Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

70% of #OWS Supporters are Politically Independent

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 2:11 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Two weeks ago we conducted an anonymous poll on this website to learn more about our visitors. We asked Héctor R. Cordero-Guzmán Ph.D, sociologist of the City University of New York to look at the data, which he analyzed to create an original academic paper titled "Mainstream Support for a Mainstream Movement".

His analysis shows that the Occupy Wall Street movement is heavily supported by a diverse group of individuals and that "the 99% movement comes from and looks like the 99%." Among the most telling of his findings is that 70.3% of respondents identified as politically independent.

Dr. Cordero-Guzmán's findings strongly reinforce what we've known all along: Occupy Wall Street is a post-political movement representing something far greater than failed party politics. We are a movement of people empowerment, a collective realization that we ourselves have the power to create change from the bottom-up, because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians.

Since our humble beginning a few short weeks ago, we've helped inspire people around the world to organize democratic assemblies in their own communities to take back public spaces, meet basic needs, make their own demands, and begin building a better world today.

Below is Dr. Cordero-Guzmán's executive summary of his findings along with a link to his full academic paper.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has galvanized the attention of the world by organizing the largest demonstrations in this country as a response to the Great Recession caused by our financial and political leaders. Data from a survey of 1,619 respondents from a survey placed on occupywallst.org suggests that there is a huge undercurrent of mainstream dissatisfaction with traditional political party affiliations as well a huge amount of support for radical change in the United States of America.

  • 92.5% of respondents either somewhat or strongly supported the protests with most respondents indicating strong support.

  • 1/4th of the sample (or 24.2%) participated in the Occupy Wall Street protests as of October 5, 2011.

  • 91.8% of the sample thinks that the Occupy Wall Street Protests will continue to grow.

In terms of demographic characteristics of the sample, we found that,

  • 64.2% of respondents were younger than 34 years of age.

  • While the sample is relatively young, one in three respondents is older than 35 and one in five respondents is 45 and older.

  • 7.9% of respondents have a high school degree or less.

  • 92.1% of the sample has some college, a college degree, or a graduate degree.

  • 27.4% have some college (but no degree), 35% have a college degree, 8.2% have some graduate school (but no degree), and close to 21.5% have a graduate school degree.

  • This is a highly educated sample.

  • 26.7% of respondents were enrolled in school and 73.3% were not enrolled in school.

  • 50.4% were employed full-time and an additional 20.4% were employed part-time.

  • 13.1% of the sample are unemployed.

  • 2.6% of respondents were retired, 1.3% disabled, 2.6% homemakers and 9.7% are full-time students.

  • 47.5% of the sample earns less than $24,999 dollars a year and another quarter (24%) earn between $25,000 and $49,999 per year.

  • 71.5% of the sample earns less than $50,000 per year.

  • 15.4% of the sample earned between $50,000 and $74,999.

  • The remainder 13% of the sample earn over $75,000 with close to 2% earning over $150,000 per year.

  • 27.3% of respondents considered themselves Democrats, another 2.4% said they were Republican.

  • Interestingly, a very large proportion of the sample, close to 70.3%, considered themselves Independents.

  • 66.4% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use Facebook.

  • 28.9% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use Twitter.

  • 73.9% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use YouTube.

  • Our data suggest that the 99% movement comes from and looks like the 99%.

Héctor R. Cordero-Guzmán, Ph.D.

Full Paper: Mainstream Support for a Mainstream Movement (PDF)



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

Good to hear that many OWS´er are independent. We need independent minds in order to cut thru the prapaganda the mainstream media feeds us. We need open minds when we come up with new alternative ways of organizing our society. I would suggest that this alternative incudes expanding democracy to the communities and worklplace.



[-] 2 points by acarefreeman (27) 12 years ago

Nice points. A real democracy is one that the common people are directly involved in governing, not one that they choose representatives to govern for them. When politics becomes a profitable profession, and when more often than not it is the one who raises more money wins, the countrying is destined to head to the wrong direction. ~acarefreeman

[-] 1 points by efschumacher (74) from Gaithersburg, MD 12 years ago

The system would be better if the 'representatives' represented the people who voted for them rather than the people who bought them. Accountability to the electorate for every single vote, and any initiative brought up by the electors, is a pre-requisite for representative democracy. Since the present congress takes off every other week, the accountability meetings fit right into the schedule. Ally this to the ability of the voters to change their representative on an annual basis, in cases of mal-performance.

[-] 1 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

True. Politicians on both sides have made many mistakes. Replacing Career politicians with businessmen would help.

[-] 1 points by acarefreeman (27) 12 years ago

In my view, these politicians are more effective businessmen because ordinary businessmen only do business for money, but these politicians trade their integrity for both fame and money.


[-] 1 points by jameswestonmusic (222) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

watched all of your links. very good post

[-] 0 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

Sounds more like a struggle for socialist dictatorship...Perhaps you think that the Soviet Union benefited from that..

[-] 1 points by jameswestonmusic (222) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

no ben. it is more like, care about people. no one is talking socialist.. read more and form your own opinion

[-] 2 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 12 years ago

United we stand, Divided we fall! Im not a Democrat, Im not a Republican, I AM an American! Love that we desire to come together and respect each others opinions without hatred or unneeded labels that divide us. :D

[-] 1 points by SocraticGadfly (1) 12 years ago

So, #OWS poll respondents are younger, whiter, and much-better-educated than Americans in general? #OccupyWallStreet doesn't sound quite so #99percent, based on its own web-based poll informatio. How many of the grad degree respondents have either JDs or MBAs and had hoped to work for the big businesses they suddenly find they dislike? http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/10/ows-young-white-well-educated-latte.html

Before anybody takes potshots at me, I’m not only white, but left-liberal, and a Green Party voter though not a registered party member. Labels like “independent,” as I note on my blog, are meaningless, too. Political identity, such as conservative, centrist, liberal, left-liberal, etc., is what matters. Or, for whom did people vote for president in 2008?

[-] 1 points by Dubby (146) 12 years ago

Political labels are also meaningless any more. I count myself as very fiercely independent and in so being, transcend many of the labels you've listed.

[-] 2 points by BARBBF (5) 12 years ago

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Guest Post: Obama Still Wall Street’s Honey … Raises More (As Both Raw Amount And Percentage) From Wall Street Than In 2008

By Washington’s Blog

Money News notes:

A just-released study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that President Obama is relying more on Wall Street to fund his re-election this year than he did in 2008, according to CNBC, which obtained an advance copy of the report.

Obama has even added new Wall Streeters who did not work for him in 2008, including former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine, Evercore Partners executive Charles Myers, Greenstreet Real Estate Partners CEO Steven Green, and Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JPMorgan.

Obama and the DNC combined are on pace to far exceed the amounts Obama raised from Wall Street donors in 2008, both in raw dollar amounts and as a percentage of what he raises overall.

Mr. Obama is bought and paid for. He wasn’t “bullied” into accepting a bad debt deal … Republicans weren’t even calling for much of what he caved in on.

In truth and fact, Obama has fought to sell out the American people from day one.

And the Democratic party – just like the Republicans – are institutionalizing fraud as official (if unspoken) party platforms.

Politicians allowing systemic fraud in return for campaign contributions are exactly the same as cops on the take … or pimps.

Why no protesters at the White House?

[-] 1 points by OWSProtestor (25) 12 years ago

Actually, only a small percentage of Obama's money is coming from Wall Street. Romney is the one raking in huge money (nearly half of his contributions).


Combing Obama and DNC fundraising is only fair if you combine Republican Party's collection of Wall Street money.


[-] 1 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago

While partially true. Defending Obama is not worth the time. He's indefensible now. Look at his public record. American citizens assassinated with no due process, and no proof that they were terorrists - whatever that means. Obama has the final say in these matters.

I think the hope and change ship sailed before Obama was able to get on board.

[-] 1 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

The hatred coming from you occupy wall street zombies would make Hitler squirm... Its disgusting that you are so incredibly greedy.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Read your own language. Amazing. The inability to reflect is just incredible. You come in here, a place where your fellow citizens are organizing to improve their beloved country in the best way they see fit (isn't that democracy?) and you do not come to add or to contribute but to bring discord and anger. What do you expect? A kiss? We have tried to reason but that does not make any sense because you lack reason. You are vile. You are part of the problem. As has been said before: either lead, follow, or get out of the way...as you will be runeth over by the hungry masses...Another example of Goodwin's law. So predictable. Like cattle...

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago

Every other leading candidate is just as bad. Throw a rock in washington and you are likely to hit a corporate shill.

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

Ain't it the truth. Be sure to throw that rock really hard, a knocked out lobbyist is a good start.

[-] 2 points by orias12 (24) 12 years ago

What we must regulate

1) where there was one, let there now be two!

 - limit the allowable size of a corporation. Major conglomerates must be dissolved or broken down into smaller/competing businesses. Imcreased competition means price security.

2) standardize corporate social responsibility -corporations are founded with the sole purpose to cut a profit by any means. this blatant exploitation of our environment and fellow man must stop. Every corporate charter must be redefined with public serving agenda. Corporate profits must be redistributed for the good of the people, and the environment. Corporations must be in business for the best interests of their customers: we the people. Not for themselves.

3) there must be a salary cap on all emplyees, regular, contract, or executive set at 250,000 including stock options, bonuses...etc.

4) all corporate lobbying must cease! In every form or measure!

5) a government of the people, and for the people -who in our government can say they represent the 99% percent of americans. who in office can say they are dirt poor, lack in health insurance, are forced to buy the cheapest clothes, food, and housing? The polititions in office are not composed of the 99%. They are the 1%. This must stop! Career poloticians must stop!

For any man woman or child to hold office, they must saceifice their 50% of their wealth for the good of the people. While in office they must live like the 99%. They cannot be associated with any business or corporation, and must cut all ties with the corporate world.

   - that last thought could use some work. I havent really thought it through.

6) 1-5 is a start. What else can we do?

