Occupy Wall Street Protests Target NYC Millionaires

NEW YORK -- Hundreds of protesters, emboldened by the growing national Occupy Wall Street movement, streamed through midtown Manhattan on Tuesday in what they called a "Millionaires March."

They marched two by two up the sidewalk, planning to pass the homes of some of New York City's wealthiest residents. An organizer said they didn't have a permit and wanted to avoid blocking pedestrian traffic.

"No Billionaire Left Behind," said a placard hoisted by Arlene Geiger, who teaches economics at Manhattan's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Protesters expressed concern about how much less the wealthy will pay - and who would be negatively affected - when New York's 2 percent "millionaires' tax" expires in December.

In the closest they've come to naming names, the protesters planned to visit the homes of News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and oil tycoon David Koch, among others.

Protesters have been camped out for weeks in lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park, near Wall Street, saying they're fighting for the "99 percent," or the vast majority of Americans who do not fall into the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.

Their causes range from bringing down Wall Street to fighting global warming. The movement gained traction through social media, and protests have taken place in several other cities nationwide.

In Boston, hundreds of college students marched through downtown Boston on Monday and gathered on Boston Common, holding signs that read "Fund education, not corporations."

The protesters are angry with an education system they say mimics "irresponsible, unaccountable, and unethical financial practices" of Wall Street.

About 50 protesters in Boston were arrested overnight after they ignored warnings to move from a downtown greenway near where they have been camped out for more than a week, police said.

Several hundred protesters were arrested in New York more than a week ago after police said they ignored warnings to stay in place. There was no word on any arrests in Tuesday's protest in New York.

The protest comes as New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli released a report showing that Wall Street is again losing jobs because of global economic woes, threatening tax revenue for a city and state heavily reliant on the financial industry.

"Excessive risk-taking on Wall Street was a major factor leading to the financial crisis and the recession," DiNapoli said. "Regulatory changes that reduce risk and focus attention on long-term profitability rather than short-term gains will enhance stability."

Christopher Guerra, a 27-year-old artist and Occupy Wall Street protester from Newark, N.J., said he thought the job losses weren't necessarily bad.

"That means more people on our side," said Guerra, who calls himself an Eisenhower Republican but says he's opposed to today's corporate behavior. "The companies are destroying this country by helping themselves, not the people, and pushing jobs out of America.

"If they get shafted, they will realize that what we are saying is true."

On Tuesday, several hundred protesters marched around the Financial District in Lower Manhattan.

The police presence is constant, and comes with a price tag. The New York Police Department already has spent $1.9 million, mostly in overtime pay, to patrol the area near Zuccotti Park, where hundreds of protesters have camped out for several weeks. Though cold weather is on the way, they're prepared to stay put for the long haul.

The expense comes at a time when Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered citywide budget cuts.

"The bottom line is that people want to express themselves, and as long as they obey the laws, we allow them to," Bloomberg told reporters Monday when asked about the protesters' staying power. "If they break the laws, then we're going to do what we're supposed to do - enforce the laws."

Last week, Bloomberg ordered all agencies to prepare to cut expenses by a total of $2 billion during the next 18 months. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the budget cuts may cause the cancellation of a new class of police officers entering the academy in January.

Police officials would not comment Monday on whether the Occupy Wall Street protest would have any bearing on how the budget cuts would play out. A spokesman for Bloomberg declined to comment on any financial issues.

"We always prefer to not spend overtime, but again, this is a big, complex city, lots of things going on," Kelly said last week, describing the protesters' effect on the NYPD. "And we have to spend overtime for unplanned operations."

The protesters say they're fighting for the "99 percent," or the vast majority of Americans who do not fall into the wealthiest 1 percent of the population; their causes range from bringing down Wall Street to fighting global warming. The movement gained traction through social media, and protests have taken place in several other cities nationwide.

___

Associated Press writers Laura Crimaldi in Boston, and Kiley Armstrong, Deepti Hajela, Colleen Long in New York, contributed to this report.

 

 

Comments

[lovmydan]

01:28 PM on 10/14/2011

"The movement gained traction through social media, and protests have taken place in several other cities nationwide."

Try 1,539 cities WORLDWIDE..check it out at occupytogether.org.

