The only two presidents a person her age could have had any mature appreciation of were George W. Bush, the thief and liar, and Barack Obama, another thief and liar. She has never known an America that wasn’t reeling under the assault of Wall Street plutocrats and the kleptocrats they hire to do their bidding in Washington.

http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/We_Are_Not_Your_Human_Resources.html

I am not a fan of occupy wall street. Its just a bunch of angry people that can't agree on what they want. They just decided to be angry together.

On March 27, 2010 President Obama met with the CEOs of the largest and most powerful financial institutions in the world. Politico reported the bank Chief Executives tried to explain to The Chief Executive the rationale behind their and their employees' high salaries - salaries based upon the free market and the global competition for high quality employees. An agitated Obama brushed them off stating, "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

Fast forward to the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations and how both President Obama and Democrats have embraced the protesters. Oleg Atbashian, a former citizen of the former Soviet Union predicted these demonstrations and calls the strategy used by OWS the "pitchfork formula".

Is there a historical example of the "pitchfork formula" being used for political gain? My good friend Oleg Atbashian, author of "Shakedown Socialism" believes there is. Oleg published his seminal, and satirical, book on socialism in America in 2010, long before the OWS demonstrations. Oleg wrote, as an after thought, an Appendix titled, "Obama the Pitchfork Operator: Remake of a Soviet Classic". What Oleg wrote is prophetic and predicts the very tactics being used today by leaders of OWS (students, workers, unions, socialists, communists, anarchists, etc). According to Oleg, "Obama's 'Newspeak' not only redefines existing meanings, it also abolishes ranges of 'Oldspeak' meanings such as property, markets, competition, capitalism, political opposition and the rule of law. The latter is perhaps the most important ingredient missing in his new 'pitchfork' formula, signaling that law is now being replace with mob rule."

So what is Obama's "pitchfork formula" and the "Soviet Classic" that OWS is following?

According to Oleg during the 1930s in Eastern Siberia the former Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin faced a dilemma. The Soviet system of a worker's government, motivated by a common good morality saw the mining and production of gold decline after the 1917 Communist Revolution. Why? Because Stalin nationalized the Siberian gold mines. According to Oleg, "After the Communists nationalized Siberian gold mines, the government's incompetence and lack of incentives sent gold production into a decline. Many of the managers and engineers had fled abroad: the foreign-made mining equipment lay in ruins. But the country badly needed gold to finance industrialization and prepare for war with Western capitalism." So what happened next?

"Nikolai Bukharin, a former community organizer in charge of industrial development, came up with an idea to infuse capitalism and lease Siberian mines to British mining companies", according to Oleg. Stalin approved the scheme. Here is how it worked: The British mining companies reopened the Siberian mines with English managers and engineers, brought in modern new equipment and staffed the mines with newly trained workers, union workers. Oleg states, "But as soon as things began to run smoothly, local unions organized strikes at all British-run mines, protesting exploitation and demanding a significant pay raise." Once the union demands were met within weeks another strike ensued and workers demanded even higher wages. This continued until the cost of labor became so high that the mines were no longer profitable. The British managers went to Bukharin asking him to stop the strikes. His response was he had no power over the unions. Bukharin said this was not a capitalist country where governments oppressed their workers. Bukharin said the Soviet Union was "a workers' state, ruled by the workers who were getting angry at capitalist exploitation, and the government had to obey their will," writes Oleg. Finally, the British left Siberia, leaving behind the new equipment and newly trained union workers.

Oleg reports, "According to witness accounts, members of the party's central committee, including Stalin, laughed hysterically every time Bukharin retold the story of how the workers' state fooled Western capitalism. But the joke was really on the workers. As soon as the British left, the mines were taken over by the state, the wages dropped to the national average, and the usual miser ensued."

In 1917 Bukharin said, "We asked for freedom of the press, thought and civil liberties in the past because we [the Communists] were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties."

This "pitchfork formula" is being used in New York and across American to extract concessions from the "capitalist exploiters" (a.k.a. Wall Street and banks). We know what finally happened to the Soviet Union. By the way, Bukharin fell into disfavor, was declared an enemy of the people and executed by Stalin. So much for the creator of the pitchfork formula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oybho73YFJY

You don't pay much attention do ya! They are protesting the cock suckers who caused this financial butt **** we're in and they are protesting the cock suckers who bailed them out. I agree 100% with they are doing and personally I just as soon they fire bomb wall street with the kleptocrats and plutocrats inside the burning buildings.

they have the wrong frigging address!

Two can play that kindergarten game

No they have the right one, this is who Washington listens to and works for.

Washington built that bed long ago!
A Divorce is needed!
A Divorce between political and economical power!
So no one can wheedle special treatment out of the Powers that be!

There needs to be a constitutional amendment forbidding lobbyists anywhere near politicians, anyone disobeying should go to prison.

go one further,take the power of the Politicians to make economic decisions away!
Poof,no more special Interests!