[-] 2 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago

Your heart is in the right place, but I am unconvinced that laying specific legislative demands is productive to the cause. Staying on target with the general message is much more effective, and the reason why the movement continues to grow. Until the movement is substantially larger, we will be unable to change the status quo anyway. We have not yet begun to be a threat to those in power. Until that happens nothing will change. We need many many more people actively supporting the cause.

No point in dividing up the movement over the specifics of how we would write the legislation were we in power.

[-] 0 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

The ideas mentioned are beyond stupidly absurd. I wouldn't talk about them either.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago

You didn't put any thought into your comment so I am wondering why you have decided to say anything. Until you have taken the time to formulate an actual idea its probably best that you not talk.

But please come back when you've got some ideas.

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

Ok, I actually signed up just to reply to you. This is sad reading your post, both the ignorance and naivete are stunning.

  1. We are going to live in a vacuum? So we'll stop making cars, pharmacy, tractors etc. because they have to be big. Out of the oil business? Electric business? The market decides what is too big. Apple should be dissolved (it would never have happened in your world.
  2. Who determines what social responsibility is? You? Steve Jobs felt his social responsibility was creating wealth, jobs and profit. Who determines what "exploitation" is? You? And if I disagree, what re-education camps? Prison? 3.So no more doctors (or at least specialist . . . why would you? So every time you have a successful business you move overseas to make more money?
  3. So you are against freedom of speech? Only you and those you agree with get a say in government? How Stalinist of you!
  4. Did you see the research, you don't represent the population at all. Your're young students, liberal, what you describe is not what most of the OWS people are. They are voted in now! If your too stupid to vote someone out that's your problem. My Congressman represents me well.

Why don't we just agree that we eliminate all the retirement benefits of politicians, and make them have social security and get health insurance on the open market? Saying they can't have ties with busines? Again, no freedom of speech. Do you realize how comfortable fascists would be with your agenda? Mussolini would be standing their with you if he were alive.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 12 years ago
  1. Would it really be so bad if Apple or Microsoft were broken into smaller businesses? I believe I read somewhere that apple has more money than our government. Do you think it makes sense to just sit on that wealth and not spread it around for the good of the people? I personally don’t believe that amassing great wealth is what makes a corporation great. I personally think a PC running on Linux is a much more versatile and powerful system anyway. Apple is just an inflated piece of hardware.

  2. For social responsibility, I suppose you could just look at the definition of Social Responsibility to identify what it means. I don't have to tell you. To me, a corporation that decides their own social responsibility is not necessarily going to go far enough in meeting it. Social responsibility should be a given for every corporation; but to answer your question no I do not believe that any 1 person should determine what that is. If anything, it should be handed over to a legal debate, or even a majority vote. It is my personal belief that corporate profits should be redistributed to benefit the people, but I have no intention of forcing anyone to do it. I don't see how that is wrong.

  3. Freedom of speech? Is this because of what I said about “all corporate lobbying must cease! In every form or measure!” Freedom of speech is a human right. I didn’t realize that automatically made it a corporate right.

  4. Please tell me you voted for a person that wasn’t rich. Please tell me the media discussed a candidate that wasn’t rich. Tell me that all the candidates on the ballot were each given the same representation and consideration, and that their wealth had nothing to do with who was ultimately selected. Please tell me that. Please tell me that the masses are not sheeple, that these elections are not bought and sold by corporations and individuals with mega millions. That you were not fed misinformation at every level, about every candidate that those in power didn’t want you to vote for. We do the best with what we have, but what do we really have to go on here but lies on TV, lies in the newspaper, and lies on these forums?

How about instead of eliminating the retirement benefits of wealthy politicians, we just regulate them a bit. :) As for their ties to business, I’m not saying they can’t talk about corporations publicly. They can say whatever they like. Isn’t that freedom of speech? I’m saying their association with business should be cut off while they are in office. This should help to ensure their motivations are in fact to serve the best interests of the public and not themselves. I don’t mind voting on it.

And I hope you realize that any push for more regulation will make a fascist smile. I have no illusion that anything I recommend will ever come to pass. I’m just voicing an opinion, please don’t take it personally.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

So you signed up to make an ass of yourself and insult people. Excellent. Congratulations. You suceeded. Another clueless right wing genius jois us that acuses a person of being a Stalinist and a Fascist in one post! No capacity to think. You just toss words around to hurt. Sounds ike you spent your life in "corporate America." I would clean Herman Cain's ass with your dirty mouth but will leave it there as I am sure you got my point. asswipe.

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

You said nothing, except insult me. How about a point by point rebuttal? I asked a lot of questions, answer some then! Btw, never had a corporate job.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

It makes my heart glad to see such a sincere effort. Your attitude is what will bring our ultimate success.

[-] 0 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

The ideas are beyond stupidly absurd. Grow some brains and read a few economics books (Including Adam Smith's wealth of Nations) if you don't believe me.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 12 years ago

No, I believe you. In fact, I'm positive nothing I wrote will ever come to pass. aaronparr had it right. I didn't really put much thought into my comment. It was more of an emotional outburst really.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

I learned mine from Alan Greenspan where did you learn yours?

[-] 2 points by gypsymama (3) 12 years ago

For the 1%....Enough is never Enough. More money = more power, more power = more money. Enough Is never enough! For the 99%....Enough IS Enough! Enough... greed..special favors and back room deals and power, Enough IS Enough!

[-] 2 points by ckfox (29) 12 years ago

Good to see the numbers accurately reflect my own experience. Independent right here!

(Now if only one side would give me a worthwhile presidential candidate. There's no one I want more than Gary Johnson, who's a traditional-conservative magical unicorn of yore...but the Republicans won't put him up because he not crazy and therefore can't draw big ratings for Fox entertainment news. :*( )

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I think such a large number of independents adds enormously to this movements political power, as independents swing elections. Now If we can just find a way to produce a few worthy cantidates!

[-] 1 points by jstopper (1) 12 years ago

This is welcome news. Occupiers aren't a bunch of crazy jobless drunks and druggies afterall. The parks where Occupiers pitched tents had been the homes of the mentally ill, the drug-alcohol addicted and the homeless. Because they mingled with the Occupiers, that is part of the reason for misconceptions about Occupy supporters. Then, too, there are the nuts who deliberately paint an unflattering picture of Occupiers. .

[-] 1 points by Michela (1) 12 years ago

A post political landscape is such an exciting possibility, in a country like South Africa, the party elite are compared to pigs at a trough. With today's technology there is no excuse for deep democracy the real kind where you have influence on the affairs of the day. Politicians in a deep democracy truly assist the people they represent to design and navigate their way through the system they pay for.

[-] 1 points by Lmurguia7 (57) 12 years ago

NOVEMBER 5 - Close bank accounts (transfer to credit union) -- and do not use credit cards as banks benefit.

[-] 1 points by swinginsammy33 (2) 12 years ago

If you really want to make a "statement" vote your elected officials out next election. Don't hate wall street for using the system like most people. Teachers unions screw over local residents by getting paid 4-6 times what they put in and don't get me started on tenure and guaranteed raises regardless of performance...what about GM? Did they not get a bailout? But we applaud that because they're unionized. What about families with 10 kids and no job who magically get a thuge ax refund? All these people work the system. So please go easy on the 1%...they're playing the same game as everyone else....and by the way wall street is less than a quarter of the 1% you all hate so much

[-] 1 points by swinginsammy33 (2) 12 years ago

Politically independent? well that's weird considering acorn has reared it's head to support this, along with BHO, Soros, Pelosi, Reid and all the other Communist cronies. Sounds like the people there really know what they're supporting

[-] 1 points by texan1 (4) 12 years ago

Need to see this....youtube.com/watch?v=P-nEkpLnsEU and Read the blog on www.thebigturds.com different way to look at things...will make you thank

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 12 years ago

From my own personal observation of talking to some protesters at two different rallies, I'd say they were mostly Marxist leaning democrats who will vote to re-elect president Obama....The ones who actually understood economics were the few Ron paul supporters.

[-] 1 points by trabajador (1) 12 years ago

¿por qué no os organizáis politicamente? Creo que hay suficiente masa crítica en el 99% para comenzar a pensar en un nuevo partido político, o uniros a alguno pequeño ya existente que no discrepe de vuestras propuestas. Escribo desde España y no conozco sino a Demócratas y Republicanos por la propaganda que nos llega. Pero tengo la impresión de que son dos partidos en uno sólo, la derecha, las corporaciones. Es hora de que el pueblo se organice y acceda al poder haciendo real aquello de 'we the people' en lugar del 'ellos las corporaciones'. El dinero no puede ser un problema con internet, es una forma de llegar a todos, que se pudra la tele y la prensa escrita son herramientas del stablisment. Hagáis lo que hagáis nuestro apoyo y mejores deseos están con vosotros pueblo norteamericano, trabajadorxs y ciudadanos como nosotros. Salud y fuerza.

[-] 1 points by Denali (5) 12 years ago

Sorry if this has already been posted, but here's the latest Gallup poll of American's attitudes on OWS: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150164/americans-uncertain-occupy-wall-street-goals.aspx It seems much more comprehensive as it has measured a broad section of the USA, and not just users of the OWS website.

[-] 1 points by Lmurguia7 (57) 12 years ago

With all the talk about Wall Street, I've yet to see a single person commit to selling all financial holdings -- and there are many protesting who do have investments.

This is the only way to REALLY impact Wall Street machinations -- and, also, Bank Transfer Day on November 5 -- close bank accounts and deposit funds in a credit union near you.

Let me be the first !

Lynne Murguia (retired NYC teacher; former NGO to the UN; micro-credit practitioner; funder; investor) Tucson, AZ

[-] 1 points by JustDaDamaja (43) 12 years ago

Hillary Clinton Defending Lobbyists ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isi6c2s353c

[-] 1 points by ALEXDFLINT (2) 12 years ago

I am brit and fully support OWS. I have a small business and have repeatedly been subject to the disgusting behaviour of banks. They lie, change rules, pressurise and manipulate with one goal which is to extract as much money as they can from me and my business by whatever means possible, I for one have had enough.

