Occupy Boston (Framingham, Warren: 2014, crimes, lender)

[RedJacket]

A Boston Police Department website was hacked. At least 2,000 names and passwords have been posted online. The group claiming responsibility said they support the Occupy Boston movement.


Boston Police website hacked - Technology & science - Security - msnbc.com

[jerdw]

I checked out Occupy Boston because I was curious about it. It was much bigger than I expected and it was a lot more organized than I thought it would be. I heard a lot about the Occupy Wall St and I thought the Boston outpost would be much smaller, only a few people just chilling in the park.

About their message, I agree it is to get the message across that people are angry about social inequality and high unemployment in America. I feel like a lot of people agree with their message and it has brought the national conversation to these issues. Whether they will be solved or not has nothing to do with the Occupy Wall St Protesters, it has to do with the decision makers but least people are thinking about these issues and discussing them

[City Guy997S]

Originally Posted by jerdw

About their message, I agree it is to get the message across that people are angry about social inequality and high unemployment in America. I feel like a lot of people agree with their message and it has brought the national conversation to these issues. Whether they will be solved or not has nothing to do with the Occupy Wall St Protesters, it has to do with the decision makers but least people are thinking about these issues and discussing them

My first question would be: "What have they personally done with their own lives to better themselves?" The movement was originally about Wall Street and big banks but seems to have focused on "the rich" despite no specific angle other than a "well they have more than me and I'm upset attitude!"

Boston.com had an article a few days ago about a flower shop that was about to close after 45 years in business (shop named after the owner, can't think of it right now). He is retiring and wanted to sell the real estate/not be a landlord. He was a local florist, sold the building for 4MM (so by Occupy standards he is rich, hence a target). So this 74 year old guy pockets 4MM for an old building despite simply earning a modest income as a florist........WHY IS THIS BAD? Does he deserve to be between the crosshairs of the Occupy Movement (purely hypothetical, he isn't)? He closed a local shop (employees lost their jobs, he pocketed 4MM) so wouldn't that be considered "greedy" by the movement?

My point is where does it end and since when can people protest what owners want to do with their businesses (owners from a local florist all the way up to shareholders of "big bank USA")?

I think the Occupy movement is greedy in thinking they should be taken care of by society without a contribution from themselves ( hard work, education come to mind). Everyone feels entitled yet no one contributes, seems "un-American."

[mdovell]

To quote a 80's/90's gothic band Sisters of Mercy
"How can I help you when you don't know what you need. How can anybody set you free"

Watching people have adult temper tantrums can be fun but this just isn't going to last. How can they complain that they aren't being served when they aren't doing anything to help themselves?

There are jobs out there but they might not be what they want. What would make more logical sense; someone finding a job or someone explaining to a employment office that they job they trained for no longer exists so they aren't searching? Heck I know a industry that at any given point has 20-30K job openings. The only issue is that it is all in other countries and mostly overseas..some even get free housing.

Some believe that everything pretty much has to work around them. If companies can move but people cannot then who has the advantage? Sadly I'd argue that most of those protesting do not have kids, a spouse, a house or a job.

You want to see a real demonstration? Roll the clock back to '05


About 25% of Lebanon turned out in the capital for this. OWS isn't even close..they don't even have 1% of the population of the country (which would be 3.15 million).

[konfetka]

It doesn't look like they will be achieving any results anytime soon, unless they realize that they are up against more than Wall Street or Obama:

'As recently documented in a study by Nobel Prize winner Michael Spence, globalization may be associated with the increase in inequality: Globalization does not benefit all, but leads to winners and losers both within countries and across countries as a combination of skills-biased technological change and rising competition in traded labor-intensive low-value-added sectors from labor-abundant EMs (emerging markets) has squeezed the jobs and real wages of such workers. So, little job creation has occurred in the traded sectors of advanced economies, while most of the benefits of the sharp increase in the productivity of sectors able to adapt and thrive in international competition has gone to capital and to skilled labor, not to unskilled workers At the same time, job creation in services sectors sheltered by trade competition—education, health care, government, etc.—has been stronger than in traded sectors, but real wage growth in such non-traded sectors has stagnated as productivity growth there has been mediocre. So, in recent decades, competitive traded sectors have created few jobs, while non-traded sectors have created more jobs, but very little wage growth. Thus, according to Spence, we need to find new and better policy tradeoffs that achieve a balance between the efficiency and economic growth that globalization provides and the inequality of incomes, wealth and job opportunities that globalization causes."