RON PAUL 2012!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

No they have the right one, this is who Washington listens to and works for.


Again I agree..bought and paid for..Political Whores...

How Occupy Wall Street can really change banks
Paul R. La Monica
October 17, 2011: 01:33 PM EDT

If Occupy Wall Street really wants to make a difference, they need to get some of their members to occupy annual shareholder meetings.
Yes, the protests that started in New York's Zuccotti Park and have now spread across the globe have attracted a lot of attention. But it's mostly from the media.
For Occupy Wall Street to really have a chance of actually accomplishing anything besides giving people like me something to write about, protesters have to work within the system.
They need to align themselves with large shareholders who should also be resentful of how big banks and other public companies are run. It shouldn't be that hard to find some disgruntled investors that may want to take a more active role in fixing what's ailing the financial system.
Shares of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have each fallen about 40% year-to-date. Bank of America has lost more than half its market value in 2011.
"Investors may share the same anger or resentment that some of the Occupy Wall Street folks do," said Jonathan Finger, a partner with Finger Interests, a Houston-based investment firm that owns shares of BofA, Citi and JPMorgan Chase. "There are issues with executives being paid for failure and a perception that Wall Street was bailed out while the middle class was not."
The 99% needs to realize that it may have to partner with large investors (even if some of them are the hated 1%) to really get things changed for the better.
Mark Cuban, the outspoken billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and chairman of cable network HDnet, said just that in a blog post last week.
"If OWS really wants to change corporate structure and impact the economy, talk to shareholders," he wrote, adding that protesters "might even consider buying a share of stock. Just 1."
"Maybe you can all pitch in and then go to a shareholders meeting and let them know how you feel about the best interests of shareholders," he continued.
I realize that Occupy Wall Street members feel that their strength lies in not having a firm agenda or core group of vocal, visible leaders. It's meant to be a movement that represents everyone not in the 1%. But without a true plan and/or charismatic person or people to articulate what the group really wants, nothing will be changed.
Cuban agreed. In an e-mail to me Monday, he said that "the movement needs a spokesperson who can enunciate some of their positions and goals and provide leadership."
If more investors shared the sentiment of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, it would be far more difficult for corporate boards to justify the status quo -- i.e. a system where public companies focus more on the short-term and reward executives for mediocrity.
"More activist shareholders should say they are concerned about the disparity in income between CEOs and rank-and file employees," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ, a New York-based research firm and a vocal skeptic of the various Wall Street bailouts three years ago.
Ritholtz argues that one of the biggest problems at the banks is that executives get big bonuses for meeting near-term targets and that creates an atmosphere where reckless risk-taking is encouraged. That needs to change.
College students facing a terrible job market and the long-term unemployed shouldn't be the only ones outraged about the way large banks do business. We all should be. Wouldn't big banks be better off if they set aside less money to pay their top brass hundreds of times as much as their other employees?
"The transfer of wealth from shareholders to corporate insiders has taken short-termism to a whole new level. The 'making the quarter' attitude is deadly for the long-term health of the banks," Ritholtz said.
So I hope that once the Occupy Wall Street group decides to leave downtown Manhattan, they continue to fight the fight. It's not enough to just bring attention to the fact that there is this huge gap in income. Marching and chanting can only go so far.
Companies are not totalitarian governments. The comparisons to the Arab Spring revolts that many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are trying to make are only relevant in the sense that technology and social media is helping to galvanize the protesters.
But you can't overthrow a bank CEO by sitting in a privately owned square for a couple of weeks. You can only do that by having some skin in the game. Public companies listen to their shareholders. That's why Occupy Wall Street has to do more to court big pension funds and other institutions.
Finger's firm, for example, was highly critical of Ken Lewis, the former BofA chairman and CEO. Lewis was stripped of the chairman title in April 2009 and ultimately decided to retire as CEO a few months later.
Of course, one could argue that little has changed for the better with Lewis gone. BofA is still having problems, and Finger said that the bank's recent decision to slap a $5 monthly debit card fee on consumers was a "public relations miscalculation."
But that doesn't mean shareholders (and Occupy Wall Street protesters) should stop trying to persuade banks that they must change or else. Ritholtz said that even if large investors aren't interested in social justice, they should take the long-term view and recognize that a stronger economy with a vibrant middle class is good for everyone.
"Investors have to speak up to the boards of directors who rubber stamp insane compensation packages," he said. "History has shown us when we have a broad disparity in wages, we've had social unrest and other problems. This is not a healthy situation."
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul R. La Monica. Other than Time Warner, the parent of CNNMoney, and Abbott Laboratories, La Monica does not own positions in any individual stocks.

Just post the friggin link..we can decide to read it or not

[

Again I agree..bought and paid for..Political Whores...


Then you would also be agreeing with this...

go one further,take the power of the Politicians to make economic decisions away!
Poof,no more special Interests!

As Conrad is completely right..

It sounds like you are in agreement with the majority of people at OWS.