However until there is another option I can see how this will ever change? What I would like to see is a different kind of bank. Imagine a new bank set up NOT to make a profit. Its goal would simply be administrative and to match up people who want to lend, directly with people who want to borrow, bypassing the established banks and putting the control of money back in the people’s hands.

With profit out of the equation this 'new bank' would instantly be able to offer savers and borrowers much better rates than any established bank. Now this could change the world because how can the established banks compete with a bank that is not trying to make a profit? The short answer is they can not.

Maybe this naive, maybe it is a dream but I can not see how we can change the established banks behaviour in any other way than competing with and affecting what they value the most, their profit.

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

You just described a credit union. I'm taking a guess here. There's no credit unions in the UK?

[-] 1 points by efschumacher (74) from Gaithersburg, MD 12 years ago

Yes, but how many people register independent because it is supposed to be a secret ballot? If you register with one of the only two available parties, you 'out' yourself. I would be happy to participate in the primaries, and participate in the one or the other, as I see fit, at the point of the ballot. Why should you have to declare which party you support in order to participate in a primary?

[-] 1 points by JRoberts (21) from Coogee, NSW 12 years ago

Poll I read in a major Sydney newspaper this morning had a 80% disapproval rating for the OWS movement out of 3000 polled.

Doesn't look like this movement is taking off in Australia. Or anywhere for that matter

[-] 1 points by DCOOOPER (6) 12 years ago

I would like to see all politicians that have ever voted for any bill that has grated retro active immunity from prosecution to be held for conspiracy against the people. No private citizen has ever been grated Retro Active immunity, We the people need to feel that corporations and politicians and governmental agency's will be held to the same standards of the law as the average citizen is held too when laws are broken. Repeal all bills that have ever granted Retro Active Immunity.

If government would only adhere to their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws we would not be in this horrible mess. But instead they take bribes/ campaign contributions and either give massive bail outs or they violate the Constitution by granting Retro Active Immunity from prosecution.

Robert kennedy spoke out against retro active immunity..."QUOTE" (The very idea of "retroactive immunity" ... is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress (in 1965) to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws. The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law. ) But the very concept of retroactive amnesty, The idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct, was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty. If Robert Kennedy was able to stop them at that time in our history then we would most certainly not be in this possition today. What will happen in the future now that it is legal for judges to take bribes? How could you bring evidence of corruption and violations of the LAW when you have a court that has been granted RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY for taking bribes. The change must start with the courts. Without a fair and unbiased court you can not have JUSTICE, YOU CAN NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS. In the constitution the right to due process is stated over and over again. Our founding fathers knew the dangers when judges could be bought. They knew the dangers when the financial institutions became too big.

SECTION FROM SBX211 This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. (NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW) SBX211 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

HISTORY OF RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES 1. given for illegsl use of torture 2. given for illegal merger of banks ( we can see the effects of that now ) 3. given to telecom company for illegal wire taps. (Fisa bill that led to the patriot act)4. given to Judges for taking bribes. (SBX211)

[-] 1 points by ursula (1) from Le Grand, CA 12 years ago

This is so great you did this. I'm tired of hearing about a small group of guitar playing hippies. I am an Independent, under employed (because the job I put myself through College to get, was outsourced to china) 40 year old woman who volunteers at an animal rescue and I am the 99%

[-] 0 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

Look at the stats, they are a bunch of guitar playing hippies! They're students! 24% with Master's Degrees! Get another job, get a better job, move, start your own business, volunteer somewhere that will help your resume! What are you blubbering about? Thank God you live in a country where you have freedom and choices. You went to school and didn't research the job prospects and now you want what?

I am self-employed with a small business, am conservative, with a family. I've stayed married even when it's hard. Take time to raise my kids. Maintain relationships with my greater family. Work hard, keep my credit, don't live beyond my means, get advice to make decisions, go to church.

I AM NOT PART OF YOUR "99%" which is acutally about 10%.

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

Your ignorance is showing. Have some more kool-aid, then go watch some more Faux "News" & fuck yourself. You're not lying to us, you're merely parroting the lies told to you. Way to go, tape deck.

FYI, I do small local biz too, and thanks to Chinese made crap peddling chain stores like Wal-mart, we're struggling to survive.

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

Still looking for a rational comment, not laced with profanity and attacks.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Then why are you here? To try to feel superior and insult others? To show what an ingonrant ass you are? Well done. Do you feel better now?

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

Excuse me, I thought this was for the 99%? Or did you mean only the 99% that agrees with you? I didn't insult anyone, I quoted the stats from a recent poll.

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 12 years ago

OWS-You make me proud to be US citizen, perhaps more proud than I've felt in my 54 years. The following website has some concrete proposals for a fair, nation-saving tax system: http://fairsharetaxes.org I suggest anyone interested take a look and use the Contact Me page there to send suggestions. I've adopted lots of suggestions from readers already. I'll see you down there next week. I'll be wearing the sign FairShareTaxes.Org. You can download the sign at: http://fairsharetaxes.org/ActNow.aspx (option 1)


[-] 1 points by occupywhat (5) 12 years ago

First and foremost I am all about standing up for what you believe in. What i do like about this is that people are afforded the opportunity to speak their mind whether or not others agree with it… which is what I am about to do. I saw the protestors earlier this week in NYC and all I can say is it is absolutely ridiculous what this has turned into. I guarantee if you went out there and offered everyone in the crowd a decent job, 98% of them would turn it down. Again, I am all about standing up for what you believe in but this apparently has been lost. Signs like "I love cops who smoke weed".... seriously. Then the union, that is a whole other thing. In fact, people should start picketing against the unions. You want to talk about greed. Look at the states that have a heavy union presence; those are the ones that have a heavy union presence; those are the ones that have the most economical issues in the country. See the trend? Unions have previously and continue to destroy this country. We wonder why businesses are taking their productions overseas. We wonder why our export to import ratio sucks. Companies with people trying to make a living cannot even work in the union areas because the wages are ridiculous and the majority of the workers are lazy and all they care about is when their next break is or if they are being treated unfairly. I did not say all by the way. If you try to get rid of a lazy worker off your job they file a grievance and cost the company money which makes the company less successful, which results in companies shutting their doors, which results in increased unemployment. Fairly simple concept. Everyone wants a hand out from the rich. By the way I am not rich in the way of money. Everyone wants a handout from the government. Granted some do need handouts because they cannot go to work and we should help those in need through the churches and humanitarian groups. Good economics does not start from the bottom and trickle up. America has gotten lazy and greedy. Kids are lazy and do not expect to have to work hard for a living or "get their hands dirty". 10 to 20 years down the road is what we should be the most concerned about because we will not have anyone but illegal aliens to do the hard work. All of those who should be working will be picketing about having to work and how life is unfair. This will be tragic and the signs are there. Not everyone should go to college. I do believe everyone should have the opportunity through scholarships, loans, etc but again, this does not mean that everyone should go. Some should stay back and be the mechanics and work in the fields and fast food restaurants, etc. You know, all the jobs that are out there but we American's are too good for? I bet there are some jobs in NYC right now that some of those picketers could go find... The problem is that people think it is only fair that if one person has something then they should have it too regardless of how hard the other person worked to get it. If I don't have something Donald Trump has, I do not think it is unfair. If I wanted it, I would try to figure out an honest way to get it. The power is truly with the people but what is going on here is not recognizing the things that truly are causing the issue. Yes, definitely agree the government is greedy and politics is absolutely to blame for a lot of things that are happening but I also believe the media is to blame for a large portion of the problem and the judiciary branch (which ties into the politics and their agendas) and, I know no one wants to hear this, the American people. We are part of the problem. We control so much by what we do and how we act but most of the time, we only see the situation we are in now and look for someone else to blame. No one wants to blame themselves and when solving problems, we have to look at us first.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 12 years ago

Thank you for speaking your mind and not resorting to ad hominem. As for the signs - in a protest such as this you will get all kinds - and it takes all kinds. Those who don't like Unions usually support business only and feel that we could only get ahead if it weren't for those pesky Unions - however the first words to the Constitution claim "We the People in order to form a more perfect Union" - collective bargaining is a right afforded us by the Declaration of Human Rights, and if you can't appreciate them it's because you've never needed them to fight for your rights. Companies leave because they would rather seek new methods of profit and exploitation than play fairly. If businesses' only goal is profit then the business world is broken and a new way of defining success must be taught. People do not want handouts from the rich - they want to not get foreclosed on while the CEOs of banks get paid millions in bailout money meant to go to help the economy. People have the idea of jealousy firmly locked into their minds and it is either 1. Because they don't understand or 2. because they have been brainwashed by political forces. It's not about envy, far from it - many large corporations are ruining our economy with asset hoarding and not creating new jobs even though they could, for political gain. This is unacceptable. However, I think the 99% realise that they were asleep for a long time. Many assume that corporations and the government will police themselves if left up to it - this is simply not true. Now the 99% is waking up - realising their part in the whole thing, and taking a stand - creating the space to have an ongoing conversation about our future that should not exist only in dusty academic school rooms - but here and now out in the open and in your face.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

perfect! the left/right thing isn't working out too well for the country.