[burntsurf]

02:53 PM on 10/13/2011

And now they have to leave the area so the taxpayers of New York City can clean up the area which is filthy and smelly. . . obviously these people have NO respect for others or themselves!!! I don't remember the Tea Party needing the same thing being done nor do I remember any arrests during the Tea Party marches!!! And why aren't they marching on Soros, Immelt, etc. and why are the wealthy celebrities there when they certanly believe in capitalis!!! I'd venture a bet that if jobs were offered to any of these people they wouldn't want them unless they were starting off at $100,000 a year with full benefits and perks like working 4 hours a day!!!

[lovmydan]

01:33 PM on 10/14/2011

So not true...we are trying to make the world better for everyone. Please research before you pass judgement. These people are actually very clean. They have been cleaning and maintaining the park this whole time. The major of NY said they could stay there as long as they obey the law, which they are.

[tino2892]

11:09 PM on 10/12/2011

But they didn't march by any of George Soros' places.....hhhhmmmmmmm interesting

They also don't march on a GE building when their CEO sent thousands of jobs overseas???

Says alot folks, tells you who is behind all of this

[eco124]

06:56 PM on 10/12/2011

The protesters need to march by one of the mansions of Obama's White House Chief of Staff
Bill Daley, recently on the Executive Committee of JPMorgan Chase & Co.

[rmrgdr]

01:08 PM on 10/12/2011

In his State of The Union Address in 1902, Teddy Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine.

So was TR a commie? Un American?

[muddywood]

01:31 PM on 10/12/2011

He was a Progressive.

[muddywood]

01:05 PM on 10/12/2011

Agree or disagree.

If people make much more than they need the government should liberate some of that money so it can be used to help the less fortunate.

[Mharley vet]

01:20 PM on 10/12/2011

Disagree.

[rmrgdr]

01:36 PM on 10/12/2011

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Taxes are legitimate. The Constitution says so.
While your question is vague, I agree in principle.
A better question might be, "what is the purpose of government".
To me, the only purpose can be to serve the interests of it's citizens.
That's ALL of it's citizens, not just the rich but the poor as well.

[burntsurf]

03:01 PM on 10/13/2011

It does apply to ALL citizens but ALL citizens have to take responsibility for their own lives and not expect to be taken care of. Some of the protestors interviewed said the government should give them everything. . . where do they think the government gets its money? Everyone wants the rish to pay more taxes but they do pay high taxes on their income, just a lower tax on their dividends so what needs to be done is to close the loopholes. . . but first it has to be determined who the rich really is. If you're talking about $200,000 or $250,000, that isn't rich for many people but sounds very rich if you haven't finished high school, cant' find a job or if you have finished college but don't want to get a job that start out at lower pay and work their way up.

[molonlabe]

12:36 PM on 10/12/2011

Congress mustve actually read this bill before voting on it. It's not a long-term solution, only a temp. fix and what amounts to another ill-conceived bail-out.

Tell me, if the 99%'ers represent 99% of the The People on this issue, why is it that the change they want can't be obtained through the polling booth? This is what happens when you vote strictly along party lines instead of looking at each and every individual politician objectively. Every fan-boy out there solely demonizing the GOP for the current economic climate is either naive or just looking for another HuffPo "fan."

Get real people. The problem is bi-partisan.

[rmrgdr]

01:40 PM on 10/12/2011

Yes the problem is with both parties, but the root is the undue influence of lobbyists and the flow of huge sums of money to Congress.
While Democrats are also bought by corporate influence, the Republicans have made doing corporate bidding a part of their platform to the expense of everything else.
They have institutionalized corruption and actively portray any reform as un American.

[burntsurf]

03:06 PM on 10/13/2011

That is not true and you need to do some Internet research on corporate influence of Repub vs Dems and also looks at Democratic bundlers who are getting favors on some very bad deals for the people (think Solyndra which was pushed by a big Dem bundler or congtributor). Many years ago the Dems were seen as the party of the worker and the Repubs were seen as the party of business but that has changed drastically since the late 70's to mid 80s and the Democratic Party has changed drastically through the years.

