves among the top 1% of wealth, with an estimated net worth of $9 million, according to a USA TODAY analysis of personal financial disclosures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics."

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-255264.html