[-] 1 points by dragaxer (1) 12 years ago

I fail to see how this paper proves anything. I'd be curious to know where the data about site hits came from, since Professor Cordero-Guzman's paper has no citations. I'd also like to see Professor Cordero Guzman drew his conclusion. I don't see any reference to statistics other than the statistics gathered by the OWS homepage's anonymous survey. It'd be nice to have some other statistics to back up the conclusion that the 99% movement is representative of the 99%. The claim the title of this blog post makes, "70% of #OWS Supporters are Politically Independent," is the kind of blatant misinformation I'd expect from a Fox News headline. What the study says is that about 70% of anonymous responders to an online survey considered themselves independent. This relies on the subjective view of the person taking the survey. It's not as definitive as the title's claim. I'm fully prepared to believe that the 99% movement represents the 99%, but I don't think this paper stands up to scrutiny, and some of the rhetoric tossed about in the blog is unproductive (the phrase post-political, and the title for example) That said, I fully support the ideas of the 99% movement. I'd just like to see a touch more intellectual rigor, a bit more effort put into the argument.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

Any personal information is subjective, and the explanation adequately describes the source of the data. I believe my age because someone else told it to me, yet I know my own ideology because I have been there as it evolved, and understand what the labels represent. The important question about any survey is whether the sample size was large enough to br representative, not whether people are able to identify their own beliefs...

[-] 1 points by guru401 (228) 12 years ago

The MSM will never let these facts out. Media wants to make everything left vs. right in order to keep the status quo.

[-] 1 points by careerdaytrader (1) 12 years ago

There was not ONE person who claimed to be a Republican. You can skew results by the questions asked, while they claim to be Independents I notice the question "Did you vote for Obama last election" wasn't asked! Why, probably 90% to 100% would have said yes. They're ALL DEMOCRATS.

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

I'm not Dem. I'm not Repub. Both parties are a pack of wolves, snakes, and rats, and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

[-] 1 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

Democrats do like the radical socialist type. Its no wonder Obama, who was mentored by communists, likes the Occupy Wall Street movement.

[-] 1 points by rub1x (3) 12 years ago

You ought to read more carefully:

"27.3% of respondents considered themselves Democrats, another 2.4% said they were Republican."

Last time I checked, 2.4% is more than zero.

[-] 1 points by Habsburgsfish (2) from Graz, Stmk. 12 years ago

I love OWS! - You bring me hope from afar. Pre-empting media polls with your own polls! Great - But, I must agree with DanK below - perhaps "post-political" was not the best choice, rather "post-partisan" or "post-party" political movement would capture the true spirit of OWS and help guard from any party diluting or co-opting a true democratic uprising.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

This makes sense. Politics are inevitable. The question is, what kind of politics. What we have now is an auction with many transactions behind our backs. The people know they are not in control of their country any more. Corporations and political parties are...We have been robbed. Now the question is: how do we get rid of the cancer of corporate influence and money in politics before they completely kill us...

[-] 1 points by ows99percent (1) 12 years ago

Support the MOVEMENT! Get your Unity wrist bands / bracelets at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250912728139#ht_692wt_1139

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

I am not going to buy some made in china piece of garbage that created pollution to manufacture.

Let's see some American ingenuity, and support for local artisans instead. How about wool hats from local farmers and knitters with OCCUPY on them?

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Lets Build It Together ! History is still being written . . . We are I T

For The Love of God , We are the Art . . .


Wiki Occupy

Now is the Time

Liberty Eternal

[-] 1 points by kashmiri (8) 12 years ago

You are independents.You know how to start a power centerless government.Therefore,I hope you shall start the new governance system soon.As you are giving the power to the people you shall succeed.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Does being independent mean separation from or rejection of the dominant social contract of the hemisphere? The US Constitution? The framers felt no party was the best system. I would surmise those who are independent may be acting very much in the way the framers of the constitution intended.---

Or, is there willingness to see how demands can be met and assured by using that which 70% of Americans would say they support? Got allies? Got way to make speech have needed meanings for others to understand what is needed for survival?

All I can see which is very different is communication and consensus on local levels today is not what it was. That needs work, or, at least in the states.

Using the constitution to defend itself.

We need an Article V convention.

Congress is very afraid of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

A power point by Lawrence Lessig that shows why congress is afraid.


Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 12 years ago

As a member of the Left who has fought right wing corruption for 30 years I feel like my values have been hijacked once again. This is becoming just another way of not holding the Right accountable for its actions. I do not recall ANYONE on the LEFT calling for the de-regulation of the banking industry, or war, or outsourcing. The majority of the 99% voted for republicans at least once. As a member of the left who has suffered the atrocities of the Right greatly the last thirty years I once again feel I am without representation.

[-] 1 points by Danonymous (1) from Albuquerque, NM 12 years ago

But you seem to be missing (to any real extent): Republicans, under or uneducated, millionaires (where is Bonno? Where is Jon Stewart or Colbert? Where is Rage Against the Machine, Flobots, Dispatch or any other huge group?) Only 150 respondents were full time students... where are the rest of the students? Old people! (you know, older than 35 lol)... and of course the real question: How do we appeal to them? How do we get them out here? How do I make it socially acceptable to her and her friends for my wasp mother to come join the movement?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

That's easy,look to history to find the answer. How was slavery ended? or women's rights? Or civil rights? By appealing to Americans sense of morality and justice, we are a decent, God fearing people. Once people are reminded of it, they usually spring to action. Jesus said we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those that are sick and imprisoned. But as for the rich Jesus also says that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. Remind her of these things in a loving, non judgemental way, and let her conscience do the rest.

[-] 1 points by zarathustra (18) from Orrington, ME 12 years ago

I joined the day after, it's going to take on exponential growth at this point. I think a poll should be issued every week, or 2. Then we would start seeing trends I think.. As far as trends, people are going to have to be curious. They are bombarded with facts and $ figures everynight on the news, it means nothing. Show them the literature, the films, the lectures. That's what I've been trying to do and you'll find in only takes a little to get people curious, and pissed! Of course, you get those who just say you're a Fing lunatic lol, but they'll come around.

[-] 1 points by Turtle (268) 12 years ago

The numbers reflected add necessary clarity.

The projects, family-oriented actions, and the community-building cause persons to be proud for/of you.

I see a village growing. I see a mission that involves serious work, trials and tribulations. Where I see persons who know pain, the images also provide a clear indication that there are persons there with purpose and joy.

There's a star being hitched to a wagon in those photos!

What a wonderful thing to see such life in this day. What a wonderful birthing of hope. Seriously.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 12 years ago

Part 3

If another (new) system were to replace the one we have - there would have to be a path - A Method - by which the transition from the current state of affairs to this hypothetical new one would take place with the minimal amount of upset. Otherwise it seems that introducing new watchers and trackers to the different points along the chains of transactions would be one way to minimise or eradicate corruption and corporate greed. (Except that you get the infinite syndrome of who watches the watchers) Or some kind of basic change in the way we value, make, distribute, and use money. To completely replace the governments and monetary systems of the world is a HUGE undertaking and smacks more of Utopian Idealism - I honestly do not see how this could be done without pissing off the people who believe they are in "power" (i.e. have budgets to hire armed thugs to kill you or imprison you if you stand in their way and try to wipe their consciences clean by saying they did it for "national security" and had a laegal right) OWS doesn't seem to be the sort of radicals which want to be (falsely) branded terrorists - and the behaviour thus far does not indicate that at all. It seems more of a reachable objective to reform what is, within a democratic framework which is compatible with the Constitution, or perhaps a revamped version of it. Clearly there are things which are founding fathers did not forsee in it. Perhaps it's time for an updated Constitution which will serve us for the next 200 years? Far sweeping legal changes in the way commerce is conducted? Not trying to completely rid the world of capitalism, but one complete failure of it is the 0 Sum game - whatever happens must ensure the freedoms and well being of EVERYONE - including the 1%. We must ultimately become the 100% satisfied. A most difficult proposition, and one I can't see taking anything but years to accomplish. Which is why The Conversation must continue, so it can lead to The Method out. Not in dusty academic rooms, but in the open and in your face.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 12 years ago

Part 2

So perhaps there is some new kind of token-of-exchange than can replace what we currently think of as money? Some kind of exchange of human energies or creativity? Perhaps the difficult part is accounting for it all? People say that without large corporations and a profit motive that there would be no great scientific advances in the medical field and I find the idea of death vs. Profit a bit absurd. Why WOULDN'T (or why don't) people want to improve themselves and the world for the sake of it? And why is this supposed hippie rhetoric when it is a plain question that many (mostly those currently benefitting from the extortion of the pain and suffering of others) seem ready to make fun of, but not give an answer for except "just because"? Well I'm sick of "just because" - answer me in a way that makes sense. Is it "obvious" that no one wants the world to be this way? Has some person/group who can afford to do such a thing gone and taken a poll of what each and every person in the world wants? Is it "obvious" that no one wants to give something for, what may appear on the surface, nothing in return or is that an assumption? Some might give freely forever if only they had the resources to give. And that gets into ownership. Of course I don't want any old person walking into my house and taking my things - a carpenter needs tools to ply his trade. Where would he be if those tools were owned by a group and not there when he needed them? But the idea behind owning land and what we did to the Native Americans is absolutely reprehensible to me. So I guess I am in a middle-ground between individual and group ownership. Which seems to be what our economy is - mixed capitalism and socialism, and each is supposed to have the power to keep the other in check? Is that right?

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

Dude you need to understand history. Study the Soviet Union, Fascism, the founding fathers understood that the key is freedom, not goverment control. They rightly believed that government must be limited or it quickly becomes tyranny.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Dude do you understand that Sweden, Denmark and others have a mixed economy AND freedom from tyranny? Do you understand that poverty diminishes the exercise of freedom? Do you understand that the greater the disparity of wealth the greater the influence on legislation money has, undermining democracy?

Dude you need to understand history.

(Doncha jus' luv it wen peeple say "DUDE?)

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

What do ya know. A troll CAN speak truth once in awhile.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 12 years ago

Part 1

I have a question that perhaps greater minds here than my own can answer. Perhaps I need to study economics more thoroughly, but how exactly does one assign value to something? I mean, we used to have a barter system where one person and another person mutually agree that the exchange for one thing is of equal value to something else. This seems arbitrary. If we were to base it on something rare, like gold - how do standards committees determine how much it is "worth"? Assigning some kind of "unit number" to it that says "this amount is worth this much"? This also seems arbitrary. In fact, in capitalism, it seems like whatever something is "worth" is completely arbitrary because it's whatever you can get somebody to pay for something. (Which might be fine if people didn't capitalise on absolute needs) Now, of course, Nixon took us off the gold standard, so money is virtual. However, there seems to be a basic connection between the goods and services-resources (which are?) that expands (somehow?) the economic bubble. So, you can (for instance) only grow so many trees and cut them down within a certain amount of time and these kind of renewable resources should be the natural cap on economic growth. But an economic model which rises and rises and rises (endless profit) which would seem to work on paper, ignores the need for the time-period for remewable resources and so ends up doing more damage than good to the world.