[rmrgdr]

12:32 PM on 10/12/2011

The historically proven optimal marginal income tax that produces sustained growth and prosperity throughout the economy is 70%. Thus, income and wealth inequality keeps getting worse even as politicians continue to argue about whether to increase the rate from 35% back up to 40%, or reduce it further to 25%. Other policies (e.g., capital gains taxes) must be treated consistently. Stable Income Inequality, Appropriate Taxation for Stable Reasonable Inequality, Fixing the Broken Tax System;
Over the 30 years up to 2007, about $8.8 trillion of wealth was transferred from the bottom 99% to the top 1% via the policies of the Reagan Revolution. The incomes of middle class Americans lost ground in the last 30 years, and their wealth dwindled as they went from net savers to net borrowers. Growth in Inequality of Wealth: 1979-2007;
The continuation of these policies has produced an additional transfer of at least $1.2 trillion since 2007. Thus, at least $10 trillion of wealth has been transferred to the top 1% since 1980. In addition, more wealth has been lost to the bottom 99% through the loss of homes and residential real estate values after the 2008 Crash. We estimate that loss to exceed $5 trillion. Growth in Inequality of Wealth: After 2007;
The total wealth of the lower 99% is no more than 2/3 of what it would have been without the policies begun in the Reagan Revolution. New growth today is mostly captured by the top 1%.

[rmrgdr]

12:11 PM on 10/12/2011

Here's a little history of basically what we have today. Notorious raging Liberal (LOL) was President.Roosevelt took the following steps during his first administration to “keep order” in the American economy:

Department of Commerce and Labor. In 1903, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to establish a new cabinet-level department to increase the federal government’s purview over the interstate commerce actions of business and to monitor labor relations. Big business interests lobbied heavily to halt this innovation — the first new executive department since the Civil War — but failed. (Commerce and Labor would be separated into independent department in 1913.)

Bureau of Corporations. As an arm of the newly created department, a Bureau of Corporations was established to find violations under the existing antitrust legislation. The Bureau began investigations into the activities of the meatpacking, oil, steel and tobacco industries, among others.

Antitrust Law Suits. Roosevelt instructed his attorney general, Philander C. Knox, to launch a series of lawsuits against what were deemed offensive business combinations. Such giants as J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Company, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust and James B. Duke’s tobacco trust were targets of the government’s attorneys. In all, forty-four suits were brought during Roosevelt’s administration.
Trust-busting was not a term the president favored. He believed the offending corporations needed to be regulated, not destroyed. Many of his big business critics, however, failed to note the difference.
Intersting to note there were ZERO anti trust actions during the bush years.

[muddywood]

01:07 PM on 10/12/2011

TR was a Progressive.
He was the founder of the Progressive Party.

[rmrgdr]

10:36 AM on 10/12/2011

The Republicans are continuing to help facilitate the largest transfer of wealth in American history. Here is how the massive transfer of wealth has occurred in this country: The richest Americans were given huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts weren’t paid for so they went onto the debt. Everyone that pays federal taxes of any sort are paying off that debt. In other words, the millionaires and billionaires get to keep more of their money, and the rest of America pays for them. And that is how the transfer of wealth is occurring. The richest 2% get to keep more of their money, and the middle class has to pay more so the rich can have those tax cuts. Allowing the richest 2% keep the bush tax cuts would add $700 billion onto the deficit. That is the same deficit that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying off. Do you really think your offspring should pay out money for years so that we can give tax cuts to the rich today?

[lw1]

11:04 AM on 10/12/2011

F&F! Well explained.

[No-name-plz]

09:38 AM on 10/12/2011

The no billionaire left behind "teacher" appears to have a rather long resume in marxism. Apparently the failed soviet economics model of her homeland has had no effect on her views.

[No-name-plz]

10:31 AM on 10/12/2011

I changed my mind. She claims she is a progressive on some activist websites.

[Matthew Christopher]

10:58 AM on 10/12/2011

The insane part is that she teaches economics.

[burntsurf]

03:20 PM on 10/13/2011

Many progressives favor socialism and marxism.

[lw1]

11:07 AM on 10/12/2011

Apparently, a lot of America thinks our capitalist economics model needs some tinkering after the crash of 2007 and the ensuing mayhem where the rich KEEP getting richer and everyone else keeps getting poorer.

[alans0222]

09:00 AM on 10/12/2011

I wonder how many of these protesters and their families have been aided by the Koch brothers through their generous donations in the medical field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the last decade, it's also worth noting the Kochs have given more than $600 million in pledged or donated money to arts, education, and medical research, including (but not limited to):


New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million

The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million

Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million

Deerfield Academy: $68 million

Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million

[JubalTHarshaw]

09:12 AM on 10/12/2011

Don't you dare try to explain economic reality to those "99%" of Americans who already know that all of the world's ills have been caused by that mean, greedy 1%! After all, if they actually represent the viewpoint of 99% of Americans and they had to look at cold, hard facts and think thoughts larger than bumper stickers, they might have to accept that their misguided participation in the electoral process or their lack thereof might just be the bigger problem...

