Let me give you my take on this.
The day(s) of rage is no more grassroots than the ones in Chicago in 1969 where the name originated.
They are the antithesis of the Tea Party, didn't you notice that grassroots group was not invited?
It emanates from the left, plain and simple. Though I did see some Alex Jones infowars folks out there!
It is significant that they held it on September 17th, Constitution Day.
Their demands:
http://www.usdayofrage.org/about.html
1. They say they want a Constitutional Convention
I say a very hazardous thing to do, because at a Convention the entire Constitution is up for grabs to be changed totally, radically, in any way.
That is the main reason why, though the US Constitution has been changed many times, there has not been another Convention since 1787, al have considered the prospect too dangerous.
2. They say they want an end to campaign contributions exceeding $1, to prevent "special interests" from having influence.
I wonder, then, why the unions are so involved with this? Union membership overall in the US is at a 70 year low, below 12% of all workers.
While only 7% of private sector workers are in unions, 36% of public sector workers are in unions. This tells us that the new strongholds for unions are in the public sector.
What does this have to do with political special interests and campaign contributions?
As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the 2012 election cycle pits Unions and Corporations against each other to fund campaigns through Politial Action Committees. Both entities can now use money from their
general treasuries to fund campaigns.
This is called an "exercise of free speech", which both entities have at their disposal.
Both corporations and unions are special interest groups.
There will not be a Constitutional Convention to change this situation before the election, and the Unions know this.
The mainly public sector unions are facing sharp cutbacks in spending to balance our out-of-control budget deficits, their survival depends on maintaining government spending at current levels, and I suppose they expect even more in the future. (damn parasites) Unless they can maintain their traditional Democrat Party allies in power through 2012 and beyond, both their income and numbers, and consequently their power will be in decline. They know the general sentiment of the public is to reduce spending, and they would like for you to think that taxing the rich will maintain spending
The corporations find themselves in a failing economy, and will most likely support Republicans in the election, along with right wing Tea Party allies who want to limit spending and reduce taxation.
So the Unions are there to find a way to maintain their full rice bowl through their allies on the Democrat Left and forge a coalition of disaffected youth and unemployed similar to the Tea Party. There really isn't much of a record for the Democrats to run on, since they've held power for almost five years of an unrelenting bad economy.
3.
They want to tax the top 1% at a higher rate
Well, the best jobs I've had, other than working for myself, were working for rich people. If they hadn't been rich I doubt that they would have had a job for me. I never worked for a poor person, except for when I paid my taxes.
I prefer a flat tax which would actually increase tax on the poor. Yes, I said it. I don't personally think that anyone should be required to pay a progressive tax, it reeks of class envy, breeds contempt for the successful, and allows those who pay nothing very little to lose when government wastes the money, and I estimate about half of what government spends is wasted. I think we would have had better government overall by now if everyone had some meat in the game when government wastes the money they take from us.
Oh,and I shouldn't forget to mention that I new all about these protests shortly after Tahrir Square, and that they were astroturf. Say what you want about Glen Beck, but he called it a done deal shortly after what happened in Cairo.