[-] 1 points by Vicewatch (43) 12 years ago

A story and song about a banker villain by the truth tellin'-est man in country music-(with backing vocals provided by former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson) -- enjoy!!


[-] 1 points by dreamingoceana (1) 12 years ago

Such a long while since the intellect of our youth population has out-cried with such fervor. I applaud the bravery and steadfast ambitiousness of the 99% representatives. Thank you and keep on...change in numbers.

[-] 1 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

Good thing 99% of people in America know occupy wall street is a bunch of angry lunatics.

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

And clearly more interested in appearing intellectual than actually being so.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Because you delusional geniuses have really been rocking it in this thread, right? Read all over StanO and BenM. Everyone in the world knows now that you are two worthless pieces of shit with no capacity to think or sustain an argument. Go start your own thread. Call it "deep thoughts from really really smart right wingers" and start discussing. We will join you there shortly...

[-] 1 points by StanO (7) 12 years ago

Ahh yes, the ad hominem attack! The refuge of the left since Robespierre.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

You and your twin have not shared one serious thought worth responding to. The fact that you think you have confirms your delusion. Sweet dreams.

[-] 1 points by rarebird (14) from Portland, ME 12 years ago

This is GREAT. I wish I had been able to take part in the poll. And thank you Dr. Cordero-Guzman. Keep going! Change everything!

[-] 1 points by zarathustra (18) from Orrington, ME 12 years ago

!!!!!!!! That's so awesome!!!!!! What the media refuses to realize is that the protestors (and I praise their souls everyday they are out there!) are OUR respresentatives. They do not EMBODY the 99% but are standing in for those that cannot! This made my night ;)

Keep fighting the good fight!!! And thank you everyone on Wall St and abroad - I'll see you soon!!!! Peace*LOVE

[-] 1 points by radleft (15) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

Independent simply means that the occupy wall street zombies are so far off the deep end, they don't no who to vote for.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Are you talking about the Republican primary circus? Seems like you people are very happy with your choices: the flip flopper, the dumb illiterate idiot, and the nasty pizza clown. Good luck! America waits for your next idiot nominee to continue on the Republican tradition of ruining the country. Seems to me that is why people are pissed. Tired of being fooled by the Republicans while their pockets are picked...

[-] 2 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

You seem to forget it was Obama and his fellow Nazi henchmen that bailed the banks out.... You seem to forget that After three years of Obama including two years of filibuster proof democratic tyranny that we're far worse off than we were before the Nazis (Liberals, socialists) took over Amereica.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound. Really. Are you the best they got?

[-] 2 points by Concerned (455) 12 years ago

And the Democrat in office has done what for the 99%? He received more money from Wall Street in 2008 than any other candidate ever. He hasn't prosecuted anyone for the financial crash. The health care law is falling apart (CLASS dropped/ Senior's getting their first COLA in two years which is going to be eaten by the rising cost of their medicare premiums as part of the health care law).....

[-] 1 points by NJawny (14) 12 years ago

Count me as an independent involved in OWS. Check out the brand new Wolf-PAC created for the purpose of campaign finance reform. http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[-] 1 points by CSR (0) 12 years ago

The only thing that rings alarm bells for me here is the term "post-political." If you understand that politics really has NOTHING to do with party affiliations and is actually about contestations for power among groups of people in society, then you will know that it is hopelessly premature to call yourselves post-political. The struggle continues, until all are free, and until then, it is ALWAYS a political struggle. Please help fight the complicit ignorance that has impoverished and perverted the meaning of this word, particularly here in the US. Understand it the way the rest of the world understands it, and you (we) will be much more effective at being, and getting, the change we all (well, let's say 99% of us, anyway!) want to see.

[-] 1 points by davidscameracraft (12) 12 years ago

A blog Post about my conversation with Noam Chomsky regarding Occupy Wall Street - http://davidscameracraft.blogspot.com/2011/10/noam-chomsky-and-occupy-wall-street.html

[-] 1 points by khewitt333 (35) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Thanks for the thoughts on this blog. I agree one of the dangers is being pushed by the media and others to "hurry up" and form an agenda, decide on goals etc. Movements have to first build strength and gather information. A more thoughtful, slower process will result in a stronger stance. Too often, too many people rush into their beliefs and behaviors without learning enough about the various factors and parts of the system they are trying to change.

[-] 1 points by justb (1) 12 years ago

Thoughtful post. The honest conversation among those not participating in Occupying anything has only just begun. But begun, it has. We must let it unfold, whilst continuing to bring attention to it.

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

Unless you count me, there's no Occupation in my community, but many supporters.

This little rural burg is largely self sufficient, an example of why Big Money, Big Politics, and Shady Business As Usual isn't needed, or wanted. That nest of rats have got to go. Occupy, as I see it, are the pest control.

Small self-reliant communities have a better chance of surviving the coming economic apocalypse than the urban centers, IMHO. I can step out in the woods with a rock, and bring home dinner. That won't be easy to do in the suburbs when the shit hits the fan.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 12 years ago

Seniors deserve respect even if they can be boisterous ole farts. Wisdom is priceless. I agree independents have ideas and a lot of people have been feeling awfully independent lately.

[-] 1 points by alpincl (0) 12 years ago

I'm 76 but I'd be there if there were adequate toilet facilities. That's not goiong to happen because they just want us to go away. A lot of seniors would be there if they furnished toilets and they don't want that.

[-] 1 points by DanK (44) 12 years ago

Political independence is one thing. But there is no such thing as a "post-political" movement. Human beings are political animals. Politics is is our blood, and people shouldn't be afraid or ashamed of being political. If you are creating change from the bottom up, you are engaging in politics. If you are speaking in a General Assembly you are engaging in politics. If you are participating in a resistance movement you are engaging in politics.

[-] 1 points by nobody (11) from Beeville, TX 12 years ago

Separation of state and corporate Business like church and state! Need to amend the constitution.


[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Now to be fair, you are required to post the corporate whores from the Democratic party!!! ALL funded by corporations!!!

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (597) 12 years ago




[-] 0 points by Fifty3er (30) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Careful on that bet. You may want to first ask who voted in 2008, and then how many of then voted for Obama. :)

[-] 1 points by sjppja4 (4) from Hanover, NJ 12 years ago

Good point. The percentage of "Did Not Vote" answers could be revealing as well.




[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 12 years ago

I think you missed the point of the survey.

[-] 1 points by sjppja4 (4) from Hanover, NJ 12 years ago

And specifically what "point" are you "thinking" I missed? A survey should provide self-evident data to be interpreted by the user. If the criteria or results are intentionally manipulated, for any reason, it becomes useless data. For me, this survey speaks for itself -- not to a (view)"point". Your thoughts?


[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago


From the LA Times regarding the Gallup Poll taken last week-

"When asked whom they blame more for the poor economy in the poll conducted over the weekend, 64% of Americans faulted the federal government while 30% cited big banks and other financial institutions. Still, there was a strong populist thread against both big business and government in the responses, with 78% of the respondents saying Wall Street bears a great deal or a fair amount of blame for the struggling economy. But more people, 87%, said the same about the central government."

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 12 years ago

You seem to be under the odd impression that OWS is strictly about banks, and not also about the federal and state governments.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago


Here's another poll taken from OWS protesters as well. Do they correlate well together?

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Can you explain what method was used to produce a random sample in the Schoen study? That study has been discredited by the WaPo plum line, NYTimes five thirty eight, and others. Look it up.

[-] 1 points by chadmunsey (1) 12 years ago

Notice that this is Dr. Cordero-Guzmán's "Draft for Discussion" NOT a finalized paper.

There might be valid reasons why he does not believe this to be a "self selecting survey".

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 12 years ago

"13.1% of the sample are unemployed." This is consistent with the Wall Street Journal's editorial yesterday that said the "vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%)."


So much for the criticism that the 99% need to quit protesting and find a job.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

And just exactly what jobs do they have that allow them to protest full time for a month now? Are they being paid to protest?

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Are YOU being paid to post here or are you just wasting your time?

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 12 years ago

The unions have arranged for some members to go and occupy with the protesters and still be paid. That inflates the "employed" numbers.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

How do you know this for a fact? How many union members are being paid how much to be there? What unions? If you really know, you can provide the answers. If you do not have the facts, you are just repeating propaganda. DO you have facts or are you just another idiot propagandist? Tell whomever send you to send someone smarter next time. This ain't the Tea Party. Didn't you see the data? Highly educated...

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 12 years ago

Where are your facts proving that folks are being paid to "troll" this forum? As for paid direct activists, this site and emails of the organizers admitted that this Craigslist ad was not a "fake".........http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2618821815.html - even though it tried to state that they didn't hire folks directly to occupy Wall Street, the conclusion of this statement must cause one to suspend belief....

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

What are you talking about? You are just delusional and do not make any sense at all. I read the add. Did you? They are a registered and legal organization and it is an add for a job. Does the GOP have any employees? They actually deny in the add itself what you accuse them of doing which, evidently, you get from the Beck-Limbaugh academy. Talk about supending belief...I do not think you are being paid to troll here. Everyone in this forum knows by now that you are just too dumb and easy to dismiss. Not worth any money. You actually do sound more like one of those stupid people that actualy believes the crap. Come back for more if you had not had enough of an intellectual beating. They pay me per word and I'm here. Ready. Make me some money, fool!