[Scott Leland]

10:38 AM on 10/12/2011

You raise a interesting concept, that our country's economic problems: not enough Americans working, paying income taxes and contributing to their Social Security accounts are caused by the results of the "electoral prosess," I think that the corporations cause those problems:

http://www.flixya.com/blog/3201910/Beautiful-Butterflys

[rmrgdr]

10:58 AM on 10/12/2011

Well good for them.
But so freakin what.
They are STILL far right wing loonies trying to buy government.

[alans0222]

11:47 AM on 10/12/2011

You're intelligent comment says it all.

[TygerLilly]

04:37 PM on 10/12/2011

And George Soros is a left wing loon attempting the same.

[JubalTHarshaw]

08:23 AM on 10/12/2011

As this story has progressed we have been able to read the impassioned opinions of a few regular contributors who seemingly lack sufficient strength of conviction to step away from the keyboard and join their local Occupy Whatever Movement. It brings to mind the distinction between involved and committed exemplified by a ham and egg breakfast. The chicken is involved the pig is committed.

[lw1]

11:25 AM on 10/12/2011

And you are la.me.

[JubalTHarshaw]

09:05 AM on 10/14/2011

What scathing wit...

[JubalTHarshaw]

06:40 AM on 10/12/2011

OK. We've been told for weeks now that this occupation movement represents “The 99%.” They chose the title. It wasn't imposed on them and it surely wasn't offered up by any conservative group. Fair enough, in America you are legally entitled to call yourself anything you want as long as the purpose of the self-titling is not fraudulent. Some of us would like to know when you 99%ers are going to accept personal responsibility for the mess this country is in. It’s a given that the 1%ers didn’t elect Congress or the President; you did. What were you thinking? You elected Bush and complained about him. You elected a Republican Congress and you complained about it. You elected a Democratic Congress and complained about it. You elected Obama and things are presently worse than they’ve been in living memory. Based on your current track record, why should we trust your judgment on important economic issues, especially when you seemingly have no plan, goals or implementation strategy?

[MrBadExample]

07:31 AM on 10/12/2011

You can't hold the 99% responsible for a system that is so gamed by the 1% that real change is impossible. Ending the wars wasn't on the ballot in 2008 and won't be on the ballot in 2012. Cutting the pentagon by half won't be either. Changing the way corporations are taxed to collect the kind of taxes the corporate sector anted up back in the 1950's and 1960's won't be on the ballot from any mainstream candidate.

The two-party duopoly has been one of the triumphs of the 1%--neither the Dems or the Repubs are going to propose anything that will lose the corporate money that is the mother's milk of American politics. Even challenges from outliers like Ron Paul are managed--you'd better believe that Ron Paul will not be able to raise money from Wall Street with his calls to abolish the Fed.

Don't blame the 99% for the fact that our politics are a revolving door for Tweedle-GOP and Tweedle-Dem.

[JubalTHarshaw]

07:49 AM on 10/12/2011

My point remains; if this "movement" really represents 99% of Americans and they are arrayed against the 1%, it is impossible for the 1% to have "gamed" every election in recent memory. Domestic policy is set by the Congress. Congress is elected by the people, the majority of the people. If what you are offering up as a defense of the alleged 99% is that 99% of the people were duped by campaign messages controlled by 1% of the population what does that say about the 99%? Any person posting opinions on AOL has the skills and tools necessary to find out what any individual candidate has done before election and what any elected official has done after being elected. Do I think that OWS crowd actually represents 99% of Americans; of course not. That is gross hubris on their part; a catchy bumper sticker that doesn’t bear close scrutiny. The protestors need to abandon self victimization as a life style and start paying attention to the political process. In a democracy the people get the government they deserve. Sane people vote for individuals not parties.

[capercaper]

11:03 AM on 10/12/2011

OWS is the initiative of Canadian-based Adbusters. They launched the OWS and THEY created the 99% slogan.

They recruited protesters to launch OWS, to which they refer as "a campaign."

[lw1]

11:30 AM on 10/12/2011

Proof? Link?

[JhNyc]

12:08 PM on 10/12/2011

The idea of focusing on and occupying Wall Street was floated by AdBusters. Original OWS members acknowledge that. So what? As evidenced, it was obviously a good idea because this movement is resonating. AdBusters isn't running it Attend a general assembly meeting if you think it is. You would be surprised.

The baggers think they based their movement on US history.

[sherlockhemlock]

04:50 AM on 10/12/2011

Regarding bankers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Just a thought.