The rest of this really great article by Nouriel Roubini:

EconoMonitor : Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor » Full Analysis: The Instability of Inequality

[pretentious]

Don't these people know they should be spending 100% of their time supporting the troops??

[peleboi82]

Originally Posted by City Guy997S

My first question would be: "What have they personally done with their own lives to better themselves?" The movement was originally about Wall Street and big banks but seems to have focused on "the rich" despite no specific angle other than a "well they have more than me and I'm upset attitude!"

Boston.com had an article a few days ago about a flower shop that was about to close after 45 years in business (shop named after the owner, can't think of it right now). He is retiring and wanted to sell the real estate/not be a landlord. He was a local florist, sold the building for 4MM (so by Occupy standards he is rich, hence a target). So this 74 year old guy pockets 4MM for an old building despite simply earning a modest income as a florist........WHY IS THIS BAD? Does he deserve to be between the crosshairs of the Occupy Movement (purely hypothetical, he isn't)? He closed a local shop (employees lost their jobs, he pocketed 4MM) so wouldn't that be considered "greedy" by the movement?

My point is where does it end and since when can people protest what owners want to do with their businesses (owners from a local florist all the way up to shareholders of "big bank USA")?

I think the Occupy movement is greedy in thinking they should be taken care of by society without a contribution from themselves ( hard work, education come to mind). Everyone feels entitled yet no one contributes, seems "un-American."

The purpose of the movement isn't to target the rich. You are misunderstanding it. If you do a little research instead of listening to the media, the goal of Occupy Wall St is pretty clear and valid.

"Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. #ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future."

Now I don't think the intention here is to blanket all of the 1% as bad, although I can't speak for everyone but I like to think that at least most people who support the movement also support the rich who have worked for their money and haven't used it to influence the government and buy off politicians. It's not really about saying the rich should have to help the poor or that making money makes you greedy. It's more about returning the rich to the tax rate they were paying before the Bush tax cuts and stopping bail outs of large corporations while CEO's take home million dollar bonuses. Also, I doubt most people think they should be taken care of and there's definitely not a sense of entitlement as you say. A large majority of the protesters are college educated and/or working multiple jobs just to survive. At least the people I marched with... There's also a lot of protesters who can't afford to take on large student loans while the cost of higher education keeps increasing and the job market keeps shrinking. Instead of making assumptions, you should consider visiting the local occupy camp and listening to what they have to say or at the very least visit the occupy wall st website. There's a lot of intelligent people running these things.

[_ataraxia]

Originally Posted by pretentious

Don't these people know they should be spending 100% of their time supporting the troops??

why?

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by peleboi82

The purpose of the movement isn't to target the rich. You are misunderstanding it.

Then what was the purpose of marching on the 'rich people's' homes on Park Avenue? And what was the point of the Occupy Boston General Assembly declaring a 'decolonization' of Boston and returning it to the Native Americans? And why are labor unions joining in on this, when they are the very 'pay to play' people this movement is targeting?

The ORIGINAL intent of the movement was against crony capitalism. Since then, the movement has devolved into utter chaos and incoherent messages. And this is why the American people have begun to view the movement unfavorably.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Then what was the purpose of marching on the 'rich people's' homes on Park Avenue? And what was the point of the Occupy Boston General Assembly declaring a 'decolonization' of Boston and returning it to the Native Americans? And why are labor unions joining in on this, when they are the very 'pay to play' people this movement is targeting?

The ORIGINAL intent of the movement was against crony capitalism. Since then, the movement has devolved into utter chaos and incoherent messages. And this is why the American people have begun to view the movement unfavorably.

This is class warfare nothing more nothing less. "We are the 99%"? I mean C'mon!