[-] 2 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

Ooh, buuuurn! But you know, it's unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. ;)

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 12 years ago

What are YOU on about? Who is a registered and legal organization running an ad for a job? I asked you for your proof that people were being paid to "troll" here after YOU implied Just the Facts was being paid?

If a Union Employee is still being paid for protesting and occupying, then they are being paid to protest - that is the simplest answer. If the Union itself supports the movement, and it allows its members to not go to work and instead attend occupied events, then that person is being paid to protest for the stance of the union.

Throwing out accusations does nothing to further this debate. And since the majority of your posts offer no intellectual food for thought, then it is a waste of anyone's time to continue to attempt a discussion.........

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Kaching! What an idiot. You do not even know how to read. Look at the thread, fool. And see if you can figure out who said what. You do not even seem to know what you said. What a pathetic joke of a person you are. Your "intellectual" food for thought [sic] comes out of you dirty posterior. Enjoy.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 12 years ago

And there is the reason you will not ever represent 99% - you have to resort to name calling when you lose control of a conversation.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Wasting my time apparently.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 12 years ago

Here is a link to the full analysis.


See if the study addresses your question.




[-] 1 points by schuh072 (1) 12 years ago

This survey was never intended to be "scientific" we were after a rough snapshot of people who actually visit this site, but the fact that the overwhelming majority of visitors to this website happened to fit a "mainstream" profile but still support a radical movement is not only important and exhilarating news but suggests that the political climate of this country has rapidly changed since this occupation began just a little over a month ago!

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

There is a difference between people self identifying as something and actual statistics proving that those people ARE the things they claim to be.

If you compare the information from this survey WITH the actual mainstream-general public-you'll find out how very different they are. Is that why you didn't post the comparisons?

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

What are you talking about? You do not make any sense. If you want to compare the group in this sample to any population frame, go ahead. Tell us the resuls...

[-] 1 points by dchavez06 (1) 12 years ago

This is interesting, and I think that an objective, scientific analysis of the movement (as well as the problems we face) is EXTREMELY important. That being said, I wish this survey was more rigorously done. It seems like it's a self-selecting poll, rather than a random sample of a population, and obviously excludes anyone without a computer/internet access.

I also don't think the conclusions presented make sense. The poll showed that the movement is 81.8% white and with 92.1% having at least some college education. It also doesn't differentiate between independents who have generally either liberal or conservative views. Nate Silver's analysis of the geography of OWS (http://bit.ly/q8KHCj) suggests most of its strongest supporters are liberal, if not supporters of the Democratic Party.

While I am a strong supporter of OWS, I'm wary of saying that the movement is fully representative of 99% of the population. We still have a ways to go in terms of outreach and advocacy before we get there.

[-] 0 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 12 years ago

so let me see if i understand this: a poll of idiots in your own movement shows that most protesters agree with what OWS stands for and with other protesters? is that it? Thats like saying the world must be all jewish because you polled 100 rabbis and they all agreed with the jewish faith. Duh. This proves once again that this OWS thing is loaded with dummies and uninformed morons.

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 12 years ago

You chose the first statistic of the 20 to make your point? That spin ally in your brain is working overtime.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 12 years ago

go home. your 15 minutes are up

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

What happened to Morning Joe? He left? Afraid he would be uncovered as the troll he is?

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 12 years ago

TROLL: a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

im happy to be your troll!

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Hey Joe. Who do you have on the show on Monday?

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 12 years ago

Mondays show will include Ron Paul, Timothy Leary, Sarah Palin, Angelo Mozilo, Barnie Frank, and Newt Gingrinch. should be fun. Some bloodshed maybe but fun.

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

That does sound fun, Joe. Give 'em all tire irons and let them wail on each other. We'll call it the Darwin In Action episode. Muhaha.

My bet is on Ron to win, by the use of clever tactics.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Morning post by the morning Joe, our favorite t(r)oll. The answer to your original question is obviously no, you don't get it. At all. But, stick around and you may learn and thing or two from your fellow citizens as opposed to just laugh at them ha ha ha. But you have to make an effort to listen. Money can't buy you a brain.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 12 years ago

im honored to be your favorite troll. And my brain is fine thanks. in fact, that's how i earned so much money. ha

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Morning Joe? Projecting there, eh? You seem to be proof that some ignorant fools do make it to the site and, as usual, it does not sound like you know what you are talking about.

[-] 1 points by tomkoloniar (0) 12 years ago

Regardless of polls, pure common sense tells us that the 1% are ruining this planet, and that the other 99%, sooner or later, will rise up against them. Let us be glad that it has happened sooner and in a non-violent way. This makes it a bit more difficult for the 1% to order/pay the police/army to murder us in the streets. How much more difficult is yet to be seen. Good Luck OWS!!! I'm with you.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I agree. The fact of the matter is that THE PEOPLE are pissed off and fed up!

[-] 1 points by BenM (9) 12 years ago

Corporations are not ruining America. They are the reason we have such high living standards in America. The ones who are ruining America are the greedy people like those of Occupy Wall Street that clamor for more without wanting to give anything in return.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Yeah, right.... all are people who don't work and who want something for nothing. You obviously are completely ignorant to the situation.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

I would give you up without asking for anything in return!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by TedRall (52) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Two caveats: Online polls are hardly scientific. People who choose to respond have different characteristics than those who do not, which is why scientific polls contact a random selection and try to get representative samples across various demographics. Those who post here are not the same as the Occupiers who are at the various Occupations. That said, I agree that the Occupy movement is a reaction to and against the failure of the two-party duopoly. People are reinventing politics from the ground up in the wake of the collapse of the mainstream political class and their pet mainstream media. That's why the movement is difficult to categorize or pigeonhole.


[-] 0 points by JohnnyO (119) 12 years ago

Maybe do but they are decidedly left wingers who want bigger government and more control over us.

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 12 years ago

This is mot a factual statement of independence. 2% consider themselves republican, 28% consider themselves democrat, now the question should have been " who will you vote for in the general election, Obama or the rebublican nominee?" That would be a more accurate representation.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

This is because most people aren't 100% in line with the Reps or the Dems. I personally am a Libertarian with a few lefty notions. I don't think that someone should tell someone else who they can and can't marry. If 2 gay guys want to marry each other, my life doesn't change. I'm straight and honestly dgaf what people do in the bedroom or wherever else they happen to be. I don't believe in the repeal of RvW. In certain circumstances abortion is a better option for everyone. The child, the parents, and the community as a whole. But I also believe that we should have strong borders, and a secure nation to enjoy. We should have an efficient and expedient yet thorough way to let immigrants enjoy the country as well. I believe we need a strong military, but I don't think we should be in 150 countries. I'm an Independent because I think both sides are wrong, and both sides are right. And with the obvious spin that the media AS A WHOLE puts on it, and the stress on one party or the other without any equivocation? That scares me.

Veto the Vote

[-] 0 points by PrestoReviews (0) from Matteson, IL 12 years ago

Surprised to see how really non partisan this effort is. http://www.prestoreviews.com

[-] 0 points by hamididdin (0) 12 years ago

What is needed is a new system other than capitalism or communism a system which continues the recognition of people aspiration but responsive to social and humanitarian values

[-] 1 points by zarathustra (18) from Orrington, ME 12 years ago

Well if you believe Chompsky, "true" capitalism has yet to be realized..and he's right!

[-] 0 points by FreeMarkets (272) 12 years ago

You're quoting a survey from your own web site? Ever heard the term "echo chamber". While a few of you are serious, and a few of those have some coherent ideas, the rest of you have already convinced most of the country that you are a bunch of spoiled children.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

You clearly have heard of the echo chamber and seem to be providing your own. Yes, these are America's children and may even be your own children...

[-] 0 points by Fifty3er (30) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

A survey of a very homogenous population in one specific location for one specific event with a common cause fails to "suggest that there is a huge undercurrent of mainstream dissatisfaction with traditional political party affiliations as well a huge amount of support for radical change in the United States of America." Even my basic stats class in grad schools tells me that!

Rather, this was simply a snapshot of the lunatic fringe down there in the Financial District of NYC. Last I checked, there are over 300 million Americans, surely 1,619 at a rally does not represent a cross section of America. That would be like saying polling fans at a NASCAR race in Alabama or attendees at a Rage Against the Machine concert in Philadelphia represents mainstream America. Both do not. And neither does Dr. Cordero-Guzmán's poll.

[-] 1 points by TaxGuru (1) 12 years ago

You suggest that there is not a huge undercurrent of mainstream disatisfaction with the current political structure. Join the real world, this movement is across all party lines. There are 42 million registered independents and many others on both sides of the party politics devide that are disatisfied with Washington. Tomorrow, why don't you conduct your own poll and ask 10 people at random to rank their satisfaction with the performance of the government from 1-10. Personally, I hope this spreads like wild fire and becomes "We the People".

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 12 years ago

But there isn't an occupation of Washington and the local offices of the politicians or even the offices of the two major parties. This protest is centering its focus on Wall Street. President Obama admitted that what happened in the stock market with derivatives (which in part caused the crash) was "mostly legal". Who writes the laws - Wall Street or those elected from within those two parties? Are you protesting in the right places?

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

You say you went to grad school and use big words (this is, in fact, a fairly heterogeneous group) but it sounds to me like you did not really read or understand the study and were likely asleep in your "stats" class when they were talking about sampling. This was not a survey at a rally nor do they claim to have done a random sample. Next time, read first and then comment. Otherwise you just look like a complete (t)fool.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Those who bother to actually compare the "demographics" of OWS to the demographics of the US general population, rather than just taking someone else's WORD that they ARE so very similar, knows that the evidence proves that they are very different in almost every category.

But those damn facts just get in the way for some people.

[-] -1 points by Fifty3er (30) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Who needs facts, when you have passion and violence (but no message)?

[-] 2 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Good question. Can you give us the answer? Little genius you!

