Last week, I pondered about the WH's silence on the OWS revolution.

[sad sally]

Got lots of good feedback, including some "what do you want them to say?" Am quite sure my comments were snarky and critical - must admit I've lost faith in any honesty in government - especially at the top; my posts are mostly negative. After reading what Jay Carney said and Greg Sargent's (Plumb Line blog) take on it, I admit I was wrong in thinking the WH should have anything at all to say about what the people in this country are out in full force against - they don't get it, so no words are necessary.

In case you missed it, here it is:

I’m pretty sure this exchange at today’s briefing with Jay Carney represents the first time the White House has been asked to weigh in on the Occupy Wall Street protests — yet another sign of the movement’s astonishing growth in recent days:

QUESTION: Have the “Occupy Wall Street” protests reached a level of the President’s engaged awareness? Is he sympathizing with the protestors? Is he concerned about the protests at all?

CARNEY: I haven’t discussed it with him. I’m sure he’s aware of it because he follows the news. I would simply say that, to the extent that people are frustrated with the economic situation, we understand. And that’s why we’re so urgently trying to focus Congress’s attention on the need to take action on the economy and job creation.
And as regards Wall Street, I mean, one of the things that this President is very proud of is the consumer protections that were put into place through legislation that Republicans are now eager to try to dismantle. We think that’s a bad idea...Because these are common-sense consumer protections that would prevent the kind of abuse that credit card companies engaged in against credit card holders, that would protect against some of the actions that were taken that led to, or contributed to, the financial crisis that we saw in 2008. These were measures that the President felt were very important, and there’s a clear effort within the Congress to prevent the full implementation of legislation by holding up this nomination. We think that’s cynical and a bad idea.

The story here is not what the White House said but that it was asked to weigh in on the protests at all — another sign of the remarkable speed with which it has grown from a crowd chanting at police two weeks ago. As for the substance of the White House response, it would have been a mistake for it to go any further than it did here — registering an understanding of economic frustration. Because if there’s one thing that’s growing clearer by the hour, it’s that this is an entirely organic effort, one that’s about nobody but the protesors themselves. In this sense, we’re seeing a replay of the Wisconsin protests. Those ended up falling just short of what activists had hoped to achieve, but their months-long showing was still important — it demonstrated that left wing populism is still alive and well and sent an important message about the mood of the country. The key was that it grew organically with little to no involvement from Beltway Dems and the White House.

If anything, Occupy Wall Street’s lack of outside encouragement from bigfoot Dems has been a strength, rather than a weakness. As major progressive groups debate how they can contribute to strengthening the movement — and how to give it specific direction and a specific agenda — the need to preserve its grassroots nature will remain paramount. Who knows where this will end up, but for now, this is another reminder that the Tea Party isn’t the only voice of popular discontentment over the economy. We don’t necessarily live in Tea Party Nation, after all.

http://www.americablog.com/2011/10/white-house-weighs-in-on.html?du

[tblue]

1. It's just as well.

This movement is bigger than the Democrats and bigger than Obama. When $1billion is donated to a political candidate, it wants something in return. If Wall Street is giving you millions of dollars, they more or less own you.

[Kurovski]

6. It's true, it's pretty clear Americans are on their own.

Al gore seemed to say as much after the out-of-hand theft of an American election. Now it's up to us as a group.

[unionworks]

2. Outstanding N/T

[global1]

3. The Legislation That Carney Is Talking About Is That The Same Legislation That Is Letting BOA Charge

for use of a debit card?

[sad sally]

5. Makes y'all warm and fuzzy, huh?

In today's joint hearing with Bernanke, Senator Sanders asked him why BofA and Citi were still charging 25-30% interest on credit cards. Bernanke said as long as the banks followed the reforms and notified customers they were doing it, it was okay.

And the WH is proud of this?

[mmonk]

4. I do not think outsiders should give it a specific direction.

Once it becomes co-opted and then compromised, it will die. Politicians should only support it if they support it as is.

[PETRUS]

7. Shoulder to the wheel, friend. nt

[Historic NY]

8. Here try this at WH.............

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/make-statement-occupy-together-movement-and-let-us-know-our-message-being-received-our-elected/j2K5gQd2

Make a statement to the Occupy Together movement and let us know our message is being received by our elected officials.

[liberalla]

9. Excellent!

I haven't been able to check in much recently, and didn't know about this particular petition. Closing in on 840 sigs... should be easy to reach and exceed the 5,000 required.

Thanks!

:kick:

[quaker bill]

10. These things do not work that way

The point is not to expect politicians to be your allies, but to compel their response. Politicians coming there or being out on your side on their own changes the thing from a protest into a campaign rally. You want them paying attention because they "have" to.

[bvar22]

11. Exactly.

This is NOT about Obama or The Democrats.
In many ways, they TOO are The Problem.

This is about forcing "change".

When The Working Class & The Poor realize WE have more in common with each other
than we have in common with the Elite, Rich Class Leadership of BOTH political parties,
we can have "change".


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity with the 99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quaker bill]

13. Obama and the Dems aren't the problem

but they aren't the solution either, never were. The things needed are never done by politicians on their own.

Folks love to go on about FDR, but the notion that he just came up with any of it on his own is foolish. There was a labor movement, massive unemployment, massive poverty, and massive social unrest about at that time. Communist revolutions were recent history. He did what they needed to do to keep order and some sense of the traditional capitalist economy in place. A solution was going to be found the only question was the process and level of violence involved getting there. He hired Keynes who used socialist theory to buffer out the peaks and valleys of the unfettered capitalist business cycle.

Soc Security, unemployment insurance, CCC and the WPA were invented to prevent much more radical and sudden change. Workers got rights because the alternative was far more difficult.

THis is the point. Change of this sort never arises from politicians as they are far too risk-adverse as a class of humanity. The people need to use their risk-adversion, by making inaction the risky thing.

[sad sally]

12. Your explanation is what I was trying to say - it didn't come out very well.

The rant last week was just asking, are they (WH) hearing the dissent and the dissatisfaction with the imbalance of resources in the country? Do they know huge peaceful protests are taking place? If yes, say something - doesn't have to be agreement, just acknowledgment that the disenfranchised people are gathering and the revolution against greed is fomenting. They spoke (thru Carney), 'nuff said.