[-] 0 points by Fifty3er (30) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Police in Cleveland said a 19-year-old woman was raped at an Occupy protest there, and authorities in Oakland and in Seattle have reported sexual assaults and incidents of indecent exposure.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Any and all attacks are completely reprehensible and have been condemned and if proven guilty in a court of law are the acts of individual criminals and could not possibly be attributed to the OWS movement. Only someone with malicious intentions would even attempt to link the two.

[-] 1 points by KingofCool (7) 12 years ago

there's always risk of something bad happening when large assemblies come together. There's also plenty of people who will report disparaging comments about a movement like this because they want to see it fail or brought down.

[-] 2 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 12 years ago

I fail to see where the violence is at in OWS america

[-] 0 points by Fifty3er (30) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

October 14, 2011

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Shortly after protesters learned they’d be able to stay in Zuccotti Park indefinitely, violence broke out Friday morning as a group marched away from it.

The standoff occurred near Bowling Green as they turned left on Beaver Street as police urged protesters to stay out of the street and stay on the sidewalk.

First Precinct Commander Ed Winski checked a protester who refused to stay on the sidewalk. When the protester came back into the street, Winski hurled his megaphone down and wound up rolling around in the street with the protester, throwing punches. Other officers surrounded the two, throwing punches. The protester was arrested.

Police say the protesters were throwing bottles and bags of garbage at officers, triggering the police response, Sandberg reported. Police say they were trying to control the situation when it got out of hand.

[-] 1 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 12 years ago

and yet, theres no video to support this claim at all. How convenient

[-] 0 points by Tujay (20) 12 years ago

The Civil Rights Movement was politically independent as well. For major change to happen, we must not divide down the middle into competing partisan interests and we must not let anyone divide us.



[-] 0 points by enough (587) 12 years ago

The description on right-hand side the OWS homepage says "Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions". Perhaps, this statement should also include a simple sentence saying that "OWS is a "non-partisan movement" based on the anonymous poll so there is absolutely no misunderstanding. The description should also include the word "ages" in the phrase "people of many colors, genders and political persuasions".

[-] 0 points by dunleamark (-1) 12 years ago

The summary on the webpage says 70% identified themselves as independents but the question actually was independent / other. Big difference between the two, since Greens, Libertarians, socialists, etc. fall under other. More accurate to say don't belong to either to the two corporate parties.

And agree that those online are not the same as the people at OWS site. I will say that those at OWS are more diversified, starting with racially, than the people in this survey.

[-] 0 points by anonrez (237) 12 years ago

Thanks for this information, hopefully this will shut people up who are trying to identify the movement with the Democratic Party (this includes Democratic Party officials attempting to co-opt us as well as those trying to dismiss us).

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

Great publication! Next time somebody claims most supporters are deadbeats we'll show them the statistics and how we're all sick of people pushing the "American dream" down our throats.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Just make sure that "somebody" doesn't know what the actual demographics of the US general public are...lol. They might just pull them out and show you that by sheer percentages, OWS is

  • NOT as "highly educated" as the general public
  • does not make as much money as the general public,
  • and is less employed, underemployed and unemployed than the Gen Pub. *OWS describes itself using liberal words, phrases and declarations. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.

Oh. And according to outside polls taken from OWS protesters last week- 32% call themselves Democrats – 33% say that no party represents them 25% probably will not vote in 2012 52% have been politically active before 98% support civil disobedience 51% disapprove of Obama’s performance 48% claim that they will vote to re-elect the president And 31% of the protesters in Zucotti Park believe that violence is OK in order to advance their agenda.


[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

yeah I read that, but the right wing Fox News shill that conducted the poll and wrote the article was only polling on the streets of New York.

Dr. Guzman's study focuses on a broader sample.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Yeah, actual protesters vs whoever the crap was on the website.

[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

you get passersby on NY streets too.

Arguably, they are even more passive as a group than those who have to devote time looking at tiny marks on a screen and typing--often on undersized keyboards to register their views.

Polls are Polls. Some are just conducted by more trustworthy people than others.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

And you applied the "trustworthy" litmus test to......?

[-] 1 points by MadAsHellInTX (598) from Shepherd, TX 12 years ago

Faux "News" is the biggest, shadiest pack of liars, spinmongers, and bullshit artists in the universe. In fact, EVERY outlet connected to Murdoch owned News.com spew utter crap. They are best ignored, not believed.

Maybe you like Murdoch hacking your phone then lying about it when caught.

[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The Fox News Correspondent who carried out the Poll you cited.

Hope that clears things up for you.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

If you actually read the report, can you?, you will realize that there is a sub-group in the study (about 1/4) that actually participated in the protest and their characteristics can be compared to those that answered the survey but did not participate...

[-] -1 points by theunknown (-1) from St Augustine, FL 12 years ago

This poll is 100% unreliable since it was conducted only on the website. Biased

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

This is a study of users of the website. The overwhelming majority seem to support the movement. Some actually participated in the protests and some did not. It is all there. Did you really read it or just repeating what you heard? What is the source of bias in the study? What is the direction of the bias? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Does not sound like it.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

But it tells them exactly what they wanted it to tell them! :)

I actually ran the data against the US general population data....shame on me. It showed something very different-wonder if that's why they didn't post comparisons between OWS and everyone else?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Some other possibilities are:

  • Their degrees are real but they were the bottom 1% of their class

  • The survey is complete bullshit.

Perhaps a blend of all three, i.e. bottom of their class in Women's studies at the Pomona community college, but stated they had a Masters degree when interviewed

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

Lying is always a possibility anytime you ask a person a question. While that would have been a valid point on its own, you invalidated your entire argument with your unreasoned attack on graduation percentile and by choosing womens studies as an unworthy degree. It seems you have some personal problems for which you should seek help.


[-] 1 points by khewitt333 (35) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

I don't understand the desire to insult people who have higher education degrees (esp liberal arts degrees). I support ows, I participated in the survey, I have a doctorate - and no I was not at the bottom of my class. I have a full-time job and contribute to society. My time spent at the park may be limited but I follow the web site and participate as my time allows. Why do some people insult liberal arts degrees and educated people?


[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

I try not to rate people as a commodity at all. I choose to associate with people who are unbiased and kind. Surveys represent both individuals and groups as it is individuals who respond, but the population selection may represent a specific group. This is necessay depending upon what you are asking....one would not go to england to study the opinions of the french, for example. Further, surveys allow sub groups within a population to be identified. That is the reason the percentages are provided.


[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

You are not being fair, you are presenting your own perspective. Please do some research on the personality factors and beliefs of people represented by the 1% designation. They do tend to hold the belief that they are wealthy because they deserve to be and that people are not wealthy because they do not deserve to be. My best friend works as a maid. She will no longer take wealthy clients because they expect an atypical amount of work and want to pay her less for it than a middle class family. They also were the ones who refused to consider a pay increase when inflation started to drive up her costs...I have seen her work and she does more than she is asked, as well as charging a fair wage, especially as compared to cleaning services run as corporations which charge by the square footage, rather than the amount of cleaning required as she does. A family with children and or pets will pay more than an elderly couple who keep their house very tidy, but can't do the harder chores.


[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

No, as I said, do some research... The anecdotal information is reflective of the data, and life is actually comprised of anecdotes and subjective experiences. Unlike you, I did take statistics in college and unlike you, I see human nature as individual choices, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as trends within strata. You do not have valid arguments, you only seem to be here to insult, and categorically deny anything that does not support your biases.


[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

Since the only computers in existence when I was in diapers used punch cards and vacuum tubes, I find that highly unlikely. See what happens when you make these irrational assumptions? Debate is an art rather than a science, and you have zero talent. Your behavior has been negative and hostile. Your discussion is reason challenged and you can't seem to complete a post without resorting to personal attacks. I am sure whatever post of yours follows, it will be juvenile, insulting, and include some sort of declaration about your superiority or strategic acumen. It is meaningless, because you are a waste of my time and energy, and I will just delete you from my life... It is that easy, loser. I won't even read it...


[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

You stated in another post that you did not go to college. I did my research, but I will not do yours for you. Providing you with information is not as effective as you discovering your own information, because I am not someone you consider a credible authority. Providing examples from real life is valuable for putting a human face to an idea. Your last paragraph is in-cohesive, illogical, and resorts to personal attack. My degree is a bachelor of science. I graduated with honors. You claim to have learned the scientific method in school, then (while trying to insult me) state it is an example of how the schools are failing us. Fielding an argument has nothing to do with the scientific method. Debate is not science, although science has studied the tools and methods utilized.

[-] 1 points by khewitt333 (35) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

And I try not to hold it against people when they make a lot of money :)) I think it is appropriate to value people by what they contribute to society, which may or may not equal "work product" -- and is probably not correlate to their salary. One of the elements of our society that bothers me is that we as a society don't value educated people. Yes, many of us make enough to put us firmly in the middle-class (and I can only speak for college professors here) but we are clearly not making what CEOs make. I don't begrudge high salaries for people in the corporate world, although I think it is a disturbing value system that values making money and aiming for profit above educating people and trying to make the world a better place. In other words, I often feel I (and I am speaking personally, but I mean the educated "class" if you will) am considered of very low value in the larger system of American social values. I don't think book learning is the highest achievement in life or the absolute best kind of knowledge, but I tend to trust educated experts when they speak about the economy, politics, etc because they have studied it for years and from many different angles. Such experts are rarely paid as well as anyone in the corporate world (unless they are part of the corporate world) but what disturbs me more is that the public doesn't seem to value what they say. It is even more disturbing when I read comments on forums like this that denigrate people for having "art degrees" or liberal arts degrees (as some comments have). People with liberal arts degrees are some of our best, brightest thinkers. No matter what measly salary they make.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Well I certainly hope I didn't come off as disparaging educational attainment. I'm a huge fan of education, so much so that my kids have been in private school since age 3 with an objective of seeing they make it through a graduate degree program at a top school. They will have their choice of studies, so long as their choice is specialized medicine, law, finance, or business.

No, a non-top school is not acceptable, and not because I feel that nobody from a lower ranking school is less intelligent, or in some cases, even less educated. Lets be honest about our education system. It is a very expensive racket. A friend of mine teaches US history at a local community collge and I, on occassion help grade the work. Half the kids are failing, and the information is stuff I learned in 10th grade. Its pathetic. There are some private label vocational schools, and off brand engineering schools out there that crank out skilled and well educated people, but for the most part, it seems most four year undergrad students come out qualified to work at burger king.

No, a liberal arts degree is not acceptable, and not because I feel a liberal arts or even an engineering major(my profession) is any less educated, or adds anything less to society. I will push them into one of those fields because those are the fields that our society values financially.

Every society has it's top 1%. In our society, we financially value people who have their wages protected by government licensing. Doctors, CPAs, Stock Brokers, Financial Advisors, Real Estate Brokers, and most of all Attorneys. If we lived in a society where the government hired most of the people, the top 1% would be Union bosses, Politicians, and friends of Politicians. I'm not saying its right, but it is what it is.

Those who have the opportunity to join the 1% through educational attainment, and knowingly opt for a women's studies degree on the principal that our society values the wrong things shouldn't complain about their lot in life. Maybe they should try to change those values like AdBusters normally does with it's anti-consumerism campaigns. Complaining about the existence of the top 1% is misdirected and futile.

[-] 1 points by khewitt333 (35) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Changing the values of our society: yes, I aspire to nothing less :)

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 12 years ago

If you continue to hold on to the premise that outliers represent the entire movement.... then you are already lost. It's 2011, and you have the ability to (read/see on TV) anything (you/the producer) wants to (see/show), therefore the narrative is predetermined.

I think most of us here at OWS just want to address the overwhelming influence corporations have on government.... But at the end of the day, the narrative is in your hands

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

I didn't create that premise. The stats at the top of this thread did. I'm not big on math denial.

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 12 years ago

The income and education statistics lead you to the premise that OWS only wants to demonize the 1%? That's a pretty big leap.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Not sure that's at all what I was getting at. By all accounts, given the association between educational attainment and wealth, OWS ought to have a good portion of the 1% in it's numbers.

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 12 years ago

Awww you're not gonna weasel out of this one? I was having fun =).... I'd suggest that you drop the left vs right paradigm... it's bad for your health!

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 12 years ago

And this is FAR from the first time I've seen you make that generalization. I actually pay attention to this forum :).

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 12 years ago

"Lets be fair. Before I generalized based on data in the study, OWS generalized about the "1%". I believe the words were "greedy and oppressive". Do you really think the 1% is trying to get one over on the 99% based on some intrinsic quality or value they all share? If so you most definitely rate people as a commodity."

Red handed :)

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Well we knew all those arts majors would end up living in the streets someday....

[-] -1 points by mountainmama (2) from Charleston, WV 12 years ago

I am a supporter of the movement, but I think this publication actually weakens our cause.

1) It is weak in terms of scientific method: 92.5% of people who had the initiative to go to the OWS website supports the occupation? I never would have guessed! I'm sure a similar rate of support could be seen for the Fox News website, and it does nothing to prove that the average American supports OWS and that this is in fact a broad based grassroots movement.

2) The rates of education and political identification only support stereotypes that this is a fringe movement (US average Masters Degree:8% average political independent: 30%- wikipedia)

I agree with the previous post: this study doesn't actually analyze the demographic makeup of the movement, it merely studies those who have access to the internet and the interest in filling out a survey. I congratulate Dr. Cordero-Guzmán on beginning the sociological studies on this landmark movement, but I challenge him to provide a methodologically sound publication that I can actually use to convince my neighbors in West Virginia that this movement isn't just made up of loser hippy outcasts who are too lazy to do a hard days work.

ps: I noticed a post on the WeAre99% tumblr that brought up race/ethnicity. Why wasn't this included in the study?

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Good points. 1-judging from the comments here and in other threads, it does not appear that everyone visiting the site is a supporter of OWS. We know now, based on the study, that most visitors seem to be. We also know what visitors seem to look like. Glad you knew it all along. Why didn't you publish your results then? 2-I disagree with your point. Highly educated independents are an important constituency. Ask any politician. 3-I agree. The sample is limited to those that accessed the site and completed the survey. At least now we know a little more about who they are, what they look like, and how they compare to the overall population or other reference groups. 4-Yes, this sample has more education than average. I think the study mentions that explicitly. 5-The numbers may be correct (but who are they including, total population? persons 16-64 years of age? etc.) 6-When citing sources, I think it is best to find a better\more reliable and original source of data than wikipedia.

[-] 1 points by mountainmama (2) from Charleston, WV 12 years ago

I agree, highly educated independents ARE an important constituency. I just think that the greatest hurdle we have to deal with right now is our characterization as a fringe movement. This data supports that assertion.

Like you said though, this data is only discussing the visitors to the site. My critique was that is was being touted as demographic data on the entire movement.

And you are right, wikipedia may not be the most reliable source. I am at work and I don't really want to pore through pages of data to find a reliable source, and I generally trust wikipedia to provide me with data in the general vicinity of a correct number as long as the article doesn't look like it was written by a middle schooler.

[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I am a supporter of the movement

you realize that is the phrase we use to identify imposters, right?

[-] 1 points by mountainmama (2) from Charleston, WV 12 years ago

No, I didn't. Thank you for informing me.

[-] -1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

What I find most interesting is the dichotomy between the annual earnings and the supposed education level. Most surveys show that median income is directly tied to your level of education, with more education meaning more pay.

if these survey results are to believed, they show that OWS protesters are at least one standard deviation from the mean on compensation as related to their level of education.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Fancy words but it does not sound you really know what you are talking about. Have you seen the data on earnings by level of education in this study? And, you know that the relationship is also mediated by age and life cycle effects, right? A new young Ph.D. in his first job probably makes less, on average, than someone with a Masters that is older and has more work experience...These are empirical questions and there is a lot of research on them. Look it up. You may actualy learn something...Looks from the data that these are relatively young, highly educated folks that are not making a lot of money. Souds like the ingredients and recipe for what we are seeing on the streets...


[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Sorry, the data that you cite looks really crappy to me (and it says it is for full time year round workers over 25--not exactly the sample in the study--read it). The numbers you put above are for men (the 82k is) and I did not find the 65k you claim is made by those holding a "bachlors (sic)" degree...Other problems with the data you include: a) do you really believe that the earnings of those with professional degree was exactly the same at $100,000 between 1999 and 2006 and then jumped by $66,065 in one year between 2006 and 2008 in the middle of the recession? and, also, the earnings for those with Bachelors Degree jumped by almost $22,000 in the same period? That data is crap. You have absolutely no idea how to read data or what you are talking about and it has just been demontrated with your own source. Do not believe everything you read in the internet. Apply a little critical thinking and common sense. It goes a long way and can help you not to make an ass out of yourself in public like this. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to educate others...


[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Two simple points: 1-Look at the "data" you presented. It does not make any sense at all. Spend five minutes with it and answer my questions. Can you? They are about the data you cite and are simple. Just because you find numbers in some website does not make it legitimate. Think. Be critical. Use your head. And, thanks. I have, in fact, been extremely blessed and lucky in life and want the same for others; 2- the study has both men and women and it includes persons in a range of ages, including persons under 25, and a number of full time, part time, and students. My question to you is: How is an income number (mean or median) derived from that sample comparable in any way to the number you provided and pretended to compare it to (full time year round men over 25). My point to you was that the number you wanted to use to claim that the income in the sample is "too low" is not the right reference point. Now, if you took a sample from the population and selected a comparable demographic group in terms of by age, gender, education and work status and got their income--that would be more comparable and we would learn how the sample in this study differs from a more comparable frame in the population. See, I even end up making your points for you...Good life to you too. Hope all is well out in Cali and that folks are thinking, discussing, and engaging.


[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

You do not make any sense at all. Your time is up. Be well. Enjoy the spin.

[-] -1 points by Fifty3er (30) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

They all were probably Poetry, Gender Studies, or Art majors in college. I'm a liberal arts guy myself, but I've applied by degrees in a technical field & career. :)

[-] -1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Some other possibilities are:

  • Their degrees are real but they were the bottom 1% of their class

  • The survey is complete bullshit.

Perhaps a blend of all three, i.e. bottom of their class in Women's studies at the Pomona community college, but stated they had a Masters degree when interviewed

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Anyone can speculate about anything. Do you have any actual evidence or can you point to any real facts from the survey or elsewhere to suport your claims? Let me know when you find something. I can wait.


[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Crappy data that does not make any sense. See my other comment to you where I go over some of it. Just take a minute to look at it (like I did) and think about it. I go to the source (DOL, Census, others) and analyze my own data. 100% reliable. You really have no idea who did that table and what data they put in it. Do you?


[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Neither did you. You added a link to a site that had nonsense in it. Look at it and just ask a few basic questions about the numbers that you are asking us to consider. I provided some questions about the data in response to another one of your comments that you have not answered. Here they are again, do you really believe that the earnings of those with professional degree was exactly the same at $100,000 between 1999 and 2006 and then jumped by $66,065 in one year between 2006 and 2008 in the middle of the recession? and, also, the earnings for those with Bachelors Degree jumped by almost $22,000 in the same period?


[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

You just have no clue where data you bring to an argument come from. Typical.

[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

How casual. You have no agenda. You came all the way in here to post petty insults.

I know some c-average polysci students who would rhetorically gut you like a fish.

I also know some genius civil engineering grads who would not know or care if they were working for Kim Jong-Il.


[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

guessing != pointing out


[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

You don't need to pretend to not get it. You made a guess as to the academics of the poll respondents. You later characterized your guess as "pointing out a flaw".

That is where you derailed. But you were not done. You continue to beclown yourself.


[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 12 years ago

There was no guessing involved.

I also provided logical possible reasons for

excellent BS skills.

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 12 years ago

I never saw any poll. Where was this?